AFP
Sunday, 17 April 2011
The blue-hulled vessel would slip by unnoticed on most seas if not for the white kite, high above her prow, towing her to what its creators hope will be a bright, wind-efficient future.
The enormous kite, which looks like a paraglider, works in tandem with the ship's engines, cutting back on fuel consumption, costs, and carbon footprint.
"Using kites you can harness more energy than with any other type of wind-powered equipment," said German inventor Stephan Wrage, whose company SkySails is looking for lift-off on the back of worldwide efforts to boost renewable energy.
The 160-square-metre (524-square-foot) kite, tethered to a yellow rope, can sail 500 metres into the skies where winds are both stronger and more stable, according to the 38-year-old Wrage.
The secret to the kite's efficiency lies in its speed and computer-controlled flight pattern.
The idea is for the kite to describe figures of eight, which increases airspeed, said Wrage, who has been working on the new technology for 10 years and who still enjoys flying kites on the beach for fun.
"If you double the airspeed you multiply the energy by four. That's the secret of the system," he added.
A new 320-square-metre kite, recently produced, "has a towing force of 32 tonnes which is more than what two engines on an A320 Airbus (aircraft) can produce. So we're not talking toys," he said.
The kite towing the 87-metre-long ship Theseus would produce a maximum of 16 tonnes of thrust in perfect wind conditions.
Retailing at half a million and one million euros (715,000 to 1.3 million dollars), the kites allow fuel savings of 15 to 25 percent depending on wind and shipping routes, said Wrage.
The strongly-built kites are best suited for slow moving ships, such as bulk carriers and tankers, which do not exceed 15 to 16 knots and which ply windy trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific routes, according to SkySail engineers.
Customers could recoup their money within two to six years, depending on bunker fuel prices, shipping routes, and types of carrier, they added.
-- Facing Headwinds --
------------
But the company, with funding of 47 million euros mostly from venture capital investors, has struggled to stay afloat.
"When I started SkySails, the oil price was at 21 dollars (a barrel) so everyone thought I was totally nuts. We were laughed at a lot," explained Wrage.
Then the economic downturn badly hit shipping.
To date, only five kites are in commercial use around the world.
"It has been a tough time for us," Wrage acknowledged.
But the economic recovery - along with rising oil prices - is fuelling new interest in this new "green" technology, not only from ship-owners, but from large trading companies eager to advertise efforts to reduce carbon footprints.
But not everyone in the shipping industry is convinced.
The system "isn't suitable for most fast-going container ships," said Max Johns, a spokesman for the Association of German Ship-owners.
"The system works but has proved difficult to use, with expensive kites being torn, and all this at a time when the industry is suffering a severe downturn," added Johns.
The kite, he suggested, will likely be just one of many systems introduced over the coming years to help slash fuel expenditure, which currently accounts for 60 percent of shipping costs.
Uwe Hollenbuch, an expert on resistance and propulsion at the Hamburg centre for ship research agreed, saying wind propulsion "won't play much of a role for now."
Ship-owners believe "they can achieve savings by using larger ships travelling more slowly" rather than banking on the right wind blowing, said Hollenbuch.
"I don't think we'll be going back to wind power," said Uwe Bruemmer, a sea captain now in charge of inspection at the German heavy lifting shipping company SAL, which operates a 16-strong fleet.
"We've looked at the kite, but it wouldn't be worth it," he added.
"To use this sail you need at least six to seven knots of tail wind and you only find this rarely, and only on certain routes," the captain said.
The sail could be used in regions where monsoons winds blow regularly "for example in the Indian Ocean or off the Somali coast where pirates are now active.
"But in such places we can't allow ourselves to go slower. You have to get through as fast as possible".
For now, "we are concentrating on reducing fuel consumption by reducing engine power to 90 or 80 percent", says Bruemmer, who is pinning his hopes on the development of gas-powered turbines.
Monday, 18 April 2011
New climate change case headed to Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration and environmental interests generally agree that global warming is a threat that must be dealt with.
But they're on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case over the ability of states and groups such as the Audubon Society that want to sue large electric utilities and force power plants in 20 states to cut their emissions.
The administration is siding with American Electric Power Co. and three other companies in urging the high court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds the Environmental Protection Agency, not a federal court, is the proper authority to make rules about climate change. The justices will hear arguments in the case Tuesday.
The court is taking up a climate change case for the second time in four years. In 2007, the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under that landmark law. The same reasoning applies to power plants.
The administration says one reason to end the current suit is that the EPA is considering rules that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But the administration also acknowledges that it is not certain that limits will be imposed.
At the same time, Republicans in Congress are leading an effort to strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases.
The uncertainty about legislation and regulation is the best reason for allowing the case to proceed, said David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which represents Audubon and other private groups dedicated to land conservation.
"This case was always the ultimate backstop," Doniger said, even as he noted that the council would prefer legislation or EPA regulation to court decisions. The suit would end if the EPA does set emission standards for greenhouse gases, he said.
The legal claims advanced by six states, New York City and the land trusts would be pressed only "if all else failed," he said.
When the suit was filed in 2004, it looked like the only way to force action on global warming. The Bush administration and the Republicans in charge of Congress doubted the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Federal courts long have been active in disputes over pollution. But those cases typically have involved a power plant or sewage treatment plant that was causing some identifiable harm to people, and property downwind or downstream of the polluting plant.
Global warming, by its very name, suggests a more complex problem. The power companies argue that any solution must be comprehensive. No court-ordered change alone would have any effect on climate change, the companies say.
"This is an issue that is of worldwide nature and causation. It's the result of hundreds of years of emissions all over the world," said Ed Comer, vice president and general counsel of the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group.
The other defendants in the suit are Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia; Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota; and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA is represented by the government and its views do not precisely align with those of other companies.
Eight states initially banded together to sue. They were California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. But in a sign of the enduring role of partisan politics in this issue, New Jersey and Wisconsin withdrew this year after Republican replaced Democrats in their governor's offices.
Another complication is that the administration and the companies may be on the same side at the Supreme Court, but the power industry is strongly opposing climate change regulation. The Southern Co. is a vocal supporter of GOP legislation to block the EPA from acting.
"It's two-faced for them (the companies) to come into court and say everything is well in hand because EPA is going to act," said Doniger, the NRDC lawyer.
Comer said the key point is that judges should not make environmental policy. "This has important implications for jobs. If you raise energy costs in the U.S., does that lead industry jobs to go elsewhere and if it does, do you get the same emissions, just from another country?" Comer said. "These judgments are properly made by elected officials."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was on the federal appeals court panel that heard the case, is not taking part in the Supreme Court's consideration of the issue.
The case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 10-174.
But they're on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case over the ability of states and groups such as the Audubon Society that want to sue large electric utilities and force power plants in 20 states to cut their emissions.
The administration is siding with American Electric Power Co. and three other companies in urging the high court to throw out the lawsuit on grounds the Environmental Protection Agency, not a federal court, is the proper authority to make rules about climate change. The justices will hear arguments in the case Tuesday.
The court is taking up a climate change case for the second time in four years. In 2007, the court declared that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions from new cars and trucks under that landmark law. The same reasoning applies to power plants.
The administration says one reason to end the current suit is that the EPA is considering rules that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But the administration also acknowledges that it is not certain that limits will be imposed.
At the same time, Republicans in Congress are leading an effort to strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gases.
The uncertainty about legislation and regulation is the best reason for allowing the case to proceed, said David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which represents Audubon and other private groups dedicated to land conservation.
"This case was always the ultimate backstop," Doniger said, even as he noted that the council would prefer legislation or EPA regulation to court decisions. The suit would end if the EPA does set emission standards for greenhouse gases, he said.
The legal claims advanced by six states, New York City and the land trusts would be pressed only "if all else failed," he said.
When the suit was filed in 2004, it looked like the only way to force action on global warming. The Bush administration and the Republicans in charge of Congress doubted the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Federal courts long have been active in disputes over pollution. But those cases typically have involved a power plant or sewage treatment plant that was causing some identifiable harm to people, and property downwind or downstream of the polluting plant.
Global warming, by its very name, suggests a more complex problem. The power companies argue that any solution must be comprehensive. No court-ordered change alone would have any effect on climate change, the companies say.
"This is an issue that is of worldwide nature and causation. It's the result of hundreds of years of emissions all over the world," said Ed Comer, vice president and general counsel of the Edison Electric Institute, an industry trade group.
The other defendants in the suit are Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia; Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota; and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. The TVA is represented by the government and its views do not precisely align with those of other companies.
Eight states initially banded together to sue. They were California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. But in a sign of the enduring role of partisan politics in this issue, New Jersey and Wisconsin withdrew this year after Republican replaced Democrats in their governor's offices.
Another complication is that the administration and the companies may be on the same side at the Supreme Court, but the power industry is strongly opposing climate change regulation. The Southern Co. is a vocal supporter of GOP legislation to block the EPA from acting.
"It's two-faced for them (the companies) to come into court and say everything is well in hand because EPA is going to act," said Doniger, the NRDC lawyer.
Comer said the key point is that judges should not make environmental policy. "This has important implications for jobs. If you raise energy costs in the U.S., does that lead industry jobs to go elsewhere and if it does, do you get the same emissions, just from another country?" Comer said. "These judgments are properly made by elected officials."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was on the federal appeals court panel that heard the case, is not taking part in the Supreme Court's consideration of the issue.
The case is American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 10-174.
China's low-carbon leadership headlines fail to capture the reality
There is no doubt that China is emerging as a major economic force, but some claims about technological leadership are premature
Jim Watson guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 April 2011 07.00 BST
It is now common to hear claims that China has "caught up" with the world's leading economies. Last month, the Pew Environment Group put China at the top of its clean energy investment rankings for 2010. Investment in China reached $54bn, with Germany in second place ($41bn) and the US in third ($34bn). In a similar vein, the Royal Society recently published data showing that China is set to overtake the US in academic publications by 2013 if current trends continue.
But what lies behind these headlines? Do these indicators show that China is really taking the lead so quickly in the clean technology race – or are such claims premature? Our recent research with Tsinghua University on low-carbon innovation in China has spent the past year examining this question. It has found a more mixed picture than the headlines suggest.
China's rapid rise is not in doubt. GDP has been increasing at around 10% a year for more than two decades. Alongside this, the environmental side effects of growth have caused significant concern. This has led to a series of targets for energy efficiency and the development of non-fossil energy sources. The energy intensity target for the 11th five-year plan aimed for a 20% reduction between 2006 and 2010. The target was just about met, but not without panic by provincial officials who implemented power cuts in some areas.
Targets for individual low-carbon technologies have repeatedly been revised upwards as development outstripped expectations. Wind power growth has caught particular attention - with capacity rising from 13 gigawatts (GW) in 2008 to 42GW in 2010 (equivalent to half the power plant capacity in the UK). China is the world's largest user of solar hot water systems, and its subsidies for alternative fuel vehicles are substantial. There are ambitious plans to increase nuclear power capacity from the current 10GW to 80GW by 2020. In the light of the Fukushima accident, this now seems unrealistic – and plans are on hold pending a review.
Discussions of technology deployment can only take us so far in understanding China's low-carbon position. With respect to technology development and manufacturing, the picture is more complex. In some technologies such as wind power, the headlines appear to be broadly right. Homegrown wind turbine manufacturers such as Goldwind and Sinovel are now amongst the world's top five, though questions remain about their ability to move into advanced offshore wind technologies. But wind power policy in China also has some weaknesses. According to the Worldwatch Institute, around one-third of China's wind power projects have trouble connecting to the grid. Developers have rushed to build new capacity, but with insufficient consideration of how their power would be distributed.
In other areas, our research found significant gaps. In electric vehicles, Chinese companies complain that they do not have independent capabilities in key technologies and systems. In coal-fired power, domestic manufacturers are rapidly increasing efficiency to international levels. Some independent innovation has been achieved, for example in technologies which produce synthetic gas from coal. But many technologies used in the most advanced plants are still licensed from firms in OECD countries. China's most efficient coal-fired power plant at Waigaoqiao was built using technology owned by two European firms.
China is also experimenting with carbon capture and storage technologies. These technologies are often seen as essential if carbon emissions from China are to be reduced over the long term. The recent Clean Energy Ministerial called for stronger international action to develop these technologies. However, the possibility that China might take the lead here seems unrealistic. In this power-hungry country, most utilities are put off by the 25% loss in efficiency required to power the carbon capture equipment.
China is emerging as a major economic force no doubt, but some claims about technological leadership are premature. They serve as useful warnings to governments and firms in the OECD that the technological gap is closing fast. But they do not adequately capture the current reality. They fail to make a distinction between the deployment of cleaner technologies such as wind power in China, and the extent to which this represents genuine technological leadership. They also fail to account for the vast differences between low-carbon technologies in China – in performance, capabilities and levels of investment.
• Jim Watson is a professor at the University of Sussex and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Jim Watson guardian.co.uk, Monday 18 April 2011 07.00 BST
It is now common to hear claims that China has "caught up" with the world's leading economies. Last month, the Pew Environment Group put China at the top of its clean energy investment rankings for 2010. Investment in China reached $54bn, with Germany in second place ($41bn) and the US in third ($34bn). In a similar vein, the Royal Society recently published data showing that China is set to overtake the US in academic publications by 2013 if current trends continue.
But what lies behind these headlines? Do these indicators show that China is really taking the lead so quickly in the clean technology race – or are such claims premature? Our recent research with Tsinghua University on low-carbon innovation in China has spent the past year examining this question. It has found a more mixed picture than the headlines suggest.
China's rapid rise is not in doubt. GDP has been increasing at around 10% a year for more than two decades. Alongside this, the environmental side effects of growth have caused significant concern. This has led to a series of targets for energy efficiency and the development of non-fossil energy sources. The energy intensity target for the 11th five-year plan aimed for a 20% reduction between 2006 and 2010. The target was just about met, but not without panic by provincial officials who implemented power cuts in some areas.
Targets for individual low-carbon technologies have repeatedly been revised upwards as development outstripped expectations. Wind power growth has caught particular attention - with capacity rising from 13 gigawatts (GW) in 2008 to 42GW in 2010 (equivalent to half the power plant capacity in the UK). China is the world's largest user of solar hot water systems, and its subsidies for alternative fuel vehicles are substantial. There are ambitious plans to increase nuclear power capacity from the current 10GW to 80GW by 2020. In the light of the Fukushima accident, this now seems unrealistic – and plans are on hold pending a review.
Discussions of technology deployment can only take us so far in understanding China's low-carbon position. With respect to technology development and manufacturing, the picture is more complex. In some technologies such as wind power, the headlines appear to be broadly right. Homegrown wind turbine manufacturers such as Goldwind and Sinovel are now amongst the world's top five, though questions remain about their ability to move into advanced offshore wind technologies. But wind power policy in China also has some weaknesses. According to the Worldwatch Institute, around one-third of China's wind power projects have trouble connecting to the grid. Developers have rushed to build new capacity, but with insufficient consideration of how their power would be distributed.
In other areas, our research found significant gaps. In electric vehicles, Chinese companies complain that they do not have independent capabilities in key technologies and systems. In coal-fired power, domestic manufacturers are rapidly increasing efficiency to international levels. Some independent innovation has been achieved, for example in technologies which produce synthetic gas from coal. But many technologies used in the most advanced plants are still licensed from firms in OECD countries. China's most efficient coal-fired power plant at Waigaoqiao was built using technology owned by two European firms.
China is also experimenting with carbon capture and storage technologies. These technologies are often seen as essential if carbon emissions from China are to be reduced over the long term. The recent Clean Energy Ministerial called for stronger international action to develop these technologies. However, the possibility that China might take the lead here seems unrealistic. In this power-hungry country, most utilities are put off by the 25% loss in efficiency required to power the carbon capture equipment.
China is emerging as a major economic force no doubt, but some claims about technological leadership are premature. They serve as useful warnings to governments and firms in the OECD that the technological gap is closing fast. But they do not adequately capture the current reality. They fail to make a distinction between the deployment of cleaner technologies such as wind power in China, and the extent to which this represents genuine technological leadership. They also fail to account for the vast differences between low-carbon technologies in China – in performance, capabilities and levels of investment.
• Jim Watson is a professor at the University of Sussex and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
