25 January 2011
Globalance, the sustainable investment private bank set up by responsible investment pioneer Reto Ringger, has received its banking license from Swiss banking authority FINMA and has named its board of directors.
The bank is pursuing what it says is a novel business model focusing on sustainable investments and transparency and is aimed at rich individuals, family offices and foundations.
In an interview with Environmental Finance, Ringger disclosed more details about how the bank will operate. It will only offer third-party investment products, rather than proprietary ones, to ensure that only the best performing and most appropriate products are offered. The bank has built up a database of 1,400 responsible investment products it can recommend to clients, Ringger said.
Globalance will also pass on any third party commissions – which can account for almost a third of the commission paid, Ringger said – back to the client.
Ringger said that, while “not a low-cost supplier”, Globalance is able to keep costs down despite eschewing commission income by outsourcing many of its functions. “We’re starting the bank on a green field – trading, back office, IT etc are all outsourced. We’ve got a low cost base compared to banks with those steps in the value chain in-house.”
The bank will charge an annual management fee of 0.6-1.5% of assets held and, while there is no minimum threshold, clients are likely to place at least SFr 400,000-500,000 ($425,000-530,000) with Globalance, he added.
Ringger said that the bank expects to break even within three to four years, for which it would require SFr 700 million-1 billion in assets under management. The German-speaking high net worth individual market is worth some SFr 180 billion, he said, and noted that a recent study by the European Social Investment Forum found that rich individuals are placing an average of 11% of their portfolios in sustainable investments.
The bank is seeking regulatory approval to operate in the Nordic market, which will take around 12 months. “The Far East is also an interesting market,” Ringger added.
The five-person board of directors comprises:
•Felix Ehrat, chairman, who is senior partner and chairman of the board of law firm Bär & Karrer;
•Thomas Kubr, founder and CEO of Zug-based asset manager Capital Dynamics;
•Joachim Schoss, member of the board of directors of media company Goldbach Group and newspaper group Neue Zürcher Zeitung;
•Diana Strebel, entrepreneur and member of the board of directors of Swiss medicinal herb company Ricola; and
•Louis Graf von Zech, member of the board of directors of BHF-BANK Frankfurt.
Ringger founded Sustainable Asset Management (SAM) in 1995, an investment group that today manages assets worth more than €11 billion ($15 billion). He left in early 2009 after Robeco took a majority stake in SAM.
Mark Nicholls
Monday, 31 January 2011
Advanced biofuels projects win flurry of US loan guarantees
26 January 2011
The US government is stepping up its support for advanced biofuels, with two federal agencies providing loan guarantees worth hundreds of millions, but the sector still faces funding and technology issues that are challenging its ability to scale-up operations.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will offer a $250 million loan guarantee to develop a commercial biorefinery utilising technology developed by Coskata. The USDA’s guarantee will be the largest ever awarded for a biofuel facility and will allow the sponsors to move forward with the financing of the 55 million gallon per year cellulosic ethanol facility in Alabama.
The loan guarantee essentially allows Coskata to begin raising capital for the facility, said Wes Bolsen, chief marketing officer and vice-president of government affairs. The full capital cost will combine the $250 million with a significant amount of equity from investors.
“For any emerging technology, motivating private investment has always been challenging,” he added. “However, the USDA’s $250 million loan guarantee to Coskata is the largest biofuel guarantee that has ever been issued by a federal agency and is a strong signal to the investment community that advanced biofuels will play a significant role in the country’s long-term energy mix.”
The USDA also made a conditional commitment for an $80 million loan guarantee to Enerkem for the construction of a waste-to-biofuels project in Mississippi that will transform municipal solid waste into ethanol. The project, which will provide 10 million gallons per year initially and is expected to go online in 2012, already received an award of up to $50 million from the Department of Energy (DOE) in December 2009.
“We are thrilled with the resounding assurance that we continue to earn from leading government and private investors,” said Vincent Chornet, Enerkem’s president and chief executive officer.
The USDA will also offer a $75 million loan guarantee to INEOS New Planet BioEnergy to construct and operate a Florida biorefinery capable of producing 8 million gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol, using feedstock from vegetative waste (citrus and agricultural wastes), yard wastes, wood waste and municipal solid waste.
The USDA loan guarantee programme was created under Section 9003 of the 2008 Farm Bill to assist in the development advanced biofuel technologies. The loans fund the development, construction and retrofitting of commercial-scale biorefineries.
Meanwhile, the DOE offered its first loan guarantee for an advanced biofuels facility to Diamond Green Diesel, the proposed joint venture between operator Valero Energy Corporation and feedstock supplier Darling International. The $241 million loan guarantee will support the construction of a 137 million gallon per year renewable diesel facility in Louisiana.
Technology problems halt progress for Range Fuels, despite loan guarantee
But loan guarantees are not the panacea for advanced biofuel companies still facing financing and technological challenges. Range Fuels received a USDA loan guarantee last year and closed an $80 million bond issuance to partially finance the first two phases of construction of its first commercial cellulosic biofuels plant using renewable and sustainable supplies of non-food biomass in Georgia. The company had also previously received a $76 million grant from the DOE. But Range Fuels has significantly scaled back and revamped the project and is seeking additional financing.
“We are hopeful that Range Fuels will be able to work through their technology issues, which I think are at the heart of concerns that have been expressed by folks who are interested in investing but just want to be certain that their investment has a good opportunity for success,” said USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.
In establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard, Congress set a national goal of producing 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. But in setting the annual targets, the Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged that advanced biofuel production is not scaling up as quickly as expected, setting a relatively low target of 1.35 billion gallons for 2011.
Gloria Gonzalez
The US government is stepping up its support for advanced biofuels, with two federal agencies providing loan guarantees worth hundreds of millions, but the sector still faces funding and technology issues that are challenging its ability to scale-up operations.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) will offer a $250 million loan guarantee to develop a commercial biorefinery utilising technology developed by Coskata. The USDA’s guarantee will be the largest ever awarded for a biofuel facility and will allow the sponsors to move forward with the financing of the 55 million gallon per year cellulosic ethanol facility in Alabama.
The loan guarantee essentially allows Coskata to begin raising capital for the facility, said Wes Bolsen, chief marketing officer and vice-president of government affairs. The full capital cost will combine the $250 million with a significant amount of equity from investors.
“For any emerging technology, motivating private investment has always been challenging,” he added. “However, the USDA’s $250 million loan guarantee to Coskata is the largest biofuel guarantee that has ever been issued by a federal agency and is a strong signal to the investment community that advanced biofuels will play a significant role in the country’s long-term energy mix.”
The USDA also made a conditional commitment for an $80 million loan guarantee to Enerkem for the construction of a waste-to-biofuels project in Mississippi that will transform municipal solid waste into ethanol. The project, which will provide 10 million gallons per year initially and is expected to go online in 2012, already received an award of up to $50 million from the Department of Energy (DOE) in December 2009.
“We are thrilled with the resounding assurance that we continue to earn from leading government and private investors,” said Vincent Chornet, Enerkem’s president and chief executive officer.
The USDA will also offer a $75 million loan guarantee to INEOS New Planet BioEnergy to construct and operate a Florida biorefinery capable of producing 8 million gallons per year of cellulosic ethanol, using feedstock from vegetative waste (citrus and agricultural wastes), yard wastes, wood waste and municipal solid waste.
The USDA loan guarantee programme was created under Section 9003 of the 2008 Farm Bill to assist in the development advanced biofuel technologies. The loans fund the development, construction and retrofitting of commercial-scale biorefineries.
Meanwhile, the DOE offered its first loan guarantee for an advanced biofuels facility to Diamond Green Diesel, the proposed joint venture between operator Valero Energy Corporation and feedstock supplier Darling International. The $241 million loan guarantee will support the construction of a 137 million gallon per year renewable diesel facility in Louisiana.
Technology problems halt progress for Range Fuels, despite loan guarantee
But loan guarantees are not the panacea for advanced biofuel companies still facing financing and technological challenges. Range Fuels received a USDA loan guarantee last year and closed an $80 million bond issuance to partially finance the first two phases of construction of its first commercial cellulosic biofuels plant using renewable and sustainable supplies of non-food biomass in Georgia. The company had also previously received a $76 million grant from the DOE. But Range Fuels has significantly scaled back and revamped the project and is seeking additional financing.
“We are hopeful that Range Fuels will be able to work through their technology issues, which I think are at the heart of concerns that have been expressed by folks who are interested in investing but just want to be certain that their investment has a good opportunity for success,” said USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.
In establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard, Congress set a national goal of producing 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. But in setting the annual targets, the Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged that advanced biofuel production is not scaling up as quickly as expected, setting a relatively low target of 1.35 billion gallons for 2011.
Gloria Gonzalez
Sunday, 30 January 2011
The Carbon Tax Miracle Cure
The 'bang for the buck' from a phased-in CO2 levy would be infinite at first—lots of jobs at zero cost to the federal budget..
By ALAN S. BLINDER
In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama called for a major technological push for cleaner energy: "the Apollo projects of our time." But when the details emerge, it is predictable that his political foes will object to the new government spending and decry the "heavy hand" of government in telling business what to do. Fortunately, there is a marvelous way to square the circle.
Under this policy approach, decision-making is left in private hands and the jobs created will be in the private sector. Furthermore, the policy would not cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, it would eventually reduce the federal budget deficit significantly. Plus, there are a few nice side effects, like reducing our trade deficit, making our economy more efficient, ameliorating global warming, and showing the world that American capitalism has not lost its edge.
What is this miraculous policy? It's called a carbon tax—really, a carbon dioxide tax—but one that starts at zero and ramps up gradually over time.
The timing is critical. With the recovery just starting—we hope—to gather steam, this is a terrible time to hit it with some big new tax. Hence, while the CO2 tax should be enacted now, it should be set at zero for 2011 and 2012. After that, it would ramp up gradually. Adapting some calculations from a recent paper by Prof. William Nordhaus of Yale, the tax might start at something like $8 per ton of CO2 in 2013 (that's roughly eight cents per gallon of gasoline), reach $25 a ton by 2015 (still just 26 cents per gallon), $40 by 2020, and keep on rising. I'd like to see it top out at more than $200 a ton in, say, 2040—which is higher than in Mr. Nordhaus's example.
But the time pattern is more important than the exact dates and numbers. What's critical is that we lock in higher future costs of carbon today. The key thing, as the president said, is that "businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling."
Think about what would happen. Once America's entrepreneurs and corporate executives see lucrative opportunities from carbon-saving devices and technologies, they will start investing right away—and in ways that make the most economic sense. I don't know whether all this innovation will lead to 80% of our electricity being generated by clean energy sources in 2035, which is the president's goal. But I can hardly wait to witness the outpouring of ideas it would unleash. The next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are waiting in the wings to make themselves rich by helping the environment.
Jobs follow investment, and we need jobs now. Even if our economy manages 4% growth for several years in a row, unemployment is destined to remain high for years. We have become accustomed to grading stimulus programs on their "bang for the buck." The 2009 Recovery Act, for example, was expected to cost $90,000-$100,000 for each job created. The "bang for the buck" from a phased-in carbon tax would be infinite at first: lots of jobs at zero cost to the federal budget.
Furthermore, many of the new jobs will be good jobs with good wages, just what America needs right now. It is probably true, as some critics say, that much of the resulting manufacturing activity will move offshore—eventually. But not necessarily right away. And besides, many of the best jobs—in design, sales, marketing and executive positions—will remain in the U.S.
Another salutary effect would be that no one would pay higher taxes for the first two years or so. Using Mr. Nordhaus's tax rates as an illustration, the tax would begin to bring in revenue starting in 2013—a trickle at first but building. Mr. Nordhaus estimates $123 billion in annual tax revenue in 2015 and $282 billion by 2025. If we eventually hit a $200 per ton tax rate, the tax yield would be close to 2% of GDP.
No one likes to pay higher taxes. But every realistic observer knows that closing our humongous federal budget deficit will require a mix of higher taxes and lower spending as shares of GDP. Forget about value-added taxes and other new levies you may have heard about. A CO2 tax trumps them all.
Among the major benefits is that a carbon tax would reduce oil imports. Everyone knows that we import too much oil—even if we ignore the fact that much of what we pay for it goes to countries that are not exactly friendly to us. In recent years, our imports of energy-related petroleum products have accounted for nearly two-thirds of our overall trade deficit in goods and services.
Everyone also knows that CO2 emissions are the major cause of global climate change, that climate change poses a clear and present danger to our planet, and that the U.S. contributes a huge share of global emissions. Up to now, our country has done approximately nothing to curb CO2 emissions. A stiff tax would make a world of difference. Let's remember that even a tax of $200 per ton 30 years from now won't turn us into France. (A carbon tax would have very large effects on the cost of energy generated by burning coal, but essentially none on the costs of nuclear, solar, or wind-generated energy.)
I know this sounds like a pipe dream now. America has elected a Republican House of Representatives that, among its first acts, decided that tax increases don't really add revenue and that tax cuts don't really lose revenue—at least not any revenue they are willing to count. These folks are not about to vote for a CO2 tax, even one starting at zero.
But let's remember Winston Churchill's marvelous aphorism: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else." First, we'll try everything else. But eventually we'll succumb to the inexorable logic of a phased-in CO2 tax. Just watch—if you're young enough to live that long.
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
By ALAN S. BLINDER
In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama called for a major technological push for cleaner energy: "the Apollo projects of our time." But when the details emerge, it is predictable that his political foes will object to the new government spending and decry the "heavy hand" of government in telling business what to do. Fortunately, there is a marvelous way to square the circle.
Under this policy approach, decision-making is left in private hands and the jobs created will be in the private sector. Furthermore, the policy would not cost taxpayers a dime. In fact, it would eventually reduce the federal budget deficit significantly. Plus, there are a few nice side effects, like reducing our trade deficit, making our economy more efficient, ameliorating global warming, and showing the world that American capitalism has not lost its edge.
What is this miraculous policy? It's called a carbon tax—really, a carbon dioxide tax—but one that starts at zero and ramps up gradually over time.
The timing is critical. With the recovery just starting—we hope—to gather steam, this is a terrible time to hit it with some big new tax. Hence, while the CO2 tax should be enacted now, it should be set at zero for 2011 and 2012. After that, it would ramp up gradually. Adapting some calculations from a recent paper by Prof. William Nordhaus of Yale, the tax might start at something like $8 per ton of CO2 in 2013 (that's roughly eight cents per gallon of gasoline), reach $25 a ton by 2015 (still just 26 cents per gallon), $40 by 2020, and keep on rising. I'd like to see it top out at more than $200 a ton in, say, 2040—which is higher than in Mr. Nordhaus's example.
But the time pattern is more important than the exact dates and numbers. What's critical is that we lock in higher future costs of carbon today. The key thing, as the president said, is that "businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling."
Think about what would happen. Once America's entrepreneurs and corporate executives see lucrative opportunities from carbon-saving devices and technologies, they will start investing right away—and in ways that make the most economic sense. I don't know whether all this innovation will lead to 80% of our electricity being generated by clean energy sources in 2035, which is the president's goal. But I can hardly wait to witness the outpouring of ideas it would unleash. The next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are waiting in the wings to make themselves rich by helping the environment.
Jobs follow investment, and we need jobs now. Even if our economy manages 4% growth for several years in a row, unemployment is destined to remain high for years. We have become accustomed to grading stimulus programs on their "bang for the buck." The 2009 Recovery Act, for example, was expected to cost $90,000-$100,000 for each job created. The "bang for the buck" from a phased-in carbon tax would be infinite at first: lots of jobs at zero cost to the federal budget.
Furthermore, many of the new jobs will be good jobs with good wages, just what America needs right now. It is probably true, as some critics say, that much of the resulting manufacturing activity will move offshore—eventually. But not necessarily right away. And besides, many of the best jobs—in design, sales, marketing and executive positions—will remain in the U.S.
Another salutary effect would be that no one would pay higher taxes for the first two years or so. Using Mr. Nordhaus's tax rates as an illustration, the tax would begin to bring in revenue starting in 2013—a trickle at first but building. Mr. Nordhaus estimates $123 billion in annual tax revenue in 2015 and $282 billion by 2025. If we eventually hit a $200 per ton tax rate, the tax yield would be close to 2% of GDP.
No one likes to pay higher taxes. But every realistic observer knows that closing our humongous federal budget deficit will require a mix of higher taxes and lower spending as shares of GDP. Forget about value-added taxes and other new levies you may have heard about. A CO2 tax trumps them all.
Among the major benefits is that a carbon tax would reduce oil imports. Everyone knows that we import too much oil—even if we ignore the fact that much of what we pay for it goes to countries that are not exactly friendly to us. In recent years, our imports of energy-related petroleum products have accounted for nearly two-thirds of our overall trade deficit in goods and services.
Everyone also knows that CO2 emissions are the major cause of global climate change, that climate change poses a clear and present danger to our planet, and that the U.S. contributes a huge share of global emissions. Up to now, our country has done approximately nothing to curb CO2 emissions. A stiff tax would make a world of difference. Let's remember that even a tax of $200 per ton 30 years from now won't turn us into France. (A carbon tax would have very large effects on the cost of energy generated by burning coal, but essentially none on the costs of nuclear, solar, or wind-generated energy.)
I know this sounds like a pipe dream now. America has elected a Republican House of Representatives that, among its first acts, decided that tax increases don't really add revenue and that tax cuts don't really lose revenue—at least not any revenue they are willing to count. These folks are not about to vote for a CO2 tax, even one starting at zero.
But let's remember Winston Churchill's marvelous aphorism: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they've tried everything else." First, we'll try everything else. But eventually we'll succumb to the inexorable logic of a phased-in CO2 tax. Just watch—if you're young enough to live that long.
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
We'll fight the wind farms off the D-Day beaches...
By John Lichfield in Paris
French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced this week that one of the most poignant sea and beachscapes in the world – the Calvados coast, between Juno and Omaha beaches – had been selected as the site for one of five vast wind farms to be built off the French Atlantic seaboard from 2015.
Officials insist the generators, two-thirds the height of the Eiffel Tower, will only just be visible from the coast. But the leader of an official commemorative association and a militant ecologists' group said yesterday that France was failing in its duty to preserve the memory of D-Day, and the "essential character" of the five landing beaches on which 2,500 allied soldiers died on 6 June 1944.
The choice of the site, 11 kilometres off Courseulles-sur-Mer (Juno Beach), was "inappropriate and incoherent", Admiral Christian Brac de la Perrière, the president of the Comité du Débarquement, the official French body for commemorating D-Day, said yesterday.
"The French government says it wants the whole stretch of the Norman coastline from Utah Beach to Sword Beach to be declared a Unesco world heritage site," he said . "At the same time, it wants to build these generators in the very centre of the landing areas of 1944."
Jacky Bonnemains, president of Robin des Bois (Robin Hood), a militant French ecological group, said: "I find it extraordinary no one in government grasps that this will change forever the character of a place of sacred memory. They just don't seem to care." In future, the seascape would be "desecrated" by rows of wind generators, he added.
"The promoters and the government say the generators will be hardly visible but this is not so," he said. "They will easily be visible on a clear day and they will generate light pollution at night." Mr Bonnemains, whose group opposes all offshore wind farms, said there was already fear about unexploded wartime munitions near two wind farms off the northern Norman coast. "The seabed in the approaches to the D-Day landing beaches must be carpeted with unexploded bombs," he said.
France has no large offshore wind farms and wants to catch up with Britain and Germany. President Sarkozy announced on Tuesday a €10bn plan to build five giant arrays of generators off France's western coast from 2015. The sites – two off the north Norman coast, one off the D-Day beaches and two off the Breton coast – will generate as much electricity as two nuclear power stations.
The precise location of the D-Day wind farm has yet to be decided. An initial 50, and then at least 80, windmills will be built in the waters "off Courseulles-sur-Mer" or a little farther to the west. This would put the wind farm off Juno Beach, the landing place for 21,000 Canadian and British troops in 1944; or Gold Beach, stormed by 25,000 British troops; or even, conceivably, in sight of Omaha Beach, the bloodiest of the five landing areas, which was finally captured by the Americans on the evening of 6 June.
The offshore generators would be 160 metres high. The official proposals say the "impact on the maritime landscape" seen from the coast would be "limited". Only 24 per cent of the sweep of the horizon would be affected, the proposals say. Seen from 11 kilometres away, a 160m-high wind generator is "equivalent to a 1.6cm tall object (roughly a matchstick) seen from a metre away". Critics say 80 "matchsticks" along the maritime horizon at the D-Day beaches would be highly intrusive. The local councils have welcome the D-Day wind farm which will, it is promised, bring thousand of jobs to the area. Laurent Beauvais, the Socialist president of Lower Normandy, "rejoiced" at the choice, and said the wind park would have "no impact on fishing or tourism".
French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced this week that one of the most poignant sea and beachscapes in the world – the Calvados coast, between Juno and Omaha beaches – had been selected as the site for one of five vast wind farms to be built off the French Atlantic seaboard from 2015.
Officials insist the generators, two-thirds the height of the Eiffel Tower, will only just be visible from the coast. But the leader of an official commemorative association and a militant ecologists' group said yesterday that France was failing in its duty to preserve the memory of D-Day, and the "essential character" of the five landing beaches on which 2,500 allied soldiers died on 6 June 1944.
The choice of the site, 11 kilometres off Courseulles-sur-Mer (Juno Beach), was "inappropriate and incoherent", Admiral Christian Brac de la Perrière, the president of the Comité du Débarquement, the official French body for commemorating D-Day, said yesterday.
"The French government says it wants the whole stretch of the Norman coastline from Utah Beach to Sword Beach to be declared a Unesco world heritage site," he said . "At the same time, it wants to build these generators in the very centre of the landing areas of 1944."
Jacky Bonnemains, president of Robin des Bois (Robin Hood), a militant French ecological group, said: "I find it extraordinary no one in government grasps that this will change forever the character of a place of sacred memory. They just don't seem to care." In future, the seascape would be "desecrated" by rows of wind generators, he added.
"The promoters and the government say the generators will be hardly visible but this is not so," he said. "They will easily be visible on a clear day and they will generate light pollution at night." Mr Bonnemains, whose group opposes all offshore wind farms, said there was already fear about unexploded wartime munitions near two wind farms off the northern Norman coast. "The seabed in the approaches to the D-Day landing beaches must be carpeted with unexploded bombs," he said.
France has no large offshore wind farms and wants to catch up with Britain and Germany. President Sarkozy announced on Tuesday a €10bn plan to build five giant arrays of generators off France's western coast from 2015. The sites – two off the north Norman coast, one off the D-Day beaches and two off the Breton coast – will generate as much electricity as two nuclear power stations.
The precise location of the D-Day wind farm has yet to be decided. An initial 50, and then at least 80, windmills will be built in the waters "off Courseulles-sur-Mer" or a little farther to the west. This would put the wind farm off Juno Beach, the landing place for 21,000 Canadian and British troops in 1944; or Gold Beach, stormed by 25,000 British troops; or even, conceivably, in sight of Omaha Beach, the bloodiest of the five landing areas, which was finally captured by the Americans on the evening of 6 June.
The offshore generators would be 160 metres high. The official proposals say the "impact on the maritime landscape" seen from the coast would be "limited". Only 24 per cent of the sweep of the horizon would be affected, the proposals say. Seen from 11 kilometres away, a 160m-high wind generator is "equivalent to a 1.6cm tall object (roughly a matchstick) seen from a metre away". Critics say 80 "matchsticks" along the maritime horizon at the D-Day beaches would be highly intrusive. The local councils have welcome the D-Day wind farm which will, it is promised, bring thousand of jobs to the area. Laurent Beauvais, the Socialist president of Lower Normandy, "rejoiced" at the choice, and said the wind park would have "no impact on fishing or tourism".
Two-thirds of UK biofuel fails green standard, figures show
Just 31% of the biofuel supplied under the government's initiative to tackle climate change met its own green standards, the Renewable Fuels Agency reports
Sylvia Rowley
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 27 January 2011 11.04 GMT
Less than one-third of the biofuel used on UK roads meets government environmental standards intended to protect water supplies, soil quality and carbon stocks, according to new figures.
The Renewable Fuels Agency says that just 31% of the biofuel supplied under the government's initiative to use fuel from plants to help tackle climate change met its green standard. For the remaining 69% of the biofuel, suppliers could not say where it came from, or could not prove it was produced in a sustainable way, the figures show.
In April 2008, suppliers began mixing biofuel into all petrol and diesel supplies under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), and by 2009-10 – the time period to which these latest figures relate – biofuels accounted for 3.3% of UK transport fuels. Suppliers were supposed to ensure that 50% of biofuel met government environmental standards, but the target is not mandatory and was not met.
Several suppliers, including BP, Total, Morgan Stanley and Chevron, also failed to meet targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing data on the source of their biofuels.
The Renewable Fuels Agency's chief executive Nick Goodall said: "We've seen some progress from suppliers in meeting the challenge of sourcing their biofuels responsibly, but in many cases it has been disappointingly slow. Too many are lagging behind and dragging overall performance down. With mandatory sustainability criteria due to be introduced with the [European] Renewable Energy Directive, companies currently missing all three targets need to make a step change in performance."
Scientists and campaigners have warned that biofuels could cause more problems than they solve, with concerns over the destruction of tropical forests and impact on global food supplies.
As a whole, suppliers exceeded the target of 45% reduction in greenhouse gases compared to petrol and diesel fuels – achieving 51% savings. However, these figures do not include carbon emissions from indirect changes in land use, such as forests and grasslands being turned over to cropland, which experts have warned could cancel out the environmental benefits of biofuels and even accelerate climate change.
The majority of UK biofuel is imported. Biodiesel from soy was the single biggest source (31%) in 2009/10, with a large increase in Argentinian soy compared to the previous year, something that Friends of the Earth biofuels campaigner Kenneth Richter calls a "huge cause for concern".
"This report shows us that current biofuels policies are unsustainable " he says. "Additional demand for crops like soy and palm oil only creates extra pressure for agricultural expansion in producer countries, which in many cases leads to rainforest being cut down to make way for plantations."
There are also concerns about the impact of biofuels on food prices. The United Nations has singled out biofuel demand as a major factor in what it estimates will be as much as a 40% increase in food prices over the coming decade.
The Renewables Fuel Agency published the Gallagher review into biofuels in 2008, which recommended that the government slow the introduction of biofuels until more was known about the possible negative impacts.
Ministers responded by reducing the rate at which the RTFO's biofuel targets will increase, so that the total biofuel content in petrol and diesel will reach 5% in 2013-14. A separate EU plan aims to include 10% biofuel in transport fuel by 2020.
Sylvia Rowley
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 27 January 2011 11.04 GMT
Less than one-third of the biofuel used on UK roads meets government environmental standards intended to protect water supplies, soil quality and carbon stocks, according to new figures.
The Renewable Fuels Agency says that just 31% of the biofuel supplied under the government's initiative to use fuel from plants to help tackle climate change met its green standard. For the remaining 69% of the biofuel, suppliers could not say where it came from, or could not prove it was produced in a sustainable way, the figures show.
In April 2008, suppliers began mixing biofuel into all petrol and diesel supplies under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO), and by 2009-10 – the time period to which these latest figures relate – biofuels accounted for 3.3% of UK transport fuels. Suppliers were supposed to ensure that 50% of biofuel met government environmental standards, but the target is not mandatory and was not met.
Several suppliers, including BP, Total, Morgan Stanley and Chevron, also failed to meet targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing data on the source of their biofuels.
The Renewable Fuels Agency's chief executive Nick Goodall said: "We've seen some progress from suppliers in meeting the challenge of sourcing their biofuels responsibly, but in many cases it has been disappointingly slow. Too many are lagging behind and dragging overall performance down. With mandatory sustainability criteria due to be introduced with the [European] Renewable Energy Directive, companies currently missing all three targets need to make a step change in performance."
Scientists and campaigners have warned that biofuels could cause more problems than they solve, with concerns over the destruction of tropical forests and impact on global food supplies.
As a whole, suppliers exceeded the target of 45% reduction in greenhouse gases compared to petrol and diesel fuels – achieving 51% savings. However, these figures do not include carbon emissions from indirect changes in land use, such as forests and grasslands being turned over to cropland, which experts have warned could cancel out the environmental benefits of biofuels and even accelerate climate change.
The majority of UK biofuel is imported. Biodiesel from soy was the single biggest source (31%) in 2009/10, with a large increase in Argentinian soy compared to the previous year, something that Friends of the Earth biofuels campaigner Kenneth Richter calls a "huge cause for concern".
"This report shows us that current biofuels policies are unsustainable " he says. "Additional demand for crops like soy and palm oil only creates extra pressure for agricultural expansion in producer countries, which in many cases leads to rainforest being cut down to make way for plantations."
There are also concerns about the impact of biofuels on food prices. The United Nations has singled out biofuel demand as a major factor in what it estimates will be as much as a 40% increase in food prices over the coming decade.
The Renewables Fuel Agency published the Gallagher review into biofuels in 2008, which recommended that the government slow the introduction of biofuels until more was known about the possible negative impacts.
Ministers responded by reducing the rate at which the RTFO's biofuel targets will increase, so that the total biofuel content in petrol and diesel will reach 5% in 2013-14. A separate EU plan aims to include 10% biofuel in transport fuel by 2020.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Obama Calls for New Clean-Energy Investments
By TENNILLE TRACY and JARED A. FAVOLE
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama made a big push for clean energy Tuesday, saying the nation should develop 80% of its electricity from clean sources by 2035 and pursue a raft of research and development projects to be financed by killing $4 billion in annual tax subsidies for oil, gas and other fossil-fuel producers.
Mr. Obama's emphasis on renewable-energy investment marks a shift away from efforts to develop a comprehensive global-warming policy with Congress, reflecting political reality and Republican opposition to the greenhouse-gas regulations.
The prime-time focus on clean energy underscores the White House's belief that domestic production of wind, solar and other types of clean energy—as well as innovative technologies that make them cheaper and more reliable—could provide jobs in a weak economy and reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels.
The president will say his 2012 budget would increase clean-energy technology funding by one-third when compared with the prior year, or to about $8 billion.
"Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's," Mr. Obama will say, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. He will add, "Now, clean-energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean-energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling."
The president will say his budget would include consumer rebates and other incentives for electric vehicles, aimed at putting one million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015.
Mr. Obama's plan also calls for a sizable increase in government-funded research and development, focused in part on getting the cost of solar energy down to $1 a watt. The president will call for more "Energy Innovation Hubs," launched by the U.S. Energy Department, which foster the development of new technology until it's ready for the private sector.
Debate over the future of clean energy often focuses on the government's use of both carrots and sticks to encourage a shift from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. The president's speech is decidedly focused on the carrots.
The administration has already won praise from the environmental community for doling out billions of dollars of loan guarantees and tax incentives to promote solar, wind, biofuels and clean coal projects, among others.
Luma Resources, a solar-roofing company whose founders were guests of First Lady Michelle Obama at the address, received $500,000 under the 2009 stimulus program. Last month, the Energy Department provided a $1.45 billion loan guarantee to one of the world's largest solar generation plants, Abengoa Solar Inc.'s Solana project in Arizona.
Going forward, wind and solar companies would also like to see a long-term extension of a popular grant program, called 1603 grants, which allows them obtain grants instead of investment tax credits.
Clean-energy advocates also support the creation of a national renewable electricity standard, which would force power companies to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Democratic lawmakers have proposed a 15% standard.
The Obama administration faces a tougher challenge, however, when it comes to developing and enforcing new standards for fossil fuels, which can be cheaper and easier to use than alternative energy sources.
In what has become an oft-quoted mantra, business leaders accuse the administration of passing regulations that kill jobs in a tough economy. Coal companies have been particularly critical of the administration's greenhouse gas rules, which seek to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, and oil companies have criticized the pace at which the administration issues offshore drilling permits.
There have been recent signs that Mr. Obama is willing to take a closer look at the impact of federal rules—and particularly, the impact of environmental rules—on the job market.
Earlier this month, the president signed an executive order that requires federal agencies to review outdated rules that hurt job creation. Last night, on the eve of the president's address, Carol Browner stepped down as the White House's climate and energy czar. Ms. Browner was known for her work on a climate bill and her departure was seen as sign the president could soften his approach to environmental rules.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama made a big push for clean energy Tuesday, saying the nation should develop 80% of its electricity from clean sources by 2035 and pursue a raft of research and development projects to be financed by killing $4 billion in annual tax subsidies for oil, gas and other fossil-fuel producers.
Mr. Obama's emphasis on renewable-energy investment marks a shift away from efforts to develop a comprehensive global-warming policy with Congress, reflecting political reality and Republican opposition to the greenhouse-gas regulations.
The prime-time focus on clean energy underscores the White House's belief that domestic production of wind, solar and other types of clean energy—as well as innovative technologies that make them cheaper and more reliable—could provide jobs in a weak economy and reduce the country's dependence on fossil fuels.
The president will say his 2012 budget would increase clean-energy technology funding by one-third when compared with the prior year, or to about $8 billion.
"Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's," Mr. Obama will say, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. He will add, "Now, clean-energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean-energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling."
The president will say his budget would include consumer rebates and other incentives for electric vehicles, aimed at putting one million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015.
Mr. Obama's plan also calls for a sizable increase in government-funded research and development, focused in part on getting the cost of solar energy down to $1 a watt. The president will call for more "Energy Innovation Hubs," launched by the U.S. Energy Department, which foster the development of new technology until it's ready for the private sector.
Debate over the future of clean energy often focuses on the government's use of both carrots and sticks to encourage a shift from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources. The president's speech is decidedly focused on the carrots.
The administration has already won praise from the environmental community for doling out billions of dollars of loan guarantees and tax incentives to promote solar, wind, biofuels and clean coal projects, among others.
Luma Resources, a solar-roofing company whose founders were guests of First Lady Michelle Obama at the address, received $500,000 under the 2009 stimulus program. Last month, the Energy Department provided a $1.45 billion loan guarantee to one of the world's largest solar generation plants, Abengoa Solar Inc.'s Solana project in Arizona.
Going forward, wind and solar companies would also like to see a long-term extension of a popular grant program, called 1603 grants, which allows them obtain grants instead of investment tax credits.
Clean-energy advocates also support the creation of a national renewable electricity standard, which would force power companies to generate a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. Democratic lawmakers have proposed a 15% standard.
The Obama administration faces a tougher challenge, however, when it comes to developing and enforcing new standards for fossil fuels, which can be cheaper and easier to use than alternative energy sources.
In what has become an oft-quoted mantra, business leaders accuse the administration of passing regulations that kill jobs in a tough economy. Coal companies have been particularly critical of the administration's greenhouse gas rules, which seek to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, and oil companies have criticized the pace at which the administration issues offshore drilling permits.
There have been recent signs that Mr. Obama is willing to take a closer look at the impact of federal rules—and particularly, the impact of environmental rules—on the job market.
Earlier this month, the president signed an executive order that requires federal agencies to review outdated rules that hurt job creation. Last night, on the eve of the president's address, Carol Browner stepped down as the White House's climate and energy czar. Ms. Browner was known for her work on a climate bill and her departure was seen as sign the president could soften his approach to environmental rules.
Write to Tennille Tracy at tennille.tracy@dowjones.com
Obama's climate adviser, Carol Browner, to depart White House
Browner's exit reinforces concerns Obama is preparing compromises on his once-ambitious green agenda to try to build working arrangement with Republicans
Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 January 2011 04.45 GMT
The White House energy and climate adviser is due to step down in the next few weeks, in a departure seen as the collapse of Barack Obama's ambitious green agenda.
Officials told reporters on Monday night that Carol Browner, who had served as the first White House energy and climate change "tsar", would be leaving and that she may not be replaced.
Reports of Browner's exit – barely 24 hours before Obama was to set out his priorities for the coming year in his state of the union address – reinforced concerns expressed by environmental groups that he was preparing further compromises on his once-ambitious green agenda to try to build a working arrangement with Republicans.
Obama has also come under pressure from the main business lobby, the Chamber of Commerce, which opposes environmental regulations.
But Browner's exit also recalled the extent to which Obama failed to realise his sweeping campaign promise of weaning America off fossil fuels, and making the transition to a new clean energy economy.
Browner, who headed the environmental protection agency during the Clinton administration, was seen as a shrewd operative, and was designated Obama's point person in the effort to enact climate change legislation.
With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, environmental organisations in early 2009 saw reasonable prospects for the passage of comprehensive climate change legislation.
In Obama's first months in the White House, Browner presided over a complex set of negotiations with US car manufacturers to produce an agreement that would increase fuel efficiency by as much as 25% over the next five years.
She was also credited with giving Democratic leaders in Congress room to build support to pass a climate change bill through the house of representatives in June 2009. But the effort to pass cap and trade bill foundered in the Senate last year – with some Democrats blaming Obama for failing to send a strong enough signal that he was behind the bill. Others blamed the White House for choosing to move forward on health care reform before energy and climate change.
Since the Democrats' defeat in November's mid-term elections, Obama has said he will not seek to pass sweeping climate change legislation.
"I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year and so it's doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after," Obama told a post-election press conference.
Meanwhile, Republicans in the house were calling for an investigation of Browner's influence over the energy and climate agenda.
The EPA she once served was also in the firing line of Republicans, and some conservative Democrats, who are pushing to strip the agency of its authority to act on greenhouse gas emissions.
Browner's reputation also took a hit with the Obama administration's handling of the BP oil spill. In August, she made the now-notorious claim on behalf of the White House that the "vast majority" of the 4.9m barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's broken well was gone. Her statement was later discredited.
Even before reports of Browner's exit, environmental organisations had already been expressing fears that Obama was prepared to sacrifice his green agenda to his efforts to build a working relationship with Republicans.
More than 20 environmental and public health organisations wrote to Obama last week urging him to stand up for the EPA in his state of the union speech tonight.
The agency, which begun the process of regulating greenhouse gas emissions this year, has become the prime target for anti-government Republicans.
Republicans, along with Democrats from coal and oil states, are pushing to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, while environmental organisations want a commitment from Obama to use his presidential veto power to stop any such move.
Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 January 2011 04.45 GMT
The White House energy and climate adviser is due to step down in the next few weeks, in a departure seen as the collapse of Barack Obama's ambitious green agenda.
Officials told reporters on Monday night that Carol Browner, who had served as the first White House energy and climate change "tsar", would be leaving and that she may not be replaced.
Reports of Browner's exit – barely 24 hours before Obama was to set out his priorities for the coming year in his state of the union address – reinforced concerns expressed by environmental groups that he was preparing further compromises on his once-ambitious green agenda to try to build a working arrangement with Republicans.
Obama has also come under pressure from the main business lobby, the Chamber of Commerce, which opposes environmental regulations.
But Browner's exit also recalled the extent to which Obama failed to realise his sweeping campaign promise of weaning America off fossil fuels, and making the transition to a new clean energy economy.
Browner, who headed the environmental protection agency during the Clinton administration, was seen as a shrewd operative, and was designated Obama's point person in the effort to enact climate change legislation.
With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, environmental organisations in early 2009 saw reasonable prospects for the passage of comprehensive climate change legislation.
In Obama's first months in the White House, Browner presided over a complex set of negotiations with US car manufacturers to produce an agreement that would increase fuel efficiency by as much as 25% over the next five years.
She was also credited with giving Democratic leaders in Congress room to build support to pass a climate change bill through the house of representatives in June 2009. But the effort to pass cap and trade bill foundered in the Senate last year – with some Democrats blaming Obama for failing to send a strong enough signal that he was behind the bill. Others blamed the White House for choosing to move forward on health care reform before energy and climate change.
Since the Democrats' defeat in November's mid-term elections, Obama has said he will not seek to pass sweeping climate change legislation.
"I think there are a lot of Republicans that ran against the energy bill that passed in the House last year and so it's doubtful that you could get the votes to pass that through the House this year or next year or the year after," Obama told a post-election press conference.
Meanwhile, Republicans in the house were calling for an investigation of Browner's influence over the energy and climate agenda.
The EPA she once served was also in the firing line of Republicans, and some conservative Democrats, who are pushing to strip the agency of its authority to act on greenhouse gas emissions.
Browner's reputation also took a hit with the Obama administration's handling of the BP oil spill. In August, she made the now-notorious claim on behalf of the White House that the "vast majority" of the 4.9m barrels of oil that spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's broken well was gone. Her statement was later discredited.
Even before reports of Browner's exit, environmental organisations had already been expressing fears that Obama was prepared to sacrifice his green agenda to his efforts to build a working relationship with Republicans.
More than 20 environmental and public health organisations wrote to Obama last week urging him to stand up for the EPA in his state of the union speech tonight.
The agency, which begun the process of regulating greenhouse gas emissions this year, has become the prime target for anti-government Republicans.
Republicans, along with Democrats from coal and oil states, are pushing to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, while environmental organisations want a commitment from Obama to use his presidential veto power to stop any such move.
Monday, 24 January 2011
Can the sea solve China's water crisis?
China's £1.1bn desalination plant is just the latest megaproject in its increasingly desperate race against water shortages
Jonathan Watts guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 January 2011 06.00 GMT
The highest-tech effort yet to ease China's water crisis sits between a wide, flat grid of salt farms and two giant cooling towers that rise up from a vast expanse of reclaimed land on the western shore of the Bohai Sea.
Odourless, quiet and billowing clear white smoke into a sharp blue sky, the Beijiang desalination and power plant contrast sharply with the tangled pipes, dirty chimneys and foul waterways more usually associated with China's traditional industrial landscape.
The 12.1bn yuan (£1.1bn) facility is the most advanced of a series of showcase megaprojects rising up in the Tianjin-Binhai development zone. This stretch of coastline is at the forefront of the government's ambitious and costly attempt to use science and technology to shift China on to a more sustainable path of development. A 10-minute drive away, a cluster of cranes and half-completed towers marks the site of the country's most ambitious eco-city project, which aims to create a community the size of Bristol from scratch within 10 years. Further on, another giant construction site marks the emergence of what looks set to be the world's first industrial-scale experiment of cutting-edge coal gasification and carbon-capture technology.
But while those projects are works in progress, the desalination plant is already operational, and as such gives an indication of the enormous financial and technical challenges facing China's attempted transition.
Engineers from the operating company – the State Development and Investment Corporation – say the facility is the biggest and most advanced of its type in Asia.
It combines a Chinese ultra-supercritical power plant with state-of-the-art Israeli desalination equipment to generate 400MW of coal-fired electricity and supply 200,000 cubic metres of salt-free potable water from the sea.
To avoid the usual environmental problems associated with desalination, the plant collects – and sells – the salt derived from the seawater, rather than discharging it back into the ocean. While other plants are energy-intensive, Tianjin's engineers boast of a more efficient use of coal, because excess steam that would otherwise be emitted from the thermal power plant is instead run through pipes in seawater distillation chambers.
But it is leaking money. Since it began operations last April, the plant has never run at more than a quarter of capacity. The plant's owner has yet to sign supply deals with three local utilities.
"The plant is not profitable at present. But as the economy develops, its value will increase," said Guo Qigang, the general manager. "Desalination provides value for society, it bolsters economic development and contributes to the environment because it prevents overdrawing of underground water."
As is the case for the one-third of Chinese wind turbines that are not yet connected to the grid, supply from the desalination plant is being partly held up by the shortcomings of the distribution infrastructure. Unless extra minerals are added, the purified water can damage existing pipes, and often appears yellow when it comes out of the taps.
But the main problem is cost. Companies are reluctant to switch from the cheaper water that can be pumped from rivers, lakes and aquifers, even though these traditional sources are straining from decades of overutilisation. The price of a cubic metre of desalinated water is 8 yuan, compared to the normal 5 yuan tariff in Tianjin.
Industry sources say the utilities are also worried that once they accept expensive desalinated water, there will be no going back.
"They don't want to give up the old resources because they know they won't get permission to use them again," said Wang Shichang, head of the desalination research centre at Tianjin University. "But the delay won't last long. China is working on plans to further develop desalination, because we face scarce water resources and rising demand."
Tianjin has a chronic shortage. Drought, overuse and pollution have left its population of 10 million with just a 10th of the water of the average global citizen.
Vast expanses of northern China, including Beijing, face much the same problem, with an accumulated water deficit of 200bn cubic metres. Until now, it has has been made up by the steady depletion of non-renewable aquifers.
To head off a looming crisis, the government is resorting to ever more desperate and expensive measures, including the world's biggest hydro-engineering project – the South-North Water Diversion Project – which aims to divert part of the flow of the Yangtze along three massive channels. This scheme has been plagued by contamination fears, cost overruns and resettlement difficulties that have left it several years behind schedule and unlikely to undercut desalination on price.
No solution is going to be cheap or easy. Environmentalists warn that even with advances in technology, seawater is not the best answer to China's problems. Desalination plants put pressure on marine ecosystems, create extra demand for coal and water and, critics say, distract attention from the more important goals of improving efficiency, conserving resources and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Other sceptics contrarily deride the megaprojects in Tianjin as Potemkin eco-showcases that mask a broader trend of waste and environmental destruction. They say these problems would be better addressed by applying market principles to water prices, which are currently among the lowest in the world due to government caps.
Holding down prices will be more difficult in the future as the Politburo – which is dominated by Communist party engineers – adopts increasingly expensive supply-side strategies to ease the pressure on the environment.
Guo Youzhi, head of the China Desalination Association, predicts the next five-year economic plan, due this spring, will ramp up incentives for alternative supplies of energy and water and set a target of 2m cubic metres of desalinated water per day, up 150% from current levels.
Researchers are also looking into the possibility of piping desalinated water 150km to Beijing, which is the biggest urban drain on conventional resources.
Market analysts foresee steady expansion.
"We think China will build an additional 20 plants. They have to," said Simon Powell, head of sustainable research at the CLSA brokerage. "We think tariffs will go up and desalination costs will come down so it will be profitable in future."
But he cautioned that even this would not solve China's water problems. "All the planned desalination plants will at best supply only half of Beijing's water. It's a drop in the ocean."
Jonathan Watts guardian.co.uk, Monday 24 January 2011 06.00 GMT
The highest-tech effort yet to ease China's water crisis sits between a wide, flat grid of salt farms and two giant cooling towers that rise up from a vast expanse of reclaimed land on the western shore of the Bohai Sea.
Odourless, quiet and billowing clear white smoke into a sharp blue sky, the Beijiang desalination and power plant contrast sharply with the tangled pipes, dirty chimneys and foul waterways more usually associated with China's traditional industrial landscape.
The 12.1bn yuan (£1.1bn) facility is the most advanced of a series of showcase megaprojects rising up in the Tianjin-Binhai development zone. This stretch of coastline is at the forefront of the government's ambitious and costly attempt to use science and technology to shift China on to a more sustainable path of development. A 10-minute drive away, a cluster of cranes and half-completed towers marks the site of the country's most ambitious eco-city project, which aims to create a community the size of Bristol from scratch within 10 years. Further on, another giant construction site marks the emergence of what looks set to be the world's first industrial-scale experiment of cutting-edge coal gasification and carbon-capture technology.
But while those projects are works in progress, the desalination plant is already operational, and as such gives an indication of the enormous financial and technical challenges facing China's attempted transition.
Engineers from the operating company – the State Development and Investment Corporation – say the facility is the biggest and most advanced of its type in Asia.
It combines a Chinese ultra-supercritical power plant with state-of-the-art Israeli desalination equipment to generate 400MW of coal-fired electricity and supply 200,000 cubic metres of salt-free potable water from the sea.
To avoid the usual environmental problems associated with desalination, the plant collects – and sells – the salt derived from the seawater, rather than discharging it back into the ocean. While other plants are energy-intensive, Tianjin's engineers boast of a more efficient use of coal, because excess steam that would otherwise be emitted from the thermal power plant is instead run through pipes in seawater distillation chambers.
But it is leaking money. Since it began operations last April, the plant has never run at more than a quarter of capacity. The plant's owner has yet to sign supply deals with three local utilities.
"The plant is not profitable at present. But as the economy develops, its value will increase," said Guo Qigang, the general manager. "Desalination provides value for society, it bolsters economic development and contributes to the environment because it prevents overdrawing of underground water."
As is the case for the one-third of Chinese wind turbines that are not yet connected to the grid, supply from the desalination plant is being partly held up by the shortcomings of the distribution infrastructure. Unless extra minerals are added, the purified water can damage existing pipes, and often appears yellow when it comes out of the taps.
But the main problem is cost. Companies are reluctant to switch from the cheaper water that can be pumped from rivers, lakes and aquifers, even though these traditional sources are straining from decades of overutilisation. The price of a cubic metre of desalinated water is 8 yuan, compared to the normal 5 yuan tariff in Tianjin.
Industry sources say the utilities are also worried that once they accept expensive desalinated water, there will be no going back.
"They don't want to give up the old resources because they know they won't get permission to use them again," said Wang Shichang, head of the desalination research centre at Tianjin University. "But the delay won't last long. China is working on plans to further develop desalination, because we face scarce water resources and rising demand."
Tianjin has a chronic shortage. Drought, overuse and pollution have left its population of 10 million with just a 10th of the water of the average global citizen.
Vast expanses of northern China, including Beijing, face much the same problem, with an accumulated water deficit of 200bn cubic metres. Until now, it has has been made up by the steady depletion of non-renewable aquifers.
To head off a looming crisis, the government is resorting to ever more desperate and expensive measures, including the world's biggest hydro-engineering project – the South-North Water Diversion Project – which aims to divert part of the flow of the Yangtze along three massive channels. This scheme has been plagued by contamination fears, cost overruns and resettlement difficulties that have left it several years behind schedule and unlikely to undercut desalination on price.
No solution is going to be cheap or easy. Environmentalists warn that even with advances in technology, seawater is not the best answer to China's problems. Desalination plants put pressure on marine ecosystems, create extra demand for coal and water and, critics say, distract attention from the more important goals of improving efficiency, conserving resources and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Other sceptics contrarily deride the megaprojects in Tianjin as Potemkin eco-showcases that mask a broader trend of waste and environmental destruction. They say these problems would be better addressed by applying market principles to water prices, which are currently among the lowest in the world due to government caps.
Holding down prices will be more difficult in the future as the Politburo – which is dominated by Communist party engineers – adopts increasingly expensive supply-side strategies to ease the pressure on the environment.
Guo Youzhi, head of the China Desalination Association, predicts the next five-year economic plan, due this spring, will ramp up incentives for alternative supplies of energy and water and set a target of 2m cubic metres of desalinated water per day, up 150% from current levels.
Researchers are also looking into the possibility of piping desalinated water 150km to Beijing, which is the biggest urban drain on conventional resources.
Market analysts foresee steady expansion.
"We think China will build an additional 20 plants. They have to," said Simon Powell, head of sustainable research at the CLSA brokerage. "We think tariffs will go up and desalination costs will come down so it will be profitable in future."
But he cautioned that even this would not solve China's water problems. "All the planned desalination plants will at best supply only half of Beijing's water. It's a drop in the ocean."
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Enertec and looking ahead to the Renewable Energy Exhibition
Relaxnews
Saturday, 22 January 2011
The latest smart grid solutions and related products will be on display at energy exhibition Enertec (January 25-27); the show will also attract exhibitors in the field of renewable energy generation and distribution. The show comes less than a month before the Renewable Energy Exhibition in France, which is expected to host around 600 exhibitors of renewable energy technology.
Enertec
January 25-27
Leipzig Exhibition Center
Leipzig, Germany
This international trade fair occurring once every two years is dedicated to all aspects of energy generation and distribution, particularly renewable energies. In 2009 Enertec attracted 237 exhibitors from 11 countries and over 10,000 visitors from 49 countries around the world. One of the foremost topics at Enertec 2011 will be the role of the smart gird in energy distribution and storage, with particular focus on southeastern Europe. The fair is open to trade professionals and members of the public interested in energy distribution.
http://www.enertec-leipzig.com/
Renewable Energy Exhibition
February 15-18
Lyon, France
Approximately 600 exhibitors of renewable energy technologies will attend the renewable energy exhibition in France. The exhibition covers the production of renewable energies, renewable energies in building and the development of integrated renewable energies. The event runs in conjunction with several other energy events including the Salon des énergies, du confort climatique et de l'eau - a professional trade show focusing on energy saving methods with temperature control, water and other domestic power demands. In 2009 these events attracted a combined total of 38,000 visitors. Unlike Enertec, which focuses on the smart grid, the Renewable Energy Exhibition covers the entire spectrum of renewable energy technologies.
http://www.energie-ren.com/2011/
Saturday, 22 January 2011
The latest smart grid solutions and related products will be on display at energy exhibition Enertec (January 25-27); the show will also attract exhibitors in the field of renewable energy generation and distribution. The show comes less than a month before the Renewable Energy Exhibition in France, which is expected to host around 600 exhibitors of renewable energy technology.
Enertec
January 25-27
Leipzig Exhibition Center
Leipzig, Germany
This international trade fair occurring once every two years is dedicated to all aspects of energy generation and distribution, particularly renewable energies. In 2009 Enertec attracted 237 exhibitors from 11 countries and over 10,000 visitors from 49 countries around the world. One of the foremost topics at Enertec 2011 will be the role of the smart gird in energy distribution and storage, with particular focus on southeastern Europe. The fair is open to trade professionals and members of the public interested in energy distribution.
http://www.enertec-leipzig.com/
Renewable Energy Exhibition
February 15-18
Lyon, France
Approximately 600 exhibitors of renewable energy technologies will attend the renewable energy exhibition in France. The exhibition covers the production of renewable energies, renewable energies in building and the development of integrated renewable energies. The event runs in conjunction with several other energy events including the Salon des énergies, du confort climatique et de l'eau - a professional trade show focusing on energy saving methods with temperature control, water and other domestic power demands. In 2009 these events attracted a combined total of 38,000 visitors. Unlike Enertec, which focuses on the smart grid, the Renewable Energy Exhibition covers the entire spectrum of renewable energy technologies.
http://www.energie-ren.com/2011/
Green heat industry hits out at renewable heat incentive delay
BusinessGreen: Government warned hold-up will cool interest in ground source heat pumps
Will Nichols for BusinessGreen guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2011 14.17 GMT
Climate change minister Greg Barker yesterday refused to reveal when the long-awaited Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) will be introduced, despite the designers of Europe's largest ground-source heat pump claiming the scheme cannot come fast enough.
The RHI was originally expected to be introduced in April this year, but it has subsequently been delayed until June, and speaking yesterday Barker would only confirm that the incentives would be delivered "later this year".
Speaking at the inauguration of a £4m heat pump at London shopping centre One New Change, Karl Draye, operations director of Geothermal International, questioned the government's repeated delay of the RHI and warned it could damage the industry.
The incentive survived the Comprehensive Spending Review but has been dogged by speculation since Chris Huhne admitted to forgetting about the RHI when writing the coalition agreement.
Draye told BusinessGreen that a speedy introduction of the RHI was vital to lowering the risk of installing ground or air source heat pumps by shortening payback times, making the technology far more attractive to small businesses and social housing providers.
Current renewable heat systems account for around one per cent of the heat generated in the UK, which is well short of the government's target of generating 12 per cent of heat from renewable sources by 2020.
Draye insisted heat pumps could increase the sector's impact on the mandatory EU renewable energy targets while providing a valuable source of jobs. "This technology is real, it is possible, and it can make a contribution," he said. "The whole industry is waiting with whatever is greater than bated breath for the RHI."
Geothermal International is part-owned by utility company SSE, whose chief executive, Ian Marchant, told BusinessGreen that the delay of the RHI had left a company heat pump project in Scotland "on a knife edge".
He also said ground source heat pumps could become "the technology of choice for all large buildings" with the right incentive structure and warned that without an RHI, companies would pursue electricity projects instead.
"The RHI does two things: it shortens the payback, which is important psychologically, but more importantly it [moves us towards our] target for energy," he said. "We have incentives for electricity, but not heat and we're in danger of doing too much electricity at a high cost and not enough heat. The RHI shifts the question from 'should I or shan't I?' to 'why won't I?'."
But when these concerns were put to Greg Barker, the climate change minister could only reiterate that the government was continuing to work on the details of how the RHI will operate.
"We're making good progress but I can't disclose any details until later this year," he told BusinessGreen.
Will Nichols for BusinessGreen guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2011 14.17 GMT
Climate change minister Greg Barker yesterday refused to reveal when the long-awaited Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) will be introduced, despite the designers of Europe's largest ground-source heat pump claiming the scheme cannot come fast enough.
The RHI was originally expected to be introduced in April this year, but it has subsequently been delayed until June, and speaking yesterday Barker would only confirm that the incentives would be delivered "later this year".
Speaking at the inauguration of a £4m heat pump at London shopping centre One New Change, Karl Draye, operations director of Geothermal International, questioned the government's repeated delay of the RHI and warned it could damage the industry.
The incentive survived the Comprehensive Spending Review but has been dogged by speculation since Chris Huhne admitted to forgetting about the RHI when writing the coalition agreement.
Draye told BusinessGreen that a speedy introduction of the RHI was vital to lowering the risk of installing ground or air source heat pumps by shortening payback times, making the technology far more attractive to small businesses and social housing providers.
Current renewable heat systems account for around one per cent of the heat generated in the UK, which is well short of the government's target of generating 12 per cent of heat from renewable sources by 2020.
Draye insisted heat pumps could increase the sector's impact on the mandatory EU renewable energy targets while providing a valuable source of jobs. "This technology is real, it is possible, and it can make a contribution," he said. "The whole industry is waiting with whatever is greater than bated breath for the RHI."
Geothermal International is part-owned by utility company SSE, whose chief executive, Ian Marchant, told BusinessGreen that the delay of the RHI had left a company heat pump project in Scotland "on a knife edge".
He also said ground source heat pumps could become "the technology of choice for all large buildings" with the right incentive structure and warned that without an RHI, companies would pursue electricity projects instead.
"The RHI does two things: it shortens the payback, which is important psychologically, but more importantly it [moves us towards our] target for energy," he said. "We have incentives for electricity, but not heat and we're in danger of doing too much electricity at a high cost and not enough heat. The RHI shifts the question from 'should I or shan't I?' to 'why won't I?'."
But when these concerns were put to Greg Barker, the climate change minister could only reiterate that the government was continuing to work on the details of how the RHI will operate.
"We're making good progress but I can't disclose any details until later this year," he told BusinessGreen.
Carbon fraud may force longer closure of EU emissions trading
EU emissions trading scheme may remain suspended as governments struggle to beef up security
Terry Macalister and Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Sunday 23 January 2011 19.08 GMT
Hopes that a key tool in the fight against climate change can be brought back into full operation on Wednesday were fading as national governments struggled to beef up security after a huge carbon fraud was uncovered in Europe's pioneering emissions trading scheme (ETS).
But the British government said it was confident the UK side of the market was highly secure and there was little risk of local users being vulnerable.
The European commission stepped in to ban "spot" trading in carbon on any local exchanges last Wednesday after a £28m cyber attack on the Czech, Austrian and other national markets and was hoping to lift the restriction this week but there are growing fears that new security will not be in place on time in all locations.
Market experts are now calling for victims of carbon trading fraud to be compensated by the European Union to prevent the latest in a series of scandals turning traders off the ETS, which was meant to provide a blueprint for national carbon reduction schemes to be introduced in America and further afield.
More than half of the 27 countries around Europe engaged in the "cap and trade" ETS scheme, under which polluting companies are forced to buy carbon certificates if they do not keep their CO2 output below their agreed quota, were said by the EU to have inadequate security systems in place.
Carbon market experts expressed doubt that everything could be sorted out by Wednesday. "I am not banking on any of this being sorted in a hurry," said one. "The EU's record on IT issues is not good. It took them a year and a half longer than they said to link the CITL (Community Independent Transaction Log) with the UN's ITL (International Transaction Log) and even then they refused to take any responsibility for the delay," he added.
There have already been predictions that the level of losses to those traders or small industrial companies unable to use the full market would be £60m even if the market did open for full business again on Wednesday. The EC itself admitted that the Wednesday deadline could not be guaranteed.
There has been widespread condemnation of the slow speed with which the EU has acted after a series of fraud attacks on the ETS market in the past few years.
Connie Hildegaard, the EC climate commissioner, claimed that the scheme was a victim of its own success. "Over the last years, the market has reached a size which makes it a potential target of fraudulent practices.
"Therefore, as the market matures and grows further, it is critical that it continues to be subject to appropriate and effective regulatory oversight."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said at the weekend that it supported the moves to tighten systems around Europe. "The security of the carbon market is very important and this period of time will allow registry administrators to address the security of their registry. The UK Registry Administrator, the Environment Agency, has assessed the risk to UK account holders and concluded that because of the security systems used in the UK Registry successful attacks are unlikely.
But the EC has further enraged sections of the carbon market by botching an announcement late last week on new "offset" procedures whereby companies in the developing world can claim carbon credits for building "green" industrial schemes designed to take carbon out of the atmosphere.
One senior banker said Brussels "career" civil servants running the EU emissions trading scheme should hand over control to a new independent financial body. On Friday, their latest gaffe was to botch a key announcement, causing the price of carbon to gyrate. "These foibles used to be faintly amusing, but now they're becoming threatening," he said.
Meanwhile Andrew Hedge, a partner from Norton Rose law firm, said that more companies involved in carbon trading are calling for an EU backed insurance fund to be set up to cover any such losses. He warned that no system could ever be 100% fraud proof, despite promises by the commission to tighten software security in the light of the growing problem with fraud.
"The Commission is now pushing for stronger security and has taken welcome action to insist national registries are secure. But you can never have 100% security - there will always potentially be a corrupt individual or a more sophisticated cyber attack. It's incumbent on the EC and member states to protect participants in the market. Many players would like some sort of insurance mechanism set up so that if they unwittingly buy stolen allowances, there is a mechanism by which they can return these to the authorities in exchange for replacement allowances."
The senior banker, talking to the Guardian on condition of anonymity, also called on the European commission to issue a directive ruling that stolen allowances, once they are traded in the market, are not declared void if uncovered. "Unpicking transactions of stolen allowances which involves many people becomes very difficult. You can't have an effective market if everyone is looking over their shoulders all the time." Any innocent originator of the stolen allowance should instead be compensated for the loss, he said.
Terry Macalister and Tim Webb guardian.co.uk, Sunday 23 January 2011 19.08 GMT
Hopes that a key tool in the fight against climate change can be brought back into full operation on Wednesday were fading as national governments struggled to beef up security after a huge carbon fraud was uncovered in Europe's pioneering emissions trading scheme (ETS).
But the British government said it was confident the UK side of the market was highly secure and there was little risk of local users being vulnerable.
The European commission stepped in to ban "spot" trading in carbon on any local exchanges last Wednesday after a £28m cyber attack on the Czech, Austrian and other national markets and was hoping to lift the restriction this week but there are growing fears that new security will not be in place on time in all locations.
Market experts are now calling for victims of carbon trading fraud to be compensated by the European Union to prevent the latest in a series of scandals turning traders off the ETS, which was meant to provide a blueprint for national carbon reduction schemes to be introduced in America and further afield.
More than half of the 27 countries around Europe engaged in the "cap and trade" ETS scheme, under which polluting companies are forced to buy carbon certificates if they do not keep their CO2 output below their agreed quota, were said by the EU to have inadequate security systems in place.
Carbon market experts expressed doubt that everything could be sorted out by Wednesday. "I am not banking on any of this being sorted in a hurry," said one. "The EU's record on IT issues is not good. It took them a year and a half longer than they said to link the CITL (Community Independent Transaction Log) with the UN's ITL (International Transaction Log) and even then they refused to take any responsibility for the delay," he added.
There have already been predictions that the level of losses to those traders or small industrial companies unable to use the full market would be £60m even if the market did open for full business again on Wednesday. The EC itself admitted that the Wednesday deadline could not be guaranteed.
There has been widespread condemnation of the slow speed with which the EU has acted after a series of fraud attacks on the ETS market in the past few years.
Connie Hildegaard, the EC climate commissioner, claimed that the scheme was a victim of its own success. "Over the last years, the market has reached a size which makes it a potential target of fraudulent practices.
"Therefore, as the market matures and grows further, it is critical that it continues to be subject to appropriate and effective regulatory oversight."
The Department of Energy and Climate Change said at the weekend that it supported the moves to tighten systems around Europe. "The security of the carbon market is very important and this period of time will allow registry administrators to address the security of their registry. The UK Registry Administrator, the Environment Agency, has assessed the risk to UK account holders and concluded that because of the security systems used in the UK Registry successful attacks are unlikely.
But the EC has further enraged sections of the carbon market by botching an announcement late last week on new "offset" procedures whereby companies in the developing world can claim carbon credits for building "green" industrial schemes designed to take carbon out of the atmosphere.
One senior banker said Brussels "career" civil servants running the EU emissions trading scheme should hand over control to a new independent financial body. On Friday, their latest gaffe was to botch a key announcement, causing the price of carbon to gyrate. "These foibles used to be faintly amusing, but now they're becoming threatening," he said.
Meanwhile Andrew Hedge, a partner from Norton Rose law firm, said that more companies involved in carbon trading are calling for an EU backed insurance fund to be set up to cover any such losses. He warned that no system could ever be 100% fraud proof, despite promises by the commission to tighten software security in the light of the growing problem with fraud.
"The Commission is now pushing for stronger security and has taken welcome action to insist national registries are secure. But you can never have 100% security - there will always potentially be a corrupt individual or a more sophisticated cyber attack. It's incumbent on the EC and member states to protect participants in the market. Many players would like some sort of insurance mechanism set up so that if they unwittingly buy stolen allowances, there is a mechanism by which they can return these to the authorities in exchange for replacement allowances."
The senior banker, talking to the Guardian on condition of anonymity, also called on the European commission to issue a directive ruling that stolen allowances, once they are traded in the market, are not declared void if uncovered. "Unpicking transactions of stolen allowances which involves many people becomes very difficult. You can't have an effective market if everyone is looking over their shoulders all the time." Any innocent originator of the stolen allowance should instead be compensated for the loss, he said.
Energy Saving Trust funding cut by half
Department of Energy and Climate Change halves 2011-12 funding for energy-saving consumer body
Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2011 16.49 GMT
The government has slashed by half its funding of the Energy Saving Trust (EST), the Guardian has learned.
The EST provides grants and free advice to the public to help them reduce their energy use, bills and greenhouse gas emissions. The government has previously said that energy efficiency measures are the cheapest way of tackling energy and climate change.
Chris Huhne, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, said last year: "We must take action on energy saving. For too long, the debate around energy has focused on supply."
In a separate statement he added: "There is quite a big part of our agenda where clearly the expertise that exists in ... the Energy Saving Trust will be very important."
But the EST confirmed today that the funding it receives from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is to be halved in 2011-12. It is likely to lose one-third of its 300-strong workforce, mainly in London.
"While we are disappointed with the settlement, it does not come as a surprise," said an EST statement. "With the green deal [programme of home insulation] on the horizon the private sector will have a huge role to play."
A Decc spokesman said: "Energy efficiency is a top priority for this department. The coalition's green deal is the most ambitious energy efficiency programme ever envisaged, and a bill is already before parliament to put it in place. The EST has a role to play as we move towards this, and is being funded accordingly next year."
The budget cut was condemned by campaigners. "In a time of recession and rising fuel prices, slashing the EST's budget makes no sense and is a complete false economy. The government is reducing its own energy use by 10% this year and should be doing everything it can to help householders do the same," said Ben Margolis, director of the 10:10 climate change campaign.
Meg Hillier, the shadow minister for energy and climate change, said it was "crazy" to make such big cuts to the EST when the proposed green deal was unproven and would not be implemented until March 2012 at the earliest. "There are lots of concerns about consumer protection in relation to the green deal, where private contractors will come into people's homes, and people need the independent advice the EST provide," she said.
Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP said: "Cutting a key green service at a time of rising energy bills, growing fuel poverty and dangerous climate change makes a mockery of this government's energy and climate change policy."
In 2009-10, the EST received £62m from Decc, representing two-thirds of its total funding, and 87% of the the department's total grant funding. The grants were awarded to schemes for the scrapping of inefficient old boilers and for energy efficiency improvements for homes. The remainder of the EST funding comes largely from the Scottish government (24%) and the Department for Transport, neither of which have finalised their funding for the EST for the next financial year.
In October, Huhne said: "We are committed to taking 33% out of [Decc] administration costs and that includes the EST." But the final cut imposed on the EST by Decc was much greater, at 50%.
Speaking to the Conferderation of British Industry in November, Huhne said: "Energy saving is the cheapest way of closing the gap between demand and supply."
Days after becoming prime minister, David Cameron told Decc officials that he wanted his administration to be the "greenest government ever."
Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2011 16.49 GMT
The government has slashed by half its funding of the Energy Saving Trust (EST), the Guardian has learned.
The EST provides grants and free advice to the public to help them reduce their energy use, bills and greenhouse gas emissions. The government has previously said that energy efficiency measures are the cheapest way of tackling energy and climate change.
Chris Huhne, the secretary of state for energy and climate change, said last year: "We must take action on energy saving. For too long, the debate around energy has focused on supply."
In a separate statement he added: "There is quite a big part of our agenda where clearly the expertise that exists in ... the Energy Saving Trust will be very important."
But the EST confirmed today that the funding it receives from the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc) is to be halved in 2011-12. It is likely to lose one-third of its 300-strong workforce, mainly in London.
"While we are disappointed with the settlement, it does not come as a surprise," said an EST statement. "With the green deal [programme of home insulation] on the horizon the private sector will have a huge role to play."
A Decc spokesman said: "Energy efficiency is a top priority for this department. The coalition's green deal is the most ambitious energy efficiency programme ever envisaged, and a bill is already before parliament to put it in place. The EST has a role to play as we move towards this, and is being funded accordingly next year."
The budget cut was condemned by campaigners. "In a time of recession and rising fuel prices, slashing the EST's budget makes no sense and is a complete false economy. The government is reducing its own energy use by 10% this year and should be doing everything it can to help householders do the same," said Ben Margolis, director of the 10:10 climate change campaign.
Meg Hillier, the shadow minister for energy and climate change, said it was "crazy" to make such big cuts to the EST when the proposed green deal was unproven and would not be implemented until March 2012 at the earliest. "There are lots of concerns about consumer protection in relation to the green deal, where private contractors will come into people's homes, and people need the independent advice the EST provide," she said.
Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP said: "Cutting a key green service at a time of rising energy bills, growing fuel poverty and dangerous climate change makes a mockery of this government's energy and climate change policy."
In 2009-10, the EST received £62m from Decc, representing two-thirds of its total funding, and 87% of the the department's total grant funding. The grants were awarded to schemes for the scrapping of inefficient old boilers and for energy efficiency improvements for homes. The remainder of the EST funding comes largely from the Scottish government (24%) and the Department for Transport, neither of which have finalised their funding for the EST for the next financial year.
In October, Huhne said: "We are committed to taking 33% out of [Decc] administration costs and that includes the EST." But the final cut imposed on the EST by Decc was much greater, at 50%.
Speaking to the Conferderation of British Industry in November, Huhne said: "Energy saving is the cheapest way of closing the gap between demand and supply."
Days after becoming prime minister, David Cameron told Decc officials that he wanted his administration to be the "greenest government ever."
Friday, 21 January 2011
EPA to Allow Higher Ethanol Blends in 2001-06 Autos
By STEPHEN POWER
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration has decided to approve the use of higher levels of ethanol in automobiles made between 2001 and 2006, handing a victory to corn farmers and deepening a conflict with auto makers, oil refiners and other interests who oppose such a step.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce Friday that it will allow ethanol levels in gasoline blends to be as high as 15% for vehicles made between 2001 and 2006, up from the current 10% maximum, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The agency last fall approved the use of E15 for vehicles made between 2007 and the present, and has been awaiting the results of tests conducted by the government on older model vehicles to make a decision on whether higher ethanol blends were appropriate for those vehicles.
An EPA spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The cause of boosting ethanol use in cars has been strongly championed by Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group led by Wesley Clark, the retired Army general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.
Gen. Clark's group petitioned the EPA in 2009 for an increase in ethanol levels in gasoline blends.
Without the increase, the group said the U.S. won't be able to meet a congressional mandate requiring some 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into the domestic fuel supply by 2022.
Livestock ranchers, auto makers and oil refiners have all challenged the Obama administration's efforts to expand ethanol use in cars. While the groups have varying motives for opposing greater corn-ethanol production, they—along with many environmentalists—generally say the government hasn't conducted sufficient testing to warrant higher concentrations of ethanol in motor fuels. Some have also expressed concern that encouraging more ethanol production could exacerbate the recent run-up in food prices, by diverting corn away from food production to fuel production, but the ethanol industry has disputed such criticisms.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration has decided to approve the use of higher levels of ethanol in automobiles made between 2001 and 2006, handing a victory to corn farmers and deepening a conflict with auto makers, oil refiners and other interests who oppose such a step.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce Friday that it will allow ethanol levels in gasoline blends to be as high as 15% for vehicles made between 2001 and 2006, up from the current 10% maximum, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The agency last fall approved the use of E15 for vehicles made between 2007 and the present, and has been awaiting the results of tests conducted by the government on older model vehicles to make a decision on whether higher ethanol blends were appropriate for those vehicles.
An EPA spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The cause of boosting ethanol use in cars has been strongly championed by Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group led by Wesley Clark, the retired Army general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.
Gen. Clark's group petitioned the EPA in 2009 for an increase in ethanol levels in gasoline blends.
Without the increase, the group said the U.S. won't be able to meet a congressional mandate requiring some 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into the domestic fuel supply by 2022.
Livestock ranchers, auto makers and oil refiners have all challenged the Obama administration's efforts to expand ethanol use in cars. While the groups have varying motives for opposing greater corn-ethanol production, they—along with many environmentalists—generally say the government hasn't conducted sufficient testing to warrant higher concentrations of ethanol in motor fuels. Some have also expressed concern that encouraging more ethanol production could exacerbate the recent run-up in food prices, by diverting corn away from food production to fuel production, but the ethanol industry has disputed such criticisms.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
EPA to Allow Higher Ethanol Blends in 2001-06 Autos
By STEPHEN POWER
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration has decided to approve the use of higher levels of ethanol in automobiles made between 2001 and 2006, handing a victory to corn farmers and deepening a conflict with auto makers, oil refiners and other interests who oppose such a step.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce Friday that it will allow ethanol levels in gasoline blends to be as high as 15% for vehicles made between 2001 and 2006, up from the current 10% maximum, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The agency last fall approved the use of E15 for vehicles made between 2007 and the present, and has been awaiting the results of tests conducted by the government on older model vehicles to make a decision on whether higher ethanol blends were appropriate for those vehicles.
An EPA spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The cause of boosting ethanol use in cars has been strongly championed by Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group led by Wesley Clark, the retired Army general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.
Gen. Clark's group petitioned the EPA in 2009 for an increase in ethanol levels in gasoline blends.
Without the increase, the group said the U.S. won't be able to meet a congressional mandate requiring some 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into the domestic fuel supply by 2022.
Livestock ranchers, auto makers and oil refiners have all challenged the Obama administration's efforts to expand ethanol use in cars. While the groups have varying motives for opposing greater corn-ethanol production, they—along with many environmentalists—generally say the government hasn't conducted sufficient testing to warrant higher concentrations of ethanol in motor fuels. Some have also expressed concern that encouraging more ethanol production could exacerbate the recent run-up in food prices, by diverting corn away from food production to fuel production, but the ethanol industry has disputed such criticisms.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration has decided to approve the use of higher levels of ethanol in automobiles made between 2001 and 2006, handing a victory to corn farmers and deepening a conflict with auto makers, oil refiners and other interests who oppose such a step.
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce Friday that it will allow ethanol levels in gasoline blends to be as high as 15% for vehicles made between 2001 and 2006, up from the current 10% maximum, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The agency last fall approved the use of E15 for vehicles made between 2007 and the present, and has been awaiting the results of tests conducted by the government on older model vehicles to make a decision on whether higher ethanol blends were appropriate for those vehicles.
An EPA spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The cause of boosting ethanol use in cars has been strongly championed by Growth Energy, an ethanol trade group led by Wesley Clark, the retired Army general and 2004 Democratic presidential candidate.
Gen. Clark's group petitioned the EPA in 2009 for an increase in ethanol levels in gasoline blends.
Without the increase, the group said the U.S. won't be able to meet a congressional mandate requiring some 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into the domestic fuel supply by 2022.
Livestock ranchers, auto makers and oil refiners have all challenged the Obama administration's efforts to expand ethanol use in cars. While the groups have varying motives for opposing greater corn-ethanol production, they—along with many environmentalists—generally say the government hasn't conducted sufficient testing to warrant higher concentrations of ethanol in motor fuels. Some have also expressed concern that encouraging more ethanol production could exacerbate the recent run-up in food prices, by diverting corn away from food production to fuel production, but the ethanol industry has disputed such criticisms.
Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Renewables could supply 99.5% of power by 2050: Greenpeace
AFP
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Renewable energies could furnish 99.5 percent of European Union electricity needs by 2050 if nuclear loses its priority access to distribution networks, Greenpeace said in a report released Tuesday.
The environmental campaigners said that windfarms are "often stopped in peak production periods to give priority access" to electricity generated by nuclear reactors and coal-fired power stations.
Greenpeace researchers said that solar energy in Europe's south and wind energy from the north could supply 68 percent of the 27-nation EU's electricity needs in 2030 and 99.5 percent by the middle of the century.
However, the group claimed that would require governments to change policy tack and favour investments in green energy to the tune of 70 billion euros (94 billion dollars) by 2030 and another 28 billion euros over the following decade
"It's a question of choice," said campaign figurehead Jan Vande Putte.
Renewables produced 16.1 percent of German electricity needs in 2009, more than double the total six years earlier, according to the German federation of renewable energy producers.
Greenpeace is trying to influence the debate in the run-up to a February 4 summit of EU leaders representing half a billion people.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Renewable energies could furnish 99.5 percent of European Union electricity needs by 2050 if nuclear loses its priority access to distribution networks, Greenpeace said in a report released Tuesday.
The environmental campaigners said that windfarms are "often stopped in peak production periods to give priority access" to electricity generated by nuclear reactors and coal-fired power stations.
Greenpeace researchers said that solar energy in Europe's south and wind energy from the north could supply 68 percent of the 27-nation EU's electricity needs in 2030 and 99.5 percent by the middle of the century.
However, the group claimed that would require governments to change policy tack and favour investments in green energy to the tune of 70 billion euros (94 billion dollars) by 2030 and another 28 billion euros over the following decade
"It's a question of choice," said campaign figurehead Jan Vande Putte.
Renewables produced 16.1 percent of German electricity needs in 2009, more than double the total six years earlier, according to the German federation of renewable energy producers.
Greenpeace is trying to influence the debate in the run-up to a February 4 summit of EU leaders representing half a billion people.
Top 10 small-scale renewable energy innovators
From high-rise plant factories to solar rubbish dumps, here is the pick of small companies at the World Future Energy conference
A computer-generated graphic of Masdar city, currently under construction in Abu Dhabi, which will host the next generation of small-scale renewable energy companies. Photograph: Fosters + Partners
Abu Dhabi hosting the World Future Energy conference is like Dracula running a meeting of blood coagulant specialists. Never mind that the emirate has vast oil and gas reserves and is throwing up scandalously inefficient buildings by the score, it really wants to make the world believe that the future will be renewable power.
Money is no object here; not only did Abu Dhabi spend big undisclosed amounts in its campaign to house the proposed International Renewable Energy Agency, the emirate is pumping billions of dollars into Masdar City, billed as the world's first carbon-neutral city. Masdar is also paying for the giant London array offshore windfarm in the Thames estuary and many other clean-tech developments in Europe, Egypt and the US.
Now it has now hooked up with the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT) to attract the world's top scientists and dozens of blue-chip multinationals to roll out the next generation of renewables.
The energy conference is heavily skewed to solar, as you might expect in this region, but its lifeblood is the small-scale entrepreneurs, inventors and technologists who have come to Abu Dhabi hoping to attract cash and become mainstream in 20 years' time.
Here are my top 10 (mostly) small-scale innovating companies on view in Abu Dhabi this week, in no particular rank or order:
1. Jet-stream power
Skymill Energy is a small US/Indian company trying to harness the limitless high-altitude jet-stream winds that blow at over 200mph at over 30,000ft. Others have tried with tethered kites but Skymill think they have cracked the problem by using a remote rotary-lift aerial vehicle, like a helicopter, which is attached to a generator on the ground. The prize is fabulous: vast renewable energy, no pollution, straightforward technology and available materials. Skymill say it could produce power cheaper than coal and are backed by Boeing, former Nasa scientists and Indian technologists. Pilot trials begin in India next year.
2. Plant factories
Korean company Semi-Materials wants to grow vast quantities of food indoors in what could be high-rise factories. The technology needs no soil but uses nutrients and water with LED lighting linked to solar PV power. These minutely controlled environments, it says, would be ideally suited to high-value crops and avoid bacteria, bad weather and viruses. One plant factory is now working, others are planned.
3. Desert soils
Humus Analysis is a small French firm that has grown out of a government research institute. It makes compost from waste products from the oil industry, as well as municipal wastes and claims to be able to build soils which are good enough to grow grass and trees in a year, and edible crops in two years. If employed widely, says the company, it would enable energy profligate Arab states to reduce water use – and therefore energy – significantly. First trials are taking place in Abu Dhabi this year.
4. Micro geothermal
Ritesh Arya is an Indian hydro-geologist who in 2001 found groundwater at over 11,000ft in the Himalayas, the highest that it has ever been discovered. He is backed by three Nordic research groups as well as giant Norwegian oil company Statoil, and is finding geo-thermal resources in places where no-one thought it could be. Thousands of Himalayan communities could benefit from the source of renewable energy.
5. Solar rubbish dumps
African Renewable Energies is a small London–based firm that aims to help poor communities in developing countries earn money and generate electricity from innumerable rubbish tips around African cities. The idea is to cover landfill sites with thinfilm solar phovololtaic cells printed on to the flexible membranes used to cap landfills. Money would be earned from the UN's clean development mechanism and the electricity should last for decades. Trials now taking place in Italy, the US and Nairobi.
6. Waste houses
2G, an emirates company, takes waste palm tree fronds and leaves, mixes in plastics and produces immensely strong floorboards, gates, walls, cladding, roof tiles, decking and other building materials. The raw material is plentiful and free, and the end product is cheaper than wood or plastic. One factory is already built, others expected soon.
7. Air sandwich
New Japanese technology that uses multiple layers of high performance plastic film with air trapped between them to save up to 40% of energy being lost through glass doors or windows. Cheaper and more efficient than most glass double-glazing and good for retrofits.
8. Desert oases
Hitachi is developing small-scale desalination plants that pump brackish water using PV electricity and then cleans it up using reverse osmosis technology. The result is clean water for humans and animals in remote places which would not normally be served by large scale desalination plants. A 40ft container-sized plant can provide enough clean water for 100 people or a waterhole in the desert. Already being used in conservation areas in Abu Dhabi to help oryx and other animals survive.
9. Algae power
Algaeventure is a small US company that has found a cheap way to efficiently separate liquids and solids, bypassing expensive, power-hungry, centrifugal machines. This, they believe, is the key to developing algae as a major source of both food and power in the next 30 years. The company expects algae technology to race ahead in the next 10 years.
10. Solar fridges
Freecold is a small French company specialising in PV-powered solar refrigerators, ideal for off-grid villages, health centres or even remote bars wanting to make ice. It does not need batteries or converters and uses advanced insulation to keep temperatures cool for 75 hours or more.
• John Vidal's travel and accommodation were paid for by the Zayed Future Energy prize.
Siemens chooses Hull for wind turbine plant generating 700 jobs
• Associated British Ports will build £100m berth in Hull
• Siemens plans to invest £80m to build a wind turbine plant
Tim Webb The Guardian, Thursday 20 January 2011
German engineering conglomerate Siemens has selected Associated British Port's (ABP) Hull development to build what will be Britain's first major offshore wind turbine manufacturing plant.
The decision means that ABP is in line to receive about £20m for the development from the government's ports upgrade fund, which energy secretary Chris Huhne fought to save from the spending cuts in October's comprehensive spending review. Siemens' proposed plant will also create about 700 jobs and the news will be a boost for Hull, which has beaten off competition from ports in Teesside, Sunderland and the Humber which had also been shortlisted for the project.
Siemens will announce today that it has signed a memorandum of understanding with ABP over its Green Port Hull proposed development at Alexandria Dock. The two companies have yet to sign a formal binding contract.
Under the plan, ABP would build a £100m deepwater berth at the port capable of handling the new generation of large offshore wind turbines. It would be one of the biggest single investments ABP has made in Britain. Siemens also wants to build a new £80m wind turbine plant on the site.
The two companies hope to sign definitive agreements this year. Siemens, together with General Electric and Mitsubishi, which also plans to build similar plants in Britain, had threatened to go elsewhere if the £60m ports funding had been withdrawn. It is understood that Siemens was looking at alternative sites in western Denmark to build a plant to make turbines for the North Sea.The two companies will work to develop the plans for the new Siemens plant and export facility at the Port.
The news from Siemens and ABP will also be a shot in the arm for the government's attempts to create new jobs from the "green economy", particularly from the manufacturing of wind turbines, which are being rapidly installed off the British coast.
Industry sources estimate that the proportion of UK-sourced components in onshore wind farms is as low as 6%, with companies bemoaning the missed opportunity for British manufacturers and the wider economy as vast sums are now being spent on renewable energy.
Some government advisers believe the state could do more to promote British turbine manufacturers, for example by introducing specifications for UK wind farms that would benefit domestic firms.
• Siemens plans to invest £80m to build a wind turbine plant
Tim Webb The Guardian, Thursday 20 January 2011
German engineering conglomerate Siemens has selected Associated British Port's (ABP) Hull development to build what will be Britain's first major offshore wind turbine manufacturing plant.
The decision means that ABP is in line to receive about £20m for the development from the government's ports upgrade fund, which energy secretary Chris Huhne fought to save from the spending cuts in October's comprehensive spending review. Siemens' proposed plant will also create about 700 jobs and the news will be a boost for Hull, which has beaten off competition from ports in Teesside, Sunderland and the Humber which had also been shortlisted for the project.
Siemens will announce today that it has signed a memorandum of understanding with ABP over its Green Port Hull proposed development at Alexandria Dock. The two companies have yet to sign a formal binding contract.
Under the plan, ABP would build a £100m deepwater berth at the port capable of handling the new generation of large offshore wind turbines. It would be one of the biggest single investments ABP has made in Britain. Siemens also wants to build a new £80m wind turbine plant on the site.
The two companies hope to sign definitive agreements this year. Siemens, together with General Electric and Mitsubishi, which also plans to build similar plants in Britain, had threatened to go elsewhere if the £60m ports funding had been withdrawn. It is understood that Siemens was looking at alternative sites in western Denmark to build a plant to make turbines for the North Sea.The two companies will work to develop the plans for the new Siemens plant and export facility at the Port.
The news from Siemens and ABP will also be a shot in the arm for the government's attempts to create new jobs from the "green economy", particularly from the manufacturing of wind turbines, which are being rapidly installed off the British coast.
Industry sources estimate that the proportion of UK-sourced components in onshore wind farms is as low as 6%, with companies bemoaning the missed opportunity for British manufacturers and the wider economy as vast sums are now being spent on renewable energy.
Some government advisers believe the state could do more to promote British turbine manufacturers, for example by introducing specifications for UK wind farms that would benefit domestic firms.
Vestas gives away energy prize winnings to runners-up
Danish windpower firm shares out $1.5m (£940,000) Zayed Future Energy prize money in bid to extend influence of the competition
John Vidal in Abu Dhabi guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 January 2011 12.52 GMT
Vestas, the largest windpower company in the world, last night won the $1.5m (£940,000) Zayed Future Energy prize in Abu Dhabi.
But in what has been called an "remarkable" act, the Danish company gave all its prize money away to a new NGO, an impoverished Indian teacher, Arnold Schwarzenegger's former environmental adviser, and a leading US photovoltaic company.
Having installed more windpower than any other company, Vestas turbines now generate enough electricity to provide for 21 million people.
Amory Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute , and clean energy investors E+Co each won $350,000 (£218,585) as runners-up, but Vestas chief executive, Ditlev Engel, said he was concerned that other runners-up would receive nothing.
"We quickly decided that we should seize the opportunity to extend the influence of the prize through redistributing the cash award to others," he said.
The company gave $750,000 (£468,396) to WindMade, a new label for products made with windpower backed by a coalition including Bloomberg, Lego Group and WWF. It also gave $250,000 (£156,145) to Bunker Roy, founder of the Barefoot College in India, Terry Terry Tamminen, former Schwarzenegger adviser and Australian founder of Seventh Generation Advisors, and thin film PV company First Solar.
Roy said he was "delighted". Barefoot is the only college in the world open only to those without any formal education, training women and the poorest to combine local knowledge with new green technologies. Some 15,000 people have learned to become "barefoot" water and solar engineers, architects and teachers.
Engel chided Britain for entering the windpower race late. "You had the best resource, a head start on everyone else. Now you are running to catch up."
But he said Britain was still in with a chance of building a new generation of large 6MW offshore turbines which would come on stream in the next few years. Most large turbines today are around the 3MW mark.
Vestas last year had to lay off more than 3,000 people in Europe when it closed five factories because of the recession and closed the UK's only major wind turbine plant in 2009, but has grown significantly in the United States.
• John Vidal's travel and accommodation were paid for by the Zayed Future Energy prize.
John Vidal in Abu Dhabi guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 January 2011 12.52 GMT
Vestas, the largest windpower company in the world, last night won the $1.5m (£940,000) Zayed Future Energy prize in Abu Dhabi.
But in what has been called an "remarkable" act, the Danish company gave all its prize money away to a new NGO, an impoverished Indian teacher, Arnold Schwarzenegger's former environmental adviser, and a leading US photovoltaic company.
Having installed more windpower than any other company, Vestas turbines now generate enough electricity to provide for 21 million people.
Amory Lovins, chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute , and clean energy investors E+Co each won $350,000 (£218,585) as runners-up, but Vestas chief executive, Ditlev Engel, said he was concerned that other runners-up would receive nothing.
"We quickly decided that we should seize the opportunity to extend the influence of the prize through redistributing the cash award to others," he said.
The company gave $750,000 (£468,396) to WindMade, a new label for products made with windpower backed by a coalition including Bloomberg, Lego Group and WWF. It also gave $250,000 (£156,145) to Bunker Roy, founder of the Barefoot College in India, Terry Terry Tamminen, former Schwarzenegger adviser and Australian founder of Seventh Generation Advisors, and thin film PV company First Solar.
Roy said he was "delighted". Barefoot is the only college in the world open only to those without any formal education, training women and the poorest to combine local knowledge with new green technologies. Some 15,000 people have learned to become "barefoot" water and solar engineers, architects and teachers.
Engel chided Britain for entering the windpower race late. "You had the best resource, a head start on everyone else. Now you are running to catch up."
But he said Britain was still in with a chance of building a new generation of large 6MW offshore turbines which would come on stream in the next few years. Most large turbines today are around the 3MW mark.
Vestas last year had to lay off more than 3,000 people in Europe when it closed five factories because of the recession and closed the UK's only major wind turbine plant in 2009, but has grown significantly in the United States.
• John Vidal's travel and accommodation were paid for by the Zayed Future Energy prize.
ExxonMobil warns carbon emissions will rise by 25% in 20 years
Rise predicted in annual ExxonMobil energy outlook effectively dismisses hopes that runaway climate change can be prevented
John Vidal in Abu Dhabi guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 January 2011 17.16 GMT
ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, expects global carbon emissions to rise by nearly 25% in the next 20 years, in effect dismissing hopes that runaway climate change can be arrested and massive loss of life prevented.
According to the company's annual Outlook for Energy report – due to be published in the next few weeks – demand for power will increase by nearly 40% in the next 20 years, lifting emissions by around 0.9% a year at least until 2030.
Beyond 2030, it says, any progress on cuts will require "more aggressive gains in energy efficiency as well as the use of less carbon-intensive fuels. New technologies will by then be essential.".
"It is a significant rise [in emissions], but it is substantially slower because of [expected] improved efficiency and a shift towards lower carbon fuels," says the report, previewed today at the World Future Energy conference in Abu Dhabi.
The projections by Exxon scientists are gloomier than anything publicly expressed by governments and scientists, who maintain that global emissions can be reduced significantly and catastrophic climate change be averted if action is taken for them to reach their "peak" in the next 10 years.
According to the UK Met Office, if emissions rises can be stopped by 2020 and then be made to reduce by 1-2% a year, the planet could be expected to warm 2.1C to 3.7C this century, with the rise continuing even higher after 2100.
But Exxon, which until 10 years ago was sceptical that climate change could be even caused by man-made emissions, said emissions will continue to rise significantly with very little reduction in fossil fuel use.
"In 2030, fossil fuels remain the predominant energy source, accounting for nearly 80% of demand. Oil still leads, but natural gas moves into second place on very strong growth of 1.8% a year on average, particularly because of its position as a favoured fuel for power generation.
"Other energy types – particularly nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels – will grow sharply, albeit from a smaller base. Nuclear and renewable fuels will see strong growth, particularly in the power-generation sector. By 2030, about 40% of the world's electricity will be generated by nuclear and renewable fuels."
The company does not say what it expects global oil output to be in 2030, but suggests that US demand will be roughly at 1960 levels, suggesting that the US will have reduced its dependency on foreign oil considerably.
Instead, it says that growth in CO2 emissions in the future will be dominated by China, India and other developing, or non-OECD countries.
"Non-OECD countries' emissions surpassed OECD emissions in 2004; by 2030, non-OECD countries will account for two-thirds of the global total. Meanwhile, OECD emissions will decline by about 15% on today's figure, and by 2030 will be down to 1980 levels."
John Vidal in Abu Dhabi guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 19 January 2011 17.16 GMT
ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company, expects global carbon emissions to rise by nearly 25% in the next 20 years, in effect dismissing hopes that runaway climate change can be arrested and massive loss of life prevented.
According to the company's annual Outlook for Energy report – due to be published in the next few weeks – demand for power will increase by nearly 40% in the next 20 years, lifting emissions by around 0.9% a year at least until 2030.
Beyond 2030, it says, any progress on cuts will require "more aggressive gains in energy efficiency as well as the use of less carbon-intensive fuels. New technologies will by then be essential.".
"It is a significant rise [in emissions], but it is substantially slower because of [expected] improved efficiency and a shift towards lower carbon fuels," says the report, previewed today at the World Future Energy conference in Abu Dhabi.
The projections by Exxon scientists are gloomier than anything publicly expressed by governments and scientists, who maintain that global emissions can be reduced significantly and catastrophic climate change be averted if action is taken for them to reach their "peak" in the next 10 years.
According to the UK Met Office, if emissions rises can be stopped by 2020 and then be made to reduce by 1-2% a year, the planet could be expected to warm 2.1C to 3.7C this century, with the rise continuing even higher after 2100.
But Exxon, which until 10 years ago was sceptical that climate change could be even caused by man-made emissions, said emissions will continue to rise significantly with very little reduction in fossil fuel use.
"In 2030, fossil fuels remain the predominant energy source, accounting for nearly 80% of demand. Oil still leads, but natural gas moves into second place on very strong growth of 1.8% a year on average, particularly because of its position as a favoured fuel for power generation.
"Other energy types – particularly nuclear, wind, solar and biofuels – will grow sharply, albeit from a smaller base. Nuclear and renewable fuels will see strong growth, particularly in the power-generation sector. By 2030, about 40% of the world's electricity will be generated by nuclear and renewable fuels."
The company does not say what it expects global oil output to be in 2030, but suggests that US demand will be roughly at 1960 levels, suggesting that the US will have reduced its dependency on foreign oil considerably.
Instead, it says that growth in CO2 emissions in the future will be dominated by China, India and other developing, or non-OECD countries.
"Non-OECD countries' emissions surpassed OECD emissions in 2004; by 2030, non-OECD countries will account for two-thirds of the global total. Meanwhile, OECD emissions will decline by about 15% on today's figure, and by 2030 will be down to 1980 levels."
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Geothermal energy: All the benefits of nuclear - but none of the problems
Both harness the Earth's heat, both deliver stable, low-carbon power, but only one benefits from government support in the UK
By mass, 99.9% of the Earth is hotter than 100C. That means that not far below our feet is the power to boil unlimited water and generate clean, renewable energy. Is the UK throwing all it can at this extraordinary opportunity? Of course not, who do you think we are? Germans?
That contrasts strikingly with the more glamorous sister of deep geothermal energy, nuclear power. Both ultimately tap the heat generated by the decay of radioactive elements. Geothermal plants send water down holes to bring to the surface the heat from natural radioactive decay deep in the mantle. Nuclear power mines the radionucleides, concentrates them, sends them critical and then wonders what to do with the leftover mess - not very elegant by comparison.
The coalition government has pledged that nuclear power will receive no taxpayer subsidies. But it can receive financial support by other means which are subsidies in all but name.
So what support is there for deep geothermal projects? Nothing. As Tim Smit - founder of the Eden project where one of just two projects in the UK is sited - put it last night at a Renewable Energy Association event in Westminster: "I'd like the same 'lack of support' the government is giving to nuclear."
Geothermal energy has been tapped in the UK since Roman times, via the hot springs at Bath and elsewhere. Shallow geothermal projects - such as ground source heat pumps - are slowly growing. But even Decc's own and very conservative estimate is that deep geothermal - a few kilometres down - could provide 10% of the UK's electricity.
And how! It runs 24 hours a day, so perfect for baseload. The water circulates in a closed-loop, so it's clean and sustainable. It is virtually zero carbon and the plants have a small surface footprint, so it's pretty nimby-proof.
The catch is this: you'd be awfully brave to invest in it right now. Unlike most European nations, there is no licensing system in the UK. So you could sink your test wells at the cost of millions of pounds, find the right spot, then see someone else set up in the next field. There is no feed-in tariff support for electricity from geothermal. And the Renewable Obligation Certificates (Roc) support scheme is set at 2 Rocs, compared to the equivalent of 4 Rocs in Germany.
It's a familiar tale of German succes and British failure. Germany itself lags the leaders, the US and the Philippines, as well as El Salvador, Kenya and Papua New Guinea, but is the fastest growing in the world. It has about 150 projects in planning this year, representing a total investment of €4 billion, says Ryan Law, from Geothermal Engineering, which is developing the UK's other current project near Redruth, Cornwall. In terms of plants, Munich already has 24 alone, for both heating and electricity, he told me, adding that the geothermal potential for both countries is more or less the same.
Germany has invested about €10m a year in geothermal research since 2002: the coalition government cut in half the available funds to £1m and there is nothing more in the pipeline.
What is the government afraid of? The tiny earthquakes that some geothermal plants have triggered are surely less worrying than piles of nuclear waste, particularly in seismically stable country like the UK.
I'll declare an interest: I used to be a geologist and I like geothermal's style. It is simple and proven. And it has all of the advantages of the nuclear power coveted by successive governments, but none of the problems. And while the nuclear industry will benefit handsomely from low-carbon energy incentives, geothermal stands to get next to nothing. If there was ever a time to hold our minister's feet to a renewable fire, this is it.
By mass, 99.9% of the Earth is hotter than 100C. That means that not far below our feet is the power to boil unlimited water and generate clean, renewable energy. Is the UK throwing all it can at this extraordinary opportunity? Of course not, who do you think we are? Germans?
That contrasts strikingly with the more glamorous sister of deep geothermal energy, nuclear power. Both ultimately tap the heat generated by the decay of radioactive elements. Geothermal plants send water down holes to bring to the surface the heat from natural radioactive decay deep in the mantle. Nuclear power mines the radionucleides, concentrates them, sends them critical and then wonders what to do with the leftover mess - not very elegant by comparison.
The coalition government has pledged that nuclear power will receive no taxpayer subsidies. But it can receive financial support by other means which are subsidies in all but name.
So what support is there for deep geothermal projects? Nothing. As Tim Smit - founder of the Eden project where one of just two projects in the UK is sited - put it last night at a Renewable Energy Association event in Westminster: "I'd like the same 'lack of support' the government is giving to nuclear."
Geothermal energy has been tapped in the UK since Roman times, via the hot springs at Bath and elsewhere. Shallow geothermal projects - such as ground source heat pumps - are slowly growing. But even Decc's own and very conservative estimate is that deep geothermal - a few kilometres down - could provide 10% of the UK's electricity.
And how! It runs 24 hours a day, so perfect for baseload. The water circulates in a closed-loop, so it's clean and sustainable. It is virtually zero carbon and the plants have a small surface footprint, so it's pretty nimby-proof.
The catch is this: you'd be awfully brave to invest in it right now. Unlike most European nations, there is no licensing system in the UK. So you could sink your test wells at the cost of millions of pounds, find the right spot, then see someone else set up in the next field. There is no feed-in tariff support for electricity from geothermal. And the Renewable Obligation Certificates (Roc) support scheme is set at 2 Rocs, compared to the equivalent of 4 Rocs in Germany.
It's a familiar tale of German succes and British failure. Germany itself lags the leaders, the US and the Philippines, as well as El Salvador, Kenya and Papua New Guinea, but is the fastest growing in the world. It has about 150 projects in planning this year, representing a total investment of €4 billion, says Ryan Law, from Geothermal Engineering, which is developing the UK's other current project near Redruth, Cornwall. In terms of plants, Munich already has 24 alone, for both heating and electricity, he told me, adding that the geothermal potential for both countries is more or less the same.
Germany has invested about €10m a year in geothermal research since 2002: the coalition government cut in half the available funds to £1m and there is nothing more in the pipeline.
What is the government afraid of? The tiny earthquakes that some geothermal plants have triggered are surely less worrying than piles of nuclear waste, particularly in seismically stable country like the UK.
I'll declare an interest: I used to be a geologist and I like geothermal's style. It is simple and proven. And it has all of the advantages of the nuclear power coveted by successive governments, but none of the problems. And while the nuclear industry will benefit handsomely from low-carbon energy incentives, geothermal stands to get next to nothing. If there was ever a time to hold our minister's feet to a renewable fire, this is it.
WindMade to launch first wind-power product label
Coalition to launch new certification standard guaranteeing products have been made using wind power
Consumers love certification labels. They allow us to "do the right thing" when shopping with confidence and convenience. Just a quick glance at a familiar logo – Fairtrade, Soil Association, Marine Stewardship Council, Vegan Society, Forestry Stewardship Council, to name just a few – and we can immediately be assured that the product in our hands has been produced under strict, certifiable standards.
Within a few months, it looks as if we could see another label on our consumerables. WindMade has been dreamed up by a powerful coalition comprising the Global Wind Energy Council, WWF, the Lego Group, the UN Global Compact, Vestas Wind Systems, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Bloomberg. The aim is to produce a certification label which "identifies corporations and products made with wind energy".
The certification standards and rules have yet to be verified, according to the coalition's press representatives (pdf), but they say that the "WindMade initiative will be presented in more detail at a high-level gathering of the founding partners during the World Economic Forum in Davos on 28 February". Public consultation is expected to be completed by 20 March. And the first WindMade-certified corporations – presumably consisting largely of the founding members – will be announced on Global Wind Day, which falls on 15 June.
"Governments are dragging their feet, but consumers want to see change now," says Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, and interim CEO of WindMade. "The private sector needs to step up to provide the solutions we need to respond to the global energy and climate crises. With WindMade, we want to facilitate the change that the public demands."
Personally, I welcome the development for no other reason than information is power when you're a consumer. You might love wind power. Or you might hate it. Either way, this label will assist you in your decision-making when choosing a product. Some will find the label a positive endorsement and be keen to support companies choosing to invest in wind power. But I can also see other people using the label to shun a company because they are so vehemently opposed to wind farms. We see exactly the same happening with some of the other certification labels, but perhaps most notably Fairtrade and organic certification which attract both avid supporters and detractors.
And with the rapid ascent of smart phones boasting the facility to scan barcodes and apps such as GoodGuide, I can only see the information flow about products speeding up in future years. I look forward to the time when we can scan any product and - should we choose to - interrogate its provenance to a much greater depth than is currently possible.
Consumers love certification labels. They allow us to "do the right thing" when shopping with confidence and convenience. Just a quick glance at a familiar logo – Fairtrade, Soil Association, Marine Stewardship Council, Vegan Society, Forestry Stewardship Council, to name just a few – and we can immediately be assured that the product in our hands has been produced under strict, certifiable standards.
Within a few months, it looks as if we could see another label on our consumerables. WindMade has been dreamed up by a powerful coalition comprising the Global Wind Energy Council, WWF, the Lego Group, the UN Global Compact, Vestas Wind Systems, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Bloomberg. The aim is to produce a certification label which "identifies corporations and products made with wind energy".
The certification standards and rules have yet to be verified, according to the coalition's press representatives (pdf), but they say that the "WindMade initiative will be presented in more detail at a high-level gathering of the founding partners during the World Economic Forum in Davos on 28 February". Public consultation is expected to be completed by 20 March. And the first WindMade-certified corporations – presumably consisting largely of the founding members – will be announced on Global Wind Day, which falls on 15 June.
"Governments are dragging their feet, but consumers want to see change now," says Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council, and interim CEO of WindMade. "The private sector needs to step up to provide the solutions we need to respond to the global energy and climate crises. With WindMade, we want to facilitate the change that the public demands."
Personally, I welcome the development for no other reason than information is power when you're a consumer. You might love wind power. Or you might hate it. Either way, this label will assist you in your decision-making when choosing a product. Some will find the label a positive endorsement and be keen to support companies choosing to invest in wind power. But I can also see other people using the label to shun a company because they are so vehemently opposed to wind farms. We see exactly the same happening with some of the other certification labels, but perhaps most notably Fairtrade and organic certification which attract both avid supporters and detractors.
And with the rapid ascent of smart phones boasting the facility to scan barcodes and apps such as GoodGuide, I can only see the information flow about products speeding up in future years. I look forward to the time when we can scan any product and - should we choose to - interrogate its provenance to a much greater depth than is currently possible.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Europe must ban flawed carbon credits
Millions of pollution permits in Europe's emissions trading scheme do very little for the environment. A vote on Friday could change that
Paying €14 for something that costs just 17 cents is clearly good business for the seller. But in the strange case of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, it's not a bad deal for the buyer.
Why? Because the buyers, European emitters of greenhouse gases, mostly power companies, find it easier to buy in carbon credits from China and India to meet their targets than to cut the emissions of their own operations.
So who loses out? The environment, of course. Instead of the money going to schemes that genuinely tackle emissions and slow global warming, it pays for a scheme in which there is a massive incentive for industrial plants to keep producing the gases they are then paid handsomely to destroy.
This Friday, the European Commission has a chance to tackle this lunacy, by banning the use of so-called industrial gas pollution permits in the EU ETS. I reported this proposal first in October, when the commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard, told me:
"There are too many examples of projects with industrial gases, primarily HFC-23, where if you dig into it you can find there is a total lack of environmental integrity."
HFC-23, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, is a by-product of the manufacturing of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22. According a UN assessment panel, it costs 17c to destroy HFC-23 equivalent to a tonne of CO2. Today's price for that in the EU ETS is €14.4. Another industrial gas underpinning lucrative carbon credits is nitrous oxide (N2O), mainly resulting from adipic acid production, which in turn is used to make nylon.
This is not a minor loophole in the EU ETS. In 2008-9, 84% of all the offsets used in the EU ETS were from industrial gas projects in China and India, according to data from the carbon trading thinktank Sandbag. Buying this amount of permits - 134m - in the ETS would cost €1.9bn (£1.6bn) at today's prices. The use of offsets was meant to be a safety valve for industries covered by the ETS but campaigners say it is being used far too much.
So the vote by the EC's climate change committee to ban the industrial gas offsets from 1 January 2013 should sail through, right? Hardly. The turkeys enjoying the current system are not lining up to vote for Christmas.
Let's take an example, Italy's power giant Enel, which has argued hard against the EC's proposed ban. The company, 30% state-owned, is gargantuan: £57bn turnover in 2009, present in 23 countries with about 95GW of net installed capacity and 60m customers, according to Mint.
It is also a major user of industrial gas offsets, according to data provided by Sandbag. In 2009, Enel surrendered 4.3m HFC-23 permits, 40% of all of Italy's HFC-23 permits. Furthermore, according to the UNEP's Risoe Center, Enel has financial interests in seven HFC-23 projects, i.e. it is active on both sides of the bargain.
Enel says banning the industrial gas offsets could lead to a carbon credit shortage "leading to a potential increase in cost for compliance players" and endanger investment in other offset projects. It says the UN's Clean Development Mechanism, which accredits the projects, is taking action on HFC-23. (Campaigners say the action is far too slow).
There is no suggestion that Enel has done anything other than play by the existing rules. But can its heavy lobbying for the continued use of industrial gases be squared with its environmental statements: "Enel intends to play a role of leading global player in policies of environmental sustainability."
It is clear to me that the industrial gas projects are far from sustainable and if the ending of their use in the EU ETS means the cost of cutting greenhouse gases goes up, then that's because the true cost is not being paid now.
Fionnuala Walravens, a campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency, says: "This is Europe's chance to influence the direction of global carbon markets for the better, and any delay of a ban undermines integrity of the ETS and CDM reform."
Sandbag's Rob Elsworth says: "The timing is hugely important. The 1st Jan 2013 is the first possible date and is the date proposed by the European Commission. Corporate lobbyists are working hard to push back the date to ensure they are able to flood the market with industrial gas credits. Member States must not cave into business interests."
The EC has a chance on Friday to claw back some of the climate change leadership it has lost since the debacle in Copenhagen. It must ignore the carping of companies and take it.
Paying €14 for something that costs just 17 cents is clearly good business for the seller. But in the strange case of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, it's not a bad deal for the buyer.
Why? Because the buyers, European emitters of greenhouse gases, mostly power companies, find it easier to buy in carbon credits from China and India to meet their targets than to cut the emissions of their own operations.
So who loses out? The environment, of course. Instead of the money going to schemes that genuinely tackle emissions and slow global warming, it pays for a scheme in which there is a massive incentive for industrial plants to keep producing the gases they are then paid handsomely to destroy.
This Friday, the European Commission has a chance to tackle this lunacy, by banning the use of so-called industrial gas pollution permits in the EU ETS. I reported this proposal first in October, when the commissioner for climate action, Connie Hedegaard, told me:
"There are too many examples of projects with industrial gases, primarily HFC-23, where if you dig into it you can find there is a total lack of environmental integrity."
HFC-23, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, is a by-product of the manufacturing of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22. According a UN assessment panel, it costs 17c to destroy HFC-23 equivalent to a tonne of CO2. Today's price for that in the EU ETS is €14.4. Another industrial gas underpinning lucrative carbon credits is nitrous oxide (N2O), mainly resulting from adipic acid production, which in turn is used to make nylon.
This is not a minor loophole in the EU ETS. In 2008-9, 84% of all the offsets used in the EU ETS were from industrial gas projects in China and India, according to data from the carbon trading thinktank Sandbag. Buying this amount of permits - 134m - in the ETS would cost €1.9bn (£1.6bn) at today's prices. The use of offsets was meant to be a safety valve for industries covered by the ETS but campaigners say it is being used far too much.
So the vote by the EC's climate change committee to ban the industrial gas offsets from 1 January 2013 should sail through, right? Hardly. The turkeys enjoying the current system are not lining up to vote for Christmas.
Let's take an example, Italy's power giant Enel, which has argued hard against the EC's proposed ban. The company, 30% state-owned, is gargantuan: £57bn turnover in 2009, present in 23 countries with about 95GW of net installed capacity and 60m customers, according to Mint.
It is also a major user of industrial gas offsets, according to data provided by Sandbag. In 2009, Enel surrendered 4.3m HFC-23 permits, 40% of all of Italy's HFC-23 permits. Furthermore, according to the UNEP's Risoe Center, Enel has financial interests in seven HFC-23 projects, i.e. it is active on both sides of the bargain.
Enel says banning the industrial gas offsets could lead to a carbon credit shortage "leading to a potential increase in cost for compliance players" and endanger investment in other offset projects. It says the UN's Clean Development Mechanism, which accredits the projects, is taking action on HFC-23. (Campaigners say the action is far too slow).
There is no suggestion that Enel has done anything other than play by the existing rules. But can its heavy lobbying for the continued use of industrial gases be squared with its environmental statements: "Enel intends to play a role of leading global player in policies of environmental sustainability."
It is clear to me that the industrial gas projects are far from sustainable and if the ending of their use in the EU ETS means the cost of cutting greenhouse gases goes up, then that's because the true cost is not being paid now.
Fionnuala Walravens, a campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency, says: "This is Europe's chance to influence the direction of global carbon markets for the better, and any delay of a ban undermines integrity of the ETS and CDM reform."
Sandbag's Rob Elsworth says: "The timing is hugely important. The 1st Jan 2013 is the first possible date and is the date proposed by the European Commission. Corporate lobbyists are working hard to push back the date to ensure they are able to flood the market with industrial gas credits. Member States must not cave into business interests."
The EC has a chance on Friday to claw back some of the climate change leadership it has lost since the debacle in Copenhagen. It must ignore the carping of companies and take it.
Do electric cars really produce fewer emissions?
Can electric cars claim to be 'emissions-free' when they run on electricity generated from the burning of fossil fuels?
We keep hearing lots of renewed chatter about how electric cars are about to take off (not literally, of course, although that would be fun) in popularity. But for me, the fundamental question remains unanswered: do they really produce fewer emissions when you take into account that they run on electricity produced, in large part, through the burning of fossil fuels?
B Lewis, by email
There is certainly a general assumption that electric cars are "cleaner" than petrol/diesel/hybrid cars, but you are quite right to point out that electric cars cannot claim to be "emissions free" if they are powered from an energy grid supplied by power stations burning coal or gas. Or even nuclear, for that matter.
Tailpipe emissions for electric cars can be classified legitimately as zero - which is certainly beneficial for an urban environment where local air pollution is a huge problem - but is this pollution simply being displaced meaning that it still ends up in the atmosphere but via the route of a power station's stack as opposed to the exhaust? And, crucially, is less like-for-like pollution being emitted by using an electric car as opposed to one reliant on the internal combustion engine?
Professor David MacKay produces an interesting section on electric cars in his book Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air when he examines the efficiencies of the G-Wiz and Tesla Roadster. He concludes: "Electric vehicles can deliver transport at an energy cost of roughly 15 kilowatt hours (kWh) per 100km. That's five times better than our baseline fossil-car, and significantly better than any hybrid cars."
And, specifically in terms of emissions, he calculates: "Over the course of 19 recharges, the average transport cost of this G-Wiz is 21kWh per 100km – about four times better than an average fossil fuel car. The best result was 16kWh per 100 km, and the worst was 33kWh per 100 km. If you are interested in carbon emissions, 21kWh per 100 km is equivalent to 105 g CO2 per km, assuming that electricity has a footprint of 500g CO2 per kWh."
This would suggest that, purely in terms of CO2 emissions, electric cars are neck and neck with the most fuel efficient "fossil cars". Pretty impressive, but nowhere near as "clean" as some might have us believe.
But maybe you've seen other calculations? Or maybe you've done you're own? For example, how does the new, much-trumpeted Nissan Leaf compare?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's problem, so please let us know your views below (as opposed to emailing them) and I will join in with some of my own thoughts and reactions as the debate progresses. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate too.
We keep hearing lots of renewed chatter about how electric cars are about to take off (not literally, of course, although that would be fun) in popularity. But for me, the fundamental question remains unanswered: do they really produce fewer emissions when you take into account that they run on electricity produced, in large part, through the burning of fossil fuels?
B Lewis, by email
There is certainly a general assumption that electric cars are "cleaner" than petrol/diesel/hybrid cars, but you are quite right to point out that electric cars cannot claim to be "emissions free" if they are powered from an energy grid supplied by power stations burning coal or gas. Or even nuclear, for that matter.
Tailpipe emissions for electric cars can be classified legitimately as zero - which is certainly beneficial for an urban environment where local air pollution is a huge problem - but is this pollution simply being displaced meaning that it still ends up in the atmosphere but via the route of a power station's stack as opposed to the exhaust? And, crucially, is less like-for-like pollution being emitted by using an electric car as opposed to one reliant on the internal combustion engine?
Professor David MacKay produces an interesting section on electric cars in his book Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air when he examines the efficiencies of the G-Wiz and Tesla Roadster. He concludes: "Electric vehicles can deliver transport at an energy cost of roughly 15 kilowatt hours (kWh) per 100km. That's five times better than our baseline fossil-car, and significantly better than any hybrid cars."
And, specifically in terms of emissions, he calculates: "Over the course of 19 recharges, the average transport cost of this G-Wiz is 21kWh per 100km – about four times better than an average fossil fuel car. The best result was 16kWh per 100 km, and the worst was 33kWh per 100 km. If you are interested in carbon emissions, 21kWh per 100 km is equivalent to 105 g CO2 per km, assuming that electricity has a footprint of 500g CO2 per kWh."
This would suggest that, purely in terms of CO2 emissions, electric cars are neck and neck with the most fuel efficient "fossil cars". Pretty impressive, but nowhere near as "clean" as some might have us believe.
But maybe you've seen other calculations? Or maybe you've done you're own? For example, how does the new, much-trumpeted Nissan Leaf compare?
This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader's problem, so please let us know your views below (as opposed to emailing them) and I will join in with some of my own thoughts and reactions as the debate progresses. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate too.
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Top 10 U.S. States For Clean Energy Leadership
posted by: Beth Buczynski 10 hours ago
Clean Energy, the world's first research and advisory firm devoted to the clean-tech sector, recently released the U.S. Clean Energy Leadership Index to help green tech companies choose which states will be most nurturing for their products.
By tracking more than 4,000 public and private data points across all 50 states, the Index provides the clean energy industry's most comprehensive and objective analysis and ranking of how all 50 states compare across the spectrum of clean-energy technology, policy, and capital.
According to this report, the top 10 states for clean energy leadership are:
1. California
2. Oregon
3. Massachusetts
4. Washington
5. Colorado
6. New York
7. Illinois
8. Connecticut
9. Minnesota
10. New Jersey
Rankings were derived from over 80 metrics including total electricity produced by clean-energy sources, hybrid vehicles on the road, and clean-energy venture and patent activity.
"The industry needs to move beyond the days of using disaggregated and fragmented data to bolster subjective political claims about a state's or region's clean-tech prowess or as the basis of fundamental and significant business decisions," says Clean Edge cofounder and managing director Ron Pernick. "For the first time, Clean Edge is bringing timely clean-energy data and analysis under one roof, making this a critical tool for clean-tech decision makers within both the public and private sector."
In addition to annual "report cards" for all 50 states, subscribers of the Clean Edge Clean Energy Leadership Index receive quarterly insight reports that focus on the most important technology, policy, and capital developments, and advisory services to help decision-makers sculpt their clean-energy strategies.
How the government could raise its Green-o-meter rating
The shadow environment ministers, Mary Creagh and Meg Hillier, outline Labour's green tests for the year ahead
• How well is the government keeping its green promises?
Mary Creagh and Meg Hillier
guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 January 2011 12.09 GMT
The government has made a woeful start on green issues. From plans to privatise our ancient woodlands through to scaled-back ambitions for clean energy technology, the Tory-led government's actions have been strong on rhetoric but poor on action.
So the Guardian's newly launched Green-o-meter arrives at just the right time to help the public hold the Tories and Lib Dems to account.
Labour has a strong record on the environment, establishing the new Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), as well as creating two new national parks, improving conservation and giving people the "right to roam". The Climate Change Act – championed by Ed Miliband – and low-carbon transition plan marked a turning point in the UK's approach to tackling climate change. Our focus is on creating green jobs, supporting low-carbon industries and protecting the natural environment.
Here are Labour's key green tests for the government in the year ahead:
1. Putting in place the investment framework necessary to create new green jobs and a green economy: the government's flagship policy is the green investment bank but it hasn't yet decided whether it will be fully independent with the power to raise capital or simply a fund. Labour's initial work on the bank aimed to channel funding to new energy and infrastructure projects. The Tory-led government should stop dithering and make a decision. The bank is central to the government's credentials on the environment and growth.
The government has abolished the Regional Development Agencies, previously one of the engines of green investment. Labour wants to encourage community-scale renewable power but instead the Tories approach to localism could create gridlock. We need a comprehensive vision for greening our energy supply.
2. Tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency: increased fuel bills add to people's concerns about pay freezes, VAT and fare increases and their worries about jobs. So far ministers have decided to scrap Warm Front and phase out funding to target those in fuel poor households. The "green deal" to make homes more energy efficient must be fit for purpose or it risks overlooking some of the people most at risk from fuel poverty.
3. Protecting homes and businesses from changing weather conditions: the government has already failed its first crucial test by slashing the flood defence budget by 27%, creating uncertainty for 5.2m homes at risk from flooding. It also undermines the joint statement of principles agreed by the Labour government and the insurance industry to provide universal insurance for homes and businesses until 2013. Ministers need to talk to insurance companies to ensure people can get insurance after 2013.
4. Reforming the energy market and protecting consumers: the government has announced that it will carry out Labour's plans for much needed reform to the energy market. The investment needed to meet our energy targets is in excess of £200bn. It is a huge challenge for government and industry but ministers cannot allow the consumers to bear the full burden. Reforms must be fair, not just an excuse for companies to keep increasing bills.
5. Securing a sustainable future for nature: the government has reserved some of its worst cuts for the natural environment, slashing the Defra budget by 30% – the highest of any spending department. More than 130,000 people have now signed an online petition against plans to sell England's public forests for profit. But it is not just our ancient woodlands under threat; the Tories have cut more than £66m from agricultural environmental schemes and plan to force Natural England to dispose of 140 nature reserves.
6. Leading on a world stage: Cancún marks a small step forward for the international community on climate change, building on key provisions of Copenhagen. The science tells us that there is still a huge amount of work to do if we are to keep global temperature rises to 2C. Britain and Europe must show international leadership between now and the climate change conference in South Africa in 12 months time to ensure that happens.
We need to inspire people with a positive vision for the environment. The mission to create green jobs through clean energy and low-carbon manufacturing is at the heart of Ed Miliband's plans for the economy. The coalition's laissez-faire DIY state cannot achieve it. It requires determined action by government in partnership with people, driven by fairness.
• Mary Creagh MP is shadow environment secretary and Meg Hillier MP is shadow energy and climate change secretary
• How well is the government keeping its green promises?
Mary Creagh and Meg Hillier
guardian.co.uk, Friday 14 January 2011 12.09 GMT
The government has made a woeful start on green issues. From plans to privatise our ancient woodlands through to scaled-back ambitions for clean energy technology, the Tory-led government's actions have been strong on rhetoric but poor on action.
So the Guardian's newly launched Green-o-meter arrives at just the right time to help the public hold the Tories and Lib Dems to account.
Labour has a strong record on the environment, establishing the new Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), as well as creating two new national parks, improving conservation and giving people the "right to roam". The Climate Change Act – championed by Ed Miliband – and low-carbon transition plan marked a turning point in the UK's approach to tackling climate change. Our focus is on creating green jobs, supporting low-carbon industries and protecting the natural environment.
Here are Labour's key green tests for the government in the year ahead:
1. Putting in place the investment framework necessary to create new green jobs and a green economy: the government's flagship policy is the green investment bank but it hasn't yet decided whether it will be fully independent with the power to raise capital or simply a fund. Labour's initial work on the bank aimed to channel funding to new energy and infrastructure projects. The Tory-led government should stop dithering and make a decision. The bank is central to the government's credentials on the environment and growth.
The government has abolished the Regional Development Agencies, previously one of the engines of green investment. Labour wants to encourage community-scale renewable power but instead the Tories approach to localism could create gridlock. We need a comprehensive vision for greening our energy supply.
2. Tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency: increased fuel bills add to people's concerns about pay freezes, VAT and fare increases and their worries about jobs. So far ministers have decided to scrap Warm Front and phase out funding to target those in fuel poor households. The "green deal" to make homes more energy efficient must be fit for purpose or it risks overlooking some of the people most at risk from fuel poverty.
3. Protecting homes and businesses from changing weather conditions: the government has already failed its first crucial test by slashing the flood defence budget by 27%, creating uncertainty for 5.2m homes at risk from flooding. It also undermines the joint statement of principles agreed by the Labour government and the insurance industry to provide universal insurance for homes and businesses until 2013. Ministers need to talk to insurance companies to ensure people can get insurance after 2013.
4. Reforming the energy market and protecting consumers: the government has announced that it will carry out Labour's plans for much needed reform to the energy market. The investment needed to meet our energy targets is in excess of £200bn. It is a huge challenge for government and industry but ministers cannot allow the consumers to bear the full burden. Reforms must be fair, not just an excuse for companies to keep increasing bills.
5. Securing a sustainable future for nature: the government has reserved some of its worst cuts for the natural environment, slashing the Defra budget by 30% – the highest of any spending department. More than 130,000 people have now signed an online petition against plans to sell England's public forests for profit. But it is not just our ancient woodlands under threat; the Tories have cut more than £66m from agricultural environmental schemes and plan to force Natural England to dispose of 140 nature reserves.
6. Leading on a world stage: Cancún marks a small step forward for the international community on climate change, building on key provisions of Copenhagen. The science tells us that there is still a huge amount of work to do if we are to keep global temperature rises to 2C. Britain and Europe must show international leadership between now and the climate change conference in South Africa in 12 months time to ensure that happens.
We need to inspire people with a positive vision for the environment. The mission to create green jobs through clean energy and low-carbon manufacturing is at the heart of Ed Miliband's plans for the economy. The coalition's laissez-faire DIY state cannot achieve it. It requires determined action by government in partnership with people, driven by fairness.
• Mary Creagh MP is shadow environment secretary and Meg Hillier MP is shadow energy and climate change secretary
Thursday, 13 January 2011
LDK snaffles Solar Power, First Solar buys RayTracker
10 January 2011
Chinese solar wafer company LDK Solar has grabbed a 70% interest in solar module designer and manufacturer Solar Power, in a $33 million deal, while another solar transaction saw Arizona-based First Solar snap up technology company RayTracker.
LDK’s buy up, announced last Thursday, will give Silicon Valley-based Solar Power a welcome capital injection, priming development of the company’s US project pipeline of large-scale power plants and generation systems.
Solar Power’s assets include the 6MW Aerojet solar installation in California. However, the company has long suffered funding delays and posted a net loss of $9.1 million for the first nine months of 2010.
For LDK, a New York Stock Exchange-listed manufacturer of multi-crystalline solar wafers and polysilicon modules, the deal opens the door to the US solar market.
Under the transaction terms, LDK will acquire components of Solar Power’s manufacturing equipment and will take control of the company’s former module manufacturing facility in Shenzhen, China. Solar Power will retain its in-house project development team.
The acquisition had little impact on the bourse, with stock prices for LDK closing at $10.29, down from an opening price of $10.41, the day the deal was announced. However, LDK shares rose more than 20% to $12.45 today after the company raised its fourth quarter forecast revenue from $710 million-$750 million to $870 million-$910 million.
RayTracker acquisition boosts First Solar shares
In a separate solar deal announced on Friday, Nasdaq-listed First Solar has bolstered its renewables offering with the acquisition of US company RayTracker for an undisclosed sum.
RayTracker’s solar tracking technology is designed to increase the energy yield of photovoltaic installations. The company was spun out of Californian solar product manufacturer Energy Innovations in 2009 and is backed by technology support company Idealab.
News of the transaction helped First Solar stocks rise 2.7% on Friday, reaching an intra-day high of $1.355 on Friday.
Charlotte Dudley
Chinese solar wafer company LDK Solar has grabbed a 70% interest in solar module designer and manufacturer Solar Power, in a $33 million deal, while another solar transaction saw Arizona-based First Solar snap up technology company RayTracker.
LDK’s buy up, announced last Thursday, will give Silicon Valley-based Solar Power a welcome capital injection, priming development of the company’s US project pipeline of large-scale power plants and generation systems.
Solar Power’s assets include the 6MW Aerojet solar installation in California. However, the company has long suffered funding delays and posted a net loss of $9.1 million for the first nine months of 2010.
For LDK, a New York Stock Exchange-listed manufacturer of multi-crystalline solar wafers and polysilicon modules, the deal opens the door to the US solar market.
Under the transaction terms, LDK will acquire components of Solar Power’s manufacturing equipment and will take control of the company’s former module manufacturing facility in Shenzhen, China. Solar Power will retain its in-house project development team.
The acquisition had little impact on the bourse, with stock prices for LDK closing at $10.29, down from an opening price of $10.41, the day the deal was announced. However, LDK shares rose more than 20% to $12.45 today after the company raised its fourth quarter forecast revenue from $710 million-$750 million to $870 million-$910 million.
RayTracker acquisition boosts First Solar shares
In a separate solar deal announced on Friday, Nasdaq-listed First Solar has bolstered its renewables offering with the acquisition of US company RayTracker for an undisclosed sum.
RayTracker’s solar tracking technology is designed to increase the energy yield of photovoltaic installations. The company was spun out of Californian solar product manufacturer Energy Innovations in 2009 and is backed by technology support company Idealab.
News of the transaction helped First Solar stocks rise 2.7% on Friday, reaching an intra-day high of $1.355 on Friday.
Charlotte Dudley
Venture capitalists close record number of clean technology deals
12 January 2011
Venture capital (VC) firms invested $7.8 billion in clean-tech firms in 2010, up 28% year-on-year, according to figures from the Cleantech Group. The California-based research and advisory firm tracked 715 deals last year, across North America, Europe, China and India, an annual record.
Last year was also the second-highest year in terms of total investment, although it did not match 2008, which saw $8.8 billion invested by VCs.
The Cleantech Group also calculates that the last quarter of 2010 was the most active ever for clean technology company (IPOs). Thirty companies floated in the last three months of the year, raising a total of $8.3 billion. In total, 93 companies listed in 2010, the California-based group said, raising $16.3 billion – with China seeing the majority of activity, accounting for 63 of these IPOs.
Clean-tech analyst Dallas Kachan at Kachan & Co welcomed a drop in the average size of deals, to around $12 million. “Round sizes in clean-tech in the last few quarters have dropped to almost their lowest level in recorded history. And that’s good. More clean-tech companies are now getting capital than in the days of the large, exclusionary government stimulus grants and loans that skewed investment last year towards larger deals,” he said.
Kachan noted that although deal-size has dropped, it still remains higher than the average round-size in the US for other sectors, such as bio-tech ($8.7 million), medical devices ($7 million) and software ($5 million).
Chrysalix the most active clean-tech VC investor of 2010
North American clean-tech companies continued to grab most of the VC cash available, accounting for 68% of the total and raising $5.28 billion – up 45% year-on-year. Better Place, an infrastructure firm serving the electric car market, was the biggest recipient of VC money, raising $350 million in a round led by HSBC and including investors such as Morgan Stanley Asset Management, Lazard Asset Management and VantagePoint Venture Parters.
The most active clean-tech venture investors, according to the Cleantech Group’s preliminary figures, were:
•Chrysalix Energy Ventures (which participated in 16 rounds)
•Draper Fisher Jurvetson (16)
•Carbon Trust Investment Partners (12)
•Element Partners (12)
•Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (12)
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) also released numbers for VC investment this week, although the research house tracks global clean energy deals, rather than clean-tech deals. BNEF found VC investment hit $8.4 billion in 2010, a 28% increase on 2009 levels.
Jess McCabe
Venture capital (VC) firms invested $7.8 billion in clean-tech firms in 2010, up 28% year-on-year, according to figures from the Cleantech Group. The California-based research and advisory firm tracked 715 deals last year, across North America, Europe, China and India, an annual record.
Last year was also the second-highest year in terms of total investment, although it did not match 2008, which saw $8.8 billion invested by VCs.
The Cleantech Group also calculates that the last quarter of 2010 was the most active ever for clean technology company (IPOs). Thirty companies floated in the last three months of the year, raising a total of $8.3 billion. In total, 93 companies listed in 2010, the California-based group said, raising $16.3 billion – with China seeing the majority of activity, accounting for 63 of these IPOs.
Clean-tech analyst Dallas Kachan at Kachan & Co welcomed a drop in the average size of deals, to around $12 million. “Round sizes in clean-tech in the last few quarters have dropped to almost their lowest level in recorded history. And that’s good. More clean-tech companies are now getting capital than in the days of the large, exclusionary government stimulus grants and loans that skewed investment last year towards larger deals,” he said.
Kachan noted that although deal-size has dropped, it still remains higher than the average round-size in the US for other sectors, such as bio-tech ($8.7 million), medical devices ($7 million) and software ($5 million).
Chrysalix the most active clean-tech VC investor of 2010
North American clean-tech companies continued to grab most of the VC cash available, accounting for 68% of the total and raising $5.28 billion – up 45% year-on-year. Better Place, an infrastructure firm serving the electric car market, was the biggest recipient of VC money, raising $350 million in a round led by HSBC and including investors such as Morgan Stanley Asset Management, Lazard Asset Management and VantagePoint Venture Parters.
The most active clean-tech venture investors, according to the Cleantech Group’s preliminary figures, were:
•Chrysalix Energy Ventures (which participated in 16 rounds)
•Draper Fisher Jurvetson (16)
•Carbon Trust Investment Partners (12)
•Element Partners (12)
•Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (12)
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) also released numbers for VC investment this week, although the research house tracks global clean energy deals, rather than clean-tech deals. BNEF found VC investment hit $8.4 billion in 2010, a 28% increase on 2009 levels.
Jess McCabe