Last Updated: Thursday, October 28, 2010 | 3:50 PM ET .
By Emily Chung, CBC News
New Canadian research may help scientists design a system that captures carbon without guzzling water and energy like current methods do.
Capturing carbon dioxide before it reaches the atmosphere and storing it underground is one way governments are hoping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which have been linked to global warming.
To capture carbon before it escapes from the smokestacks of factories or power plants, the emissions are bubbled through water that contains dissolved chemicals called amines. The amines grab onto the carbon dioxide, and later heat is used to recover the trapped carbon for storage. A huge amount of energy is consumed in heating the water during that process.
By 2030, this kind of carbon capture technology could boost water consumption in the U.S. electricity sector by 80 per cent or 7.5 billion litres per day, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory reports.
Current carbon capture technology could boost water consumption in the U.S. electricity sector by 80 per cent or 7.5 billion litres per day, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory reports. (Charlie Riedel/Associated Press)
In addition, a typical coal-fired power plant would have to boost its output by more than 20 per cent to cover the extra energy used to capture the carbon.
But findings published Thursday in Science by a team of chemists from the University of Calgary and the University of Ottawa could help engineers design materials that suck up large amounts of carbon — "without generating a lot of CO2 in capturing the carbon," said George Shimizu, one of the article's six co-authors.
He and his colleagues used a technique called X-ray crystallography to watch how carbon dioxide molecules get captured by a porous, solid carbon "trap." A solid material saves energy because no water has to be heated to recover the trapped carbon.
Shimizu likened the trap to a baseball mitt grabbing a carbon dioxide "baseball."
"Obviously, different mitts are going to be better for different sized balls," said Shimizu.
The results showed exactly how the "mitt" and "ball" are shaped, sized and positioned relative to each other.
Meanwhile, collaborators led by Tom Woo at the University of Ottawa created a computer model that calculated how tightly the carbon dioxide was trapped and how easily it could be released again for storage.
"Professor Woo's modelling basically was able to tell us every little finger that was holding the CO2 — how strongly it was contributing," Shimizu said.
The material doesn't grab onto carbon dioxide as tightly as the watery solutions used now, so less energy is needed to release it.
The researchers found that carbon dioxide molecules were sucked into the pores as T-shaped pairs. That means it should be possible to design pores specifically shaped to trap larger clumps of carbon, leading to a high capacity, Shimizu said.
Now that researchers have precisely measured and studied this particular carbon trap, and have a computer model that appears accurate, they should be able to use the computer model to design better carbon-trapping materials.
"It would save us a lot of time in the lab," Shimizu said.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/28/greener-carbon-capture.html#ixzz13wMFa1Gc
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Biofuels Could Mean Bigger Rotors
Posted by Graham Warwick at 10/30/2010 3:40 PM CDT
Sikorsky has completed a study of alternative fuels and their impact on rotorcraft design and recommended further research into additives and blends for biodiesel and biobutanol to make them more suitable as replacements for jet fuel.
Supported by the US Army, Sikorsky considered a range of alternative fuel options and selected biodiesel and butanol for further study. Both fuels have lower heat content than JP-8 - 8% less for biodiesel and 22% less for butanol - and the study assessed the impact on design of small, intermediate and large helicopters.
Graphic: Sikorsky
For an intermediate helicopter carrying 16 passengers 250nm at 170kt, using biodiesel in place of JP-8 required 2.6% more fuel capacity, for an 11.2% higher fuel weight, 1.7% heavier empty weight and 3.4% higher gross weight. Rotor diameter increased 1.6% and engine power required 3.7%.
Using butanol required 34.5% more fuel capacity, for a 35.7% higher fuel weight, 6.7% heavier empty weight and 10.3% higher gross weight. Rotor diameter increased 5% and engine power 9.3%.
To reduce the impact, Sikorsky recommends further study into additives and blends for biodiesel and butanol. It also recommends defining a propulsion system architecture, and materials for use in the fuel system and engines, that will work with a range of alternative fuels including 100% synthetic biojet, biodiesel and butanol.
Sikorsky has completed a study of alternative fuels and their impact on rotorcraft design and recommended further research into additives and blends for biodiesel and biobutanol to make them more suitable as replacements for jet fuel.
Supported by the US Army, Sikorsky considered a range of alternative fuel options and selected biodiesel and butanol for further study. Both fuels have lower heat content than JP-8 - 8% less for biodiesel and 22% less for butanol - and the study assessed the impact on design of small, intermediate and large helicopters.
Graphic: Sikorsky
For an intermediate helicopter carrying 16 passengers 250nm at 170kt, using biodiesel in place of JP-8 required 2.6% more fuel capacity, for an 11.2% higher fuel weight, 1.7% heavier empty weight and 3.4% higher gross weight. Rotor diameter increased 1.6% and engine power required 3.7%.
Using butanol required 34.5% more fuel capacity, for a 35.7% higher fuel weight, 6.7% heavier empty weight and 10.3% higher gross weight. Rotor diameter increased 5% and engine power 9.3%.
To reduce the impact, Sikorsky recommends further study into additives and blends for biodiesel and butanol. It also recommends defining a propulsion system architecture, and materials for use in the fuel system and engines, that will work with a range of alternative fuels including 100% synthetic biojet, biodiesel and butanol.
Solar photovoltaic on the brink of an economic breakthrough
Published on Oct 27, 2010 - 7:28:29 AM
By: Greenpeace
DELHI, India, Oct. 27, 2010 - Solar photovoltaic could account for 5% of global power demand by 2020, and up to 9% by 2030, according to a study presented today by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) and Greenpeace International.
The global solar photovoltaic outlook “Solar Generation 2010” (1) projects investments in solar photovoltaic (PV) to double from €35 billion today to €70 billion in 2015. At the same time, costs for PV systems are expected to almost halve (-40%). As a result, PV systems can compete with current electricity costs for households in most industrialized countries. This so-called “grid parity” will change the PV market significantly.
“Solar photovoltaic is a key technology to combat climate change and to secure access to clean electricity. Today’s figures show that the technology is on the brink of an economic breakthrough,” said Sven Teske, Senior Energy Expert at Greenpeace International. “By 2015, the market could be twice as big as today, leading to a €70 billion investment. Our goal is to make solar photovoltaic a mainstream power source through more supportive polices around the world.”
Ingmar Wilhelm, President of EPIA, said: “Solar photovoltaic power can give a massive contribution to global electricity supply, in traditional photovoltaic markets as well as in developing countries. By 2030, up to 2.5 billion people could benefit from solar energy. This enormous growth potential is strongly sustained by remarkable and continuous reduction of costs and by the technology's unique versatility. Herein lies the key to develop photovoltaic systems for every kind of roof and it is also a great opportunity for the electrification of communities not yet benefiting from the supply of electrical power.”
Current solar PV capacity could grow from 23 GW at the beginning of 2010 to 180 GW by 2015, according to the report, which was presented at the Government of India’s Delhi International Renewable Energy Conference (DIREC) with the support of Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century. Over 1,800 GW could be installed by 2030. This would save as much as 1.4 billion tonnes in CO2 emissions every year.
In addition to its environmental benefits, solar energy is shown to be a sustainable way to address concerns about energy security and volatile fossil fuel prices, as well as a substantial factor in economic development. The PV industry, which already employs about 230,000 people worldwide, could provide jobs to 1.3 million workers by 2015. By 2050, this figure could stand at 5 million.
Greenpeace highlighted the enormous PV potential for India in particular. Scaling up from a near zero solar capacity to 20 GW by 2022 was the right direction and an obvious choice for the country, the organisation said. It stressed that the Indian government will have to ensure the right investment and political signals are send now in order to achieve the goal.
The executive summary of the “Solar Generation 2010” report is available for download at: www.greenpeace.org/international/solargeneration OR www.epia.org/publications.
Notes:
1. The “Solar Generation 2010” is a joint initiative by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) and Greenpeace. The title Solar Generation reflects the study’s aim to define the role that solar electricity will play in the lives of a population that is born today and will develop into an important energy consumption group.
2. Over the whole scenario period, it is estimated that an average of 0.6 kg of CO2 would be saved per kilowatt-hour of output from a solar generator. For the period 2025-2050, a moderate annual growth rate of 5% has been assumed, as well as a very conservative lifetime of 20 years for PV modules. The scenario is also divided in two ways – into the four main global market divisions (consumer applications, grid-connected, remote industrial and off-grid rural), and into the regions of the world as defined in projections of future electricity demand made by the International Energy Agency. These regions are OECD Europe, OECD Pacific, OECD North America, Latin America, East Asia, South Asia, China, the Middle East, Africa and the Rest of the World.
3. Greenpeace International and the European Photovoltaic Industry Association are urging governments to secure those investments with support programmes. The most successful scheme is a “Feed-in Tariff” which guarantees a specific price for each kilowatt-hour fed into the grid. Over 50 countries, states and provinces have already introduced the “feed-in policy”. In these countries, consumers are able to operate a solar system on their rooftops in an economically viable way.
Website: www.greenpeace.org
By: Greenpeace
DELHI, India, Oct. 27, 2010 - Solar photovoltaic could account for 5% of global power demand by 2020, and up to 9% by 2030, according to a study presented today by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) and Greenpeace International.
The global solar photovoltaic outlook “Solar Generation 2010” (1) projects investments in solar photovoltaic (PV) to double from €35 billion today to €70 billion in 2015. At the same time, costs for PV systems are expected to almost halve (-40%). As a result, PV systems can compete with current electricity costs for households in most industrialized countries. This so-called “grid parity” will change the PV market significantly.
“Solar photovoltaic is a key technology to combat climate change and to secure access to clean electricity. Today’s figures show that the technology is on the brink of an economic breakthrough,” said Sven Teske, Senior Energy Expert at Greenpeace International. “By 2015, the market could be twice as big as today, leading to a €70 billion investment. Our goal is to make solar photovoltaic a mainstream power source through more supportive polices around the world.”
Ingmar Wilhelm, President of EPIA, said: “Solar photovoltaic power can give a massive contribution to global electricity supply, in traditional photovoltaic markets as well as in developing countries. By 2030, up to 2.5 billion people could benefit from solar energy. This enormous growth potential is strongly sustained by remarkable and continuous reduction of costs and by the technology's unique versatility. Herein lies the key to develop photovoltaic systems for every kind of roof and it is also a great opportunity for the electrification of communities not yet benefiting from the supply of electrical power.”
Current solar PV capacity could grow from 23 GW at the beginning of 2010 to 180 GW by 2015, according to the report, which was presented at the Government of India’s Delhi International Renewable Energy Conference (DIREC) with the support of Renewable Energy Network for the 21st Century. Over 1,800 GW could be installed by 2030. This would save as much as 1.4 billion tonnes in CO2 emissions every year.
In addition to its environmental benefits, solar energy is shown to be a sustainable way to address concerns about energy security and volatile fossil fuel prices, as well as a substantial factor in economic development. The PV industry, which already employs about 230,000 people worldwide, could provide jobs to 1.3 million workers by 2015. By 2050, this figure could stand at 5 million.
Greenpeace highlighted the enormous PV potential for India in particular. Scaling up from a near zero solar capacity to 20 GW by 2022 was the right direction and an obvious choice for the country, the organisation said. It stressed that the Indian government will have to ensure the right investment and political signals are send now in order to achieve the goal.
The executive summary of the “Solar Generation 2010” report is available for download at: www.greenpeace.org/international/solargeneration OR www.epia.org/publications.
Notes:
1. The “Solar Generation 2010” is a joint initiative by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) and Greenpeace. The title Solar Generation reflects the study’s aim to define the role that solar electricity will play in the lives of a population that is born today and will develop into an important energy consumption group.
2. Over the whole scenario period, it is estimated that an average of 0.6 kg of CO2 would be saved per kilowatt-hour of output from a solar generator. For the period 2025-2050, a moderate annual growth rate of 5% has been assumed, as well as a very conservative lifetime of 20 years for PV modules. The scenario is also divided in two ways – into the four main global market divisions (consumer applications, grid-connected, remote industrial and off-grid rural), and into the regions of the world as defined in projections of future electricity demand made by the International Energy Agency. These regions are OECD Europe, OECD Pacific, OECD North America, Latin America, East Asia, South Asia, China, the Middle East, Africa and the Rest of the World.
3. Greenpeace International and the European Photovoltaic Industry Association are urging governments to secure those investments with support programmes. The most successful scheme is a “Feed-in Tariff” which guarantees a specific price for each kilowatt-hour fed into the grid. Over 50 countries, states and provinces have already introduced the “feed-in policy”. In these countries, consumers are able to operate a solar system on their rooftops in an economically viable way.
Website: www.greenpeace.org
Saturday, 30 October 2010
Ballot Initiative to Delay Carbon Cuts Loses Steam
Text By JEFFREY BALL
In a last-ditch effort to sway California voters, major oil refiners are writing big checks to support a ballot measure that would postpone a state plan to cap greenhouse-gas emissions.
But financiers who invest in alternative energy, as well as environmental groups, are spending about three times as much to try to defeat the measure. And recent polls suggest they may be gaining the upper hand in the battle, which so far has cost more than $42 million.
California's law forcing greenhouse-gas cuts is set to take effect in 2012, and analysts said it already has spurred investment in renewable-energy projects, such as solar farms, in the state. The ballot initiative would delay the law until the state's jobless rate, now 12.4%, remains at or below 5.5% for a year. Unemployment hasn't been that low since September 2007.
In a mid-October poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research organization, 48% of likely voters said they would vote against the measure and 37% said they would vote for it. The margin of error was 3.5%.
In September, when the institute asked the same question, voters were almost evenly split.
In the last two weeks, those fighting the ballot measure have collected several million dollars, bringing their total donations to $31.9 million, according to the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit election-research group.
Supporters of the initiative reported collecting $10.7 million, including $1 million on Oct. 22 from Valero Energy Corp., one of the country's largest refiners. The company has donated $5 million so far towards efforts to defeat the measure, making it the campaign's biggest backer. A spokesman for San Antonio-based Valero said capping emissions would raise production costs for U.S. oil refiners.
California's Legislative Analyst's Office, which assesses public policy, concluded in a July study that "economic activity in the state would likely be modestly higher" if voters approved the ballot measure than if they rejected it. The greenhouse-gas law would raise energy prices, though it's unclear by how much, the report said. However, the report said, postponing the greenhouse-gas law "could delay investments in clean technologies that might result in some cost savings to businesses and consumers."
For the alternative-energy industry, the greenhouse-gas law means a big new market. Part of California's plan to cut emissions would push producers of electricity and motor fuel to use more renewable energy, from solar to wind to biofuels.
Contributors to the campaign against the ballot measure include solar-panel makers, wind-power developers and electric-car makers. The big checks, though, have come from the investors and national environmental groups.
That side's biggest donor is Thomas Steyer, a San Francisco-based hedge-fund manager. He has given $5 million to the campaign, about as much as Valero gave to the other side, according to state records.
A spokesman for Mr. Steyer said his clean-energy holdings represent only a small percentage of his investments, and that he is working to defeat the ballot measure "for the very simple reason that he cares about California."
The National Wildlife Federation has given $3 million to the campaign to defeat the ballot measure.
Among other prominent donors against Proposition 23: Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who has given $1 million, and Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates, who has given $700,000.
A spokesman for Mr. Gates said that his donation "is consistent with his advocacy for continued progress toward low-carbon energy."
Mr. Khosla, asked whether he will give more before Tuesday's vote, said: "The more the oil companies [spend], the more the no-on-23 people will."
It's not unusual for prominent California ballot initiatives to draw tens of millions of dollars in contributions, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. But among the nine initiatives on Tuesday's California ballot, Proposition 23 had attracted the most money as of Oct. 17, when the foundation last analyzed the numbers.
One important factor in the measure's fate may be a sentiment among many Californians that efforts to curb climate change help the economy more than they hurt it, said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California. In a September poll by the institute, 41% of likely voters said that "California doing things to reduce global warming" would result in more jobs, and 26% said it would result in fewer jobs. The margin of error was 3.6%.
That sentiment helps explain why drumming up voter support for the ballot measure has "turned out to be more complicated messaging than maybe the yes side had envisioned," Mr. Baldessare said.
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
In a last-ditch effort to sway California voters, major oil refiners are writing big checks to support a ballot measure that would postpone a state plan to cap greenhouse-gas emissions.
But financiers who invest in alternative energy, as well as environmental groups, are spending about three times as much to try to defeat the measure. And recent polls suggest they may be gaining the upper hand in the battle, which so far has cost more than $42 million.
California's law forcing greenhouse-gas cuts is set to take effect in 2012, and analysts said it already has spurred investment in renewable-energy projects, such as solar farms, in the state. The ballot initiative would delay the law until the state's jobless rate, now 12.4%, remains at or below 5.5% for a year. Unemployment hasn't been that low since September 2007.
In a mid-October poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan research organization, 48% of likely voters said they would vote against the measure and 37% said they would vote for it. The margin of error was 3.5%.
In September, when the institute asked the same question, voters were almost evenly split.
In the last two weeks, those fighting the ballot measure have collected several million dollars, bringing their total donations to $31.9 million, according to the California Voter Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit election-research group.
Supporters of the initiative reported collecting $10.7 million, including $1 million on Oct. 22 from Valero Energy Corp., one of the country's largest refiners. The company has donated $5 million so far towards efforts to defeat the measure, making it the campaign's biggest backer. A spokesman for San Antonio-based Valero said capping emissions would raise production costs for U.S. oil refiners.
California's Legislative Analyst's Office, which assesses public policy, concluded in a July study that "economic activity in the state would likely be modestly higher" if voters approved the ballot measure than if they rejected it. The greenhouse-gas law would raise energy prices, though it's unclear by how much, the report said. However, the report said, postponing the greenhouse-gas law "could delay investments in clean technologies that might result in some cost savings to businesses and consumers."
For the alternative-energy industry, the greenhouse-gas law means a big new market. Part of California's plan to cut emissions would push producers of electricity and motor fuel to use more renewable energy, from solar to wind to biofuels.
Contributors to the campaign against the ballot measure include solar-panel makers, wind-power developers and electric-car makers. The big checks, though, have come from the investors and national environmental groups.
That side's biggest donor is Thomas Steyer, a San Francisco-based hedge-fund manager. He has given $5 million to the campaign, about as much as Valero gave to the other side, according to state records.
A spokesman for Mr. Steyer said his clean-energy holdings represent only a small percentage of his investments, and that he is working to defeat the ballot measure "for the very simple reason that he cares about California."
The National Wildlife Federation has given $3 million to the campaign to defeat the ballot measure.
Among other prominent donors against Proposition 23: Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who has given $1 million, and Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates, who has given $700,000.
A spokesman for Mr. Gates said that his donation "is consistent with his advocacy for continued progress toward low-carbon energy."
Mr. Khosla, asked whether he will give more before Tuesday's vote, said: "The more the oil companies [spend], the more the no-on-23 people will."
It's not unusual for prominent California ballot initiatives to draw tens of millions of dollars in contributions, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation. But among the nine initiatives on Tuesday's California ballot, Proposition 23 had attracted the most money as of Oct. 17, when the foundation last analyzed the numbers.
One important factor in the measure's fate may be a sentiment among many Californians that efforts to curb climate change help the economy more than they hurt it, said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California. In a September poll by the institute, 41% of likely voters said that "California doing things to reduce global warming" would result in more jobs, and 26% said it would result in fewer jobs. The margin of error was 3.6%.
That sentiment helps explain why drumming up voter support for the ballot measure has "turned out to be more complicated messaging than maybe the yes side had envisioned," Mr. Baldessare said.
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
Friday, 29 October 2010
Cyrium High Performance Concentrator Photovoltaic Cells Drive the SUNRISE Solar Power System
(Nanowerk News) Cyrium Technologies, Inc., a leading developer of multi-junction concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) cells, today announced the incorporation of its quantum dot enhanced solar cells in the CPV solar tracker deployed as part of the SUNRISE (Semiconductors Using Nanostructures for Record Increases in Solar-cell Efficiency) project.
On October 21, 2010 the National Research Council of Canada announced the unveiling and introduction of the SUNRISE solar tracker, installed at the Canadian Centre for Housing Technology site in Ottawa, Ontario. For Cyrium, SUNRISE demonstrates that its advanced patented nanotechnology (quantum dots) can be used to enhance the performance of multi-junction cells in CPV systems and enable the delivery of higher conversion performance at higher concentrations.
The SUNRISE project stems from the National Research Council of Canada's research and development efforts to bring clean power generation technologies to Canadians, and is a research collaboration between the National Research Council of Canada, the University of Ottawa, the Université de Sherbrooke and industrial partners Cyrium Technologies and Opel International. The project is funded by the National Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Business Development Bank of Canada and demonstrates the success that can be achieved when industry, government, and academia work together with a common goal. As the engine driving CPV systems, Cyrium's patented quantum dot enhanced cells (QDEC) were critical to the success and execution of the SUNRISE project. When used in advanced solar modules on dual axis trackers, such as those provided by Opel, Cyrium's QDEC cells enable the system to achieve some of the highest efficiencies in the CPV industry.
"I am very proud of Cyrium's participation in SUNRISE," said Harry R. Rozakis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cyrium Technologies. "Seeing our patented cell technology at the core of the project is exciting not only for Cyrium but also for all of those who see CPV as a viable and cost effective source of solar power. SUNRISE clearly demonstrates how the combination of our unique quantum dot nanotechnology with state of the art solar concentrator and tracker designs can enable cost effective, high efficiency renewable energy generation."
About Cyrium Technologies
Cyrium Technologies, headquartered in Ottawa, Canada, is a fabless developer and supplier of Concentrator Photovoltaic (CPV) cells for the terrestrial solar energy market. Using its breakthrough patented nano-technology, which significantly increases photovoltaic solar cell performance at high concentration, Cyrium has achieved cell efficiencies of greater than 40%. Cyrium's QDEC (quantum dot enhanced cell) product line is designed to deliver the highest possible conversion efficiencies which in turn enable CPV systems companies to achieve the lowest levelized cost of energy (LCOE). For further information on the company and its products, please visit http://www.cyriumtechnologies.com.
Source: Cyrium Technologies (press release)
On October 21, 2010 the National Research Council of Canada announced the unveiling and introduction of the SUNRISE solar tracker, installed at the Canadian Centre for Housing Technology site in Ottawa, Ontario. For Cyrium, SUNRISE demonstrates that its advanced patented nanotechnology (quantum dots) can be used to enhance the performance of multi-junction cells in CPV systems and enable the delivery of higher conversion performance at higher concentrations.
The SUNRISE project stems from the National Research Council of Canada's research and development efforts to bring clean power generation technologies to Canadians, and is a research collaboration between the National Research Council of Canada, the University of Ottawa, the Université de Sherbrooke and industrial partners Cyrium Technologies and Opel International. The project is funded by the National Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Business Development Bank of Canada and demonstrates the success that can be achieved when industry, government, and academia work together with a common goal. As the engine driving CPV systems, Cyrium's patented quantum dot enhanced cells (QDEC) were critical to the success and execution of the SUNRISE project. When used in advanced solar modules on dual axis trackers, such as those provided by Opel, Cyrium's QDEC cells enable the system to achieve some of the highest efficiencies in the CPV industry.
"I am very proud of Cyrium's participation in SUNRISE," said Harry R. Rozakis, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cyrium Technologies. "Seeing our patented cell technology at the core of the project is exciting not only for Cyrium but also for all of those who see CPV as a viable and cost effective source of solar power. SUNRISE clearly demonstrates how the combination of our unique quantum dot nanotechnology with state of the art solar concentrator and tracker designs can enable cost effective, high efficiency renewable energy generation."
About Cyrium Technologies
Cyrium Technologies, headquartered in Ottawa, Canada, is a fabless developer and supplier of Concentrator Photovoltaic (CPV) cells for the terrestrial solar energy market. Using its breakthrough patented nano-technology, which significantly increases photovoltaic solar cell performance at high concentration, Cyrium has achieved cell efficiencies of greater than 40%. Cyrium's QDEC (quantum dot enhanced cell) product line is designed to deliver the highest possible conversion efficiencies which in turn enable CPV systems companies to achieve the lowest levelized cost of energy (LCOE). For further information on the company and its products, please visit http://www.cyriumtechnologies.com.
Source: Cyrium Technologies (press release)
Lockheed, Ocean Power to Team Up on Wave Power
By JOSIE GARTHWAITE of GigaOm
Published: October 28, 2010
Lockheed Martin Corp. and Ocean Power Technologies plan to develop a utility-scale wave power project off the coast of California or Oregon, the two said this morning.
Lockheed will construct the project and handle operations once it’s up and running, and New Jersey-based Ocean Power will provide the technology — so-called “PowerBuoy” (pictured) generators that convert wave energy into electricity, which can feed into a local power grid via underwater transmission lines. The 12-year-old company, one of the more established wave power developers in a growing field, claims that its 10-megawatt buoys can work in arrays of up to hundreds of megawatts.
Wave power technology, however, has yet to be tested on that scale. Even single-digit megawatt projects (“utility-scale” generally means generating capacity of at least 1 megawatt) remain in the early stages of development. As Finavera Renewables found out three months ago when the California Public Utilities Commission sunk a 2-megawatt project planned for the Pacific coast, it’s a long haul between an agreement like the Lockheed-Ocean Power one unveiled today and actual deployment.
California utility PG&E agreed to buy energy from the Finavera array back in 2007. It was slated to become the country’s first commercial wave power project — until state commissioners decided the technology was too new and the prices too high for a viable project. Approval for the energy procurement contract: denied.
To be sure, wave power has bulked up its utility-scale track record recently, and the Lockheed-Ocean Power project may fare better with regulators. The companies have already worked together on maritime surveillance projects for the U.S. government. And last fall, Spanish utility Iberdrola deployed a PowerBuoy off the coast of Spain in the first phase of what Ocean Power said would be the first commercial utility-scale wave power generation venture. (A 10-buoy, 1.39-megawatt array is planned for the site.) If Lockheed and Ocean Power can bring down the cost of a power-purchasing agreement, the West Coast may be home to the second.
Published: October 28, 2010
Lockheed Martin Corp. and Ocean Power Technologies plan to develop a utility-scale wave power project off the coast of California or Oregon, the two said this morning.
Lockheed will construct the project and handle operations once it’s up and running, and New Jersey-based Ocean Power will provide the technology — so-called “PowerBuoy” (pictured) generators that convert wave energy into electricity, which can feed into a local power grid via underwater transmission lines. The 12-year-old company, one of the more established wave power developers in a growing field, claims that its 10-megawatt buoys can work in arrays of up to hundreds of megawatts.
Wave power technology, however, has yet to be tested on that scale. Even single-digit megawatt projects (“utility-scale” generally means generating capacity of at least 1 megawatt) remain in the early stages of development. As Finavera Renewables found out three months ago when the California Public Utilities Commission sunk a 2-megawatt project planned for the Pacific coast, it’s a long haul between an agreement like the Lockheed-Ocean Power one unveiled today and actual deployment.
California utility PG&E agreed to buy energy from the Finavera array back in 2007. It was slated to become the country’s first commercial wave power project — until state commissioners decided the technology was too new and the prices too high for a viable project. Approval for the energy procurement contract: denied.
To be sure, wave power has bulked up its utility-scale track record recently, and the Lockheed-Ocean Power project may fare better with regulators. The companies have already worked together on maritime surveillance projects for the U.S. government. And last fall, Spanish utility Iberdrola deployed a PowerBuoy off the coast of Spain in the first phase of what Ocean Power said would be the first commercial utility-scale wave power generation venture. (A 10-buoy, 1.39-megawatt array is planned for the site.) If Lockheed and Ocean Power can bring down the cost of a power-purchasing agreement, the West Coast may be home to the second.
Cash incentives for councils that sign up for new wind farms
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
Friday, 29 October 2010
Local councils are to get extra funding if they give the go-ahead to new wind farms, under plans to stop local communities sabotaging renewable energy projects.
Ministers are worried at the vast number of wind farm projects that are being turned down by councillors in the face of local opposition. The Independent revealed yesterday that the number of planning approvals for onshore wind farms is at an all time low, with only one in three applications getting to go-ahead.
There are now 233 separate local campaign groups against wind farms. As a result ministers have agreed that local councils should be given incentives to help persuade them to approve more wind farms.
Under the plans councils will be allowed to keep the business rates generated by wind farms – which currently have to be passed to central government.
Even a small wind farm with just five turbines pays business rates of around £37,000 a year. The money would come without pre-conditions on how it is spent.
“For a small district council who, especially now, does not have large sums to spend without strings attached, this could make a significant difference to the way in which they approach these applications,” said one source familiar with the discussions.
“This is money councillors will be able to spend on their own projects. The idea is that it gives them an incentive to say yes.”
Another possibility which has been investigated would require wind farm developers to make contributions to the local economy as a condition of planning approval – either as part of the proposed community infrastructure levy or the existing section 106 rules.
Such conditions already apply to some other commercial developments, such as housing developments or supermarkets, although in the case of wind farms it would be more complicated to administer and would pass on the cost directly to the renewables industry.
Clllr Gary Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association's Environment Board, said it was vital that local communities were given a stake in wind farms. “Councillors are elected to represent the interests and concerns of people in their area and will quite rightly take this into account when making decisions on whether to permit this sort of development,” he said.
“People need to see how wind farms will benefit them and their local areas - whether that be financially or by supplying renewable energy to their homes and businesses.
“It is only when local communities can see clearly the benefits of renewable energy at both national and local level that individual proposals for renewable energy will be welcomed as a matter of course.”
A spokesman for RenewableUK, which represents the wind farm industry said they would be in favour of the business rate proposal: “You need to make the benefits of renewable energy obvious to local communities. Other countries, like Spain, who have mature renewable energy markets do this. It’s not reinventing the wheel.”
But Michael Hird, from the Campaign Against Wind farms, said it the payment amounted to “a bribe”.
“This is nothing short of a bribe to get local councils to agree to wind farms. They should be spending money on good green energy and not this.”
A Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman said: “The UK needs onshore wind in order to help deliver energy security and to combat climate change, however we recognise the concern some local authorities and communities have about hosting wind farms. We are working with communities and Local Government to ensure that communities benefit directly from the wind farms they host - for example through retaining the business rates they generate”.
* The Lake District could become a 'dumping ground' for the nuclear industry, environmentalists warned after the Government failed to rule out using England’s largest national park to bury radioactive waste.
As the country decommissions the nine power stations currently running, pressure is building to find a permanent solution deep underground. At the moment waste is stored on site.
To find the best sites, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) launched a geological survey of West Cumbria, the only county where councils have agreed to store nuclear waste.
Land under the towns of Keswick, Cockermouth and the Wast Water have not been ruled out by the British Geological Survey.
Friday, 29 October 2010
Local councils are to get extra funding if they give the go-ahead to new wind farms, under plans to stop local communities sabotaging renewable energy projects.
Ministers are worried at the vast number of wind farm projects that are being turned down by councillors in the face of local opposition. The Independent revealed yesterday that the number of planning approvals for onshore wind farms is at an all time low, with only one in three applications getting to go-ahead.
There are now 233 separate local campaign groups against wind farms. As a result ministers have agreed that local councils should be given incentives to help persuade them to approve more wind farms.
Under the plans councils will be allowed to keep the business rates generated by wind farms – which currently have to be passed to central government.
Even a small wind farm with just five turbines pays business rates of around £37,000 a year. The money would come without pre-conditions on how it is spent.
“For a small district council who, especially now, does not have large sums to spend without strings attached, this could make a significant difference to the way in which they approach these applications,” said one source familiar with the discussions.
“This is money councillors will be able to spend on their own projects. The idea is that it gives them an incentive to say yes.”
Another possibility which has been investigated would require wind farm developers to make contributions to the local economy as a condition of planning approval – either as part of the proposed community infrastructure levy or the existing section 106 rules.
Such conditions already apply to some other commercial developments, such as housing developments or supermarkets, although in the case of wind farms it would be more complicated to administer and would pass on the cost directly to the renewables industry.
Clllr Gary Porter, chairman of the Local Government Association's Environment Board, said it was vital that local communities were given a stake in wind farms. “Councillors are elected to represent the interests and concerns of people in their area and will quite rightly take this into account when making decisions on whether to permit this sort of development,” he said.
“People need to see how wind farms will benefit them and their local areas - whether that be financially or by supplying renewable energy to their homes and businesses.
“It is only when local communities can see clearly the benefits of renewable energy at both national and local level that individual proposals for renewable energy will be welcomed as a matter of course.”
A spokesman for RenewableUK, which represents the wind farm industry said they would be in favour of the business rate proposal: “You need to make the benefits of renewable energy obvious to local communities. Other countries, like Spain, who have mature renewable energy markets do this. It’s not reinventing the wheel.”
But Michael Hird, from the Campaign Against Wind farms, said it the payment amounted to “a bribe”.
“This is nothing short of a bribe to get local councils to agree to wind farms. They should be spending money on good green energy and not this.”
A Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman said: “The UK needs onshore wind in order to help deliver energy security and to combat climate change, however we recognise the concern some local authorities and communities have about hosting wind farms. We are working with communities and Local Government to ensure that communities benefit directly from the wind farms they host - for example through retaining the business rates they generate”.
* The Lake District could become a 'dumping ground' for the nuclear industry, environmentalists warned after the Government failed to rule out using England’s largest national park to bury radioactive waste.
As the country decommissions the nine power stations currently running, pressure is building to find a permanent solution deep underground. At the moment waste is stored on site.
To find the best sites, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) launched a geological survey of West Cumbria, the only county where councils have agreed to store nuclear waste.
Land under the towns of Keswick, Cockermouth and the Wast Water have not been ruled out by the British Geological Survey.
Wireless charging could drive electric vehicle take-up, developers say
HaloIPT believes next generation of green cars could be charged wirelessly by parking over a transmitter pad or even using electrified roads
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 October 2010 07.00 BST The next generation of electric cars could be charged wirelessly and even powered up as they drive over electrified roads, claims a company backed by engineering giant Arup.
Employing the same technology used to charge electric toothbrushes, HaloIPT says its wireless charging system could drive the take-up of electric cars and overcome fears that drivers will forget to recharge them.
This week the company demonstrated adapted electric cars in London that could recharge themselves simply by parking over a transmitter pad in the road. The Citroën electric cars were fitted with receiver pads on the underside of the car, allowing the cars to be powered up automatically and wirelessly.
Drivers of existing electric cars, such as the G-Wiz, Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan Leaf, have to connect a cable from a socket in the side of the car street-side parking meter-like stands to mains sockets in car parks and at home.
Anthony Thompson, HaloIPT's chief executive, told the Guardian that convenience and consumer fears over "charge anxiety" - drivers worrying about forgetting to recharge their electric car - would make wireless charging a success. "There are a number of issues that wireless charging solves with electric vehicles - people are inherently lazy and they don't like having to take action. With our system, you can recharge without having to make a conscious decision," he said.
The technology works using inductive charging, and the pads in the road can be buried under asphalt, making them effectively invisible. While other companies are working on similar technology, HaloIPT claimed its system can charge with greater lateral movement - meaning parking accurately is not so important – and a greater gap between the pads than rivals.
The company has already trialled wireless charging with buses in New Zealand and in Milan, but there are currently no wireless charging bays in the UK and none of the car manufacturers has adopted the technology.
Despite the news this month that electric car sales in the UK had dropped by nearly 90% in two years to just 55 last year, HaloIPT sees the UK as a key market globally for electric cars. "The UK is the epicentre of technology behind electric cars, it offers good government support for them and it has lots of early adopters," said Thompson. "Both Germany and France also have big electric car programmes too, and California is pushing along quite nicely."
Starting in January, a government subsidy will offer up to £5,000 off new electric cars, which it expects will help drive sales of around 8,600 of the vehicles in 2011.
As well as wireless charging bays, Thompson sees wireless charging roads as "technologically possible" and says getting such charging lanes to most of the UK's population would cost around £60bn. "By electrifying the roads, you shift the argument from energy being stored to energy being distributed," he said. "Batteries could be smaller and drivers wouldn't have to worry about range." Most electric cars today can go no further than 100 miles without recharging.
Howevever, David Bott, director of innovation programmes at the Technology Strategy Board, has previously told the Guardian he was sceptical that such charging lanes would be practical: "It's scientifically feasible, but it's whether it's scalable and feasible is another matter."
While aided in the UK by its development partner Arup, two of the main obstacles to the take-up of the firm's technology are standards and cost. HaloIPT estimates it would cost £3,000-£3,500 to retrofit an existing electric car with the wireless pad, and to make it affordable, car manufacturers would need to be persuaded to incorporate the technology in new cars. Last year Nissan demonstrated a similar wireless system but has yet to add it to any of its cars.
As well as wired competition, wireless charging also needs to overcome the alternative system of battery-swapping at designated electric car refuelling stations, as promoted by the Better Place project. Shai Agassi's California-based company has already signed up Israel, Denmark, Australia, California, Hawaii, and Ontario to the idea, and major car makers including Renault-Nissan.
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 October 2010 07.00 BST The next generation of electric cars could be charged wirelessly and even powered up as they drive over electrified roads, claims a company backed by engineering giant Arup.
Employing the same technology used to charge electric toothbrushes, HaloIPT says its wireless charging system could drive the take-up of electric cars and overcome fears that drivers will forget to recharge them.
This week the company demonstrated adapted electric cars in London that could recharge themselves simply by parking over a transmitter pad in the road. The Citroën electric cars were fitted with receiver pads on the underside of the car, allowing the cars to be powered up automatically and wirelessly.
Drivers of existing electric cars, such as the G-Wiz, Mitsubishi i-MiEV and Nissan Leaf, have to connect a cable from a socket in the side of the car street-side parking meter-like stands to mains sockets in car parks and at home.
Anthony Thompson, HaloIPT's chief executive, told the Guardian that convenience and consumer fears over "charge anxiety" - drivers worrying about forgetting to recharge their electric car - would make wireless charging a success. "There are a number of issues that wireless charging solves with electric vehicles - people are inherently lazy and they don't like having to take action. With our system, you can recharge without having to make a conscious decision," he said.
The technology works using inductive charging, and the pads in the road can be buried under asphalt, making them effectively invisible. While other companies are working on similar technology, HaloIPT claimed its system can charge with greater lateral movement - meaning parking accurately is not so important – and a greater gap between the pads than rivals.
The company has already trialled wireless charging with buses in New Zealand and in Milan, but there are currently no wireless charging bays in the UK and none of the car manufacturers has adopted the technology.
Despite the news this month that electric car sales in the UK had dropped by nearly 90% in two years to just 55 last year, HaloIPT sees the UK as a key market globally for electric cars. "The UK is the epicentre of technology behind electric cars, it offers good government support for them and it has lots of early adopters," said Thompson. "Both Germany and France also have big electric car programmes too, and California is pushing along quite nicely."
Starting in January, a government subsidy will offer up to £5,000 off new electric cars, which it expects will help drive sales of around 8,600 of the vehicles in 2011.
As well as wireless charging bays, Thompson sees wireless charging roads as "technologically possible" and says getting such charging lanes to most of the UK's population would cost around £60bn. "By electrifying the roads, you shift the argument from energy being stored to energy being distributed," he said. "Batteries could be smaller and drivers wouldn't have to worry about range." Most electric cars today can go no further than 100 miles without recharging.
Howevever, David Bott, director of innovation programmes at the Technology Strategy Board, has previously told the Guardian he was sceptical that such charging lanes would be practical: "It's scientifically feasible, but it's whether it's scalable and feasible is another matter."
While aided in the UK by its development partner Arup, two of the main obstacles to the take-up of the firm's technology are standards and cost. HaloIPT estimates it would cost £3,000-£3,500 to retrofit an existing electric car with the wireless pad, and to make it affordable, car manufacturers would need to be persuaded to incorporate the technology in new cars. Last year Nissan demonstrated a similar wireless system but has yet to add it to any of its cars.
As well as wired competition, wireless charging also needs to overcome the alternative system of battery-swapping at designated electric car refuelling stations, as promoted by the Better Place project. Shai Agassi's California-based company has already signed up Israel, Denmark, Australia, California, Hawaii, and Ontario to the idea, and major car makers including Renault-Nissan.
Fowl energy: Chicken poo lights Gloucestershire town
Biogas power station will convert chicken manure from thousands of birds into electricity and heat for 350 homes
Arwa Aburawa guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 October 2010 11.08 BST
Cherie Blair may have been moved to buy a "beware of the hen poo" sign on eBay, but one town in Gloucestershire is embracing chicken manure as a fuel for lighting its homes.
Thousands of chickens will next month be contributing their droppings to a biogas power station that will provide enough electricity to light 350 homes.
The plant in Cirencester will convert agricultural and animal waste from local farms into heat and electricity. And the project will also help local farmers reduce their operating costs and carbon footprints.
Peter Kindt, managing director of Alfagy, the company supplying the plant's technology, said: "What makes this project exciting is that farmers deliver energy to the urban environment. We believe this is a model for the future of local power generation".
The combined heat and power plant, which will begin operating in November, captures the methane-rich gas released by decomposing organic matter such as chicken manure. This is then burned in a generator to produce renewable electricity and heat. Farmers are paid for the waste and will receive free heat for drying grain and animal housing.
The smell from the waste is also reduced as the gases are extracted and burned. Any leftovers from this process can then be used as fertiliser. If used locally, this also reduces the impact of farming on the environment as it replaces conventional fertilisers which have large carbon footprints because of their energy-intensive production process and transportation.
Although biogas plants are widespread in Europe, particularly in Germany and Sweden, they are less common in the UK. Centrica recently opened a plant at Didcot sewage works which uses human waste to produce renewable gas for household use. The project is the first of its kind in the UK and will supply around 200 homes with renewable gas. Adnams the Suffolk brewer is also making the most of its waste matter and recently opened an anaerobic digestion facility which converts waste products from the brewing process into renewable energy.
Arwa Aburawa guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 October 2010 11.08 BST
Cherie Blair may have been moved to buy a "beware of the hen poo" sign on eBay, but one town in Gloucestershire is embracing chicken manure as a fuel for lighting its homes.
Thousands of chickens will next month be contributing their droppings to a biogas power station that will provide enough electricity to light 350 homes.
The plant in Cirencester will convert agricultural and animal waste from local farms into heat and electricity. And the project will also help local farmers reduce their operating costs and carbon footprints.
Peter Kindt, managing director of Alfagy, the company supplying the plant's technology, said: "What makes this project exciting is that farmers deliver energy to the urban environment. We believe this is a model for the future of local power generation".
The combined heat and power plant, which will begin operating in November, captures the methane-rich gas released by decomposing organic matter such as chicken manure. This is then burned in a generator to produce renewable electricity and heat. Farmers are paid for the waste and will receive free heat for drying grain and animal housing.
The smell from the waste is also reduced as the gases are extracted and burned. Any leftovers from this process can then be used as fertiliser. If used locally, this also reduces the impact of farming on the environment as it replaces conventional fertilisers which have large carbon footprints because of their energy-intensive production process and transportation.
Although biogas plants are widespread in Europe, particularly in Germany and Sweden, they are less common in the UK. Centrica recently opened a plant at Didcot sewage works which uses human waste to produce renewable gas for household use. The project is the first of its kind in the UK and will supply around 200 homes with renewable gas. Adnams the Suffolk brewer is also making the most of its waste matter and recently opened an anaerobic digestion facility which converts waste products from the brewing process into renewable energy.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Jeremy Leggett: Solar storm coming: the battle for the UK energy industry
Business Interview: Last week's Spending Review was just a skirmish in an industry 'civil war', the Solarcentury founder tells Sarah Arnott
Thursday, 28 October 2010
DAVID SANDISON
Jeremy Leggett has solar tiles on his Surrey home. He said: 'Climate change is a bigger risk than the credit crunch'
"It is a great big battle of ideas, and we haven't won it yet," says Jeremy Leggett. The green guru and founder of Solarcentury – the solar-photovoltaic (PV) supplier that is Britain's fastest-growing energy company – is in the vanguard of the battle. And while the clean-energy industry is breathing a sigh of relief that last week's Government Spending Review did not axe the feed-in tariff (FIT) widely hailed as a cornerstone of Britain's renewable-energy revolution, Mr Leggett has no time for complacency.
"We've had a lucky escape," he says. "There were massive forces of darkness lined up against us – a whole cadre of politicians and officials trying to, at the minimum, cut back the FIT and, if they could get away with it, shut it down completely."
Such manoeuvres were seen off by the progressive elements in the Coalition only "at the 11th hour", Mr Leggett says, citing sources "who could not be more highly placed". The FIT is central to the development of Britain's clean-energy sector, and the back-room machinations over its survival are just a single skirmish in the war for the future of Britain's energy supplies.
Mr Leggett could not be more serious: "The danger is that we will be ambushed by our collective stupidity before we have enough weapons to fight back. The mobilisation of renewable-energy technologies vital to our survival might not happen fast enough to counter the threats of global warming and peak oil."
The reception area at Solarcentury's head office near London's Waterloo station is littered with awards. And Mr Leggett himself is similarly feted: a loud voice on impending climate catastrophe and the author of two books on the subject.
But his career began on a different track entirely, and it was only after more than 10 years as a geologist working for the oil industry that he was spooked by evidence of global warming and made the break to join Greenpeace. Eight years later, in 1997, he set up Solarcentury, which is now Britain's biggest solar-PV supplier. "Solar is so incredibly neat: there are no moving parts, just sits there and makes electricity," he says.
With 130 staff, its ground-breaking solar-PV roof tile manufactured by Sony in Wales, and more than 40 per cent annual revenue growth for the past six years, Solarcentury's prospects are sunny indeed. "This business is all about 'seeing is believing'," Mr Leggett says. "At first blush it just doesn't sound right, but then people see the installation and see the meter going round, and then they get it."
But without the FIT, renewables cannot move from the fringes to the mainstream. Introduced in April by the Labour government, the scheme encourages small-scale clean-energy generation – such as solar-PV panels or roof-mounted wind turbines – by obliging electricity companies to buy any excess energy produced.
The impact was immediate. Solarcentury alone saw revenues grow by 76 per cent in the first half of the year and boosted its headcount by a fifth to cope with the influx of orders. And that is just the beginning. Analysts estimate the solar-PV market could hit as much as 250 megawatts (MW) next year, from a woeful 10 MW in 2009, thanks to the FIT. The Government's wider green targets need a whopping 2.3 gigawatts of solar energy by 2020, which translates into an extra 100,000 jobs in the industry, according to Mr Leggett.
But nothing will happen without the boost from the FIT. Although the £8.6bn scheme is funded by a levy on customer bills, the Coalition Government's commitment to balance Britain's books – requiring cuts on a scale not seen for a generation – almost spelled doom for the FIT as the vested interests of major power companies weighed in against it.
"There is a civil war in the energy industry between renewables and big centralised power," Mr Leggett says. "There is real resistance to the idea that grown-ups get their energy from renewables."
In both Whitehall and the energy majors, "retrograde thinkers" are already defending the status quo "with amazing vehemence" – and the battles are only just beginning. The rhetoric in recent years has been about an energy mix generating capacity of every sort, but the old and the new can no longer co-exist, Mr Leggett believes. And once renewables really take off, the war will begin in earnest, he says, pointing to evidence from Germany that even the fraction of electricity consumption supplied by solar PV is pulling down midday-peak electricity demand, clipping prices and hurting the profits of the energy giants.
The tricky part is that the forces ranged on either side of the great debate do not fall into easy groupings. "It's not black and white, or us against them: it's a battle of ideas," Mr Leggett repeats. "There are those people that get it and those that don't, and they are spread through both the big companies and the Government departments."
There are powerful forces ranged on the side of the "progressives". Mr Leggett flies to India this week, following up on the Prime Minister's high-profile trade mission in July which took along 29 chief executives – including Mr Leggett – to reaffirm Britain's links with its former colony and to drum up business. "Credit where credit's due ," Mr Leggett says. "Trees were shaken and I'm now flying back to talk about what could be the mother of all joint ventures."
But even such progress is but baby steps compared with the scale of the challenge. "Climate change is a bigger risk than the credit crunch, but the price of undermining the future for our kids features nowhere on the global balance sheet," Mr Leggett says. "We aren't going to be able to grow our way out of the problem. We need to have debate about measuring prosperity in different ways."
The survival of the FIT is just the beginning.
Jeremy Leggett
* Green guru Jeremy Leggett began his career working as a geologist for the oil industry.
* Spooked by evidence of global warming, Mr Leggett joined Greenpeace as an environmental campaigner in 1989.
* In 1997 he set up Solarcentury, which is now Britain's largest solar panel company.
* A vocal campaigner for climate change, Mr Leggett also founded charity SolarAid and the the first private equity fund for renewable energy.
* Mr Leggett is also on the Industry Peak Oil Taskforce and is the author of two books on the global energy crisis – 'The Carbon War' and 'Half Gone'.
Thursday, 28 October 2010
DAVID SANDISON
Jeremy Leggett has solar tiles on his Surrey home. He said: 'Climate change is a bigger risk than the credit crunch'
"It is a great big battle of ideas, and we haven't won it yet," says Jeremy Leggett. The green guru and founder of Solarcentury – the solar-photovoltaic (PV) supplier that is Britain's fastest-growing energy company – is in the vanguard of the battle. And while the clean-energy industry is breathing a sigh of relief that last week's Government Spending Review did not axe the feed-in tariff (FIT) widely hailed as a cornerstone of Britain's renewable-energy revolution, Mr Leggett has no time for complacency.
"We've had a lucky escape," he says. "There were massive forces of darkness lined up against us – a whole cadre of politicians and officials trying to, at the minimum, cut back the FIT and, if they could get away with it, shut it down completely."
Such manoeuvres were seen off by the progressive elements in the Coalition only "at the 11th hour", Mr Leggett says, citing sources "who could not be more highly placed". The FIT is central to the development of Britain's clean-energy sector, and the back-room machinations over its survival are just a single skirmish in the war for the future of Britain's energy supplies.
Mr Leggett could not be more serious: "The danger is that we will be ambushed by our collective stupidity before we have enough weapons to fight back. The mobilisation of renewable-energy technologies vital to our survival might not happen fast enough to counter the threats of global warming and peak oil."
The reception area at Solarcentury's head office near London's Waterloo station is littered with awards. And Mr Leggett himself is similarly feted: a loud voice on impending climate catastrophe and the author of two books on the subject.
But his career began on a different track entirely, and it was only after more than 10 years as a geologist working for the oil industry that he was spooked by evidence of global warming and made the break to join Greenpeace. Eight years later, in 1997, he set up Solarcentury, which is now Britain's biggest solar-PV supplier. "Solar is so incredibly neat: there are no moving parts, just sits there and makes electricity," he says.
With 130 staff, its ground-breaking solar-PV roof tile manufactured by Sony in Wales, and more than 40 per cent annual revenue growth for the past six years, Solarcentury's prospects are sunny indeed. "This business is all about 'seeing is believing'," Mr Leggett says. "At first blush it just doesn't sound right, but then people see the installation and see the meter going round, and then they get it."
But without the FIT, renewables cannot move from the fringes to the mainstream. Introduced in April by the Labour government, the scheme encourages small-scale clean-energy generation – such as solar-PV panels or roof-mounted wind turbines – by obliging electricity companies to buy any excess energy produced.
The impact was immediate. Solarcentury alone saw revenues grow by 76 per cent in the first half of the year and boosted its headcount by a fifth to cope with the influx of orders. And that is just the beginning. Analysts estimate the solar-PV market could hit as much as 250 megawatts (MW) next year, from a woeful 10 MW in 2009, thanks to the FIT. The Government's wider green targets need a whopping 2.3 gigawatts of solar energy by 2020, which translates into an extra 100,000 jobs in the industry, according to Mr Leggett.
But nothing will happen without the boost from the FIT. Although the £8.6bn scheme is funded by a levy on customer bills, the Coalition Government's commitment to balance Britain's books – requiring cuts on a scale not seen for a generation – almost spelled doom for the FIT as the vested interests of major power companies weighed in against it.
"There is a civil war in the energy industry between renewables and big centralised power," Mr Leggett says. "There is real resistance to the idea that grown-ups get their energy from renewables."
In both Whitehall and the energy majors, "retrograde thinkers" are already defending the status quo "with amazing vehemence" – and the battles are only just beginning. The rhetoric in recent years has been about an energy mix generating capacity of every sort, but the old and the new can no longer co-exist, Mr Leggett believes. And once renewables really take off, the war will begin in earnest, he says, pointing to evidence from Germany that even the fraction of electricity consumption supplied by solar PV is pulling down midday-peak electricity demand, clipping prices and hurting the profits of the energy giants.
The tricky part is that the forces ranged on either side of the great debate do not fall into easy groupings. "It's not black and white, or us against them: it's a battle of ideas," Mr Leggett repeats. "There are those people that get it and those that don't, and they are spread through both the big companies and the Government departments."
There are powerful forces ranged on the side of the "progressives". Mr Leggett flies to India this week, following up on the Prime Minister's high-profile trade mission in July which took along 29 chief executives – including Mr Leggett – to reaffirm Britain's links with its former colony and to drum up business. "Credit where credit's due ," Mr Leggett says. "Trees were shaken and I'm now flying back to talk about what could be the mother of all joint ventures."
But even such progress is but baby steps compared with the scale of the challenge. "Climate change is a bigger risk than the credit crunch, but the price of undermining the future for our kids features nowhere on the global balance sheet," Mr Leggett says. "We aren't going to be able to grow our way out of the problem. We need to have debate about measuring prosperity in different ways."
The survival of the FIT is just the beginning.
Jeremy Leggett
* Green guru Jeremy Leggett began his career working as a geologist for the oil industry.
* Spooked by evidence of global warming, Mr Leggett joined Greenpeace as an environmental campaigner in 1989.
* In 1997 he set up Solarcentury, which is now Britain's largest solar panel company.
* A vocal campaigner for climate change, Mr Leggett also founded charity SolarAid and the the first private equity fund for renewable energy.
* Mr Leggett is also on the Industry Peak Oil Taskforce and is the author of two books on the global energy crisis – 'The Carbon War' and 'Half Gone'.
Power failure: UK's wind farm plans in disarray
Objectors put green energy plans in doubt
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Hundreds of local revolts against wind farms have jeopardised the plan to use them to generate more than a quarter of Britain's electricity, figures seen by The Independent reveal.
New wind farms are needed to have any chance of creating enough renewable energy to reduce reliance on coal and gas power production. But planning approvals for them in England are at an all-time low, with only one in three applications getting the go-ahead from councils in the face of angry and organised opposition from people living nearby.
More than 230 separate local campaign groups against wind farms are operating across the UK, from Scotland and Kent to Norfolk, Yorkshire and Cornwall. These groups are scoring striking successes in defeating planned wind farms – even when faced with the weight of official recommendations.
In the last 12 months to September, there has been a 50 per cent drop in planning approvals in England, and approvals for windfarms in Scotland have also fallen.
The number of new windfarms coming “on-stream” (becoming active) has also fallen by 30 per cent – partly as a result of the recession.
The figures are revealed in a report on the state of the industry which will be published next week and has been seen by The Independent.
They cast doubt on the ability of the Government to reach its target of generating 20 per cent of all our energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. Changes to planning laws due to be announced later this year are expected to make it harder still to get planning permission.
Campaigners say that although windfarms maybe needed to combat global warming, the turbines – often as tall as the London Eye - are an eyesore in some of the most beautiful parts of the country, unacceptably noisy and can decimate local bird population. They suggest that all new windfarms should be built off-shore.
But environmentalists and industry experts say this is unrealistic. The time needed to build off-shore wind farms can be up to seven years, they are more expensive and the technology is still a relatively immature.
If Britain is to meet its renewable targets, they say, it is vital that onshore wind farms continue to be built at a significant rate well into the 2020s.
The situation is typified by instances such as those in North Yorkshire, where local politicians recently vetoed plans to build seven turbines in the face of official advice that they should go-ahead after a concerted local campaign.
Permission for the windfarm was later granted on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate but Maurice Cann, head of planning at Hambleton District Council, said that might not happen under the Government’s new localism plans.
“The court of public opinion plays a big role here,” he said. “I can see the situation getting worse. Some of these structures are 125 metres high and have a huge visual impact. It does not surprise me at all that so many applications are getting rejected.
“With the Government’s agenda to give a stronger voice to local politicians this is only going to become more of an issue.”
Local councils are to get more power to make planning decisions in their areas and the Planning Inspectorate, which has given the go-ahead to a number of wind farm projects turned down by local planning authorities, is to be abolished.
It now takes on average nearly two years from the point of application for windfarms to be approved by local councils and even then up to three-quarters will be unsuccessful, according to the report by RenewableUK, which represents the windfarm industry.
This compares with a 70 per cent approval rating for other major infrastructure projects such as supermarkets and roads.
“The industry has significant concerns for both the rate and consistency of local decision making on projects yet to come forward for determination,” the report concludes.
Gordon Edge, director of policy for RenewableUK, said that for every completed windfarm, 18 projects had been considered and rejected, either for feasibility or planning problems.
“One of the main issues for us is the cost and the unpredictability of the planning system. If we are going to meet our renewables target it is vital that we have a planning system that we can predict and depend on.”
Martyn Williams, from Friends of the Earth, said he could understand why people were opposed to windfarms in their local areas but a compromise needed to be found.
“The dilemma is that we believe people should be able to say what they want where they live but at the same time every part of the country has to do its bit if we are to get emissions down to a sustainable level.
“What we would favour is for local area to be given their own carbon targets and make there own decisions on how they get – and that is very relevant to [David] Cameron’s idea of the big society.”
Michael Hird, from the Campaign against Windfarms, said they were proud of the fact that they had managed to significantly slow down the growth of turbines across Britain.
“We are fighting from the trenches to slow down the growth of windfarms until people understand just how bad they are.
“The windfarm industry had hoped to created 10,000 windfarms by now and they’ve only managed 2,500. That is some success but there is still a long way to go.”
Mr Hird added that one of the problems they faced was the huge subsidies available to farmers prepared to have wind farms on their land.
“They’ve been unbelievably generous and a lot of farmers have been persuaded by the money on offer. The industry will build these things everywhere unless somebody stops them.”
Gary Porter, Chairman of the Local Government Association's Environment Board, insisted councillors were not to blame but the system.
“Councillors are elected to represent the interests and concerns of people in their area and will quite rightly take this into account when making decisions on whether to permit this sort of development,” he said.
“The industry must do more to make sure that they choose suitable sites which get local support. The refusals are not a reflection on councils but on the poor quality of the applications.
“It is only when local communities can see clearly the benefits of renewable energy at both national and local level that individual proposals for renewable energy will be welcomed as a matter of course.”
By Oliver Wright, Whitehall Editor
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Hundreds of local revolts against wind farms have jeopardised the plan to use them to generate more than a quarter of Britain's electricity, figures seen by The Independent reveal.
New wind farms are needed to have any chance of creating enough renewable energy to reduce reliance on coal and gas power production. But planning approvals for them in England are at an all-time low, with only one in three applications getting the go-ahead from councils in the face of angry and organised opposition from people living nearby.
More than 230 separate local campaign groups against wind farms are operating across the UK, from Scotland and Kent to Norfolk, Yorkshire and Cornwall. These groups are scoring striking successes in defeating planned wind farms – even when faced with the weight of official recommendations.
In the last 12 months to September, there has been a 50 per cent drop in planning approvals in England, and approvals for windfarms in Scotland have also fallen.
The number of new windfarms coming “on-stream” (becoming active) has also fallen by 30 per cent – partly as a result of the recession.
The figures are revealed in a report on the state of the industry which will be published next week and has been seen by The Independent.
They cast doubt on the ability of the Government to reach its target of generating 20 per cent of all our energy needs from renewable sources by 2020. Changes to planning laws due to be announced later this year are expected to make it harder still to get planning permission.
Campaigners say that although windfarms maybe needed to combat global warming, the turbines – often as tall as the London Eye - are an eyesore in some of the most beautiful parts of the country, unacceptably noisy and can decimate local bird population. They suggest that all new windfarms should be built off-shore.
But environmentalists and industry experts say this is unrealistic. The time needed to build off-shore wind farms can be up to seven years, they are more expensive and the technology is still a relatively immature.
If Britain is to meet its renewable targets, they say, it is vital that onshore wind farms continue to be built at a significant rate well into the 2020s.
The situation is typified by instances such as those in North Yorkshire, where local politicians recently vetoed plans to build seven turbines in the face of official advice that they should go-ahead after a concerted local campaign.
Permission for the windfarm was later granted on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate but Maurice Cann, head of planning at Hambleton District Council, said that might not happen under the Government’s new localism plans.
“The court of public opinion plays a big role here,” he said. “I can see the situation getting worse. Some of these structures are 125 metres high and have a huge visual impact. It does not surprise me at all that so many applications are getting rejected.
“With the Government’s agenda to give a stronger voice to local politicians this is only going to become more of an issue.”
Local councils are to get more power to make planning decisions in their areas and the Planning Inspectorate, which has given the go-ahead to a number of wind farm projects turned down by local planning authorities, is to be abolished.
It now takes on average nearly two years from the point of application for windfarms to be approved by local councils and even then up to three-quarters will be unsuccessful, according to the report by RenewableUK, which represents the windfarm industry.
This compares with a 70 per cent approval rating for other major infrastructure projects such as supermarkets and roads.
“The industry has significant concerns for both the rate and consistency of local decision making on projects yet to come forward for determination,” the report concludes.
Gordon Edge, director of policy for RenewableUK, said that for every completed windfarm, 18 projects had been considered and rejected, either for feasibility or planning problems.
“One of the main issues for us is the cost and the unpredictability of the planning system. If we are going to meet our renewables target it is vital that we have a planning system that we can predict and depend on.”
Martyn Williams, from Friends of the Earth, said he could understand why people were opposed to windfarms in their local areas but a compromise needed to be found.
“The dilemma is that we believe people should be able to say what they want where they live but at the same time every part of the country has to do its bit if we are to get emissions down to a sustainable level.
“What we would favour is for local area to be given their own carbon targets and make there own decisions on how they get – and that is very relevant to [David] Cameron’s idea of the big society.”
Michael Hird, from the Campaign against Windfarms, said they were proud of the fact that they had managed to significantly slow down the growth of turbines across Britain.
“We are fighting from the trenches to slow down the growth of windfarms until people understand just how bad they are.
“The windfarm industry had hoped to created 10,000 windfarms by now and they’ve only managed 2,500. That is some success but there is still a long way to go.”
Mr Hird added that one of the problems they faced was the huge subsidies available to farmers prepared to have wind farms on their land.
“They’ve been unbelievably generous and a lot of farmers have been persuaded by the money on offer. The industry will build these things everywhere unless somebody stops them.”
Gary Porter, Chairman of the Local Government Association's Environment Board, insisted councillors were not to blame but the system.
“Councillors are elected to represent the interests and concerns of people in their area and will quite rightly take this into account when making decisions on whether to permit this sort of development,” he said.
“The industry must do more to make sure that they choose suitable sites which get local support. The refusals are not a reflection on councils but on the poor quality of the applications.
“It is only when local communities can see clearly the benefits of renewable energy at both national and local level that individual proposals for renewable energy will be welcomed as a matter of course.”
China Oil Company’s Carbon Play
China’s biggest oil company is betting that carbon trading has a future.
Bloomberg NewsAccording to industry news service Point Carbon, PetroChina has hired Garth Edward, an ex-Citigroup trader, to head a new UK-based emissions trading desk.
The Point Carbon report is available to subscribers here. Reuters — owned by the same company as Point Carbon — also has a report here.
It’s noteworthy that PetroChina is entering the market at a time when the future of the Kyoto Protocol, which provides the international framework for trading carbon credits, is in doubt.
Europe has the most vibrant carbon market, with many of the credits originating from investments in projects in China and India under the U.N. Clean Development Mechanism. CDMs have come under fire for helping fund projects that critics say shouldn’t have qualified for international subsidies.
Still, there are plenty of reasons for PetroChina to move into trading carbon. China is the world’s biggest energy producer and the world’s biggest source of carbon emissions. PetroChina, meanwhile, is China’s biggest oil producer.
Analysts predict that some form of carbon trading will still exist after Kyoto expires in 2012 - and there’s talk of China setting up a domestic carbon market. “Carbon markets will continue in Europe, emerge in Asia (Japan, Korea, maybe China later) even in the absence of a follower to Kyoto, which if it comes, will be weak,” Emmanuel Fages, head of power, gas and carbon coal research at Orbeo, the carbon trading arm of Societe Generale SA and Rhodia SA, wrote in an email to China Real Time. “Dynamics will be much more regional and bilateral now.”
Even the much maligned CDMs will continue, Fages says, though the investments will be in “small scale, more expensive renewable energy projects, organic methane capture or energy efficiency, dominantly based in poorer countries.” China, which has been so successful up till now, “probably will not be able to keep on the same recipe post-2012.”
PetroChina has already shown a commitment to carbon trading. It was one of the first companies to invest in setting up one of the domestic carbon exchanges, even though there was no legislation (such as domestic carbon caps) to support markets. The exchange has had a few modest trades.
There are signs that China is contemplating using carbon credits as a way to reach its goal of slowing the pace of carbon emissions. A promise to cut greenhouse gasses relative to economic output between 40% to 45% percent by 2020 from 2005 levels will likely be part of the country’s next five-year plan.
Already, companies in energy intensive industries that emit a lot of greenhouse gasses are investing in technology to reduce their emissions. If a domestic market is established, some companies with greenhouse gas emissions below their allotment could sell their credit to someone else.
If that market actually materializes – and it’s a big “if” at this point — PetroChina, which produces a lot of emissions from its refining and chemical businesses, will need to know how to trade.
Entering Europe could be the first step in eventually setting up shop back home.
–Shai Oster
Bloomberg NewsAccording to industry news service Point Carbon, PetroChina has hired Garth Edward, an ex-Citigroup trader, to head a new UK-based emissions trading desk.
The Point Carbon report is available to subscribers here. Reuters — owned by the same company as Point Carbon — also has a report here.
It’s noteworthy that PetroChina is entering the market at a time when the future of the Kyoto Protocol, which provides the international framework for trading carbon credits, is in doubt.
Europe has the most vibrant carbon market, with many of the credits originating from investments in projects in China and India under the U.N. Clean Development Mechanism. CDMs have come under fire for helping fund projects that critics say shouldn’t have qualified for international subsidies.
Still, there are plenty of reasons for PetroChina to move into trading carbon. China is the world’s biggest energy producer and the world’s biggest source of carbon emissions. PetroChina, meanwhile, is China’s biggest oil producer.
Analysts predict that some form of carbon trading will still exist after Kyoto expires in 2012 - and there’s talk of China setting up a domestic carbon market. “Carbon markets will continue in Europe, emerge in Asia (Japan, Korea, maybe China later) even in the absence of a follower to Kyoto, which if it comes, will be weak,” Emmanuel Fages, head of power, gas and carbon coal research at Orbeo, the carbon trading arm of Societe Generale SA and Rhodia SA, wrote in an email to China Real Time. “Dynamics will be much more regional and bilateral now.”
Even the much maligned CDMs will continue, Fages says, though the investments will be in “small scale, more expensive renewable energy projects, organic methane capture or energy efficiency, dominantly based in poorer countries.” China, which has been so successful up till now, “probably will not be able to keep on the same recipe post-2012.”
PetroChina has already shown a commitment to carbon trading. It was one of the first companies to invest in setting up one of the domestic carbon exchanges, even though there was no legislation (such as domestic carbon caps) to support markets. The exchange has had a few modest trades.
There are signs that China is contemplating using carbon credits as a way to reach its goal of slowing the pace of carbon emissions. A promise to cut greenhouse gasses relative to economic output between 40% to 45% percent by 2020 from 2005 levels will likely be part of the country’s next five-year plan.
Already, companies in energy intensive industries that emit a lot of greenhouse gasses are investing in technology to reduce their emissions. If a domestic market is established, some companies with greenhouse gas emissions below their allotment could sell their credit to someone else.
If that market actually materializes – and it’s a big “if” at this point — PetroChina, which produces a lot of emissions from its refining and chemical businesses, will need to know how to trade.
Entering Europe could be the first step in eventually setting up shop back home.
–Shai Oster
Top scientists answer your 'toughest' energy questions
Post your questions on peak oil, wind power, nuclear power and more for our panel of six of the world's leading energy scientists
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 October 2010 12.01 BST
Can the world shift entirely from fossil fuels to renewable sources such as wind, solar and marine power? Is nuclear power a good green alternative to coal and gas? When will the oil run out? And what should power the cars of tomorrow - oil, biofuels or electricity?
Here is your chance to get answers from a panel of six of the world's top energy scientists on today's big energy questions.
Just post your questions in the form below. We will pick the ten best questions and then the awards committee of the 2011 Global Energy Prize will answer them here on environmentguardian.co.uk in a week (3 November).
The panel
• Klaus Riedle - a world specialist in the sphere of gas turbine energetics and head of the Scientific Developments Department for high-temperature energetic turbines at Siemens. He was awarded Global Energy Prize in 2005 for his extensive work in the development and creation of powerful high-temperature gas turbines for steam and gas power plants.
• Dr Alvin W. Trivelpiece - a physicist and former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Department of Energy's world leading research and manufacturing park with approximately 13,000 employees. Dr Trivelpiece was head of the 1986 US Delegation on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy to the USSR and was an early supporter of the Human Genome Project.
• Dr Tom Sanders - the manager of the Global Nuclear Futures Program at Sandia National Laboratories, and president of the American Nuclear Society from 2009-2010. Dr Sanders is a member of the US Department of Commerce's Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, and has advised numerous senior government officials on the development of nuclear energy in the USA.
• Dr Clement Bowman - founding chairman of the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority (AOSTRA), and pioneered Canada's oilsands extraction project. For his work in this field Dr Bowman was awarded a Global Energy Prize in 2008. He is also a former Chair of the Alberta Government's Technology and Research Advisory Committee and President of the Alberta Research Council.
• Ambassador Pius Yasebasi Ng'wandu - holds a PhD from Stanford University and has held many political positions in Tanzania, including as the Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education, and as the Minister of Water. He is founder and managing director of consulting group Yaseconsult, and from 1998 to 2005 was the Chairperson of the National Commission of UNESCO.
• Dr Robert Aymar - former Director-General of CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, one of the largest and most respective science research centres in the world. He held this role for five years, during which time he oversaw the completion and first experiments of the Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator designed to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang.
Adam Vaughan guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 October 2010 12.01 BST
Can the world shift entirely from fossil fuels to renewable sources such as wind, solar and marine power? Is nuclear power a good green alternative to coal and gas? When will the oil run out? And what should power the cars of tomorrow - oil, biofuels or electricity?
Here is your chance to get answers from a panel of six of the world's top energy scientists on today's big energy questions.
Just post your questions in the form below. We will pick the ten best questions and then the awards committee of the 2011 Global Energy Prize will answer them here on environmentguardian.co.uk in a week (3 November).
The panel
• Klaus Riedle - a world specialist in the sphere of gas turbine energetics and head of the Scientific Developments Department for high-temperature energetic turbines at Siemens. He was awarded Global Energy Prize in 2005 for his extensive work in the development and creation of powerful high-temperature gas turbines for steam and gas power plants.
• Dr Alvin W. Trivelpiece - a physicist and former director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Department of Energy's world leading research and manufacturing park with approximately 13,000 employees. Dr Trivelpiece was head of the 1986 US Delegation on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy to the USSR and was an early supporter of the Human Genome Project.
• Dr Tom Sanders - the manager of the Global Nuclear Futures Program at Sandia National Laboratories, and president of the American Nuclear Society from 2009-2010. Dr Sanders is a member of the US Department of Commerce's Civil Nuclear Trade Advisory Committee, and has advised numerous senior government officials on the development of nuclear energy in the USA.
• Dr Clement Bowman - founding chairman of the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority (AOSTRA), and pioneered Canada's oilsands extraction project. For his work in this field Dr Bowman was awarded a Global Energy Prize in 2008. He is also a former Chair of the Alberta Government's Technology and Research Advisory Committee and President of the Alberta Research Council.
• Ambassador Pius Yasebasi Ng'wandu - holds a PhD from Stanford University and has held many political positions in Tanzania, including as the Minister of Science, Technology and Higher Education, and as the Minister of Water. He is founder and managing director of consulting group Yaseconsult, and from 1998 to 2005 was the Chairperson of the National Commission of UNESCO.
• Dr Robert Aymar - former Director-General of CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, one of the largest and most respective science research centres in the world. He held this role for five years, during which time he oversaw the completion and first experiments of the Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator designed to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang.
US navy completes successful test on boat powered by algae
American navy sails towards sustainability with biofuel-powered gunboat
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 October 2010 20.46 BST
It looked like a pretty ordinary day on the water at the US naval base in Norfolk, Virginia: a few short bursts of speed, a nice tail wind, some test manoeuvres against an enemy boat.
But the 49ft gunboat had algae-based fuel in the tank in a test hailed by the navy yesterday as a milestone in its creation of a new, energy-saving strike force.
The experimental boat, intended for use in rivers and marshes and eventually destined for oil installations in the Middle East, operated on a 50/50 mix of algae-based fuel and diesel. "It ran just fine," said Rear Admiral Philip Cullom, who directs the navy's sustainability division.
The tests, conducted on Friday, are part of a broader drive within the navy to run 50% of its fleet on a mix of renewable fuels and nuclear power by 2020. The navy currently meets about 16% of its energy and fuel needs from nuclear power, with the rest from conventional sources.
The navy plans to roll out its first green strike force, a group of about 10 ships, submarines and planes running on a mix of biofuels and nuclear power, in 2012, with deployment in the field scheduled for 2016.
The green trend runs across all military services. The air force has been testing jet engines on a mix of conventional fuels and camelina, a crop similar to flax, and the Marine Corps recently sent a company to Afghanistan's Helmand province equipped with portable solar panels and solar chargers for their radio equipment.
Fuels made from algae oil burn more cleanly than fossil fuel, but preventing climate change is not a major factor in the Pentagon's calculations. "Our programme to go green is about combat capability, first and foremost," Cullom said. "We no longer want to be held hostage by one form of energy such as petroleum."
Over the last year, the Pentagon has become increasingly vocal about the burden of running oil convoys in battle zones. Fossil fuel is the number one import to US troops in Afghanistan, and the slow and lumbering convoys of oil tankers are an obvious target for enemy combatants.
Fossil fuels are also horrendously expensive. By the time it reaches a war zone, the true cost of a gallon of petrol is well over $400.
In theory, biofuels can be produced wherever the raw materials are available, possibly even in the combat zone. However, Cullom admitted that, as of today, algae-based fuels are no bargain. The current cost of a gallon of algae-diesel mix is $424 a gallon. "Any time you are an early adopter, it's not going to be $3 a gallon," he said.
The early versions of algae-based fuels had a short shelf life, with the fuel separating in the tank, sprouting, or even corroding engines. "They had some not very good characteristics at the end of the day," he admitted.
But the navy appears committed. Last month it placed an order for 150,000 gallons of algae-based fuel from a San Francisco firm.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 27 October 2010 20.46 BST
It looked like a pretty ordinary day on the water at the US naval base in Norfolk, Virginia: a few short bursts of speed, a nice tail wind, some test manoeuvres against an enemy boat.
But the 49ft gunboat had algae-based fuel in the tank in a test hailed by the navy yesterday as a milestone in its creation of a new, energy-saving strike force.
The experimental boat, intended for use in rivers and marshes and eventually destined for oil installations in the Middle East, operated on a 50/50 mix of algae-based fuel and diesel. "It ran just fine," said Rear Admiral Philip Cullom, who directs the navy's sustainability division.
The tests, conducted on Friday, are part of a broader drive within the navy to run 50% of its fleet on a mix of renewable fuels and nuclear power by 2020. The navy currently meets about 16% of its energy and fuel needs from nuclear power, with the rest from conventional sources.
The navy plans to roll out its first green strike force, a group of about 10 ships, submarines and planes running on a mix of biofuels and nuclear power, in 2012, with deployment in the field scheduled for 2016.
The green trend runs across all military services. The air force has been testing jet engines on a mix of conventional fuels and camelina, a crop similar to flax, and the Marine Corps recently sent a company to Afghanistan's Helmand province equipped with portable solar panels and solar chargers for their radio equipment.
Fuels made from algae oil burn more cleanly than fossil fuel, but preventing climate change is not a major factor in the Pentagon's calculations. "Our programme to go green is about combat capability, first and foremost," Cullom said. "We no longer want to be held hostage by one form of energy such as petroleum."
Over the last year, the Pentagon has become increasingly vocal about the burden of running oil convoys in battle zones. Fossil fuel is the number one import to US troops in Afghanistan, and the slow and lumbering convoys of oil tankers are an obvious target for enemy combatants.
Fossil fuels are also horrendously expensive. By the time it reaches a war zone, the true cost of a gallon of petrol is well over $400.
In theory, biofuels can be produced wherever the raw materials are available, possibly even in the combat zone. However, Cullom admitted that, as of today, algae-based fuels are no bargain. The current cost of a gallon of algae-diesel mix is $424 a gallon. "Any time you are an early adopter, it's not going to be $3 a gallon," he said.
The early versions of algae-based fuels had a short shelf life, with the fuel separating in the tank, sprouting, or even corroding engines. "They had some not very good characteristics at the end of the day," he admitted.
But the navy appears committed. Last month it placed an order for 150,000 gallons of algae-based fuel from a San Francisco firm.
Vestas to close five wind turbine plants
Vestas, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, will cut 3,000 jobs as a result of the closures
Alex Hawkes
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 October 2010 19.05 BST
Vestas, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, said today it would close five production plants across Scandinavia and cut 3,000 jobs.
The group said the surge in demand for wind power it had hoped for in Europe had not materialised and it would have to shift production away from Denmark and Sweden towards Spain to protect profits.
It is closing four plants in Denmark and one in Sweden, including one in Viborg where it has been manufacturing since 1989. The factory moves follow Vestas' decision to move production of turbines away from the UK last year, when it closed its Isle of Wight facility.
It still employs 500 people in the UK, who are unlikely to be hit by the company's latest round of job cuts, but a spokesman could not it rule out. The company employs 250 research and development specialists on the Isle of Wight, and 250 other staff primarily at a sales centre in Warrington and a spare parts and repair plant in Bristol.
The cuts came as Britain celebrated more than £300m of investment in new manufacturing centres by rival manufacturers GE, Siemens and Gamesa. Following a boost from the government's Infrastructure Plan on Monday, GE said it would invest £100m in a manufacturing plant. Spanish firm Gamesa said it would spend €150m (£131m) setting up a worldwide centre for offshore wind, including a turbine factory; and Siemens said it would build an £80m wind turbine factory.
Monday's announcements were part of a commitment to a £60m upgrade of British ports to make them suitable for dealing with large offshore turbines.
A Vestas spokesman said the company kept an open mind about returning to manufacturing in the UK: "We are always considering [different options], though we don't have any current plans in the UK," he said.
Rupesh Madlani, an analyst at Barclays Capital, said the layoffs would take Vestas back to where it had been a year earlier: "Vestas has been a terrific job creator," he said. He also said the investment in ports could give the UK a significant advantage in offshore wind: "Germany has been the champion of solar and Spain onshore wind. The announcements that came from companies yesterday give the UK potential to be a champion for offshore wind."
Vestas's revenues for the third quarter fell to €1.72bn (£1.5bn) from €1.81bn in the same period a year earlier. Earnings before interest and tax stood at €185m, compared with €244m last time.The company said shutting down plants and staff lay-offs would cost it between €140m and €160m.
Alex Hawkes
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 October 2010 19.05 BST
Vestas, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer, said today it would close five production plants across Scandinavia and cut 3,000 jobs.
The group said the surge in demand for wind power it had hoped for in Europe had not materialised and it would have to shift production away from Denmark and Sweden towards Spain to protect profits.
It is closing four plants in Denmark and one in Sweden, including one in Viborg where it has been manufacturing since 1989. The factory moves follow Vestas' decision to move production of turbines away from the UK last year, when it closed its Isle of Wight facility.
It still employs 500 people in the UK, who are unlikely to be hit by the company's latest round of job cuts, but a spokesman could not it rule out. The company employs 250 research and development specialists on the Isle of Wight, and 250 other staff primarily at a sales centre in Warrington and a spare parts and repair plant in Bristol.
The cuts came as Britain celebrated more than £300m of investment in new manufacturing centres by rival manufacturers GE, Siemens and Gamesa. Following a boost from the government's Infrastructure Plan on Monday, GE said it would invest £100m in a manufacturing plant. Spanish firm Gamesa said it would spend €150m (£131m) setting up a worldwide centre for offshore wind, including a turbine factory; and Siemens said it would build an £80m wind turbine factory.
Monday's announcements were part of a commitment to a £60m upgrade of British ports to make them suitable for dealing with large offshore turbines.
A Vestas spokesman said the company kept an open mind about returning to manufacturing in the UK: "We are always considering [different options], though we don't have any current plans in the UK," he said.
Rupesh Madlani, an analyst at Barclays Capital, said the layoffs would take Vestas back to where it had been a year earlier: "Vestas has been a terrific job creator," he said. He also said the investment in ports could give the UK a significant advantage in offshore wind: "Germany has been the champion of solar and Spain onshore wind. The announcements that came from companies yesterday give the UK potential to be a champion for offshore wind."
Vestas's revenues for the third quarter fell to €1.72bn (£1.5bn) from €1.81bn in the same period a year earlier. Earnings before interest and tax stood at €185m, compared with €244m last time.The company said shutting down plants and staff lay-offs would cost it between €140m and €160m.
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
How to Get Biofuels Moving Again
To help this industry thrive, governments need to develop and implement a strategy that will last decades, argues ZeaChem CEO Jim Imbler.
After what initially looked to be a promising year for alternative energy in general and the advanced biofuels industry specifically,Congress has encountered significant barriers to realize a comprehensive, long-term energy bill or consensus on a pragmatic climate bill. In addition, the EPA for the second year significantly reduced targets for advanced biofuels production. Despite all this, the advanced biofuels industry is determined to commercialize and stand on its own two feet.
However, to facilitate private investment and make advanced biofuels a real alternative to fossil fuels, Congress needs to set long-term, technology-agnostic goals with built-in incentives. What we as an industry need is a hand up, not a handout. If the goal is ultimately to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, advanced biofuels represent the best near-term opportunity that can be implemented today.
Every president since Nixon has said the U.S. needs to reduce its increasing dependency on oil imports and fossil fuel consumption in general. However, despite occasional grandiose pronouncements, government support of renewables over the past 40 years has not been consistent enough to enable the broad-scale energy transformation that must take place. There have been minor achievements in this area, inevitably followed by setbacks. When oil prices soar, the country focuses its attention on renewable energy alternatives, and when oil prices fall, the goal is forgotten or at best set aside for another day. This yo-yo effect makes it extremely difficult for a nascent industry to set long-term financial goals and get through “the valley of death.”
The only way out of this valley and on to the promised land of commercialization is demonstrating to investors (venture capital partners, strategic partners, etc.) that your technology and long-term economics are not only feasible, but are viable in the long-term.
Sounds relatively simple enough: take a great idea, prove it works, raise funds, build a facility, and produce and sell product to a willing market. However, it’s not so simple in an industry such as advanced biofuels. While fossil fuel dependency may seem inexpensive in the short term, the long-term consequences are increased economic and environmental risk. If the mission is to reduce the need for fossil fuels, then the government must provide the industry and investors with clear long-term goals (such as the RFS2) accompanied by long-term incentives (such as investment and producer tax credits, and workable loan guarantees) for the production of advanced biofuels. Incentives that last for two to three years with no certainty of renewal do not provide enough confidence to the financial markets, making them unlikely to invest the large amounts of capital required, particularly in this current economic climate. Government needs to coordinate a 10-year to 20-year outlook similar to its commitment to the building of our national highway system, not the shortsighted three-year outlook that has unfortunately become standard operating procedure for our policymakers.
The EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) calls for the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, which would replace approximately 30 percent of our nation's fuel supply, according to some estimates. Over 40 percent of the renewable fuel is to come from cellulosic biofuels. The RFS2 is a big step in the right direction, but the standard for 2011 was reduced from 250 million gallons to under 17 million. The reduction was unfortunately necessary from a regulatory standpoint -- the EPA is required to regulate according to actual production volumes -- but what signal does this send investors? Are we just playing the game, or are we in this to win?
We biorefiners are not without blame. Aside from the government providing the environment for our industry to flourish, we must do a better job of making the case that advanced biofuels are economically feasible. It is not enough to have a cool technology and slick PowerPoint presentations; we need to show we can eventually compete with oil, if given a helping hand to get started. This is why biorefiners’ commercialization plans need to demonstrate the technology, scalability and economics of each intermediary chemical step with independent third parties to “de-risk” their process.
Government needs to be careful it does not pick winners; the market, ultimately, is best at that. But the government can offer significant assistance to the industry as a whole by encouraging and incentivizing early movers while remaining focused on the ultimate goal of reducing fossil fuel demand. When developing a new technology, investors are extremely hesitant to be first movers but will become actively involved to be second and third participants. To achieve the goal of reducing fossil fuel consumption, the best policy is to set attainable long-term goals such as the RFS2, back them up with clear long-term incentives, and let the market sort out the winners and losers. Believe me, the market is very good at that!
Some might say the government shouldn’t be funding R&D for new technologies with unknown potential and that the markets should be able to pick a winner without incentives. While this approach may work for the high tech industry, it is not feasible for long-term, capital-intensive industries like fuel production. This argument also ignores the fact that many highly profitable industries today were initiated with government involvement and that the government still subsidizes many industries, including the oil industry, to this day, in the interest of the economy and national security.
Our industry does not need permanent support. Once these facilities are built, they operate for up to 100 years and continue to turn a profit. What is needed is long-term, consistent policy and incentives so that this emerging industry can successfully commercialize in the face of volatile oil prices. We need the hand up -- allowing us to provide proof of economics to strategic investors -- and then we’ll stand on our own two feet on the other side of the valley of death.
***
Jim Imbler is the CEO of ZeaChem, a cellulosic ethanol company.
.
After what initially looked to be a promising year for alternative energy in general and the advanced biofuels industry specifically,Congress has encountered significant barriers to realize a comprehensive, long-term energy bill or consensus on a pragmatic climate bill. In addition, the EPA for the second year significantly reduced targets for advanced biofuels production. Despite all this, the advanced biofuels industry is determined to commercialize and stand on its own two feet.
However, to facilitate private investment and make advanced biofuels a real alternative to fossil fuels, Congress needs to set long-term, technology-agnostic goals with built-in incentives. What we as an industry need is a hand up, not a handout. If the goal is ultimately to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, advanced biofuels represent the best near-term opportunity that can be implemented today.
Every president since Nixon has said the U.S. needs to reduce its increasing dependency on oil imports and fossil fuel consumption in general. However, despite occasional grandiose pronouncements, government support of renewables over the past 40 years has not been consistent enough to enable the broad-scale energy transformation that must take place. There have been minor achievements in this area, inevitably followed by setbacks. When oil prices soar, the country focuses its attention on renewable energy alternatives, and when oil prices fall, the goal is forgotten or at best set aside for another day. This yo-yo effect makes it extremely difficult for a nascent industry to set long-term financial goals and get through “the valley of death.”
The only way out of this valley and on to the promised land of commercialization is demonstrating to investors (venture capital partners, strategic partners, etc.) that your technology and long-term economics are not only feasible, but are viable in the long-term.
Sounds relatively simple enough: take a great idea, prove it works, raise funds, build a facility, and produce and sell product to a willing market. However, it’s not so simple in an industry such as advanced biofuels. While fossil fuel dependency may seem inexpensive in the short term, the long-term consequences are increased economic and environmental risk. If the mission is to reduce the need for fossil fuels, then the government must provide the industry and investors with clear long-term goals (such as the RFS2) accompanied by long-term incentives (such as investment and producer tax credits, and workable loan guarantees) for the production of advanced biofuels. Incentives that last for two to three years with no certainty of renewal do not provide enough confidence to the financial markets, making them unlikely to invest the large amounts of capital required, particularly in this current economic climate. Government needs to coordinate a 10-year to 20-year outlook similar to its commitment to the building of our national highway system, not the shortsighted three-year outlook that has unfortunately become standard operating procedure for our policymakers.
The EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) calls for the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, which would replace approximately 30 percent of our nation's fuel supply, according to some estimates. Over 40 percent of the renewable fuel is to come from cellulosic biofuels. The RFS2 is a big step in the right direction, but the standard for 2011 was reduced from 250 million gallons to under 17 million. The reduction was unfortunately necessary from a regulatory standpoint -- the EPA is required to regulate according to actual production volumes -- but what signal does this send investors? Are we just playing the game, or are we in this to win?
We biorefiners are not without blame. Aside from the government providing the environment for our industry to flourish, we must do a better job of making the case that advanced biofuels are economically feasible. It is not enough to have a cool technology and slick PowerPoint presentations; we need to show we can eventually compete with oil, if given a helping hand to get started. This is why biorefiners’ commercialization plans need to demonstrate the technology, scalability and economics of each intermediary chemical step with independent third parties to “de-risk” their process.
Government needs to be careful it does not pick winners; the market, ultimately, is best at that. But the government can offer significant assistance to the industry as a whole by encouraging and incentivizing early movers while remaining focused on the ultimate goal of reducing fossil fuel demand. When developing a new technology, investors are extremely hesitant to be first movers but will become actively involved to be second and third participants. To achieve the goal of reducing fossil fuel consumption, the best policy is to set attainable long-term goals such as the RFS2, back them up with clear long-term incentives, and let the market sort out the winners and losers. Believe me, the market is very good at that!
Some might say the government shouldn’t be funding R&D for new technologies with unknown potential and that the markets should be able to pick a winner without incentives. While this approach may work for the high tech industry, it is not feasible for long-term, capital-intensive industries like fuel production. This argument also ignores the fact that many highly profitable industries today were initiated with government involvement and that the government still subsidizes many industries, including the oil industry, to this day, in the interest of the economy and national security.
Our industry does not need permanent support. Once these facilities are built, they operate for up to 100 years and continue to turn a profit. What is needed is long-term, consistent policy and incentives so that this emerging industry can successfully commercialize in the face of volatile oil prices. We need the hand up -- allowing us to provide proof of economics to strategic investors -- and then we’ll stand on our own two feet on the other side of the valley of death.
***
Jim Imbler is the CEO of ZeaChem, a cellulosic ethanol company.
.
The next carbon capture tool could be new, improved grass
October 26, 2010 by Dan Krotz Enlarge
Miscanthus, a potential feedstock for biofuel, could pull double duty in the fight against climate change by sequestering carbon in the soil for thousands of years.
(PhysOrg.com) -- A blade of grass destined to be converted into biofuel may join energy efficiency and other big-ticket strategies in the effort to reduce atmospheric carbon -- but not in the way that you might think.
In addition to offsetting fossil-fuel emissions, a potential bioenergy plant such as the grass Miscanthus could also snare carbon from the atmosphere and trap it in the soil for millennia.
Sounds promising. But should scientists genetically engineer bioenergy crops to be better at ridding the atmosphere of the greenhouse gas? And can this strategy take place on the scale needed to mitigate climate change?
These questions are framed in a new analysis by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Christer Jansson and researchers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Their research, published in the October issue of Bioscience, explores ways in which bioenergy crops can become a big player in the drive to rein in rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The authors hope to get others thinking about engineering plants to not only produce biofuel, but to also sequester carbon.
“We want to encourage discussion and research on this topic,” says Jansson, a senior staff scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the analysis. “We need to explore the extent to which plants, and specifically genetically engineered plants, can reduce levels of atmospheric carbon.”
At the heart of the scientists’ analysis is the idea that bioenergy crops can fight climate change in two ways. There’s the obvious way, in which a plant’s cellulosic biomass is converted into a carbon-neutral transportation fuel that displaces fossil fuels. And the not-so obvious way: bioenergy crops also take in atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis and send a significant amount of the carbon to the soil via roots. Carbon from plant biomass can also be incorporated into soil as a type of charcoal called biochar. Either way, the captured carbon could be out of circulation for millennia.
At stake is the urgent need to make a dent in the nine gigatons of carbon that human activities emit into the atmosphere each year (one gigaton is one billion tons). Natural processes such as plant photosynthesis annually capture about three gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere.
“We could double that in the next several decades,” says Jansson. “By 2050, we could get to five or six gigatons of carbon removed from the atmosphere by plants, and I think a major part of that could come from bioenergy crops like grasses and trees. They could make a big contribution in sequestering carbon, but other strategies will have to be used.”
As Jansson explains, to increase the capacity for plants to act as carbon sinks, scientists need to continue to develop bioenergy crops that are efficient in harvesting light energy and using the energy to convert carbon dioxide to biomass. Bioenergy crops should also have a high capacity to send the carbon it captures to its roots, where it has the best chance to be stored in soil for thousands of years.
Fortunately, top bionergy crop candidates, such as Miscanthus, are already better-than-average carbon sinks. The large root systems in perennials such as grasses make them better at sequestering carbon in biomass and soil than annual plants.
But can bioenergy crops become even better? Jansson and colleagues outline several possibilities in their analysis. A plant’s canopy can be altered to enhance its efficiency at intercepting sunlight. Another approach accelerates a plant’s photoprotection mechanisms, which would improve its ability to use light. And a plant’s tolerances to various stresses could be improved without compromising yield.
A game-changing success, Jansson explains, could be the design of a bioenergy crop that can withstand drought and which utilizes brine, saline wastewater, or seawater for irrigation to avoid having to tap into freshwater supplies. Jansson suggests that genetic engineering can play a key role in introducing these traits into a plant.
“Bionergy crops are likely to be engineered anyway,” he says. “It makes sense to also consider enhancing their ability to withstand stress and sequester carbon. This analysis will hopefully guide research and prompt people to think in new ways about bioenergy crops.”
More information: The article, “Phytosequestration: Carbon Biosequestration by Plants and the Prospects of Genetic Engineering” is published in the October issue of Bioscience
Provided by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Miscanthus, a potential feedstock for biofuel, could pull double duty in the fight against climate change by sequestering carbon in the soil for thousands of years.
(PhysOrg.com) -- A blade of grass destined to be converted into biofuel may join energy efficiency and other big-ticket strategies in the effort to reduce atmospheric carbon -- but not in the way that you might think.
In addition to offsetting fossil-fuel emissions, a potential bioenergy plant such as the grass Miscanthus could also snare carbon from the atmosphere and trap it in the soil for millennia.
Sounds promising. But should scientists genetically engineer bioenergy crops to be better at ridding the atmosphere of the greenhouse gas? And can this strategy take place on the scale needed to mitigate climate change?
These questions are framed in a new analysis by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Christer Jansson and researchers from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Their research, published in the October issue of Bioscience, explores ways in which bioenergy crops can become a big player in the drive to rein in rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The authors hope to get others thinking about engineering plants to not only produce biofuel, but to also sequester carbon.
“We want to encourage discussion and research on this topic,” says Jansson, a senior staff scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the analysis. “We need to explore the extent to which plants, and specifically genetically engineered plants, can reduce levels of atmospheric carbon.”
At the heart of the scientists’ analysis is the idea that bioenergy crops can fight climate change in two ways. There’s the obvious way, in which a plant’s cellulosic biomass is converted into a carbon-neutral transportation fuel that displaces fossil fuels. And the not-so obvious way: bioenergy crops also take in atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis and send a significant amount of the carbon to the soil via roots. Carbon from plant biomass can also be incorporated into soil as a type of charcoal called biochar. Either way, the captured carbon could be out of circulation for millennia.
At stake is the urgent need to make a dent in the nine gigatons of carbon that human activities emit into the atmosphere each year (one gigaton is one billion tons). Natural processes such as plant photosynthesis annually capture about three gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere.
“We could double that in the next several decades,” says Jansson. “By 2050, we could get to five or six gigatons of carbon removed from the atmosphere by plants, and I think a major part of that could come from bioenergy crops like grasses and trees. They could make a big contribution in sequestering carbon, but other strategies will have to be used.”
As Jansson explains, to increase the capacity for plants to act as carbon sinks, scientists need to continue to develop bioenergy crops that are efficient in harvesting light energy and using the energy to convert carbon dioxide to biomass. Bioenergy crops should also have a high capacity to send the carbon it captures to its roots, where it has the best chance to be stored in soil for thousands of years.
Fortunately, top bionergy crop candidates, such as Miscanthus, are already better-than-average carbon sinks. The large root systems in perennials such as grasses make them better at sequestering carbon in biomass and soil than annual plants.
But can bioenergy crops become even better? Jansson and colleagues outline several possibilities in their analysis. A plant’s canopy can be altered to enhance its efficiency at intercepting sunlight. Another approach accelerates a plant’s photoprotection mechanisms, which would improve its ability to use light. And a plant’s tolerances to various stresses could be improved without compromising yield.
A game-changing success, Jansson explains, could be the design of a bioenergy crop that can withstand drought and which utilizes brine, saline wastewater, or seawater for irrigation to avoid having to tap into freshwater supplies. Jansson suggests that genetic engineering can play a key role in introducing these traits into a plant.
“Bionergy crops are likely to be engineered anyway,” he says. “It makes sense to also consider enhancing their ability to withstand stress and sequester carbon. This analysis will hopefully guide research and prompt people to think in new ways about bioenergy crops.”
More information: The article, “Phytosequestration: Carbon Biosequestration by Plants and the Prospects of Genetic Engineering” is published in the October issue of Bioscience
Provided by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Profiting from a green bond - Ecotricity
Ecotricity is offering an ethical bond that could bring a 7.5% return on your loan
Miles Brignall The Guardian, Saturday 23 October 2010
If you have been looking for an ethical investment that also pays a healthy return, green energy company Ecotricity may have come to your aid. This week it invited people to sign up for its new four-year bonds paying up to 7.5% interest.
The Stroud-based firm, which was the first UK company to offer consumer electricity produced entirely from renewable sources, is hoping to raise £10m with its EcoBonds.
The company is raising the money so it can expand its operations by building new wind farms and solar parks, and creating more renewable gas sources.
The fixed-rate bonds, which have an initial four-year term, will pay an annual rate of interest of 7% gross, or 7.5% if you are an Ecotricity customer. That is a substantially better return than the vast majority of savers are getting from their bank or building society accounts, but you need to be aware that Ecotricity's bonds are riskier than fixed-rate savings bonds offered by high street institutions. You would not be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the unlikely event the company went bust.
The bonds are open to UK-based individuals aged 18 or more, as well as charities, companies and trusts. The minimum investment is £500. Interest is payable every six months. At the end of the initial four-year term investors can take their money out by giving six months' notice. If they do not, their money is automatically reinvested for another 12 months on the same terms.
The company says it can offer a 7% return because this is close to the rate it would have to pay if it had to borrow the money from the banks. It says the minimum investment has been deliberately set at £500 in an effort to attract small investors.
Dale Vince, Ecotricity's managing director, says: "People are increasingly looking for ways to invest ethically and get involved in the green energy revolution. Our EcoBonds enable both. The funds we raise will be used to build the projects that we already have consented, enabling us to speed up the rate at which we build these new sources of green energy – something the UK badly needs. And in the process we'll create new green jobs and help develop a strong independent green British economy."
Since its start in 1995, Ecotricity has grown steadily each year. It now supplies energy to more than 42,000 customers from 51 wind turbines at 15 wind parks. It offers two electricity tariffs – one from 100% renewable sources, and one where 41% of the power comes from its wind turbines, and the remainder is conventionally sourced power.
The company says it has planning consent for a further 12 wind turbines, with 78 more at various stages in the planning process, which together would almost treble Ecotricity's electricity generation capacity over the next few years. It aims to supply more than 500,000 customers within the next 10 years. It also intends to increase its investment in other green energy technologies, including solar and gas made from organic waste.
So what's the catch? There is always a risk you could lose your money – any company you buy shares in could go to the wall. However, these are not shares: EcoBonds "represent a loan to the company for a fixed period with a fixed rate of interest".
The firm's prospectus says: "EcoBonds are an unsecured debt of the company, and there is no certainty or guarantee that the company … will be able to repay them." Put bluntly, if the company goes bust, you would probably lose some or all of your money. There is no compensation scheme as there are for failed banks. However, the banks are not paying 7%.
Investors can reassure themselves that Ecotricty has been in business for 15 years. In 2008-09 the company turned over £38.3m and posted gross profits of £15.4m. It says the bonds will go ahead provided it gets at least £1m of the £10m sought. Potential investors should note that the EcoBonds are not transferable and cannot be traded.
For more information and to download a prospectus, go to ecotricity.co.uk. The closing date for applications is 10 December.
Miles Brignall The Guardian, Saturday 23 October 2010
If you have been looking for an ethical investment that also pays a healthy return, green energy company Ecotricity may have come to your aid. This week it invited people to sign up for its new four-year bonds paying up to 7.5% interest.
The Stroud-based firm, which was the first UK company to offer consumer electricity produced entirely from renewable sources, is hoping to raise £10m with its EcoBonds.
The company is raising the money so it can expand its operations by building new wind farms and solar parks, and creating more renewable gas sources.
The fixed-rate bonds, which have an initial four-year term, will pay an annual rate of interest of 7% gross, or 7.5% if you are an Ecotricity customer. That is a substantially better return than the vast majority of savers are getting from their bank or building society accounts, but you need to be aware that Ecotricity's bonds are riskier than fixed-rate savings bonds offered by high street institutions. You would not be covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the unlikely event the company went bust.
The bonds are open to UK-based individuals aged 18 or more, as well as charities, companies and trusts. The minimum investment is £500. Interest is payable every six months. At the end of the initial four-year term investors can take their money out by giving six months' notice. If they do not, their money is automatically reinvested for another 12 months on the same terms.
The company says it can offer a 7% return because this is close to the rate it would have to pay if it had to borrow the money from the banks. It says the minimum investment has been deliberately set at £500 in an effort to attract small investors.
Dale Vince, Ecotricity's managing director, says: "People are increasingly looking for ways to invest ethically and get involved in the green energy revolution. Our EcoBonds enable both. The funds we raise will be used to build the projects that we already have consented, enabling us to speed up the rate at which we build these new sources of green energy – something the UK badly needs. And in the process we'll create new green jobs and help develop a strong independent green British economy."
Since its start in 1995, Ecotricity has grown steadily each year. It now supplies energy to more than 42,000 customers from 51 wind turbines at 15 wind parks. It offers two electricity tariffs – one from 100% renewable sources, and one where 41% of the power comes from its wind turbines, and the remainder is conventionally sourced power.
The company says it has planning consent for a further 12 wind turbines, with 78 more at various stages in the planning process, which together would almost treble Ecotricity's electricity generation capacity over the next few years. It aims to supply more than 500,000 customers within the next 10 years. It also intends to increase its investment in other green energy technologies, including solar and gas made from organic waste.
So what's the catch? There is always a risk you could lose your money – any company you buy shares in could go to the wall. However, these are not shares: EcoBonds "represent a loan to the company for a fixed period with a fixed rate of interest".
The firm's prospectus says: "EcoBonds are an unsecured debt of the company, and there is no certainty or guarantee that the company … will be able to repay them." Put bluntly, if the company goes bust, you would probably lose some or all of your money. There is no compensation scheme as there are for failed banks. However, the banks are not paying 7%.
Investors can reassure themselves that Ecotricty has been in business for 15 years. In 2008-09 the company turned over £38.3m and posted gross profits of £15.4m. It says the bonds will go ahead provided it gets at least £1m of the £10m sought. Potential investors should note that the EcoBonds are not transferable and cannot be traded.
For more information and to download a prospectus, go to ecotricity.co.uk. The closing date for applications is 10 December.
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Tea Party climate change deniers funded by BP and other major polluters
Midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites DeMint and Inhofe have received over $240,000
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 October 2010 22.57 BST
BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.
An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.
The report, released tomorrow, used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe's biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: "The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people."
Obama and Democrats have accused corporate interests and anonymous donors of trying to hijack the midterms by funnelling money to the Chamber of Commerce and to conservative Tea Party groups. The Chamber of Commerce reportedly has raised $75m (£47m) for pro-business, mainly Republican candidates.
"Oil companies and the other special interests are spending millions on a campaign to gut clean-air standards and clean-energy standards, jeopardising the health and prosperity of this state," Obama told a rally in California on Friday night.
Much of the speculation has focused on Karl Rove, the mastermind of George Bush's victories, who has raised $15m for Republican candidates since September through a new organisation, American Crossroads. An NBC report warned that Rove was spearheading an effort to inject some $250m in television advertising for Republican candidates in the final days before the 2 November elections.
But Rove, appearing today on CBS television's Face the Nation, accused Democrats of deploying the same tactics in 2008. "The president of the US had no problem at all when the Democrats did this," he said. "It was not a threat to democracy when it helped him get elected."
The Cane report said the companies, including BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay, which are some of Europe's biggest emitters, had collectively donated $240,200 to senators who blocked action on global warming – more even than the $217,000 the oil billionaires and Tea Party bankrollers, David and Charles Koch, have donated to Senate campaigns.
The biggest single donor was the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which gave $108,100 to senators. BP made $25,000 in campaign donations, of which $18,000 went to senators who opposed action on climate change. Recipients of the European campaign donations included some of the biggest climate deniers in the Senate, such as Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a hoax.
The foreign corporate interest in America's midterms is not restricted to Europe. A report by ThinkProgress, operated by the Centre for American Progress, tracked donations to the Chamber of Commerce from a number of Indian and Middle Eastern oil coal and electricity companies.
Foreign interest does not stop with the elections. The Guardian reported earlier this year that a Belgian-based chemical company, Solvay, was behind a front group that is suing to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 October 2010 22.57 BST
BP and several other big European companies are funding the midterm election campaigns of Tea Party favourites who deny the existence of global warming or oppose Barack Obama's energy agenda, the Guardian has learned.
An analysis of campaign finance by Climate Action Network Europe (Cane) found nearly 80% of campaign donations from a number of major European firms were directed towards senators who blocked action on climate change. These included incumbents who have been embraced by the Tea Party such as Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, and the notorious climate change denier James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma.
The report, released tomorrow, used information on the Open Secrets.org database to track what it called a co-ordinated attempt by some of Europe's biggest polluters to influence the US midterms. It said: "The European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the US and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people."
Obama and Democrats have accused corporate interests and anonymous donors of trying to hijack the midterms by funnelling money to the Chamber of Commerce and to conservative Tea Party groups. The Chamber of Commerce reportedly has raised $75m (£47m) for pro-business, mainly Republican candidates.
"Oil companies and the other special interests are spending millions on a campaign to gut clean-air standards and clean-energy standards, jeopardising the health and prosperity of this state," Obama told a rally in California on Friday night.
Much of the speculation has focused on Karl Rove, the mastermind of George Bush's victories, who has raised $15m for Republican candidates since September through a new organisation, American Crossroads. An NBC report warned that Rove was spearheading an effort to inject some $250m in television advertising for Republican candidates in the final days before the 2 November elections.
But Rove, appearing today on CBS television's Face the Nation, accused Democrats of deploying the same tactics in 2008. "The president of the US had no problem at all when the Democrats did this," he said. "It was not a threat to democracy when it helped him get elected."
The Cane report said the companies, including BP, BASF, Bayer and Solvay, which are some of Europe's biggest emitters, had collectively donated $240,200 to senators who blocked action on global warming – more even than the $217,000 the oil billionaires and Tea Party bankrollers, David and Charles Koch, have donated to Senate campaigns.
The biggest single donor was the German pharmaceutical company Bayer, which gave $108,100 to senators. BP made $25,000 in campaign donations, of which $18,000 went to senators who opposed action on climate change. Recipients of the European campaign donations included some of the biggest climate deniers in the Senate, such as Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a hoax.
The foreign corporate interest in America's midterms is not restricted to Europe. A report by ThinkProgress, operated by the Centre for American Progress, tracked donations to the Chamber of Commerce from a number of Indian and Middle Eastern oil coal and electricity companies.
Foreign interest does not stop with the elections. The Guardian reported earlier this year that a Belgian-based chemical company, Solvay, was behind a front group that is suing to strip the Obama administration of its powers to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
High energy costs prompt householders to cut back on winter heating
UK consumers face a winter of discontent as they attempt to keep this year's energy bills down
Mark King guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 October 2010 11.22 BST
More than six out of 10 households are worried about the cost of their energy bills this winter and 20% of consumers are already struggling to pay their energy bills, according to a survey published today.
Research from uSwitch.com also revealed that almost three-quarters (73%) or 19m households have already cut back on their energy usage or intend to do so in an attempt to cut their bills.
Almost half (48%) of those polled have attempted to make their homes more energy efficient, with a further 24% saying they are more likely to do so because of the last year's particularly cold winter.
But 17% of households either went without heating last winter or did not have adequate heating for fear of energy bills going through the roof. uSwitch said people could feel forced to ration their heating again this year if this winter turns out to be as severe as last year's.
Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at uSwitch.com, said: "The high cost of energy coupled with last year's bitter winter has had a lasting impression on British householders.
"In some ways it has acted as a force for good, encouraging people to make their homes more energy efficient in time for this winter. But it isn't all positive news and the big concern is for those who have been left behind, who cannot afford to make their homes energy efficient, and who look set to face another winter of self-rationing to stop their fuel bills going through the roof."
Under the Cert (Carbon Emission Reduction Target) scheme,, energy suppliers have a pot of money allocated to boosting energy efficiency. According to the research, one-fifth of households have been contacted by their supplier offering help in making their homes energy efficient. Consumers can also ask their supplier for help under the Cert scheme – but less than one in 10 (9%) have done so and over half of consumers (51%) are unaware that they can ask their supplier for help with grants and special offers.
"Before cutting back on energy usage, I would urge consumers to speak to their energy supplier about the help they could get with energy efficiency and to then ensure that they are paying as little as possible for the energy they use by moving to a more competitive energy plan," Robinson said. "By taking these steps, hopefully households can keep a lid on their winter fuel bill without having to take drastic and potentially dangerous measures."
According to uSwitch, households can save around £239 a year by moving to an online plan. The current best online providers are E.ON (£894 for the year) and nPower (£952 for the year). The company advises consumers sign up for dual fuel (getting both gas and electricity from one supplier) as there are discounts available for doing so, and pay by direct debit as suppliers give direct debit customers a discount.
Moneysupermarket.com says the earlier you switch, the greater chance you have of saving money during winter. It says those switching now could expect to complete the switch by early to mid-December, saving up to £500 off their annual bill.
Other tips for bringing your winter fuel bill down include:
• Turn your thermostat down to reduce your room temperature by 1°C – this could save 10% on your annual heating bills.
• Almost 25% of heat is lost via poorly insulated roofs so invest in cheap but effective insulation.
• Heat only the rooms you use most often, especially if you live in a large house.
• Close your curtains in the evenings – they keep the heat in and are one of the simplest and easiest ways of cutting heating bills.
• Reduce draughts around doors (keyholes, letterboxes, gaps in doors and windows) because heat escaping your home is money wasted. Moneysupermarket.com says draught-excluder packs are available from most DIY stores for as little as £60.
• Remember the basics: don't leave electrical appliances on standby (a computer on "sleep" mode uses up to 75% of its energy); turn off lights and appliances when you go to bed; don't overfill your kettle; take showers rather than baths; wash clothes in your washing machine at a lower temperature; and change to energy-saving lightbulbs.
Mark King guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 October 2010 11.22 BST
More than six out of 10 households are worried about the cost of their energy bills this winter and 20% of consumers are already struggling to pay their energy bills, according to a survey published today.
Research from uSwitch.com also revealed that almost three-quarters (73%) or 19m households have already cut back on their energy usage or intend to do so in an attempt to cut their bills.
Almost half (48%) of those polled have attempted to make their homes more energy efficient, with a further 24% saying they are more likely to do so because of the last year's particularly cold winter.
But 17% of households either went without heating last winter or did not have adequate heating for fear of energy bills going through the roof. uSwitch said people could feel forced to ration their heating again this year if this winter turns out to be as severe as last year's.
Ann Robinson, director of consumer policy at uSwitch.com, said: "The high cost of energy coupled with last year's bitter winter has had a lasting impression on British householders.
"In some ways it has acted as a force for good, encouraging people to make their homes more energy efficient in time for this winter. But it isn't all positive news and the big concern is for those who have been left behind, who cannot afford to make their homes energy efficient, and who look set to face another winter of self-rationing to stop their fuel bills going through the roof."
Under the Cert (Carbon Emission Reduction Target) scheme,, energy suppliers have a pot of money allocated to boosting energy efficiency. According to the research, one-fifth of households have been contacted by their supplier offering help in making their homes energy efficient. Consumers can also ask their supplier for help under the Cert scheme – but less than one in 10 (9%) have done so and over half of consumers (51%) are unaware that they can ask their supplier for help with grants and special offers.
"Before cutting back on energy usage, I would urge consumers to speak to their energy supplier about the help they could get with energy efficiency and to then ensure that they are paying as little as possible for the energy they use by moving to a more competitive energy plan," Robinson said. "By taking these steps, hopefully households can keep a lid on their winter fuel bill without having to take drastic and potentially dangerous measures."
According to uSwitch, households can save around £239 a year by moving to an online plan. The current best online providers are E.ON (£894 for the year) and nPower (£952 for the year). The company advises consumers sign up for dual fuel (getting both gas and electricity from one supplier) as there are discounts available for doing so, and pay by direct debit as suppliers give direct debit customers a discount.
Moneysupermarket.com says the earlier you switch, the greater chance you have of saving money during winter. It says those switching now could expect to complete the switch by early to mid-December, saving up to £500 off their annual bill.
Other tips for bringing your winter fuel bill down include:
• Turn your thermostat down to reduce your room temperature by 1°C – this could save 10% on your annual heating bills.
• Almost 25% of heat is lost via poorly insulated roofs so invest in cheap but effective insulation.
• Heat only the rooms you use most often, especially if you live in a large house.
• Close your curtains in the evenings – they keep the heat in and are one of the simplest and easiest ways of cutting heating bills.
• Reduce draughts around doors (keyholes, letterboxes, gaps in doors and windows) because heat escaping your home is money wasted. Moneysupermarket.com says draught-excluder packs are available from most DIY stores for as little as £60.
• Remember the basics: don't leave electrical appliances on standby (a computer on "sleep" mode uses up to 75% of its energy); turn off lights and appliances when you go to bed; don't overfill your kettle; take showers rather than baths; wash clothes in your washing machine at a lower temperature; and change to energy-saving lightbulbs.
South Africa unveils plans for 'world's biggest' solar power plant
Giant mirrors and solar panels in Northern Cape would reduce carbon emissions and generate one-tenth of the country's energy needs
David Smith in Johannesburg guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 October 2010 17.01 BST Article historySouth Africa is to unveil plans this week for what it claims will be the world's biggest solar power plant – a radical step in a coal-dependent country where one in six people still lacks electricity.
The project, expected to cost up to 200bn rand (£18.42bn), would aim by the end of its first decade to achieve an annual output of five gigawatts (GW) of electricity - currently one-tenth of South Africa's energy needs.
Giant mirrors and solar panels would be spread across the Northern Cape province, which the government says is among the sunniest 3% of regions in the world with minimal cloud or rain.
The government hopes the solar park will help reduce carbon emissions from Africa's biggest economy, which is still more than 90% dependent on coal-fired power stations. In April, the World Bank came in for sharp criticism from environmentalists for approving a $3.75bn (£2.37bn) loan to build one of the world's largest coal-fired power plants in the country.
Energy is already a high priority in South Africa where, at the end of racial apartheid, less than 40% of households had electricity. Over 16 years the governing African National Congress has undertaken a huge national expansion, with a recent survey showing that 83% are now connected, but power outages are still not uncommon in both townships and middle-class suburbs.
An estimated 200 foreign and domestic investors will meet this week in Upington, Northern Cape, with a view to funding the hugely ambitious solar project. A master plan will be set out by the US engineering and construction group Fluor. This follows a viability study by the Clinton Climate Initiative, which described South Africa's "solar resource" as among the best in the world.
Jonathan de Vries, the project manager, said today: "I'd hate to make a large claim but yes, this would be the biggest solar park in the world."
De Vries said the park, costing 150-200bn rand, would aim to be contributing to the national grid by the end of 2012. In the initial phase it would produce 1,000 megawatts, or 1GW, using a mix of the latest solar technologies.
An initial 9,000 hectares of state-owned land have been earmarked for the park, with further sites in the "solar corridor" being explored.
De Vries, a special adviser to the energy minister, said the Northern Cape had been chosen for insolation readings (a measure of solar energy) that rank among the highest in the world. "It hardly ever rains, it hardly has clouds. It's even better than the Sahara desert because it doesn't have sandstorms."
The Orange River would provide water for the facilities, he added, while existing power transmission lines would be closer than for similar projects such as in Australia.
Northern Cape, which contains the historic diamond-rush town, Kimberley, is South Africa's biggest province and one of its poorest. But it is hoped that the park would create a "solar hub" and regenerate the local economy with fresh opportunities in manufacturing.
South Africa currently consumes 45-48GW of power per year. It is estimated this will double over the next 25 years. "In South Africa over 90% of our power comes from the burning of coal and we need to reduce this because of our international obligations on climate change," de Vries said.
"If this proves to be cost competitive with coal and nuclear, the government will roll out more solar parks. This is a very bold attempt."
He added: "Solar power isn't a panacea that will cure all but it's a part of the solution, and a very important part. There are zones in the world that are ideally suited to it, often those with low population density."
David Smith in Johannesburg guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 October 2010 17.01 BST Article historySouth Africa is to unveil plans this week for what it claims will be the world's biggest solar power plant – a radical step in a coal-dependent country where one in six people still lacks electricity.
The project, expected to cost up to 200bn rand (£18.42bn), would aim by the end of its first decade to achieve an annual output of five gigawatts (GW) of electricity - currently one-tenth of South Africa's energy needs.
Giant mirrors and solar panels would be spread across the Northern Cape province, which the government says is among the sunniest 3% of regions in the world with minimal cloud or rain.
The government hopes the solar park will help reduce carbon emissions from Africa's biggest economy, which is still more than 90% dependent on coal-fired power stations. In April, the World Bank came in for sharp criticism from environmentalists for approving a $3.75bn (£2.37bn) loan to build one of the world's largest coal-fired power plants in the country.
Energy is already a high priority in South Africa where, at the end of racial apartheid, less than 40% of households had electricity. Over 16 years the governing African National Congress has undertaken a huge national expansion, with a recent survey showing that 83% are now connected, but power outages are still not uncommon in both townships and middle-class suburbs.
An estimated 200 foreign and domestic investors will meet this week in Upington, Northern Cape, with a view to funding the hugely ambitious solar project. A master plan will be set out by the US engineering and construction group Fluor. This follows a viability study by the Clinton Climate Initiative, which described South Africa's "solar resource" as among the best in the world.
Jonathan de Vries, the project manager, said today: "I'd hate to make a large claim but yes, this would be the biggest solar park in the world."
De Vries said the park, costing 150-200bn rand, would aim to be contributing to the national grid by the end of 2012. In the initial phase it would produce 1,000 megawatts, or 1GW, using a mix of the latest solar technologies.
An initial 9,000 hectares of state-owned land have been earmarked for the park, with further sites in the "solar corridor" being explored.
De Vries, a special adviser to the energy minister, said the Northern Cape had been chosen for insolation readings (a measure of solar energy) that rank among the highest in the world. "It hardly ever rains, it hardly has clouds. It's even better than the Sahara desert because it doesn't have sandstorms."
The Orange River would provide water for the facilities, he added, while existing power transmission lines would be closer than for similar projects such as in Australia.
Northern Cape, which contains the historic diamond-rush town, Kimberley, is South Africa's biggest province and one of its poorest. But it is hoped that the park would create a "solar hub" and regenerate the local economy with fresh opportunities in manufacturing.
South Africa currently consumes 45-48GW of power per year. It is estimated this will double over the next 25 years. "In South Africa over 90% of our power comes from the burning of coal and we need to reduce this because of our international obligations on climate change," de Vries said.
"If this proves to be cost competitive with coal and nuclear, the government will roll out more solar parks. This is a very bold attempt."
He added: "Solar power isn't a panacea that will cure all but it's a part of the solution, and a very important part. There are zones in the world that are ideally suited to it, often those with low population density."
Monday, 25 October 2010
African Sunrise: Morocco's Solar Power Sector Continues To Heat Up
Posted On: October 21 Early last week, the Moroccan Agency for Solar Energy (MASEN) announced that 50 bids were submitted for new solar projects. The bids came from a host of European based companies including Italy's Enel SpA, Spain's Abengoa SA and Actividades de Construccion y Servicios SA (ACS), as well as Germany's Solar Millennium AG and Siemens AG. While discussions surrounding Morocco's energy sector have historically received marginal press, the significant investment occurring within Morocco should not come as a surprise. Currently, Morocco receives over 3,000 hours of intense sunshine annually. To take advantage of this abundant resource, the Moroccan government is planning to invest over US $9 billion in solar technology, making the country one of the most attractive renewable energy investment destinations in Africa. Specifically, Morocco is planning on creating 5 solar massive fields (and generating plants) that will be located in the Ouarzazate, Ain Bni Mathar, Foum Al Oued, Boujdour and Sebkhat Tah regions. Collectively, the African nation is counting on significant foreign investment to support this development; investment, that will ideally help the Moroccan government achieve its plan of generating at least 2,000MW of solar energy by 2020.
While many within the renewable energy sector continue to cheer, what appears unclear - at least on the surface - is the Moroccan government's motivation to undertake such an aggressive investment. Specifically, on a continent that has significant international investment in non-sustainable energy resources, why isn't Morocco look toward more conventional energy sources including oil and gas? Unbeknown to most, Morocco is the only North African country that does not have indigenous energy resources located within border. Currently, Morocco imports 97% of its energy. This importation costs the country the equivalent of approximately 10% of its annual GDP. Moreover, this reliance continues to put pressure on the country's trade balance, while also negatively impacting public finances. Similarly, with demand for energy growing between 5% and 8% annually, Morocco has been forced to find sustainable renewable energy options in order to keep its finances stable. While geopolitical concerns exist, Morocco looks to have a bright, bright future. In fact, if Morocco can remain committed to its goals, the country stands to become one of the leading generator of renewable energy in North Africa. Overall, I believe that the next 12 - 24 months will see an increase in both the rate and amount of international investment within Morocco's renewable energy sector. In fact, judging from the initial bid responses, it is clear that many international companies are already aligning their resources to take advantage of this investment, particularly because Morocco holds tremendous potential as an energy exporting region - particularly to European nations
While many within the renewable energy sector continue to cheer, what appears unclear - at least on the surface - is the Moroccan government's motivation to undertake such an aggressive investment. Specifically, on a continent that has significant international investment in non-sustainable energy resources, why isn't Morocco look toward more conventional energy sources including oil and gas? Unbeknown to most, Morocco is the only North African country that does not have indigenous energy resources located within border. Currently, Morocco imports 97% of its energy. This importation costs the country the equivalent of approximately 10% of its annual GDP. Moreover, this reliance continues to put pressure on the country's trade balance, while also negatively impacting public finances. Similarly, with demand for energy growing between 5% and 8% annually, Morocco has been forced to find sustainable renewable energy options in order to keep its finances stable. While geopolitical concerns exist, Morocco looks to have a bright, bright future. In fact, if Morocco can remain committed to its goals, the country stands to become one of the leading generator of renewable energy in North Africa. Overall, I believe that the next 12 - 24 months will see an increase in both the rate and amount of international investment within Morocco's renewable energy sector. In fact, judging from the initial bid responses, it is clear that many international companies are already aligning their resources to take advantage of this investment, particularly because Morocco holds tremendous potential as an energy exporting region - particularly to European nations
Tidal Power: The Next Wave?
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
Over the next few years, we can expect to see huge advances in our ability to harness power from the ocean’s waves and tides, a new report from IHS Emerging Energy Research, a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm, predicts.
A tidal energy turbine developed by Atlantis Resources.Until recently, that sector has had limited popularity and mixed success, even as the number of installations generating power from other renewable resources like the wind, sun and biomass has grown rapidly.
“The global ocean energy sector is at a turning point,” the company’s report says. More than 45 wave and tidal prototypes are expected to be ocean-tested in 2010 and 2011. Only nine were tested in 2009.
More important, perhaps, while previous test projects tended to be operated by small, boutique firms, the giants of hydropower, which have decades of experience drawing power from rivers, are now getting into the ocean business.
Tides are particularly attractive sources of power because they are predictable, unlike sunshine and wind. Not surprisingly, countries with rough seas like Britain and Portugal are leading the way in exploring ocean power.
Portugal, which now gets more than 40 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, was one of the first countries to install a commercial “wave farm.” There, several years ago, a British company used a snakelike device called the Pelamis system to absorb the energy of waves.
The Portugal experiment met with mixed results before it was halted because of financial problems. One stumbling block was that the floating machines that absorbed wave energy quickly broke under the constant assault of the waves.
The European Energy Association estimates that, globally, the oceans could yield more than 100.000 terawatt hours a year if the technology to harness that power can be perfected. That is more than five times the electricity the world uses in a year.
.
Over the next few years, we can expect to see huge advances in our ability to harness power from the ocean’s waves and tides, a new report from IHS Emerging Energy Research, a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm, predicts.
A tidal energy turbine developed by Atlantis Resources.Until recently, that sector has had limited popularity and mixed success, even as the number of installations generating power from other renewable resources like the wind, sun and biomass has grown rapidly.
“The global ocean energy sector is at a turning point,” the company’s report says. More than 45 wave and tidal prototypes are expected to be ocean-tested in 2010 and 2011. Only nine were tested in 2009.
More important, perhaps, while previous test projects tended to be operated by small, boutique firms, the giants of hydropower, which have decades of experience drawing power from rivers, are now getting into the ocean business.
Tides are particularly attractive sources of power because they are predictable, unlike sunshine and wind. Not surprisingly, countries with rough seas like Britain and Portugal are leading the way in exploring ocean power.
Portugal, which now gets more than 40 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, was one of the first countries to install a commercial “wave farm.” There, several years ago, a British company used a snakelike device called the Pelamis system to absorb the energy of waves.
The Portugal experiment met with mixed results before it was halted because of financial problems. One stumbling block was that the floating machines that absorbed wave energy quickly broke under the constant assault of the waves.
The European Energy Association estimates that, globally, the oceans could yield more than 100.000 terawatt hours a year if the technology to harness that power can be perfected. That is more than five times the electricity the world uses in a year.
.
Queen set to earn millions from windfarm expansion
By Andy McSmith
Monday, 25 October 2010
There is more good financial news for the Queen and her eventual successor, among the few beneficiaries of last week's spending review by George Osborne which cut billions off public spending.
The royals will indirectly benefit from the £200m extra that the Government will invest in offshore wind farms and in the port facilities needed to handle them. The seabed within Britain's territorial waters, which extend almost 14 miles from the coast, is owned by the Crown Estate. Operators pay rent to the Crown Estate for the right to run cables along the seabed, and they also pay out a percentage of the profit from the electricity generated.
For more than two centuries, income from the Crown Estate has gone to the Exchequer, under a deal reached between Parliament and George III. But during his announcement of the Spending Review, Mr Osborne said the royal family is to receive a proportion of the income from the estate. The civil list, which has been Parliament's way of financing the royal family up to now, is to be frozen, and then abolished outright in 2013.
The number of turbines operating around Britain's coastline is scheduled to grow from 436 at present to around 6,400 in 2020, creating thousands of new jobs and generating tens of millions of extra income for the Crown Estate.
Prince Charles is a well-known campaigner for offshore wind turbines and other forms of clean energy – although he strongly disapproves of wind turbines sited in beauty spots on land, describing these as a "horrendous blot on the landscape". He refused to have them built on his Highgrove estate.
The estate owns about £6bn worth of land and other assets, bringing in last year a profit of £210m. The development of wind turbines could more than double that annual figure.
The new arrangement means that, for the first time since Parliament bailed out George III's debts, the monarchy will not have to negotiate with the government over its expenditure, as it will have an independent source of income more than adequate to cover its costs. Buckingham Palace estimates that it costs £38.2m a year to run the monarchy (a figure that does not include security and certain other costs). If operations are to be maintained at that level, it will need to receive something like 15 per cent of the income from the Crown Estate.
The Treasury says that 15 per cent is an "indicative figure" of how the settlement might work, and that no final decision has been made. Once the figure is agreed, the monarchy will have an independence from parliamentary oversight that it has not enjoyed for centuries.
Mr Osborne declared last week that his intention was to settle the question of royal finances once and for all. A Buckingham Palace spokes-man said: "The details have not yet been finalised with the Treasury."
Monday, 25 October 2010
There is more good financial news for the Queen and her eventual successor, among the few beneficiaries of last week's spending review by George Osborne which cut billions off public spending.
The royals will indirectly benefit from the £200m extra that the Government will invest in offshore wind farms and in the port facilities needed to handle them. The seabed within Britain's territorial waters, which extend almost 14 miles from the coast, is owned by the Crown Estate. Operators pay rent to the Crown Estate for the right to run cables along the seabed, and they also pay out a percentage of the profit from the electricity generated.
For more than two centuries, income from the Crown Estate has gone to the Exchequer, under a deal reached between Parliament and George III. But during his announcement of the Spending Review, Mr Osborne said the royal family is to receive a proportion of the income from the estate. The civil list, which has been Parliament's way of financing the royal family up to now, is to be frozen, and then abolished outright in 2013.
The number of turbines operating around Britain's coastline is scheduled to grow from 436 at present to around 6,400 in 2020, creating thousands of new jobs and generating tens of millions of extra income for the Crown Estate.
Prince Charles is a well-known campaigner for offshore wind turbines and other forms of clean energy – although he strongly disapproves of wind turbines sited in beauty spots on land, describing these as a "horrendous blot on the landscape". He refused to have them built on his Highgrove estate.
The estate owns about £6bn worth of land and other assets, bringing in last year a profit of £210m. The development of wind turbines could more than double that annual figure.
The new arrangement means that, for the first time since Parliament bailed out George III's debts, the monarchy will not have to negotiate with the government over its expenditure, as it will have an independent source of income more than adequate to cover its costs. Buckingham Palace estimates that it costs £38.2m a year to run the monarchy (a figure that does not include security and certain other costs). If operations are to be maintained at that level, it will need to receive something like 15 per cent of the income from the Crown Estate.
The Treasury says that 15 per cent is an "indicative figure" of how the settlement might work, and that no final decision has been made. Once the figure is agreed, the monarchy will have an independence from parliamentary oversight that it has not enjoyed for centuries.
Mr Osborne declared last week that his intention was to settle the question of royal finances once and for all. A Buckingham Palace spokes-man said: "The details have not yet been finalised with the Treasury."
Electric Cars Make Sense Now, Their Future Is Bright
Remember when mobile phones fit in a brief case, weighed 40 pounds and were affordable only to the wealthy? Now, cell phones fit in your hand, have desktop-like computing power and sell by the tens of thousands every day.
Holman Jenkins's skepticism of electric cars ("Volte-Face," Business World, Oct. 20) ignores the fact that electric vehicles are in the early stages of development. As battery technology matures and the infrastructure is built, price, performance and acceptance of electric vehicles will inevitably improve.
Chevrolet's Volt represents a better, more practical electric car as this segment of the industry advances. Volt owners can drive gas-free for 25 to 50 miles, depending on conditions. Since some 75% of Americans average 40 miles or less each day, that could mean millions of miles without using a drop of gas. For longer trips when battery power is drawn down, a small gas engine generates power for some 300 more miles of driving.
Mr. Jenkins also ignores the fact that petroleum is not infinite and gas prices are likely to rise over time. Electric vehicles are not the only answer, but they will be a big part of any solution, and it takes an investment by many players, including auto makers, utilities and government, to help this industry grow.
The early enthusiastic consumer response—more than 120,000 potential Volt customers have already signaled interest in the car, and orders have flowed since the summer—give us confidence that the Volt will succeed on its merits. Electric vehicles will be an important part of the future, here and around the globe, and we are proud to help lead the way.
Mark Reuss
President, North America
General Motors Co.
Detroit
Mr. Jenkins raises an interesting question about the environmental benefits to be derived from recharging the Chevy Volt or other plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) from an electricity generation fleet that includes coal-fired power plants.
Noting that nearly half of the nation's electricity is produced with coal-based electric generation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Electric Power Research Institute teamed up to study the potential impacts of PHEVs on electricity use and the environment. Among their conclusions: Widespread adoption of PHEVs can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by more than 450 million metric tons annually in 2050, equivalent to removing 82.5 million passenger cars from the road. They also found that PHEVs can improve air quality nationwide and reduce petroleum consumption by three million to four million barrels per day in 2050.
Thomas R. Kuhn
President
Edison Electric Institute
Washington
Holman Jenkins's skepticism of electric cars ("Volte-Face," Business World, Oct. 20) ignores the fact that electric vehicles are in the early stages of development. As battery technology matures and the infrastructure is built, price, performance and acceptance of electric vehicles will inevitably improve.
Chevrolet's Volt represents a better, more practical electric car as this segment of the industry advances. Volt owners can drive gas-free for 25 to 50 miles, depending on conditions. Since some 75% of Americans average 40 miles or less each day, that could mean millions of miles without using a drop of gas. For longer trips when battery power is drawn down, a small gas engine generates power for some 300 more miles of driving.
Mr. Jenkins also ignores the fact that petroleum is not infinite and gas prices are likely to rise over time. Electric vehicles are not the only answer, but they will be a big part of any solution, and it takes an investment by many players, including auto makers, utilities and government, to help this industry grow.
The early enthusiastic consumer response—more than 120,000 potential Volt customers have already signaled interest in the car, and orders have flowed since the summer—give us confidence that the Volt will succeed on its merits. Electric vehicles will be an important part of the future, here and around the globe, and we are proud to help lead the way.
Mark Reuss
President, North America
General Motors Co.
Detroit
Mr. Jenkins raises an interesting question about the environmental benefits to be derived from recharging the Chevy Volt or other plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) from an electricity generation fleet that includes coal-fired power plants.
Noting that nearly half of the nation's electricity is produced with coal-based electric generation, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Electric Power Research Institute teamed up to study the potential impacts of PHEVs on electricity use and the environment. Among their conclusions: Widespread adoption of PHEVs can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by more than 450 million metric tons annually in 2050, equivalent to removing 82.5 million passenger cars from the road. They also found that PHEVs can improve air quality nationwide and reduce petroleum consumption by three million to four million barrels per day in 2050.
Thomas R. Kuhn
President
Edison Electric Institute
Washington
Nuclear sell-off could fund green investment bank
Chris Huhne says sale of stake in Urenco could help the bank invest in low-carbon technology
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 October 2010 18.19 BST
The government wants to sell its stake in a company that makes enriched uranium for nuclear power, to help fund the new green investment bank, which is being set up to invest in low-carbon technology.
The chancellor, George Osborne, announced in the spending review this week that the government would put £1bn into the bank and hoped to find extra funds from asset sales, although he did not say what would be sold.
Chris Huhne, the climate secretary, today told the Guardian that he was looking at selling the UK's one third share in Urenco, a company it jointly owns with the Dutch government and two German power companies, RWE and E.ON.
Urenco, which has a quarter of the growing global market for enriched uranium, was recently valued by the Adam Smith Institute thinktank at £3bn. However, the relinquishing of government control of such a politically and technologically sensitive company could prove controversial with anti-nuclear campaigners, including many in Huhne's own Liberal Democrat party.
A previous attempt by the Labour government to sell its share in Urenco, in 2006, failed because it was blocked by the other shareholders. This may raise concerns about how long any fund-raising will take.
Malcolm Grimston, associate fellow and nuclear expert at international affairs thinktank Chatham House, said a private sale of Urenco should not raise concerns about nuclear security, because of tight regulation. Uranium enriched for power has a very much lower content of fissile material, Uranium 235, than that used for weapons.
"The safeguards around materials are pretty strong and robust, and therefore I think the general feeling is the ownership is not a particular issue," said Grimston.
Huhne's success in getting the Treasury to agree the £1bn was seen as a qualified success, being considerably less than the £2bn-6bn that City and environment experts had called for, and half what Nick Clegg told Lib Dem MPs on the morning of the spending review.
"The exact shape of the remit of the institution is still to be decided ... but the key thing is to have found a contribution to the capital from public spending, and we're continuing to work hard to find asset sales which will fund it," Huhne said.
The chancellor's description of the new institution as a "Green Investment Bank" – using capital letters – was also seen as something of a victory after the Treasury apparently wanted to downgrade the coalition and manifesto promise to a "fund".
Huhne suggested there was concern about liabilities the government could take on, saying: "The Treasury has a lot of experience of banks over the last couple of years [and] the problem with our banks happened when money they lent wasn't paid back and money they borrowed had to be paid back."
However he added: "We found the capital for what the chancellor called a bank ... If we were to announce that we were going ahead with a bank which was not a bank a lot of people in the City would spot that very rapidly."
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 October 2010 18.19 BST
The government wants to sell its stake in a company that makes enriched uranium for nuclear power, to help fund the new green investment bank, which is being set up to invest in low-carbon technology.
The chancellor, George Osborne, announced in the spending review this week that the government would put £1bn into the bank and hoped to find extra funds from asset sales, although he did not say what would be sold.
Chris Huhne, the climate secretary, today told the Guardian that he was looking at selling the UK's one third share in Urenco, a company it jointly owns with the Dutch government and two German power companies, RWE and E.ON.
Urenco, which has a quarter of the growing global market for enriched uranium, was recently valued by the Adam Smith Institute thinktank at £3bn. However, the relinquishing of government control of such a politically and technologically sensitive company could prove controversial with anti-nuclear campaigners, including many in Huhne's own Liberal Democrat party.
A previous attempt by the Labour government to sell its share in Urenco, in 2006, failed because it was blocked by the other shareholders. This may raise concerns about how long any fund-raising will take.
Malcolm Grimston, associate fellow and nuclear expert at international affairs thinktank Chatham House, said a private sale of Urenco should not raise concerns about nuclear security, because of tight regulation. Uranium enriched for power has a very much lower content of fissile material, Uranium 235, than that used for weapons.
"The safeguards around materials are pretty strong and robust, and therefore I think the general feeling is the ownership is not a particular issue," said Grimston.
Huhne's success in getting the Treasury to agree the £1bn was seen as a qualified success, being considerably less than the £2bn-6bn that City and environment experts had called for, and half what Nick Clegg told Lib Dem MPs on the morning of the spending review.
"The exact shape of the remit of the institution is still to be decided ... but the key thing is to have found a contribution to the capital from public spending, and we're continuing to work hard to find asset sales which will fund it," Huhne said.
The chancellor's description of the new institution as a "Green Investment Bank" – using capital letters – was also seen as something of a victory after the Treasury apparently wanted to downgrade the coalition and manifesto promise to a "fund".
Huhne suggested there was concern about liabilities the government could take on, saying: "The Treasury has a lot of experience of banks over the last couple of years [and] the problem with our banks happened when money they lent wasn't paid back and money they borrowed had to be paid back."
However he added: "We found the capital for what the chancellor called a bank ... If we were to announce that we were going ahead with a bank which was not a bank a lot of people in the City would spot that very rapidly."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
