The hybrid Range Rover will be in the same road tax bracket as a Fiesta
Tree huggers will need a new target, as the Range Rover, one of the most polluting cars, is set to become greener than a Smart. A hybrid version of the Range Rover Sport is being developed that will produce fewer than 100g/km of CO2 when it goes on sale in 2013, and will be in the same road tax bracket as the Ford Fiesta and VW Polo.
The range_e prototype could alter Land Rover’s poor image with environmentalists: the Range Rover Sport produces 243g/km of CO2, and the supercharged version 348g/km.
The new model will have a hybrid electric/diesel power unit, and unlike existing 4x4 hybrids, such as the Lexus RX 450h, which uses regenerative braking to recharge its batteries, the Land Rover’s battery will be recharged from mains electricity, and, it is said, will have a 20-mile range on the 94bhp electric motor alone. A 3-litre V6 turbodiesel engine will kick in under heavy acceleration to produce a combined 340bhp, and will take over when the batteries are flat.
Land Rover, which has already started work on the hybrid system, has a £340m loan from the European Investment Bank to develop eco-friendly cars, and is to spend £800m on sustainable technologies in response to a European Union directive requiring car makers to reduce average CO2 emissions. Land Rover must cut its emissions by 25%
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Ford puts $135 Million into electric car plan
By Keith Naughton
SOUTHFIELD, MICH. — Working to make a quarter of its vehicles run at least partly on electricity, Ford plans to invest $135 million and add 220 jobs at three Michigan facilities to help it introduce five such models by 2012.
About 50 engineers will be hired for a research and development center to be created in the Detroit area, John Stoll, a Ford spokesperson, said Monday in an interview. Ford plans to add 170 production workers at two Michigan plants, he said.
Ford has said it will begin selling two electric vehicles and three new hybrids by 2012 and that such models will constitute 10 percent to 25 percent of its worldwide fleet in a decade. Automakers are developing models powered entirely or in part by electricity to meet fuel-economy standards.
“Ford has been at the forefront of layering this new technology into their vehicles,” Michael Robinet, an auto-industry analyst with CSM Worldwide in Northville, Mich., said in a telephone interview. “It’s been an incremental strategy, but one that’s well thought-out and bodes well for their future.”
Sales of the four hybrids Ford now offers are up 55 percent this year, according to researcher Autodata Corp. of Woodcliff Lake, N.J. Hybrids made up 1.6 percent of Ford’s U.S. light-vehicle sales through April, up from 1.4 percent in 2009.
Ford plans to introduce a gasoline-electric version of its Lincoln MKZ sedan, the brand’s best-selling model, this year. The company also is rolling out electric versions of the Transit Connect van this year and Focus small car in 2011 in the United States. The electric models will come out six months to 12 months later in Europe, Ford said.
For hybrid sales to gain, gas prices must rise and governments must provide incentives to consumers, Mark Fields, Ford’s president of the Americas, told reporters after an announcement at a factory in Ypsilanti, Mich. The plant will get 40 new positions to build hybrid and electric-car batteries.
“Sales of hybrids always depend on the price of a gallon of gas when folks roll up to the pump,” Fields said. “Our view is that gas prices will continue to rise.”
U.S. rules require an average companywide fuel economy rating of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016, up from 25 mpg now.
Ford has eliminated 47 percent of its North American workforce since 2006, and had 70,000 workers in the region at the end of the first quarter. The company has cut costs and overhauled its model lineup to become less dependent on sport- utility vehicles and pickup trucks.
There is a “high probability” Ford will hire new workers at the two Michigan factories making parts for electric vehicles beginning in 2012, Fields said. Those new workers would make $14 an hour, half of what workers now make, he said.
“We’ve got to work the process, but at the end of the day, we’ll probably see some hiring,” Fields said.
Ford is adding about 1,500 positions this year at plants in Chicago and Wayne, Michigan, while laying off 900 workers at a Mustang factory in Flat Rock, Mich. Ford now has about 450 workers on indefinite layoff, Fields said. That number could grow to 900 once the Mustang factory ends its second shift in July, said Marcey Evans, a Ford spokeswoman.
The automaker ended three years of losses with a $2.7 billion profit last year as the domestic auto market fell to the lowest level in 27 years.
Bloomberg News
SOUTHFIELD, MICH. — Working to make a quarter of its vehicles run at least partly on electricity, Ford plans to invest $135 million and add 220 jobs at three Michigan facilities to help it introduce five such models by 2012.
About 50 engineers will be hired for a research and development center to be created in the Detroit area, John Stoll, a Ford spokesperson, said Monday in an interview. Ford plans to add 170 production workers at two Michigan plants, he said.
Ford has said it will begin selling two electric vehicles and three new hybrids by 2012 and that such models will constitute 10 percent to 25 percent of its worldwide fleet in a decade. Automakers are developing models powered entirely or in part by electricity to meet fuel-economy standards.
“Ford has been at the forefront of layering this new technology into their vehicles,” Michael Robinet, an auto-industry analyst with CSM Worldwide in Northville, Mich., said in a telephone interview. “It’s been an incremental strategy, but one that’s well thought-out and bodes well for their future.”
Sales of the four hybrids Ford now offers are up 55 percent this year, according to researcher Autodata Corp. of Woodcliff Lake, N.J. Hybrids made up 1.6 percent of Ford’s U.S. light-vehicle sales through April, up from 1.4 percent in 2009.
Ford plans to introduce a gasoline-electric version of its Lincoln MKZ sedan, the brand’s best-selling model, this year. The company also is rolling out electric versions of the Transit Connect van this year and Focus small car in 2011 in the United States. The electric models will come out six months to 12 months later in Europe, Ford said.
For hybrid sales to gain, gas prices must rise and governments must provide incentives to consumers, Mark Fields, Ford’s president of the Americas, told reporters after an announcement at a factory in Ypsilanti, Mich. The plant will get 40 new positions to build hybrid and electric-car batteries.
“Sales of hybrids always depend on the price of a gallon of gas when folks roll up to the pump,” Fields said. “Our view is that gas prices will continue to rise.”
U.S. rules require an average companywide fuel economy rating of 35.5 miles per gallon in 2016, up from 25 mpg now.
Ford has eliminated 47 percent of its North American workforce since 2006, and had 70,000 workers in the region at the end of the first quarter. The company has cut costs and overhauled its model lineup to become less dependent on sport- utility vehicles and pickup trucks.
There is a “high probability” Ford will hire new workers at the two Michigan factories making parts for electric vehicles beginning in 2012, Fields said. Those new workers would make $14 an hour, half of what workers now make, he said.
“We’ve got to work the process, but at the end of the day, we’ll probably see some hiring,” Fields said.
Ford is adding about 1,500 positions this year at plants in Chicago and Wayne, Michigan, while laying off 900 workers at a Mustang factory in Flat Rock, Mich. Ford now has about 450 workers on indefinite layoff, Fields said. That number could grow to 900 once the Mustang factory ends its second shift in July, said Marcey Evans, a Ford spokeswoman.
The automaker ended three years of losses with a $2.7 billion profit last year as the domestic auto market fell to the lowest level in 27 years.
Bloomberg News
Tanzania: Feedstock Crucial for Biofuels Production
Austin Beyadi
24 May 2010
Dar Es Salaam — A BIOENERGY and food security analysis in Tanzania has indicated that price of the feed stock would play a crucial role in ensuring that biofuels produced in Tanzania are economical.
The analysis shows that over 25-50 per cent reduction in the prices of feedstock would allow ethanol produced in Tanzania to become more competitive in international markets.
BEFS project Co-ordinator, Mr Heiner Thofern said that in the case of sugar cane, a 70 per cent reduction in the purchase price of sugar cane feed stock will bring the ethanol production costs closer to that of Brazil.
He said that increased agricultural yields will also imply a lesser amount of land requirement.
He said that taking into account Tanzania's preferential duty and quota free entry into European and American ethanol markets make Tanzanian ethanol production very attractive.
The BEFS framework is comprised of five core analytical components: Biomass potential, biofuel supply chain production costs, the agriculture markets outlook, economy wide impacts and household level food security.
The analysis was carried out in close consultation with the government.
The overall aim of the analysis is to support the formulation of bioenergy policies that are aligned with Tanzania's poverty reduction and food security strategies and start a continuous process that can inform policy over time.
He said that greater accessibility on farm technology through use of better varieties, access to training, irrigation, inputs, among others, could be the means to improve productivity of feed stock and reduce biofuel production costs.
He further said that even in case whereby the potential for biomass and biofuel production may be significant, lack of transportation networks may become a barrier for its commercialization.
Bioenergy crops considered in the analysis were sugar cane, sweet sorghum, palm oil and jatropha and the most important food security crops selected based on per capita calorie consumption were rice, maize, wheat, potatoes and sugar.
The analysis also assesses the availability of forest biomass and biomass from residues generated from the agricultural, agro industries and forestry processing industries for bioenergy production.
24 May 2010
Dar Es Salaam — A BIOENERGY and food security analysis in Tanzania has indicated that price of the feed stock would play a crucial role in ensuring that biofuels produced in Tanzania are economical.
The analysis shows that over 25-50 per cent reduction in the prices of feedstock would allow ethanol produced in Tanzania to become more competitive in international markets.
BEFS project Co-ordinator, Mr Heiner Thofern said that in the case of sugar cane, a 70 per cent reduction in the purchase price of sugar cane feed stock will bring the ethanol production costs closer to that of Brazil.
He said that increased agricultural yields will also imply a lesser amount of land requirement.
He said that taking into account Tanzania's preferential duty and quota free entry into European and American ethanol markets make Tanzanian ethanol production very attractive.
The BEFS framework is comprised of five core analytical components: Biomass potential, biofuel supply chain production costs, the agriculture markets outlook, economy wide impacts and household level food security.
The analysis was carried out in close consultation with the government.
The overall aim of the analysis is to support the formulation of bioenergy policies that are aligned with Tanzania's poverty reduction and food security strategies and start a continuous process that can inform policy over time.
He said that greater accessibility on farm technology through use of better varieties, access to training, irrigation, inputs, among others, could be the means to improve productivity of feed stock and reduce biofuel production costs.
He further said that even in case whereby the potential for biomass and biofuel production may be significant, lack of transportation networks may become a barrier for its commercialization.
Bioenergy crops considered in the analysis were sugar cane, sweet sorghum, palm oil and jatropha and the most important food security crops selected based on per capita calorie consumption were rice, maize, wheat, potatoes and sugar.
The analysis also assesses the availability of forest biomass and biomass from residues generated from the agricultural, agro industries and forestry processing industries for bioenergy production.
How big is your carbon footprint?
Mike Berners-Lee offers some practical advice on going green.
By Mike Berners-Lee
Published: 7:00AM BST 25 May 2010
'Almost everything we do has a carbon footprint of some kind, but how do we know what it is?' A few years ago, I was going round a supermarket with a journalist who was researching an article on the carbon cost of food. We trailed up and down the aisles with the Dictaphone running, and she plied me with questions: "What about these bananas? How about the cheese? That's organic, so it must be better, right? Is the lettuce harmless? Should we have come here by bus?"
Despite working as an environmental consultant, I was pitifully unable to answer most of her questions. And it struck me that this was part of a wider problem. Almost everything we do has a carbon footprint of some kind, but how do we know what it is? Should we avoid leaving our television sets on standby, or boycott plastic bags, or stop flying, or all of the above? It's no good starting with a list of 500 different rules, because most of us wouldn't be able to keep them for more than a day – especially when we discover that many well-intentioned actions, such as driving to the bottle bank may do more harm than good.
Fred Whitsey
Barracks site is location for fresh battle royal
Cutting coal-based emissions - the big questionsThe result of my deliberations is a new book, How Bad Are Bananas?, which tries to bridge the gap in our knowledge of the way in which what we buy, and how we live, affects the world around us. And the good news is that it's perfectly possible to cut our carbon emissions without taking the fun out of life – if we are prepared to be creative and open-minded about a few of our worst habits.
Calculating carbon footprints can be hideously complicated, but we don't need to make the figures too precise before we can start making sensible choices. Even quite a basic understanding can lead to surprising conclusions. For example, watching television usually turns out to be one of the lower-carbon leisure activities. On the average shopping trip, the plastic bags are responsible for only about a thousandth of the carbon cost, so cutting them out, while a good idea in terms of reducing waste, hardly amounts to a low-carbon lifestyle. On the other hand, a single economy flight to Hong Kong and back has the footprint of about 300,000 carrier bags, or a quarter of a British citizen's typical annual carbon footprint of 15 tonnes. A single red rose, grown out of season, is as bad as four and a half kilos of bananas, mostly because one has been grown out of doors and the other has been hot-housed.
Those numbers aren't exact, but they are good enough to make us think hard about our flight patterns – and perhaps influence our spending on Valentine's Day. Speaking more generally, most of our carbon emissions fall into one of four main areas, as shown below.
HOME ENERGY
I'll keep this brief, because everyone's heard so much about it already, but three must-haves are an efficient boiler, good loft insulation and low-energy light bulbs. All of these pay you back in no time, too.
These are all general pointers, but the real skill is to start factoring the carbon cost into the decisions you make in everyday life. That doesn't mean letting people tell you how to live – just to be able to make informed choices, whether they involve flying less and cycling more, eating less meat and dairy, buying less junk or picking a more efficient dishwasher. Failing that, just offer your loved one a bunch of bananas for your anniversary. I'm sure they'll appreciate the sentiment.
TRAVEL
You can cover your 15 tonnes with four return trips to Hong Kong, or just one if you go first-class, owing to the greater space you're taking up. For a trip from London to Glasgow, the plane has a similar footprint to the average car, but the car wins if it is an energy-efficient one or if there is more than one person in it. Going up to Scotland by train is better, although if there are three of you, travelling in a small, efficient car would have a similar impact. The coach would be twice as good, and cycling would be even better.
For day-to-day trips, cars are about twice as carbon-intensive as most people think, because only around half of the emissions come out of the exhaust pipe: most of the rest consists of manufacture and maintenance. So, if your old banger is safe, and reasonably fuel-efficient, the low-carbon option could well be to keep it.
Personally, I cycle to the station on a folding bike, then take the train. The journey takes 10 minutes longer than by car, but I actually save time because I've had that extra half-hour to read emails on the train.
But while cycling is best for the planet, the energy has to come from somewhere. If you're powered by bananas or breakfast cereal, cycling really is the low-carbon way to get around. If you're powered by cheeseburgers, the footprint per mile is probably similar to sharing a lift in a small efficient car. If you're fuelling the journey with Peruvian asparagus, you'd be better off in a Humvee.
FOOD
Food makes up about a fifth of Britain's carbon footprint (arguably even more if you take account of deforestation). A few simple rules of thumb go a long way in the supermarket. The most obvious is to eat as much as possible of what you buy. Most of us waste more than 20 per cent of our food. It's shocking, but it also gives us an obvious opportunity to save money, and perhaps spend a bit less of our lives trawling up and down the supermarket aisles. We need to remember to look in the fridge before deciding what to eat, and to remember that "leftover soup" is always an option.
The next low-carbon rule is to reduce your meat and dairy consumption – this may also help you live longer, which is a nice bonus. Third, stick to seasonal fruit, veg and flowers, or those that keep long enough to be sent by boat rather than by plane. (Fortunately, you can relax about bananas, oranges and apples wherever they come from, because it's almost always by sea.)
Finally, while you should try to avoid excessive packaging, don't get obsessive about it. At its best, it serves the important purpose of keeping food fresh so that it doesn't get wasted, which usually has more of a carbon cost. In fact, only about one twelfth of the carbon footprint of your food is down to the packaging, compared with about two thirds that comes from the farm.
CONSUMER GOODS
The most expensive area of our carbon footprint is probably the inedible stuff that we buy; clothes, computers, appliances, the lot. And the worst time of year for this is Christmas.
Some friends of ours have a "Not more than £1" rule (kids excepted), which works brilliantly for them – although some frank family negotiations may be required to set this up. More generally, when buying, go for goods that are high-quality and long-lasting, and opt for enduring style rather than fast fashion. Goods that are made in China are likely to have a higher footprint than their western Europe equivalents, perhaps even twice as much. That's not so much down to the distance they've been shipped, but the fact that more of China's electricity comes from coal, and the factories where the products are made tend to be less efficient.
* Mike Berners-Lee is the founder of Small World Consulting, and the author of 'How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Cost of Everything', published this month by Profile. To order from Telegraph Books for £8.99 plus £0.99 p&p, call 0844 871 1515 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0844 871 1515 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or visit www.books.telegraph.co.uk
By Mike Berners-Lee
Published: 7:00AM BST 25 May 2010
'Almost everything we do has a carbon footprint of some kind, but how do we know what it is?' A few years ago, I was going round a supermarket with a journalist who was researching an article on the carbon cost of food. We trailed up and down the aisles with the Dictaphone running, and she plied me with questions: "What about these bananas? How about the cheese? That's organic, so it must be better, right? Is the lettuce harmless? Should we have come here by bus?"
Despite working as an environmental consultant, I was pitifully unable to answer most of her questions. And it struck me that this was part of a wider problem. Almost everything we do has a carbon footprint of some kind, but how do we know what it is? Should we avoid leaving our television sets on standby, or boycott plastic bags, or stop flying, or all of the above? It's no good starting with a list of 500 different rules, because most of us wouldn't be able to keep them for more than a day – especially when we discover that many well-intentioned actions, such as driving to the bottle bank may do more harm than good.
Fred Whitsey
Barracks site is location for fresh battle royal
Cutting coal-based emissions - the big questionsThe result of my deliberations is a new book, How Bad Are Bananas?, which tries to bridge the gap in our knowledge of the way in which what we buy, and how we live, affects the world around us. And the good news is that it's perfectly possible to cut our carbon emissions without taking the fun out of life – if we are prepared to be creative and open-minded about a few of our worst habits.
Calculating carbon footprints can be hideously complicated, but we don't need to make the figures too precise before we can start making sensible choices. Even quite a basic understanding can lead to surprising conclusions. For example, watching television usually turns out to be one of the lower-carbon leisure activities. On the average shopping trip, the plastic bags are responsible for only about a thousandth of the carbon cost, so cutting them out, while a good idea in terms of reducing waste, hardly amounts to a low-carbon lifestyle. On the other hand, a single economy flight to Hong Kong and back has the footprint of about 300,000 carrier bags, or a quarter of a British citizen's typical annual carbon footprint of 15 tonnes. A single red rose, grown out of season, is as bad as four and a half kilos of bananas, mostly because one has been grown out of doors and the other has been hot-housed.
Those numbers aren't exact, but they are good enough to make us think hard about our flight patterns – and perhaps influence our spending on Valentine's Day. Speaking more generally, most of our carbon emissions fall into one of four main areas, as shown below.
HOME ENERGY
I'll keep this brief, because everyone's heard so much about it already, but three must-haves are an efficient boiler, good loft insulation and low-energy light bulbs. All of these pay you back in no time, too.
These are all general pointers, but the real skill is to start factoring the carbon cost into the decisions you make in everyday life. That doesn't mean letting people tell you how to live – just to be able to make informed choices, whether they involve flying less and cycling more, eating less meat and dairy, buying less junk or picking a more efficient dishwasher. Failing that, just offer your loved one a bunch of bananas for your anniversary. I'm sure they'll appreciate the sentiment.
TRAVEL
You can cover your 15 tonnes with four return trips to Hong Kong, or just one if you go first-class, owing to the greater space you're taking up. For a trip from London to Glasgow, the plane has a similar footprint to the average car, but the car wins if it is an energy-efficient one or if there is more than one person in it. Going up to Scotland by train is better, although if there are three of you, travelling in a small, efficient car would have a similar impact. The coach would be twice as good, and cycling would be even better.
For day-to-day trips, cars are about twice as carbon-intensive as most people think, because only around half of the emissions come out of the exhaust pipe: most of the rest consists of manufacture and maintenance. So, if your old banger is safe, and reasonably fuel-efficient, the low-carbon option could well be to keep it.
Personally, I cycle to the station on a folding bike, then take the train. The journey takes 10 minutes longer than by car, but I actually save time because I've had that extra half-hour to read emails on the train.
But while cycling is best for the planet, the energy has to come from somewhere. If you're powered by bananas or breakfast cereal, cycling really is the low-carbon way to get around. If you're powered by cheeseburgers, the footprint per mile is probably similar to sharing a lift in a small efficient car. If you're fuelling the journey with Peruvian asparagus, you'd be better off in a Humvee.
FOOD
Food makes up about a fifth of Britain's carbon footprint (arguably even more if you take account of deforestation). A few simple rules of thumb go a long way in the supermarket. The most obvious is to eat as much as possible of what you buy. Most of us waste more than 20 per cent of our food. It's shocking, but it also gives us an obvious opportunity to save money, and perhaps spend a bit less of our lives trawling up and down the supermarket aisles. We need to remember to look in the fridge before deciding what to eat, and to remember that "leftover soup" is always an option.
The next low-carbon rule is to reduce your meat and dairy consumption – this may also help you live longer, which is a nice bonus. Third, stick to seasonal fruit, veg and flowers, or those that keep long enough to be sent by boat rather than by plane. (Fortunately, you can relax about bananas, oranges and apples wherever they come from, because it's almost always by sea.)
Finally, while you should try to avoid excessive packaging, don't get obsessive about it. At its best, it serves the important purpose of keeping food fresh so that it doesn't get wasted, which usually has more of a carbon cost. In fact, only about one twelfth of the carbon footprint of your food is down to the packaging, compared with about two thirds that comes from the farm.
CONSUMER GOODS
The most expensive area of our carbon footprint is probably the inedible stuff that we buy; clothes, computers, appliances, the lot. And the worst time of year for this is Christmas.
Some friends of ours have a "Not more than £1" rule (kids excepted), which works brilliantly for them – although some frank family negotiations may be required to set this up. More generally, when buying, go for goods that are high-quality and long-lasting, and opt for enduring style rather than fast fashion. Goods that are made in China are likely to have a higher footprint than their western Europe equivalents, perhaps even twice as much. That's not so much down to the distance they've been shipped, but the fact that more of China's electricity comes from coal, and the factories where the products are made tend to be less efficient.
* Mike Berners-Lee is the founder of Small World Consulting, and the author of 'How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Cost of Everything', published this month by Profile. To order from Telegraph Books for £8.99 plus £0.99 p&p, call 0844 871 1515 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 0844 871 1515 end_of_the_skype_highlighting or visit www.books.telegraph.co.uk
Test Your Solar-Power IQ
Everybody's talking about solar power. But do you know what they're talking about By YULIYA CHERNOVA
Spring is in the air, summer's around the corner, and all that sunshine is generating power all around the world. How much do you know about solar power? See how you do in this Wall Street Journal quiz.
.1. Which of these locations gets the most electricity from solar power?
A. Arizona
B. Denmark
C. Germany
D. Spain
E. New Jersey
Answer: C. Thanks to generous government incentives, more electricity is generated by solar panels in Germany than anywhere else, even though it's not exactly a sunny place. In 2009 enough panels were installed there to generate about three gigawatts of electricity annually—more than half of the total capacity installed world-wide last year. In the U.S., California leads, with New Jersey second.
2. Which of these U.S. presidents installed solar panels at the White House?
A. Richard Nixon
B. Jimmy Carter
C. Ronald Reagan
D. Bill Clinton
E. George W. Bush
Shane Harrison
.Answer:B and E. In 1979, President Carter's White House installed solar panels on the roof of the West Wing to heat water. They were removed in 1986 during the Reagan administration when the roof was being repaired, and were never replaced. In 2002, new solar panels were placed on the White House grounds to heat water and generate electricity.
3. How much electricity would a solar panel rated at 100 watts produce on a sunny day in Washington, D.C.?
A. 100 watts
B. 85 watts
C. 60 watts
D. 50 watts
Answer: B. A solar panel should produce about 85% of its rated wattage in strong sunlight in the Washington area, with the rest lost to various inefficiencies, according to the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The total will differ depending on your location. You can plug your location and rated wattage into a calculator at this website: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/
4. Which famous scientist received a Nobel Prize for his work in solar energy?
A. Thomas Edison
B. Albert Einstein
C. Nikola Tesla
D. Georg Ohm
Answer: B. In 1921 the Nobel Prize in physics went to Albert Einstein for his explanation of the photoelectric effect—the ejection of electrons from the surface of a metal in response to light. In a solar photovoltaic panel, sunlight hitting the surface causes electrons to flow, which creates an electrical current.
5. Which country or region leads in manufacturing solar panels?
A. China
B. Europe
C. Japan
D. North America
Answer: A. In 2009 China produced about 36% of all solar panels made world-wide, according to Photon Consulting LLC. It took the lead from Europe, which had an 18% share. Japan was third at 16% and North America, primarily the U.S., fourth at 8%.
6. In the U.S., solar power is most commonly used to do what?
A. Provide electricity in the home
B. Power large retail centers
C: Deliver electricity to the grid
D. Heat water for swimming pools
E. Heat water for household use
Answer: D. As of the end of 2008, about 7,000 megawatts of solar power was installed for heating pools, compared with 1,100 megawatts for all other uses.
7. What is the approximate cost to produce electricity from solar power in the U.S.?
A. Five cents per kilowatt-hour
B. 10 cents per kilowatt-hour
C. 25 cents per kilowatt-hour
D. 35 cents per kilowatt-hour
Answer: C. That's more than twice the cost of power generated by coal and natural gas, which come in below 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to "benchmark" figures from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The price of solar power depends largely on where it is produced.
Ms. Chernova is a reporter in New York for VentureWire, a Dow Jones & Co. newsletter. She can be reached at yuliya.chernova@dowjones.com.
Spring is in the air, summer's around the corner, and all that sunshine is generating power all around the world. How much do you know about solar power? See how you do in this Wall Street Journal quiz.
.1. Which of these locations gets the most electricity from solar power?
A. Arizona
B. Denmark
C. Germany
D. Spain
E. New Jersey
Answer: C. Thanks to generous government incentives, more electricity is generated by solar panels in Germany than anywhere else, even though it's not exactly a sunny place. In 2009 enough panels were installed there to generate about three gigawatts of electricity annually—more than half of the total capacity installed world-wide last year. In the U.S., California leads, with New Jersey second.
2. Which of these U.S. presidents installed solar panels at the White House?
A. Richard Nixon
B. Jimmy Carter
C. Ronald Reagan
D. Bill Clinton
E. George W. Bush
Shane Harrison
.Answer:B and E. In 1979, President Carter's White House installed solar panels on the roof of the West Wing to heat water. They were removed in 1986 during the Reagan administration when the roof was being repaired, and were never replaced. In 2002, new solar panels were placed on the White House grounds to heat water and generate electricity.
3. How much electricity would a solar panel rated at 100 watts produce on a sunny day in Washington, D.C.?
A. 100 watts
B. 85 watts
C. 60 watts
D. 50 watts
Answer: B. A solar panel should produce about 85% of its rated wattage in strong sunlight in the Washington area, with the rest lost to various inefficiencies, according to the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The total will differ depending on your location. You can plug your location and rated wattage into a calculator at this website: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/
4. Which famous scientist received a Nobel Prize for his work in solar energy?
A. Thomas Edison
B. Albert Einstein
C. Nikola Tesla
D. Georg Ohm
Answer: B. In 1921 the Nobel Prize in physics went to Albert Einstein for his explanation of the photoelectric effect—the ejection of electrons from the surface of a metal in response to light. In a solar photovoltaic panel, sunlight hitting the surface causes electrons to flow, which creates an electrical current.
5. Which country or region leads in manufacturing solar panels?
A. China
B. Europe
C. Japan
D. North America
Answer: A. In 2009 China produced about 36% of all solar panels made world-wide, according to Photon Consulting LLC. It took the lead from Europe, which had an 18% share. Japan was third at 16% and North America, primarily the U.S., fourth at 8%.
6. In the U.S., solar power is most commonly used to do what?
A. Provide electricity in the home
B. Power large retail centers
C: Deliver electricity to the grid
D. Heat water for swimming pools
E. Heat water for household use
Answer: D. As of the end of 2008, about 7,000 megawatts of solar power was installed for heating pools, compared with 1,100 megawatts for all other uses.
7. What is the approximate cost to produce electricity from solar power in the U.S.?
A. Five cents per kilowatt-hour
B. 10 cents per kilowatt-hour
C. 25 cents per kilowatt-hour
D. 35 cents per kilowatt-hour
Answer: C. That's more than twice the cost of power generated by coal and natural gas, which come in below 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, according to "benchmark" figures from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The price of solar power depends largely on where it is produced.
Ms. Chernova is a reporter in New York for VentureWire, a Dow Jones & Co. newsletter. She can be reached at yuliya.chernova@dowjones.com.
Chinese engineers propose world's biggest hydro-electric project in Tibet
Mega-dam on Yarlung Tsangpo river would save 200m tonnes of CO2 but could spark conflict over downstream water supply
Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 May 2010 16.00 BST
Chinese hydropower lobbyists are calling for construction of the world's biggest hydro-electric project on the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra river as part of a huge expansion of renewable power in the Himalayas.
Zhang Boting, the deputy general secretary of the China Society for Hydropower Engineering, told the Guardian that a massive dam on the great bend of the Yarlung Tsangpo - the Tibetan name for the river - would benefit the world, despite the likely concerns of downstream nations, India and Bangladesh, which access water and power from the river.
Zhang said research had been carried out on the project, but no plan has been drawn up. But documents on the website of a government agency suggest a 38 gigawatt hydropower plant is under consideration that would be more than half as big again as the Three Gorges dam, with a capacity nearly half as large as the UK's national grid.
"This dam could save 200m tonnes of carbon each year. We should not waste the opportunity of the biggest carbon emission reduction project. For the sake of the entire world, all the water resources than can be developed should be developed." That CO2 saving would be over a third of the UK's entire emissions.
The mega-facility is among more than 28 dams on the river that are either planned, completed or under discussion by China, according to Tashi Tsering, a Tibetan scholar of environmental policy at the University of British Columbia.
Tsering publishes a map today of all of the projects that have been reported by Chinese newspapers and hydro-engineering websites.
From this, he concludes that the Tsangpo-Brahmaputra – until recently considered the last great undammed river in Tibet – will be the next focus of government efforts to increase the nation's power supply. One of them is a map of planned dams showing a 38-gigawatt hydro-plant at Motuo on the website of Hydro China, an influential government enterprise responsible for dam construction. A separate State Grid map of future transmission lines indicates the remote area will soon be connected to the rest of China's power supply. Hydro China and State Grid declined requests for clarification.
The government has not confirmed the existence of the scheme, but Tsering cites several newspaper reports of survey teams exploring the area and provides links to other online documents that indicate preparations for large-scale hydro-development of the area.
Given the huge expense, technical difficulties and political sensitivities of the scheme, it is far from certain of final approval by the government. But several Chinese hydroengineers see it as the ultimate goal in an accelerating race with India to develop water resources in one of the planet's last remote regions.
Tapping the power of the river as it bends and plunges from the Himalayan roof of the world down towards the Indian and Bangladeshi flood plains has long been a dream of the world's hydro-engineers.
Along with the Congo river at the Inga falls, this is considered one of the two greatest concentrations of river energy on earth, but it was long thought impossible to access because of the rugged, high-altitude terrain and the risk of water-related conflict with neighbouring countries.
But China has overcome many engineering obstacles with the construction of the railway to Tibet, and its growing energy demands are spurring exploration of ever more remote areas.
"Tibet's resources will be converted into economic advantage," Yan Zhiyong, the general manager of China Hydropower Engineering Consulting Group, told China Energy News earlier this year. "The major technical constraints on damming the Yarlung Tsampo have been overcome." He declined the Guardian's request for an interview, saying the subject was too sensitive.
The exploitation of the Brahmaputra is already under way. China recently announced plans to build five dams further upstream, including a 500MW hydroplant at Zangmu, which is under construction by the power utility Huaneng.
According to Tsering, the biggest of them will be a huge plant at the great bend – either at Metog, known as Motuo in Chinese, or at Daduqia. The former would involve the construction of a series of tunnels, pipes, reservoirs and turbines to exploit the spectacular 2,000-metre fall of the river as it curls down towards India.
Although there has been no official confirmation of plans for a dam, the discussion is far from secret. On a prominent Chinese science forum, Zhang said a dam on the great bend was the ultimate hope for water resource exploitation because it could generate energy equivalent to 100m tonnes of crude coal, or all the oil and gas in the South China sea.
He warned that a delay would allow India to tap these resources and prompt "major conflict" in a region where the two nations have sporadically clashed over disputed territory.
"We should build a hydropower plant in Motuo ... as soon as possible because it is a great policy to protect our territory from Indian invasion and to increase China's capacity for carbon reduction," he wrote last year
Any step forward is likely to be controversial. Tibetans consider Metog a sacred region, and environmental activists warn against building such a huge project in a seismically active and ecologically fragile area.
"A large dam on the Tibetan plateau would amount to a major, irreversible experiment with geo-engineering," said Peter Bosshard of International Rivers. "Blocking the Yarlung Tsangpo could devastate the fragile ecosystem of the Tibetan plateau, and would withhold the river's sediments from the fertile floodplains of Assam in north-east India, and Bangladesh."
China's construction of dams also raises the prospect of a race with India to develop hydropower along south Asia's most important river.
"India needs to be more aggressive in pushing ahead hydro projects (on the Brahmaputra)," Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, told the Guardian during a recent visit to Beijing. "That would put us in better negotiating position (with China).
To minimise the risk of water-related conflict, the two nations have agreed to share information about hydro-plans on the Tsangpo-Brahmaputra.
Indian media have raised concerns that Beijing may ultimately embark on a gigantic diversion scheme that would channel water away from India to the dry northern plains of China, but such fears are dismissed by Tsering, who says the dam at Metog would be for hydropower, not water diversion. "The laws of physics will not allow water diversion from the Great Bend."
Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 May 2010 16.00 BST
Chinese hydropower lobbyists are calling for construction of the world's biggest hydro-electric project on the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra river as part of a huge expansion of renewable power in the Himalayas.
Zhang Boting, the deputy general secretary of the China Society for Hydropower Engineering, told the Guardian that a massive dam on the great bend of the Yarlung Tsangpo - the Tibetan name for the river - would benefit the world, despite the likely concerns of downstream nations, India and Bangladesh, which access water and power from the river.
Zhang said research had been carried out on the project, but no plan has been drawn up. But documents on the website of a government agency suggest a 38 gigawatt hydropower plant is under consideration that would be more than half as big again as the Three Gorges dam, with a capacity nearly half as large as the UK's national grid.
"This dam could save 200m tonnes of carbon each year. We should not waste the opportunity of the biggest carbon emission reduction project. For the sake of the entire world, all the water resources than can be developed should be developed." That CO2 saving would be over a third of the UK's entire emissions.
The mega-facility is among more than 28 dams on the river that are either planned, completed or under discussion by China, according to Tashi Tsering, a Tibetan scholar of environmental policy at the University of British Columbia.
Tsering publishes a map today of all of the projects that have been reported by Chinese newspapers and hydro-engineering websites.
From this, he concludes that the Tsangpo-Brahmaputra – until recently considered the last great undammed river in Tibet – will be the next focus of government efforts to increase the nation's power supply. One of them is a map of planned dams showing a 38-gigawatt hydro-plant at Motuo on the website of Hydro China, an influential government enterprise responsible for dam construction. A separate State Grid map of future transmission lines indicates the remote area will soon be connected to the rest of China's power supply. Hydro China and State Grid declined requests for clarification.
The government has not confirmed the existence of the scheme, but Tsering cites several newspaper reports of survey teams exploring the area and provides links to other online documents that indicate preparations for large-scale hydro-development of the area.
Given the huge expense, technical difficulties and political sensitivities of the scheme, it is far from certain of final approval by the government. But several Chinese hydroengineers see it as the ultimate goal in an accelerating race with India to develop water resources in one of the planet's last remote regions.
Tapping the power of the river as it bends and plunges from the Himalayan roof of the world down towards the Indian and Bangladeshi flood plains has long been a dream of the world's hydro-engineers.
Along with the Congo river at the Inga falls, this is considered one of the two greatest concentrations of river energy on earth, but it was long thought impossible to access because of the rugged, high-altitude terrain and the risk of water-related conflict with neighbouring countries.
But China has overcome many engineering obstacles with the construction of the railway to Tibet, and its growing energy demands are spurring exploration of ever more remote areas.
"Tibet's resources will be converted into economic advantage," Yan Zhiyong, the general manager of China Hydropower Engineering Consulting Group, told China Energy News earlier this year. "The major technical constraints on damming the Yarlung Tsampo have been overcome." He declined the Guardian's request for an interview, saying the subject was too sensitive.
The exploitation of the Brahmaputra is already under way. China recently announced plans to build five dams further upstream, including a 500MW hydroplant at Zangmu, which is under construction by the power utility Huaneng.
According to Tsering, the biggest of them will be a huge plant at the great bend – either at Metog, known as Motuo in Chinese, or at Daduqia. The former would involve the construction of a series of tunnels, pipes, reservoirs and turbines to exploit the spectacular 2,000-metre fall of the river as it curls down towards India.
Although there has been no official confirmation of plans for a dam, the discussion is far from secret. On a prominent Chinese science forum, Zhang said a dam on the great bend was the ultimate hope for water resource exploitation because it could generate energy equivalent to 100m tonnes of crude coal, or all the oil and gas in the South China sea.
He warned that a delay would allow India to tap these resources and prompt "major conflict" in a region where the two nations have sporadically clashed over disputed territory.
"We should build a hydropower plant in Motuo ... as soon as possible because it is a great policy to protect our territory from Indian invasion and to increase China's capacity for carbon reduction," he wrote last year
Any step forward is likely to be controversial. Tibetans consider Metog a sacred region, and environmental activists warn against building such a huge project in a seismically active and ecologically fragile area.
"A large dam on the Tibetan plateau would amount to a major, irreversible experiment with geo-engineering," said Peter Bosshard of International Rivers. "Blocking the Yarlung Tsangpo could devastate the fragile ecosystem of the Tibetan plateau, and would withhold the river's sediments from the fertile floodplains of Assam in north-east India, and Bangladesh."
China's construction of dams also raises the prospect of a race with India to develop hydropower along south Asia's most important river.
"India needs to be more aggressive in pushing ahead hydro projects (on the Brahmaputra)," Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, told the Guardian during a recent visit to Beijing. "That would put us in better negotiating position (with China).
To minimise the risk of water-related conflict, the two nations have agreed to share information about hydro-plans on the Tsangpo-Brahmaputra.
Indian media have raised concerns that Beijing may ultimately embark on a gigantic diversion scheme that would channel water away from India to the dry northern plains of China, but such fears are dismissed by Tsering, who says the dam at Metog would be for hydropower, not water diversion. "The laws of physics will not allow water diversion from the Great Bend."
Barack Obama to announce action against gas-guzzlers on US roads
US president to unveil long-term plans promoting fuel efficiency in cars and trucks in addition to support for electric vehicles
guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 May 2010 16.47 BST
Barack Obama will today announce a government push to boost fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in the US from 2017, government and industry officials said.
The effort, to be unveiled at the White House, will also include an order for American regulators to create the first-ever efficiency targets for medium and heavy duty trucks for model years 2014-18.
In April, the administration completed new fuel regulations for passenger vehicles that will require a 30% decrease in carbon emissions and a 40% increase in fuel efficiency to 35mpg by 2016.
Carmakers have sought assurances that Obama would seek to extend federal fuel and emissions standards for vehicles sold in the US beyond the 2016 timeframe.
Industry believes anything less than a firm commitment from Washington would open the door to varying state standards that could complicate product planning and add heavy costs.
California's push to impose its own emissions regulations was a major reason why Obama moved rapidly to adopt the most stringent set of fuel economy standards in 30 years.
An administration official said Obama's plan would also include support for electric vehicle development.
General Motors and Nissan are currently racing to roll out electric cars and other manufacturers have designs in the pipeline.
guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 May 2010 16.47 BST
Barack Obama will today announce a government push to boost fuel efficiency standards for cars sold in the US from 2017, government and industry officials said.
The effort, to be unveiled at the White House, will also include an order for American regulators to create the first-ever efficiency targets for medium and heavy duty trucks for model years 2014-18.
In April, the administration completed new fuel regulations for passenger vehicles that will require a 30% decrease in carbon emissions and a 40% increase in fuel efficiency to 35mpg by 2016.
Carmakers have sought assurances that Obama would seek to extend federal fuel and emissions standards for vehicles sold in the US beyond the 2016 timeframe.
Industry believes anything less than a firm commitment from Washington would open the door to varying state standards that could complicate product planning and add heavy costs.
California's push to impose its own emissions regulations was a major reason why Obama moved rapidly to adopt the most stringent set of fuel economy standards in 30 years.
An administration official said Obama's plan would also include support for electric vehicle development.
General Motors and Nissan are currently racing to roll out electric cars and other manufacturers have designs in the pipeline.