AFP
Saturday, 9 April 2011
Google Thursday announced a multi-million-euro (dollar) investment in a solar power plant outside Berlin in what the US Internet giant said was its first clean energy project investment in Europe.
Google said it would plough 3.5 million euros ($5.0 million) into one of Germany's biggest solar plants, located in Brandenburg, the state surrounding Berlin.
"Until the early 1990s, the site was used as a training ground by the Russian military. We're glad it has found a new use," the firm said in a posting on its European Public Policy Blog.
Google said the plant should provide power for 5,000 homes in the area. The investment still needs official approval. It has also invested in wind power projects in the United States.
The announcement came as the German government wrestles with its future nuclear energy policy in the midst of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan.
In the wake of the crisis, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a three-month moratorium on an earlier pledge to extend the lifetime of Germany's 17 nuclear reactors and temporarily switched off seven pending safety checks.
The sooner Germany can be rid of nuclear power, the better, she said, vowing to accelerate progress towards cleaner forms of energy such as solar power.
Monday, 11 April 2011
Whitehall pulls plug on solar panel scheme
By Sarah Arnott
Monday, 11 April 2011
Plans for a Government-wide solar power scheme have been put on ice following last month's controversial cuts to the solar subsidy scheme.
At a Cabinet Office-sponsored meeting in November, Whitehall departments and other public sector bodies were briefed by industry experts on the opportunities of the feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme for solar-panel installations on public buildings such as hospitals, barracks, and council buildings.
But preparatory work by the Government's procurement office, Buying Solutions, was pulled shortly after the announcement of a fast-track review of the FIT, according to industry sources.
Buying Solutions stresses that the solar power workshop was part of the organisation's ongoing work looking at power supply initiatives and that although some public bodies interested in participating in the scheme were identified at the initial meeting, it was made very clear that all discussions were purely exploratory.
"No procurement was commissioned and therefore nothing has been cancelled," a spokeswoman for Buying Solutions said.
But industry sources say the level of interest at the meeting suggested several megawatts-worth of potential schemes, sufficient to achieve significant price reductions if bought jointly through the central procurement agency.
"The total economic equation would have saved the country money and also created jobs in the solar industry," said one insider.
The solar power industry is in uproar after the Government announced proposals to slash the FIT for all but the smallest domestic installations.
Monday, 11 April 2011
Plans for a Government-wide solar power scheme have been put on ice following last month's controversial cuts to the solar subsidy scheme.
At a Cabinet Office-sponsored meeting in November, Whitehall departments and other public sector bodies were briefed by industry experts on the opportunities of the feed-in tariff (FIT) scheme for solar-panel installations on public buildings such as hospitals, barracks, and council buildings.
But preparatory work by the Government's procurement office, Buying Solutions, was pulled shortly after the announcement of a fast-track review of the FIT, according to industry sources.
Buying Solutions stresses that the solar power workshop was part of the organisation's ongoing work looking at power supply initiatives and that although some public bodies interested in participating in the scheme were identified at the initial meeting, it was made very clear that all discussions were purely exploratory.
"No procurement was commissioned and therefore nothing has been cancelled," a spokeswoman for Buying Solutions said.
But industry sources say the level of interest at the meeting suggested several megawatts-worth of potential schemes, sufficient to achieve significant price reductions if bought jointly through the central procurement agency.
"The total economic equation would have saved the country money and also created jobs in the solar industry," said one insider.
The solar power industry is in uproar after the Government announced proposals to slash the FIT for all but the smallest domestic installations.
Food for Thought
Should governments be focusing more on feeding their people than fueling their cars?
Text By DAVID ELLIOT
Alistair Wood used to know exactly where his crops would end up. For the last 30 years on his 8,000 acre arable farm in Northern Kenya he's only found one market at harvest: The local population or their animals. Now his wheat and corn could just as easily be sold onto the world's biofuels market to satisfy the growing demand for energy.
Either way, he'll still get a better price for his grain than 10 years ago. Then he was struggling to cover his costs with the returns offered by a world global market saturated with the subsidized output of farmers from as far afield as the Midwest plains of the U.S., the fens of Lincolnshire in the U.K. and the giant paddocks of Western Australia. The reduction in farm subsidies in all these regions is undoubtedly helping Mr. Wood compete. But more developed economies such as China and India have caused a surge in demand for grain, as the newly affluent acquire a taste for meat and beer. But how much of an effect has a thirst for renewable energy had on the grain price and in turn global food prices?
From 2006 to 2008 commodity markets across the board soared to record highs. Although prices have since subsided, they still remain at least double the level at the turn of the century or in many cases, more. To take Mr. Wood's crops as an example, corn is currently trading above $7 per bushel (€5) on the Chicago Board of Trade, compared to just above $2/bushel ten years ago. CBOT wheat trades around $8.00/bushel against $2.75 in 2001. Both can be used to produce bioethanol, but not as easily as sugar, a commodity which has seen the most meteoric rise of all, to around 30 cents per pound from 9c/lb on the Intercontinental Exchange during the same period.
The World Bank blames biofuels for the rally, not just in grain, but across the commodity spectrum. "Large increases in biofuels production in the U.S. and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in the global food price," World Bank economist Don Mitchell said in 2008. The ramp up in biofuel production can be attributed in part to attempts to slow the rate of climate change, but gains for the crude oil market also have a big impact on the demand side.
With the price of a barrel of West Texas Crude now back over $100 a barrel, big volume oil users will obviously be keen to find cheaper alternatives in the years ahead.
With commodity markets already hovering just below all-time highs, the obvious expectation is that more grain and other food products will be channelled away from the food chain to biofuel production and that the next few years will see another jump in prices for food commodities. That is before you take into account an expected jump in demand for food from developing countries. In February, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization's Food Price Index rose for the eighth consecutive month by 2.2%. Its highest level since the index began in 1990.
"(Food) prices are projected to increase over the next decade and to continue to be at levels, on average, above those of the past decade," the FAO said in a report on the global food market in early March.
In terms of global food security, that's a worrying future, particularly for developing countries already struggling to feed themselves. It is more worrying when you consider that in some cases producing biofuels causes a comparable level of damage to the ecosystem as fossil fuels.
"It is now generally accepted that producing ethanol from corn using current technology is not sustainable, and that it also increases environmental degradation," says Michael Doran, a chartered environmentalist and head of Action Renewables in Northern Ireland.
"Considering that one of the main drivers in the U.S. for the production of bioethanol was to provide energy security, it is now doubtful whether this is attainable, given the relativity high quantity of fossil fuel required to produce the ethanol."
Mr. Doran calculates that producing 10 liters of bioethanol consumes the energy equivalent of around seven liters of traditional gasoline and any greenhouse gas emissions reductions are negligible.
Given corn is one of the more inefficient sources of biofuel, it's obvious that efficiencies of the system are not the primary drivers of the switch to using corn for fuel from food. Rather, it seems to be as a result of political imperative, according to Mr Doran.
"In January 2008, [then U.S. President] George W. Bush called for 120 billion liters of renewable fuels to be produced within the U.S. by 2022 – enough to replace 15% of all the fuel consumed in American cars and trucks," he says. After a number of tweaks, that figure has now been upped to 163 billion liters a year by 2022 under the Renewable Fuels Standard mandate.
The Obama administration has certainly thrown its weight behind the biofuel movement. "Advancing biomass and biofuel production holds the potential to create green jobs," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last year. "Facilities that produce renewable fuel from biomass have to be designed, built and operated."
On a global basis, ambitious targets such as that of the U.S. mean a drastic change in land use. "(Under planned biofuel targets) land use allocation between forest, pasture and crops, would be significantly altered, and leads to considerable forest and pasture destruction in several countries," the World Bank's report on The Impacts of Biofuel Targets on Land-Use Change and Food Supply said recently.
It was environmental concerns such as this – ironically the very reason biofuels became popular in the first place – that led the European Union to shelve its plans to ensure that 10% of the region's vehicle fuel came from biofuels by 2020.
Ex U.S. President Bill Clinton has also questioned his own country's focus on biofuel production.
"Although it is important for the U.S. to produce biofuels," President Clinton said at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual Agricultural Outlook Forum in February, "we don't want to do it at the expense of food riots." Despite the fact the appetite for biofuels is driving up food prices, the search for alternative forms of energy shows no signs of slowing, despite food price inflation.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration says global biofuel production in 2009 reached 1.6 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, a figure which is expected to expand by a factor of three by 2020. But while targets for many offer an indication of future production, as with all economic processes, demand will more than likely be the deciding factor, according to Michael Doran.
"It's simple, future biofuel demand and production will be dependent on the price of oil. If the oil market heads higher, biofuel production will increase as will food prices."
Mr. Elliot is a writer based in Northern Ireland. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
Text By DAVID ELLIOT
Alistair Wood used to know exactly where his crops would end up. For the last 30 years on his 8,000 acre arable farm in Northern Kenya he's only found one market at harvest: The local population or their animals. Now his wheat and corn could just as easily be sold onto the world's biofuels market to satisfy the growing demand for energy.
Either way, he'll still get a better price for his grain than 10 years ago. Then he was struggling to cover his costs with the returns offered by a world global market saturated with the subsidized output of farmers from as far afield as the Midwest plains of the U.S., the fens of Lincolnshire in the U.K. and the giant paddocks of Western Australia. The reduction in farm subsidies in all these regions is undoubtedly helping Mr. Wood compete. But more developed economies such as China and India have caused a surge in demand for grain, as the newly affluent acquire a taste for meat and beer. But how much of an effect has a thirst for renewable energy had on the grain price and in turn global food prices?
From 2006 to 2008 commodity markets across the board soared to record highs. Although prices have since subsided, they still remain at least double the level at the turn of the century or in many cases, more. To take Mr. Wood's crops as an example, corn is currently trading above $7 per bushel (€5) on the Chicago Board of Trade, compared to just above $2/bushel ten years ago. CBOT wheat trades around $8.00/bushel against $2.75 in 2001. Both can be used to produce bioethanol, but not as easily as sugar, a commodity which has seen the most meteoric rise of all, to around 30 cents per pound from 9c/lb on the Intercontinental Exchange during the same period.
The World Bank blames biofuels for the rally, not just in grain, but across the commodity spectrum. "Large increases in biofuels production in the U.S. and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in the global food price," World Bank economist Don Mitchell said in 2008. The ramp up in biofuel production can be attributed in part to attempts to slow the rate of climate change, but gains for the crude oil market also have a big impact on the demand side.
With the price of a barrel of West Texas Crude now back over $100 a barrel, big volume oil users will obviously be keen to find cheaper alternatives in the years ahead.
With commodity markets already hovering just below all-time highs, the obvious expectation is that more grain and other food products will be channelled away from the food chain to biofuel production and that the next few years will see another jump in prices for food commodities. That is before you take into account an expected jump in demand for food from developing countries. In February, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization's Food Price Index rose for the eighth consecutive month by 2.2%. Its highest level since the index began in 1990.
"(Food) prices are projected to increase over the next decade and to continue to be at levels, on average, above those of the past decade," the FAO said in a report on the global food market in early March.
In terms of global food security, that's a worrying future, particularly for developing countries already struggling to feed themselves. It is more worrying when you consider that in some cases producing biofuels causes a comparable level of damage to the ecosystem as fossil fuels.
"It is now generally accepted that producing ethanol from corn using current technology is not sustainable, and that it also increases environmental degradation," says Michael Doran, a chartered environmentalist and head of Action Renewables in Northern Ireland.
"Considering that one of the main drivers in the U.S. for the production of bioethanol was to provide energy security, it is now doubtful whether this is attainable, given the relativity high quantity of fossil fuel required to produce the ethanol."
Mr. Doran calculates that producing 10 liters of bioethanol consumes the energy equivalent of around seven liters of traditional gasoline and any greenhouse gas emissions reductions are negligible.
Given corn is one of the more inefficient sources of biofuel, it's obvious that efficiencies of the system are not the primary drivers of the switch to using corn for fuel from food. Rather, it seems to be as a result of political imperative, according to Mr Doran.
"In January 2008, [then U.S. President] George W. Bush called for 120 billion liters of renewable fuels to be produced within the U.S. by 2022 – enough to replace 15% of all the fuel consumed in American cars and trucks," he says. After a number of tweaks, that figure has now been upped to 163 billion liters a year by 2022 under the Renewable Fuels Standard mandate.
The Obama administration has certainly thrown its weight behind the biofuel movement. "Advancing biomass and biofuel production holds the potential to create green jobs," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said last year. "Facilities that produce renewable fuel from biomass have to be designed, built and operated."
On a global basis, ambitious targets such as that of the U.S. mean a drastic change in land use. "(Under planned biofuel targets) land use allocation between forest, pasture and crops, would be significantly altered, and leads to considerable forest and pasture destruction in several countries," the World Bank's report on The Impacts of Biofuel Targets on Land-Use Change and Food Supply said recently.
It was environmental concerns such as this – ironically the very reason biofuels became popular in the first place – that led the European Union to shelve its plans to ensure that 10% of the region's vehicle fuel came from biofuels by 2020.
Ex U.S. President Bill Clinton has also questioned his own country's focus on biofuel production.
"Although it is important for the U.S. to produce biofuels," President Clinton said at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's annual Agricultural Outlook Forum in February, "we don't want to do it at the expense of food riots." Despite the fact the appetite for biofuels is driving up food prices, the search for alternative forms of energy shows no signs of slowing, despite food price inflation.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration says global biofuel production in 2009 reached 1.6 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, a figure which is expected to expand by a factor of three by 2020. But while targets for many offer an indication of future production, as with all economic processes, demand will more than likely be the deciding factor, according to Michael Doran.
"It's simple, future biofuel demand and production will be dependent on the price of oil. If the oil market heads higher, biofuel production will increase as will food prices."
Mr. Elliot is a writer based in Northern Ireland. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
