By PHILIP BRASHER • pbrasher@dmreg.com • July 4, 2010
Washington, D.C. — Worries over the federal budget deficit are raising concerns in the biofuels industry about the future of its existing subsidies and chances for getting new incentives.
Congress must renew the 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit for ethanol or else the subsidy will expire at the end of the year. At the same time, the industry is seeking subsidies to install new pumps at service stations and fund the development of biorefineries that can make biofuels from crop residue and other new feedstocks.
The new "blender" pumps the industry wants stations to install would dispense varying mixes of ethanol and gasoline. The hope is that motorists would fill up with 20 to 30 percent ethanol rather than the 10 percent blend that's now standard. A House bill introduced this week would provide grants to help defray the pumps' cost. Installation could cost as much as $50,000 apiece, according to the government.
The biodiesel industry's inability this year to get its subsidy renewed could be a warning to ethanol producers.
The $1-a-gallon tax credit lapsed at the end of 2009, and Senate has been unable to agree on a bill that would revive the subsidy and extend it to the end of the year.
The biodiesel subsidy itself isn't controversial, but Senate Republicans and some Democrats have objected to other spending in the bill that would add to the budget deficit. The legislation includes money for state Medicaid programs and an extension of unemployment benefits.
"It's a tough budget climate," said Tom Buis, chief executive of Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group.
Salo Zelermyer, a former Energy Department lawyer who now lobbies for some renewable energy firms, said any new biofuel measure that has a cost to taxpayers "is going to be difficult unless there's a clear mechanism to pay for it."
Companies that want to make the next generation of biofuels claim they are close to making it economically but need more help from the government. None of the projects has yet to qualify for a federal loan guarantee. A 2007 law required refiners to use this year 100 million gallons of ethanol made from crop residue and other sources of plant cellulose. However, the projects have shown so little progress that the Environmental Protection Agency had to slash the usage requirement to 6.5 million gallons.
The Obama administration had been offering one way to pay for new alternative energy measures through climate legislation that would require utilities and other companies to buy permits for greenhouse gas emissions. The revenue could be used in part to fund the development of alternative energy, but the bill stalled in the Senate and now it's not clear even a stripped-down version can pass.
Another source of money for the ethanol industry could be its own subsidy. The chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., is kicking around the idea of reducing the 45-cent tax credit and shifting the money into subsidies for installation of blender pumps. Ethanol producers are open to the idea, Peterson said in an interview.
The industry's immediate concern is getting the subsidy renewed this year. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, who has long protected the industry from his seat on the Senate Finance Committee, expresses optimism that Congress won't let the subsidy expire. But he once thought the same thing about the biodiesel credit.
"If you were asking me this question a year ago about biodiesel, I would have said there's not a problem. We would have gotten it passed by the end of the year," he said.
Enacting new incentives for ethanol will be tougher than extending the existing subsidy, he said.
The lapse in the biodiesel subsidy has emphasized a concern expressed by investment firms about the dependence of the biofuels industry on government support.
"The public policy uncertainty is keeping debt and equity investors out of the (biodiesel) industry," said Jeff Stroburg, chairman and chief executive of Renewable Energy Group of Ames, which owns five biodiesel plants and manages three others.
Renewable Energy Group's plants are operating at 25 to 30 percent of their capacity while waiting for the subsidy to return.
Yet another worry for the ethanol industry has to do with Grassley himself. If he is re-elected in November, Senate Republican rules would require him to step down next year from the No. 1 seat on the Finance Committee unless the Republicans take over the Senate. In that case, the Iowan would regain the committee's chairmanship for two more years.
If Democrats retain control of the Senate, an aide says Grassley wants to become the senior Republican member on the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is considered the likely replacement for Grassley as the top Republican on Finance.
"Obviously, we've got our fingers crossed that they change the rules and allow him to stay on," Buis said.
Monday, 5 July 2010
Michael Grätzel: Give people access to cheap solar power
The prize-winning inventor says his low-cost solar cell has the potential to form a major part of an energy revolution
Jacob Aron The Observer, Sunday 4 July 2010
Michael Grätzel is a man with a mission. As the inventor of a low-cost solar cell, he wants to help the world avoid an energy crisis by harnessing the power of the Sun. His translucent Grätzel cells use a combination of titanium dioxide and organic dyes to convert sunlight into electricity, providing a cheaper and more environmentally friendly source of energy than silicon solar cells.
Grätzel, who is director of the Laboratory of Photonics and Interfaces at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland, often accompanies an explanation of his work with a small chuckle, as if he can't quite believe his success. He was similarly modest when he received the 2010 Millennium Technology prize for his invention in June, along with an €800,000 fund that will allow him to accelerate his research. The prize, which recognises technological innovations that improve quality of life, is awarded by the Technology Academy Finland every other year. Inaugurated in 2004, it was first won by the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee.
How is the Grätzel cell different from other solar cells?
Silicon cells absorb sunlight and generate electric charges, but the silicon also has to transport the charges and separate positively charged carriers from negatively charged ones. To do the separation, you need a positively doped and negatively doped layer of silicon and for this to work well you need very pure materials – solar grade silicon has to be 99.9999% pure. Our cell is different in the sense that it is close to what photosynthesis does in green leaves. The charges are generated by dye molecules and other constituents take care of the conduction. That separation was achieved for the first time by our cells – except for photosynthesis, which has been working for 3.5 billion years!
Where did the idea come from?
It was curiosity-driven. We were the first to make pigment nanoparticles in the 80s and if you put these nanoparticles in water you can't see them; it's like a semiconductor solution but transparent. We knew that we needed to sensitise them to visible light like you do in photography. You start with silver bromide but it has very little light response, so you put a sensitiser on it. We made the particles sensitive to visible light and found you could inject electrons at high speed and that made us curious – maybe we could make a photovoltaic cell.
The cells come in a range of colours; how does that work?
The colour can be selected by choosing a dye, so you can have a red one, a blue one or a green one. You even could use near-infrared dye that lets visible light pass through, so it would look like a normal window.
So we could soon all be producing energy through our windows? How much will that cost?
The photovoltaic film is just added to the cost of the glass – what matters is the cost per kilowatt hour. There has been an evaluation by Fujikura, a company in Japan that is producing the cells and it has projected a price of 4 yen (3p) per kilowatt hour.
How does that compare with current solar panels?
It's much less: normal silicon is five to 10 times higher. You usually take the price per peak watt – how much does a device that makes one watt in full sunshine cost? This technology gives you 40 yen (30p), which is more than a factor of two lower than the closest competitor, solar cadmium telluride panels, and with the advantage that we are not using cadmium or tellurium, which is as rare as gold.
So there is an environmental advantage in the way you produce them?
Yes, because we're not using any energy-intensive, high-vacuum methods or toxic elements in their production.
Do you think these solar panels can form part of an energy revolution?
They will certainly make a contribution. The demand is so huge that by 2050 we will have a 14-terawatt power supply gap – that's as much as we are consuming today, so how are we going to cover that? Certainly not with oil – instead of having more oil, we'll have less. We've seen with the Gulf Coast accident that drilling is getting more dangerous and oil reserves are more difficult to obtain. Solar can maybe pick up one-fourth or one-third of that slack, and then there's wind and other renewable technologies – biomass, hydroelectric, CO² sequestration... lots of technology has to kick in.
People are resistant to use renewables because of the low return on investment. Can you help?
That's the problem, they are so expensive, except for countries that have a feed-in tariff [electricity suppliers pay their customers for feeding excess energy into the grid]. We need to get to a stage where solar panels are competitive, we have to come down to the range of 30p kilowatt hour, and this has the potential to deliver that price.
But is price enough for people to change?
We need to change public awareness. The consumer has to have a benefit, that's the only way to drive it. We've seen people respond favourably to this technology – they ask: "When can we buy it?" – and if that's a question, then we can sell. Of course, we have to be sure about the product – quality and stability, production on a large scale – and this will take some time. We're talking about 40 years from now, or even longer, but we have to start early.
Will winning the Millennium Technology prize help get your message out there?
It it will foster our research. Mass production has started, but it will amplify the situation and accelerate the commercial products.
Jacob Aron The Observer, Sunday 4 July 2010
Michael Grätzel is a man with a mission. As the inventor of a low-cost solar cell, he wants to help the world avoid an energy crisis by harnessing the power of the Sun. His translucent Grätzel cells use a combination of titanium dioxide and organic dyes to convert sunlight into electricity, providing a cheaper and more environmentally friendly source of energy than silicon solar cells.
Grätzel, who is director of the Laboratory of Photonics and Interfaces at École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland, often accompanies an explanation of his work with a small chuckle, as if he can't quite believe his success. He was similarly modest when he received the 2010 Millennium Technology prize for his invention in June, along with an €800,000 fund that will allow him to accelerate his research. The prize, which recognises technological innovations that improve quality of life, is awarded by the Technology Academy Finland every other year. Inaugurated in 2004, it was first won by the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee.
How is the Grätzel cell different from other solar cells?
Silicon cells absorb sunlight and generate electric charges, but the silicon also has to transport the charges and separate positively charged carriers from negatively charged ones. To do the separation, you need a positively doped and negatively doped layer of silicon and for this to work well you need very pure materials – solar grade silicon has to be 99.9999% pure. Our cell is different in the sense that it is close to what photosynthesis does in green leaves. The charges are generated by dye molecules and other constituents take care of the conduction. That separation was achieved for the first time by our cells – except for photosynthesis, which has been working for 3.5 billion years!
Where did the idea come from?
It was curiosity-driven. We were the first to make pigment nanoparticles in the 80s and if you put these nanoparticles in water you can't see them; it's like a semiconductor solution but transparent. We knew that we needed to sensitise them to visible light like you do in photography. You start with silver bromide but it has very little light response, so you put a sensitiser on it. We made the particles sensitive to visible light and found you could inject electrons at high speed and that made us curious – maybe we could make a photovoltaic cell.
The cells come in a range of colours; how does that work?
The colour can be selected by choosing a dye, so you can have a red one, a blue one or a green one. You even could use near-infrared dye that lets visible light pass through, so it would look like a normal window.
So we could soon all be producing energy through our windows? How much will that cost?
The photovoltaic film is just added to the cost of the glass – what matters is the cost per kilowatt hour. There has been an evaluation by Fujikura, a company in Japan that is producing the cells and it has projected a price of 4 yen (3p) per kilowatt hour.
How does that compare with current solar panels?
It's much less: normal silicon is five to 10 times higher. You usually take the price per peak watt – how much does a device that makes one watt in full sunshine cost? This technology gives you 40 yen (30p), which is more than a factor of two lower than the closest competitor, solar cadmium telluride panels, and with the advantage that we are not using cadmium or tellurium, which is as rare as gold.
So there is an environmental advantage in the way you produce them?
Yes, because we're not using any energy-intensive, high-vacuum methods or toxic elements in their production.
Do you think these solar panels can form part of an energy revolution?
They will certainly make a contribution. The demand is so huge that by 2050 we will have a 14-terawatt power supply gap – that's as much as we are consuming today, so how are we going to cover that? Certainly not with oil – instead of having more oil, we'll have less. We've seen with the Gulf Coast accident that drilling is getting more dangerous and oil reserves are more difficult to obtain. Solar can maybe pick up one-fourth or one-third of that slack, and then there's wind and other renewable technologies – biomass, hydroelectric, CO² sequestration... lots of technology has to kick in.
People are resistant to use renewables because of the low return on investment. Can you help?
That's the problem, they are so expensive, except for countries that have a feed-in tariff [electricity suppliers pay their customers for feeding excess energy into the grid]. We need to get to a stage where solar panels are competitive, we have to come down to the range of 30p kilowatt hour, and this has the potential to deliver that price.
But is price enough for people to change?
We need to change public awareness. The consumer has to have a benefit, that's the only way to drive it. We've seen people respond favourably to this technology – they ask: "When can we buy it?" – and if that's a question, then we can sell. Of course, we have to be sure about the product – quality and stability, production on a large scale – and this will take some time. We're talking about 40 years from now, or even longer, but we have to start early.
Will winning the Millennium Technology prize help get your message out there?
It it will foster our research. Mass production has started, but it will amplify the situation and accelerate the commercial products.
Green tech investment surges
Global investments in clean energy companies rose 43% in Q2 on last year, says new Cleantech Group and Deloitte report
Todd Woody for Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 July 2010 10.49 BST
Green tech is back in the green.
Global venture capital investment in green technology companies reached $4.04 billion in the first half of 2010, exceeding -- slightly -- the record set in the boom year of 2008, according to a preliminary report released Thursday by the Cleantech Group and Deloitte.
Venture investment in the second quarter rose to $2.02 billion, up 43 percent from the year-ago quarter. Investments in the first half of the year spiked 65 percent from the same period in 2009.
"There's been a very clear resurgence in solar activity and that is largely responsible for the strong quarter," Richard Youngman, the Cleantech Group's head of global research, said on a conference call Thursday.
Solar captured $811 million, or about 40 percent, of green technology investment in the second quarter, according to the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco-based consulting and research firm. It defines the global market as consisting of North America, China, India, Israel, and Europe.
Solyndra, a Silicon Valley thin-film solar panel maker, scored a $175 million investment while solar power plant builder BrightSource Energy took in $150 million.
It's no coincidence that both companies have been the beneficiaries of the Obama administration's push for renewable energy. Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee to build a new factory in the San Francisco Bay Area (which the president visited in May) and BrightSource was granted a $1.37 billion loan guarantee to get its first solar thermal power plant online.
Despite the recession, corporate America poured a record $5.1 billion into green tech companies in the first half of 2010, a 325 percent increase from a year ago.
"The significant strengthening of corporate and utility investment into the clean tech sector, relative to 2009, is very encouraging, given the key role they will play in enabling broader adoption of clean technologies at scale," Scott Smith, Deloitte's U.S. clean tech leader in the United States, said in a statement.
Youngman warned not to read too much into the success this week of Tesla Motor's initial public offering. Though the Silicon Valley electric carmaker's share price accelerated some 40.5 percent on opening day, he pointed out that high-profile IPOs from Solyndra and Goldwind, a Chinese wind turbine maker, were pulled recently.
In fact, head east if you want to get in on a booming IPO market -- 12 of the 19 green tech offerings in the second quarter came from Chinese companies and raised $1.73 billion, or 75 percent of the total IPO take, according to the Cleantech Group.
The flip side, of course, is that the anemic IPO market in the United States also is driving venture capital investment as green tech firms are forced to raise private money.
Todd Woody for Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 July 2010 10.49 BST
Green tech is back in the green.
Global venture capital investment in green technology companies reached $4.04 billion in the first half of 2010, exceeding -- slightly -- the record set in the boom year of 2008, according to a preliminary report released Thursday by the Cleantech Group and Deloitte.
Venture investment in the second quarter rose to $2.02 billion, up 43 percent from the year-ago quarter. Investments in the first half of the year spiked 65 percent from the same period in 2009.
"There's been a very clear resurgence in solar activity and that is largely responsible for the strong quarter," Richard Youngman, the Cleantech Group's head of global research, said on a conference call Thursday.
Solar captured $811 million, or about 40 percent, of green technology investment in the second quarter, according to the Cleantech Group, a San Francisco-based consulting and research firm. It defines the global market as consisting of North America, China, India, Israel, and Europe.
Solyndra, a Silicon Valley thin-film solar panel maker, scored a $175 million investment while solar power plant builder BrightSource Energy took in $150 million.
It's no coincidence that both companies have been the beneficiaries of the Obama administration's push for renewable energy. Solyndra received a $535 million loan guarantee to build a new factory in the San Francisco Bay Area (which the president visited in May) and BrightSource was granted a $1.37 billion loan guarantee to get its first solar thermal power plant online.
Despite the recession, corporate America poured a record $5.1 billion into green tech companies in the first half of 2010, a 325 percent increase from a year ago.
"The significant strengthening of corporate and utility investment into the clean tech sector, relative to 2009, is very encouraging, given the key role they will play in enabling broader adoption of clean technologies at scale," Scott Smith, Deloitte's U.S. clean tech leader in the United States, said in a statement.
Youngman warned not to read too much into the success this week of Tesla Motor's initial public offering. Though the Silicon Valley electric carmaker's share price accelerated some 40.5 percent on opening day, he pointed out that high-profile IPOs from Solyndra and Goldwind, a Chinese wind turbine maker, were pulled recently.
In fact, head east if you want to get in on a booming IPO market -- 12 of the 19 green tech offerings in the second quarter came from Chinese companies and raised $1.73 billion, or 75 percent of the total IPO take, according to the Cleantech Group.
The flip side, of course, is that the anemic IPO market in the United States also is driving venture capital investment as green tech firms are forced to raise private money.
Relief well drill is only days away from leaking oil pipe
The first of two relief wells is within striking distance of the Macondo, about 15ft (4.5m) away from the pipe
Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 July 2010 20.12 BST
After 76 days, 190 million gallons of oil, and a $22.5bn (£15bn) clean-up and compensation bill so far, BP is poised to plug its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling engineers have only one chance to get it right.
One wrong move as engineers break through the cement and steel pipe of the Macondo well could increase the torrent of oil into the Gulf. In the worst case scenario, it could even trigger a blow-out in the relief well.
"They pretty much have one shot," said Wayne Pennington, the chair of geophysical engineering at Michigan Tech University. "Once they hit it and they try to kill it they really just have that one chance."
Pennington and other experts agree the chances of such a disaster are remote. But it cannot be ruled out entirely as BP moves into the most delicate phase of its relief well operation. Nor can the prospect of unexpected delays, due to technical glitches or forecasts for a very active hurricane season.
For now though, the operation is about a week ahead of schedule.
The first of two relief wells is within striking distance of the Macondo, about 15ft (4.5m) away from the pipe and 600ft or so (200m) above the reservoir, after weeks of drilling. The second, ordered by the Obama administration as a safety back-up, is some weeks behind.
But BP and the administration were wary of predicting that the well would be finished sooner than expected.
"There is a chance – a slight chance – they could nick the wellbore," Thad Allen, the coast guard commander, said. "We shouldn't come off that mid-August date until we know they've actually gone through" the leaking well, he told a White House briefing.
The most important thing is establishing a clear connection with the Macondo so they can begin pumping in the heavy drilling mud according to Mark Proegler, a BP spokesman. A nick risks starting a new small leak or possibly even a collapse of a section of the pipe given that it was damaged in the explosion in ways still not fully understood.
Those challenges are still some days away as BP continues to find the optimal point to break into the well, a process known as ranging. "We have many days ahead of us of ranging runs," said Proegler. The process involves lowering a device down the relief well that bounces electromagnetic waves through the rock to try to measure the distance to the metal pipe of the Macondo, a target barely seven inches (18mm) in diameter.
"They are homing in on that metal or iron signal from the first well," said Julius Langlinais, a former petroleum engineer and professor at Louisiana State University.
The search for the Macondo would go faster if BP were using measurement while drilling tools, whereby sensors installed in the drill string send the appropriate readings back to the surface, said Langlinais. However, that equipment is hugely expensive. Instead, BP is relying on a process that involves swapping the drill bit for the line carrying the sensor.
"They have to pull the drill string out of the well and lower down this sensitive device that looks for magnetic field variations and from that they can tell where the casing of the well is," Pennington said. Then engineers remove the device, replace the drill string and begin all over again. Each shift can take up to two days.
At some point though the engineers will arrive at the right spot on the pipe somewhere between the reservoir and the leak. They will then stop and install metal casing in the relief well, using cement to secure it in the rock.
The intercept could be complicated if it turns out that the oil is flowing around the pipe, between the pipe and the cement of the well bore.
Engineers also have to be spot-on in their calculations as to how much drilling mud – or pressure – to exert on the well to choke it off. A vessel containing 44,000 gallons of mud is on standby.
The mud must be viscous enough to flow down the pipe but also dense enough to slow down the oil bubbling up from below.
That balance will be crucial to gaining control over the well, so that the flow of oil is checked without having to continuously pump in more mud.
"You get a dense enough mud and a tall enough column in that flow path, and the reservoir can't flow any more. It can't buck the pressure," said Darryl Bourgoyne, a petroleum engineer at Louisiana State University.
Then, if all has gone according to plan, operators will install a cement plug, sealing off the well for good.
Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk, Sunday 4 July 2010 20.12 BST
After 76 days, 190 million gallons of oil, and a $22.5bn (£15bn) clean-up and compensation bill so far, BP is poised to plug its leaking well in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling engineers have only one chance to get it right.
One wrong move as engineers break through the cement and steel pipe of the Macondo well could increase the torrent of oil into the Gulf. In the worst case scenario, it could even trigger a blow-out in the relief well.
"They pretty much have one shot," said Wayne Pennington, the chair of geophysical engineering at Michigan Tech University. "Once they hit it and they try to kill it they really just have that one chance."
Pennington and other experts agree the chances of such a disaster are remote. But it cannot be ruled out entirely as BP moves into the most delicate phase of its relief well operation. Nor can the prospect of unexpected delays, due to technical glitches or forecasts for a very active hurricane season.
For now though, the operation is about a week ahead of schedule.
The first of two relief wells is within striking distance of the Macondo, about 15ft (4.5m) away from the pipe and 600ft or so (200m) above the reservoir, after weeks of drilling. The second, ordered by the Obama administration as a safety back-up, is some weeks behind.
But BP and the administration were wary of predicting that the well would be finished sooner than expected.
"There is a chance – a slight chance – they could nick the wellbore," Thad Allen, the coast guard commander, said. "We shouldn't come off that mid-August date until we know they've actually gone through" the leaking well, he told a White House briefing.
The most important thing is establishing a clear connection with the Macondo so they can begin pumping in the heavy drilling mud according to Mark Proegler, a BP spokesman. A nick risks starting a new small leak or possibly even a collapse of a section of the pipe given that it was damaged in the explosion in ways still not fully understood.
Those challenges are still some days away as BP continues to find the optimal point to break into the well, a process known as ranging. "We have many days ahead of us of ranging runs," said Proegler. The process involves lowering a device down the relief well that bounces electromagnetic waves through the rock to try to measure the distance to the metal pipe of the Macondo, a target barely seven inches (18mm) in diameter.
"They are homing in on that metal or iron signal from the first well," said Julius Langlinais, a former petroleum engineer and professor at Louisiana State University.
The search for the Macondo would go faster if BP were using measurement while drilling tools, whereby sensors installed in the drill string send the appropriate readings back to the surface, said Langlinais. However, that equipment is hugely expensive. Instead, BP is relying on a process that involves swapping the drill bit for the line carrying the sensor.
"They have to pull the drill string out of the well and lower down this sensitive device that looks for magnetic field variations and from that they can tell where the casing of the well is," Pennington said. Then engineers remove the device, replace the drill string and begin all over again. Each shift can take up to two days.
At some point though the engineers will arrive at the right spot on the pipe somewhere between the reservoir and the leak. They will then stop and install metal casing in the relief well, using cement to secure it in the rock.
The intercept could be complicated if it turns out that the oil is flowing around the pipe, between the pipe and the cement of the well bore.
Engineers also have to be spot-on in their calculations as to how much drilling mud – or pressure – to exert on the well to choke it off. A vessel containing 44,000 gallons of mud is on standby.
The mud must be viscous enough to flow down the pipe but also dense enough to slow down the oil bubbling up from below.
That balance will be crucial to gaining control over the well, so that the flow of oil is checked without having to continuously pump in more mud.
"You get a dense enough mud and a tall enough column in that flow path, and the reservoir can't flow any more. It can't buck the pressure," said Darryl Bourgoyne, a petroleum engineer at Louisiana State University.
Then, if all has gone according to plan, operators will install a cement plug, sealing off the well for good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
