AFP
Saturday, 30 April 2011
South Korea's largest business group Samsung signed an initial deal Wednesday to invest $7.04 billion in a state project to build a green energy complex on reclaimed wetland.
Samsung signed a memorandum of understanding with the government to spend 7.6 trillion won ($7.04 billion) on the construction of eco-friendly production facilities from 2021, the prime minister's office said.
The government will provide full administrative support plus a plot at the reclaimed Saemangeum wetland area on the west coast, about 200 kilometres (125 miles) south of Seoul.
Samsung said its green-energy development would have a wind-power generator, a production base for solar batteries, a research institute and houses for about 20,000 workers.
It said the investment was in line with its announcement last year to spend about 23 trillion won on new growth engines such as health care and green energy over the coming decade.
Samsung's investment is expected to speed up the massive government project to turn the reclaimed area into an eco-friendly town with industrial, tourism and agricultural facilities as well as science and research institutes.
The reclamation included the building of a 33.9 kilometre (20 mile) sea dike, which was completed in 2006.
Last August OCI, South Korea's leading maker of polysilicon used in solar panel cells, announced a plan to invest some 10 trillion won in the area by 2020.
Saturday, 30 April 2011
Now is not the time for energy-starved India to increase nuclear dependency
Soaring costs and safety doubts post-Fukushima mean India is unwise to plan a doubling of its nuclear plants
Jaswant Singh guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 14.30 BST
Japan's nuclear disaster has fuelled fear and uncertainty among all of the world's producers of nuclear power. For India, an energy-starved country with big nuclear plans, much is at stake.
The wider fear over nuclear power has two main causes. Firstly, although it ranks as a "clean" source of energy, it is accompanied by the terrible shadow of nuclear war and Japan's last reckoning with nuclear catastrophe 65 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Secondly, the secrecy that attends all things nuclear has left people not knowing enough to feel confident.
The additional fear inspired by the Fukushima disaster will be reflected in soaring costs for nuclear power worldwide, largely owing to demands for improved safety and insurance. Indeed, nuclear plants are prone to a form of panic transference: should a reactor of one design go wrong, all reactors of that type will be shut down instantly around the world.
In India, the dilemma is this: it has 20 nuclear plants in operation, with an additional 23 on order. With the country desperately short of power, and requiring energy to grow, concerned citizens are asking if nuclear is still the answer for India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has cautiously announced a "special safety review" of all plants. "Not enough," say about 50 eminent Indians, who at the end of March demanded a review of the country's entire nuclear power policy for "appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance". The group also called for an "independent, transparent safety audit" of all nuclear facilities to be undertaken with the "involvement of civil society organisations and experts outside the department of atomic energy". Until then, they demanded a moratorium on all nuclear activity and a revocation of recent clearances. This is as explicit as opposition can get.
How have other countries reacted? France, a global leader in nuclear power, initially avoided most of the global anti-nuclear concerns. But now it too is promising to upgrade its safety procedures, including a reassessment of the potential effects of natural disasters on nuclear plant operations, conceding that the occurrence of more than one natural disaster simultaneously had not been considered previously.
China, which has 77 nuclear reactors at various stages of construction, planning, and discussion, has said that it will embark on a wide-ranging review, but Russia has announced that it will go ahead with its programme.
The US has just two under construction on its own territory, despite being the principal exporter of reactors. Meanwhile Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal are strongly anti-nuclear, and Switzerland has stopped all nuclear power projects.
All of this will lead to cost evaluation and escalation. According to a study conducted by former Indian government minister Arun Shourie, the price of uranium could rise to $140 per pound, close to its record high.
A change of much greater consequence concerns the price of reactors. Pre-Fukushima, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003, as well as a study by researchers at the University of Chicago, established that nuclear energy was 50-100% more expensive than energy from coal or gas. The report by India's Working Group on Power says the cost of energy production from the country's coal-based plants is about one-third lower than nuclear power, with gas 50% cheaper.
Energy security and public safety should be of equal importance in determining future policy on nuclear power. Indeed, experts like CMA Nayar have said that the Fukushima accident "could have happened even if there was no tsunami". Nayar suggests that it has long been known that the reactor's design contained basic flaws, though only the Japanese authorities can verify this.
So, what is to be done? Clean energy at a time of global warming is obviously necessary. But so is the safety and security of humans, animals and plants. India has set itself on a path of doubling its nuclear power output. This is deeply troubling, for India's nuclear supplies almost entirely dependent on imports from manufacturers who refuse liability for any malfunction. So how should India's energy demands be met?
At a minimum, a thorough re-examination and full public debate must precede the construction of any new nuclear plant. Preferably, the entire policy is reassessed, and dependence on nuclear reduced. With nuclear safety suddenly becoming a global imperative, the costs are simply too high to do otherwise.
• Jaswant Singh, a former Indian finance minister, foreign minister, and defence minister, is the author of Jinnah: India – Partition – Independence.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011
Jaswant Singh guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 14.30 BST
Japan's nuclear disaster has fuelled fear and uncertainty among all of the world's producers of nuclear power. For India, an energy-starved country with big nuclear plans, much is at stake.
The wider fear over nuclear power has two main causes. Firstly, although it ranks as a "clean" source of energy, it is accompanied by the terrible shadow of nuclear war and Japan's last reckoning with nuclear catastrophe 65 years ago at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Secondly, the secrecy that attends all things nuclear has left people not knowing enough to feel confident.
The additional fear inspired by the Fukushima disaster will be reflected in soaring costs for nuclear power worldwide, largely owing to demands for improved safety and insurance. Indeed, nuclear plants are prone to a form of panic transference: should a reactor of one design go wrong, all reactors of that type will be shut down instantly around the world.
In India, the dilemma is this: it has 20 nuclear plants in operation, with an additional 23 on order. With the country desperately short of power, and requiring energy to grow, concerned citizens are asking if nuclear is still the answer for India.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has cautiously announced a "special safety review" of all plants. "Not enough," say about 50 eminent Indians, who at the end of March demanded a review of the country's entire nuclear power policy for "appropriateness, safety, costs, and public acceptance". The group also called for an "independent, transparent safety audit" of all nuclear facilities to be undertaken with the "involvement of civil society organisations and experts outside the department of atomic energy". Until then, they demanded a moratorium on all nuclear activity and a revocation of recent clearances. This is as explicit as opposition can get.
How have other countries reacted? France, a global leader in nuclear power, initially avoided most of the global anti-nuclear concerns. But now it too is promising to upgrade its safety procedures, including a reassessment of the potential effects of natural disasters on nuclear plant operations, conceding that the occurrence of more than one natural disaster simultaneously had not been considered previously.
China, which has 77 nuclear reactors at various stages of construction, planning, and discussion, has said that it will embark on a wide-ranging review, but Russia has announced that it will go ahead with its programme.
The US has just two under construction on its own territory, despite being the principal exporter of reactors. Meanwhile Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal are strongly anti-nuclear, and Switzerland has stopped all nuclear power projects.
All of this will lead to cost evaluation and escalation. According to a study conducted by former Indian government minister Arun Shourie, the price of uranium could rise to $140 per pound, close to its record high.
A change of much greater consequence concerns the price of reactors. Pre-Fukushima, a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), The Future of Nuclear Power, 2003, as well as a study by researchers at the University of Chicago, established that nuclear energy was 50-100% more expensive than energy from coal or gas. The report by India's Working Group on Power says the cost of energy production from the country's coal-based plants is about one-third lower than nuclear power, with gas 50% cheaper.
Energy security and public safety should be of equal importance in determining future policy on nuclear power. Indeed, experts like CMA Nayar have said that the Fukushima accident "could have happened even if there was no tsunami". Nayar suggests that it has long been known that the reactor's design contained basic flaws, though only the Japanese authorities can verify this.
So, what is to be done? Clean energy at a time of global warming is obviously necessary. But so is the safety and security of humans, animals and plants. India has set itself on a path of doubling its nuclear power output. This is deeply troubling, for India's nuclear supplies almost entirely dependent on imports from manufacturers who refuse liability for any malfunction. So how should India's energy demands be met?
At a minimum, a thorough re-examination and full public debate must precede the construction of any new nuclear plant. Preferably, the entire policy is reassessed, and dependence on nuclear reduced. With nuclear safety suddenly becoming a global imperative, the costs are simply too high to do otherwise.
• Jaswant Singh, a former Indian finance minister, foreign minister, and defence minister, is the author of Jinnah: India – Partition – Independence.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011
Total invests £800m in US solar power firm
French oil company is to buy 60% of SunPower Corporation, the second biggest solar panel manufacturer in America
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 16.37
Total, one of the world's largest oil companies, is to make a $1.38bn (£800m) investment in solar power reversing a trend that has seen Shell and BP cut back their involvement in green energy.
France's biggest company is to purchase 60% of SunPower Corporation, the second biggest solar panel manufacturer in America, and use it as a new springboard into a renewable sector struggling for competitive edge.
Shares in SunPower surged 40% after it revealed a "friendly tender offer" from an oil company that had been expected to put major new investment into nuclear rather than solar or wind, at least until the Japanese earthquake raised new questions about the safety of atomic power.
"The world future energy balance will be the result of a long-term transition in which renewable energies will take their place alongside conventional resources," said Philippe Boisseau, president of Total's gas and power division.
Total has been raking in enormous profits from oil at $120 a barrel – but is said to see renewables energy as a useful hedge. High crude prices make alternative power sources more attractive but the solar industry has also been hit in places such as Britain, Germany and Spain which have started to cut their public subsidies as part of wider plans to reduce debt levels.
Total is not an entire newcomer to renewables. It has held a half share in two solar firms since the early 1980's – Photovoltech and Tenesol. In November Total unveiled plans to build a solar panel manufacturing plant in the Moselle region of France with annual capacity of 220,000 solar panels a year. The oil company will now inject $1bn into SunPower over the next five years allowing the US solar business to "accelerate our power plant and development business," according to its chief executive Tom Werner. SunPower has been hit by mounting competition from lower cost Chinese panel makers but still claims to design, manufacture and deliver the highest efficiency solar products in the industry.
BP and Shell made major forays into renewables but have backed off in recent years. BP shut down its stand alone Alternative Energy head office while Shell sold off a major part of its photovoltaic module production to SolarWorld of Germany in 2006 and then disposed of its solar rural business in the developing world.
Total had been investing in nuclear having acquired an 8.33% interest, in the consortium commissioned to develop the European pressurized reactor project in Penly, France, with EDF and GDF Suez.
The Fukushima plant accident – coupled with the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident – has spread a pall of negativity over nuclear energy business.
Terry Macalister guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 16.37
Total, one of the world's largest oil companies, is to make a $1.38bn (£800m) investment in solar power reversing a trend that has seen Shell and BP cut back their involvement in green energy.
France's biggest company is to purchase 60% of SunPower Corporation, the second biggest solar panel manufacturer in America, and use it as a new springboard into a renewable sector struggling for competitive edge.
Shares in SunPower surged 40% after it revealed a "friendly tender offer" from an oil company that had been expected to put major new investment into nuclear rather than solar or wind, at least until the Japanese earthquake raised new questions about the safety of atomic power.
"The world future energy balance will be the result of a long-term transition in which renewable energies will take their place alongside conventional resources," said Philippe Boisseau, president of Total's gas and power division.
Total has been raking in enormous profits from oil at $120 a barrel – but is said to see renewables energy as a useful hedge. High crude prices make alternative power sources more attractive but the solar industry has also been hit in places such as Britain, Germany and Spain which have started to cut their public subsidies as part of wider plans to reduce debt levels.
Total is not an entire newcomer to renewables. It has held a half share in two solar firms since the early 1980's – Photovoltech and Tenesol. In November Total unveiled plans to build a solar panel manufacturing plant in the Moselle region of France with annual capacity of 220,000 solar panels a year. The oil company will now inject $1bn into SunPower over the next five years allowing the US solar business to "accelerate our power plant and development business," according to its chief executive Tom Werner. SunPower has been hit by mounting competition from lower cost Chinese panel makers but still claims to design, manufacture and deliver the highest efficiency solar products in the industry.
BP and Shell made major forays into renewables but have backed off in recent years. BP shut down its stand alone Alternative Energy head office while Shell sold off a major part of its photovoltaic module production to SolarWorld of Germany in 2006 and then disposed of its solar rural business in the developing world.
Total had been investing in nuclear having acquired an 8.33% interest, in the consortium commissioned to develop the European pressurized reactor project in Penly, France, with EDF and GDF Suez.
The Fukushima plant accident – coupled with the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident – has spread a pall of negativity over nuclear energy business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
