Contributed by: arch_stantonViews: 474
As people across the US poured into Earth Day celebrations, they saw booths and heard speakers extolling the virtues of solar and wind power. What participants were highly unlikely to hear was that renewable energy cannot stop global warming without major social changes that Earth Day organizers rarely discussed.Global Warming: Limits of Solar and Wind Powerby Don FitzZMagAs people across the US poured into Earth Day celebrations, they saw booths and heard speakers extolling the virtues of solar and wind power.
What participants were highly unlikely to hear was that renewable energy cannot stop global warming without major social changes that Earth Day organizers rarely discussed.Keep in mind the difference between the words “necessary” and “sufficient.”
Yes, expansion of solar and wind power is absolutely necessary to prevent CO2 levels from rising, coastal cities from being flooded and species from going extinct. But no, by themselves, solar and wind are not sufficient to make the use of energy sustainable.
Nine million percent?Most climate experts accept that, in order to avoid catastrophic effects of global warming, greenhouse gas emissions (mostly CO2) must be cut by 60-80% by 2050 (though the figure may need to be a 95% cut in the US).
The belief that replacing fossil fuels with solar and wind technology can accomplish this reduction tends to overlook several factors:1. Corporations bombard the world with the message that everyone should consume like Americans do;2. Corporations tell those in the US that they should ape after the playthings of the rich;3. Population is growing;4. Market economics force pathological expansion; and,5. Solar and wind comprise a minute fraction of current energy.
Let’s combine these to get an idea of how much solar and wind would need to expand to replace coal, oil, nukes and gas by 2050.
First, the US consumes about 25% of the world’s energy while having only 5% of the world’s population. For the rest of the world to consume at the rate of the US would require global production to increase by a factor of 6.33.People in the US constantly hear the message that they do not consume nearly enough.
The rest of the world does see skid row as their model for consumption — they also look at the wealthiest in the US. If we use the 5% wealthiest for the standard of comparison, the value of 6.33 should be squared to give 40.0 as the amount that world production would have to increase for everyone to consume at the level of the most affluent in the US.Population is expected to slow down its growth rate but still increase by 50% between 2007 and 2050.
Allowing for population growth, by 2050, production would need to increase by a factor of 40 x 1.5 = 60.The market economy must grow or die. A widely held view is that the world economy will continue to grow 2-3% annually during the rest of the century. A 2.5% growth rate would result in almost tripling production by 2050.
This means that production would need to grow by 60 x 3 = 180.During that time, solar and wind would need to replace other energy sources. According to the US Energy Information Administration, renewable energy accounted for 6% of all 2003 energy, and of that 6%, only 1% was from solar and 2% from wind (the rest coming from biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric).
This means that solar and wind comprise .06 x (.01 + .02) = .0018 of US energy. Accounting for less than 0.2% of energy, solar and wind would have to increase by a factor of over 500 to replace other energy. Multiplying the 500-fold increase in solar/wind by the 180-fold increase in production means that energy from solar/wind would have to increase by a factor of 90,000 by 2050 for people throughout the world to consume at the rate of the richest 5% in the US.If there is no challenge to the US being a model of consumerism, there would need to be a roughly nine million percent increase in solar/wind power for them to replace other forms of energy in 43 years.
No silver bulletSuch an increase is not likely to happen. One of the problems with figuring out what renewables can actually do is that those who are religiously devoted to them are prone to saying things that are out of touch with reality. In his new book, Heat, George Monbiot quotes a solar power enthusiast who wrote, “Even in the cloudy United Kingdom, more electricity than the nation currently uses could be generated by putting PV [photovoltaic solar power] roof tiles on all suitable roofs.” (p. 125) Monbiot put some numbers together and calculated that the actual potential for rooftop PV is 1/800 of energy that is used in the UK.Rooftop collection is a major component of a solar power strategy. A single story home would be most efficient. Unfortunately, this contradicts another principle of saving energy: the larger the building, the more self-insulating it is.
Multi-family apartments or condos need less energy to heat a room than would be needed in stand-alone homes of the same size. Similarly with putting solar panels on the sides of buildings. A building which is not surrounded by trees or other buildings would be great for such solar panels.
But trees are necessary both for shade and for taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Putting multi-story buildings close to each other is necessary for the high density required by an urban mass transit system, but it works against the sun-catching surface space for solar collection.With about half of US energy going to temperature control for buildings, these factors limit the amount of energy that solar power can provide in urban areas.
PV technology works best for rural homes. The main problem that stand-alone systems must deal with is energy storage for times when the sun isn’t shining. A bank of batteries can cost over $20,000. It’s less costly if users can link their panels to a power grid and sell excess power to the local electric company. But if customers sell PV power to the grid, they will be doing so at hours when demand and therefore prices are low and buying power back when demand and prices are high.The price of solar power is falling, but it would need to plummet to replace fossil fuels. Though it takes 25-35 years for PV cells to pay for themselves, their life expectancy is only 25 to 30 years. Wind power has its own limitations.
It is only possible for wind to produce large amounts of electricity if it consistently blows strong. Since urban buildings tend to make wind weak or sporadic, wind mills are of little use in cities. Winds are usually strongest in mountain passes and along coastlines.A rapid expansion of wind power would involve far more than just the windmills themselves.
It would require new grid capacity and transmission lines from wind farms to locations of usage. Wind power requires 1.1 years of use to generate as much energy as used in manufacture and the figure for solar is 2 – 4 years. Are renewables truly renewable?Renewables are thought of as sources of energy that are not “drawn down” by their use. But this does not take into account materials that are used to harness the energy or their environmental effects. If the source of energy is infinite, but the land and materials that people use to capture the energy is not infinite, is that type of energy truly “renewable?”
The American Solar Energy Society (ASES) has a definite financial interest in the rapid expansion of solar power. Yet, in its recent publication claiming that renewables can offset fossil fuels, ASES admits that advanced PV technologies, such as thin-film PV, use rare materials including indium, selenium, and tellurium and that exhaustion of supplies could interfere with their development.One of most promising of new PV approaches is Titania Dye Sensitised Cells. Though most of the production involves common materials, the solar cell needs to be covered with transparent plastic. And what is plastic made from? Petroleum, the most infamous of non-renewable substances.
Though the amount of petroleum used to cover the planet with solar cells would be tiny compared to covering the world with cars, it drives home how important it is to make the focus of a sane energy policy preserving oil for genuine needs of future generations.An even more serious concern with the “renewability” of renewables is their use of land when they become the dominant sources of energy. Do we really want to fill every mountain pass, coastal area and valley with wind mills? ASES assures that “…land set aside specifically for solar PV generation will not need to occur until this technology provides a very large fraction (perhaps more than 25%) of the nation’s electricity.” (p. 95) Looking at it the other way, once solar PV replaces fossil fuel, it will encroach on wildlife habitat.The biggest reason that renewable energy may not be truly renewable is that it depends on fossil fuel to replace fossil fuel.
Total energy use in the US is currently about 100 quads. A quad is equivalent to a quadrillion (a one followed by 15 zeroes) Btu. In his classic The Party’s Over, Richard Heinberg observes that “to produce 18 quads of wind power in the US by 2030 would require the installation of something like half a million state-of-the-art turbines…That is five times the present world production capacity for turbines...most of the energy needed for that undertaking would have to come from dwindling fossil fuels.”
People would be consuming voraciously at the same time they were constructing a massive new energy infrastructure. Where would the energy for this gargantuan orgy of consumption/construction come from? Would it mean pumping every drop of oil out of the ground to move the new equipment across the globe? Would it require blowing the top off of every sacred mountain that had coal in it? Would it demand mining enough uranium to melt down nukes in every country? Would it mean extracting every cubic foot of natural gas so there was none left for heating by the time 2050 arrives? Switching to solar/wind by 2050 might require the greatest use of fossil and nuclear fuel the world has ever seen. That’s not a good way to prevent global warming.
The real issueCalculating the needed increase in solar and wind production only included a few quantifiable factors. It did not include how manufacture would exacerbate the exhaustion of water which is already shrinking due to industrial agriculture. It did not include the overrunning of the last acres of animal habitat and the resulting extinction of species.
Nor did it include the enormous increase in production of toxins which could do even more damage to humanity than changing weather conditions. The problem is that market economics pushes corporations to encourage the most rapid squandering of energy possible. There could be a doubling of available energy, a tripling of energy or an increase in solar and wind power of nine million percent and there would still be a shortage.
This is not to deny that solar panels are absolutely essential for a sustainable energy policy. It is to say that fanaticism about solar power which blinds people to its limitations can also blind them from seeing the need to reduce the total quantity of energy produced in Western countries.
Global warming is not a technological problem and no increase in the production of solar and wind and eco-gadgets can solve it. The energy crisis and rising CO2 levels are crises of market economics and the question we must ask is: How do we change society to make it sustainable?There is no shortage of energyConsider the following two assertions:1. There is already more energy than we need. 2. No matter how much energy is produced, it will not be enough. These two statements appear totally contradictory. Yet they are both true.
It is similar to food and starvation. There is enough food to feed everyone on the planet. Yet hunger is increasing. Agribusiness says that we need to fight starvation by increasing food production via another “Green Revolution” with pesticides, herbicides, genetic engineering and leveling of rain forests to plant crops to be sold to distant lands. None of those are necessary and will, in all likelihood, increase hunger.
People starve not because there is not enough food, but because available food is not distributed to those who need it. It is more profitable to process food and send it to those who overconsume in rich countries than it is to sell it to those in poor countries who can pay less for it. Local food production for need, combined with aid during times of crisis, could feed everyone. But increased corporate control of food means more production for the international market and food drained away from those who need it the most.
Corn for people to eat locally is transformed to corn to feed cattle for international hamburger chains. Less corn is available to solve hunger as American obesity skyrockets. A thousand food commodities and diabetes follow the same path.Just as an increase in the quantity of food can be followed by an increase in starvation, an increase in the quantity of energy available can accompany an energy shortage. If people controlled their energy locally, they could decide how much to produce and, more important, what types of energy-draining activities need to be limited. But increases in energy production occur simultaneously with control by big energy corporations. The more energy that it produces, the more big energy is motivated to sell it for wasteful practices.
Will big energy propose to end nighttime sports events with huge lights? To require that only fluorescent light bulbs be produced? To advocate for urban centers free of private automobiles? Not a chance. In a market economy, the goal of big energy is to make as much profit today from selling as much energy as possible and energy for real needs be damned. Big energy gleefully provides electricity for trivial pursuits in the overdeveloped world as poor villagers fell their remaining trees for firewood.
Even if perpetual motion machines or Star Trek replicators could increase the production of solar and wind by nine million percent, there would still be a shortage of energy. In a type of perverted Malthusianism, the market creates artificial desires faster than the planet’s ecosystems can sustain them.
The flip side is that just as plenty of food exists right now, there is already an abundance of energy. Humanity can live better, healthier and longer lives by changing habits of producing food, altering methods of transportation, building off-grid homes, limiting the manufacture of unnecessary junk, and halting the killing people to steal their oil. If we do these, there could be a smooth transition away from coal, oil, nukes and gas to solar, wind and other renewables. Without these changes, no quantity of renewable energy is enough.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=12654
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Energy Under Water
April 2007
By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press
NEW YORK -- The murky rivers around New York City bring to mind many things - garbage, chemicals, perhaps mobsters' bodies - but clean energy is not one of them.
The state is trying to change that thinking, however.
It is teaming with a Virginia company to use the East River for a unique experiment in renewable energy: Six giant turbines are being placed underwater in a $7 million project to harness the energy of the tides and produce electricity.
One of the 16-foot-diameter, windmill-like turbines is already operating, supplying power to a grocery store and a garage on Roosevelt Island. The other turbines are being installed during the next two weeks.
"We're looking for the most cost-effective way to get the most energy out of moving water while having a positive impact on the environment," Verdant Power President Trey Taylor said.
Hydroelectric and wind power operate on similar principles, with water or air turning turbines. But those projects require dams or windmills, which can be costly, intrusive and objectionable to environmentalists.Project organizers say this is the first time the underwater-turbine concept has been used in the U.S.
"We picked New York on purpose because the regulations are so strict and because the East River is a tidal strait. There is a high current," Taylor said. "You know what they say about New York: If you can make it here ..."The project is entering an 18-month testing phase. Its backers hope to expand use of the technology in New York if it works out.
One downside is that the river sometimes moves too slowly. On average, the turbines rotate enough to generate electricity only about 77 percent of the time. At full capacity, the 10-megawatt project could power 10,000 homes.
That is not much in a city of 8 million people, but it's a step in the right direction, environmentalists say."The biggest source of power is burning oil, coal and all of that," Taylor said. "That contributes to greenhouse gases, and in a city where this many people live, the idea of having a clean energy source is a real appeal.
"Some environmentalists worry that the project may harm fish by stirring up sediment or otherwise altering their habits. The river is not quite the cesspool it was 30 years ago, and it is home to striped bass, herring, smelt and sturgeon, many of which travel between the ocean and the river.
Taylor said the fish near the turbines are being monitored with sonar equipment, and the river bottom is mostly bedrock, so no sediment is being churned up. Commercial vessels do not use that section of the river, so shipping is unaffected.
Environmental groups would like to see a year's worth of data before deciding whether the 8,500-pound, steel-alloy turbines have any significant effects, but so far they are pleased.
"The idea that it is renewable energy is a really good thing," said Robert Goldstein of the environmental group Riverkeeper. "They seem to be acting very careful and moving forward in a responsible way."The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has provided nearly $2 million toward design and environmental testing.
"We've had some blade failures, but we've already gotten back some great test results," said Ray Hull, a spokesman for the authority. "This could be a significant advance in renewable energy.
"Hull said the economics are hard to ignore, too: "During high tide periods in July and August, when there is such a demand for power, this could be pretty good stuff, financially speaking."Taylor is thinking bigger. He wants to place the technology in U.S. rivers such as the St. Lawrence or the Mississippi, and around the world.
"There are so many people that don't have access to electricity around the world," he said. "But many live near running water."
By COLLEEN LONG, Associated Press
NEW YORK -- The murky rivers around New York City bring to mind many things - garbage, chemicals, perhaps mobsters' bodies - but clean energy is not one of them.
The state is trying to change that thinking, however.
It is teaming with a Virginia company to use the East River for a unique experiment in renewable energy: Six giant turbines are being placed underwater in a $7 million project to harness the energy of the tides and produce electricity.
One of the 16-foot-diameter, windmill-like turbines is already operating, supplying power to a grocery store and a garage on Roosevelt Island. The other turbines are being installed during the next two weeks.
"We're looking for the most cost-effective way to get the most energy out of moving water while having a positive impact on the environment," Verdant Power President Trey Taylor said.
Hydroelectric and wind power operate on similar principles, with water or air turning turbines. But those projects require dams or windmills, which can be costly, intrusive and objectionable to environmentalists.Project organizers say this is the first time the underwater-turbine concept has been used in the U.S.
"We picked New York on purpose because the regulations are so strict and because the East River is a tidal strait. There is a high current," Taylor said. "You know what they say about New York: If you can make it here ..."The project is entering an 18-month testing phase. Its backers hope to expand use of the technology in New York if it works out.
One downside is that the river sometimes moves too slowly. On average, the turbines rotate enough to generate electricity only about 77 percent of the time. At full capacity, the 10-megawatt project could power 10,000 homes.
That is not much in a city of 8 million people, but it's a step in the right direction, environmentalists say."The biggest source of power is burning oil, coal and all of that," Taylor said. "That contributes to greenhouse gases, and in a city where this many people live, the idea of having a clean energy source is a real appeal.
"Some environmentalists worry that the project may harm fish by stirring up sediment or otherwise altering their habits. The river is not quite the cesspool it was 30 years ago, and it is home to striped bass, herring, smelt and sturgeon, many of which travel between the ocean and the river.
Taylor said the fish near the turbines are being monitored with sonar equipment, and the river bottom is mostly bedrock, so no sediment is being churned up. Commercial vessels do not use that section of the river, so shipping is unaffected.
Environmental groups would like to see a year's worth of data before deciding whether the 8,500-pound, steel-alloy turbines have any significant effects, but so far they are pleased.
"The idea that it is renewable energy is a really good thing," said Robert Goldstein of the environmental group Riverkeeper. "They seem to be acting very careful and moving forward in a responsible way."The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has provided nearly $2 million toward design and environmental testing.
"We've had some blade failures, but we've already gotten back some great test results," said Ray Hull, a spokesman for the authority. "This could be a significant advance in renewable energy.
"Hull said the economics are hard to ignore, too: "During high tide periods in July and August, when there is such a demand for power, this could be pretty good stuff, financially speaking."Taylor is thinking bigger. He wants to place the technology in U.S. rivers such as the St. Lawrence or the Mississippi, and around the world.
"There are so many people that don't have access to electricity around the world," he said. "But many live near running water."
Saturday, April 21, 2007
BIOFUELS -- ETHANOL AND BIODIESEL
"Biofuels" are transportation fuels like ethanol and biodiesel that are made from biomass materials. These fuels are usually blended with the petroleum fuels - gasoline and diesel fuel, but they can also be used on their own. Using ethanol or biodiesel means we don't burn quite as much fossil fuel. Ethanol and biodiesel are usually more expensive than the fossil fuels that they replace but they are also cleaner burning fuels, producing fewer air pollutants.
Ethanol is an alcohol fuel made from the sugars found in grains, such as corn, sorghum, and wheat, as well as potato skins, rice, sugar cane, sugar beets, and yard clippings. Scientists are working on cheaper ways to make ethanol by using all parts of plants and trees. Farmers are experimenting with "woody crops", mostly small poplar trees and switchgrass, to see if they can grow them cheaply and abundantly. Most of the ethanol used in the United States today is distilled from corn. About 99 percent of the ethanol produced in the United States is used to make "E10" or "gasohol" a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Any gasoline powered engine can use E10 but only specially made vehicles can run on E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.
Biodiesel is a fuel made with vegetable oils, fats, or greases - such as recycled restaurant grease. Biodiesel fuels can be used in diesel engines without changing them. It is the fastest growing alternative fuel in the United States. Biodiesel, a renewable fuel, is safe, biodegradable, and reduces the emissions of most air pollutants.
Ethanol is an alcohol fuel made from the sugars found in grains, such as corn, sorghum, and wheat, as well as potato skins, rice, sugar cane, sugar beets, and yard clippings. Scientists are working on cheaper ways to make ethanol by using all parts of plants and trees. Farmers are experimenting with "woody crops", mostly small poplar trees and switchgrass, to see if they can grow them cheaply and abundantly. Most of the ethanol used in the United States today is distilled from corn. About 99 percent of the ethanol produced in the United States is used to make "E10" or "gasohol" a mixture of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Any gasoline powered engine can use E10 but only specially made vehicles can run on E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.
Biodiesel is a fuel made with vegetable oils, fats, or greases - such as recycled restaurant grease. Biodiesel fuels can be used in diesel engines without changing them. It is the fastest growing alternative fuel in the United States. Biodiesel, a renewable fuel, is safe, biodegradable, and reduces the emissions of most air pollutants.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Wind and Solar drive NEX out-performance
The Wilderhill New Energy Global Index (NEX) of clean energy companies forged ahead in the first quarter, its 17.6% gain putting other indices in the shade - the S&P 500 was just 0.2% ahead while the NASDAQ was up 0.3%.
Wind and Solar were the hottest performers on the index, rising by 35.4% and 28.8% respectively, while the only sector to lose ground was Biofuels, Biomass & Waste-to-Energy, which lost 3.1%.General sentiment on clean energy was strong, with the publication of the latest IPCC report in February and an Oscar win for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth keeping the sector in the headlines.
Companies listed in countries that have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol continued to outperform those listed in non-signatories Australia and the US - in Kyoto markets, companies saw gains of 20.1%, while there was an increase of 11.1% in non-Kyoto markets.
The wind sector was driven by developments in Europe, where Theolia, the Euronext-listed French wind project developer, saw a rise of 148.6% in its shares as it gained control of the 165MW European wind portfolio of GE Energy Financial Services in return for 5.3m Theolia shares. A bid battle between Areva, the French nuclear company, and Suzlon, the Indian turbine maker, pushed the shares of REpower, the German turbine manufacturer, up by 91.3%.But investors punished Suzlon, which saw its shares drop by 23.2%. Nordex, another German turbine maker and project developer, saw gains of 76%.Gains in Solar were led by Baoding Tianwei Baobian Electric, the Chinese transformer manufacturer and PV manufacture holding company, whose shares were 112.6% higher than at the start of the year, but performance was strong in all regions - Solon, the Frankfurt-listed German solar system integrator, was up by 74.9% on the back of a 72% growth in revenue for 2006, while First Solar, the US thin-film PV cell manufacturer, gained 74.3% as it secured long-term contracts and set up a manufacturing plant in Malaysia. However, the markets punishedATS Automation Tooling Systems, the TSX-traded Canadian industrial automation company, whose shares lost 26.1% as it cancelled the IPO of its Photowatt subsidiary.
Investors in Europe and the US turned away from biofuels as they began to take a more considered view of the viability of the sector after the extraordinary gains last year - the biggest fallers on the index were Verbio, the German biodiesel and bioethanol producer, which was down 46.6% after warning of weak demand for 2007; and Diversa, the NASDAQ-listed biofuel technology group, was 28.2% lower despite narrowing its losses and announcing a merger with Celunol, a cellulosic ethanol technology company.
Shares in Brasil Ecodiesel, the Brazilian biodiesel producer and project developer, dropped 22.3% as President Bush's South American tour failed to bring an easing of US tariffs on Brazilian biofuels and Aventine Renewable Energy, the NYSE-quoted ethanol producer, fell 22.7% in the face of investor hostility to the sector.The index gained three new constituents at the end of the first quarter of 2007, while five companies dropped out. All of the new entrants are involved in Demand-Side Energy Saving, in line with New Energy Finance's prediction that in 2007, policy-makers and investors worldwide would wake up to the reality that if you want to cut fossil fuel use, it is easier to increase the efficiency of the 98% of energy generation that is non-renewable, than by adding to the 2% thatis renewable. Meanwhile, all of those companies that leave the index are US-listed.
There have been a number of positive developments in Demand-Side Energy Saving this year, including announcements by Australia and the European Union that they would phase out traditional incandescent lightbulbs and EU commitments to improve energy efficiency by 20% by 2020.Arima Optoelectronics, a company that makes light emitting diodes (LEDs), laser diodes (LDs) and backlight moulds becomes the only Taiwan-listed company on the NEX. Color Kinetics, a Boston-based company listed on NASDAQ, is also involved in lighting - it provides solid state lighting systems and technologies using LEDs.
Kingspan Group, meanwhile, provides insulated panels and insulation for construction, as well as some waste containment and recycling products and becomes the only Ireland-listed group on the index. It is well-placed to benefit from the increasing focus on energy efficiency in buildings.
The sector also lost a member, Linear Technology, a US integrated circuit manufacturer. It was among four NASDAQ-listed companies to depart, all in different sectors. In Power Storage, Active Power, the US backup power supply system maker, leaves not only the NEX but also, potentially, NASDAQ, after it failed to comply with filings requirements.
US fuel cell and power holding company Distributed Energy Systems dropped out of the Generation Efficiency & Smart Distribution sector, while Solar lost Emcore, the US semiconductor solutions developer, which was also facing delisting from the NASDAQ due to delayed filing of its results. NYSE-listed Hexcel, a carbon fibre manufacturer company, left the Services & Suppliers sector.
The rebalancing leaves the NEX with 84 constituents - Solar remains the biggest sector in the NEX, with 16 constituents, followed by Biofuels, Biomass & Waste-to-Energy with 14 and Wind with 12. But Demand-Side Energy Saving consolidates its position as fourth biggest sector, with 10 members while Power Storage (6) and Services & Suppliers (5) slip back. There are seven companies each in Hydrogen & Fuel Cells, Generation Efficiency & Smart Distribution and Renewables - Other, which encompasses geothermal and mini-hydroelectric power.
North America remains home to the most NEX members, with 19 listed on NASDAQ, along with nine on the New York Stock Exchange and four in Toronto.However, the geographical spread of the NEX continues to advance, with 30 companies listed on European exchanges, 21 in Asia and two in South America.
Wind and Solar were the hottest performers on the index, rising by 35.4% and 28.8% respectively, while the only sector to lose ground was Biofuels, Biomass & Waste-to-Energy, which lost 3.1%.General sentiment on clean energy was strong, with the publication of the latest IPCC report in February and an Oscar win for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth keeping the sector in the headlines.
Companies listed in countries that have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol continued to outperform those listed in non-signatories Australia and the US - in Kyoto markets, companies saw gains of 20.1%, while there was an increase of 11.1% in non-Kyoto markets.
The wind sector was driven by developments in Europe, where Theolia, the Euronext-listed French wind project developer, saw a rise of 148.6% in its shares as it gained control of the 165MW European wind portfolio of GE Energy Financial Services in return for 5.3m Theolia shares. A bid battle between Areva, the French nuclear company, and Suzlon, the Indian turbine maker, pushed the shares of REpower, the German turbine manufacturer, up by 91.3%.But investors punished Suzlon, which saw its shares drop by 23.2%. Nordex, another German turbine maker and project developer, saw gains of 76%.Gains in Solar were led by Baoding Tianwei Baobian Electric, the Chinese transformer manufacturer and PV manufacture holding company, whose shares were 112.6% higher than at the start of the year, but performance was strong in all regions - Solon, the Frankfurt-listed German solar system integrator, was up by 74.9% on the back of a 72% growth in revenue for 2006, while First Solar, the US thin-film PV cell manufacturer, gained 74.3% as it secured long-term contracts and set up a manufacturing plant in Malaysia. However, the markets punishedATS Automation Tooling Systems, the TSX-traded Canadian industrial automation company, whose shares lost 26.1% as it cancelled the IPO of its Photowatt subsidiary.
Investors in Europe and the US turned away from biofuels as they began to take a more considered view of the viability of the sector after the extraordinary gains last year - the biggest fallers on the index were Verbio, the German biodiesel and bioethanol producer, which was down 46.6% after warning of weak demand for 2007; and Diversa, the NASDAQ-listed biofuel technology group, was 28.2% lower despite narrowing its losses and announcing a merger with Celunol, a cellulosic ethanol technology company.
Shares in Brasil Ecodiesel, the Brazilian biodiesel producer and project developer, dropped 22.3% as President Bush's South American tour failed to bring an easing of US tariffs on Brazilian biofuels and Aventine Renewable Energy, the NYSE-quoted ethanol producer, fell 22.7% in the face of investor hostility to the sector.The index gained three new constituents at the end of the first quarter of 2007, while five companies dropped out. All of the new entrants are involved in Demand-Side Energy Saving, in line with New Energy Finance's prediction that in 2007, policy-makers and investors worldwide would wake up to the reality that if you want to cut fossil fuel use, it is easier to increase the efficiency of the 98% of energy generation that is non-renewable, than by adding to the 2% thatis renewable. Meanwhile, all of those companies that leave the index are US-listed.
There have been a number of positive developments in Demand-Side Energy Saving this year, including announcements by Australia and the European Union that they would phase out traditional incandescent lightbulbs and EU commitments to improve energy efficiency by 20% by 2020.Arima Optoelectronics, a company that makes light emitting diodes (LEDs), laser diodes (LDs) and backlight moulds becomes the only Taiwan-listed company on the NEX. Color Kinetics, a Boston-based company listed on NASDAQ, is also involved in lighting - it provides solid state lighting systems and technologies using LEDs.
Kingspan Group, meanwhile, provides insulated panels and insulation for construction, as well as some waste containment and recycling products and becomes the only Ireland-listed group on the index. It is well-placed to benefit from the increasing focus on energy efficiency in buildings.
The sector also lost a member, Linear Technology, a US integrated circuit manufacturer. It was among four NASDAQ-listed companies to depart, all in different sectors. In Power Storage, Active Power, the US backup power supply system maker, leaves not only the NEX but also, potentially, NASDAQ, after it failed to comply with filings requirements.
US fuel cell and power holding company Distributed Energy Systems dropped out of the Generation Efficiency & Smart Distribution sector, while Solar lost Emcore, the US semiconductor solutions developer, which was also facing delisting from the NASDAQ due to delayed filing of its results. NYSE-listed Hexcel, a carbon fibre manufacturer company, left the Services & Suppliers sector.
The rebalancing leaves the NEX with 84 constituents - Solar remains the biggest sector in the NEX, with 16 constituents, followed by Biofuels, Biomass & Waste-to-Energy with 14 and Wind with 12. But Demand-Side Energy Saving consolidates its position as fourth biggest sector, with 10 members while Power Storage (6) and Services & Suppliers (5) slip back. There are seven companies each in Hydrogen & Fuel Cells, Generation Efficiency & Smart Distribution and Renewables - Other, which encompasses geothermal and mini-hydroelectric power.
North America remains home to the most NEX members, with 19 listed on NASDAQ, along with nine on the New York Stock Exchange and four in Toronto.However, the geographical spread of the NEX continues to advance, with 30 companies listed on European exchanges, 21 in Asia and two in South America.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Powered by the Sun: Poway School Adopts Solar Energy
A Matter of Degrees: Climate Change in San Diego
Ana Tintocalis
Monterey Ridge Elementary in the Poway Unified School District is the newest in a growing list of solar powered schools in San Diego County. KPBS education reporter Ana Tintocalis explains why there’s a lot more to this school than just solar panels.
Monterey Ridge is the only school in San Diego County with such a big focus on the environment. In fact, the school’s mascot is the Monarch butterfly, and the school colors are rust and green. But it’s the campus’ huge solar power system that really captivates young minds. More than 20,000 square feet of large black solar panels blanket the hillside behind the campus.
Nine-year-old Yung Wu Son compares the solar panels to the leaves of a tree. Principal Rebecca Wardlow says the system is an essential teaching tool at the school. She says even grownups want to learn more.
The solar panels provide up to 60 percent of the school’s energy needs. Wardlow admits the system was expensive. The price tag is $1.5 million. The district is paying $900,000 of that amount, and a state rebate covers the rest. Poway Unified won’t recoup the expenses for another 15 years.
The expensive project is a major reason why other school districts are reluctant to go solar. But Wardlow believes it’s all worth it for her school. The campus is using clean, renewable energy instead of producing tons of carbon dioxide.
But Wardlow says the biggest payoff is knowing her students are gaining valuable knowledge about renewable energy and energy conservation. Science teachers develop lessons based on how the expansive solar energy system works. Ten-year-old Alexandria Davis.
Students also learn why many scientists believe the greenhouse effect is making the world a warmer place. Teacher Susan Mahoney uses the school’s own pint-size greenhouse to show how plants are affected by good and bad levels of certain gases.
Ana Tintocalis
Monterey Ridge Elementary in the Poway Unified School District is the newest in a growing list of solar powered schools in San Diego County. KPBS education reporter Ana Tintocalis explains why there’s a lot more to this school than just solar panels.
Monterey Ridge is the only school in San Diego County with such a big focus on the environment. In fact, the school’s mascot is the Monarch butterfly, and the school colors are rust and green. But it’s the campus’ huge solar power system that really captivates young minds. More than 20,000 square feet of large black solar panels blanket the hillside behind the campus.
Nine-year-old Yung Wu Son compares the solar panels to the leaves of a tree. Principal Rebecca Wardlow says the system is an essential teaching tool at the school. She says even grownups want to learn more.
The solar panels provide up to 60 percent of the school’s energy needs. Wardlow admits the system was expensive. The price tag is $1.5 million. The district is paying $900,000 of that amount, and a state rebate covers the rest. Poway Unified won’t recoup the expenses for another 15 years.
The expensive project is a major reason why other school districts are reluctant to go solar. But Wardlow believes it’s all worth it for her school. The campus is using clean, renewable energy instead of producing tons of carbon dioxide.
But Wardlow says the biggest payoff is knowing her students are gaining valuable knowledge about renewable energy and energy conservation. Science teachers develop lessons based on how the expansive solar energy system works. Ten-year-old Alexandria Davis.
Students also learn why many scientists believe the greenhouse effect is making the world a warmer place. Teacher Susan Mahoney uses the school’s own pint-size greenhouse to show how plants are affected by good and bad levels of certain gases.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
State explores renewable energy powered by tides
The Associated Press
NEW YORK - The murky waterways around the city aren't exactly what spring to mind at the mention of an environmentally friendly location.Cesspool, perhaps. Or rumored resting place of countless mobsters. But not a green zone.
The state thinks otherwise. New York and a Virginia-based company have partnered to use the East River as the staging ground for a unique experiment in renewable energy.
They are placing six windmills underwater on the east side of Roosevelt Island to harness kinetic energy in the tides to produce electricity - without having to dam the water.
As the river's current rotates the giant turbines, the energy is converted into electricity that is powering a grocery store and a garage on Roosevelt Island. One of the turbines is already in operation, and five more are being installed in the next two weeks as part of the $7 million project.
“We're looking for the most cost-effective way to get the most energy out of moving water while having a positive impact on the environment,” said Verdant Power President Trey Taylor.
The technology is based on the same principles of hydropower and wind power.Wind energy uses turbines that harness drafts of air which is converted to power, and dams use the kinetic energy in moving water.
The East River turbines resemble windmills, but were specially crafted to move with river currents.Project organizers say it's the first time the concept has been used in the U.S.
Taylor started work on the effort about eight years ago, and is in a final, 18-month testing phase.The regulations governing such projects here are stringent, but Taylor hopes that will show the project can succeed anywhere.
“We picked New York on purpose, because the regulations are so strict, and also because the East River is a tidal strait, there is a high current,” Taylor said. “You know what they say about New York. If you can make it here ... ”One downside to the technology is that there isn't always a current, so on average, the turbines rotate enough to generate electricity about 77 percent of the time.
At full capacity, the 10-megawatt project could power as much as 10,000 homes.
It may not seem like much, but it's a step in the right direction, environmentalists say. The U.S. gets most its power from coal-fired plants, then natural gas and hydropower. Offshore wind farms have been growing in popularity around the country, but they frequently run into opposition.
“The biggest source of power is burning oil, coal and all of that,” Taylor said. “That contributes to greenhouse gases, and in a city where this many people live, the idea of having a clean energy source is a real appeal.”
New York City released a report this week saying that it produces nearly 1 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions.Naturally there are environmental concerns with the project, chiefly, sediment changes and damage to fish populations.
The river isn't quite the cesspool it was 30 years ago, and is home to striped bass, herring, smelt and sturgeon.Many fish species travel between the ocean and the river, and if the turbines alter the behavior, it could dramatically affect fisheries.
Taylor said the fish near the turbines are being monitored using sonar equipment, and the river bottom is mostly bedrock, so no sediment is being kicked up by the rotation. Commercial boats do not use that section of the river, so the shipping industry is not affected by the project.
Environmental groups would like to see a year's worth of data before deciding whether the turbines have any significant effects on the water, but so far, they are pleased.
“The idea that it is renewable energy is a really good thing,” said Robert Goldstein, an attorney for the environmental group Riverkeeper.
“They seem to be acting very careful, and moving forward in a responsible way.”The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has funded nearly $2 million to help with the cost of design and environmental testing, and has high hopes for the project.
“We've had some blade failures, but we've already gotten back some great test results,” said Ray Hull, spokesman for authority.
“This could be a significant advance in renewable energy.”Hull said the economics are hard to ignore, too.“During high tide periods in July and August, when there is such a demand for power, this could be pretty good stuff, financially speaking.”
If more power is available, there's a lower chance of suffering through another summer of disastrous blackouts.A 2006 blackout in Queens affected more than 100,000 people and Con Edison has been under pressure to come up with a plan to avoid similar problems.
Taylor is thinking bigger. He eventually hopes to outsource manufacturing to assembly plants, and form joint partnerships with city energy suppliers, like Keyspan.He wants to place the technology in U.S. rivers like the St. Lawrence or Mississippi, and around the world.
“There are so many people that don't have access to electricity around the world,” he said. “But many live near running water.”
NEW YORK - The murky waterways around the city aren't exactly what spring to mind at the mention of an environmentally friendly location.Cesspool, perhaps. Or rumored resting place of countless mobsters. But not a green zone.
The state thinks otherwise. New York and a Virginia-based company have partnered to use the East River as the staging ground for a unique experiment in renewable energy.
They are placing six windmills underwater on the east side of Roosevelt Island to harness kinetic energy in the tides to produce electricity - without having to dam the water.
As the river's current rotates the giant turbines, the energy is converted into electricity that is powering a grocery store and a garage on Roosevelt Island. One of the turbines is already in operation, and five more are being installed in the next two weeks as part of the $7 million project.
“We're looking for the most cost-effective way to get the most energy out of moving water while having a positive impact on the environment,” said Verdant Power President Trey Taylor.
The technology is based on the same principles of hydropower and wind power.Wind energy uses turbines that harness drafts of air which is converted to power, and dams use the kinetic energy in moving water.
The East River turbines resemble windmills, but were specially crafted to move with river currents.Project organizers say it's the first time the concept has been used in the U.S.
Taylor started work on the effort about eight years ago, and is in a final, 18-month testing phase.The regulations governing such projects here are stringent, but Taylor hopes that will show the project can succeed anywhere.
“We picked New York on purpose, because the regulations are so strict, and also because the East River is a tidal strait, there is a high current,” Taylor said. “You know what they say about New York. If you can make it here ... ”One downside to the technology is that there isn't always a current, so on average, the turbines rotate enough to generate electricity about 77 percent of the time.
At full capacity, the 10-megawatt project could power as much as 10,000 homes.
It may not seem like much, but it's a step in the right direction, environmentalists say. The U.S. gets most its power from coal-fired plants, then natural gas and hydropower. Offshore wind farms have been growing in popularity around the country, but they frequently run into opposition.
“The biggest source of power is burning oil, coal and all of that,” Taylor said. “That contributes to greenhouse gases, and in a city where this many people live, the idea of having a clean energy source is a real appeal.”
New York City released a report this week saying that it produces nearly 1 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions.Naturally there are environmental concerns with the project, chiefly, sediment changes and damage to fish populations.
The river isn't quite the cesspool it was 30 years ago, and is home to striped bass, herring, smelt and sturgeon.Many fish species travel between the ocean and the river, and if the turbines alter the behavior, it could dramatically affect fisheries.
Taylor said the fish near the turbines are being monitored using sonar equipment, and the river bottom is mostly bedrock, so no sediment is being kicked up by the rotation. Commercial boats do not use that section of the river, so the shipping industry is not affected by the project.
Environmental groups would like to see a year's worth of data before deciding whether the turbines have any significant effects on the water, but so far, they are pleased.
“The idea that it is renewable energy is a really good thing,” said Robert Goldstein, an attorney for the environmental group Riverkeeper.
“They seem to be acting very careful, and moving forward in a responsible way.”The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority has funded nearly $2 million to help with the cost of design and environmental testing, and has high hopes for the project.
“We've had some blade failures, but we've already gotten back some great test results,” said Ray Hull, spokesman for authority.
“This could be a significant advance in renewable energy.”Hull said the economics are hard to ignore, too.“During high tide periods in July and August, when there is such a demand for power, this could be pretty good stuff, financially speaking.”
If more power is available, there's a lower chance of suffering through another summer of disastrous blackouts.A 2006 blackout in Queens affected more than 100,000 people and Con Edison has been under pressure to come up with a plan to avoid similar problems.
Taylor is thinking bigger. He eventually hopes to outsource manufacturing to assembly plants, and form joint partnerships with city energy suppliers, like Keyspan.He wants to place the technology in U.S. rivers like the St. Lawrence or Mississippi, and around the world.
“There are so many people that don't have access to electricity around the world,” he said. “But many live near running water.”
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Wave Power to Replace Gas in Zanzibar?
Zanzibar is considering the possibility of turning Indian Ocean currents and waves into electric power to make the utmost of its geological position as an archipelago off east Africa.
If the initial study proves viable, the Zanzibar Utilities Company will build a power plant on the Pemba Island, one of the three major islands consisting the archipelago, which enjoys a history of strong currents and tidal waves.
The company expects to resort to power generated from tidal waves or ocean currents to turn the table against its loss-making situation. It now spends an average of 200 million Tanzanian shillings (200,000 US dollars) per month to generate power via gas turbines whereas it collects 60 million shillings (60,000 dollars) for its power supply.
Ocean energy constitutes to a large unexploited source of renewable energy and wave power therefore commands a good economical potential.
The Zanzibar Utilities Company will wait for the initial study to decide on whether to benefit from the wave power or the tidal power, which dictate two different energy converters to transform wave energy or tidal energy into electricity.
With prices of non-renewable natural gas rising in many countries around the world as readily accessible supplies dwindle, those countries which have a suitable stretch of coastline and are unwilling to invest the huge sums of money some of the world’s richest countries are spending on LNG (liquid natural gas) terminals may find wave and/or tidal power to be a viable and renewable alternative.
If the initial study proves viable, the Zanzibar Utilities Company will build a power plant on the Pemba Island, one of the three major islands consisting the archipelago, which enjoys a history of strong currents and tidal waves.
The company expects to resort to power generated from tidal waves or ocean currents to turn the table against its loss-making situation. It now spends an average of 200 million Tanzanian shillings (200,000 US dollars) per month to generate power via gas turbines whereas it collects 60 million shillings (60,000 dollars) for its power supply.
Ocean energy constitutes to a large unexploited source of renewable energy and wave power therefore commands a good economical potential.
The Zanzibar Utilities Company will wait for the initial study to decide on whether to benefit from the wave power or the tidal power, which dictate two different energy converters to transform wave energy or tidal energy into electricity.
With prices of non-renewable natural gas rising in many countries around the world as readily accessible supplies dwindle, those countries which have a suitable stretch of coastline and are unwilling to invest the huge sums of money some of the world’s richest countries are spending on LNG (liquid natural gas) terminals may find wave and/or tidal power to be a viable and renewable alternative.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Underwater Windmill Helps Power Arctic Village
John Roach
National Geographic News
Energy derived from the moon now trickles into a village near the Arctic tip of Norway via a novel underwater windmill-like device powered by the rhythmic slosh of the tides.
The so-called tidal turbine is bolted to the floor of the Kvalsund Channel and was connected to the nearby town of Hammerfest's power grid on September 20. It is the first time in the world that electricity directly from a tidal current has been fed into a power grid.
The gravitational tug of the moon produces a swift tidal current there that courses through the channel at about 8 feet (2.5 meters) per second and spins the 33-foot-(10-meter) long blades of the turbine.
The blades automatically turn to face the ebb and flow of the tide and rotate at a pace of seven revolutions per minute, which is sufficient to produce 700,000 kilowatt hours of non-polluting energy per year—enough to power about 35 Norwegian homes (70 U.S. homes).
"Basically it's like putting a windmill in the water," said Bjørn Bekken, a project manager for Hammerfest Strøm, the company that built the device.
Richard Charter, a marine conservation advocate with Environmental Defense in Oakland, California, said the system has the potential to be a significant contributor to the natural energy mix, but warrants careful development.
"The good news is there are no carbon emissions, no radioactive plume or nuclear waste, no oil spill trajectory, and no chemical pollution," he said. "The thing is estuarine ecosystems are very sensitive."
The technology is so new, said Charter, that its impacts on things such as fish migration and water circulation patterns are not well understood. Environmental Defense is concerned the technology will be widely implemented too quickly.
"As an organization, we are generally supportive of a careful, methodical look at this technology," said Charter, "but it is too soon to make a call as to if it is the Promised Land of renewable energy."
Alternative Energy
Proponents of the tidal turbine technology say it is a welcome, environmentally friendly alternative-energy option. One key advantage over wind and solar power is that the energy output is 100 percent predictable, said Bekken.
"The tidal stream is going to be there and it is going to be exactly the same, you can predict it at all times," he said.
Breezes can be too weak or too strong for windmills to work properly and in places like the north of Norway the sun completely disappears for several months each year, rendering solar power inefficient in winter. The tides, however, are as sure as the moon.
Tidal turbines are also hidden beneath the surface of the water and thus do not blight the visual horizon. Windmills have been criticized as an eyesore by several community and environmental groups.
The tips of the blades are 66 feet (20 meters) below the water's surface, allowing clear passage for ships and slowly rotate led by their rounded edge, thus posing little threat to fish and other sea critters, according to Bekken.
The one adverse impact recognized by proponents of the technology is to the fishing industry, as fishing equipment could get tangled up in the turbines. As a result, fishing must be restricted in turbine locations.
Technological Advance
Since the 1960s, energy producers have reaped electricity from the tides by trapping the high tide in artificial lagoons with dams. When the tide goes out, gravity sucks the water through turbines to generate electricity, much like a hydroelectric system on a river.
Environmentalists and fisheries groups, however, said the projects—the largest of which is in la Rance, France—damage habitat and alter water circulation patterns as far out as 300 miles (500 kilometers) from the power plant.
The tidal turbines, by contrast, do not require a dam. The structures are simply plunked into the water and bolted to the seafloor.
"This one may have the ability to harvest enough energy to make it worthwhile and not interfere with circulatory patterns, but it will probably be a site-specific equation," said Charter.
The tidal turbine technology is only just now being attempted because it has taken several decades for the wind industry to perfect the windmill, a design the tidal turbine engineers borrow heavily from, said Bekken.
"Also, advances in sub-sea technology have been brought up to the level where we can use it for this kind of project as well," he said.
For example, Charter said that advances in materials science in the last decade have allowed engineers to design equipment that can withstand the corrosive effects of salt water.
Once the technology is scaled up, Bekken hopes the costs of tidal turbines to be comparable with windmills. The development cost of the prototype is about U.S. $11 million to date.
In order to keep maintenance costs down, duplicates of all important systems are built into the turbine so that if one breaks the other can be switched on instead of having to dispatch a scuba diver to fix it.
The project's backers, which in addition to Hammerfest Strøm include the Norwegian oil group Statoil, the international engineering group ABB, Norwegian arm of Rolls Royce, and local Norwegian utilities, hope to sell thousands of the units to help Europe meet its green energy requirements.
National Geographic News
Energy derived from the moon now trickles into a village near the Arctic tip of Norway via a novel underwater windmill-like device powered by the rhythmic slosh of the tides.
The so-called tidal turbine is bolted to the floor of the Kvalsund Channel and was connected to the nearby town of Hammerfest's power grid on September 20. It is the first time in the world that electricity directly from a tidal current has been fed into a power grid.
The gravitational tug of the moon produces a swift tidal current there that courses through the channel at about 8 feet (2.5 meters) per second and spins the 33-foot-(10-meter) long blades of the turbine.
The blades automatically turn to face the ebb and flow of the tide and rotate at a pace of seven revolutions per minute, which is sufficient to produce 700,000 kilowatt hours of non-polluting energy per year—enough to power about 35 Norwegian homes (70 U.S. homes).
"Basically it's like putting a windmill in the water," said Bjørn Bekken, a project manager for Hammerfest Strøm, the company that built the device.
Richard Charter, a marine conservation advocate with Environmental Defense in Oakland, California, said the system has the potential to be a significant contributor to the natural energy mix, but warrants careful development.
"The good news is there are no carbon emissions, no radioactive plume or nuclear waste, no oil spill trajectory, and no chemical pollution," he said. "The thing is estuarine ecosystems are very sensitive."
The technology is so new, said Charter, that its impacts on things such as fish migration and water circulation patterns are not well understood. Environmental Defense is concerned the technology will be widely implemented too quickly.
"As an organization, we are generally supportive of a careful, methodical look at this technology," said Charter, "but it is too soon to make a call as to if it is the Promised Land of renewable energy."
Alternative Energy
Proponents of the tidal turbine technology say it is a welcome, environmentally friendly alternative-energy option. One key advantage over wind and solar power is that the energy output is 100 percent predictable, said Bekken.
"The tidal stream is going to be there and it is going to be exactly the same, you can predict it at all times," he said.
Breezes can be too weak or too strong for windmills to work properly and in places like the north of Norway the sun completely disappears for several months each year, rendering solar power inefficient in winter. The tides, however, are as sure as the moon.
Tidal turbines are also hidden beneath the surface of the water and thus do not blight the visual horizon. Windmills have been criticized as an eyesore by several community and environmental groups.
The tips of the blades are 66 feet (20 meters) below the water's surface, allowing clear passage for ships and slowly rotate led by their rounded edge, thus posing little threat to fish and other sea critters, according to Bekken.
The one adverse impact recognized by proponents of the technology is to the fishing industry, as fishing equipment could get tangled up in the turbines. As a result, fishing must be restricted in turbine locations.
Technological Advance
Since the 1960s, energy producers have reaped electricity from the tides by trapping the high tide in artificial lagoons with dams. When the tide goes out, gravity sucks the water through turbines to generate electricity, much like a hydroelectric system on a river.
Environmentalists and fisheries groups, however, said the projects—the largest of which is in la Rance, France—damage habitat and alter water circulation patterns as far out as 300 miles (500 kilometers) from the power plant.
The tidal turbines, by contrast, do not require a dam. The structures are simply plunked into the water and bolted to the seafloor.
"This one may have the ability to harvest enough energy to make it worthwhile and not interfere with circulatory patterns, but it will probably be a site-specific equation," said Charter.
The tidal turbine technology is only just now being attempted because it has taken several decades for the wind industry to perfect the windmill, a design the tidal turbine engineers borrow heavily from, said Bekken.
"Also, advances in sub-sea technology have been brought up to the level where we can use it for this kind of project as well," he said.
For example, Charter said that advances in materials science in the last decade have allowed engineers to design equipment that can withstand the corrosive effects of salt water.
Once the technology is scaled up, Bekken hopes the costs of tidal turbines to be comparable with windmills. The development cost of the prototype is about U.S. $11 million to date.
In order to keep maintenance costs down, duplicates of all important systems are built into the turbine so that if one breaks the other can be switched on instead of having to dispatch a scuba diver to fix it.
The project's backers, which in addition to Hammerfest Strøm include the Norwegian oil group Statoil, the international engineering group ABB, Norwegian arm of Rolls Royce, and local Norwegian utilities, hope to sell thousands of the units to help Europe meet its green energy requirements.
Monday, April 2, 2007
CSU looks to turn wind from annoyance to asset
By Associated Press
FORT COLLINS - Those old blue northers that can blow you over or spill your coffee cup will be turned to profit within a decade.
Within eight years, Colorado State University plans to get all its electric power from its own wind farm at a cost of $100 million to $300 million.
The CSU Green Power Project will build a wind farm in northern Colorado that generates more power than the school consumes. It also will include a laboratory for studies on wind power. The area has long been a national wind resource.
The university's nonprofit research foundation made a deal with Wind Holding LLC to build the farm on the university's 11,000-acre Maxwell Ranch near the Wyoming border, a very windy area.
"The Colorado State University Green Power Project is just another step in the university's overall goal to develop reliable and ecologically sound energy alternatives to fossil fuels and to continue groundbreaking research in this area," said Colorado State President Larry Edward Penley. "Colorado State is a leader in global renewable energy solutions, whether that involves running our snowplows on befouls or installing clean-burning, electricity-generating cookstoves in the underdeveloped world."
For decades, the university used biofuels and stepped up recycling as well as reducing water use. The school began offering residence halls and university apartment renters the option of buying green power in 2001.
The school also has many clean energy research projects.
"This is an unprecedented opportunity for a private sector wind power company to combine its years of practical expertise with the world-class green energy research capabilities of Colorado State University," said Bruce Morley, CEO of Wind Holding LLC. "This synergy could result in a quantum technology advance in developing solutions for a pressing domestic energy challenge."
The company has two years to start the project and eight years to finish with a minimum power production of 65 megawatts with a potential of 200 megawatts from 25 wind turbines. CSU, with 25,000 students, has a peak demand of 16 megawatts.
"By powering the university with wind and opening its wind farm to university students and researchers, Colorado State is demonstrating a commitment to developing renewable energy technologies that can provide our nation with secure and clean domestic sources of energy," said Stan Bull, associate director at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
FORT COLLINS - Those old blue northers that can blow you over or spill your coffee cup will be turned to profit within a decade.
Within eight years, Colorado State University plans to get all its electric power from its own wind farm at a cost of $100 million to $300 million.
The CSU Green Power Project will build a wind farm in northern Colorado that generates more power than the school consumes. It also will include a laboratory for studies on wind power. The area has long been a national wind resource.
The university's nonprofit research foundation made a deal with Wind Holding LLC to build the farm on the university's 11,000-acre Maxwell Ranch near the Wyoming border, a very windy area.
"The Colorado State University Green Power Project is just another step in the university's overall goal to develop reliable and ecologically sound energy alternatives to fossil fuels and to continue groundbreaking research in this area," said Colorado State President Larry Edward Penley. "Colorado State is a leader in global renewable energy solutions, whether that involves running our snowplows on befouls or installing clean-burning, electricity-generating cookstoves in the underdeveloped world."
For decades, the university used biofuels and stepped up recycling as well as reducing water use. The school began offering residence halls and university apartment renters the option of buying green power in 2001.
The school also has many clean energy research projects.
"This is an unprecedented opportunity for a private sector wind power company to combine its years of practical expertise with the world-class green energy research capabilities of Colorado State University," said Bruce Morley, CEO of Wind Holding LLC. "This synergy could result in a quantum technology advance in developing solutions for a pressing domestic energy challenge."
The company has two years to start the project and eight years to finish with a minimum power production of 65 megawatts with a potential of 200 megawatts from 25 wind turbines. CSU, with 25,000 students, has a peak demand of 16 megawatts.
"By powering the university with wind and opening its wind farm to university students and researchers, Colorado State is demonstrating a commitment to developing renewable energy technologies that can provide our nation with secure and clean domestic sources of energy," said Stan Bull, associate director at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Once a Dream Fuel, Palm Oil May Be an Eco-Nightmare
AMSTERDAM, Jan. 25 — Just a few years ago, politicians and environmental groups in the Netherlands were thrilled by the early and rapid adoption of “sustainable energy,” achieved in part by coaxing electrical plants to use biofuel — in particular, palm oil from Southeast Asia.
Spurred by government subsidies, energy companies became so enthusiastic that they designed generators that ran exclusively on the oil, which in theory would be cleaner than fossil fuels like coal because it is derived from plants.
But last year, when scientists studied practices at palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, this green fairy tale began to look more like an environmental nightmare.
Rising demand for palm oil in Europe brought about the clearing of huge tracts of Southeast Asian rainforest and the overuse of chemical fertilizer there.
Worse still, the scientists said, space for the expanding palm plantations was often created by draining and burning peatland, which sent huge amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Considering these emissions, Indonesia had quickly become the world’s third-leading producer of carbon emissions that scientists believe are responsible for global warming, ranked after the United States and China, according to a study released in December by researchers from Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics, both in the Netherlands.
“It was shocking and totally smashed all the good reasons we initially went into palm oil,” said Alex Kaat, a spokesman for Wetlands, a conservation group.
The production of biofuels, long a cornerstone of the quest for greener energy, may sometimes create more harmful emissions than fossil fuels, scientific studies are finding.
As a result, politicians in many countries are rethinking the billions of dollars in subsidies that have indiscriminately supported the spread of all of these supposedly eco-friendly fuels for vehicles and factories. The 2003 European Union Biofuels Directive, which demands that all member states aim to have 5.75 percent of transportation run by biofuel in 2010, is now under review.
“If you make biofuels properly, you will reduce greenhouse emissions,” said Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. “But that depends very much on the types of plants and how they’re grown and processed. You can end up with a 90 percent reduction compared to fossil fuels — or a 20 percent increase.”
He added, “It’s important to take a life-cycle view,” and not to “just see what the effects are here in Europe.”
In the Netherlands, the data from Indonesia has provoked soul-searching, and helped prompt the government to suspend palm oil subsidies. The Netherlands, a leader in green energy, is now leading the effort to distinguish which biofuels are truly environmentally sound.
The government, environmental groups and some of the Netherlands’ “green energy” companies are trying to develop programs to trace the origins of imported palm oil, to certify which operations produce the oil in a responsible manner.
Krista van Velzen, a member of Parliament, said the Netherlands should pay compensation to Indonesia for the damage that palm oil has caused. “We can’t only think: does it pollute the Netherlands?”
In the United States and Brazil most biofuel is ethanol (made from corn in the United States and sugar in Brazil), used to power vehicles made to run on gasoline. In Europe it is mostly local rapeseed and sunflower oil, used to make diesel fuel.
In a small number of instances, plant oil is used in place of diesel fuel, without further refinement. But as many European countries push for more green energy, they are increasingly importing plant oils from the tropics, since there is simply not enough plant matter for fuel production at home.
On the surface, the environmental equation that supports biofuels is simple: Since they are derived from plants, biofuels absorb carbon while they are grown and release it when they are burned. In theory that neutralizes their emissions.
But the industry was promoted long before there was adequate research, said Reanne Creyghton, who runs Friends of the Earth’s campaign against palm oil here.
Biofuelswatch, an environment group in Britain, now says that “biofuels should not automatically be classed as renewable energy.” It supports a moratorium on subsidies until more research can determine whether various biofuels in different regions are produced in a nonpolluting manner.
Beyond that, the group suggests that all emissions arising from the production of a biofuel be counted as emissions in the country where the fuel is actually used, providing a clearer accounting of environmental costs.
The demand for palm oil in Europe has soared in the last two decades, first for use in food and cosmetics, and more recently for fuel. This versatile and cheap oil is used in about 10 percent of supermarket products, from chocolate to toothpaste, accounting for 21 percent of the global market for edible oils.
Palm oil produces the most energy of all vegetable oils for each unit of volume when burned. In much of Europe it is used as a substitute for diesel fuel, though in the Netherlands, the government has encouraged its use for electricity.
Supported by hundreds of millions of euros in national subsidies, the Netherlands rapidly became the leading importer of palm oil in Europe, taking in 1.7 million tons last year, nearly double the previous year.
The increasing demand has created damage far away. Friends of the Earth estimates that 87 percent of the deforestation in Malaysia from 1985 to 2000 was caused by new palm oil plantations. In Indonesia, the amount of land devoted to palm oil has increased 118 percent in the last eight years.
In December, scientists from Wetlands International released their calculations about the global emissions caused by palm farming on peatland.
Peat is an organic sponge that stores huge amounts of carbon, helping balance global emissions. Peatland is 90 percent water. But when it is drained, the Wetlands International scientists say, the stored carbon gases are released into the atmosphere.
To makes matters worse, once dried, peatland is often burned to clear ground for plantations. The Dutch study estimated that the draining of peatland in Indonesia releases 660 million ton of carbon a year into the atmosphere and that fires contributed 1.5 billion tons annually.
The total is equivalent to 8 percent of all global emissions caused annually by burning fossil fuels, the researchers said. “These emissions generated by peat drainage in Indonesia were not counted before,” said Mr. Kaat. “It was a totally ignored problem.” For the moment Wetlands is backing the certification system for palm oil imports.
But some environmental groups say palm oil cannot be produced sustainably at reasonable prices. They say palm oil is now cheap because of poor environmental practices and labor abuses.
“Yes, there have been bad examples in the palm oil industry,” said Arjen Brinkman, a company official at Biox, a young company that plans to build three palm oil electrical plants in Holland, using oil from palms grown on its own plantations in a manner that it says is responsible.
“But it is now clear,” he said, “that to serve Europe’s markets for biofuel and bioenergy, you will have to prove that you produce it sustainably — that you are producing less, not more CO2.”
Spurred by government subsidies, energy companies became so enthusiastic that they designed generators that ran exclusively on the oil, which in theory would be cleaner than fossil fuels like coal because it is derived from plants.
But last year, when scientists studied practices at palm plantations in Indonesia and Malaysia, this green fairy tale began to look more like an environmental nightmare.
Rising demand for palm oil in Europe brought about the clearing of huge tracts of Southeast Asian rainforest and the overuse of chemical fertilizer there.
Worse still, the scientists said, space for the expanding palm plantations was often created by draining and burning peatland, which sent huge amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Considering these emissions, Indonesia had quickly become the world’s third-leading producer of carbon emissions that scientists believe are responsible for global warming, ranked after the United States and China, according to a study released in December by researchers from Wetlands International and Delft Hydraulics, both in the Netherlands.
“It was shocking and totally smashed all the good reasons we initially went into palm oil,” said Alex Kaat, a spokesman for Wetlands, a conservation group.
The production of biofuels, long a cornerstone of the quest for greener energy, may sometimes create more harmful emissions than fossil fuels, scientific studies are finding.
As a result, politicians in many countries are rethinking the billions of dollars in subsidies that have indiscriminately supported the spread of all of these supposedly eco-friendly fuels for vehicles and factories. The 2003 European Union Biofuels Directive, which demands that all member states aim to have 5.75 percent of transportation run by biofuel in 2010, is now under review.
“If you make biofuels properly, you will reduce greenhouse emissions,” said Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen. “But that depends very much on the types of plants and how they’re grown and processed. You can end up with a 90 percent reduction compared to fossil fuels — or a 20 percent increase.”
He added, “It’s important to take a life-cycle view,” and not to “just see what the effects are here in Europe.”
In the Netherlands, the data from Indonesia has provoked soul-searching, and helped prompt the government to suspend palm oil subsidies. The Netherlands, a leader in green energy, is now leading the effort to distinguish which biofuels are truly environmentally sound.
The government, environmental groups and some of the Netherlands’ “green energy” companies are trying to develop programs to trace the origins of imported palm oil, to certify which operations produce the oil in a responsible manner.
Krista van Velzen, a member of Parliament, said the Netherlands should pay compensation to Indonesia for the damage that palm oil has caused. “We can’t only think: does it pollute the Netherlands?”
In the United States and Brazil most biofuel is ethanol (made from corn in the United States and sugar in Brazil), used to power vehicles made to run on gasoline. In Europe it is mostly local rapeseed and sunflower oil, used to make diesel fuel.
In a small number of instances, plant oil is used in place of diesel fuel, without further refinement. But as many European countries push for more green energy, they are increasingly importing plant oils from the tropics, since there is simply not enough plant matter for fuel production at home.
On the surface, the environmental equation that supports biofuels is simple: Since they are derived from plants, biofuels absorb carbon while they are grown and release it when they are burned. In theory that neutralizes their emissions.
But the industry was promoted long before there was adequate research, said Reanne Creyghton, who runs Friends of the Earth’s campaign against palm oil here.
Biofuelswatch, an environment group in Britain, now says that “biofuels should not automatically be classed as renewable energy.” It supports a moratorium on subsidies until more research can determine whether various biofuels in different regions are produced in a nonpolluting manner.
Beyond that, the group suggests that all emissions arising from the production of a biofuel be counted as emissions in the country where the fuel is actually used, providing a clearer accounting of environmental costs.
The demand for palm oil in Europe has soared in the last two decades, first for use in food and cosmetics, and more recently for fuel. This versatile and cheap oil is used in about 10 percent of supermarket products, from chocolate to toothpaste, accounting for 21 percent of the global market for edible oils.
Palm oil produces the most energy of all vegetable oils for each unit of volume when burned. In much of Europe it is used as a substitute for diesel fuel, though in the Netherlands, the government has encouraged its use for electricity.
Supported by hundreds of millions of euros in national subsidies, the Netherlands rapidly became the leading importer of palm oil in Europe, taking in 1.7 million tons last year, nearly double the previous year.
The increasing demand has created damage far away. Friends of the Earth estimates that 87 percent of the deforestation in Malaysia from 1985 to 2000 was caused by new palm oil plantations. In Indonesia, the amount of land devoted to palm oil has increased 118 percent in the last eight years.
In December, scientists from Wetlands International released their calculations about the global emissions caused by palm farming on peatland.
Peat is an organic sponge that stores huge amounts of carbon, helping balance global emissions. Peatland is 90 percent water. But when it is drained, the Wetlands International scientists say, the stored carbon gases are released into the atmosphere.
To makes matters worse, once dried, peatland is often burned to clear ground for plantations. The Dutch study estimated that the draining of peatland in Indonesia releases 660 million ton of carbon a year into the atmosphere and that fires contributed 1.5 billion tons annually.
The total is equivalent to 8 percent of all global emissions caused annually by burning fossil fuels, the researchers said. “These emissions generated by peat drainage in Indonesia were not counted before,” said Mr. Kaat. “It was a totally ignored problem.” For the moment Wetlands is backing the certification system for palm oil imports.
But some environmental groups say palm oil cannot be produced sustainably at reasonable prices. They say palm oil is now cheap because of poor environmental practices and labor abuses.
“Yes, there have been bad examples in the palm oil industry,” said Arjen Brinkman, a company official at Biox, a young company that plans to build three palm oil electrical plants in Holland, using oil from palms grown on its own plantations in a manner that it says is responsible.
“But it is now clear,” he said, “that to serve Europe’s markets for biofuel and bioenergy, you will have to prove that you produce it sustainably — that you are producing less, not more CO2.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
