money.cnn.com
March 10, 2010
DANBURY, Conn., March 10, 2010 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) - - FuelCell Energy, Inc., a leading manufacturer of high efficiency ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government, and utility customers, today announced subcontract awards totaling $2.1 million from Air Products. The prime contract to demonstrate a renewable hydrogen fueling station was awarded to Air Products by the California Air Resources Board and supported by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The project is to demonstrate an Air Products' concept which incorporates FuelCell Energy's DFC-H2® technology in a hydrogen fueling station. The DFC-H2® can produce clean power, heat and renewable hydrogen.
The hydrogen will supply the state-of-the-art hydrogen fueling station developed and to be installed by Air Products at the Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD) wastewater treatment facility in Fountain Valley, California. The system will be fueled with biogas from wastewater treatment operations and produce 300 kWs of power and up to 300 pounds of hydrogen per day. This hydrogen could be used for early market fuel-cell applications such as back up power and forklifts and is sufficient to fuel roughly 100 fuel-cell cars. The electricity will be available for use by OCSD for its operations.
"The award of the prime contracts giving rise to the announced subcontracts is a clear acknowledgement by DOE and California of the importance of using a renewable resource such as biogas to generate energy," said Christopher Bentley, FuelCell Energy's Executive Vice President of Government Research & Development Operations. "Our research indicates that hydrogen efficiently produced as a byproduct by the DFC-H2® can be less costly than hydrogen produced by other methods and can enable the expansion of ultra-clean, hydrogen production systems worldwide, while providing the benefits of distributed power generation."
During the past two years under the ongoing DOE program, FuelCell Energy and Air Products have developed a co-production test unit and successfully validated the test unit in 2009 at FuelCell Energy's research and development facility. The test unit produced hydrogen and power meeting the predeployment testing objectives in advance of its siting at OCSD. Details on Air Products' hydrogen fueling station technologies are provided at www.airproducts.com/h2energy.
Friday, 12 March 2010
Thursday, 11 March 2010
Hansen keen on next-generation nuclear power
Australian
Wednesday 10/3/2010 Page: 23
RENEWABLE energy won't save the planet so it's time to go nuclear, according to one of world's most high profile climate scientists. "We should undertake urgent focused research and development programs in next generation nuclear power," said atmospheric physicist James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute in New York.
While renewable energies such as solar and wind were gaining in economic competition with coal-fired plants, Professor Hansen said they wouldn't be able to provide baseload power for years to come. Even in Germany, which pushed renewables heavily, they generated only 7% of the nation's power. "It's just too expensive," said Professor Hansen, an expert in climate modelling, planetary atmospheres and the Earth's climate. "Right now, fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy, except for operating nuclear plants," he said on the first day of a lecture tour in Australia.
According to Professor Hansen, because the threat of global warming was so serious, nations such as the US, China and even Australia must crank up support for so-called third and fourth generation nuclear systems. "Current nuclear plants are the second generation. The third generation is ready to build now," he explained, pointing to conventional light water reactors, which generated heat by the fission of uranium fuel. Two fourth generation technologies are on the drawing board. Fast reactors use liquid sodium metal as a coolant for the fission of metallic solid fuel, including existing nuclear waste and weapons grade uranium and plutonium.
Thorium reactors use fluoride salt as the medium for the energy producing nuclear reaction, so they don't require production of fuel rods. Professor Hansen admitted he was a late convert to advanced nuclear power. "But fourth generation solves two of the problems that made me sceptical," he said. "One is nuclear waste. It uses over 99% of the fuels, while second and third generations use less than 1%, leaving a waste pile with a half-life of 100,000 years. Fourth generation burns almost all the fuel and waste has a half life of decades." No commercial scale fourth generation plants exist, but seven nations, including Japan, France and China, have expertise or research and development projects. Which will get their first? "That's an open question,' according to Professor Hansen.
Wednesday 10/3/2010 Page: 23
RENEWABLE energy won't save the planet so it's time to go nuclear, according to one of world's most high profile climate scientists. "We should undertake urgent focused research and development programs in next generation nuclear power," said atmospheric physicist James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and adjunct professor at Columbia University's Earth Institute in New York.While renewable energies such as solar and wind were gaining in economic competition with coal-fired plants, Professor Hansen said they wouldn't be able to provide baseload power for years to come. Even in Germany, which pushed renewables heavily, they generated only 7% of the nation's power. "It's just too expensive," said Professor Hansen, an expert in climate modelling, planetary atmospheres and the Earth's climate. "Right now, fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy, except for operating nuclear plants," he said on the first day of a lecture tour in Australia.
According to Professor Hansen, because the threat of global warming was so serious, nations such as the US, China and even Australia must crank up support for so-called third and fourth generation nuclear systems. "Current nuclear plants are the second generation. The third generation is ready to build now," he explained, pointing to conventional light water reactors, which generated heat by the fission of uranium fuel. Two fourth generation technologies are on the drawing board. Fast reactors use liquid sodium metal as a coolant for the fission of metallic solid fuel, including existing nuclear waste and weapons grade uranium and plutonium.
Thorium reactors use fluoride salt as the medium for the energy producing nuclear reaction, so they don't require production of fuel rods. Professor Hansen admitted he was a late convert to advanced nuclear power. "But fourth generation solves two of the problems that made me sceptical," he said. "One is nuclear waste. It uses over 99% of the fuels, while second and third generations use less than 1%, leaving a waste pile with a half-life of 100,000 years. Fourth generation burns almost all the fuel and waste has a half life of decades." No commercial scale fourth generation plants exist, but seven nations, including Japan, France and China, have expertise or research and development projects. Which will get their first? "That's an open question,' according to Professor Hansen.
Bottled Wind Could Be as Constant as Coal
www.wired.com
March 9, 2010
Wind power has made incredible inroads into the U.S, energy system thanks to big, efficient machines standing hundreds of feet tall. But the future of wind power may be underground. In the abandoned mines and sandstones of the Sinosteel-Midwest, compressed-air storage ventures are trying to convert the intermittent motions of the air into the kind of steady power that could displace coal. Compressed-air energy storage plants use compressors to store electricity generated when it's not needed. The air, pumped into large underground formations, is like a spring that's been squeezed and when it's needed, it can deliver a large percentage of the energy that it received.
The first and only such plant in the United States went online in 1991, and though the technology didn't take off, it did prove that it worked. And now, combining cheap wind energy and compressed-air storage could create a potent new force in the electricity markets. "This is the first nonhydro renewables technology that can replace coal in the dispatch order," said David Marcus, co-founder of General Compression, a new company that received $16 million in funding from investors including the utility Duke Energy to build a full-scale prototype of their energy storage system, which would be deployed with arrays of wind turbines.
The dispatch order is how grid operators decide which power plants to switch on. They have to balance the amount of generation and consumption or they risk the grid's stability. The amount of power people use goes up and down, but it stays above a certain level all the time. To meet that need, utilities buy consistent always-on power from the large, cheap coal and nuclear power plants that are the backbone of the electric grid.
The electricity they need to meet the peaks in energy demand is generated by what are known as peaking plants, usually powered by natural gas. When the wind is blowing, it is usually the cheapest peaking power available, so it keeps the natural gas plants shut off. If they want to replace coal plants in the pecking order, though, they'll have to work all the time. And to do that, they'll need a way to unlink themselves from the on-again, off-again nature of the wind. "It's a fractal problem," said Marcus. "You have intermittency problems on every time scale."
That problem has brought compressed-air energy storage roaring back. Marcus' company has a long way to go before they can turn their prototype system into the kind of technology that can be deployed at the nation's vast wind farms. But compressed air storage of one type or another is on the verge of becoming a mainstream power technology.
The nation's largest energy storage option right now is pumped hydroelectricity. When excess electricity is present in a system, it can be used to pump water up to a reservoir. Then, when that power is needed, the water is sent through a turbine to generate electricity. The U.S, electric system has 2.5 GWs of pumped hydro storage capacity, but most of the good, cheap sites are already occupied, and creating new reservoirs is not environmentally benign.
While wind farmers say storage isn't technically necessary until the amount of wind power on the grid exceeds 20 or 30% of the electrical load, private analysts, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Department of Energy have identified grid-scale storage as a key need for the rapidly diversifying electricity system. And going forward, compressed-air energy storage looks like the cheapest option available. Independent analysts have come to similar conclusions.
"CAES is the least cost, utility-scale, bulk-storage system available. If other factors such as its low environmental impact and high reliability are considered, CAES has an overwhelming advantage," one Department of Homeland Security physicist concluded in a 2007 paper in the journal Energy. In the last four months, four projects have gotten new funding. In December, the rights to a long-awaited project in Norton, Ohio, were purchased by First Energy, a large utility in the area. The Norton project could store 2.7 GWs of power in an abandoned limestone mine.
In California, PGE received a $24.9 million grant from the Energy Department to build a 300-MW plant in Kern County. New York State Electric and Gas received $29 million for a similar facility in the town of Reading, New York, using an existing salt cavern there. The Iowa Stored Energy Project received a $3.2 million forgivable loan from the state and will finish drilling its first research well in the next month. The plan is to attempt to store energy in porous sandstone, just like the 1.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that lie beneath the surface of the United States.
The man behind the technology slated to be used in the two Energy Department-backed projects is engineer Michael Nakhamkin, founder of Energy Storage Power Corporation. He designed the only U.S, compressed air storage plant, in McIntosh, Alabama. That plant was built in the late 1980s by a very small southern utility, the Alabama Electric Cooperative. They had a unique problem, Nakhamkin said, in that their daytime load far exceeded their nighttime load, the opposite of the regular pattern.
The big coal plant they needed to meet the daytime demand made too much power at night. Turning down the plant at night wasn't a good solution because coal plants work most efficiently at full capacity, and turning them down makes them dirtier. And even with the plant at full power during the day, the utility still had to buy power from other companies to meet their peak daytime demand. But with a storage plant, they could use the extra electricity made at night to satisfy their daytime peak demand.
Based on the first commercial plant ever built in Huntorf, Germany, the Electric Power Research Institute and Nakhamkin's engineering firm came up with a plan to store compressed air in a salt dome in Alabama. They created a geological pocket 900 feet long and up to 238 feet wide in the dome by pumping water into it to dissolve the rock salt. When the (briny) water was pumped back out, the salt resealed itself and they had an air-tight container: "The solution-mined cavern is a large subterranean pressure vessel," as an EPRI report explained.
During off-peak times, electricity runs a compressor which pumps the air down into the cavern. Then, when energy is needed, the air is released from the reserve to power a fairly standard turbine, with a little help from natural gas. The system has worked for more than 25 years. In 1991, when the plant went online, there were high hopes that the technology might catch on among utilities.
'We expect the CAES plant technology pioneered in Alabama to lead to widespread application in this country," said Robert Schainker, the manager of the Electric Power Research Institute's Energy Storage Program in a press release announcing the plant's completion. 'Three fourths of the United States has geology suitable for underground air storage. At present, more than a dozen utilities are evaluating sites for CAES application."
But with low fossil fuel prices and little intermittent renewable energy on the grid, there wasn't much incentive for utilities to build the plants. The plant saved money for the Alabama Electric Cooperative, but it wasn't "critical savings" as Nakhamkin put it. "Rich people don't talk about how to save five or 10 dollars," he said. Planning for the Iowa Stored Energy Project began in 2001, but at the time, it just didn't make economic sense for the small municipal utilities involved. "Without a lot of renewables, the business model for CAES is not that strong," Holst said. With wind sometimes producing as much as 15% of Iowa's electricity, the case for the business gets stronger every day.
Nakhamkin thinks the time has come for compressed air to take off, particularly with the new plant designs that incorporate the data from the McIntosh plant. "We analyzed several years of plant operation and from this, we generated a second generation of CAES technology," he said. "It's much more reliable and much more adjustable for the smart grid, for solar energy and a variety of wind power plants."
March 9, 2010
Wind power has made incredible inroads into the U.S, energy system thanks to big, efficient machines standing hundreds of feet tall. But the future of wind power may be underground. In the abandoned mines and sandstones of the Sinosteel-Midwest, compressed-air storage ventures are trying to convert the intermittent motions of the air into the kind of steady power that could displace coal. Compressed-air energy storage plants use compressors to store electricity generated when it's not needed. The air, pumped into large underground formations, is like a spring that's been squeezed and when it's needed, it can deliver a large percentage of the energy that it received.
The first and only such plant in the United States went online in 1991, and though the technology didn't take off, it did prove that it worked. And now, combining cheap wind energy and compressed-air storage could create a potent new force in the electricity markets. "This is the first nonhydro renewables technology that can replace coal in the dispatch order," said David Marcus, co-founder of General Compression, a new company that received $16 million in funding from investors including the utility Duke Energy to build a full-scale prototype of their energy storage system, which would be deployed with arrays of wind turbines.
The dispatch order is how grid operators decide which power plants to switch on. They have to balance the amount of generation and consumption or they risk the grid's stability. The amount of power people use goes up and down, but it stays above a certain level all the time. To meet that need, utilities buy consistent always-on power from the large, cheap coal and nuclear power plants that are the backbone of the electric grid.
The electricity they need to meet the peaks in energy demand is generated by what are known as peaking plants, usually powered by natural gas. When the wind is blowing, it is usually the cheapest peaking power available, so it keeps the natural gas plants shut off. If they want to replace coal plants in the pecking order, though, they'll have to work all the time. And to do that, they'll need a way to unlink themselves from the on-again, off-again nature of the wind. "It's a fractal problem," said Marcus. "You have intermittency problems on every time scale."
That problem has brought compressed-air energy storage roaring back. Marcus' company has a long way to go before they can turn their prototype system into the kind of technology that can be deployed at the nation's vast wind farms. But compressed air storage of one type or another is on the verge of becoming a mainstream power technology.
The nation's largest energy storage option right now is pumped hydroelectricity. When excess electricity is present in a system, it can be used to pump water up to a reservoir. Then, when that power is needed, the water is sent through a turbine to generate electricity. The U.S, electric system has 2.5 GWs of pumped hydro storage capacity, but most of the good, cheap sites are already occupied, and creating new reservoirs is not environmentally benign.
While wind farmers say storage isn't technically necessary until the amount of wind power on the grid exceeds 20 or 30% of the electrical load, private analysts, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Department of Energy have identified grid-scale storage as a key need for the rapidly diversifying electricity system. And going forward, compressed-air energy storage looks like the cheapest option available. Independent analysts have come to similar conclusions.
"CAES is the least cost, utility-scale, bulk-storage system available. If other factors such as its low environmental impact and high reliability are considered, CAES has an overwhelming advantage," one Department of Homeland Security physicist concluded in a 2007 paper in the journal Energy. In the last four months, four projects have gotten new funding. In December, the rights to a long-awaited project in Norton, Ohio, were purchased by First Energy, a large utility in the area. The Norton project could store 2.7 GWs of power in an abandoned limestone mine.
In California, PGE received a $24.9 million grant from the Energy Department to build a 300-MW plant in Kern County. New York State Electric and Gas received $29 million for a similar facility in the town of Reading, New York, using an existing salt cavern there. The Iowa Stored Energy Project received a $3.2 million forgivable loan from the state and will finish drilling its first research well in the next month. The plan is to attempt to store energy in porous sandstone, just like the 1.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that lie beneath the surface of the United States.
The man behind the technology slated to be used in the two Energy Department-backed projects is engineer Michael Nakhamkin, founder of Energy Storage Power Corporation. He designed the only U.S, compressed air storage plant, in McIntosh, Alabama. That plant was built in the late 1980s by a very small southern utility, the Alabama Electric Cooperative. They had a unique problem, Nakhamkin said, in that their daytime load far exceeded their nighttime load, the opposite of the regular pattern.
The big coal plant they needed to meet the daytime demand made too much power at night. Turning down the plant at night wasn't a good solution because coal plants work most efficiently at full capacity, and turning them down makes them dirtier. And even with the plant at full power during the day, the utility still had to buy power from other companies to meet their peak daytime demand. But with a storage plant, they could use the extra electricity made at night to satisfy their daytime peak demand.
Based on the first commercial plant ever built in Huntorf, Germany, the Electric Power Research Institute and Nakhamkin's engineering firm came up with a plan to store compressed air in a salt dome in Alabama. They created a geological pocket 900 feet long and up to 238 feet wide in the dome by pumping water into it to dissolve the rock salt. When the (briny) water was pumped back out, the salt resealed itself and they had an air-tight container: "The solution-mined cavern is a large subterranean pressure vessel," as an EPRI report explained.
During off-peak times, electricity runs a compressor which pumps the air down into the cavern. Then, when energy is needed, the air is released from the reserve to power a fairly standard turbine, with a little help from natural gas. The system has worked for more than 25 years. In 1991, when the plant went online, there were high hopes that the technology might catch on among utilities.
'We expect the CAES plant technology pioneered in Alabama to lead to widespread application in this country," said Robert Schainker, the manager of the Electric Power Research Institute's Energy Storage Program in a press release announcing the plant's completion. 'Three fourths of the United States has geology suitable for underground air storage. At present, more than a dozen utilities are evaluating sites for CAES application."
But with low fossil fuel prices and little intermittent renewable energy on the grid, there wasn't much incentive for utilities to build the plants. The plant saved money for the Alabama Electric Cooperative, but it wasn't "critical savings" as Nakhamkin put it. "Rich people don't talk about how to save five or 10 dollars," he said. Planning for the Iowa Stored Energy Project began in 2001, but at the time, it just didn't make economic sense for the small municipal utilities involved. "Without a lot of renewables, the business model for CAES is not that strong," Holst said. With wind sometimes producing as much as 15% of Iowa's electricity, the case for the business gets stronger every day.
Nakhamkin thinks the time has come for compressed air to take off, particularly with the new plant designs that incorporate the data from the McIntosh plant. "We analyzed several years of plant operation and from this, we generated a second generation of CAES technology," he said. "It's much more reliable and much more adjustable for the smart grid, for solar energy and a variety of wind power plants."
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Geothermal power sees place on grid
Adelaide Advertiser
Saturday 6/3/2010 Page: 87
Panax Geothermal's Penola project, which is on track to start production by late 2011, could produce electricity for less than the cost of wind power, managing director Bertus de Graaf said yesterday. Panax Geothermal aims to become the first grid-connected geothermal energy producer in Australia, with a 5.9-MW demonstration plant set for completion by the end of 2011. The company aims to ramp this up to 60mW soon after.
Dr de Graaf said yesterday the company's first deep geothermal well, Salamander-1, was at a depth of about 2900m, and would reach the target depth of 4km by mid-March. Unlike the geothermal projects in the Cooper Basin, which are targeting hot, dry rocks, the Panax Geothermal project is targeting existing hot aquifers. The drilling is currently near the top of the target reservoir. Dr de Graaf said the well would cost about $15 million to drill, with $7 million from the Federal Government's geothermal drilling program contributing to its completion.
The company also was using data from 28 historic, deep petroleum wells drilled in the region. This would have cost about $100 million to drill, had the company had to do it alone. Panax Geothermal will assess the data from Salamander-1, with a view to making an investment decision for the 5.9mW power plant this year. "Further expansion could lead to a geothermal power station more than 10 times larger by 2014," Dr de Graaf said.
Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, who officially declared the project open yesterday, said geothermal energy was vital if the nation was to achieve its target of deriving 20% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. "That's pretty challenging," he said. "At the moment, about 8.2% of our energy actually comes from renewables, predominantly hydro power - we have little capacity to actually grow hydro power.
"The early growth is going to be in wind power, but the real breakthrough we need is going to be in areas such as geothermal because it's baseload, reliable power." The Salamander-1 well is targeting water at temperatures of 150-200C at depths of 3.5km to 4km. The project remains 100% owned by Panax Geothermal, but the company said in its latest quarterly report it was looking for joint-venture partners.
Saturday 6/3/2010 Page: 87
Panax Geothermal's Penola project, which is on track to start production by late 2011, could produce electricity for less than the cost of wind power, managing director Bertus de Graaf said yesterday. Panax Geothermal aims to become the first grid-connected geothermal energy producer in Australia, with a 5.9-MW demonstration plant set for completion by the end of 2011. The company aims to ramp this up to 60mW soon after.
Dr de Graaf said yesterday the company's first deep geothermal well, Salamander-1, was at a depth of about 2900m, and would reach the target depth of 4km by mid-March. Unlike the geothermal projects in the Cooper Basin, which are targeting hot, dry rocks, the Panax Geothermal project is targeting existing hot aquifers. The drilling is currently near the top of the target reservoir. Dr de Graaf said the well would cost about $15 million to drill, with $7 million from the Federal Government's geothermal drilling program contributing to its completion.
The company also was using data from 28 historic, deep petroleum wells drilled in the region. This would have cost about $100 million to drill, had the company had to do it alone. Panax Geothermal will assess the data from Salamander-1, with a view to making an investment decision for the 5.9mW power plant this year. "Further expansion could lead to a geothermal power station more than 10 times larger by 2014," Dr de Graaf said.
Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson, who officially declared the project open yesterday, said geothermal energy was vital if the nation was to achieve its target of deriving 20% of its power from renewable sources by 2020. "That's pretty challenging," he said. "At the moment, about 8.2% of our energy actually comes from renewables, predominantly hydro power - we have little capacity to actually grow hydro power.
"The early growth is going to be in wind power, but the real breakthrough we need is going to be in areas such as geothermal because it's baseload, reliable power." The Salamander-1 well is targeting water at temperatures of 150-200C at depths of 3.5km to 4km. The project remains 100% owned by Panax Geothermal, but the company said in its latest quarterly report it was looking for joint-venture partners.
Stratco goes solar
Independent Weekly
Friday 5/3/2010 Page: 26
Leading building and hardware specialist Stratco is growing its presence in the renewable energy market with the launch of a new solar product. Developed by Stratco's own Research and Development team based at Gepps Cross in Adelaide, the solarcore product range represents a significant opportunity for the local business - which already specialises in roofing and guttering systems. After an intensive selection and optimising process, Stratco will release its solarcore range to the market this month.
Stratco's Michael Stenhouse said solid growth prospects for solar products coupled with unmet demand made the company's decision to go "solar" relatively simple. "The renewable energy market is one that will continue to grow and fits in well with our existing roofing and building product range, so it made sense to develop a product which was increasing in demand." Mr Stenhouse said. "Consumers are looking more and more for green products and solar hot water and photovoltaic (PV) systems are now routinely installed in new homes.
"The development of the product has been a significant investment but one we are sure will ultimately be worthwhile for both consumers and the Stratco business - with significant opportunities both interstate and internationally" solarcore's evacuated glass collector tubes collect heat from the sunlight during cool windy and overcast conditions as well as sunny days.
Friday 5/3/2010 Page: 26
Leading building and hardware specialist Stratco is growing its presence in the renewable energy market with the launch of a new solar product. Developed by Stratco's own Research and Development team based at Gepps Cross in Adelaide, the solarcore product range represents a significant opportunity for the local business - which already specialises in roofing and guttering systems. After an intensive selection and optimising process, Stratco will release its solarcore range to the market this month.
Stratco's Michael Stenhouse said solid growth prospects for solar products coupled with unmet demand made the company's decision to go "solar" relatively simple. "The renewable energy market is one that will continue to grow and fits in well with our existing roofing and building product range, so it made sense to develop a product which was increasing in demand." Mr Stenhouse said. "Consumers are looking more and more for green products and solar hot water and photovoltaic (PV) systems are now routinely installed in new homes.
"The development of the product has been a significant investment but one we are sure will ultimately be worthwhile for both consumers and the Stratco business - with significant opportunities both interstate and internationally" solarcore's evacuated glass collector tubes collect heat from the sunlight during cool windy and overcast conditions as well as sunny days.
Future's not looking sunny
www.smh.com.au
March 6, 2010
THE results are in and, going by the official projections, it's not looking encouraging for the penetration of renewable energy into the Australian market over the next 20 years - particularly solar. Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson released the first Australian Energy Resource Assessment this week, a comprehensive compilation of our renewable and non-renewable energy resources.
Published by Geoscience Australia and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE), it says that Australia could be a clean-energy superpower with a rich diversity of world-class solar, wind, geothermal and wave/tidal energy resources, as yet largely undeveloped. The assessment also includes projections, based on ABARE studies not yet released, of the potential uptake of renewable energy in electricity generation (which accounts for around half of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions).
ABARE's projections assume a cut in overall emissions of 5 per cent by 2020 - as the government pledged to do under the Copenhagen Accord - and unspecified emissions reductions thereafter, consistent with earlier Treasury modelling. It also assumes the carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) passes, our no-nuclear policy stays, and there is no significant adoption of carbon capture and storage technology over the next 20 years.
ABARE expects electricity demand would grow by half given continued growth in energy use, rising 1.8 per cent a year to 2030. The early emissions cuts would largely be achieved through a 20 per cent renewable energy target (RET). Once the renewable energy target is reached, ABARE expects the market share of renewable energy to drop back slightly, from 20 per cent to 19 per cent between 2020 and 2030. According to the report, the CPRS is fully replaced by the RET from 2020, but there would be a slight decline in the uptake of renewables as gas increases its market share.
So from now until 2030, it says, Australia's electricity generation will rise from 247TWh to 366TWh and will come less from coal (down from 77 per cent to 43 per cent), more from gas (up from 16 per cent to 37 per cent) and more from renewables (from 7 per cent to 19 per cent). Hydro is least likely to be taken up, according to ABARE, generating 3.5 per cent of our overall electricity in 2030. That's because forecast climate change means we're increasingly short of water. Wind could grow quickly as a sector, with a growth rate of 12 per cent a year, to provide 12 per cent of the country's power supply.
Geothermal, so far unproven in this country, could grow fastest at 18 per cent a year, going from next to nothing to 6TWh to account for 1.5 per cent of electricity production. That's faster and bigger than solar, which goes from 0.1TWh to just 4TWh - a growth rate of 17 per cent a year for 20 years but still representing just 1 per cent of total production in 2030. The government commissioned the non-profit US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to model the cost-competitiveness of non-renewable and renewable energy technologies in Australia, with the help of WorleyParsons and an industry and government reference panel.
EPRI's data has not been published yet but the assessment includes the ''levellised cost'' of a range of technologies in 2015 and 2030. The levellised cost is the revenue, per unit of electricity generated, needed to break even over the life of a power station. The estimates did not include a carbon price and did not factor in transmission or network costs. CO2 emissions count those from electricity generation only - they don't factor in emissions from mining coal and gas uranium.
To some observers, the costs look high across the board at $70 per MWh and above - roughly double the prices we're used to. The upshot is that wind and geothermal - specifically, geothermal energy from hot sedimentary aquifers - jump straight to the top of the merit order. That's great. But nuclear power, gas and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS), beat all forms of solar. The Australian Solar Energy Society was not invited to join the EPRI reference panel and chief executive John Grimes rejected the findings yesterday. ''There are some fundamental assumptions that we would question,'' he said. ''They're showing PV (photovoltaic) as being cheaper than concentrating solar thermal-trough technology, and it's just not the case.''
Grimes says the actual cost of solar thermal today is around $200 per MWh and, in the US, Google-backed developers are quoting $US120-180 per MWh ($A133). ''We're forecasting a cost reduction of at least 50 per cent over the period, which would put it in parity with non-renewable energy by 2030, if not below,'' he said. ''The sooner the government invests in solar thermal technology, the sooner the price will fall. The opportunity for Australia in large-scale, utility-sized, solar-thermal plants is not reflected in this report.''
Australian Greens deputy leader Christine Milne was also scathing. ''Nobody, with the possible exception of Martin Ferguson, takes ABARE's energy reports seriously any more, and this latest is no exception,'' Senator Milne said. "Anyone who thinks that renewables will decline in Australia between 2020 and 2030 is living in a parallel universe, or deliberately ignoring the clear evidence of a boom in these zero emissions technologies," she said.
paddy.manning@fairfaxmedia.com.au
March 6, 2010
THE results are in and, going by the official projections, it's not looking encouraging for the penetration of renewable energy into the Australian market over the next 20 years - particularly solar. Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson released the first Australian Energy Resource Assessment this week, a comprehensive compilation of our renewable and non-renewable energy resources.
Published by Geoscience Australia and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE), it says that Australia could be a clean-energy superpower with a rich diversity of world-class solar, wind, geothermal and wave/tidal energy resources, as yet largely undeveloped. The assessment also includes projections, based on ABARE studies not yet released, of the potential uptake of renewable energy in electricity generation (which accounts for around half of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions).
ABARE's projections assume a cut in overall emissions of 5 per cent by 2020 - as the government pledged to do under the Copenhagen Accord - and unspecified emissions reductions thereafter, consistent with earlier Treasury modelling. It also assumes the carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) passes, our no-nuclear policy stays, and there is no significant adoption of carbon capture and storage technology over the next 20 years.
ABARE expects electricity demand would grow by half given continued growth in energy use, rising 1.8 per cent a year to 2030. The early emissions cuts would largely be achieved through a 20 per cent renewable energy target (RET). Once the renewable energy target is reached, ABARE expects the market share of renewable energy to drop back slightly, from 20 per cent to 19 per cent between 2020 and 2030. According to the report, the CPRS is fully replaced by the RET from 2020, but there would be a slight decline in the uptake of renewables as gas increases its market share.
So from now until 2030, it says, Australia's electricity generation will rise from 247TWh to 366TWh and will come less from coal (down from 77 per cent to 43 per cent), more from gas (up from 16 per cent to 37 per cent) and more from renewables (from 7 per cent to 19 per cent). Hydro is least likely to be taken up, according to ABARE, generating 3.5 per cent of our overall electricity in 2030. That's because forecast climate change means we're increasingly short of water. Wind could grow quickly as a sector, with a growth rate of 12 per cent a year, to provide 12 per cent of the country's power supply.
Geothermal, so far unproven in this country, could grow fastest at 18 per cent a year, going from next to nothing to 6TWh to account for 1.5 per cent of electricity production. That's faster and bigger than solar, which goes from 0.1TWh to just 4TWh - a growth rate of 17 per cent a year for 20 years but still representing just 1 per cent of total production in 2030. The government commissioned the non-profit US Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to model the cost-competitiveness of non-renewable and renewable energy technologies in Australia, with the help of WorleyParsons and an industry and government reference panel.
EPRI's data has not been published yet but the assessment includes the ''levellised cost'' of a range of technologies in 2015 and 2030. The levellised cost is the revenue, per unit of electricity generated, needed to break even over the life of a power station. The estimates did not include a carbon price and did not factor in transmission or network costs. CO2 emissions count those from electricity generation only - they don't factor in emissions from mining coal and gas uranium.
To some observers, the costs look high across the board at $70 per MWh and above - roughly double the prices we're used to. The upshot is that wind and geothermal - specifically, geothermal energy from hot sedimentary aquifers - jump straight to the top of the merit order. That's great. But nuclear power, gas and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS), beat all forms of solar. The Australian Solar Energy Society was not invited to join the EPRI reference panel and chief executive John Grimes rejected the findings yesterday. ''There are some fundamental assumptions that we would question,'' he said. ''They're showing PV (photovoltaic) as being cheaper than concentrating solar thermal-trough technology, and it's just not the case.''
Grimes says the actual cost of solar thermal today is around $200 per MWh and, in the US, Google-backed developers are quoting $US120-180 per MWh ($A133). ''We're forecasting a cost reduction of at least 50 per cent over the period, which would put it in parity with non-renewable energy by 2030, if not below,'' he said. ''The sooner the government invests in solar thermal technology, the sooner the price will fall. The opportunity for Australia in large-scale, utility-sized, solar-thermal plants is not reflected in this report.''
Australian Greens deputy leader Christine Milne was also scathing. ''Nobody, with the possible exception of Martin Ferguson, takes ABARE's energy reports seriously any more, and this latest is no exception,'' Senator Milne said. "Anyone who thinks that renewables will decline in Australia between 2020 and 2030 is living in a parallel universe, or deliberately ignoring the clear evidence of a boom in these zero emissions technologies," she said.
paddy.manning@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Monday, 8 March 2010
Confusion reigns over Japanese climate bill
www.carbon-financeonline.com
03 March, 2010
Japan's government is reviewing a proposed climate bill – just days after it was unveiled – following industry lobbying. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) released the bill last week for cabinet approval, a precursor to appearing before the legislature. But the Ministry of Environment (MOE)-drafted bill was yesterday withdrawn for further consideration and industry comment.
The bill contains the framework for the DPJ's climate change mitigation strategy as outlined in its 2009 election manifesto, and would enshrine the government's 2020 target, to reduce emissions by 25% from 1990 levels, provided other developed nations adopt similar cuts.
It also outlines, with few details, an emissions trading scheme (ETS) but does not mention mandatory emissions caps. It also mentions a possible carbon tax from 2011, a renewable energy feed-in tariff, and a goal to increase renewable energy from 1.3% of total generation capacity last year to 10% by 2020. However, according to media reports, an MOE spokesperson today denied claims that the bill would be delayed beyond the cabinet's planned 5 March approval. The ministry failed to return requests for comment.
"I think they are going to change the content of the bill again," said Yugo Nagata, an associate at law firm Baker and McKenzie in Tokyo. "The steel and electricity lobbies are against this bill; the cabinet did not have any chance to communicate with them about it and I think they now realise that they can't publicly decide on the bill at this time."
Since last year's change in government, communication between the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI) and industry groups has decreased. Under the previous administration, METI was seen as a conduit between the government and industry lobbies such as Nippon Keidanren.
"We understand that the ETS is also one of the sticking points," added Baker and McKenzie partner Gavin Raftery, "and we understand that industrial groups are voicing their opposition to that approach at this stage." "My feeling is that there are still strong opinions for and against an ETS," he continued, adding that METI minister Masayuki Naoshima has voiced concern about putting too many details of their plan into law prior to commensurate actions by other developed countries. He added that progress in the US on climate legislation may change industry views.
03 March, 2010
Japan's government is reviewing a proposed climate bill – just days after it was unveiled – following industry lobbying. The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) released the bill last week for cabinet approval, a precursor to appearing before the legislature. But the Ministry of Environment (MOE)-drafted bill was yesterday withdrawn for further consideration and industry comment.
The bill contains the framework for the DPJ's climate change mitigation strategy as outlined in its 2009 election manifesto, and would enshrine the government's 2020 target, to reduce emissions by 25% from 1990 levels, provided other developed nations adopt similar cuts.
It also outlines, with few details, an emissions trading scheme (ETS) but does not mention mandatory emissions caps. It also mentions a possible carbon tax from 2011, a renewable energy feed-in tariff, and a goal to increase renewable energy from 1.3% of total generation capacity last year to 10% by 2020. However, according to media reports, an MOE spokesperson today denied claims that the bill would be delayed beyond the cabinet's planned 5 March approval. The ministry failed to return requests for comment.
"I think they are going to change the content of the bill again," said Yugo Nagata, an associate at law firm Baker and McKenzie in Tokyo. "The steel and electricity lobbies are against this bill; the cabinet did not have any chance to communicate with them about it and I think they now realise that they can't publicly decide on the bill at this time."
Since last year's change in government, communication between the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI) and industry groups has decreased. Under the previous administration, METI was seen as a conduit between the government and industry lobbies such as Nippon Keidanren.
"We understand that the ETS is also one of the sticking points," added Baker and McKenzie partner Gavin Raftery, "and we understand that industrial groups are voicing their opposition to that approach at this stage." "My feeling is that there are still strong opinions for and against an ETS," he continued, adding that METI minister Masayuki Naoshima has voiced concern about putting too many details of their plan into law prior to commensurate actions by other developed countries. He added that progress in the US on climate legislation may change industry views.
Seize the initiative
Australian
Thursday 4/3/2010 Page: 1
While governments across the world dither, private industry is taking the lead on climate change.
SINCE before he was elected US president, Barack Obama made clear who he thought would dominate the world economy in the 21st century. It would be, he repeated in his State of the Union address last month, the country that led the transformation in the cleantech and clean energy sectors. The US has watched its early dominance of the silicon solar panel industry being assumed by China and Japan. It now fears that not only China but India, Brazil and others will seize the initiative to dominate other emerging industries and technologies.
The Copenhagen climate change talks may have ended in disarray, hopes for a binding treaty anytime soon may be in retreat and some conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be under the spotlight, but it seems clear that the transition to a low-carbon economy and towards clean technology is inevitable and accelerating. "China is not waiting to revamp its economy," Obama said in his speech. "Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. They are not standing still... They're rebuilding their infrastructure.
They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs." The question for Australia is how it seeks to position itself in what some are branding as the new space race. Present policies, particularly the proposed emissions trading scheme and faltering renewable energy target, have been framed, or at least justified, with a global climate change treaty in mind.
But too little of the push to innovate has been sold on the need to maintain pace with companies equally concerned with energy security and other environmental measures as about climate change. And too little about gathering some share of the trillions of dollars that will be directed towards clean technology and investments.
In the absence of an international treaty, most leading economies are pushing for change, as a national or regional initiative, in the form of an ETS, mandated clean energy targets, green stimulus packages and a host of subsidies, taxes and financing initiatives. "The lack of a binding international agreement on any of these issues at the Copenhagen summit last December has understandably created uncertainty in the minds of many potential climate change investor," Deutsche Bank's head of assets management Kevin Parker an in a recent report.
"This is unfortunate because what matters far more is that national governments all over the world are not waiting for a supra national framework. They are already pushing ahead with their own policies that will do far more than international regulation in the short to medium-term to stimulate private investment."
Deutsche Bank notes that immediately before and after the Copenhagen summit ended in disarray, more than 25 significant policy announcements were made from nations and states worldwide, with some of the most notable coming from the US, China, India, Taiwan, Brazil,Britain and South Korea. New national legislation is a hugely encouraging sign that matey countries not only understand the urgency of the climate change problem but see the competitive advantage of moving ands a low carbon economy," Parker writes.
He describes it as the "opportunity of a lifetime" investors to focus on the quality of regulation provided by individual countries because huge differences are emerging. "We believe these disparities will, over time, translate into massive differences in the amount of investment capital countries attract and the jobs they create in renewable energy and other climate change industries. Investment capital will find the best returns, wherever they are. Countries that fail to provide them will get left behind."
In a small but symbolic sign of the changing nature of technology and established industries, the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla last month signalled it would conduct a $US100 million initial public offering this week. It will be the first IPO in the US auto industry since Ford listed on the stock exchange in 1956. Tesla may well be a loss maker, but its public float has attracted the support of four heavyweight financiers Deutsche Bank, J P Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley which clearly have a vision of where their future bread will be buttered.
Morgan Stanley and HSBC also have taken principal positions in the $US350m raising by Better Place, the electric car network provider, which has completed the largest venture capital raising in the world in the past two years. And Warren Buffett, long touted as the world's smartest investor, is sitting on an eight fold return on a $US230m investment made two years ago in BYD. The Chinese battery and EV maker has ambitions of being the world's, largest car manufacturer and is already the biggest manufacturer of any sort in China.
Closer to home, Ausra, the company that began as an academic case study at the University of New South Wales and was then taken to the US to gain some financial backing, has been sold to Areva, the world's biggest nuclear energy group. Areva intends to use the Ausra technology as a flagship product in its push to dominate the solar thermal energy industry. Numerous other Australian clean-tech and clean energy developers find themselves at a crossroads.
A report by the advocacy group Beyond Zero Emissions found that Australia, in theory, could be powered by 100% renewable energy by 2020. But at its present rate of progress it seems unlikely that more than a few villages and hamlets, along with a handful of desalination plants, will be renewable at that time. Meanwhile, talented and innovative Australian developers are packing their bags for greener pastures overseas, where broader market based subsidies, tax incentives and loan guarantees are encouraging innovation in wind, solar, marine, energy storage and a host of other areas.
The irony is that while the likes of Scotland declare their intention to be the Saudi Arabia of marine energy systems, and Chile and Argentina make similar claims in regard to lithium-ion batteries, the key technology for EVs, Australia's natural resources could give it the ambition to become the Saudi Arabia of whichever energy source it wants. It has the capacity for geothermal, solar, wind or marine energy and to develop a corresponding industry.
So while the cadence of Australian policy continues to be directed by the pace of international agreements, what of the future of UN climate change talks? Is there any prospect that such an agreement could be enacted? The absence of a legally binding agreement did not surprise those who followed these negotiations closely, but there was no doubt they were stunned by the chaotic and dysfunctional ending to the two-week conference in Copenhagen in December.
And there are now few who believe an agreement can be struck in Mexico later this year, or can be struck at all if under the auspices of the UN. Even the status of the so-called Copenhagen Accord, produced at the last minute by a group including the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, is under doubt. India and China this week indicated they were unsure if they wanted to be associated with the accord, which sets a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2C above pre-industrial times. "This does make it less likely that we will see a global agreement," says Graham Stuart, head of the European climate change practice at Baker and McKenzie. "What we will get is a bottom-up approach [from individual nations].
At some point, maybe, those national pledges will coalesce into a binding treaty." Nevertheless, Stuart says there will be much activity in the realm of national actions, bilateral agreements between, say, China and the European Union on carbon credits and the power sector, as well as regional agreements. "We are looking at a whole set of national actions and bilateral treaties," Stuart says.
This a view supported by Freehills, another legal firm closely following the action at domestic and international levels. It says a global consensus may not be possible and smaller bilateral and multilateral treaties may be more productive. On the domestic front, however, the positions of the government and the opposition appear intractable, and may be resolved only through an election. "The signs still remain that some form of carbon regulation in Australia is inevitable," it says. "But the precise format is not certain."
Thursday 4/3/2010 Page: 1
While governments across the world dither, private industry is taking the lead on climate change.
SINCE before he was elected US president, Barack Obama made clear who he thought would dominate the world economy in the 21st century. It would be, he repeated in his State of the Union address last month, the country that led the transformation in the cleantech and clean energy sectors. The US has watched its early dominance of the silicon solar panel industry being assumed by China and Japan. It now fears that not only China but India, Brazil and others will seize the initiative to dominate other emerging industries and technologies.
The Copenhagen climate change talks may have ended in disarray, hopes for a binding treaty anytime soon may be in retreat and some conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be under the spotlight, but it seems clear that the transition to a low-carbon economy and towards clean technology is inevitable and accelerating. "China is not waiting to revamp its economy," Obama said in his speech. "Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. They are not standing still... They're rebuilding their infrastructure.
They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs." The question for Australia is how it seeks to position itself in what some are branding as the new space race. Present policies, particularly the proposed emissions trading scheme and faltering renewable energy target, have been framed, or at least justified, with a global climate change treaty in mind.
But too little of the push to innovate has been sold on the need to maintain pace with companies equally concerned with energy security and other environmental measures as about climate change. And too little about gathering some share of the trillions of dollars that will be directed towards clean technology and investments.
In the absence of an international treaty, most leading economies are pushing for change, as a national or regional initiative, in the form of an ETS, mandated clean energy targets, green stimulus packages and a host of subsidies, taxes and financing initiatives. "The lack of a binding international agreement on any of these issues at the Copenhagen summit last December has understandably created uncertainty in the minds of many potential climate change investor," Deutsche Bank's head of assets management Kevin Parker an in a recent report.
"This is unfortunate because what matters far more is that national governments all over the world are not waiting for a supra national framework. They are already pushing ahead with their own policies that will do far more than international regulation in the short to medium-term to stimulate private investment."
Deutsche Bank notes that immediately before and after the Copenhagen summit ended in disarray, more than 25 significant policy announcements were made from nations and states worldwide, with some of the most notable coming from the US, China, India, Taiwan, Brazil,Britain and South Korea. New national legislation is a hugely encouraging sign that matey countries not only understand the urgency of the climate change problem but see the competitive advantage of moving ands a low carbon economy," Parker writes.
He describes it as the "opportunity of a lifetime" investors to focus on the quality of regulation provided by individual countries because huge differences are emerging. "We believe these disparities will, over time, translate into massive differences in the amount of investment capital countries attract and the jobs they create in renewable energy and other climate change industries. Investment capital will find the best returns, wherever they are. Countries that fail to provide them will get left behind."
In a small but symbolic sign of the changing nature of technology and established industries, the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla last month signalled it would conduct a $US100 million initial public offering this week. It will be the first IPO in the US auto industry since Ford listed on the stock exchange in 1956. Tesla may well be a loss maker, but its public float has attracted the support of four heavyweight financiers Deutsche Bank, J P Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley which clearly have a vision of where their future bread will be buttered.
Morgan Stanley and HSBC also have taken principal positions in the $US350m raising by Better Place, the electric car network provider, which has completed the largest venture capital raising in the world in the past two years. And Warren Buffett, long touted as the world's smartest investor, is sitting on an eight fold return on a $US230m investment made two years ago in BYD. The Chinese battery and EV maker has ambitions of being the world's, largest car manufacturer and is already the biggest manufacturer of any sort in China.
Closer to home, Ausra, the company that began as an academic case study at the University of New South Wales and was then taken to the US to gain some financial backing, has been sold to Areva, the world's biggest nuclear energy group. Areva intends to use the Ausra technology as a flagship product in its push to dominate the solar thermal energy industry. Numerous other Australian clean-tech and clean energy developers find themselves at a crossroads.
A report by the advocacy group Beyond Zero Emissions found that Australia, in theory, could be powered by 100% renewable energy by 2020. But at its present rate of progress it seems unlikely that more than a few villages and hamlets, along with a handful of desalination plants, will be renewable at that time. Meanwhile, talented and innovative Australian developers are packing their bags for greener pastures overseas, where broader market based subsidies, tax incentives and loan guarantees are encouraging innovation in wind, solar, marine, energy storage and a host of other areas.
The irony is that while the likes of Scotland declare their intention to be the Saudi Arabia of marine energy systems, and Chile and Argentina make similar claims in regard to lithium-ion batteries, the key technology for EVs, Australia's natural resources could give it the ambition to become the Saudi Arabia of whichever energy source it wants. It has the capacity for geothermal, solar, wind or marine energy and to develop a corresponding industry.
So while the cadence of Australian policy continues to be directed by the pace of international agreements, what of the future of UN climate change talks? Is there any prospect that such an agreement could be enacted? The absence of a legally binding agreement did not surprise those who followed these negotiations closely, but there was no doubt they were stunned by the chaotic and dysfunctional ending to the two-week conference in Copenhagen in December.
And there are now few who believe an agreement can be struck in Mexico later this year, or can be struck at all if under the auspices of the UN. Even the status of the so-called Copenhagen Accord, produced at the last minute by a group including the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, is under doubt. India and China this week indicated they were unsure if they wanted to be associated with the accord, which sets a goal of limiting global warming to less than 2C above pre-industrial times. "This does make it less likely that we will see a global agreement," says Graham Stuart, head of the European climate change practice at Baker and McKenzie. "What we will get is a bottom-up approach [from individual nations].
At some point, maybe, those national pledges will coalesce into a binding treaty." Nevertheless, Stuart says there will be much activity in the realm of national actions, bilateral agreements between, say, China and the European Union on carbon credits and the power sector, as well as regional agreements. "We are looking at a whole set of national actions and bilateral treaties," Stuart says.
This a view supported by Freehills, another legal firm closely following the action at domestic and international levels. It says a global consensus may not be possible and smaller bilateral and multilateral treaties may be more productive. On the domestic front, however, the positions of the government and the opposition appear intractable, and may be resolved only through an election. "The signs still remain that some form of carbon regulation in Australia is inevitable," it says. "But the precise format is not certain."
Climate pioneer backs carbon tax - `Exporting coal akin to being drug dealer to world'
Age
Thursday 4/3/2010 Page: 4
THE scientist who first convinced the world that climate change was a problem has backed a Greens' proposal for a carbon tax as the only solution being offered in Canberra. James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and dubbed the "godfather of climate science", said the emissions trading model backed by the government was "a non-solution" while the opposition did not accept man-made climate change. He supported the Greens' plan of an interim carbon tax starting at $23 and rising with inflation - in line with his support of industries having to pay a carbon price without access to offsets through a carbon market.
"If we had a democracy where decisions were based on the public's best interest, then that would be taken up in a heartheat," Dr Hansen said in Melbourne yesterday. "Neither of the major parties gets it - or they don't want to get it." Where Dr Hansen - who brought global warming to the world's attention through testimony before the US Congress in 1988 and has become famously vocal in his disenchantment over its failure to act - diverges from the Greens on the issue that brought him to Melbourne: nuclear energy, he believes it is an inevitable part of the solution.
Dr Hansen said the answer to climate change must be a rising carbon tax and then letting the alternative technologies - nuclear, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency - compete. He said he had been swayed that nuclear was needed by experts and energy company chiefs in the US arguing. "They make a very strong case that renewables and efficiency cannot do the whole job - to their it becomes a choice between coal and nuclear for baseload power," he said.
He would welcome Australia making a commitment to move to 100% renewable energy - but said it would be a mistake "to make that gamble". "I think the chances of that working and being at a price that the public would be willing to pay is not very good," he said. "I don't intend to be telling Australia what they should do for their energy source except that they can't continue to burn coal without screwing everybody - including my grandchildren. "And exporting coal, and increasing exports of coal, is almost equivalent to being a drug dealer to the world."
Dr Hansen opposes emissions trading as it lets large emitters offset their carbon footprint rather than make cuts. He believes it will never be embraced internationally, especially not by China. He said claims that climate science had been undermined by recent criticisms were a "hoax" backed by vested interests. He said raw data showing rising temperatures was available on the NASA website, and glaciers were continuing to recede. The rate of land mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica had almost doubled since 2002.
Thursday 4/3/2010 Page: 4
THE scientist who first convinced the world that climate change was a problem has backed a Greens' proposal for a carbon tax as the only solution being offered in Canberra. James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and dubbed the "godfather of climate science", said the emissions trading model backed by the government was "a non-solution" while the opposition did not accept man-made climate change. He supported the Greens' plan of an interim carbon tax starting at $23 and rising with inflation - in line with his support of industries having to pay a carbon price without access to offsets through a carbon market.
"If we had a democracy where decisions were based on the public's best interest, then that would be taken up in a heartheat," Dr Hansen said in Melbourne yesterday. "Neither of the major parties gets it - or they don't want to get it." Where Dr Hansen - who brought global warming to the world's attention through testimony before the US Congress in 1988 and has become famously vocal in his disenchantment over its failure to act - diverges from the Greens on the issue that brought him to Melbourne: nuclear energy, he believes it is an inevitable part of the solution.
Dr Hansen said the answer to climate change must be a rising carbon tax and then letting the alternative technologies - nuclear, renewable energy sources and energy efficiency - compete. He said he had been swayed that nuclear was needed by experts and energy company chiefs in the US arguing. "They make a very strong case that renewables and efficiency cannot do the whole job - to their it becomes a choice between coal and nuclear for baseload power," he said.
He would welcome Australia making a commitment to move to 100% renewable energy - but said it would be a mistake "to make that gamble". "I think the chances of that working and being at a price that the public would be willing to pay is not very good," he said. "I don't intend to be telling Australia what they should do for their energy source except that they can't continue to burn coal without screwing everybody - including my grandchildren. "And exporting coal, and increasing exports of coal, is almost equivalent to being a drug dealer to the world."
Dr Hansen opposes emissions trading as it lets large emitters offset their carbon footprint rather than make cuts. He believes it will never be embraced internationally, especially not by China. He said claims that climate science had been undermined by recent criticisms were a "hoax" backed by vested interests. He said raw data showing rising temperatures was available on the NASA website, and glaciers were continuing to recede. The rate of land mass loss in Greenland and Antarctica had almost doubled since 2002.
Thursday, 4 March 2010
Energy output to soar, gas to burn brighter than coal
Age
Wednesday 3/3/2010 Page: 3
STRONG export demand will result in the nation's energy production nearly doubling by 2030 but Australia is set to consume far less coal and much more gas, according to a federal government report. The Australian Energy Resource Assessment, compiled by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Geoscience Australia, is a comprehensive audit of Australia's energy resources.
The report shows primary energy consumption will increase by 1.4% each year to reach about 7715 petajoules by 2029-30 from 2007-08 levels of 5772 petajoules. Coal now accounts for almost 40% of the total, followed by oil (34% ), gas (22% ) and renewables (5%, mostly from bioenergy). The report says that by 2030, coal will provide only about 23% of the energy Australia consumes. Gas will move in as a replacement, with the government predicting its share will grow from 22% to 34%. Wind energy is expected to be the fastest growing energy source, helped by policy measures. "Australia's energy demand will continue to rise over the period to 2030, but the rate of growth is expected to continue to slow," the report says.
"This reflects the long-terns trend in the Australian economy towards less energy-intensive sectors and energy-efficiency improvements, both of which can be expected to be reinforced by policy responses to climate change." Australia is the world's ninth largest energy producer, exporting more than three-quarters of its production. While Australia's energy production in 2029-30 is projected to reach 35,057 petajoules, from 17,360 petajoules in 2007-08, coal's share of that total will decrease to about 40%.
Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said the future looked bright for Australia's gas projects but declining oil production would test the transport sector. "The two big findings are the extraordinary potential of coal seam methane and unconventional gas resources," Mr Ferguson said. "But, with almost every sector.., dependent on oil as the major transport fuel, dependence [on oil imports] is likely to increase if we don't find more oil resources or alternatives."
Wednesday 3/3/2010 Page: 3
STRONG export demand will result in the nation's energy production nearly doubling by 2030 but Australia is set to consume far less coal and much more gas, according to a federal government report. The Australian Energy Resource Assessment, compiled by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Geoscience Australia, is a comprehensive audit of Australia's energy resources.
The report shows primary energy consumption will increase by 1.4% each year to reach about 7715 petajoules by 2029-30 from 2007-08 levels of 5772 petajoules. Coal now accounts for almost 40% of the total, followed by oil (34% ), gas (22% ) and renewables (5%, mostly from bioenergy). The report says that by 2030, coal will provide only about 23% of the energy Australia consumes. Gas will move in as a replacement, with the government predicting its share will grow from 22% to 34%. Wind energy is expected to be the fastest growing energy source, helped by policy measures. "Australia's energy demand will continue to rise over the period to 2030, but the rate of growth is expected to continue to slow," the report says.
"This reflects the long-terns trend in the Australian economy towards less energy-intensive sectors and energy-efficiency improvements, both of which can be expected to be reinforced by policy responses to climate change." Australia is the world's ninth largest energy producer, exporting more than three-quarters of its production. While Australia's energy production in 2029-30 is projected to reach 35,057 petajoules, from 17,360 petajoules in 2007-08, coal's share of that total will decrease to about 40%.
Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said the future looked bright for Australia's gas projects but declining oil production would test the transport sector. "The two big findings are the extraordinary potential of coal seam methane and unconventional gas resources," Mr Ferguson said. "But, with almost every sector.., dependent on oil as the major transport fuel, dependence [on oil imports] is likely to increase if we don't find more oil resources or alternatives."
Sweden to build 2,000 wind power stations
www.swedishwire.com
02 March 2010
Sweden's government takes new steps to meet its 50% renewable energy target. Some 2,000 new wind energy stations will be constructed across the country in the next ten years, Sweden's enterprise minister Maud Olofsson announced in an opinion article in daily Dagens Nyheter Tuesday. "Sweden has extremely good prospects for rapidly increasing the production of renewable energy, especially from the burning of biofuels, cogeneration plants and windpower," Olofsson wrote in the newspaper column.
This is yet another move to dramatically boost green energy produced in the country as the government aims to have an output of renewable energy amounting to 50% of energy needs by 2020. Today around 20% of Sweden's current energy production comes from renewable sources. Last month the Swedish Energy Agency approved an 14-million-euro investment grant to build the world's biggest wave power plant on the Swedish west coast.
The new turbines would provide Sweden with an additional 10 terawatt hours (TWh) per year. Within the same timeframe, Sweden would also expand its use of other forms of renewable energy like biofuel and solar energy to increase its total output from such sources by 25 TWh. That can be compared with a total electricity production from Swedish nuclear energy last year of almost twice as much. The minister also pointed out that Sweden today has the EU's highest proportion of renewable energy production.
Last year some 8 billion kronor (€770 million, $1.1 billion) were invested in 200 wind energy stations with a combined capacity of circa 500 MWs. The investments are more than twice as large as during the previous year and the expansion considerably faster than in many other countries. Last month Norway announced plans to build the world's most powerful wind turbine, hoping the new technology will increase the profitability of costly offshore wind farms.
02 March 2010
Sweden's government takes new steps to meet its 50% renewable energy target. Some 2,000 new wind energy stations will be constructed across the country in the next ten years, Sweden's enterprise minister Maud Olofsson announced in an opinion article in daily Dagens Nyheter Tuesday. "Sweden has extremely good prospects for rapidly increasing the production of renewable energy, especially from the burning of biofuels, cogeneration plants and windpower," Olofsson wrote in the newspaper column.This is yet another move to dramatically boost green energy produced in the country as the government aims to have an output of renewable energy amounting to 50% of energy needs by 2020. Today around 20% of Sweden's current energy production comes from renewable sources. Last month the Swedish Energy Agency approved an 14-million-euro investment grant to build the world's biggest wave power plant on the Swedish west coast.
The new turbines would provide Sweden with an additional 10 terawatt hours (TWh) per year. Within the same timeframe, Sweden would also expand its use of other forms of renewable energy like biofuel and solar energy to increase its total output from such sources by 25 TWh. That can be compared with a total electricity production from Swedish nuclear energy last year of almost twice as much. The minister also pointed out that Sweden today has the EU's highest proportion of renewable energy production.
Last year some 8 billion kronor (€770 million, $1.1 billion) were invested in 200 wind energy stations with a combined capacity of circa 500 MWs. The investments are more than twice as large as during the previous year and the expansion considerably faster than in many other countries. Last month Norway announced plans to build the world's most powerful wind turbine, hoping the new technology will increase the profitability of costly offshore wind farms.
Garrett’s demotion could give clean energy some clear air
Crikey.com.au
Tuesday 2/3/2010 Page: 1
Opinion: Climate Institute CEO John Connor
Friday's shift of responsibility for energy efficiency from the Environment into the Climate Change portfolio, where it will nestle alongside responsibility for the new and improved renewable energy scheme, allows for fresh thinking about the management of Australian climate solutions and low carbon development. There is an opportunity for a silver lining on the political clouds surrounding the home insulation scheme.
The government, opposition and Greens should seize this as an opportunity to shift gears and focus on the competitiveness and productivity risks posed by piecemeal and poorly coordinated efforts to cleaning up our carbon polluting and inefficient economy. It should also be the time to put an end to the increasingly ludicrous myth that Australia is any risk of leading global action on curbing carbon pollution.
The global reality is that, despite the disappointments of Copenhagen, there is significant global public and private investment in clean, low carbon technologies happening, in particular in places like China and Korea. A recent Worldwatch Institute report highlighted that in 2008. A report to the World Economic Forum by New Energy Finance tells a similar story. These investments are being driven not only by concerns about climate change or just by other issues including energy security, transport and public health risks such as urban air quality. They are also being driven by a strong eye on the commercial opportunities of this emerging multi-billion dollar global market.
Australian commentators, caught up in the murky backwaters of recent political bloodletting, have failed to recognise the extent to which Australia is being left behind in the emerging global clean energy economy. Perhaps they are relaxed about the prospect of Australia being reduced to Asia's quarry. A surprising insight into this new race for low carbon competitiveness came at the recent Davos meeting from Republican-repeat, Republican-Senator Lindsay Graham. He said: "Six months ago my biggest worry was that an emissions deal would make American business less competitive compared to China.
Now my concern is that every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy." Late last year The Climate Institute Australia commissioned London-based economists to review the carbon competitiveness and recent carbon productivity performance of the G20 nations. Carbon competitiveness is measured on an analysis of a range of factors from industrial efficiency, urban transport networks, education and other indices that test how prepared an economy is to provide future prosperity in a carbon-constrained world. Carbon productivity relates to a measure of the economic output divided by carbon pollution levels-that is, how much value is created per amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
In terms of our carbon competitiveness Australia came 15th, the weakest industrialised nation, and also behind Korea, China and Mexico. This was largely because of pollution from our mines (not including the pollution from exported coal), our coal-based power sector and high car ownership. Our recent performance on carbon productivity is better but other analyses show that is more from restricting land clearing and the demise of our manufacturing sector than improvements in clean energy production or efficiency where we rank poorly.
These findings highlight the huge economic risk for Australia of piecemeal or poorly coordinated carbon competitiveness and productivity policies. Australia will benefit from being Asia's quarry but we will be left behind Asian and other economies increasingly focused on other emerging markets. Taking advantage of these opportunities, and ensuring we address our own energy security, transport and public health challenges, needs greater coordination and leadership.
Friday's portfolio changes and improvements to the becalmed renewable energy scheme are an opportunity to improve the coordination of the whole host of energy, transport and other policies vital to improving our carbon competitiveness and productivity. They can also be vital to our ability to help the rest of the world accelerate the global investment and trade in climate solutions. Perhaps it is time to not just have a minister for climate change but a minister for low carbon development.
Tuesday 2/3/2010 Page: 1
Opinion: Climate Institute CEO John Connor
Friday's shift of responsibility for energy efficiency from the Environment into the Climate Change portfolio, where it will nestle alongside responsibility for the new and improved renewable energy scheme, allows for fresh thinking about the management of Australian climate solutions and low carbon development. There is an opportunity for a silver lining on the political clouds surrounding the home insulation scheme.
The government, opposition and Greens should seize this as an opportunity to shift gears and focus on the competitiveness and productivity risks posed by piecemeal and poorly coordinated efforts to cleaning up our carbon polluting and inefficient economy. It should also be the time to put an end to the increasingly ludicrous myth that Australia is any risk of leading global action on curbing carbon pollution.
The global reality is that, despite the disappointments of Copenhagen, there is significant global public and private investment in clean, low carbon technologies happening, in particular in places like China and Korea. A recent Worldwatch Institute report highlighted that in 2008. A report to the World Economic Forum by New Energy Finance tells a similar story. These investments are being driven not only by concerns about climate change or just by other issues including energy security, transport and public health risks such as urban air quality. They are also being driven by a strong eye on the commercial opportunities of this emerging multi-billion dollar global market.
Australian commentators, caught up in the murky backwaters of recent political bloodletting, have failed to recognise the extent to which Australia is being left behind in the emerging global clean energy economy. Perhaps they are relaxed about the prospect of Australia being reduced to Asia's quarry. A surprising insight into this new race for low carbon competitiveness came at the recent Davos meeting from Republican-repeat, Republican-Senator Lindsay Graham. He said: "Six months ago my biggest worry was that an emissions deal would make American business less competitive compared to China.
Now my concern is that every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy." Late last year The Climate Institute Australia commissioned London-based economists to review the carbon competitiveness and recent carbon productivity performance of the G20 nations. Carbon competitiveness is measured on an analysis of a range of factors from industrial efficiency, urban transport networks, education and other indices that test how prepared an economy is to provide future prosperity in a carbon-constrained world. Carbon productivity relates to a measure of the economic output divided by carbon pollution levels-that is, how much value is created per amount of greenhouse gas emissions.
In terms of our carbon competitiveness Australia came 15th, the weakest industrialised nation, and also behind Korea, China and Mexico. This was largely because of pollution from our mines (not including the pollution from exported coal), our coal-based power sector and high car ownership. Our recent performance on carbon productivity is better but other analyses show that is more from restricting land clearing and the demise of our manufacturing sector than improvements in clean energy production or efficiency where we rank poorly.
These findings highlight the huge economic risk for Australia of piecemeal or poorly coordinated carbon competitiveness and productivity policies. Australia will benefit from being Asia's quarry but we will be left behind Asian and other economies increasingly focused on other emerging markets. Taking advantage of these opportunities, and ensuring we address our own energy security, transport and public health challenges, needs greater coordination and leadership.
Friday's portfolio changes and improvements to the becalmed renewable energy scheme are an opportunity to improve the coordination of the whole host of energy, transport and other policies vital to improving our carbon competitiveness and productivity. They can also be vital to our ability to help the rest of the world accelerate the global investment and trade in climate solutions. Perhaps it is time to not just have a minister for climate change but a minister for low carbon development.
JOBS WAVE: Innovative sea-powered electricity project
www.standard.net.au
02 Mar, 2010
A power station using wave energy has been announced for Port Fairy, adding another renewable energy source to Moyne Shire's reputation as the state's green district. Up to 200 new jobs would be created in developing what could be the nation's first commercial wave-powered electricity generation plant. It will use Australian-designed technology, in which balloon-shaped devices attached to a hinged base on the ocean floor sway with the waves like seaweed to spin generators.
They would be anchored in about 30 metres of water less than a kilometre from the shore and linked to an undersea cable leading to a substation and fed into the state's power grid. A site off the Port Fairy west abalone farm has been selected for the innovative project, which is scheduled to start with a small pilot generator. It has the capacity to be expanded into a multi-million-dollar power station producing enough electricity for 55,000 households. Preliminary evaluation started 18 months ago. Detailed appraisals and approval applications will gather pace in the next few months. It could be built by next year.
The Port Fairy project could be in production ahead of another planned wave energy generator announced for Portland at least a year ago. Yesterday's announcement by Sydney-based BioPower Systems, in conjunction with Melbourne-based Diamond Energy and Port Fairy-based Southern Ocean Mariculture, came as Australia's largest energy retailer, AGL Energy Ltd, revived plans to build the $800 million Macarthur windfarm.
Moyne Mayor James Purcell said there were already $6 billion worth of renewable energy projects on the books for the municipality. "We will have a quarter of the state's major projects going on here," he said. "There are already three power stations, 15 to 20 wind farms and geothermal possibilities. "When they are all up and operating it will bring in millions in extra rates and make us a very wealthy municipality. "However, it will create huge short-term social disturbances in our communities and put a massive workload on our small strategic planning staff."
BioPower said it had secured land access, onshore development rights and intellectual property for the project. "This stretch of coastline is well known around the world as a premier location for wave energy development," said the company's chief executive Timothy Finnigan. "The strength and consistency of the swell is phenomenal.'' He said the initial stage would have one 250-kW generator producing enough electricity for 200 households.
It will power the abalone farm and surplus electricity will be fed into the grid. If it proves successful an array of larger one MW units will be added expanding up to 100 kWs. He would not enlarge on financial commitments, but said the large power generators would cost tens of millions of dollars. Dr Finnigan said the company could build more wave generator plants in Australia and overseas with the technology. "We are hoping for some Victorian Government funding," he said. Environment and Climate Change Minister Gavin Jennings' office said the Government was committed to changing the energy mix through projects such as wave, wind and solar energy.
BioPower Systems has been told to seek advice on whether an environmental effects statement referral may be required. Southern Ocean Mariculture general manager Mark Gervis said his company had approached the wave energy proponents because it wanted its high-energy use plant to be carbon positive. "We felt wave energy was the most appropriate way," he said. "It's still at the very early stages but we are excited by the project."
02 Mar, 2010
A power station using wave energy has been announced for Port Fairy, adding another renewable energy source to Moyne Shire's reputation as the state's green district. Up to 200 new jobs would be created in developing what could be the nation's first commercial wave-powered electricity generation plant. It will use Australian-designed technology, in which balloon-shaped devices attached to a hinged base on the ocean floor sway with the waves like seaweed to spin generators.They would be anchored in about 30 metres of water less than a kilometre from the shore and linked to an undersea cable leading to a substation and fed into the state's power grid. A site off the Port Fairy west abalone farm has been selected for the innovative project, which is scheduled to start with a small pilot generator. It has the capacity to be expanded into a multi-million-dollar power station producing enough electricity for 55,000 households. Preliminary evaluation started 18 months ago. Detailed appraisals and approval applications will gather pace in the next few months. It could be built by next year.
The Port Fairy project could be in production ahead of another planned wave energy generator announced for Portland at least a year ago. Yesterday's announcement by Sydney-based BioPower Systems, in conjunction with Melbourne-based Diamond Energy and Port Fairy-based Southern Ocean Mariculture, came as Australia's largest energy retailer, AGL Energy Ltd, revived plans to build the $800 million Macarthur windfarm.
Moyne Mayor James Purcell said there were already $6 billion worth of renewable energy projects on the books for the municipality. "We will have a quarter of the state's major projects going on here," he said. "There are already three power stations, 15 to 20 wind farms and geothermal possibilities. "When they are all up and operating it will bring in millions in extra rates and make us a very wealthy municipality. "However, it will create huge short-term social disturbances in our communities and put a massive workload on our small strategic planning staff."
BioPower said it had secured land access, onshore development rights and intellectual property for the project. "This stretch of coastline is well known around the world as a premier location for wave energy development," said the company's chief executive Timothy Finnigan. "The strength and consistency of the swell is phenomenal.'' He said the initial stage would have one 250-kW generator producing enough electricity for 200 households.
It will power the abalone farm and surplus electricity will be fed into the grid. If it proves successful an array of larger one MW units will be added expanding up to 100 kWs. He would not enlarge on financial commitments, but said the large power generators would cost tens of millions of dollars. Dr Finnigan said the company could build more wave generator plants in Australia and overseas with the technology. "We are hoping for some Victorian Government funding," he said. Environment and Climate Change Minister Gavin Jennings' office said the Government was committed to changing the energy mix through projects such as wave, wind and solar energy.
BioPower Systems has been told to seek advice on whether an environmental effects statement referral may be required. Southern Ocean Mariculture general manager Mark Gervis said his company had approached the wave energy proponents because it wanted its high-energy use plant to be carbon positive. "We felt wave energy was the most appropriate way," he said. "It's still at the very early stages but we are excited by the project."
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
More would install solar if power paid for: report
Age
Tuesday 2/3/2010 Page: 6
THE cost of installing rooftop solar panels could be dramatically lowered by abolishing rebates and paying households a premium for all electricity generated at home, an economic analysis has found. The analysis by consultants Access Economics, on behalf of the Electrical Trades Union, found a national gross feed-in-tariff would be a far cheaper way to boost uptake of rooftop solar panels than existing policies. The unions Victorian secretary Dean Mighell said twice as many solar units would have been installed if the $1 billion spent on rebates was funnelled into a premium subsidy.
A national tariff has been backed by retailer Woolworths and the Property Council of Australia. The states have already introduced tariff schemes, although they vary in design. In Victoria, for example, the government opted for a net tariff that pays households for electricity fed into the grid only. A gross scheme pays a premium for energy whether it is fed into the grid or used at home.
The analysis found a national gross tariff could push rooftop solar energy to a capacity of 1000 MWs - roughly equivalent to the Latrobe Valley's Loy Yang B coalfired power station - within 20 years. It would cost $4.47 billion and put solar photovoltaic units on 650,000 homes. The $1 billion spent on rebates over the 18-month period to June installed 67,452 rooftop solar units. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong backed the government's rebate scheme over a national tariff. A ministerial spokeswoman said: "It takes longer for households to recoup the cost of their solar panels and other technologies through a feed-in tariff."
Tuesday 2/3/2010 Page: 6
THE cost of installing rooftop solar panels could be dramatically lowered by abolishing rebates and paying households a premium for all electricity generated at home, an economic analysis has found. The analysis by consultants Access Economics, on behalf of the Electrical Trades Union, found a national gross feed-in-tariff would be a far cheaper way to boost uptake of rooftop solar panels than existing policies. The unions Victorian secretary Dean Mighell said twice as many solar units would have been installed if the $1 billion spent on rebates was funnelled into a premium subsidy.
A national tariff has been backed by retailer Woolworths and the Property Council of Australia. The states have already introduced tariff schemes, although they vary in design. In Victoria, for example, the government opted for a net tariff that pays households for electricity fed into the grid only. A gross scheme pays a premium for energy whether it is fed into the grid or used at home.
The analysis found a national gross tariff could push rooftop solar energy to a capacity of 1000 MWs - roughly equivalent to the Latrobe Valley's Loy Yang B coalfired power station - within 20 years. It would cost $4.47 billion and put solar photovoltaic units on 650,000 homes. The $1 billion spent on rebates over the 18-month period to June installed 67,452 rooftop solar units. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong backed the government's rebate scheme over a national tariff. A ministerial spokeswoman said: "It takes longer for households to recoup the cost of their solar panels and other technologies through a feed-in tariff."
AGL retreats on threat to scrap wind farm
Age
Tuesday 2/3/2010 Page: 4
AGL Energy has backed down from a threat to scrap its $800 million Macarthur windfarm, the largest in the southern hemisphere, after the federal government proposed to change its troubled Renewable Energy Target.
The utility yesterday signalled it expected to build the Victorian windfarm after entering into "conditional arrangements" with New Zealand's Meridian Energy. The move contrasts with a previous threat from managing director Michael Fraser to put wind investment on hold because of a slump in the price of renewable energy certificates (RECs).
On Friday, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong unveiled plans to lift REC prices after heated lobbying fro in renewable energy investors. AGL Energy's board has yet to approve the 365-MW wind farms, but the changes have strengthened the investment case for AGL Energy's large wind project pipeline. Equity analysts said the higher REC prices should also strengthen AGL Energy's hand in discussions with credit ratings agencies. But some in the market are wary of AGL Energy's earnings from windfarm development fees, which it extracts through complex sale and lease-back deals.
Since the Friday announcement, REC prices are up 18% to $42. However, traders in the illiquid market say they are awaiting clarity on the government's policy and Senate approval of the proposed RET legislation. A credit analyst at Fitch Ratings, Sajal Kishore, said the industry expected REC prices to lift above $50 in coming months, seen as the minimum price to underwrite wind developments.
Tuesday 2/3/2010 Page: 4
AGL Energy has backed down from a threat to scrap its $800 million Macarthur windfarm, the largest in the southern hemisphere, after the federal government proposed to change its troubled Renewable Energy Target.
The utility yesterday signalled it expected to build the Victorian windfarm after entering into "conditional arrangements" with New Zealand's Meridian Energy. The move contrasts with a previous threat from managing director Michael Fraser to put wind investment on hold because of a slump in the price of renewable energy certificates (RECs).
On Friday, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong unveiled plans to lift REC prices after heated lobbying fro in renewable energy investors. AGL Energy's board has yet to approve the 365-MW wind farms, but the changes have strengthened the investment case for AGL Energy's large wind project pipeline. Equity analysts said the higher REC prices should also strengthen AGL Energy's hand in discussions with credit ratings agencies. But some in the market are wary of AGL Energy's earnings from windfarm development fees, which it extracts through complex sale and lease-back deals.
Since the Friday announcement, REC prices are up 18% to $42. However, traders in the illiquid market say they are awaiting clarity on the government's policy and Senate approval of the proposed RET legislation. A credit analyst at Fitch Ratings, Sajal Kishore, said the industry expected REC prices to lift above $50 in coming months, seen as the minimum price to underwrite wind developments.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Believe it and we can do it
Age
Saturday 27/2/2010 Page: 2
LAST October, after an interview with Australian solar pioneer David Mills, this column previewed a Stanford University study showing that renewable sources - principally wind and solar - could meet all of our energy needs.
The co-author of that study, Mark Jacobson, Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the university's atmosphere and energy program, appeared by videoconference at last weekend's Sustainable Living Festival in Melbourne. He spoke to the findings of his study, which was the cover story in November's Scientific American magazine and has generated plenty of debate in the US (and some here too).
Jacobson and Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the University of California, compared available world renewable energy resources - wind, water, sunshine - with maximum forecast energy demand, including transport, of about 16.9 terawatts (1 terawatt e(equals a trillion watts) in 2030 - up from 12.5 terawatts now. Eliminating fossil fuel and biomass combustion would reduce overall demand to 11.5 terawatts, the study found, because electric power is more efficient.
Could this prodigious amount of energy be met by available renewable resources? Yes, with a massive building program. The world would need 3.8 million 5MW wind turbines to provide 51% of supply. We would need 49,000 large-scale 300MW concentrating solar energy stations, plus 40,000 large-scale 300MW solar photovoltaic power stations, plus 1.7 billion 3kW domestic-scale rooftop PV systems, to provide another 40% of supply. Less than 1% of this wind and solar energy infrastructure is in place already. The remaining 9% of the world's power supply would come from 900 hydro-electric power stations (mostly built); 5350 geothermal plants, each generating 100MW (mostly not built); and thousands and thousands of small tidal power and wave installations.
Given they are intermittent power sources, can wind, wave and solar meet demand as it arises? Yes. First, renewable energy power plants generally suffer less down time. Second, with extensive interconnection between geographically dispersed sources, a lack of wind or sunshine in one place can be substituted by power from another.
As Jacobson and Delucchi wrote in their magazine article: "Because the wind often blows during stormy conditions when the sun does not shine and the sun often shines on calm days with little wind, combining wind and solar can go a long way toward meeting demand, especially when geothermal provides a steady base and hydroelectric can be called on to fill in the gaps." Third, a smart grid allows demand to be shifted into off peak periods - so electric cars are charged overnight while demand is lower, for example. The cost? The scientists estimated the overall construction cost would be in the order of $US100 trillion over 20 years, not including transmission.
Professor Jacobson told me transmission would add about 10% to the total cost. He says power lines last over two or three generations of power plants and are a relatively smaller part of the upfront cost per kWh generated. That's the bill for a whole new, clean and efficient energy system and (if we move quickly) massively reduced bills for climate adaptation. The bill would be recouped by charging a forecast US4¢-US10¢ per kWh, competitive with existing fossil fuel and nuclear sources, which average US7¢/kWh in the US, and rising.
Last Sunday, Jacobson dismissed the nuclear alternative. Based on a full lifecycle analysis, nuclear is not clean, producing nine to 17 tines the carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh generated by wind energy. Nuclear is getting more expensive, not cheaper, unlike wind and solar. It seems a rapid transition to 100% renewable energy is not only possible, it may be cost-competitive with the touted "clean coal" and nuclear alternatives. In our national and state capitals, and probably in our boardrooms, it would be dismissed as a pipe dream. In the real world - the planet we live on - it will soon enough become a necessity.
Relative to the rest of the world, Jacobson describes Australia's clean energy resources as "amazing". Appearing alongside Jacobson last weekend were Philip Sutton, co-author of Climate Code Red, and Matthew Wright, executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions. Both are working on plans to switch Australia over to renewable energy. BZE's recently released "Transition Decade" (or T10) plan estimates a complete switch by 2020 would cost $40 billion a year or 3-3.5% of GDP.
The linchpin of BZE's plan is to build a dozen concentrating solar thermal sites around Australia, each generating 4000mw, to provide 60% of our power needs. The technology to generate solar energy, with up to 16 hours of storage so it can run overnight, exists now and is being used in Spain. Wind power would provide the remaining 40%. Wright told the audience that T10 - a plan, not the only plan - was meant to rebut the "can't do mantra" of the fossil fuel lobby: renewable energy cannot supply baseload power, is too expensive, will wreck the economy, and will cost jobs. What rubbish. Wright has a "can do" mantra, and it's what we need.
paddy.manning@fairIaxmedia.com.au
Saturday 27/2/2010 Page: 2
LAST October, after an interview with Australian solar pioneer David Mills, this column previewed a Stanford University study showing that renewable sources - principally wind and solar - could meet all of our energy needs.The co-author of that study, Mark Jacobson, Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering and director of the university's atmosphere and energy program, appeared by videoconference at last weekend's Sustainable Living Festival in Melbourne. He spoke to the findings of his study, which was the cover story in November's Scientific American magazine and has generated plenty of debate in the US (and some here too).
Jacobson and Mark Delucchi, a research scientist at the University of California, compared available world renewable energy resources - wind, water, sunshine - with maximum forecast energy demand, including transport, of about 16.9 terawatts (1 terawatt e(equals a trillion watts) in 2030 - up from 12.5 terawatts now. Eliminating fossil fuel and biomass combustion would reduce overall demand to 11.5 terawatts, the study found, because electric power is more efficient.
Could this prodigious amount of energy be met by available renewable resources? Yes, with a massive building program. The world would need 3.8 million 5MW wind turbines to provide 51% of supply. We would need 49,000 large-scale 300MW concentrating solar energy stations, plus 40,000 large-scale 300MW solar photovoltaic power stations, plus 1.7 billion 3kW domestic-scale rooftop PV systems, to provide another 40% of supply. Less than 1% of this wind and solar energy infrastructure is in place already. The remaining 9% of the world's power supply would come from 900 hydro-electric power stations (mostly built); 5350 geothermal plants, each generating 100MW (mostly not built); and thousands and thousands of small tidal power and wave installations.
Given they are intermittent power sources, can wind, wave and solar meet demand as it arises? Yes. First, renewable energy power plants generally suffer less down time. Second, with extensive interconnection between geographically dispersed sources, a lack of wind or sunshine in one place can be substituted by power from another.
As Jacobson and Delucchi wrote in their magazine article: "Because the wind often blows during stormy conditions when the sun does not shine and the sun often shines on calm days with little wind, combining wind and solar can go a long way toward meeting demand, especially when geothermal provides a steady base and hydroelectric can be called on to fill in the gaps." Third, a smart grid allows demand to be shifted into off peak periods - so electric cars are charged overnight while demand is lower, for example. The cost? The scientists estimated the overall construction cost would be in the order of $US100 trillion over 20 years, not including transmission.
Professor Jacobson told me transmission would add about 10% to the total cost. He says power lines last over two or three generations of power plants and are a relatively smaller part of the upfront cost per kWh generated. That's the bill for a whole new, clean and efficient energy system and (if we move quickly) massively reduced bills for climate adaptation. The bill would be recouped by charging a forecast US4¢-US10¢ per kWh, competitive with existing fossil fuel and nuclear sources, which average US7¢/kWh in the US, and rising.
Last Sunday, Jacobson dismissed the nuclear alternative. Based on a full lifecycle analysis, nuclear is not clean, producing nine to 17 tines the carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh generated by wind energy. Nuclear is getting more expensive, not cheaper, unlike wind and solar. It seems a rapid transition to 100% renewable energy is not only possible, it may be cost-competitive with the touted "clean coal" and nuclear alternatives. In our national and state capitals, and probably in our boardrooms, it would be dismissed as a pipe dream. In the real world - the planet we live on - it will soon enough become a necessity.
Relative to the rest of the world, Jacobson describes Australia's clean energy resources as "amazing". Appearing alongside Jacobson last weekend were Philip Sutton, co-author of Climate Code Red, and Matthew Wright, executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions. Both are working on plans to switch Australia over to renewable energy. BZE's recently released "Transition Decade" (or T10) plan estimates a complete switch by 2020 would cost $40 billion a year or 3-3.5% of GDP.
The linchpin of BZE's plan is to build a dozen concentrating solar thermal sites around Australia, each generating 4000mw, to provide 60% of our power needs. The technology to generate solar energy, with up to 16 hours of storage so it can run overnight, exists now and is being used in Spain. Wind power would provide the remaining 40%. Wright told the audience that T10 - a plan, not the only plan - was meant to rebut the "can't do mantra" of the fossil fuel lobby: renewable energy cannot supply baseload power, is too expensive, will wreck the economy, and will cost jobs. What rubbish. Wright has a "can do" mantra, and it's what we need.
paddy.manning@fairIaxmedia.com.au
Wind farm back on agenda - Green schemes to aid company
Hobart Mercury
Saturday 27/2/2010 Page: 13
TASMANIA'S stalled Musselroe windfarm looks set for a construction start late this year after a dramatic change in its economic viability. The $400 million windfarm in Tasmania's North-East was given a fillip yesterday with the Federal Government's move to encourage greater national renewable energy generation. Roaring 40s, the company half-owned by the Tasmanian Government that is planning to build Musselroe, is now hopeful construction will begin late this year at Cape Portland.
Roaring 40s chief executive Steve Symons said the new Federal Government system had provided large renewable companies such as Roaring 40s and Hydro Tasmania with much more financial and policy certainty about future project options. Mr Symons hopes that if the Federal Government's new legislation passes though parliament in June lie will have 150 construction workers on site by spring. Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong yesterday announced the Government would split its mandatory renewable energy target scheme in two.
The change will separate the impact of small home solar panel installations and solar hot water systems from affecting the renewable energy value of power produced by large commercial wind farms, hydro-electricity stations and solar plants. It is designed to encourage investment in commercial wind farms and other large-scale renewable energy projects, with more than $20 billion of projects now halted around Australia. The slowdown has been blamed on the Government's subsidy scheme for the installation of home solar hot water systems causing an unintended slump in the value of tradeable renewable energy certificates [RECs] from $50 to $30 per MW hour a unit.
Musselroe windfarm is understood to become uneconomic once the REC value falls below about $50 a unit. Premier David Bartlett said the announcement was a "great day for the Tasmanian economy". Mr Bartlett claimed credit for the announcement, saying the Rudd Government had "listened to our concerns and responded rapidly to resolve them". But Greens federal climate change spokeswoman and Tasmanian senator Christine Milne said the backflip had been forced by the Australian Greens introducing a Private Member's Bill into the Senate on Thursday recommending the same split system.
The Greens have repeatedly warned that including solar hot water, heat pumps and multiplied rooftop solar credits in the renewable energy target was distorting the price of renewable energy certificates, stopping industrial scale renewable energy developments from getting off the ground. Senator Wong said the Government now planned to offer a fixed price to householders.
Saturday 27/2/2010 Page: 13
TASMANIA'S stalled Musselroe windfarm looks set for a construction start late this year after a dramatic change in its economic viability. The $400 million windfarm in Tasmania's North-East was given a fillip yesterday with the Federal Government's move to encourage greater national renewable energy generation. Roaring 40s, the company half-owned by the Tasmanian Government that is planning to build Musselroe, is now hopeful construction will begin late this year at Cape Portland.
Roaring 40s chief executive Steve Symons said the new Federal Government system had provided large renewable companies such as Roaring 40s and Hydro Tasmania with much more financial and policy certainty about future project options. Mr Symons hopes that if the Federal Government's new legislation passes though parliament in June lie will have 150 construction workers on site by spring. Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong yesterday announced the Government would split its mandatory renewable energy target scheme in two.
The change will separate the impact of small home solar panel installations and solar hot water systems from affecting the renewable energy value of power produced by large commercial wind farms, hydro-electricity stations and solar plants. It is designed to encourage investment in commercial wind farms and other large-scale renewable energy projects, with more than $20 billion of projects now halted around Australia. The slowdown has been blamed on the Government's subsidy scheme for the installation of home solar hot water systems causing an unintended slump in the value of tradeable renewable energy certificates [RECs] from $50 to $30 per MW hour a unit.
Musselroe windfarm is understood to become uneconomic once the REC value falls below about $50 a unit. Premier David Bartlett said the announcement was a "great day for the Tasmanian economy". Mr Bartlett claimed credit for the announcement, saying the Rudd Government had "listened to our concerns and responded rapidly to resolve them". But Greens federal climate change spokeswoman and Tasmanian senator Christine Milne said the backflip had been forced by the Australian Greens introducing a Private Member's Bill into the Senate on Thursday recommending the same split system.
The Greens have repeatedly warned that including solar hot water, heat pumps and multiplied rooftop solar credits in the renewable energy target was distorting the price of renewable energy certificates, stopping industrial scale renewable energy developments from getting off the ground. Senator Wong said the Government now planned to offer a fixed price to householders.
World's largest solar-powered boat unveiled
www.abc.net.au
Feb 26, 2010
A skipper hoping to become the first to circumnavigate the globe using solar energy said his catamaran could carve a wake for pollution-free shipping as he unveiled the world's largest solar energyed vessel in Germany. Raphael Domjan, 38, pulled the covers off the 18 million euro ($27.4 million) catamaran yesterday. "This is a unique feeling to see in front of me today a boat which I so often dreamed about," he said.
PlanetSolar, a 31 x 15-metre white catamaran, has been designed to reach a top speed of around 15 knots, equivalent to 27 kilometres per hour, and can hold up to 50 passengers. Five hundred m² of black solar panels top the vessel, with a bright white cockpit sticking up in the centre. Built at the Knierim Yacht Club in Kiel in northern Germany, its state-of-the-art design also means it will be able to slice smoothly through the waves even in choppy waters. The team behind its construction acknowledge that solar energy is not about to become the main power source on modern cargo ships.
They say they want to use the voyage primarily to promote solar energy and other non-polluting sources of energy and to show what can be done. "The aim is really to show that we have the technology today, not tomorrow," Mr Domjan said. "It's not in a laboratory or DIY. It is a technology that is reliable, able to perform and economically interesting." PlanetSolar will launch in late March before starring at Hamburg port's 821st anniversary celebrations in May and undergoing testing between June and September.
Feb 26, 2010
A skipper hoping to become the first to circumnavigate the globe using solar energy said his catamaran could carve a wake for pollution-free shipping as he unveiled the world's largest solar energyed vessel in Germany. Raphael Domjan, 38, pulled the covers off the 18 million euro ($27.4 million) catamaran yesterday. "This is a unique feeling to see in front of me today a boat which I so often dreamed about," he said.PlanetSolar, a 31 x 15-metre white catamaran, has been designed to reach a top speed of around 15 knots, equivalent to 27 kilometres per hour, and can hold up to 50 passengers. Five hundred m² of black solar panels top the vessel, with a bright white cockpit sticking up in the centre. Built at the Knierim Yacht Club in Kiel in northern Germany, its state-of-the-art design also means it will be able to slice smoothly through the waves even in choppy waters. The team behind its construction acknowledge that solar energy is not about to become the main power source on modern cargo ships.
They say they want to use the voyage primarily to promote solar energy and other non-polluting sources of energy and to show what can be done. "The aim is really to show that we have the technology today, not tomorrow," Mr Domjan said. "It's not in a laboratory or DIY. It is a technology that is reliable, able to perform and economically interesting." PlanetSolar will launch in late March before starring at Hamburg port's 821st anniversary celebrations in May and undergoing testing between June and September.
Companies have vested interest in poor results
Age
Monday 1/3/2010 Page: 10
Opinion
IN HIGHLIGHTING the unfortunate experiences some people have had with solar energy ("Turning off solar", The Age, 27/2) Mark Hawthorne and Mathew Murphy overlook the positive experiences of thousands of others. Although I also experienced a billing problem following the installation of my system, it was quickly resolved.
More than 60% of the power produced by my 1.5 kW system has been exported to the grid and my last electricity bill was in credit. By paying a little attention to the way electricity is used in the home, high levels of power export are possible even with relatively small systems. The real problems relate to the practices of retailers and distributors. It is worth noting that it was an unidentified spokesman for an unidentified power distributor who was talking down the performance of solar energy systems.
The allusion to "cheap imports" also overlooks the fact that all solar panels installed in Australia are imported and that they, along with installers, need to comply with the strict standards imposed by the government and electricity distributors. The denial of off-peak electricity to householders installing solar energy by some distributors smacks of sour grapes. It is to be hoped that regulators take note and ensure that retailers and distributors do the right thing by customers who are doing the right thing by the environment.
Alistair McCaskill, Box Hill North
Monday 1/3/2010 Page: 10
Opinion
IN HIGHLIGHTING the unfortunate experiences some people have had with solar energy ("Turning off solar", The Age, 27/2) Mark Hawthorne and Mathew Murphy overlook the positive experiences of thousands of others. Although I also experienced a billing problem following the installation of my system, it was quickly resolved.
More than 60% of the power produced by my 1.5 kW system has been exported to the grid and my last electricity bill was in credit. By paying a little attention to the way electricity is used in the home, high levels of power export are possible even with relatively small systems. The real problems relate to the practices of retailers and distributors. It is worth noting that it was an unidentified spokesman for an unidentified power distributor who was talking down the performance of solar energy systems.
The allusion to "cheap imports" also overlooks the fact that all solar panels installed in Australia are imported and that they, along with installers, need to comply with the strict standards imposed by the government and electricity distributors. The denial of off-peak electricity to householders installing solar energy by some distributors smacks of sour grapes. It is to be hoped that regulators take note and ensure that retailers and distributors do the right thing by customers who are doing the right thing by the environment.
Alistair McCaskill, Box Hill North
I Group attacks change - Policy shift falls short
Adelaide Advertiser
Saturday 27/2/2010 Page: 86
A FEDERAL Government energy policy shift announced yesterday will not be enough to deliver the large-scale rollout of low-emission power stations needed to combat climate change, investors and energy groups say. Australian Geothermal Energy Association chief executive Susan Jeanes said the policy changes were a step in the right direction but more was needed to ensure Australia wasn't left behind as other countries moved more decisively to roll out clean energy such as solar, wind and geothermal power. Climate change minister Penny Wong said the Government would reform its renewable energy target which forces electricity retailers to source 20% of supplies from renewable energy by 2020.
Clean energy groups had said the Government's earlier decision to include in the target small-scale generation as well as technologies that don't generate electricity, such as water heaters, meant funds weren't flowing to the large-scale energy projects that Australia needs to kick its reliance on planet-warming coal and gas plants that supply 95% of its electricity. Australian companies, such as Brisbane-based GeoDynamics, have cutting-edge technologies for harnessing geothermal or underground heat and for large-scale solar energy plants but face challenges in urgently commercialising them, partly due to the lack of a domestic carbon price or a strong national feed-in tariff that rewards clean energy suppliers.
Ms Wong said the Government would carve the renewable energy target into two bands from January 2011, with a Large-scale Renewable Energy Target to generate the bulk of renewable energy credits, and a Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme to deliver the rest of the target through solar panels and hot water systems. The changes are estimated to increase the cost of electricity for the average home by less than $4 a year. Simon Schwarz, from Investec Australia said if the Government opted to use the vast bulk of the 20% target for large-scale power projects, it would underpin the economics of wind projects.
Saturday 27/2/2010 Page: 86
A FEDERAL Government energy policy shift announced yesterday will not be enough to deliver the large-scale rollout of low-emission power stations needed to combat climate change, investors and energy groups say. Australian Geothermal Energy Association chief executive Susan Jeanes said the policy changes were a step in the right direction but more was needed to ensure Australia wasn't left behind as other countries moved more decisively to roll out clean energy such as solar, wind and geothermal power. Climate change minister Penny Wong said the Government would reform its renewable energy target which forces electricity retailers to source 20% of supplies from renewable energy by 2020.
Clean energy groups had said the Government's earlier decision to include in the target small-scale generation as well as technologies that don't generate electricity, such as water heaters, meant funds weren't flowing to the large-scale energy projects that Australia needs to kick its reliance on planet-warming coal and gas plants that supply 95% of its electricity. Australian companies, such as Brisbane-based GeoDynamics, have cutting-edge technologies for harnessing geothermal or underground heat and for large-scale solar energy plants but face challenges in urgently commercialising them, partly due to the lack of a domestic carbon price or a strong national feed-in tariff that rewards clean energy suppliers.
Ms Wong said the Government would carve the renewable energy target into two bands from January 2011, with a Large-scale Renewable Energy Target to generate the bulk of renewable energy credits, and a Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme to deliver the rest of the target through solar panels and hot water systems. The changes are estimated to increase the cost of electricity for the average home by less than $4 a year. Simon Schwarz, from Investec Australia said if the Government opted to use the vast bulk of the 20% target for large-scale power projects, it would underpin the economics of wind projects.
New target scheme
Adelaide Advertiser
Saturday 27/2/2010 Page: 29
THE Federal Government has made changes to its renewable energy target scheme so it can exceed the 20% target by 2020. Market demand for the scheme from new large-scale projects, such as wind farms and solar energy plants, has stalled partly because the government used it to reward households installing rooftop solar panels with an $8000 rebate. The government intends from January 2011 splitting the scheme into two parts: one for large-scale projects and a second for small scale technologies.
Saturday 27/2/2010 Page: 29
THE Federal Government has made changes to its renewable energy target scheme so it can exceed the 20% target by 2020. Market demand for the scheme from new large-scale projects, such as wind farms and solar energy plants, has stalled partly because the government used it to reward households installing rooftop solar panels with an $8000 rebate. The government intends from January 2011 splitting the scheme into two parts: one for large-scale projects and a second for small scale technologies.
Monday, 1 March 2010
Infigen sounds alert on threat to renewable energy
Age
Friday 26/2/2010 Page: 5
FAILURE to reverse a slump in the price of renewable energy credits threatens the industry's profitability and will undermine Australia's efforts to cut carbon emissions, says windfarm developer Infigen Energy. Infigen Energy plans to triple its domestic capacity to 1000 MWs in the next five years, after buying the development portfolio from B&B.
But managing director Miles George said these plans would be in danger if the government did not resolve the disarray in the large-scale renewable energy business. The company posted a $18.3 million net loss for the six months to December, an improvement on its previous loss of $88.4 million. The shares fell 6¢ to $1.23.
Friday 26/2/2010 Page: 5
FAILURE to reverse a slump in the price of renewable energy credits threatens the industry's profitability and will undermine Australia's efforts to cut carbon emissions, says windfarm developer Infigen Energy. Infigen Energy plans to triple its domestic capacity to 1000 MWs in the next five years, after buying the development portfolio from B&B.But managing director Miles George said these plans would be in danger if the government did not resolve the disarray in the large-scale renewable energy business. The company posted a $18.3 million net loss for the six months to December, an improvement on its previous loss of $88.4 million. The shares fell 6¢ to $1.23.
US trials backyard power plant - Fridge-size Bloom Box produces clean, off-grid energy
Canberra Times
Friday 26/2/2010 Page: 3
A mini-power plant roughly the size of a small fridge is set to drive a global green energy revolution by literally bringing power to the people. The Bloom Box, unveiled yesterday by Silicon Valley startup Bloom Energy, is a stack of wafer-thin solid oxide fuel-cells that generates electricity by combining natural gas or biofuels with oxygen via a chemical reaction. The "electricity in a box" breakthrough will allow homes and offices to generate electricity on site, reducing dependence on coal-fired power and centralised electricity generation. It also needs far less land than solar arrays and wind farms.
The technology was launched at eBay's headquarters in California by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who described it as "a shining star" of clean energy innovation. "It produces safe, reliable power that is 60% cleaner than a coal-fired power plant.., and it produces that power on site. You don't need transmission lines; you don't have to put it on a grid," Mr Schwarzenegger said. Developed by NASA aerospace engineer Dr K.R. Sridhar, the Bloom Box traces its origins to the Mars space program. Dr Sridhar and his research team were asked to devise a technology to produce oxygen for astronauts on Mars, and hydrogen to fuel transport vehicles, but realised their research results had bigger implications for Earth.
"We believe we can have the same kind of impact on energy that the mobile phone had on communications. Just as cell phones circumvented landlines to proliferate telephony, Bloom Energy will enable the adoption of distributed power as a smarter, localised energy source," Dr Sridhar said. The technology has been tested for the past 18 months by a who's who of commercial customers in the United States that includes Google, FedEx, Walmart, eBay, Cocoa-Cola and the Bank of America. Bloom Energy's board members include former US secretary of state General Colin Powell and the managing director of global financial firm Morgan Stanley, Eddy Zervigon.
About $400 million has been invested in the fuel-cell project by Silicon Valley venture capital investors Ideiner Perkins Canfield & Byers, who have a history of backing winners that include Amazon.com and Apple's iPhone and iPod technologies. Kleiner Perkins spokesman John Doerr said the technology would give the US "clean, affordable, energy 24/7 - and all the jobs that go with it". Deputy director of Australia's Clean Energy Council Rob Jackson quipped the breakthrough showed "not every big idea conies from thinking outside the box". "If Bloom Energy really has developed a technology that can work cheaply on a large scale using readily available materials, we absolutely welcome that," he said.
"An effective fuel-cell has been something of a holy grail for the energy industry and different fuel-cell models have been in development for more than a century. Some Australian companies such as Ceramic Fuel Cells have also been producing some positive breakthroughs in this area. We need to revolutionise the way we deliver energy in order to deal with the risks of dangerous climate change and as a result we need deep thinkers with revolutionary ideas." The fridge-sized power units currently cost around $800,000 each, but Dr Sridhar's goal is to create a $3000 box that can be used to power homes. Bloom is not the only company pursuing fuel-cell technology, and competitors have been quick to point out commercialisation of the Bloom Box may take up to 10 years. Some rivals have dismissed Bloom's claims as "big hype", saying the fuel-cell technology they've announced is not new.
Friday 26/2/2010 Page: 3
A mini-power plant roughly the size of a small fridge is set to drive a global green energy revolution by literally bringing power to the people. The Bloom Box, unveiled yesterday by Silicon Valley startup Bloom Energy, is a stack of wafer-thin solid oxide fuel-cells that generates electricity by combining natural gas or biofuels with oxygen via a chemical reaction. The "electricity in a box" breakthrough will allow homes and offices to generate electricity on site, reducing dependence on coal-fired power and centralised electricity generation. It also needs far less land than solar arrays and wind farms.
The technology was launched at eBay's headquarters in California by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who described it as "a shining star" of clean energy innovation. "It produces safe, reliable power that is 60% cleaner than a coal-fired power plant.., and it produces that power on site. You don't need transmission lines; you don't have to put it on a grid," Mr Schwarzenegger said. Developed by NASA aerospace engineer Dr K.R. Sridhar, the Bloom Box traces its origins to the Mars space program. Dr Sridhar and his research team were asked to devise a technology to produce oxygen for astronauts on Mars, and hydrogen to fuel transport vehicles, but realised their research results had bigger implications for Earth.
"We believe we can have the same kind of impact on energy that the mobile phone had on communications. Just as cell phones circumvented landlines to proliferate telephony, Bloom Energy will enable the adoption of distributed power as a smarter, localised energy source," Dr Sridhar said. The technology has been tested for the past 18 months by a who's who of commercial customers in the United States that includes Google, FedEx, Walmart, eBay, Cocoa-Cola and the Bank of America. Bloom Energy's board members include former US secretary of state General Colin Powell and the managing director of global financial firm Morgan Stanley, Eddy Zervigon.
About $400 million has been invested in the fuel-cell project by Silicon Valley venture capital investors Ideiner Perkins Canfield & Byers, who have a history of backing winners that include Amazon.com and Apple's iPhone and iPod technologies. Kleiner Perkins spokesman John Doerr said the technology would give the US "clean, affordable, energy 24/7 - and all the jobs that go with it". Deputy director of Australia's Clean Energy Council Rob Jackson quipped the breakthrough showed "not every big idea conies from thinking outside the box". "If Bloom Energy really has developed a technology that can work cheaply on a large scale using readily available materials, we absolutely welcome that," he said.
"An effective fuel-cell has been something of a holy grail for the energy industry and different fuel-cell models have been in development for more than a century. Some Australian companies such as Ceramic Fuel Cells have also been producing some positive breakthroughs in this area. We need to revolutionise the way we deliver energy in order to deal with the risks of dangerous climate change and as a result we need deep thinkers with revolutionary ideas." The fridge-sized power units currently cost around $800,000 each, but Dr Sridhar's goal is to create a $3000 box that can be used to power homes. Bloom is not the only company pursuing fuel-cell technology, and competitors have been quick to point out commercialisation of the Bloom Box may take up to 10 years. Some rivals have dismissed Bloom's claims as "big hype", saying the fuel-cell technology they've announced is not new.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)