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
Monday, 25 October 2010
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."