Friday, 16 December 2011

LifeBulb: an LED that can match a 60W incandescent?






Hanna Gersman meets the commercial director of UK-based Zeta, one of a new breed of smaller lighting firms that is pioneering LED technology

Zeta's LifeBulb. Photograph: guardian.co.uk


With incandescent bulbs disappearing entirely from shops from September next year, the race is on to find suitable replacements. Energy-saving bulbs – or compact fluorescents (CFLs) – already do that job, but remain unpopular in some quarters and are not the most efficient alternative technology.


The real hopes lie with light-emitting diodes (LEDs), according to industry, environmentalists, and politicians. With the global lighting market predicted to be worth €110bn by 2020, companies such as Phillips, GE, and Osram are fighting to be first with the breakthrough in the LED field.


Samsung has just introduced a range of long-lasting LEDs in the US. But the consumer giants are up against a new breed of smaller lighting firms, including the UK-based Zeta, which earlier this year won £450,000 in a government competition to create an ultra-efficient replacement for 60W incandescents.


It won with its LifeBulb (pictured above), which will go on sale early next year for £20. I caught up with Anthony McClellan, Zeta's commercial director, to talk about the challenges and opportunities of LEDs.

Getting the LifeBulb to match the quality of incandescents was key, he says.

"The light produced [by the LifeBulb] is colour temperature 2800 - almost identical to that of the incandescent warm white colour traditionally used. The lamps do not flicker and are instant turn on - no warm-up time needed."

But who will pay £20 for a bulb? The investment pays for itself many times over, McClellan argues.

"If a house was to replace 25 60W incandescents with 25 LifeBulbs - they would save £232.25 per year in electricity alone."

Zeta's LED uses just 8W to produce the equivalent light output - 650 lumens - of a 60W incandescent, and should last 10 years. An equivalent CFL would use around 11-13W - a significant saving in energy and carbon emissions when scaled up. Around one-fifth of Europe's electricity is used for lighting.

Technically, the LED bears little relation to the tungsten filament design Edison invented in 1879, which converted just 5% of the energy it used into light. Light in LEDs is produced solely by the rush of electrons in a semiconductive material.

I asked what the technical challenges were.

"The challenge for us was matching the colour of the light - the warm colour that is desired within a domestic setting whilst also keeping a high lumens per watt value."

That also leads to its unique design, where the LED component is encased in an aluminium cage to allow air to flow through without overheating. He explained:

"The airflow required for natural cooling of both the LEDs and the driver lead us to a design the lamp with holes through the structure."

And what catches are there to LEDs - will there be a moment similar to when consumers realised there was mercury in CFLs? McClellan thinks not:

"They contain rare earths, but in incredibly tiny quantities."

Judge orders urgent hearing over solar subsidy cuts

Friends of the Earth and two solar companies win the go-ahead to seek a ruling that the proposals are unlawful

Terry Macalister

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 December 2011 16.13 GMT

The government faced embarrassment on Thursday over its decision to halve solar subsidies when the high court gave leave for a judicial review.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) and two renewable power companies will be able to formally challenge the ministerial decision on Tuesday and Wednesday next week in the same court.

FoE's executive director, Andy Atkins, said: "We're delighted the high court has given the go-ahead to our legal challenge. We believe government plans to abruptly slash solar subsidies are not only unfair, but illegal.

"These proposals have already had a disastrous impact on the solar industry - fledgling clean businesses have had the rug pulled from under their feet and a shadow hangs over thousands of jobs."

Daniel Green, founder of HomeSun, one of the companies that started proceedings against the government, said the legal ruling by the high court was a blow in favour of common sense.

"The feed-in tariff to solar was hugely popular with homeowners, would help keep energy bills down and divorce consumers from deeper reliance on the 'big six' energy companies. The only downside is the government decision brought the sector to a virtual standstill on December 12 when it cut support in the middle of a consultation period."

The high court had ruled on 5 December that there was no need for an immediate review of the situation but Mr Justice Mitting sitting on Thursday said given the "economic risk" for companies there was a need for urgency.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) said afterwards that it would be "defending" its position. The department launched a review of feed-in tariffs in October which included a change to the scheme two weeks before the consultation formally ended.

HomeSun, rival renewable business SolarCentury plus Friends of the Earth argued this premature decision was unlawful and has already led to unfinished or planned projects being abandoned.

John Faulks, company secretary at Solarcentury, said he was delighted with the decision. "But it is only the first step of the legal challenge. The court agrees that we have a case to argue and has given us permission to challenge Decc. Next we need to persuade the court that Decc has acted illegally. That will happen as soon as possible. The legal challenge is only part of the wider campaign by Solarcentury and the solar PV industry to get the government to recognise the strategic value of solar PV in the energy mix and maintain viable support to build a successful industry."

The government argued that subsidies could be cut back because the price of solar equipment was falling rapidly and householders did not need such generous subsidies to convince them to put panels on their roofs to generate their own energy.

It pointed out that similar moves have been made in Spain and Germany following a huge decline in costs triggered mainly by low cost manufacturing competition from China.

But Germany, which has been at the forefront of the European solar boom, has seen its local renewable companies badly hit. On Tuesday Berlin-based Solon, the first German solar company to list on the stock exchange, said it would file for insolvency while local market leader, SMA Solar, said last month it would lay off 1,000 temporary workers by the end of this year.

EU energy chief calls for new renewable energy targets

Günther Oettinger said new targets were needed for 2030, to enable businesses to plan ahead

Fiona Harvey in Brussels

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 15 December 2011 15.21 GMT

New renewable energy targets to go beyond 2020 must be negotiated within the next two years, the Europe's energy chief said on Thursday.

Günther Oettinger, the EU energy commissioner, said new targets were needed for 2030 to enable businesses to plan ahead, as the current targets to produce 20% of Europe's energy from renewable sources run out in 2020. Oettinger was introducing a new EU energy roadmap to 2050, which showed that opting for a very high renewables component to the energy mix would be no more expensive than opting for alternative scenarios that placed more emphasis on nuclear power or coal and gas with carbon capture and storage.


He said that he expected binding renewable energy targets for 2030 to be in place by 2014: "With our roadmap we want to ensure that, for all participants, there should be an interesting discussion on binding targets for renewables by 2030. This should begin now and lead to a decision in two years' time."


It is the first time Oettinger has set out a clear timetrable for new targets. It follows an agreement reached at UN climate talks in Durban on Sunday by which all developed and developing countries agreed to negotiate an international agreement on emissions reductions "with legal force" that would be written and signed by the end of 2015 and would come into force from 2020.


By ensuring that Europe has its own post-2020 emissions and renewable targets decided in 2014, the EU will be in a better place to negotiate as a bloc and to meet the timetable set out in Durban. But the wrangling among member states over what the targets should be is likely to be fierce.


The UK is ahead of the rest in having set a "fourth carbon budget" for emissions reductions in the 2020s, under which plan emissions would be roughly halved by 2025 compared with 1990 levels. Even that has become less certain, however, as the chancellor, George Osborne, wants a review of the targets in 2014.


There is no agreement among other member states on what future targets should be, and several, such as Poland and other east European countries, want weaker targets while some Scandinavian countries want to be tough. Negotiating on targets was hard enough three years ago when the EU's 2020 targets were set. Reopening the discussions in the midst of the worst financial crisis and recession since the war, and with the eurozone looking precarious, will be triply difficult.


Oettinger has also supported weaker targets for 2020 than the climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.

Launching the 2050 energy roadmap, Oettinger said: "Only a new energy model will make our system secure, competitive and sustainable in the long-run. We now have a European framework for the necessary policy measures to be taken in order to secure the right investments."


The roadmap puts the share of renewables in total energy use by 2050 at between 55% (in the lowest scenario) and 75% (in the highest scenario) – up to 97% in the share of electricity consumption.


Christian Kjaer, chief executive officer of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) in Brussels said: "The commission's communication could have been clearer in its commitment to binding renewable energy targets for 2030. However, with his strong statement today, Oettinger has provided European industry and citizens with that clarity. The European parliament and council must now give the commission a clear mandate to come forward with ambitious binding 2030 targets for renewable energy."

Greenpeace's EU energy policy director, Frauke Thies, said: "The roadmap shows that getting clean energy from renewables will cost taxpayers no more than getting dirty and dangerous energy from coal or nuclear power. The commission will be tempted to overplay the role of coal and nuclear energy to appease the likes of Poland and France, but the numbers in the roadmap are unequivocal. It proves that a modern energy system can't do without renewables and efficiency, but can easily consign coal and nuclear power to the past."

Monday, 12 December 2011

Durban deal clinched by two strong women, a united EU and a compromise

Michael McCarthy

Monday 12 December 2011

An extraordinary face-to-face encounter between two powerful women, sitting in the midst of a giant huddle in a packed conference hall, finally sealed the Durban climate change agreement as dawn was breaking yesterday, when many had given it up for lost.


After a fortnight of talks and two final all-night negotiating sessions, with the meeting on the edge of collapse, Connie Hedegaard, the Dane who is the European Union's leading climate negotiator, persuaded her Indian opposite number, Jayanthi Natarajan, to accept a form of words meaning that all countries in the world – India included – would be legally bound, in a future climate treaty, to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases.

Ms Natarajan finally agreed to the disputed text despite the fact that her senior officials were telling her she did not have the latitude to do so, and that she had to refer the matter back to the Indian cabinet. Her show of independent-mindedness saved the meeting, and made possible the prospect of a new way forward for dealing with global warming.

The Indians had all along been the main objectors to the idea of a legally-binding agreement, and in the early hours proposed text which EU negotiators believed undermined the idea, although you need to be an expert in the arcane dialect of UN treaties to understand this.

They suggested that the new treaty should have "a legal outcome"; but EU negotiators were convinced this could refer merely to decisions of future meetings of the UN Climate Convention such as the Durban one, and would not be binding in international law. The European Union roundly rejected it, threatening the talks with collapse.

Eventually the chief Brazilian negotiator, Luiz Figueiredo Machado, suggested another form of wording – "an agreed outcome with legal force", which became known as the Figueiredo Compromise. Although many might think there is little difference in the wording, all 27 EU member states agreed that this really did mean "legally binding" in law, whereas the first phrase did not, and agreed to accept it.

The Conference's president, the South African Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, then invited the contending parties to go into a huddle – in the middle of the plenary session, the full coming together of all delegates, which was going on in the Baobab Hall of Durban's International Convention Centre.

Watched intensely by leading negotiators from many key states, including Todd Stern from the US and Xie Zhenhua from China, who were looking over their shoulders – as the photo opposite shows – Ms Hedegaard and Ms Natarajan then argued the toss, with the Indian minister eventually giving way, accepting the revised text, and making agreement possible.

There is no doubt that the outcome was a notable success for the European Union as a corporate body acting together, as all member states had maintained a completely united front over their quest for a new climate treaty which for the first time would bind all nations legally.

EU negotiations in the conference were led by Britain's Energy and Environment Secretary, Chris Huhne, and his German opposite number, Norbert Roettgen – although it was Ms Hedegaard who finally clinched the deal.

Mr Huhne said last night: "It shows that when the European Union is united, we can play an absolutely critical role in protecting our national interests. This is a very good example of how the European Union actually can act very crucially in the British national interest, in a way we could not possibly achieve on our own."

Nations Chart New Course Toward Climate Pact

By PATRICK MCGROARTY

DURBAN—Major industrial and emerging economies set a course to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade and beyond, even as poorer nations warned it wasn't enough to shield them from the worst potential impacts of climate change.

Following marathon negotiations that stretched past dawn on Sunday, two days after the conference's scheduled conclusion, delegates from almost 200 countries agreed to draft a new international emissions treaty by 2015.


Under the agreement, most industrial nations currently bound to reduce emissions under the so-called Kyoto Protocol will extend their commitments beyond their current expiration in 2012. Many are European Union members already bound by EU law to make cuts that will satisfy the Kyoto requirements. Even though Russia, Canada and Japan earlier vowed not recommit to the Kyoto Protocol, they have signed onto the new agreement. The U.S., China and India—the three largest emitters of greenhouse gases—pledged to join them in the pact to take effect in 2020. Delegates will spend the next four years hammering out the specifics of their 2020 deal, starting at meetings next year in South Korea and Qatar.

Separately, envoys agreed to establish a fund to guide the flow of much of what they hope will be $100 billion in annual pledges by 2020 to mitigate the impact of climate change in poor countries.

China and India nearly derailed the broader climate pact by refusing to accept a strict "legal instrument," to police those emissions cuts. Instead, the version of the agreement that emerged Sunday contained the phrase "legal force"—a broader term that is seen as offering governments more leeway to identify how to curb emissions.

The pact marks a small sliver of common ground among different nations committed to checking climate change. But taken together, the two weeks of meetings in Durban highlighted the monumental challenge of any future treaty passing political muster at home.

China and India have long argued it would be unfair to curb rapid development that is helping eradicate poverty to offset emissions that rich countries produced over decades without consequence.

"I'm wondering if there is an effort here to shift the burden of this entire climate change problem on countries who have not contributed to this entire issue," India's environment minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, said as she rejected an unqualified binding deal. "Please don't hold us hostage."

Meanwhile, the U.S. had said it wouldn't accept binding targets unless India and China were on board. The chief U.S. negotiator, Todd Stern, also interpreted the agreement as a strong collective obligation to cut emissions. As long as India and China sign up for emissions cuts that are "symmetrical" to those pledged by the U.S., Mr. Stern said he believed the final treaty stood a chance of passing in a Congress that has rejected climate legislation—including the Kyoto Protocol—in the past.

"If the agreement has those elements then we could get into the category of the just very hard rather than the impossible," Mr. Stern said.

Though they didn't block its passage, many smaller nations were bitterly disappointed by a deal they said wasn't sufficient to keep emissions low enough to prevent temperatures from rising more than an average of two degrees Celsius, a threshold above which scientists say the impact of climate change will become much more pronounced.

Venezuela's Claudia Salerno urged fellow negotiators to push for a more robust deal when they meet again next year. "This is a very bad agreement," she said.

But many saw the pact as the one compromise possible. Even vaguely defined "legal force" commits China and India to emissions cuts, according to Luiz Alberto Figueiredo of Brazil. "It's legally binding and indeed it's very strong," he said.

Two years ago, talks in Copenhagen also broke down when China refused to accept a legally binding deal delegates had hoped to have in place by 2013, after the Kyoto Protocol was set to expire.

The EU revived the quest for a legally binding deal by pushing the target date back to 2020. Ahead of the United Nations-led meeting in this tropical port city, EU officials said they would only extend their Kyoto commitments if a broader binding deal was on track.

But after nearly a week tense negotiations in Durban, the EU accepted the broader wording that India and China demanded. "We wanted more ambition--The EU strategy worked," said Connie Hedegaard, the EU's climate commissioner.

Write to Patrick McGroarty at patrick.mcgroarty@dowjones.com

Could the desert sun power the world?

Green electricity generated by Sahara solar panels is being hailed as a solution to the climate change crisis

Leo Hickman

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 December 2011 20.30 GMT

During the summer of 1913, in a field just south of Cairo on the eastern bank of the Nile, an American engineer called Frank Shuman stood before a gathering of Egypt's colonial elite, including the British consul-general Lord Kitchener, and switched on his new invention. Gallons of water soon spilled from a pump, saturating the soil by his feet. Behind him stood row upon row of curved mirrors held aloft on metal cradles, each directed towards the fierce sun overhead. As the sun's rays hit the mirrors, they were reflected towards a thin glass pipe containing water. The now super-heated water turned to steam, resulting in enough pressure to drive the pumps used to irrigate the surrounding fields where Egypt's lucrative cotton crop was grown. It was an invention, claimed Shuman, which could help Egypt become far less reliant on the coal being imported at great expense from Britain's mines.

"The human race must finally utilise direct sun power or revert to barbarism," wrote Shuman in a letter to Scientific American magazine the following year. But the outbreak of the first world war just a few months later abruptly ended his dream and his solar troughs were soon broken up for scrap, with the metal being used for the war effort. Barbarism, it seemed, had prevailed.

Almost a century later, a convoy of air-conditioned coaches sweeps through the affluent suburb of Maadi – where Shuman had demonstrated his fledgling solar panels – continuing south for 90km towards Kuraymat, an area of flat, uninhabited desert near the city of Beni Suef. The high-level international delegation of CEOs, politicians, financiers and scientists has come to visit a brand new "hybrid" power station that uses both natural gas and solar panels to generate electricity. Before the coaches reach the facility's security gates, its 6,000 parabolic troughs – each six metres tall with a combined surface area of 130,000sq metres – are already visible from the perimeter road. Even though the panels account for just one seventh of the power plant's 150MW generating capacity, the Egyptian government, which has been pushing to develop the site since 1997, hopes to prove to the delegation that it is the desert sun – not fossil fuels, such as gas, coal and oil – that should be used not only to generate far more of the electricity across the Middle East and North Africa (Mena), but, crucially, for neighbouring Europe, too.

Gerhard Knies, a German particle physicist, was the first person to estimate how much solar energy was required to meet humanity's demand for electricity. In 1986, in direct response to the Chernobyl nuclear accident, he scribbled down some figures and arrived at the following remarkable conclusion: in just six hours, the world's deserts receive more energy from the sun than humans consume in a year. If even a tiny fraction of this energy could be harnessed – an area of Saharan desert the size of Wales could, in theory, power the whole of Europe – Knies believed we could move beyond dirty and dangerous fuels for ever. Echoing Schuman's own frustrations, Knies later asked whether "we are really, as a species, so stupid" not to make better use of this resource. Over the next two decades, he worked – often alone – to drive this idea into public consciousness.

The culmination of his efforts is "Desertec", a largely German-led initiative that aims to provide 15% of Europe's electricity by 2050 through a vast network of solar and wind farms stretching right across the Mena region and connecting to continental Europe via special high voltage, direct current transmission cables, which lose only around 3% of the electricity they carry per 1,000km. The tentative total cost of building the project has been estimated at €400bn (£342bn).

Until now, Desertec has been seen by many observers as little more than a mirage in the sand; the fanciful plan of well-meaning dreamers. After all, the technical, political, security and financial hurdles can, each on their own, appear to be utterly insurmountable. But over the past two years, the initiative has received significant support from some of the biggest corporate names in Germany, a country that already leads Europe when it comes to adopting and developing renewable energy, particularly solar. In the autumn of 2009, an "international" consortium of companies formed the Desertec Industrial Initiative (Dii) with weighty companies, such as E.ON, Munich Re, Siemens and Deutsche Bank, all signing up as "shareholders". Germany's announcement earlier this year that, in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, it was to speed up its total phase-out of nuclear power suddenly pulled the Desertec idea into much sharper focus. Coupled with faltering international negotiations and increasingly dire warnings on climate change – just last month the International Energy Agency warned that the world is headed for irreversible climate change if it doesn't start reducing carbon emissions within five years – it would seem the time is now right for an idea of such scale and ambition.

Last month, at its annual conference in Cairo, Dii confirmed to the world that the first phase of the Desertec plan is set to begin in Morocco next year with the construction of a 500MW solar farm near to the desert city of Ouarzazate. The 12sq km project would act as a "reference project" that, much like Egypt's own project at Kuraymat, would help convince both investors and politicians that similar farms could be repeated across the Mena region in the coming years and decades.

"It's all systems go in Morocco," announced Paul van Son, Dii's CEO, to the visiting delegates. Talks, he added, were – given their shared close proximity, along with Morocco, to western Europe's grid – already under way with Tunisia and Algeria about joining the "first phase" of Desertec. Countries such as Egypt, Syria, Libya and Saudi Arabia would be expected to join in the "scale-up" phase from 2020 onwards, once extra transmission cables were laid across the Mediterranean and via Turkey, with the whole venture becoming financially self-sustaining by 2035.

Van Son swats away any talk that the Desertec project is built on a precarious foundation of presumption, naivety and hope. "Yes, the current global financial crisis has clearly not been very helpful, but everyone also realises that being dependent on fossil fuels creates vulnerability," he says.

He also rejects any notion that Desertec carries with it even a whiff of neo-colonialism. Earlier this year such sentiments were raised by Daniel Ayuk Mbi Egbe of the African Network for Solar Energy. "Many Africans are sceptical [about Desertec]," he said. "[Europeans] make promises, but at the end of the day, they bring their engineers, they bring their equipment, and they go. It's a new form of resource exploitation, just like in the past." Other Mena-based speakers made similar points, not least that any electricity generated will first be desperately needed by local populations as they fight poverty.

"When the idea for Desertec was first announced there was anger and irritation from the Arab League," admits Van Son. "They didn't understand it at first, but we explained that it would benefit their members, too. We explained it would be a cooperative process and they became more relaxed. It's a win-win for all, we stressed. The relationship is all positive now."

Desertec should also be supported, argue its champions, because it will improve energy security by helping to diversify supply. At present, says Van Son, Europeans are vulnerable to the so-called "energy weapon", namely, when an energy-rich country holds its neighbours to ransom by restricting or denying supply. Think Russia and its gas, he says. Or a terrorist attack on an oil pipeline. Desertec will help to dilute these threats.

He is bemused, though, that the current domination of Dii by German companies should rouse suspicion. (There was not a single political or corporate representative from the UK at the conference, yet at least half hailed from Germany.) "Yes, the initiative came from Germany. But there are 15 different nationalities involved, including companies such as HSBC and Morgan Stanley. This is just the start."

A common question at the conference is: "Who is going to pay for Desertec?" There is talk of loans from development institutions such as the World Bank (the route being taken by Morocco). The presence of German banks suggests they are considering being key lenders, too. But there is also the implication that much of the burden will fall on the European taxpayer, either through EU subsidies, or tariffs added to their energy bills.

Angelika Niebler, a Christian Democrat MEP from Germany, travelled to Cairo as a member of the European parliament's energy committee. She says it is "too early" to talk about EU financing but adds: "Energy is going to be a bigger priority for the EU in coming years than agriculture has been in the past and Desertec will surely feature."

Hans Josef-Fell, a representative of Germany's Green party, is also in Cairo for the conference. "There is a fear in Germany that paying for green electricity direct from North Africa will be too heavy a burden on our consumers," he says. Germany already has among the highest electricity prices in Europe, in part because of a huge wave of renewable energy installations across the country.

Europe, particularly Germany, seems to increasingly know what it wants from Desertec. But what of its Mena partners? Obaïd Amrane, a board member of the Moroccan Agency for Solar Energy, the government body responsible for overseeing Desertec's first plant, says his country has its own plans for the electricity generated at the facility – and for the other four that will follow by 2020 – and it doesn't necessarily include selling it to Europe.

"By 2020, we are expecting a doubling of electricity consumption in Morocco, as the population and standard of living grow," he says. "At the moment, we are 97% dependent on foreign energy which is becoming increasingly unsustainable. But we are now aiming to have 42% capacity of renewable electricity by 2020. We will build extra capacity beyond what Morocco needs if someone wants us to, but we will need a big share of the electricity produced by these projects."

Such sentiments propose another challenge for Desertec: how will it guarantee that the electricity Europe needs is sent down the transmission cables and not just all consumed locally? And how will Mena countries justify selling the electricity to Europe – where the retail price of electricity can be up to 20 times more expensive – if the local population is, say, experiencing regular blackouts?

At the visitor centre at Kuraymat, bottles of chilled water are being distributed ahead of a tour of the parabolic troughs. The mid-morning November sun is already heating the engine oil-like fluid inside the troughs' receiver tubes – a technology not that far removed from Shuman's century-old design – up towards 400C.

The technical questions are coming thick and fast for Bodo Becker, the operations manager at Flagsol, the German company that specialises in building concentrated solar power (CSP) plants in the deserts of the US, Spain and now Egypt. The leading query is how the troughs perform in such harsh conditions.

"We only have one sandstorm, on average, pass through here each year," he says, "but we tilt the troughs down and away from the wind whenever it gets up beyond 12 metres per second, as they act like giant sails."

Keeping them clean is the main challenge, he adds. "Due to the dusty conditions, we are witnessing about 2% degradation every day in performance, so we need to clean them daily. We use about 39 cubic metres of demineralised water each day for cleaning across the whole site."

This surprises many delegates, as they have previously been told at the conference that CSP troughs need cleaning weekly compared to photovoltaic panels which need cleaning monthly. Either way, it highlights yet another challenge for Desertec: can enough local water ever be secured for cleaning duties? The Nile is just a few miles from Kuraymat, but some countries aim to push much deeper into their deserts to build such facilities. "Dry cleaning" technologies are being developed, but they reduce the generating efficiency at the plant. Either way, the super-heated transfer fluid requires cooling before it can loop back to the troughs for re-use, and, as with cleaning, water is the cheapest and easiest way to do this. Until "dry cooling" technologies are further advanced, it could limit solar farms to the desert fringes close to large bodies of water.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, some countries, such as Jordan, now favour wind over solar as a source of desert energy, because it is currently more affordable and isn't so water-intensive. But it is suspected that it will be many years before a single desert energy technology comes to dominate the market. Some within the industry advocate photovoltaic panels, but, currently, CSP is more popular. However, even within CSP, there are loyalists for parabolic troughs and others for "solar towers", which rely on hundreds of pivoting mirrors laid out on the ground to track the sun and direct its rays towards one fixed point at the top of a giant tower.

Whichever technology succeeds, it is already clear which nation in particular will win out as Desertec develops in the coming decades. One member of the visiting delegation asks Becker where the troughs are made.

"The metal cradles were made here in Egypt, but the glass troughs were all made in Germany," he says. "And only two companies in the world make the glass tube receivers, which is where the main intellectual property of this technology lays – Schott Solar and Siemens." Both companies are German.

Climate deal salvaged after marathon talks in Durban

Delegates clashed over attempt to make agreement legally binding until deal was struck in pre-dawn hours

John Vidal and Fiona Harvey, Durban, and agencies

The Observer, Sunday 11 December 2011

Countries have agreed a deal in Durban to push for a new climate treaty, salvaging the latest round of United Nations climate talks from the brink of collapse.

The UK's cimate change secretary, Chris Huhne, hailed the deal, finally struck in the early hours of Sunday after talks had overrun by a day and a half, as a "significant step forward" that would deliver a global, overarching legal agreement to cut emissions. He said it sent a strong signal to businesses and investors about moving to a low-carbon economy.

But environmental groups said negotiators had failed to show the ambition necessary to cut emissions by levels that would limit global temperature rises to no more than 2C and avoid "dangerous" climate change.

The EU had come to the talks in Durban, South Africa, calling for a mandate to negotiate a new legally binding treaty on global warming by 2015, covering all major emitters, in return for the bloc signing up to a second period of emissions cuts under the existing Kyoto climate deal.

But talks were plunged into disarray after the EU clashed with India and China in a series of passionate exchanges over the legal status of a potential new agreement, putting more than a year of talks between 194 countries in jeopardy.

In the third consecutive all-night session, exhausted ministers had more or less agreed on a series of measures aimed at protecting forests, widening global markets and establishing by 2020 a $100bn fund to help poorer countries move to a green economy and cope with the effects of climate change. But the crucial issue at the talks was whether a new agreement on protecting the climate should have full legal force.

Connie Hedegarrd, the EU climate change commissioner, said she was prepared to offer developing countries the prize they had sought for many years – a continuation of the Kyoto protocol, the only treaty that commits rich countries to cut greenhouse gases. But the price of the offer was for all nations to agree to be "legally bound" to a new agreement by 2020. There were cheers as she said: "We need clarity. We need to commit. The EU has shown patience for many years. We are almost ready to be alone in a second commitment period [to the Kyoto protocol] We don't ask too much of the world that after this second period all countries will be legally bound."

But the Indian environment minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, responded fiercely: "Am I to write a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even knowing what the EU 'roadmap' contains? I wonder if this an agenda to shift the blame on to countries who are not responsible [for climate change]. I am told that India will be blamed. Please do not hold us hostage." As countries clashed in the early hours of the morning, scenes in the conference hall resembled a theatre, with wild applause bursting out sporadically.

China's minister Xie Zhenhua made an impassioned speech backing India and accusing developed countries. "What qualifies you to tell us what to do? We are taking action. We want to see your action," he said.

The fate of the talks were, by 2am, hanging on a knife edge, with no resolution likely for many hours. The talks had already overrun by 36 hours.

A deal was reached after the South African president of the talks urged the EU and India to go "into a huddle" in the middle of the conference hall in the early hours of this morning, in a bid to work out language both sides were happy with.

A compromise, suggested by the Brazilian delegation, saw the EU and Indians agree to a road map which commits countries to negotiating a protocol, another legal instrument or an "agreed outcome with legal force".

The treaty will be negotiated by 2015 and coming into force from 2020.
The deal also paves the way for action to address the "emissions gap" between the voluntary emissions cuts countries have already pledged and the reductions experts say are needed to effectively tackle climate change.

Earlier Venezuela's ambassador, Claudia Salerno, had stood on a chair and banged her nameplate as she accused the UN chair of the session of ignoring the views of some developing countries. Referring to the money promised by rich countries to help developing countries to adapt to climate change, she said: "This agreement will kill off everyone. It is a farce. It is immoral to ask developing countries to sell ourselves for $100bn."

The row over the legal status of a new agreement has dogged climate talks for over a decade. Rich countries have wanted rapidly emerging economies such as like China – the world's largest emitter – and India to be equally legally bound as developed countries, though taking on softer targets on emission curbs.

However, developing countries argue that they were not responsible for the bulk of climate change emissions in the atmosphere and argue that they have pledged to rein in their emissions more than the developed countries.

Despite the broad backing of more than 120 countries, including major developing economies such as Brazil, plus the US and Japan, the EU had found it hard to push through its ambitious "roadmap", which would establish a new over-arching agreement that would commit all countries to emission cuts.

China, India and some developing countries had raised a series of objections throughout the talks about the dates that the new treaty would become operational, and argued that the Kyoto protocol would effectively be killed off before a replacement could be put in its place. With Japan, Canada and Russia saying that they were unwilling to sign up to a second period, the EU had become almost alone among developed countries in committing to continue the protocol in some form.

Several countries said they feared the deal on offer would suit the US most because it had always insisted that all other countries should cut emissions and has resisted a legally-binding agreement.

Several developing countries spoke out strongly in favour of the EU proposals, including Brazil and Colombia, rejecting calls to downgrade the legal status of any agreement.

Thinktank blasts wind power support

Renewables policy overambitious and unrealistic, argues Adam Smith Institute


Terry Macalister

The Guardian, Monday 12 December 2011

Britain is heading for an energy crisis by the middle of the decade due to the government's "unrealistic" reliance on wind, solar and other high-cost renewable energy technologies, according to a controversial report out today.

Ministers are failing to factor in the cost of dealing with intermittent energy sources and ignoring the implications of burdening consumers with higher energy bills, said the right-leaning Adam Smith Institute and Scientific Alliance.

The report argues the renewable energy roadmap for 2020 is hugely overambitious. It says the target has already been reduced but current renewable power generation is still 28% short of meeting it.

Solar and wind energy have no prospect of becoming economically competitive in an unrigged market, with government intervention leading to higher energy costs and jeopardising energy security, the document says. It is being published just as ministers are preparing further details on reform of the electricity market.

"For too long, we have been told that heavy investment in uneconomic renewable energy was not only necessary but would provide a secure future electricity supply," said Martin Livermore, co-author of the report and a self-styled consultant who has in the past questioned the science around global warming.

"The facts actually show that current renewables technologies are incapable of making a major contribution to energy security and have only limited potential to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."

Livermore said the main drawbacks of wind and solar were that they must be backed up with gas, coal or nuclear generation when the wind does not blow or sun shine.

With the decommissioning of many coal-fired stations and nearly all existing nuclear reactors over the coming decade, energy security has become a priority for policymakers alongside the drive to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Livermore argued that to achieve current targets for wind turbines for 2020, almost five must be installed every working day, with the majority of them offshore. "This is unrealistic," he said.

Critics of renewables have become increasingly vocal in recent months with some backbench Conservatives suggesting they are unaffordable in an economic downturn, an argument the nuclear industry privately admits is playing into its hands.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change said Livermore had failed to recognise that the UK had already attracted nearly £2.5bn of investment in renewable energy, with the potential support of more than 10,600 jobs.

A department spokesman said: "This report completely misses the point. Our policies are aimed at developing a mix of energy sources here in the UK rather than relying so much on expensive fossil fuel imports, so we can keep the lights on and cut emissions as old power stations close. It would be madness to put all our eggs in one basket, ignore the UK's huge renewables potential and just give away Britain's share of the green energy revolution."

RenewableUK, the lobby group, dismissed the report as failing to take into account factors including the effect of technological advances bringing down the cost of wind power. "Given these people are from a scientific alliance they do not seem to have much belief in progress. It's like saying to a five-year-old he won't be going to university because he can't read. To be honest this report makes the same kinds of arguments that we have refuted before and they just keep repeating," said Gordon Edge, director of policy at Renewables UK.

Thursday, 8 December 2011

Power out of Africa

On the face of it, the idea of Africa providing a model of sustainable energy development to the world seems an unlikely one. Eighty percent of the world's 1.5 billion people living without electricity live in Sub-Saharan Africa, according to the African Development Bank. The continent's scarcity of grid links would seem to be an intractable obstacle to Africa's goals of improving development and alleviating poverty. Yet, Africa possesses significant solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower resources that have only barely been tapped, and which give the continent the potential to offer different models of sustainability.

By ANDREA CHIPMAN

African countries have a huge opportunity to turn their energy infrastructure deficits into an advantage, both for the continent itself and potentially for the rest of the world. Renewable technologies that use wind and solar are the gateway to this opportunity, but much work still needs to be done. Africa is in many ways a blank canvas for renewables.

The lack of comprehensive grid connections means most Africans currently get their power from diesel generators at prices of around $1 per kilowatt-hour, compared with less than 20 cents per kwh for solar photovoltaic power, according to David Nickols, managing director of WSP Future Energy, a unit of London-based technical consultancy WSP Group.

"Because renewables [in Africa] are compared against decentralized diesel generators off-grid, the financials for renewables may well look attractive," he says.

At the same time, the huge potential offered by larger-scale projects will require new cross-border collaboration between African governments, multilateral institutions and industry that could, if successful, be a model for other regions of the world.

To be sure, both large and small renewable projects face many of the same obstacles in Africa: A lack of secure property rights; the absence of a comprehensive regulatory framework in most African countries; and pressure on governments to make their electricity self-sustaining, with prices charged matching the costs of generation. "The best thing the world could do for Africa is to set up a support system for the utilities," says Jeremy Connick, a partner with U.K. law firm Clifford Chance.

"If we simply say we aren't going to allow governments to give guarantees in respect of the payment obligations of these utilities until systems are reformed, countries don't develop, or use fossil-fuel-powered generators."

Meanwhile, markets continue to discount the risks associated with fossil fuels, assuming they are lower than those associated with alternative energy.

"In terms of pure political and economic power, conditions still favor investment in fossil-fuel-based technologies and businesses," says James Cameron, a founder and vice chairman of Climate Change Capital in London.

Improved legal and tariff structures could dramatically improve the climate for sustainable energy investments, but a focus on micro as well as macro projects is also key.

The Wall Street Journal Europe has investigated five approaches to sustainable energy in Africa, ranging from wind and solar energy programs, to hydropower. As well as a proposal to allow individual citizens to profit from their own sustainable behavior.

Harnessing Wind

Wind is in plentiful supply across Africa, with significant projects under development from Kenya to Cape Verde and

from Morocco, a former leader in wind projects, to South Africa, which earlier this summer rolled out a tender for renewable power projects that included up to 1.85 gigawatts of installed wind generation set to be delivered by 2030.

In East Africa, Kenya is developing the Lake Turkana wind farm, which is expected to produce 300 megawatts of new capacity by July 2012. Similarly, off the continent's windy west coast, Cape Verde's government has signed agreements for a more modest 28 megawatt wind farm, although the more consistent wind conditions on the island chain means the ratio of actual to potential output is 60% for the Cape Verde wind farms, compared with 34% in the U.K., according to Mr. Connick.

Wind energy has the advantage of being an effective source of power in small and large projects. For the medium-term, however, financial considerations could make it a second choice alternative energy source, according to Mr. Nickols, who notes that with Africa needing to import most goods for power generation, the towers for supporting wind turbines work out as substantially more expensive than solar panels, which are cheaper and easier to ship.

Solar Future

Virtually uninterrupted sunshine is one commodity Africa has in abundance. Now, a number of projects based in the Sahara Desert are trying to use this resource to the continent's advantage.

The biggest of these, the €400 billion ($550 billion) 12-member German-led Desertec Industrial Initiative consortium, is looking to fund a series of individual solar projects with the aim of supplying as much as 17% of Europe's energy demand by 2050.

The project has strong backing from leaders across Europe, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel leading the charge. In a message to the second Desertec conference in Cairo in November, Ms. Merkel praised the cooperation between Europe and North Africa and stressed the importance of diversifying energy transmission away from traditional sources.

Desertec works by concentrating energy from solar-thermal power plants in deserts and then using heat storage tanks to deliver power on demand, thereby compensating for the fluctuations of photovoltaic power and helping to stabilize the grid.

The consortium already has two plants in operation in Morocco and Egypt. Morocco hopes to upgrade its existing transmission line to Spain and install 2000 megawatts of solar power capacity to supply both its own needs and to tap into the lucrative European export market.

For solar, like wind, the main challenge to overcome is the absence of a coordinated regulatory and legal framework, such as guaranteed feed-in tariffs, power purchase agreements or investment guarantees to underpin investment in the technologies. Desertec seeks to create a single legal framework that can be adopted by many different countries.

Ultimately, solar backers say, costs are likely to decrease rapidly as more power plants are built and technological progress continues, allowing Saharan-powered solar energy to be as competitive as fossil fuels in less than 10 years.

Water Works

Hydropower is a large-scale solution to creating sustainable energy. Tapping into Africa's vast river systems opens up a world of energy possibilities.

The Grand Inga Dam project, which plans to harness the enormous potential of the Inga Falls on the Congo River in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is perhaps the most high-profile example.

The project could produce as much as 39,000 megawatts of electricity, according to the London-based World Energy Council, more than one-third of the continent's current electricity output. Two other small power plants have already been built on the site and a third is currently in the design phase. In addition to exporting energy to southern Africa, the project, which is expected to cost as much as $70 billion, could transmit energy as far as Egypt and Nigeria, and potentially to Europe via high-voltage lines.

Political instability will make security an overriding challenge. Yet a clear and coordinated legal framework and strategy for refurbishing transmission lines to export Grand Inga's power are the main preconditions for the project to gain sufficient financial backing. Grand Inga has huge potential but will need strong leadership to achieve it, according to Boris Martor, head of the African group for U.K. law firm Eversheds, which has advised DRC state-owned utility SNEL, since 2001.

"Right now, there's no coordination to get it off the ground. There needs to be a leading company or multilateral organization," he says, adding that the project is likely to remain on hold at least until 2012.

Incentives

The pinnacle of sustainable development

is a system that rewards changes of behavior on an individual level and at the same time allows families to raise themselves out of poverty.

This is easier said than done, particularly in Africa where few individuals have bank accounts and most people still eke out a subsistence living far from the reach of established financial institutions.

San Diego businessman David Palella, however, thinks he has found a way to overcome these difficulties. His not-for-profit organization, Carbon Manna Unlimited, has developed a system of direct micro-payments to rural people who offset their carbon production through the use of high-efficiency stoves.

The project aims to establish cell-phone based carbon micro-credit systems, using a simple message service to allow families to monetize the carbon offsets they produce. Its key advantage is that it's based on existing infrastructure. While few rural Africans have landlines, mobile telephone ownership is rapidly increasing, and companies such as Kenyan telecom provider, Safaricom, have already introduced systems that allow subscribers to transfer money via cell-phones.

"Africa has the most advanced cell-phone-based payment systems using simple text," Mr. Palella says. "You can establish a sustainable carbon reduction project almost anywhere in Africa and share the money through these systems."

Mr. Palella acknowledges that most voluntary emissions reduction trading systems require those that benefit from them to go through a series of time consuming steps, as well as wade through the necessary paperwork. This can be difficult to prepare and costly, especially when it is contracted out to carbon project consultants. Still, he notes that the voluntary emissions reduction market in Europe is worth over $50 billion a year, and that Carbon Manna is a sustainable, open-source, micro-profit-sharing system in which the paperwork can be standardized and streamlined.

Realizing a first demonstration project has been tricky for Mr. Palella. A Kenyan offshoot strayed from the guidelines of the original concept, he says, while an Ethiopian project is looking to build its system on the structure of an existing charity for poor farmers.

However, some industry experts say the expiration of the Kyoto treaty in 2012, by disbanding the separate United Nations emissions trading framework, could potentially create more impetus for innovative approaches such as Mr. Palella's Carbon Manna.


Geothermal

In a continent with little electrification, East Africa is particularly vulnerable, lacking the fossil fuels and natural resources of much of the western half of the continent.

Yet the United Nations Environment Program believes geothermal power sources, extending across the Rift Valley from Ethiopia to Mozambique, could support the region's power needs. Research by the U.S. Geothermal Energy Association backs this ambition up. It estimates there to be as much as seven gigawatts of geothermal potential in the region.

The African Rift Geothermal Development Facility was launched in 2010 to promote its use. The project includes a regional networking system and technical assistance program, supported by UNEP, as well as a risk mitigation fund backed by the World Bank.

Kenya established the Olkaria fields, Africa's first geothermal project, nearly two decades ago and continues to be the only country in the region actively exploiting geothermal resources.

Geothermal energy is expected to account for nearly 40% of Kenya's total power needs by 2012, with estimated potential capacity of 7,000 megawatts, according to UNEP.

Mr. Connick believes that the unique nature of the technology and absence of significant competition in the development of geothermal projects means that geothermal power is likely to be a later stage alternative form of energy.

Electric car rental scheme hits Paris






Autolib scheme opens to Parisians in bid to cut air pollution and build on success of Velib cycle hire scheme

EurActiv, part of the Guardian Environment Network, with Reuters

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 December 2011 11.31 GMT

A parking station for the Autolib electric car-share scheme is seen on a street in Paris, December 2, 2011. Photograph: Christophe Ena/AP


Pay-as-you-drive electric car rentals are expected to help cut pollution and reduce traffic in Paris, as the new fleet of fully electric Autiolib' vehicles hits the French capital.

As of Monday, Parisians could take the bubble cars for a ride from more than 1,200 parking spots where they rest for recharge.

A subscription cost €10 a day or €15 a week, while an annual subscription of €144 subscription allows users to take the car for only half an hour each time for €5, just over the price of two underground tickets.

The Autolib' system builds on the success of the Velib' bicycle-sharing service and could provide a shop window for entrepreneur Vincent Bolloré and his nascent car battery business.

"We want to persuade people to shift from the concept of owning a car to that of using a car," Autolib' General Manager Morald Chibout told Reuters.

Soaring insurance and parking costs have already persuaded 25% of French citizens to cut back or give up on using their cars, according to a study published last year by Chronos TNS Sofres.

The little four-seater Bluecar, designed and manufactured exclusively for Bolloré by Italian designer Pininfarina, famous for sculpting Ferraris and Maseratis, will have a range of up to 250 km between before a recharge which will take about four hours.

Bolloré said his batteries are safer than the lithium-ion variety used by most of the car industry because they are less prone to overheating. They are also more stable when being charged and discharged.

The car rental scheme follows the car-sharing project launched on 30 September 2011, which also aimed to clear the traffic-clogged Parisian boulevards and deliver what its backers hoped would be a major boost for electric vehicles.

Under the €235 million project, the brainchild of Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, the car-hire service debuted with 66 cars and 33 rental stations across Paris before expanding to 3,000 vehicles and more than 1,000 stations by the end of 2012.

Similar projects exist in the US and in other European countries, such as Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. The Belgian 'Zen Car', one of the first EV-for-hire services, was launched at the beginning of this year with around thirty "100% electric" cars.

The vehicles can be booked by internet or via phone and can be found in around 15 different parking spots around Brussels, next to transit stops. The standard annual subscription for 'Zen Car' costs €40 with an hourly rate of €7 in the day time and €5 at night.

Bill Gates and China in discussions over new nuclear reactor

The Microsoft co-founder has confirmed plans to jointly develop a new nuclear reactor, which can run on depleted uranium

Associated Press

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 December 2011 15.52 GMT

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates confirmed on Wednesday he is in discussions with China to jointly develop a new kind of nuclear reactor.

"The idea is to be very low-cost, very safe and generate very little waste," said Gates during a talk at China's Ministry of Science and Technology.

Gates has largely funded a Washington state-based company, TerraPower, that is developing a Generation IV nuclear reactor, which can run on depleted uranium.

The general manager of state-owned China National Nuclear Corporation, Sun Qin, was quoted in Chinese media last week saying Gates was working with it to research and develop a reactor.

"TerraPower is having very good discussions with CNNC and various people in the Chinese government," said Gates, cautioning that they were at an early stage.

Gates says perhaps as much as a billion dollars will be put into research and development over the next five years.

TerraPower says its traveling wave reactor would run for decades on depleted uranium and produce significantly smaller amounts of nuclear waste than conventional reactors.

"All these new designs are going to be incredibly safe," Gates told the audience. "They require no human action to remain safe at all times."

He said they also benefit from an ability to simulate earthquake and tidal wave conditions. "It takes safety to a new level," he said.

Since leaving Microsoft, Gates has concentrated on philanthropy and advocating on public health, education and clean energy issues.

Gates was at the Ministry of Science and Technology to talk about a joint project between China and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support innovative research and development to help alleviate poverty.

Gates said the ministry will help identify entrepreneurs and companies to manufacture new products in global health and agriculture to "change the lives of poor people", including new vaccines and diagnostics and genetically modified seeds.

"China has a lot to contribute because it's solved many of the problems of poverty, not all of them but a lot of them, itself, and many Asian, south Asian and African countries are well behind, whether it's agriculture or health," said Gates.

No concrete poverty alleviation projects were mentioned.

Warren Buffett to buy Californian solar power farm worth $2bn

MidAmerican Energy Holdings is to take over Topaz Solar Farm

Rupert Neate

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 December 2011 17.58 GMT

The billionaire investor Warren Buffett has agreed to buy a solar power farm in California worth $2bn (£1.3bn).

Buffett's MidAmerican Energy Holdings will take over Topaz Solar Farm, which is expected to produce enough power to run 160,000 homes when it is up and running in 2015. The farm, halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, is the world's second-largest photovoltaic plant under construction and is expected to generate 550-megawatts of electricity or about half the power of a nuclear reactor.

The deal comes hot on the heels of a string of green energy investments by the famous investor. MidAmerican, which is part of Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway empire, is the largest wind energy provider in the US where it operates more than a dozen wind farms.

MidAmerican sealed the deal for Topaz on Wednesday, a day after the seller, First Solar, failed to secure a US government loan guarantee for the project. The terms of the deal were not disclosed, but First Solar's difficulties securing funding for the vast project suggests Buffett probably got a good deal. First Solar will continue to build the farm on behalf of Berkshire and it is due to open in early 2015.

Greg Abel, chief executive officer of MidAmerican, said: "[Topaz] demonstrates that solar energy is a commercially viable technology without the support of governmental loan guarantees."

Analysts suggested Buffett is moving from wind to solar power to take advantage of lucrative tax breaks. Gerard Reid, an analyst at Jefferies, said: "The reason for the move from wind to solar is very simple. Tax credits for wind in the US expire at the end of next year, while solar ones run till 2015."

In February Buffett, the world's third-richest man, said he was keen to make a fresh wave of "major acquisitions". "Our elephant gun has been reloaded, and my trigger finger is itchy," he told investors in his annual letter to shareholders.Last month he ended his moratorium on investing in technology, taking a $12bn (£7.5bn) stake in IBM, the 100-year-old tech firm. Berkshire Hathaway has been buying shares in IBM since March and now owns 64 million shares, or about 5.4% of the outstanding stock.

Monday, 5 December 2011

India emerges as chief opponent of a new global-warming treaty

Country baulks at UN climate conference, concerned about cooling its red-hot economy

Michael McCarthy


Durban


Monday 05 December 2011

India is now the leading opponent of a new comprehensive global-warming treaty, it became clear at the weekend after the first week of negotiations at the UN Climate Conference in Durban, South Africa.


The world's second most populous country has resolutely set its face against a fresh climate deal that at some stage would involve every country in the world cutting its carbon emissions in an effort to bring climate change under control.

The Indians are refusing to approve anything that might put a brake on their economy, now expanding with growth in 2010 estimated at 10.4 per cent. Its carbon emissions are growing at more than 9 per cent a year, the fastest of any major nation, and the country has shot up to become the world's third biggest carbon emitter, after China and the US.

But the Indians are relying on this growth to take hundreds of millions of their nearly 1.2 billion people out of poverty and they want nothing to do with curbing these emissions.

Instead, along with some other emerging economies, India is seeking a renewal of the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 climate agreement due to run out next year under which Western industrialised countries agreed to make reductions in their emissions of greenhouse gases, while developing countries such as China and India had no obligations to make cuts at all.

The conference and the whole 20-year UN climate negotiating process are threatened with stalemate over the Kyoto issue, as three nations – Japan, Russia and Canada – have stated that they will not renew the protocol under any circumstances, considering it wholly unfair. Britain and the EU are trying to break the deadlock, offering to renew the protocol as long as agreement can also be reached on a way forward, a "road map", towards a new all-embracing climate treaty, to be signed by 2015 – a legally binding framework by which each country would be committed to take action over its CO2 emissions, although not necessarily to the same degree or at the same time.

Without such a treaty, there is no chance of the world halting the rising temperature of the atmosphere.

Even the United States, which withdrew from Kyoto under President George Bush in 2001, has indicated in the talks here that it is not opposed to a new legally binding climate treaty, as long as it provides for "symmetry of obligations" – meaning that the Chinese and the Indians would abide by it as well.

The Chinese, formerly major opponents of a new climate deal, have been sending out some signals of flexibility, according to negotiators. But the Indians have been most resolute in their opposition, which was made public at the weekend.

Towns hope to cash in by preparing students for renewable-energy jobs

A Green Course

By STEPHANIE SIMON

The dusty ranching town of Tucumcari, N.M., measures the promise of renewable energy by the number of chicken-fried steaks sold at the Rockin' Y's Roadhouse and rooms booked at the Blue Swallow Motel.


These days, both those numbers are growing.

The town of 5,000 sits on historic Route 66, but that doesn't bring in many visitors anymore. What keeps the place humming is a 250-foot-tall wind turbine and the classrooms and laboratories nearby, at the North American Wind Research and Training Center.

Students from across the nation and overseas come for two-year degrees that prepare them for jobs as turbine technicians. Researchers come to investigate questions such as how turbines affect bat migration. Tourists stop by, too, curious about the huge spinning blades. In an off-the-beaten-track town with a poverty rate of 22%, that economic activity is a big deal.

"They do help fill up the motels and they do eat in our restaurants," says Pat Vanderpool, executive director of the Greater Tucumcari Economic Development Corp. "It's created a little energy."

Communities across the nation are looking to renewable energy to do the same for them. So they're investing in training centers to prepare workers for careers designing, manufacturing, installing and repairing solar panels, wind turbines and other green-energy systems.

The outlook for those careers is uncertain, but that hasn't stopped a huge boom in training programs. The goal: Bring in students for a short-term economic boost, and brand the community as a hot spot for renewable energy, in hopes of luring companies that can create jobs and spur long-term growth.

The programs run the gamut. A grant from the state of California helped a consortium of colleges and research institutes in San Diego launch a program in algae biotechnology, the business of turning algae into fuel. In Reno, Nev., Truckee Meadows Community College used state grants and private investment to launch classes in solar technology and energy-efficiency auditing. The college will soon open the first degree program in the nation to train geothermal-plant operators. And in Aurora, Colo., a former Sam's Club has been converted into the Ecotech Institute, billed as the first and only college in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to preparing students for careers in renewable energy.

Scores of other degree programs in various aspects of renewable energy have sprung up across the nation, as well—so many, in fact, that competition for students "is getting fierce," says Jim Morgan, director of the wind center at Mesalands Community College in Tucumcari.

Many of the programs are too new to have firm data on employment rates for their graduates. The jobs they train students for range from wind-turbine technician and solar installer, paying $30,000 to $40,000 a year, to research analyst positions that pay twice that. The training can cost anywhere from $3,500 to $35,000, depending on whether it's at a community college or a for-profit institution like Ecotech.

Uneven Prospects

Skeptics wonder whether there will be enough green jobs for all these green graduates.

"We have had patchy to nonexistent information about what occupations will be important and what type of jobs there will be," says Mark Muro, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co-author of a new report on green jobs, "Sizing the Clean Economy."

The report concludes that certain segments, including wind, solar and smart grid, "added jobs at a torrid pace" in recent years, but Mr. Muro cautions that even those industries are developing unevenly and unpredictably, leading to mismatches between available jobs and skilled labor. "There's too much training in some areas and not enough in others," he says.

The difficulties come across in a federal audit of the Labor Department released last month. The agency received $500 million from the 2009 stimulus act for a "Green Jobs" program, which aimed to train at least 115,000 workers. As of June 30, just 26,000 had completed training—and just 8,000 had found work, according to Elliot Lewis, an auditor with the department's Office of Inspector General.

A similar audit this fall of the Department of Energy found that itstruggled to create green jobs despite a huge influx of stimulus funds—and that some of the jobs created didn't work out well. There was a push, for instance, to train workers to weatherize homes to make them more energy-efficient, but the audit found that "substandard workmanship" plagued the program.

Fred Lucero, who runs a green-job training program in Richmond, Calif., says he has had trouble placing some of his graduates in stable jobs. "The market is glutted with people with solar certification and energy-efficiency certification," he says. His biggest success: Training workers to clean up asbestos, lead and other hazardous materials from abandoned factories and polluted land. "That's the original green job," Mr. Lucero says, "but it's not sexy like solar."

Employers say they're not necessarily looking for workers with newly minted degrees in green energy. Jeff Metts, president of Astraeus Wind Energy Inc., a growing firm in Eaton Rapids, Mich., that makes wind-turbine components, says he hired laid-off auto workers for his best-paying jobs because they had experience handling massive machinery. Wind-power company RES Americas generally looks for workers with engineering experience and trains them in-house on skills specific to turbines, says Doug Nieb, vice president of human resources.

Anecdotal Success

Despite the challenges—and despite headline-grabbing failures like the bankruptcy of solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC—boosters say there are and will be plenty of opportunities for workers trained in renewable-energy industries.

The Danish company Vestas Wind Systems A/S prefers to fill its manufacturing plant in Pueblo, Colo., with employees trained at a local community college, in a program it helped design. As for jobs installing and maintaining turbines, applicants with degrees in that field "have a head start over other potential employees because they have the fundamental skills and knowledge," says Vestas spokeswoman Aili Jokela. "It's crucial." Vestas currently has 500 jobs open across the U.S.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, recently launched a website that tracks green-energy job announcements. Many are small: a wind farm in Illinois that will create up to 10 full-time jobs; expansion of a solar-panel component factory in California that will add 30 positions. But there have been a few big announcements lately, including General Electric Co.'s plan to build a $300 million solar thin-film plant in Aurora, which is expected to create about 350 jobs, each paying at least $50,000 a year.

The numbers fall far short of President Obama's 2008 campaign pledge to create five million green jobs. "But things are happening," says Cai Steger, an energy-policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Tales of growth so far are just "little anecdotes," he says, "but they're anecdotes around the country."

Adam Chrisman offers up one such anecdote. The 23-year-old was studying biology at a small college in Pennsylvania when he heard about the wind training program in New Mexico. He enrolled, drawn by the chance to do hands-on work in a brand-new industry. The first time he climbed the turbine was "a little spooky," he says. But he came to love it.

Mr. Chrisman got an internship last summer at a wind farm in Illinois and has a standing offer for a full-time job there when he graduates next spring, he says. For now, he's living and spending money in Tucumcari and bringing his parents and girlfriend to New Mexico for visits. "It seems like a good thing for the community," he says.

Ms. Simon is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal's Dallas bureau. She can be reached at stephanie.simon@wsj.com.

Clean-Coal Rules Are a Boon for Some

By KRIS MAHER

Stricter federal emissions rules, intended to make exhaust from the nation's smokestacks cleaner, are putting pressure on utilities but are expected to be a boon to providers of pollution-reduction technology for coal-fired power plants.

Companies that make systems for filtering out pollutants such as mercury, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide say they are seeing a surge in demand for their equipment ahead of several new standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year and expected to start being phased in as early as January 2012.

The proposed rules include a requirement that power plants using coal reduce emissions of mercury by as much as 90% over the next three years, with the goal of preventing tens of thousands of premature deaths from pollution. As utilities rush to comply with the stricter standards and keep their older plants online longer, the market for pollution control and monitoring technology could more than double, to $10 billion in 2014 from $4 billion now, according to the Institute of Clean Air Companies, a trade group.

Mike Durham, chief executive of ADA Environmental Solutions, of Littleton, Colo., predicts the creation of a $700 million market for mercury-reduction technologies over the next three years as a result of the new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule proposed in March and set to be finalized on Dec. 16. Utilities spent $160 million on such equipment from 2005 to 2010 related to rules some states put in place, Mr. Durham says.

"It's going to be a huge boon for us," he says of the rule, a draft of which called on power plants to cut mercury emissions 80% to 90% within three years.

Fuel Tech Inc. of Warrenville, Ill., which sells technology for reducing nitrogen-oxide emissions, had $21 million in new orders in the third quarter, up from $8.8 million in the year-earlier quarter, according to Dave Collins, chief financial officer.

The main driver: the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which the EPA finalized in July. The rule requires 27 states in the eastern half of the U.S. to reduce power-plant emissions that contribute to ozone, including nitrogen oxide. The reductions must begin in January 2012 with targets achieved by 2014

Analysts say emissions-control technologies like those sold by ADA and Fuel Tech could be vital for utilities by enabling them to keep older plants operating longer, as well as for the coal industry, which faces growing competition from cleaner-burning natural gas being unearthed from deep shale deposits. Indeed, coal-fired net electricity generation fell 4% this year through August from a year earlier, while natural-gas generation rose 1.6%, according to the Energy Information Administration.

"When you couple the environmental regulations with low natural-gas prices, it's going to decrease the economic competitiveness of coal-fired power generation," says Mark Levin, an energy analyst with BB&T Capital Markets, a subsidiary of BB&T Corp. "Utilities are going to have to do a number of things, including using their scrubbers more efficiently or burning less coal."

Mr. Maher is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Pittsburgh bureau. He can be reached at kris.maher@wsj.com.

Concerns over Green Investment Bank

Environmental centrepiece of government policy risks 'pork-barrel politics' and financial ineffectiveness, critics fear

Juliette Jowit

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 December 2011 19.21 GMT

The government's Green Investment Bank (GIB) has had its actions so limited that it will not be able to support the coalition's much-vaunted Green Deal to refurbish millions of homes to save energy.

The details have emerged in a draft document drawn up by the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and presented to the advisory board at their most recent meeting.

The proposals, seen by the Guardian, have also caused consternation because the government is proposing to help set strategic priorities, a move one critic said opened up the risk of "pork-barrel politics" if ministers insisted on pushing ahead with certain schemes to curry favour with voters ahead of an election.

At worst, some people close to the talks fear the government could fail to get state aid approval from the European commission to provide funding for the bank because it will be seen as too close to ministers.

There is also concern about the increasingly "negative" language, including a downgrading of the funds being offered by the Treasury from £3bn to "up to £3bn".

Another recommendation that is likely to cause controversy is that the bank would be instructed to invest on commercial terms, and to make a profit every year, raising questions about whether it will be able to invest in important areas that are currently too risky for private lenders.

Ben Caldecott, head of European policy at the low-carbon investment advisers Climate Change Capital, said: "If it's only ever going to act as an investor of last-resort investing on market terms, and if it's going to avoid passing-through its lower cost of capital [from government], that could undermine its ability to deliver its objectives."

The draft paper, intended for the European commission, which must approve the bank's public funding, has emerged following a torrid week for the environmental movement and businesses after the chancellor used his autumn statement on Tuesday to announce green regulations would be reviewed to clear the way for development and economic growth.

In answer to criticism of the coalition's apparent U-turn on its early promise to be the "greenest government ever", George Osborne later defended his record, telling MPs: "I am the chancellor who funded the first ever Green Investment Bank."

The same week, Chris Huhne, the climate secretary, admitted to MPs in departmental questions that the date at which the bank might start borrowing money had been delayed from 2015 to 2016 at the earliest. There is also growing concern about the indebted government's willingness to guarantee any bonds or loans, which private investors say will make it much harder for the GIB to offer the low-cost finance needed by some industries and new technologies.

Caroline Flint, Labour's shadow energy and climate secretary, said: "The Green Investment Bank – a plan Labour set out in government – is vital for creating jobs and supporting growth in the green economy. But, for all of George Osborne's empty boasts, we [have] found out that because the government is set to borrow a staggering £158bn more than they planned a year ago, we won't have a proper Green Investment Bank, with full borrowing powers, until 2016 at the earliest. Day by day, David Cameron's promise to run the greenest government ever is falling apart."

Other details in the draft proposals, discussed by the government's advisory panel at their November meeting, include the expected cost of setting up the bank is £82m. Assuming the full £3bn is paid, the document suggests the bank will get £865m in 2012-13, £1bn in 2013-14, and £1.225bn in 2014-15.

The bank will initially be asked to spend at least 80% of its funds on four sectors: offshore wind (which could take approximately half the funds available), waste processing and recycling, energy from waste generation, and non-domestic energy efficiency. In future it could also fund home energy efficiency schemes such as the Green Deal.

Ministers would appoint the bank's chairman and chief executive, who would then help appoint of the rest of the board. The bank would be expected to make a 3.5% average return on investment over five years – below what is currently the most risk-proof returns – and make a profit every year, though this last point could be negotiated with the Treasury, it says.

Another proposal that has caused concern is that the bank cannot invest more than 5% of its funds in one scheme, leading to concerns it cannot take a major lead in developing offshore windfarms and other expensive schemes in the early days to give private investors more confidence in the sector.

A Department for Business spokeswoman said she would not comment on a leaked document. But she said the Green Bank would "drive growth and keep the UK ahead of the game in the transition to a low carbon economy".

She added: "Government investment will mobilise significant private finance, providing in the region of £18bn of additional investment in green infrastructure."

Aviation could switch to low-carbon fuel 'sooner than thought'

Richard Branson says aeroplanes have few 'filling stations' compared with other transport, making it easier to supply them


John Vidal, environment editor

guardian.co.uk, Monday 5 December 2011 07.26 GMT

The world's 7,000 airlines could switch to low-carbon jet fuels much faster than other transport because aeroplanes have very few "filling stations", says Richard Branson.

"Unlike cars where there are millions of filling stations, there are only about 1,700 aviation stations in the world. So if you can get the right fuel, like mass-produced algae, then getting it to 1,700 outlets is not so difficult," Branson said in an interview with the Guardian from the British Virgin islands.

Branson, who announced last month he hoped Virgin would soon be able to use waste gases from industrial steel and aluminium plants as a fuel, said the industry should aim for 50% sustainable fuels by 2020.

"I would be very disapointed if not. Once the breakthrough takles place, getting to 50-100% is not unrealistic. Aviation fuel is 25-40% of the running costs of airlines so the industry is open to new fuels."

Branson, whose Virgin group owns 51% of Virgin Atlantic Airways, was speaking in advance of the launch in Durban of RenewableJetFuels.org, an open access website that assesses and updates the progress of companies planning to produce commercial-scale renewable fuel for aviation.

It suggests that of the 40 companies claiming to have the potential to deliver large-scale amounts – about one third of them are "credible" from an economic, scalable and sustainability perspective in their current state.

In the next five years, according to the website published by business NGO Carbon War Room and academic publisher Elsevier, some renewable jet fuel companies "could be producing enough renewable fuel to replace 10-20% of the fuel of a typical mid-sized airline".

The data, said Branson, should allow airlines to accelerate linkups with fuel companies.

"Producers can continually update and re-submit data. This is then reviewed by experts, enabling RenewableJetFuels.org to be the independent, gold standard for investors and airlines in the market," said Suzanne Hunt, head of operations at Carbon War Room.

"Trying to address climate change makes business sense", said Branson, whose Virgin airline spends around $3bn a year on jet fuel.

"The jet fuel industry can charge what they like at present. New fuels will compete. You could finds the price of aviation fuel comes down."

Three years ago Virgin flew a plane to Holland on coconut fuel and no one took it seriously, said Branson. "The industry thought it was PR. BA was pretty dismissive, saying planes will never fly on bio-fuels. But it actually kickstarted thinking. Since then, even BA has started investing in new biofuels.

"We're heading in the right direction. The industry could go from one of the dirtiest to one of the cleanest in 10 years. We are investing in different companies and really beginning to see traction".

The five leading alternative jet fuel companies identified by Carbon War Room are Lanzatech, SG biofuels, AltAir, Solazyme and Sapphire.

UK green energy projects fall by wayside in dash for gas

• Wind turbine construction down by half on last year
• Rising energy bills result of higher fuel import costs

Fiona Harvey environment correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 December 2011 19.41 GMT

The construction of new renewable energy generation capacity has fallen dramatically, as the big six energy suppliers pursue a "dash for gas" policy that could put the UK's climate change targets out of reach and leave households with higher bills.

The number of new wind turbines built this year is down by half on last year. To date, 540MW worth of new turbines, on land and offshore, have been built this year – the equivalent of about 400 onshore turbines. Across the UK last year, 1,192MW of wind capacity was added.

The pipeline of new projects has also stagnated – this year, 2,058MW of wind farms were submitted for planning permission, compared with 2,080MW in 2010, and the number approved dropped markedly, from 1,366MW in 2010 to 920MW.

This contrasts with the 30GW of new gas-fired power stations that are at planning stage. These will require tens of billions of pounds of investment, coming mostly from the big six energy suppliers.

Although gas is cheaper than renewables at present, the cost of renewables is steadily coming down, and over-reliance on gas is one of the key factors behind high energy bills, according to the government. About 60% of rises in the past year have been the result of the higher cost of fuel imports.

In 2010, the total investment in renewable energy in the UK fell dramatically, from $11bn (£7bn) to less than $3bn – a drop of about 70%, according to Roland Berger, the consultancy. This year, the investment has recovered somewhat, after about $6bn was invested in offshore wind, but this is still well down on 2009 figures – despite the government's pledges to expand the renewable energy sector, with a target of 18GW of generating capacity to come from offshore wind by 2020. At least £200bn will be needed this decade to transform the UK's energy sector to a low-carbon footing, but there is little sign yet of investment on that scale.

Last week construction group Carillion said 4,500 jobs are at risk as a result of a government decision to cut solar energy subsidies. There are 39,000 jobs dependent on the solar energy sector and thousands more are also at risk.

Manfred Hader, a partner at Roland Berger, said: "More regulatory clarity and the making available of large amounts of capital are necessary to drive government targets for offshore wind. There will be a need to bridge the gap between funding via traditional sources such as utilities and banks and the total investment required – it is a moot point as to whether institutional investors would be interested and whether the green investment bank would make a real difference to this issue."

Wind represents the biggest share of the UK's renewable energy mix, but other forms of renewable energy have also been set back. Solar power companies are set to cut thousands of jobs, as the government abruptly halved the subsidies available for solar panels. The biomass sector has suffered, too, as several proposed new biomass power stations, burning waste, energy crops or straw, have been delayed. Drax, which operates the biggest UK coal-fired power station, has put on hold plans for two new straw-burning biomass plants.

While renewables struggle, gas has seen a flurry of interest from the big six suppliers. Over the past few years, plans for at least 30GW of gas-fired power have been brought forward, which would lead to a rash of new power stations across the country, with some now in construction but most still in the planning stages.

Gas businesses have also been lobbying heavily to be seen as a "green" fuel, because burning gas produces about half the carbon dioxide of burning coal. However, gas lobbyists also have the renewables industry in their sights, as the Guardian has revealed, with behind-the-scenes meetings with key political figures across Europe and the publication of a report which took McKinsey research showing renewables could power a low-carbon Europe and re-interpreted it as an argument that opting for gas would be cheaper than pushing renewable energy.

Chris Huhne, secretary of state for energy and climate change, invited the construction of new gas-fired power stations with a promise that a new "emissions performance standard" would be set at a rate that favoured gas but blocked new coal-fired power. He promised this new regulation would not be reviewed until 2015, and any revision would not be retroactive, giving gas companies a clear window for investment.

Huhne's comments made clear one of the reasons behind the government's encouragement of new gas-fired power – that new gas power stations take only about 18 months to build. Ministers are concerned that as many of the older coal-fired power stations are taken out of service in the next few years, there could be an "energy gap" between demand for electricity and supply. As putting up new gas-fired power stations is quick compared with wind turbines or nuclear reactors, gas is now the favoured option if ministers fear there is any likelihood of suppliers failing to "keep the lights on".

Burning gas produces about half the carbon dioxide of coal so switching from coal to gas has helped the UK to one of the most impressive emissions-cutting records of any country over the past 20 years. There were no gas-fired power stations in 1990, but the rapid expansion of the sector driven by the Conservative government, under Margaret Thatcher, was the biggest single factor behind the 25% cut in the UK's greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2010.

The government's new carbon plan - published on December 1 - showed a further switch away from the UK's remaining coal-fired power stations, many of which will be taken out of service in the next few years, is a major factor in enabling the government to promised 34% emissions cuts compared with 1990 levels by 2022. Between 40 and 70GW of new capacity will be needed to meet the UK's carbon targets. Huhne said: "The energy mix will depend on what happens in the world gas markets. If there is a low gas price in the UK, then you will see more gas and carbon capture and storage and less renewable energy and nuclear [power]."

There are risks to a dependence on gas, however. High prices in world markets have been the main cause of energy bill rises and as demand increases this is likely to continue. Huhne has said the UK needs to give up its "addiction to fossil fuels" but on current plans gas looks a clear winner from government energy policies, with the outlook for renewables less certain.

David Nickols, managing girector at the consultancy WSP Future Energy said project finance for major renewables projects looked difficult, and planning restrictions were also "major obstacle".

Paul Sloman, a partner at Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, warned: "The UK cannot afford to be reliant mainly on gas-fired generation as energy security is also a very pertinent issue and increasing reliance on gas is not the solution, particularly as the UK's own gas production from the North Sea declines."

Friday, 2 December 2011

GE and Hitachi plan new reactor to burn UK plutonium stockpile

Multibillion pound plant at Sellafield would convert UK's nuclear power plant residue into fuel


Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 November 2011 17.41 GMT

General Electric set out proposals on Wednesday to build a new nuclear reactor at Sellafield that would convert the UK's stockpile of radioactive plutonium into electricity.


The multibillion pound project would take plutonium – the residue from the UK's nuclear power plants – and use it as fuel for a 600MW reactor that could provide power for 750,000 homes, according to GE Hitachi.


The company's "Prism" reactor has been in use for more than 30 years in the US, but if the new plant goes ahead it would be the first such plant in private operation outside the US.


However, the government has still not decided which option it prefers for dealing with the UK's plutonium – others include long-term storage, converting it for use in a thorium reactor or building a new mixed oxide fuel ('mox') processing plant – and GE's proposal is likely to face competition. Ministers have been increasingly talking about the future of the stockpile, which costs about £2bn a year to maintain, and some in government want the plutonium to be classed as an asset rather than a liability.


Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser, urged ministers earlier this year to find a use for the stockpile. A government decision is expected "shortly", but no firm date has yet been set.


Some nuclear experts contacted by the Guardian were sceptical of GE's proposals, pointing out that the company had provided little data on which to assess its credibility as a solution to the UK's plutonium stockpile, and that government-sponsored research into the available options had suggested that a mixed oxide plant was the best use.


The Prism reactor works by taking the existing plutonium oxide powder in cans, and converting it to metal. That metal is in turn converted into an alloy and mixed with uranium and zirconium, which is put into a fuel bundle and used in a fission reactor. After the fuel is spent, the waste product that is left would be safer than plutonium in the form in which the UK stores it today, because it would be less liable to be used in weapons and would be more easily stored, the company said.


"The waste is much the same as that produced by new light water reactors," said Eric Loewen, chief engineer on the Prism project.


The new plant could be built on Sellafield property. There would also be enough room to construct a separate new nuclear power plant, as one of the newbuild reactors that the government wants to see built.


GE would not say how much the plant would be likely to cost, or how much profit it could make, but said the investment would be "multibillion" if it went ahead.


One alternative is to convert the plutonium into fuel that could be used for a thorium-based plant. Thorium was explored several decades ago as an alternative to current reactors until the research was discontinued, but some experts believe it could provide a safer, cleaner and more environmentally friendly alternative to current nuclear designs.