www.hartfordbusiness.com
05/24/10
Proton Energy Systems in Wallingford broke ground last week on the first connection of its planned Hydrogen Highway, a network of nine stations stretching from Maine to Miami where hydrogen cars can be refueled. The Hydrogen Highway spearheads the company's effort to create an East Coast market for cars powered by hydrogen fuel-cells and, therefore, boosting the need for Proton Energy Systems's products that create hydrogen out of water.
Even though these SunHydro stations will operate at a loss for the conceivable future, the effort is vital to convincing automakers an American market exists for fuel-cell cars, particularly on the East Coast, said Rob Friedland, Proton president and CEO. "As people get more comfortable with this technology, they will realise it has all the benefits you want from an alternative energy," Friedland said. "It's not as daunting or complicated as some people make it out to be."
Founded in 1996 in Rocky Hill, Proton Energy Systems is a global leader in hydrogen energy, holding 68 patents related to hydrogen generation. The company, now located in Wallingford, has more than 75 employees. As of the 2008 report by the National Hydrogen Association, there were 210 hydrogen-powered cars on the road in the United States, although that number likely has grown to 300 vehicles, said Patrick Serfass, spokesman for the National Hydrogen Association.
The majority of those cars — as well as half of the operational hydrogen fueling stations — are in California, particularly Southern California. The vehicles range from SUVs such as the Chevy Fuel Cell EV, Hyundai Tucson FCEV and the Toyota FCHV-adv to smaller, sportier rides such as the Mazda RX-8, Honda FCX Clarity and the Mercedes-Benz B-Class F-CELL.
All of the fuel-cell cars in the field are pre-production vehicles and are not available for purchase in the United States. Some are available for lease, such as the Honda FCX Clarity for $600 month with insurance included. Auto manufacturers are targeting 2015 as the year most of the models will go on sale, Serfass said, but that depends on whether they believe a market exists for the cars. "The auto manufacturers don't want to roll out 100 vehicles; they want to roll out several hundred or thousands," Serfass said.
The joint effort by SunHydro and Proton Energy Systems - both companies are owned by entrepreneur Tom Sullivan - to build these stations on the East Coast could drastically change automakers' opinion of this as a viable market for fuel-cell cars, Serfass said. With the nine SunHydro stations and other hydrogen stations scattered in New York and Washington, D.C., owning these alternative-energy cars would be much more convenient. "The auto manufacturers don't want to roll out a vehicle that will be entirely inconvenient for the owner to maintain," Serfass said.
fuel-cell cars are zero emission vehicles that run an electric motor using compressed hydrogen gas. The only by-product of the systems is water vapour. The only time CO2 is emitted into the environment is during the creation of the hydrogen, which typically is accomplished with natural gas.
All the SunHydro stations would use Proton Energy Systems equipment that creates hydrogen out of water using solar power, so there are no CO2 emissions. "Our goal would be to be 100 percent off the grid," said Michael Grey, president of SunHydro. Proton Energy Systems expects to be completed with its nine stations by 2012. After the first in Wallingford, next will be one in Braintree, Mass. followed by stations in Maine and Delaware, or perhaps New Jersey.
fuel-cell cars have a range of 200-450 miles, so with the hydrogen highway stations strategically placed, owners can drive the entire East Coast using the alternative fuel. The cost to fill a fuel-cell car with hydrogen is roughly equivalent to filling a car with gasoline, Friedland said. Hydrogen may cost as much as $5 per kilogram, but a kilogram of hydrogen gets more than twice the mileage of a gallon of gas, so a 5-kilogram hydrogen car can drive as far as a 12-gallon gasoline vehicle.
The Mercedes Benz B-Class F-CELL gets the equivalent of 71.3 miles per gallon out of its hydrogen system, according to the Mercedes Benz marketing materials. Central Connecticut already has one hydrogen fueling station on UTC Power's campus in South Windsor. The station serves the campus' fuel-cell vehicles and the CTTransit fuel-cell bus that has served Greater Hartford since 2007. Since opening in 2007 with the help of a $2.9-million Federal Transit Administration grant, the only time the UTC Power station sold fuel to a private customer was in 2008 when the Hydrogen Road Tour drove the East Coast. "CTTransit is expecting to get more (fuel-cell) buses this year, so the station will continue to be used," said Peg Hashem, spokeswoman for UTC Power.
The automakers plan to roll out their hydrogen fuel-cell revolves around locations where stations already exist, Serfass said. The first place will be Southern California followed by Northern California. Next will be Washington, D.C. and the greater New York City metropolitan area, which will include Connecticut. fuel-cell vehicles will be competing in the Connecticut alternative energy car market with the more visible electric vehicles, those cars running on a battery that is recharged by plugging it into an energy source, such as an outlet.
A group of utility companies including Northeast Utilities and United Illuminating have been working with Gov. M. Jodi Rell's Electric Vehicles Infrastructure Council to be prepared for companies such as General Motors, Ford and Nissan to introduce their electric cars into Connecticut next year. Northeast Utilities, which owns Connecticut Light & Power, already has three charging stations in place for electric cars and has been in talks with dozens of communities and customers about installing more, said Watson Collins, Northeast Utilities manager of business development.
An electric car charging station takes as little as a week to get up and running, so infrastructure can balloon quickly and prove to the automakers that Connecticut is a place to sell their cars, Collins said. "We are trying to say the infrastructure is here, and the consumers are here," Collins said. As for the hydrogen car, the majority of the market so far is outside the United States. More than 60 percent of hydrogen units sold by Proton Energy Systems are for foreign use, Friedland said. The company believes this country can have a viable hydrogen car market, but the manufacturers and the consumers have to be convinced of that.
"Removing hydrogen as a viable alternative energy option is already a mistake," Friedland said. The Wallingford hydrogen fueling station is expected to be finished in June, and Proton Energy Systems will have a showcase at the grand opening with fuel-cell cars. "The other key to this is education and outreach," Friedland said. "As people see it, they fear it less."
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Snowy Hydro refit is powering ahead
Canberra Times
Monday 24/5/2010 Page: 2
By any measure, judgment day is an ambitious timeline. Sixty years ago men blasting tunnels through the Snowy Mountains set themselves such a towering goal, singing, "Roll on your way until judgment day, Snowy River roll." Long after the echoes had died away and the dust cleared, seven major power stations, 16 dams, and 145km of interconnected tunnels still fill the country with pride and generate about 70% of Australia's renewable energy.
In the midst of a $400 million upgrade of the post-war project, Snowy Hydro's modernisation engineer-in-charge Darren Davis likens the overhaul to a brain and heart transplant. He said his predecessors designed the Snowy's machinery to be dismantled and upgraded so it could be renewed and would last until judgment day. Smaller and smarter components are replacing ageing circuit breakers, high voltage transformers and cables. New turbine runners are optimising generation capabilities and improving efficiency. "Digging back through records we've found strip down procedures, diagrams, drawings and designs of jigs and fixtures," Mr Davis said.
The highest of all the Snowy's power stations is a run-of-the-river power station at Guthega. The scheme's first and smallest power station built in the 1950s, Guthega's floor is littered with history. An English Electric Co, engine sits at the foot of a turbine displaying a sign saying it was made in Britain. Two turbines and ancillary equipment have been working away for 60 years at the foot of a 246.9m drop from Guthega Dam, generating as much power as the wind farm at Lake George.
Now 40 specialist engineers, tradespeople and contractors are overhauling 1920s-designed machines and pulling out poor-quality post-war steel showing signs of fatigue. "It was well and truly due for a birthday," Mr Davis said. "We have a fairly robust condition assessment process before we make the decision to go into overhauls, some of the conditions we can't find until we strip down machines." A mix of national and international hydro companies, suppliers and skilled workers in electricity generation will take about seven years to complete the work.
Replacing turbine runners is straightforward but time consuming. Only one of the two units at Guthega will be out of service at any time. "It takes its about 18 months to two years from the time we decide to upgrade a unit, get the runner ready to install.There's a long, long process of computation fluid dynamics and scale models before we get full-size units." Each generating unit rated at 30MW will produce at least 34MW after the upgrade and will be up to 5% more efficient.
While wind and solar energy are attracting much investment in renewable energy, hydro power's role remains critical, according to Mr Davis. "I don't quite understand why hydro does not get the same kudos as wind or solar, you get far more power out of hydro than wind or solar. "With wind you are talking one or twoMWs per machine, we have machines that have 300MWs per machine - you have to build a lot of wind machines to get the same output. "We have a limited fuel supply, we can't run all the time because we run out of water, but we can torn it on and off. Wind has an unlimited but uncertain supply."
While Snowy Hydro's power would come on in two minutes, gas-fired stations could take up to 30 minutes and coal-fired stations could take ]tours. "Peaking is our forte, that fits neatly with a limited fuel supply, we don't have a lot of water, we are best using it at the peak." Guthega's upgrade is being commissioned this month and will be returned to service in June.
Monday 24/5/2010 Page: 2
By any measure, judgment day is an ambitious timeline. Sixty years ago men blasting tunnels through the Snowy Mountains set themselves such a towering goal, singing, "Roll on your way until judgment day, Snowy River roll." Long after the echoes had died away and the dust cleared, seven major power stations, 16 dams, and 145km of interconnected tunnels still fill the country with pride and generate about 70% of Australia's renewable energy.In the midst of a $400 million upgrade of the post-war project, Snowy Hydro's modernisation engineer-in-charge Darren Davis likens the overhaul to a brain and heart transplant. He said his predecessors designed the Snowy's machinery to be dismantled and upgraded so it could be renewed and would last until judgment day. Smaller and smarter components are replacing ageing circuit breakers, high voltage transformers and cables. New turbine runners are optimising generation capabilities and improving efficiency. "Digging back through records we've found strip down procedures, diagrams, drawings and designs of jigs and fixtures," Mr Davis said.
The highest of all the Snowy's power stations is a run-of-the-river power station at Guthega. The scheme's first and smallest power station built in the 1950s, Guthega's floor is littered with history. An English Electric Co, engine sits at the foot of a turbine displaying a sign saying it was made in Britain. Two turbines and ancillary equipment have been working away for 60 years at the foot of a 246.9m drop from Guthega Dam, generating as much power as the wind farm at Lake George.
Now 40 specialist engineers, tradespeople and contractors are overhauling 1920s-designed machines and pulling out poor-quality post-war steel showing signs of fatigue. "It was well and truly due for a birthday," Mr Davis said. "We have a fairly robust condition assessment process before we make the decision to go into overhauls, some of the conditions we can't find until we strip down machines." A mix of national and international hydro companies, suppliers and skilled workers in electricity generation will take about seven years to complete the work.
Replacing turbine runners is straightforward but time consuming. Only one of the two units at Guthega will be out of service at any time. "It takes its about 18 months to two years from the time we decide to upgrade a unit, get the runner ready to install.There's a long, long process of computation fluid dynamics and scale models before we get full-size units." Each generating unit rated at 30MW will produce at least 34MW after the upgrade and will be up to 5% more efficient.
While wind and solar energy are attracting much investment in renewable energy, hydro power's role remains critical, according to Mr Davis. "I don't quite understand why hydro does not get the same kudos as wind or solar, you get far more power out of hydro than wind or solar. "With wind you are talking one or twoMWs per machine, we have machines that have 300MWs per machine - you have to build a lot of wind machines to get the same output. "We have a limited fuel supply, we can't run all the time because we run out of water, but we can torn it on and off. Wind has an unlimited but uncertain supply."
While Snowy Hydro's power would come on in two minutes, gas-fired stations could take up to 30 minutes and coal-fired stations could take ]tours. "Peaking is our forte, that fits neatly with a limited fuel supply, we don't have a lot of water, we are best using it at the peak." Guthega's upgrade is being commissioned this month and will be returned to service in June.
Hiccups in capturing Wave Power
Australian
Monday 24/5/2010 Page: 26
THERE are so many prototypes being built or planned to capture wave energy that there seem to be as many shapes and sizes as you might find in a children's play box.
But there's one fundamental choice that distinguishes the offering: should it float on the water or be installed on the sea floor? Noone's done quite enough research and testing to discover which will be the most effective, and there seems good argument for both. One thing you don't want, however, is for your floating machine to sink to the bottom, or vice-versa.
The developers and financial backers of Oceanlinx's wave generation unit would have been mortified last week when its third-generation prototype, the Mk3PC, broke its moorings just off the industrial city of Port Kembla, and crashed into a nearby breakWater and sank, less than two months after the country's first grid-connected wave plant was officially launched.
The company is putting on a brave face, saying that enough data had been gleaned from the unit during its short period of operations, when it had performed at and even beyond expectations, for them to move ahead with a full-size model. It says the one-third-scale prototype, at 30m by 10m, and 170 tonnes, was only built to withstand 4m waves and this was easily exceeded last weekend. The full-scale model will be built to withstand 30m waves, the company says.
Oceanlinx is not the only wave energy developer to suffer such a misfortune. Finnevera lost its Aquaboy wave energy device in October 2007 because of a bilge pump failure. OPT, which has been chosen by the federal government to build Australia's first large-scale wave energy plant in Victoria, lost a device in 2002 it snapped when being towed into place.
Such mishaps can only be expected while new technologies are being developed, particularly in the harsh marine environment. Which is why Britain, in contrast to Australia, has gone for multiple projects, and its programs include Crown Estate's £4 billion ($6.9bn) investment to foster 10 different wave and tidal technologies and nursery sites at the marine energy centre in Scotland, and a new wave hub in Cornwall.
Two new-generation technologies have been unveiled in the past week, including a 230m-long, 1500-tonne "sea snake" developed by Pelamis Wave Power and energy firm E.ON. The extraordinary machine, which lies semi-submerged, is to be towed from London to Scotland next month. Just imagine 300 of those lying off the coast in a single array.
The other model was Aquamarine's "sea oyster," a 26m x 16m device that is attached to the ocean floor and has a large hinged flap that acts like a pump driven by ocean energy. Britain's fascination with offshore power can be partly explained by a report released last week that says the country has offshore energy resources, including wave, tidal, offshore wind and floating wind, equivalent to its North Sea oil and gas reserves.
The report, prepared by Boston Consulting and backed by the Offshore Valuation Group, a coalition of industrial and government organisations, paints three different scenarios: one where enough is developed to satisfy one half of Britain's energy needs; a second where it becomes a net electricity exporter via a European super grid; and the third where it becomes a net energy producer.
Wave and tidal energy sources would contribute a small but critical amount of this energy of up to 45GWs comparable to Australia's total current energy capacity with most coming from floating offshore wind turbines. "The UK is now most of the way through its first great offshore energy asset, our stock of hydrocarbon reserves," the report says. "The central finding of this report is that our second offshore asset, of renewable energy, could be just as valuable. Britain's extensive offshore experience could now unlock an energy flow that will never nun out."
Monday 24/5/2010 Page: 26
THERE are so many prototypes being built or planned to capture wave energy that there seem to be as many shapes and sizes as you might find in a children's play box.
But there's one fundamental choice that distinguishes the offering: should it float on the water or be installed on the sea floor? Noone's done quite enough research and testing to discover which will be the most effective, and there seems good argument for both. One thing you don't want, however, is for your floating machine to sink to the bottom, or vice-versa.
The developers and financial backers of Oceanlinx's wave generation unit would have been mortified last week when its third-generation prototype, the Mk3PC, broke its moorings just off the industrial city of Port Kembla, and crashed into a nearby breakWater and sank, less than two months after the country's first grid-connected wave plant was officially launched.
The company is putting on a brave face, saying that enough data had been gleaned from the unit during its short period of operations, when it had performed at and even beyond expectations, for them to move ahead with a full-size model. It says the one-third-scale prototype, at 30m by 10m, and 170 tonnes, was only built to withstand 4m waves and this was easily exceeded last weekend. The full-scale model will be built to withstand 30m waves, the company says.
Oceanlinx is not the only wave energy developer to suffer such a misfortune. Finnevera lost its Aquaboy wave energy device in October 2007 because of a bilge pump failure. OPT, which has been chosen by the federal government to build Australia's first large-scale wave energy plant in Victoria, lost a device in 2002 it snapped when being towed into place.
Such mishaps can only be expected while new technologies are being developed, particularly in the harsh marine environment. Which is why Britain, in contrast to Australia, has gone for multiple projects, and its programs include Crown Estate's £4 billion ($6.9bn) investment to foster 10 different wave and tidal technologies and nursery sites at the marine energy centre in Scotland, and a new wave hub in Cornwall.
Two new-generation technologies have been unveiled in the past week, including a 230m-long, 1500-tonne "sea snake" developed by Pelamis Wave Power and energy firm E.ON. The extraordinary machine, which lies semi-submerged, is to be towed from London to Scotland next month. Just imagine 300 of those lying off the coast in a single array.
The other model was Aquamarine's "sea oyster," a 26m x 16m device that is attached to the ocean floor and has a large hinged flap that acts like a pump driven by ocean energy. Britain's fascination with offshore power can be partly explained by a report released last week that says the country has offshore energy resources, including wave, tidal, offshore wind and floating wind, equivalent to its North Sea oil and gas reserves.
The report, prepared by Boston Consulting and backed by the Offshore Valuation Group, a coalition of industrial and government organisations, paints three different scenarios: one where enough is developed to satisfy one half of Britain's energy needs; a second where it becomes a net electricity exporter via a European super grid; and the third where it becomes a net energy producer.
Wave and tidal energy sources would contribute a small but critical amount of this energy of up to 45GWs comparable to Australia's total current energy capacity with most coming from floating offshore wind turbines. "The UK is now most of the way through its first great offshore energy asset, our stock of hydrocarbon reserves," the report says. "The central finding of this report is that our second offshore asset, of renewable energy, could be just as valuable. Britain's extensive offshore experience could now unlock an energy flow that will never nun out."
RET generates industry response
Weekend Australian
Saturday 22/5/2010 Page: 5
THE enlarged renewable energy target has seen an eight-fold increase in plans to build green generation in Australia, according to AGL Energy, with the dominant technology being wind power.
Speaking to a utilities conference, Jeff Dimery, AGL Energy's group general manager for merchant energy, said the small scale RET program implemented by the Howard government was estimated four years ago to lead to just 1200MWs of new renewable generation being developed this decade.
AGL Energy now expected 9500MW of renewable generation to be constructed by 2020 as a result of the Rudd government scheme requiring 20% of consumption to be zero emission by the end of the decade. This will see a $30 billion investment in new power production. However, Dimery said, the future of renewable development is critically dependent on the government winning passage of amending RET legislation to rectify flaws in the initial scheme before federal parliament rises for the winter recess. The improved RET has also changed the outlook for gas generation, according to Dimery.
Four years ago, AGL Energy expected 5500MW of close-cycle (baseload) gas turbines to be built this decade plus 4500MW of open cycle (peaking) plant. The outlook now is for 5500MW of peaking plant to be constructed by 2020 with new baseload gas capacity falling back to 2800MW.
Australia has a world-class wind resource, said Dimery, with especially good opportunities for the eastern seaboard, where more than 85% of demand is located, in Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria, but the best sites for wind farms in Tasmania and South Australia are already taken. AGL Energy has commissioned 71MW of wind power at Hallett in SA, with two other systems totalling 164MW under construction there and a further 54MW farm possible at the site. It is also looking at building a 130MW wind farm at Redhill in SA. The company has 69MW of wind generation under construction in Victoria and has made a conditional "under review."
At the same conference Karen Moses, executive director finance and strategy at Origin Energy, said the company's modelling suggests that more than 6000MW of new wind capacity will be built by 2020 in the absence of a competitive alternative renewable technology. Longterm, development of emerging geothermal technology could provide a further large-scale renewable energy source.
In the absence of a price on carbon, direct action maybe needed to provide an incentive for coal-fired generation to close, Moses said, but this approach needs to be "market-based, nondiscriminatory and non distortionary." With a delay to the emissions trading scheme, she also expects attention to shift to energy efficiency as a means to cut carbon emissions, but Origin Energy sees the "plethora" of state-based schemes as a barrier to progress. "Although introduced with good intentions in Victoria, SA and NSW, these schemes are inefficient and costly for consumers."
Saturday 22/5/2010 Page: 5
THE enlarged renewable energy target has seen an eight-fold increase in plans to build green generation in Australia, according to AGL Energy, with the dominant technology being wind power.
Speaking to a utilities conference, Jeff Dimery, AGL Energy's group general manager for merchant energy, said the small scale RET program implemented by the Howard government was estimated four years ago to lead to just 1200MWs of new renewable generation being developed this decade.
AGL Energy now expected 9500MW of renewable generation to be constructed by 2020 as a result of the Rudd government scheme requiring 20% of consumption to be zero emission by the end of the decade. This will see a $30 billion investment in new power production. However, Dimery said, the future of renewable development is critically dependent on the government winning passage of amending RET legislation to rectify flaws in the initial scheme before federal parliament rises for the winter recess. The improved RET has also changed the outlook for gas generation, according to Dimery.
Four years ago, AGL Energy expected 5500MW of close-cycle (baseload) gas turbines to be built this decade plus 4500MW of open cycle (peaking) plant. The outlook now is for 5500MW of peaking plant to be constructed by 2020 with new baseload gas capacity falling back to 2800MW.
Australia has a world-class wind resource, said Dimery, with especially good opportunities for the eastern seaboard, where more than 85% of demand is located, in Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria, but the best sites for wind farms in Tasmania and South Australia are already taken. AGL Energy has commissioned 71MW of wind power at Hallett in SA, with two other systems totalling 164MW under construction there and a further 54MW farm possible at the site. It is also looking at building a 130MW wind farm at Redhill in SA. The company has 69MW of wind generation under construction in Victoria and has made a conditional "under review."
At the same conference Karen Moses, executive director finance and strategy at Origin Energy, said the company's modelling suggests that more than 6000MW of new wind capacity will be built by 2020 in the absence of a competitive alternative renewable technology. Longterm, development of emerging geothermal technology could provide a further large-scale renewable energy source.
In the absence of a price on carbon, direct action maybe needed to provide an incentive for coal-fired generation to close, Moses said, but this approach needs to be "market-based, nondiscriminatory and non distortionary." With a delay to the emissions trading scheme, she also expects attention to shift to energy efficiency as a means to cut carbon emissions, but Origin Energy sees the "plethora" of state-based schemes as a barrier to progress. "Although introduced with good intentions in Victoria, SA and NSW, these schemes are inefficient and costly for consumers."
Monday, 31 May 2010
IP's ruthless inefficiency maintains balance of power
Age
Saturday 22/5/2010 Page: 2
IN TERMS of emissions per unit of energy produced it is the most polluting power station in the country, pumping out 3% of Australia's greenhouse gasses all by itself. Everybody wants the brown coal-fired Hazelwood power station closed down, the questions are: how soon, how much will it cost and what precedent will it set? Hazelwood, which supplies a quarter of Victoria's electricity, was one of the oldest, dirtiest, coal-fired power stations in the OECD in 2005 and is becoming an embarrassment.
Built between 1959 and 1971, the plant is however, making its owners - UK-listed utility International Power (92% ) and the Commonwealth Bank (8% ) - an embarrassing amount of money. Australia was the most profitable of IP's holdings last year, delivering 27% profit growth, without counting the boost from our strong currency One manifestation of global warming here is demand for more air-conditioning - a virtuous circle if you're a coalfired power generator.
IP CEO Philip Cox told investors in March that periods of "exceptionally high temperature" in Victoria and South Australia had helped boost power prices in 2009. Hazelwood got special mention for delivering "substantially improved availability compared to 2008." The plant's load factor - how much time it spent On - jumped from 75 to 85% and electricity prices rose from $43 to $45 perMW hour.
In the UK, IP's shares have, climbed steadily since the financial crisis and its credit rating is stable. Its AGM in London this week went smoothly. Hazelwood's bankers in Australia refinanced $742 million in loans in January (a short-term reprieve until June 2012 and at an interest rate 1% higher, which IP attributed to uncertainty about emissions trading).
In IP Australia's accounts, filed at the end of April, directors said they were unable to determine any financial impact of proposed climate policy on its Australian assets. (IP's Australian directors must be getting edgy about climate risk though; the company gave them extra indemnification this year.) IP subsidiary Hazelwood Power Finance reported that the carrying amount of assets whose value could be affected by the abandoned carbon pollution reduction scheme was $2 billion as at December 31 - up $26 million on a year ago. But an IP spokesman said this could not be taken as a direct valuation of Hazelwood, which is owned in partnership with a number of other IP subsidiaries.
During the CPRS negotiations, IP Australia offered early retirement of Hazelwood and 70% - owned stablemate Loy Yang B, if an amount was paid to keep equity and debt investors "commercially whole to a pre - CPRS valuation." Which meant, buy us out at book value - certainly not market value, because who would buy Hazelwood in 2010? Blurring the figures, IP said the enterprise value of the two stations was more than $4 billion combined.
Under the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme negotiated with then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, the government buckled to threats from coal-fired power generators to run down maintenance of the electricity supply, or even "hand back the keys" to plants. Hazelwood alone stood to receive permits worth almost $1 billion, analysts at Innovest calculated - and this was before the compensation in the scheme doubled, jumping by $4 billion to $7.3 billion. ESAS flouted the principles in the Garnaut report, which rejected "inadequate" arguments for compensation based on the loss of value of emissions-intensive assets, unanticipated regulatory change or sovereign risk.
The review agreed the Latrobe Valley was a special case, but said public financial assistance should be directed first to low-emissions coal technologies (matched by industry) and, second, to the workers and communities affected by a transition away from brown coal. The Government's ESAS, in contrast, was a straight allocation to electricity generators conditional only on their agreement to maintain a reliable supply of coal-fired power for another decade.
Even sceptical opposition leader Tony Abbott could do better than that. His Emissions Reduction Fund - to rise from $300 million to $1.2 billion a year by 2020 - would buy abatement projects volunteered by business. There is a wide expectation the fund would start spending in the Latrobe Valley. The Australia Institute estimates retiring brown-coal-fired power stations could create deep and early emissions cuts for as little as $6 per tonne. IP estimated the cost at $20-30 a tonne - still relatively cheap for the volume of abatement on offer.
IP's original offer remains on the table, but a spokesman said no negotiations were under way. As Hazelwood becomes a green cause celebre, everyone wants to throw money at IP. This month Environment Victoria stepped tip its campaign to close the plant by 2012. A report by Green Energy Markets said Hazelwood could be shut down and replaced with a combination of gas, renewables and improved energy efficiency for around $320 million a year - multiplying the plant's emissions (16.2 million tonnes a year) by a presumed carbon price of $20 a tonne. That would add $36 a year to their electricity bills.
But does IP deserve the money? The company was pushing its barrow again this week. Website CE Daily revealed a confidential IP submission that found its way to the Department of Climate Change and its website. It attacked a crazy idea from the PM's Energy Efficiency Taskforce to reform the National Electricity Market Management Company so that it promotes, rather than impedes, energy efficiency.
"(IP) rejects any proposal to introduce climate change policy, under the guise of energy efficiency measures, which has the potential to destroy the value of existing investments in the generator sector." IP says its quote was taken out of context and the company supports both energy efficiency and action on climate change. They didn't say: as long as it costs us nothing.
Paddy.manning@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Saturday 22/5/2010 Page: 2
IN TERMS of emissions per unit of energy produced it is the most polluting power station in the country, pumping out 3% of Australia's greenhouse gasses all by itself. Everybody wants the brown coal-fired Hazelwood power station closed down, the questions are: how soon, how much will it cost and what precedent will it set? Hazelwood, which supplies a quarter of Victoria's electricity, was one of the oldest, dirtiest, coal-fired power stations in the OECD in 2005 and is becoming an embarrassment.
Built between 1959 and 1971, the plant is however, making its owners - UK-listed utility International Power (92% ) and the Commonwealth Bank (8% ) - an embarrassing amount of money. Australia was the most profitable of IP's holdings last year, delivering 27% profit growth, without counting the boost from our strong currency One manifestation of global warming here is demand for more air-conditioning - a virtuous circle if you're a coalfired power generator.
IP CEO Philip Cox told investors in March that periods of "exceptionally high temperature" in Victoria and South Australia had helped boost power prices in 2009. Hazelwood got special mention for delivering "substantially improved availability compared to 2008." The plant's load factor - how much time it spent On - jumped from 75 to 85% and electricity prices rose from $43 to $45 perMW hour.
In the UK, IP's shares have, climbed steadily since the financial crisis and its credit rating is stable. Its AGM in London this week went smoothly. Hazelwood's bankers in Australia refinanced $742 million in loans in January (a short-term reprieve until June 2012 and at an interest rate 1% higher, which IP attributed to uncertainty about emissions trading).
In IP Australia's accounts, filed at the end of April, directors said they were unable to determine any financial impact of proposed climate policy on its Australian assets. (IP's Australian directors must be getting edgy about climate risk though; the company gave them extra indemnification this year.) IP subsidiary Hazelwood Power Finance reported that the carrying amount of assets whose value could be affected by the abandoned carbon pollution reduction scheme was $2 billion as at December 31 - up $26 million on a year ago. But an IP spokesman said this could not be taken as a direct valuation of Hazelwood, which is owned in partnership with a number of other IP subsidiaries.
During the CPRS negotiations, IP Australia offered early retirement of Hazelwood and 70% - owned stablemate Loy Yang B, if an amount was paid to keep equity and debt investors "commercially whole to a pre - CPRS valuation." Which meant, buy us out at book value - certainly not market value, because who would buy Hazelwood in 2010? Blurring the figures, IP said the enterprise value of the two stations was more than $4 billion combined.
Under the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme negotiated with then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, the government buckled to threats from coal-fired power generators to run down maintenance of the electricity supply, or even "hand back the keys" to plants. Hazelwood alone stood to receive permits worth almost $1 billion, analysts at Innovest calculated - and this was before the compensation in the scheme doubled, jumping by $4 billion to $7.3 billion. ESAS flouted the principles in the Garnaut report, which rejected "inadequate" arguments for compensation based on the loss of value of emissions-intensive assets, unanticipated regulatory change or sovereign risk.
The review agreed the Latrobe Valley was a special case, but said public financial assistance should be directed first to low-emissions coal technologies (matched by industry) and, second, to the workers and communities affected by a transition away from brown coal. The Government's ESAS, in contrast, was a straight allocation to electricity generators conditional only on their agreement to maintain a reliable supply of coal-fired power for another decade.
Even sceptical opposition leader Tony Abbott could do better than that. His Emissions Reduction Fund - to rise from $300 million to $1.2 billion a year by 2020 - would buy abatement projects volunteered by business. There is a wide expectation the fund would start spending in the Latrobe Valley. The Australia Institute estimates retiring brown-coal-fired power stations could create deep and early emissions cuts for as little as $6 per tonne. IP estimated the cost at $20-30 a tonne - still relatively cheap for the volume of abatement on offer.
IP's original offer remains on the table, but a spokesman said no negotiations were under way. As Hazelwood becomes a green cause celebre, everyone wants to throw money at IP. This month Environment Victoria stepped tip its campaign to close the plant by 2012. A report by Green Energy Markets said Hazelwood could be shut down and replaced with a combination of gas, renewables and improved energy efficiency for around $320 million a year - multiplying the plant's emissions (16.2 million tonnes a year) by a presumed carbon price of $20 a tonne. That would add $36 a year to their electricity bills.
But does IP deserve the money? The company was pushing its barrow again this week. Website CE Daily revealed a confidential IP submission that found its way to the Department of Climate Change and its website. It attacked a crazy idea from the PM's Energy Efficiency Taskforce to reform the National Electricity Market Management Company so that it promotes, rather than impedes, energy efficiency.
"(IP) rejects any proposal to introduce climate change policy, under the guise of energy efficiency measures, which has the potential to destroy the value of existing investments in the generator sector." IP says its quote was taken out of context and the company supports both energy efficiency and action on climate change. They didn't say: as long as it costs us nothing.
Paddy.manning@fairfaxmedia.com.au
Ripping profits from power lines
Business Spectator
Thursday 20/5/2010 Page: 1
There's a pretty big reason why most energy utilities don't want to provide their consumers with greater access to energy usage data: they don't want to lose their business.
The global energy sector - a dull, regulated, protected and predictable industry - is facing its greatest upheaval, not from the threat of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon price, but from information hungry technology companies that want to turn the industry on its head by offering electricity to consumers for free, bundled in a package that could include home entertainment systems, household appliances or software management systems.
It has been estimated by management consulting firm McKinsey & Co that an investment of $US520 billion over the next 10 years could reduce national energy demand in the US by 23% and result in $US1.2 trillion in savings. Little wonder that the utilities sector - which has based its business model in selling as many electrons as it can - is stonewalling. International Power's rear-guard action to resist any government energy efficiency measures - it argues that any regulation that requires its heavy emitting Hazelwood and Loy Yang B power stations would destroy their value - reflects the fear in the sector.
But they are under attack, not just from environmentalists or government climate change policy, but other businesses that see an opportunity presenting itself as smart grid technology matures and the industry grapples with a potential lack of capacity. Last month, a group of 45 major US companies and organisations - including Google, Intel, GE, Whirlpool, and AT&T - asked President Obama in an open letter to promote greater consumer access to energy usage data. "By giving people the ability to monitor and manage their energy consumption, for instance, via their computers, phones or other devices, we can unleash the forces of innovation in homes and businesses," they said. And what they didn't say was that these companies could emerge to dominate the energy industry in ways that the utilities sector could never have imagined.
A report by Ernst & Young this week entitled Seeing Energy Differently underlines what's at stake for the utilities sector. It says about $US200 billion will be spent world-wide on smart grids in the next five years in response to the need to incorporate renewable energy sources, meet increased demand and improve efficiency and replace outdated infrastructure. How they manage that transformation could decide their future and how much third party corporates such as Google, Intel and others come to dominate the industry. EY defines the options as one of evolution or revolution.
In the former, EY sees the simple business of energy supply evolving into a new, sophisticated form of energy service, in which utilities form partnerships with third parties help consumers manage their energy use and react to prices to find the best deals. That way, they (the utilities) retain the power, so to speak.
Under the revolution scenario, the power and utilities companies come under competitive attack all along the value chain. New interactive customer relationships and new competitive models will allow third parties to enter the market. "This creates a revolution," EY notes. "Market rationalities and business strategies change completely." It could be exciting for the consumer, if less so for the utility. Which is why the likes of Google, GE, Intel, AT&T and Whirlpool are so keen on bypassing the utilities to get access to more information about energy usage.
By packaging offerings such as appliances, home entertainment and communications systems with an energy service, the likes of these companies don't lose business if the customer uses less energy, as they will be encouraged to do. Power utilities, however, have a business model that means less energy consumption equals less profit. That will have to change, and may need to do so quickly.
"The power utilities industry has no interest in revolution," says Helmut Edelmann, the German-based head of the global power and utilities smart program at Ernst & Young. But if a Microsoft, Apple or a Google can come up with a 'killer application' then there will certainly be a revolution. "They have got strong brands and could emerge as dominant players, at least on the consumer end of the business," Edelmann says.
Indeed, the EY report identifies exactly where the utilities are vulnerable. In home services, they are under threat from automotive, real estate, consumer product, media, entertainment companies that can provide home automation, electric vehicles and energy management services.
In billing and information, the threat comes from telecommunication, technology and retail companies specialising in monthly billing and energy consumption information, specialist metering companies will muscle in to the utilities market, telecommunication and technology companies will grab the communication and IT side of the business, industrial service companies will emerge to deliver electricity to the consumer, and clean-tech automotive and retail groups will provide decentralised and or renewable generation.
And then there is the prospect that the likes of Google, which has investment all along the value chain, will celebrate in the creation of a new 'energy internet' and try to put it all back together again under a single brand name. Their own, of course.
Thursday 20/5/2010 Page: 1
There's a pretty big reason why most energy utilities don't want to provide their consumers with greater access to energy usage data: they don't want to lose their business.
The global energy sector - a dull, regulated, protected and predictable industry - is facing its greatest upheaval, not from the threat of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon price, but from information hungry technology companies that want to turn the industry on its head by offering electricity to consumers for free, bundled in a package that could include home entertainment systems, household appliances or software management systems.
It has been estimated by management consulting firm McKinsey & Co that an investment of $US520 billion over the next 10 years could reduce national energy demand in the US by 23% and result in $US1.2 trillion in savings. Little wonder that the utilities sector - which has based its business model in selling as many electrons as it can - is stonewalling. International Power's rear-guard action to resist any government energy efficiency measures - it argues that any regulation that requires its heavy emitting Hazelwood and Loy Yang B power stations would destroy their value - reflects the fear in the sector.
But they are under attack, not just from environmentalists or government climate change policy, but other businesses that see an opportunity presenting itself as smart grid technology matures and the industry grapples with a potential lack of capacity. Last month, a group of 45 major US companies and organisations - including Google, Intel, GE, Whirlpool, and AT&T - asked President Obama in an open letter to promote greater consumer access to energy usage data. "By giving people the ability to monitor and manage their energy consumption, for instance, via their computers, phones or other devices, we can unleash the forces of innovation in homes and businesses," they said. And what they didn't say was that these companies could emerge to dominate the energy industry in ways that the utilities sector could never have imagined.
A report by Ernst & Young this week entitled Seeing Energy Differently underlines what's at stake for the utilities sector. It says about $US200 billion will be spent world-wide on smart grids in the next five years in response to the need to incorporate renewable energy sources, meet increased demand and improve efficiency and replace outdated infrastructure. How they manage that transformation could decide their future and how much third party corporates such as Google, Intel and others come to dominate the industry. EY defines the options as one of evolution or revolution.
In the former, EY sees the simple business of energy supply evolving into a new, sophisticated form of energy service, in which utilities form partnerships with third parties help consumers manage their energy use and react to prices to find the best deals. That way, they (the utilities) retain the power, so to speak.
Under the revolution scenario, the power and utilities companies come under competitive attack all along the value chain. New interactive customer relationships and new competitive models will allow third parties to enter the market. "This creates a revolution," EY notes. "Market rationalities and business strategies change completely." It could be exciting for the consumer, if less so for the utility. Which is why the likes of Google, GE, Intel, AT&T and Whirlpool are so keen on bypassing the utilities to get access to more information about energy usage.
By packaging offerings such as appliances, home entertainment and communications systems with an energy service, the likes of these companies don't lose business if the customer uses less energy, as they will be encouraged to do. Power utilities, however, have a business model that means less energy consumption equals less profit. That will have to change, and may need to do so quickly.
"The power utilities industry has no interest in revolution," says Helmut Edelmann, the German-based head of the global power and utilities smart program at Ernst & Young. But if a Microsoft, Apple or a Google can come up with a 'killer application' then there will certainly be a revolution. "They have got strong brands and could emerge as dominant players, at least on the consumer end of the business," Edelmann says.
Indeed, the EY report identifies exactly where the utilities are vulnerable. In home services, they are under threat from automotive, real estate, consumer product, media, entertainment companies that can provide home automation, electric vehicles and energy management services.
In billing and information, the threat comes from telecommunication, technology and retail companies specialising in monthly billing and energy consumption information, specialist metering companies will muscle in to the utilities market, telecommunication and technology companies will grab the communication and IT side of the business, industrial service companies will emerge to deliver electricity to the consumer, and clean-tech automotive and retail groups will provide decentralised and or renewable generation.
And then there is the prospect that the likes of Google, which has investment all along the value chain, will celebrate in the creation of a new 'energy internet' and try to put it all back together again under a single brand name. Their own, of course.
$300m Downer deals
Adelaide Advertiser
Friday 21/5/2010 Page: 66
INFRASTRUCTURE company Downer EDI has won new contracts, worth $300 million, across its engineering, rail and road divisions. Downer's engineering division has been awarded a $100 million contract for the design of 111 wind turbine generators at Collgar Wind Farms in central Western Australia, the company said. The company also has been given a contract by the Queensland Government's electricity network Powerlink to construct a transmission line from Yabulu South to Ingham in the state's north. The Downer Works division has secured a $50 million road surfacing and traffic control contract on Brisbane's Airport Link. In New Zealand, Downer announced it has secured a three-year contract to maintain emergency winter services on State Highway 5.
Friday 21/5/2010 Page: 66
INFRASTRUCTURE company Downer EDI has won new contracts, worth $300 million, across its engineering, rail and road divisions. Downer's engineering division has been awarded a $100 million contract for the design of 111 wind turbine generators at Collgar Wind Farms in central Western Australia, the company said. The company also has been given a contract by the Queensland Government's electricity network Powerlink to construct a transmission line from Yabulu South to Ingham in the state's north. The Downer Works division has secured a $50 million road surfacing and traffic control contract on Brisbane's Airport Link. In New Zealand, Downer announced it has secured a three-year contract to maintain emergency winter services on State Highway 5.
More dirty power, more dirty politics
Crikey.com.au
Wednesday 19/5/2010 Page: 1
Why was it important for Australia to put a price-ANY price-on carbon? The Australian has a compelling answer today: The head of one of Australia's leading power companies has argued that the collapse of an emissions trading scheme and the subsequent lack of a carbon price means that Australia's next baseload power stations are likely to be coal-fired.
Origin Energy chief Grant King told the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association meeting in Brisbane that having a renewable energy target of 20% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2020 "made no sense" without putting a price on carbon. He said a carbon price of $20-$40 a tonne would be required to start making a gas-fired power station more economically viable than one fired by coal. More dirty power generation - when Australia wants to lead the world in cleaning up its act.
Labor's emissions trading scheme was a deeply flawed mechanism. But it was a start. And as Malcolm Turnbull - burnt and bitter by the ETS experience-pointed out last night, while both parties can achieve short term emissions reduction targets they fail to "indicate a pathway to longer term emission reductions beyond 2020." Like Turnbull's prime ministerial ambitions, on climate change, we are nowhere.
Wednesday 19/5/2010 Page: 1
Why was it important for Australia to put a price-ANY price-on carbon? The Australian has a compelling answer today: The head of one of Australia's leading power companies has argued that the collapse of an emissions trading scheme and the subsequent lack of a carbon price means that Australia's next baseload power stations are likely to be coal-fired.
Origin Energy chief Grant King told the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association meeting in Brisbane that having a renewable energy target of 20% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2020 "made no sense" without putting a price on carbon. He said a carbon price of $20-$40 a tonne would be required to start making a gas-fired power station more economically viable than one fired by coal. More dirty power generation - when Australia wants to lead the world in cleaning up its act.
Labor's emissions trading scheme was a deeply flawed mechanism. But it was a start. And as Malcolm Turnbull - burnt and bitter by the ETS experience-pointed out last night, while both parties can achieve short term emissions reduction targets they fail to "indicate a pathway to longer term emission reductions beyond 2020." Like Turnbull's prime ministerial ambitions, on climate change, we are nowhere.
No proof wind turbines are bad for health: report
www.calgaryherald.com
May 20, 2010
TORONTO - There is no proof that wind turbines are hazardous to your health, according to a report released Thursday by Ontario's top doctor. The report, titled "The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines," examined academic literature, government reports and studies in scientific journals on the green energy source dating back to the 1970s.
The studies - which came from Canada, the UK, Ireland, Italy and the United States - found no evidence that wind turbines led to negative health effects. "According to the scientific evidence, there isn't any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects," said Dr. Arlene King, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer.
King notes in the report that research from 42 sources does not support claims by people near wind turbines who report dizziness, headaches and sleep deprivation. Furthermore, the study said, the noise coming from the turbines isn't loud enough to cause hearing impairment or any other health effect.
In the last few years, the Ontario government has supported wind-turbine use as a viable alternative to other energy sources in its effort to phase out Ontario's dependency on coal. "We do know that other technologies that enable us to have energy like coal fire plants, does have a known negative impact on human health, particularly on respiratory and cardiovascular disease," said King. The province currently has 690 wind turbines. Wind-turbine developments also figure in the energy plans of most provinces and territories in Canada.
Wind energy has been controversial from the offset, with much of the criticism coming from residents who complain of high noise levels, potential exposure to electromagnetic fields, shadow flicker that may cause seizures in epileptic patients, safety concerns about dislodged ice thrown from the blades and possible structural hazards if the turbine were to break down.
The report - which began in January - pointed out that guidelines set by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment ensure that these concerns pose little public risk because the turbines are installed a mandatory distance of at least 550 metres from a residence. Noise levels also do not exceed 40 decibels, which is the average sound level of a quiet office or a library.
Last month, a protest with 250 participants was held at the Ontario legislature to support a moratorium on industrial wind-energy projects. The motion put forth by Tory MPP John Yakabuski was aimed at trying to give municipalities the power to determine where such projects will be placed, and a delay in future projects until possible health effects could be fully investigated. It was later defeated in the Ontario legislature.
John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, representing 43 citizen groups across the province, dismissed the report. "I think it's ridiculous," he said. "It's another rehashing of science everyone recognises as incomplete." Laforet said his group continues to call for a large-scale, long-term study done on wind energy before any more turbines are constructed in the province. But Robert Hornung, the president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said the "best available scientific research" shows no need for further study.
In fact, he said, Canada lags behind other developed countries, including the United States and those in Europe, in the number of wind-energy projects, which have been credited in those regions with improving economic growth, rural development and addressing environmental concerns.
Hornung's association estimates that wind turbines power up to a million homes and businesses across Canada, including a third of that figure in Ontario alone.
May 20, 2010
TORONTO - There is no proof that wind turbines are hazardous to your health, according to a report released Thursday by Ontario's top doctor. The report, titled "The Potential Health Impact of Wind Turbines," examined academic literature, government reports and studies in scientific journals on the green energy source dating back to the 1970s.The studies - which came from Canada, the UK, Ireland, Italy and the United States - found no evidence that wind turbines led to negative health effects. "According to the scientific evidence, there isn't any direct causal link between wind turbine noise and adverse health effects," said Dr. Arlene King, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer.
King notes in the report that research from 42 sources does not support claims by people near wind turbines who report dizziness, headaches and sleep deprivation. Furthermore, the study said, the noise coming from the turbines isn't loud enough to cause hearing impairment or any other health effect.
In the last few years, the Ontario government has supported wind-turbine use as a viable alternative to other energy sources in its effort to phase out Ontario's dependency on coal. "We do know that other technologies that enable us to have energy like coal fire plants, does have a known negative impact on human health, particularly on respiratory and cardiovascular disease," said King. The province currently has 690 wind turbines. Wind-turbine developments also figure in the energy plans of most provinces and territories in Canada.
Wind energy has been controversial from the offset, with much of the criticism coming from residents who complain of high noise levels, potential exposure to electromagnetic fields, shadow flicker that may cause seizures in epileptic patients, safety concerns about dislodged ice thrown from the blades and possible structural hazards if the turbine were to break down.
The report - which began in January - pointed out that guidelines set by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment ensure that these concerns pose little public risk because the turbines are installed a mandatory distance of at least 550 metres from a residence. Noise levels also do not exceed 40 decibels, which is the average sound level of a quiet office or a library.
Last month, a protest with 250 participants was held at the Ontario legislature to support a moratorium on industrial wind-energy projects. The motion put forth by Tory MPP John Yakabuski was aimed at trying to give municipalities the power to determine where such projects will be placed, and a delay in future projects until possible health effects could be fully investigated. It was later defeated in the Ontario legislature.
John Laforet, president of Wind Concerns Ontario, representing 43 citizen groups across the province, dismissed the report. "I think it's ridiculous," he said. "It's another rehashing of science everyone recognises as incomplete." Laforet said his group continues to call for a large-scale, long-term study done on wind energy before any more turbines are constructed in the province. But Robert Hornung, the president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, said the "best available scientific research" shows no need for further study.
In fact, he said, Canada lags behind other developed countries, including the United States and those in Europe, in the number of wind-energy projects, which have been credited in those regions with improving economic growth, rural development and addressing environmental concerns.
Hornung's association estimates that wind turbines power up to a million homes and businesses across Canada, including a third of that figure in Ontario alone.
Yet more evidence exposing the vacuous claims made by wind energy opponents.
Google-funded hot rock 'water' drill could reduce cost of geothermal energy
www.guardian.co.uk
19 May 2010
Engineered Geothermal Systems 'could be the killer app of energy world' says Dan Reicher, Google's climate and energy chief
A novel drill that is inspired by a jet engine and uses super-heated water to carve through rock could help make clean energy from underground rocks more economically viable, according to its backers at Google. Potter Drilling is part-funded by Google.org - the internet search giant's philanthropic arm - and wants to use its technology to develop geothermal energy, which involves tapping the energy from hot rocks deep in the Earth.
Geothermal energy is seen by environmentalists as a vast potential source of clean, carbon-free energy if it can be tapped efficiently. Traditional methods drill into the Earth and use naturally occurring underground pockets of steam or hot water in order to make clean electricity.
A report (pdf) by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimated that tapping just 2% of the potential resource from so-called Engineered Geothermal Systems between 3km and 10km below the surface of continental USA could supply more than 2,500 times the country's total annual energy use.
Geothermal projects in countries from Australia to Iceland and Germany already generate thousands ofMWs of electricity. Geothermal power plants can be used as baseload electricity because they are usually productive for more than 90% of the time, compared with 65%-75% for fossil fuel power plants. They also produce virtually no greenhouse gas emissions.
Engineered Geothermal Systems (EGS) allow the traditional techniques to be applied almost anywhere. By drilling deep into the Earth (where rock temperatures can reach more than 200C) and pumping water into the hole, the underground hot rocks fracture, thus allowing the water to circulate and heat up. The hot water comes back to the surface and is then used to drive turbines and produce electricity.
"EGS could be the killer app of the energy world," said Dan Reicher, director of climate and energy initiatives for Google.org, when its funding was first announced for Potter Drilling. "One of the attractive aspects is that it's baseload, it's 24-hour power and that's a nice complement to solar and wind, which are intermittent sources. If you can put all three of these technologies together, we're going to have a much more attractive green electricity mix."
Potter's technology aims to make EGS more economical because it can make drilling the holes more simple and cheaper. It will test its radical water-based design in the field for the first time in August. The technology uses heat instead of mechanical abrasion to break rock apart. It works because certain types of hard rock, such as quartz and feldspar, do not expand uniformly when they get hot. This creates stress between the grains of the mineral sand that causes them to break apart. "The key is to heat it very quickly," said Jared Potter, chief executive of Potter Drilling.
In the past 18 months, the company has drilled holes of 1 and 4 inches in diameter through hard rocks, to prove that their idea works. In August this year, the company will for the first time drill a 4-inch hole to 1,000 feet deep. "A realistic target for this type of intermediate development would be 5km," said Potter. "Eventually our goal is to be able to drill to 10km."
So-called "spallation" drilling has been used before but with air, rather than superheated water, fired out at supersonic speeds into a hole. The original designs for spallation drills in the 1950s effectively used jet engines to fire hot air at rocks. But they were restricted to use very close to the surface, in applications such as rock quarrying.
Jared's father, Bob Potter, came up with the water-drill design after working on geothermal technologies for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the government installation where the nuclear bomb was invented and tested in the 1940s.
The Potter drill initially requires fossil fuels to heat the water, but the company claims the process is still far more environmentally friendly than using a regular drill. "What you need is very concentrated energy and it's hard to do that without using combustion," said Potter. "It's a trade-off, it might create a little CO2 in the drilling process but it's going to be less than what they do in the conventional process with conventional drill rigs."
In a traditional drilling rig, most of the fuel's energy never reaches the underground drill-bit because as it is wasted in friction and other inefficiencies in the system. The drill bits also wear out frequently and, in certain types of rock, it may only be possible to drill for 100 feet before you need a new bit. "Every time you take the bit in and out, if it's a deep hole, you may lose a day of time - that has to be factored into the cost as well," said Potter. "Our technology doesn't have a bit, can drill continuously and we can drill 3-5 faster than they can. We can drill 30ft an hour and they're drilling 5-10ft an hour. And we're not taking the bit in and out of the hole. Our energy is right at the rock face."
That trial will be funded by the US Department of Energy but the company has also received money from Google.org, as part of the web search gaint's larger $10m (£5.4m) investment into renewable energy sources that could replace coal in the future.
19 May 2010
Engineered Geothermal Systems 'could be the killer app of energy world' says Dan Reicher, Google's climate and energy chiefA novel drill that is inspired by a jet engine and uses super-heated water to carve through rock could help make clean energy from underground rocks more economically viable, according to its backers at Google. Potter Drilling is part-funded by Google.org - the internet search giant's philanthropic arm - and wants to use its technology to develop geothermal energy, which involves tapping the energy from hot rocks deep in the Earth.
Geothermal energy is seen by environmentalists as a vast potential source of clean, carbon-free energy if it can be tapped efficiently. Traditional methods drill into the Earth and use naturally occurring underground pockets of steam or hot water in order to make clean electricity.
A report (pdf) by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimated that tapping just 2% of the potential resource from so-called Engineered Geothermal Systems between 3km and 10km below the surface of continental USA could supply more than 2,500 times the country's total annual energy use.
Geothermal projects in countries from Australia to Iceland and Germany already generate thousands ofMWs of electricity. Geothermal power plants can be used as baseload electricity because they are usually productive for more than 90% of the time, compared with 65%-75% for fossil fuel power plants. They also produce virtually no greenhouse gas emissions.
Engineered Geothermal Systems (EGS) allow the traditional techniques to be applied almost anywhere. By drilling deep into the Earth (where rock temperatures can reach more than 200C) and pumping water into the hole, the underground hot rocks fracture, thus allowing the water to circulate and heat up. The hot water comes back to the surface and is then used to drive turbines and produce electricity.
"EGS could be the killer app of the energy world," said Dan Reicher, director of climate and energy initiatives for Google.org, when its funding was first announced for Potter Drilling. "One of the attractive aspects is that it's baseload, it's 24-hour power and that's a nice complement to solar and wind, which are intermittent sources. If you can put all three of these technologies together, we're going to have a much more attractive green electricity mix."
Potter's technology aims to make EGS more economical because it can make drilling the holes more simple and cheaper. It will test its radical water-based design in the field for the first time in August. The technology uses heat instead of mechanical abrasion to break rock apart. It works because certain types of hard rock, such as quartz and feldspar, do not expand uniformly when they get hot. This creates stress between the grains of the mineral sand that causes them to break apart. "The key is to heat it very quickly," said Jared Potter, chief executive of Potter Drilling.
In the past 18 months, the company has drilled holes of 1 and 4 inches in diameter through hard rocks, to prove that their idea works. In August this year, the company will for the first time drill a 4-inch hole to 1,000 feet deep. "A realistic target for this type of intermediate development would be 5km," said Potter. "Eventually our goal is to be able to drill to 10km."
So-called "spallation" drilling has been used before but with air, rather than superheated water, fired out at supersonic speeds into a hole. The original designs for spallation drills in the 1950s effectively used jet engines to fire hot air at rocks. But they were restricted to use very close to the surface, in applications such as rock quarrying.
Jared's father, Bob Potter, came up with the water-drill design after working on geothermal technologies for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the government installation where the nuclear bomb was invented and tested in the 1940s.
The Potter drill initially requires fossil fuels to heat the water, but the company claims the process is still far more environmentally friendly than using a regular drill. "What you need is very concentrated energy and it's hard to do that without using combustion," said Potter. "It's a trade-off, it might create a little CO2 in the drilling process but it's going to be less than what they do in the conventional process with conventional drill rigs."
In a traditional drilling rig, most of the fuel's energy never reaches the underground drill-bit because as it is wasted in friction and other inefficiencies in the system. The drill bits also wear out frequently and, in certain types of rock, it may only be possible to drill for 100 feet before you need a new bit. "Every time you take the bit in and out, if it's a deep hole, you may lose a day of time - that has to be factored into the cost as well," said Potter. "Our technology doesn't have a bit, can drill continuously and we can drill 3-5 faster than they can. We can drill 30ft an hour and they're drilling 5-10ft an hour. And we're not taking the bit in and out of the hole. Our energy is right at the rock face."
That trial will be funded by the US Department of Energy but the company has also received money from Google.org, as part of the web search gaint's larger $10m (£5.4m) investment into renewable energy sources that could replace coal in the future.
Sunday, 30 May 2010
UK on course to reap massive renewable energy harvest
www.guardian.co.uk
19 May 2010
Independent study says North Sea wind and wave power could make Britain the 'Saudi Arabia of renewable energy'
Britain could become the "Saudi Arabia of the renewables world" on the back of North Sea wind and wave resources, according to a study carried out by government and industry. The review by independent consultants for the Offshore Valuation Group estimates that by 2050 the UK could generate the equivalent in electricity to the 1bn barrels of oil and gas being produced annually offshore. Green energy experts in the City are sceptical claiming it would require herculean efforts to put the infrastructure in place to hit even the most modest targets.
The study, undertaken by the Boston Consulting Group, suggests that Britain could not only keep the lights on but would produce a surplus, suggesting the need for connections to a "super grid" to enable electricity to be exported via subsea cables. It predicts that using even 29% of the available resources, Britain could save 1.1bn tonnes of CO2 between now and the middle the century.
"The UK is now most of the way through its first great offshore energy asset, our stock of hydrocarbon reserves. The central finding of this report is that our second offshore asset, of renewable energy, could be just as valuable. Britain's extensive offshore experience could now unlock an energy flow that will never run out," the report concludes.
It looks at different likely scenarios for growth of the industry with even the most conservative – 13% resource utilisation, producing 78GWs of power at a capital cost of £170bn – which would provide half of the UK's electricity demand. A more ambitious scenario, using 29% of resources would see 169GW installed at a cost of nearly £433bn and would make Britain a net exporter of electricity.
The report was sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Scottish government and the Crown Estate as well as companies including Scottish and Southern Energy, E.ON and turbine manufacturer, Vestas. David MacKay, the chief scientific adviser at DECC, said the "helpful" study underlined the need for major investments in innovation to bring down the cost of turbines, tidal schemes and novel energy storage systems.
But industry was much more upbeat saying it was very helpful to have a first really authoritative study of the enormous economic benefits waiting to be exploited. "This is a hugely exciting piece of research which sets out compelling factual evidence of the huge potential of the UK's offshore renewable energy resource," said Peter Madigan, head of offshore renewables at trade body, RenewableUK.
"As an association we have long been saying that the North Sea will become the Saudi Arabia of wind energy, and today's tonne of oil and employment comparisons amply bear this out. Just as 30 years ago, the North Sea could be our ticket for economic growth. We are looking forward to the new government putting in place the policy framework to make this happen," he said.
There was caution among financial analysts such as Dean Cooper, head of clean tech at Ambrian Resources. He said: "We see the report as providing compelling sizing information to value the offshore resource, but equally it highlights the herculean scale of efforts needed to achieve the numbers outlined. To reach 78GW will require a build rate of 2.8GW per annum by 2050, which is equivalent to more than two 5MW turbines every day. This compares to the equivalent of one 5MW turbine installed every two weeks for the installed stock of offshore wind in the UK today.
"Offshore wind will be an important element in the UK's energy mix to keep the lights on, yet the gaps in supply chain, grid and planning to achieve this are monumental. There is money to be made in offshore wind as a structural growth trend, but when?"
19 May 2010
Independent study says North Sea wind and wave power could make Britain the 'Saudi Arabia of renewable energy'Britain could become the "Saudi Arabia of the renewables world" on the back of North Sea wind and wave resources, according to a study carried out by government and industry. The review by independent consultants for the Offshore Valuation Group estimates that by 2050 the UK could generate the equivalent in electricity to the 1bn barrels of oil and gas being produced annually offshore. Green energy experts in the City are sceptical claiming it would require herculean efforts to put the infrastructure in place to hit even the most modest targets.
The study, undertaken by the Boston Consulting Group, suggests that Britain could not only keep the lights on but would produce a surplus, suggesting the need for connections to a "super grid" to enable electricity to be exported via subsea cables. It predicts that using even 29% of the available resources, Britain could save 1.1bn tonnes of CO2 between now and the middle the century.
"The UK is now most of the way through its first great offshore energy asset, our stock of hydrocarbon reserves. The central finding of this report is that our second offshore asset, of renewable energy, could be just as valuable. Britain's extensive offshore experience could now unlock an energy flow that will never run out," the report concludes.
It looks at different likely scenarios for growth of the industry with even the most conservative – 13% resource utilisation, producing 78GWs of power at a capital cost of £170bn – which would provide half of the UK's electricity demand. A more ambitious scenario, using 29% of resources would see 169GW installed at a cost of nearly £433bn and would make Britain a net exporter of electricity.
The report was sponsored by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Scottish government and the Crown Estate as well as companies including Scottish and Southern Energy, E.ON and turbine manufacturer, Vestas. David MacKay, the chief scientific adviser at DECC, said the "helpful" study underlined the need for major investments in innovation to bring down the cost of turbines, tidal schemes and novel energy storage systems.
But industry was much more upbeat saying it was very helpful to have a first really authoritative study of the enormous economic benefits waiting to be exploited. "This is a hugely exciting piece of research which sets out compelling factual evidence of the huge potential of the UK's offshore renewable energy resource," said Peter Madigan, head of offshore renewables at trade body, RenewableUK.
"As an association we have long been saying that the North Sea will become the Saudi Arabia of wind energy, and today's tonne of oil and employment comparisons amply bear this out. Just as 30 years ago, the North Sea could be our ticket for economic growth. We are looking forward to the new government putting in place the policy framework to make this happen," he said.
There was caution among financial analysts such as Dean Cooper, head of clean tech at Ambrian Resources. He said: "We see the report as providing compelling sizing information to value the offshore resource, but equally it highlights the herculean scale of efforts needed to achieve the numbers outlined. To reach 78GW will require a build rate of 2.8GW per annum by 2050, which is equivalent to more than two 5MW turbines every day. This compares to the equivalent of one 5MW turbine installed every two weeks for the installed stock of offshore wind in the UK today.
"Offshore wind will be an important element in the UK's energy mix to keep the lights on, yet the gaps in supply chain, grid and planning to achieve this are monumental. There is money to be made in offshore wind as a structural growth trend, but when?"
Nuclear industry presses sceptical Huhne over backing new reactors
www.guardian.co.uk
19 May 2010
Centrica and E.ON lobby Liberal Democrat energy secretary to commit government to £30bn nuclear newbuild programme.
Leaders of the nuclear industry have sought urgent meetings with the new energy secretary, Chris Huhne, amid concern that he will not provide the support needed for their £30bn investment programme in a new generation of reactors. Sam Laidlaw, Centrica's chief executive, and Paul Golby, head of E.ON UK, have scheduled talks in the coming days with Huhne, who has strongly indicated that his primary focus is renewable power.
Ian Marchant, boss of Scottish and Southern Energy, said today he had spoken by phone to Huhne this week when the minister outlined his views on the commercial viability of atomic plants. "He was sceptical on the economics of nuclear but made it clear he would allow people to make their own decisions on this and would not stand in their way if they can do it without subsidies," said Marchant, whose company is considering a new reactor in Cumbria but is far less committed to nuclear than either Centrica or E.ON. "I think being sceptical is no bad thing. The worst thing you can have is a situation where the state bends over backWards to [financially] support nuclear. Look where that got us," he added.
The SSE chief executive also confirmed the enthusiasm of Huhne for green energy, saying the minister was very well-informed and supportive of projects, such as the huge Greater Gabbard wind farm off the coast of Suffolk, which will be one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world. "He [Huhne] was well aware of SSE's credentials and he was keen to see us continuing with what we are doing and to ensure there is continuing inward investment in this sector," said Marchant.
Huhne's party, the Liberal Democrats, said in their manifesto that they opposed new nuclear plants but the coalition agreement with the Conservatives involved a new pledge to allow nuclear stations to be built with a proviso that they do not involve public subsidies. Huhne has already followed this up with a commitment to make companies pay for all their clean-up costs after a nuclear accident. Currently, the industry only pays the first £140m, with the government picking up the rest of the bill, which Huhne believes amounts to a public subsidy. Other energy bosses are meeting Charles Hendry next week. The Tory energy minister has been tasked with the nuclear brief and is considered pro-nuclear.
The industry is still claiming publicly that its plans remain on track but one of the Big Six energy suppliers involved in nuclear newbuild admitted: "We need more clarity about what is going to be their [government] approach." Another senior executive of a nuclear company said all "plans are all on hold", while a spokesman for the nuclear joint venture between E.ON and RWE admitted that there were "meaty issues to be discussed" with the government.
The economics of nuclear power have already been hit by low gas prices and a weak pound, which makes it more expensive for UK-based companies such as Centrica to import reactor parts. The government has also promised to introduce a minimum carbon price to help make nuclear economic, which the Liberal Democrats support. But the industry will want it to be at least €50 a tonne, compared with current prices of about €15.
Firms are also concerned that Whitehall cost-cutting could result in the programme to decommission existing reactors, which is funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), being slashed. Clare Spottiswoode, chair of EnergySolutions in the EU, said: "Many potential investors in the UK's nuclear newbuild programme will view how the decommissioning budget is dealt with as an early signal of how committed the new government is to nuclear power."
A DECC spokesman said: "The government's policy and next steps on new nuclear are absolutely clear and explicitly set down in the coalition agreement." The DECC, which was set up only two years ago, and employs about 1,000 staff, also faces big cuts. Greg Clarke, then shadow energy secretary, is said to have told one industry executive that he planned to axe 500 jobs from the department.
19 May 2010
Centrica and E.ON lobby Liberal Democrat energy secretary to commit government to £30bn nuclear newbuild programme.Leaders of the nuclear industry have sought urgent meetings with the new energy secretary, Chris Huhne, amid concern that he will not provide the support needed for their £30bn investment programme in a new generation of reactors. Sam Laidlaw, Centrica's chief executive, and Paul Golby, head of E.ON UK, have scheduled talks in the coming days with Huhne, who has strongly indicated that his primary focus is renewable power.
Ian Marchant, boss of Scottish and Southern Energy, said today he had spoken by phone to Huhne this week when the minister outlined his views on the commercial viability of atomic plants. "He was sceptical on the economics of nuclear but made it clear he would allow people to make their own decisions on this and would not stand in their way if they can do it without subsidies," said Marchant, whose company is considering a new reactor in Cumbria but is far less committed to nuclear than either Centrica or E.ON. "I think being sceptical is no bad thing. The worst thing you can have is a situation where the state bends over backWards to [financially] support nuclear. Look where that got us," he added.
The SSE chief executive also confirmed the enthusiasm of Huhne for green energy, saying the minister was very well-informed and supportive of projects, such as the huge Greater Gabbard wind farm off the coast of Suffolk, which will be one of the largest offshore wind farms in the world. "He [Huhne] was well aware of SSE's credentials and he was keen to see us continuing with what we are doing and to ensure there is continuing inward investment in this sector," said Marchant.
Huhne's party, the Liberal Democrats, said in their manifesto that they opposed new nuclear plants but the coalition agreement with the Conservatives involved a new pledge to allow nuclear stations to be built with a proviso that they do not involve public subsidies. Huhne has already followed this up with a commitment to make companies pay for all their clean-up costs after a nuclear accident. Currently, the industry only pays the first £140m, with the government picking up the rest of the bill, which Huhne believes amounts to a public subsidy. Other energy bosses are meeting Charles Hendry next week. The Tory energy minister has been tasked with the nuclear brief and is considered pro-nuclear.
The industry is still claiming publicly that its plans remain on track but one of the Big Six energy suppliers involved in nuclear newbuild admitted: "We need more clarity about what is going to be their [government] approach." Another senior executive of a nuclear company said all "plans are all on hold", while a spokesman for the nuclear joint venture between E.ON and RWE admitted that there were "meaty issues to be discussed" with the government.
The economics of nuclear power have already been hit by low gas prices and a weak pound, which makes it more expensive for UK-based companies such as Centrica to import reactor parts. The government has also promised to introduce a minimum carbon price to help make nuclear economic, which the Liberal Democrats support. But the industry will want it to be at least €50 a tonne, compared with current prices of about €15.
Firms are also concerned that Whitehall cost-cutting could result in the programme to decommission existing reactors, which is funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), being slashed. Clare Spottiswoode, chair of EnergySolutions in the EU, said: "Many potential investors in the UK's nuclear newbuild programme will view how the decommissioning budget is dealt with as an early signal of how committed the new government is to nuclear power."
A DECC spokesman said: "The government's policy and next steps on new nuclear are absolutely clear and explicitly set down in the coalition agreement." The DECC, which was set up only two years ago, and employs about 1,000 staff, also faces big cuts. Greg Clarke, then shadow energy secretary, is said to have told one industry executive that he planned to axe 500 jobs from the department.
Wave power prototype 'significant step' for sector
news.bbc.co.uk
18 May 2010
A new generation of prototype wave power machine has been unveiled by the first minister. Alex Salmond said the generator represented "another significant step" in Scotland's journey to become the green energy powerhouse of Europe. It is 180m long, weighs 1,500 tonnes and can produce 750kW of electricity. Manufactured in Leith, the Vagr Atferd generator will now be transported to Orkney, where it will tested for three years to prepare it for commercial use.
The Vagr Atferd was produced by the Leith-based firm Pelamis Wave Power (PWP) for the German energy giant E.ON. Neels Kriek, PWP chief executive, said: "This is a unique opportunity for PWP and our Scottish and UK supply chain partners to stimulate significant immediate and local economic benefits and importantly to create many more hi-tech jobs in Scotland." The device's development and construction was part funded by the UK government Carbon Trust's marine renewables proving fund and is E.ON's first wave powered generator in the UK
Dr Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, said: "Today's launch is a celebration of the successes we've seen with renewables and a clear example of the changing shape of the UK energy industry. "There is a real potential for the UK to lead the marine energy sector." Orkney schoolboy Matthew Rendall named the machine Vagr Atferd, which is derived from the Norse for wave power. WWF Scotland said report published last year, The Power Of Scotland Renewed, suggested that by 2030 renewable energy could meet between 60% and 143% of Scotland's annual electricity demand.
18 May 2010
A new generation of prototype wave power machine has been unveiled by the first minister. Alex Salmond said the generator represented "another significant step" in Scotland's journey to become the green energy powerhouse of Europe. It is 180m long, weighs 1,500 tonnes and can produce 750kW of electricity. Manufactured in Leith, the Vagr Atferd generator will now be transported to Orkney, where it will tested for three years to prepare it for commercial use.The Vagr Atferd was produced by the Leith-based firm Pelamis Wave Power (PWP) for the German energy giant E.ON. Neels Kriek, PWP chief executive, said: "This is a unique opportunity for PWP and our Scottish and UK supply chain partners to stimulate significant immediate and local economic benefits and importantly to create many more hi-tech jobs in Scotland." The device's development and construction was part funded by the UK government Carbon Trust's marine renewables proving fund and is E.ON's first wave powered generator in the UK
Dr Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK, said: "Today's launch is a celebration of the successes we've seen with renewables and a clear example of the changing shape of the UK energy industry. "There is a real potential for the UK to lead the marine energy sector." Orkney schoolboy Matthew Rendall named the machine Vagr Atferd, which is derived from the Norse for wave power. WWF Scotland said report published last year, The Power Of Scotland Renewed, suggested that by 2030 renewable energy could meet between 60% and 143% of Scotland's annual electricity demand.
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Carbon price could end coal's reign, Origin says
Canberra Times
Wednesday 19/5/2010 Page: 15
Origin Energy says coal will remain the most economical fuel for power generation in Australia unless a price is put on carbon. The energy producer and retailer said a carbon price in the range of $20 to $40 per tonne would drive a substantial change in base load power generation. Origin Energy managing director Grant King made the comments in a speech about the role of natural gas in the nation's future energy needs, at the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association conference in Brisbane yesterday. "Without a carbon price, coal remains the most economical fuel for power generation," Mr King said.
Origin Energy controls substantial natural gas reserves, is involved in oil and gas exploration, and also has a stake in wind and geothermal power projects. "A golden age for domestic gas consumption was being predicted in the late 1990s, but by 2002 it was clear these projections would not be met," Mr King said. He said the opportunity for gas to dominate Australia's power generation was lost to coal, mostly due to new coal-fired power generation in Queensland. At above $40 per tonne for carbon emissions, gas power generation was the cheapest way to produce electricity. With no carbon policy, Australia's emissions were projected to grow to 45% above 2000 levels by 2020, but the Federal Government's renewable energy target should lead to that growth being cut to 28%, Mr King said.
State One Stockbroking energy analyst Peter Kopetz agreed coal would remain the dominant fuel for generating energy unless a price was put on carbon. "There is lots of coal, both here and in the rest of the world, for at least another 100 years or so," Mr Kopetz said. He said coal was easy to extract and was often close to the surface. It was easy to ship, snaking it cheap and the likely dominant fuel unless caps were set or a carbon price was set. "Alternative energies have been pushed back a long way," he said. Shares in Origin Energy closed down 15c, or 1%, at $14.62.
Wednesday 19/5/2010 Page: 15
Origin Energy says coal will remain the most economical fuel for power generation in Australia unless a price is put on carbon. The energy producer and retailer said a carbon price in the range of $20 to $40 per tonne would drive a substantial change in base load power generation. Origin Energy managing director Grant King made the comments in a speech about the role of natural gas in the nation's future energy needs, at the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association conference in Brisbane yesterday. "Without a carbon price, coal remains the most economical fuel for power generation," Mr King said.Origin Energy controls substantial natural gas reserves, is involved in oil and gas exploration, and also has a stake in wind and geothermal power projects. "A golden age for domestic gas consumption was being predicted in the late 1990s, but by 2002 it was clear these projections would not be met," Mr King said. He said the opportunity for gas to dominate Australia's power generation was lost to coal, mostly due to new coal-fired power generation in Queensland. At above $40 per tonne for carbon emissions, gas power generation was the cheapest way to produce electricity. With no carbon policy, Australia's emissions were projected to grow to 45% above 2000 levels by 2020, but the Federal Government's renewable energy target should lead to that growth being cut to 28%, Mr King said.
State One Stockbroking energy analyst Peter Kopetz agreed coal would remain the dominant fuel for generating energy unless a price was put on carbon. "There is lots of coal, both here and in the rest of the world, for at least another 100 years or so," Mr Kopetz said. He said coal was easy to extract and was often close to the surface. It was easy to ship, snaking it cheap and the likely dominant fuel unless caps were set or a carbon price was set. "Alternative energies have been pushed back a long way," he said. Shares in Origin Energy closed down 15c, or 1%, at $14.62.
Carbon cuts will 'create 4m jobs'
Sydney Morning Herald
Wednesday 19/5/2010 Page: 7
BIG CUTS to carbon emissions and heavy investment in green technologies will create 3.7 million jobs across Australia by 2030, economic modelling commissioned for unions and green groups shows. The ACTU and Australian Conservation Foundation will today launch the modelling project, which has been six months in the works, in an effort to show serious efforts to tackle climate change will create jobs even in areas dominated by the mining and electricity industries.
The modelling breaks Australia into 65 regions and suggests that just one - far-western NSW - will lose jobs if Australia adopts a 25% emissions reduction target by 2020, sets up an emissions trading scheme and makes significant investment in green technologies and energy efficiency. Other areas across Australia, including those dominated by coal mining and energy industries like Gladstone and Rockhampton in Queensland and the Hunter Valley in NSW, will see job growth in the region.
The report finds that overall jobs will increase by 36% across Australia in 20 years. "The report shows regional areas, even those which produce coal and generate electricity, will have more jobs if we take strong action to cut pollution, but only if we act now," ACTU president Sharan Burrow said. Along with an emissions trading scheme and a 25% emissions cut, the modelling assumes the Australian government will invest directly in targeted regional industry planning, electric cars, public transport and reducing household emissions, among others.
The programs assumed under the modelling would require an investment of on average 2.5% of GDP over the next 20 years. The report finds that if investment is made households will be 10% better off by 2030, and GDP growth would average 3.2% to 2030. The modelling was conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research. It does not model jobs growth with no climate policies because it says that scenario is unlikely given the global push to decarbonise economies. The institute's Ian Manning told the Herald that the modelling also reinforces the position of the International Energy Agency that "procrastination" on investment in a low-carbon economy will increase costs and hurt job growth.
Wednesday 19/5/2010 Page: 7
BIG CUTS to carbon emissions and heavy investment in green technologies will create 3.7 million jobs across Australia by 2030, economic modelling commissioned for unions and green groups shows. The ACTU and Australian Conservation Foundation will today launch the modelling project, which has been six months in the works, in an effort to show serious efforts to tackle climate change will create jobs even in areas dominated by the mining and electricity industries.
The modelling breaks Australia into 65 regions and suggests that just one - far-western NSW - will lose jobs if Australia adopts a 25% emissions reduction target by 2020, sets up an emissions trading scheme and makes significant investment in green technologies and energy efficiency. Other areas across Australia, including those dominated by coal mining and energy industries like Gladstone and Rockhampton in Queensland and the Hunter Valley in NSW, will see job growth in the region.
The report finds that overall jobs will increase by 36% across Australia in 20 years. "The report shows regional areas, even those which produce coal and generate electricity, will have more jobs if we take strong action to cut pollution, but only if we act now," ACTU president Sharan Burrow said. Along with an emissions trading scheme and a 25% emissions cut, the modelling assumes the Australian government will invest directly in targeted regional industry planning, electric cars, public transport and reducing household emissions, among others.
The programs assumed under the modelling would require an investment of on average 2.5% of GDP over the next 20 years. The report finds that if investment is made households will be 10% better off by 2030, and GDP growth would average 3.2% to 2030. The modelling was conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research. It does not model jobs growth with no climate policies because it says that scenario is unlikely given the global push to decarbonise economies. The institute's Ian Manning told the Herald that the modelling also reinforces the position of the International Energy Agency that "procrastination" on investment in a low-carbon economy will increase costs and hurt job growth.
Queensland Government funding clean coal plants rather than solar power plants
www.couriermail.com.au
May 18, 2010
PREMIER Anna Bligh is glowing about Queensland's potential to develop large-scale solar power stations but the Government hasn't allocated any direct funding into solar plants as it has for 'clean coal' plants. The Federal Government last week said eight shortlisted solar power station projects, including five with sites in Queensland, would share in $15 million for studies to help the Government choose two winning projects before June 2011.
The winners receive one-third federal funding to help build their plants. The NSW Government has pledged $120 million to help the NSW projects bidding in the program, saying it could bring hundreds of green jobs to NSW. The Victorian Government has made $50 million in funding available to Silex Systems which aims to build near Mildura what would be one of the world's largest solar power plants. But no Queensland funding is going to large-scale solar power plant projects. Ms Bligh, welcoming Queensland's dominance of the solar grant shortlist unveiled last week, said: ''This is recognition of our plan to ensure Queensland is a world leader in large-scale solar energy production and utilisation.''
Spain and the US are now the world's biggest builders of solar power plants but India is set to gain on them fast. India plans to have 22,000MWs in capacity from solar plants by 2020. That is more than double Queensland's total existing grid capacity, which is powered by carbon-emitting coal and gas plants. Ms Bligh said the Government was using a range of measures to encourage Queensland families and businesses to "do the bright thing'' and switch to solar.
But the Government hasn't earmarked any funding to help solar power plant projects, whereas it has allocated $300 million to help develop 'clean coal' power stations including the ZeroGen project near Rockhampton. ZeroGen and three other clean coal projects shortlisted for $2 billion in federal funding have already received up to $120 million in federal funds for assessment studies. Asked why the State Government has allocated $300 million to government-owned generators to pursue clean coal but hasn't allocated any to companies to pursue solar plants, the Government said it was focused on supporting roof-top solar panels.
David Robertson, a spokesman for state energy minister Stephen Robertson, said funding for clean coal and for solar were ''two different things''. ''Just because we've committed funding to one thing to this point doesn't mean we automatically have to commit funding to another thing at the same point. They're two different things,'' he said. He said the Government would assess any funding requests presented to it, with such applications being considered ''through the normal budget processes''.
Many governments say coal will remain a major energy source and clean coal technology is vital to curb its destabilising impact on the world's climate. But there is increasing doubt over the technology. University College London professor of chemical engineering and CO2 Technology Centre director Stefaan Simons at a conference in Adelaide in April called on Australia to rethink its pursuit of clean coal, saying it was ''potentially a dangerous diversion, soaking up time, resources and funding'' that could be better and more readily applied to other low-emission technologies.
In January a US study co-authored by University of Houston professor Michael Economides dismissed underground storage of carbon gases from power stations as ''profoundly non-feasible'' because the storage sites required for even a modest power station would be so vast as to be impractical.
May 18, 2010
PREMIER Anna Bligh is glowing about Queensland's potential to develop large-scale solar power stations but the Government hasn't allocated any direct funding into solar plants as it has for 'clean coal' plants. The Federal Government last week said eight shortlisted solar power station projects, including five with sites in Queensland, would share in $15 million for studies to help the Government choose two winning projects before June 2011.
The winners receive one-third federal funding to help build their plants. The NSW Government has pledged $120 million to help the NSW projects bidding in the program, saying it could bring hundreds of green jobs to NSW. The Victorian Government has made $50 million in funding available to Silex Systems which aims to build near Mildura what would be one of the world's largest solar power plants. But no Queensland funding is going to large-scale solar power plant projects. Ms Bligh, welcoming Queensland's dominance of the solar grant shortlist unveiled last week, said: ''This is recognition of our plan to ensure Queensland is a world leader in large-scale solar energy production and utilisation.''
Spain and the US are now the world's biggest builders of solar power plants but India is set to gain on them fast. India plans to have 22,000MWs in capacity from solar plants by 2020. That is more than double Queensland's total existing grid capacity, which is powered by carbon-emitting coal and gas plants. Ms Bligh said the Government was using a range of measures to encourage Queensland families and businesses to "do the bright thing'' and switch to solar.
But the Government hasn't earmarked any funding to help solar power plant projects, whereas it has allocated $300 million to help develop 'clean coal' power stations including the ZeroGen project near Rockhampton. ZeroGen and three other clean coal projects shortlisted for $2 billion in federal funding have already received up to $120 million in federal funds for assessment studies. Asked why the State Government has allocated $300 million to government-owned generators to pursue clean coal but hasn't allocated any to companies to pursue solar plants, the Government said it was focused on supporting roof-top solar panels.
David Robertson, a spokesman for state energy minister Stephen Robertson, said funding for clean coal and for solar were ''two different things''. ''Just because we've committed funding to one thing to this point doesn't mean we automatically have to commit funding to another thing at the same point. They're two different things,'' he said. He said the Government would assess any funding requests presented to it, with such applications being considered ''through the normal budget processes''.
Many governments say coal will remain a major energy source and clean coal technology is vital to curb its destabilising impact on the world's climate. But there is increasing doubt over the technology. University College London professor of chemical engineering and CO2 Technology Centre director Stefaan Simons at a conference in Adelaide in April called on Australia to rethink its pursuit of clean coal, saying it was ''potentially a dangerous diversion, soaking up time, resources and funding'' that could be better and more readily applied to other low-emission technologies.
In January a US study co-authored by University of Houston professor Michael Economides dismissed underground storage of carbon gases from power stations as ''profoundly non-feasible'' because the storage sites required for even a modest power station would be so vast as to be impractical.
Monday, 24 May 2010
Cornwall wave energy hub has summer target
news.bbc.co.uk
17 May 2010
An electrical "socket" linking wave energy machines off the Cornwall coast is to be put in place this summer. The yellow steel structure, about the size of a van, is part of a £42m scheme which is expected to start delivering power to the National Grid in 2011. It will sit on the seabed in 50m (164ft) of water 10 miles off Hayle and be covered in several metres of rock. It will feed power from four wave energy machines to an electricity sub-station at Hayle.
'Hugely satisfying'
The Wave Hub project, developed by the South West Regional Development Agency (RDA), is designed to test various wave energy machines. Some of them could be used off the north coast of Scotland where the first commercial licences have been announced. A connection block inside the 12-tonne hub will be filled with resin to ensure it remains watertight and the whole structure is designed to last at least 25 years.
Guy Lavender, Wave Hub's general manager at the RDA, said: "After seven years of planning it's hugely satisfying to see the cable and hub actually taking shape. "We're on course for deployment this summer and extensive testing will take place before we welcome our first wave energy devices at Wave Hub, which we expect in 2011." Wave Hub is being funded with £12.5m from the RDA, £20m from the European Regional Development Fund Convergence Programme and £9.5m from the UK government.
17 May 2010
An electrical "socket" linking wave energy machines off the Cornwall coast is to be put in place this summer. The yellow steel structure, about the size of a van, is part of a £42m scheme which is expected to start delivering power to the National Grid in 2011. It will sit on the seabed in 50m (164ft) of water 10 miles off Hayle and be covered in several metres of rock. It will feed power from four wave energy machines to an electricity sub-station at Hayle.'Hugely satisfying'
The Wave Hub project, developed by the South West Regional Development Agency (RDA), is designed to test various wave energy machines. Some of them could be used off the north coast of Scotland where the first commercial licences have been announced. A connection block inside the 12-tonne hub will be filled with resin to ensure it remains watertight and the whole structure is designed to last at least 25 years.
Guy Lavender, Wave Hub's general manager at the RDA, said: "After seven years of planning it's hugely satisfying to see the cable and hub actually taking shape. "We're on course for deployment this summer and extensive testing will take place before we welcome our first wave energy devices at Wave Hub, which we expect in 2011." Wave Hub is being funded with £12.5m from the RDA, £20m from the European Regional Development Fund Convergence Programme and £9.5m from the UK government.
Cape Wind power "a bargain," pres. says
boston.bizjournals.com
May 17, 2010
The price for power from the planned Cape Wind turbines in Nantucket Sound would be "a bargain," the president of developer Cape Wind Associates said Monday. In a 90-minute interview with the Boston Business Journal, Jim Gordon strongly defended the project on a number of levels, from economic to environmental to philosophical. The project has faced claims that the project's power would cost more than twice the normal rate of electricity generated from fossil fuels.
Beginning in 2013, National Grid agreed to buy the power at 20.7 cents per kW hour. Gordon noted that this price includes transmission charges, and will remain stable over the life of the 15-year contract - which he said contrasts with the volatility of fossil fuel costs. "I see Cape Wind saving customers money and improving their health, and the environment, and our energy security," he said. "Add all that up, and this is a bargain. It's a real bargain."
Gordon also said that no matter what the project costs to build and maintain, ratepayers will never have to pay more than what's in the contract with utility National Grid. He was responding to claims that potential cost overruns on the 130-turbine project could be passed to ratepayers above the annual 3.5% increase in the National Grid contract. Gordon called the claims baseless, saying that any potential overruns would "accrue to Cape Wind."
The project won final federal approval last month, nine years after it was first proposed. Earlier this month, National Grid signed a contract to buy half of the power output from the 468MW wind farm. The utility projected a monthly bill increase of $1.59 for a typical residential customer in the first year through the deal.
Under the contract, the price of Cape Wind's power will rise 3.5% per year to account for inflation and cost increases for labor as well as operations and maintenance, Gordon said. The contract must be approved by the state Department of Public Utilities. Gordon said the price for Cape Wind's power is certain and stable, unlike the price of energy produced by burning fossil fuels. Oil prices have swung wildly in recent years, and are on their way back up, he noted.
Assuming that prices will keep rising, due to higher demand as the world economy pulls out of the downturn, the price of power from Cape Wind likely won't be considered "premium" for long, he said. Even if that doesn't happen, Gordon contended that Cape Wind is still a bargain when other costs related to burning fossil fuels are considered. Pollution and climate change caused by burning fossil fuels have led to higher costs for healthcare and for insurance to coastal properties, Gordon said. "My mother has a house on Cape Cod, a quarter mile from the ocean, and the insurance companies pulled out because they're afraid of more frequent and more intense hurricanes from climate change," he said.
"People from Brockton and Holyoke are subsidising folks' insurance rates on the Cape." Taxpayers also must help fund the cleanup of fossil fuel-related disasters such as the Gulf oil spill, he noted. "These are costs you don't see on your electric bill, but each and every one of us pays for," Gordon said. Gordon did not put a price on the construction cost for Cape Wind, saying his team is still in negotiations with a contractor for the project. The team of seven senior managers has fully financed the project's nearly $50 million cost so far, Gordon said, though he said most of the funding has come from his pocket.
May 17, 2010
The price for power from the planned Cape Wind turbines in Nantucket Sound would be "a bargain," the president of developer Cape Wind Associates said Monday. In a 90-minute interview with the Boston Business Journal, Jim Gordon strongly defended the project on a number of levels, from economic to environmental to philosophical. The project has faced claims that the project's power would cost more than twice the normal rate of electricity generated from fossil fuels.
Beginning in 2013, National Grid agreed to buy the power at 20.7 cents per kW hour. Gordon noted that this price includes transmission charges, and will remain stable over the life of the 15-year contract - which he said contrasts with the volatility of fossil fuel costs. "I see Cape Wind saving customers money and improving their health, and the environment, and our energy security," he said. "Add all that up, and this is a bargain. It's a real bargain."
Gordon also said that no matter what the project costs to build and maintain, ratepayers will never have to pay more than what's in the contract with utility National Grid. He was responding to claims that potential cost overruns on the 130-turbine project could be passed to ratepayers above the annual 3.5% increase in the National Grid contract. Gordon called the claims baseless, saying that any potential overruns would "accrue to Cape Wind."
The project won final federal approval last month, nine years after it was first proposed. Earlier this month, National Grid signed a contract to buy half of the power output from the 468MW wind farm. The utility projected a monthly bill increase of $1.59 for a typical residential customer in the first year through the deal.
Under the contract, the price of Cape Wind's power will rise 3.5% per year to account for inflation and cost increases for labor as well as operations and maintenance, Gordon said. The contract must be approved by the state Department of Public Utilities. Gordon said the price for Cape Wind's power is certain and stable, unlike the price of energy produced by burning fossil fuels. Oil prices have swung wildly in recent years, and are on their way back up, he noted.
Assuming that prices will keep rising, due to higher demand as the world economy pulls out of the downturn, the price of power from Cape Wind likely won't be considered "premium" for long, he said. Even if that doesn't happen, Gordon contended that Cape Wind is still a bargain when other costs related to burning fossil fuels are considered. Pollution and climate change caused by burning fossil fuels have led to higher costs for healthcare and for insurance to coastal properties, Gordon said. "My mother has a house on Cape Cod, a quarter mile from the ocean, and the insurance companies pulled out because they're afraid of more frequent and more intense hurricanes from climate change," he said.
"People from Brockton and Holyoke are subsidising folks' insurance rates on the Cape." Taxpayers also must help fund the cleanup of fossil fuel-related disasters such as the Gulf oil spill, he noted. "These are costs you don't see on your electric bill, but each and every one of us pays for," Gordon said. Gordon did not put a price on the construction cost for Cape Wind, saying his team is still in negotiations with a contractor for the project. The team of seven senior managers has fully financed the project's nearly $50 million cost so far, Gordon said, though he said most of the funding has come from his pocket.
Mighty River Plans More Investment in U.S. Geothermal Projects
www.businessweek.com
May 17, 2010
May 18 (Bloomberg) -- Mighty River Power Ltd., operator of the world's largest single-turbine geothermal generating unit, has increased funding to help identify and build power projects in the US and Chile. The company today announced a $107 million investment in a $400 million, 49.9MW geothermal power plant in Southern California, its first in the US The New Zealand government-owned generator said it has also more than doubled to $250 million a fund available for projects identified by its Denver, Colorado-based associate GeoGlobal Energy LLC.
"GGE's capability in identifying potential projects in the US as well as Chile has really started to bear fruit," Mighty River Chief Executive Officer Doug Heffernan said in a phone interview from Auckland today. "We think there are some other prospects that they may well bring to the table in the US over the next two or three years."
Mighty River is among the world's 10 largest operators of underground steam fields. It's investing internationally to profit from its experience building large-scale geothermal power projects, its relationships with bankers and plant manufacturers, and increasing global demand for non-polluting energy.
Geothermal plants tap heat from the earth to power turbines and generate electricity 24 hours a day with minimal emissions. New Zealand, Chile and the west coast of the US lie on the 40,000-kilometer (25,000-mile) chain of active volcanoes that surrounds the Pacific Ocean. The zone, known as the Ring of Fire, also includes Japan and Indonesia.
Hudson Ranch
Today's investment gives Mighty River a 20% stake in EnergySource LLC, which is building the Hudson Ranch power station in the Salton Sea geothermal region of Southern California. It will use the Fuji Electric Systems Co, machines that Mighty River has installed in New Zealand the past two years, including its 140MW Nga Awa Purua plant, the world's largest single-turbine project.
"The construction experience that Mighty River has had with that technology provided a great fit for GGE and its new partners," Heffernan said. Mighty River runs four geothermal power plants in New Zealand and has just been granted planning approval to build a fifth. It plans to have a 70MW generator operating in Tolhuaca in Chile by 2013 in a project also managed by GeoGlobal.
The Hudson Ranch plant will take about two years to build and will supply Arizona-based utility Salt River Project, Heffernan said. The balance of the project cost is being met by EnergySource and a group of eight international banks, led by ING Capital LLC, Societe Generale and WestLB AG.
"It's an illustration that project financing for renewable and geothermal projects is underway," he said. "This will be one of the bigger projects that has got forward in the geothermal space, and I guess it's a demonstration that the US is serious about shifting to renewable energy."
May 17, 2010
May 18 (Bloomberg) -- Mighty River Power Ltd., operator of the world's largest single-turbine geothermal generating unit, has increased funding to help identify and build power projects in the US and Chile. The company today announced a $107 million investment in a $400 million, 49.9MW geothermal power plant in Southern California, its first in the US The New Zealand government-owned generator said it has also more than doubled to $250 million a fund available for projects identified by its Denver, Colorado-based associate GeoGlobal Energy LLC.
"GGE's capability in identifying potential projects in the US as well as Chile has really started to bear fruit," Mighty River Chief Executive Officer Doug Heffernan said in a phone interview from Auckland today. "We think there are some other prospects that they may well bring to the table in the US over the next two or three years."
Mighty River is among the world's 10 largest operators of underground steam fields. It's investing internationally to profit from its experience building large-scale geothermal power projects, its relationships with bankers and plant manufacturers, and increasing global demand for non-polluting energy.
Geothermal plants tap heat from the earth to power turbines and generate electricity 24 hours a day with minimal emissions. New Zealand, Chile and the west coast of the US lie on the 40,000-kilometer (25,000-mile) chain of active volcanoes that surrounds the Pacific Ocean. The zone, known as the Ring of Fire, also includes Japan and Indonesia.
Hudson Ranch
Today's investment gives Mighty River a 20% stake in EnergySource LLC, which is building the Hudson Ranch power station in the Salton Sea geothermal region of Southern California. It will use the Fuji Electric Systems Co, machines that Mighty River has installed in New Zealand the past two years, including its 140MW Nga Awa Purua plant, the world's largest single-turbine project.
"The construction experience that Mighty River has had with that technology provided a great fit for GGE and its new partners," Heffernan said. Mighty River runs four geothermal power plants in New Zealand and has just been granted planning approval to build a fifth. It plans to have a 70MW generator operating in Tolhuaca in Chile by 2013 in a project also managed by GeoGlobal.
The Hudson Ranch plant will take about two years to build and will supply Arizona-based utility Salt River Project, Heffernan said. The balance of the project cost is being met by EnergySource and a group of eight international banks, led by ING Capital LLC, Societe Generale and WestLB AG.
"It's an illustration that project financing for renewable and geothermal projects is underway," he said. "This will be one of the bigger projects that has got forward in the geothermal space, and I guess it's a demonstration that the US is serious about shifting to renewable energy."
Cheaper Catalyst to Make Hydrogen Fuel from Sunlight
www.merid.org
5/17/2010
A new study, conducted by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States, has shown that solar panels coated with a newly developed and inexpensive metal catalyst, comprised of nickel and borate, could become a cheap source of solar energy for the developing world. The new catalyst, used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight, could be used instead of cobalt, which is more expensive. Conventional photovoltaic and battery systems already in use in developing countries have limited storage capacity.
According to Mircea Dincă, a researcher at MIT and lead author of the study, "One of the main problems with solar energy is using it at night. With our device you use the solar energy you get during the day to electrolyse water [break it down to oxygen and hydrogen], store the hydrogen, then consume it later." The other advantage, says Dincă, is that the catalyst works with dirty water and could even purify it for drinking. "In developing countries you don't normally have access to very pure water," he said. "Our catalysts work with water taken from rivers and this is something that hasn't been shown before."
The team is testing the new catalyst for commercial value and hope to bring the technology to the developing world as soon as possible. Their research was recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The article can be viewed online at the link below.
5/17/2010
A new study, conducted by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States, has shown that solar panels coated with a newly developed and inexpensive metal catalyst, comprised of nickel and borate, could become a cheap source of solar energy for the developing world. The new catalyst, used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight, could be used instead of cobalt, which is more expensive. Conventional photovoltaic and battery systems already in use in developing countries have limited storage capacity.
According to Mircea Dincă, a researcher at MIT and lead author of the study, "One of the main problems with solar energy is using it at night. With our device you use the solar energy you get during the day to electrolyse water [break it down to oxygen and hydrogen], store the hydrogen, then consume it later." The other advantage, says Dincă, is that the catalyst works with dirty water and could even purify it for drinking. "In developing countries you don't normally have access to very pure water," he said. "Our catalysts work with water taken from rivers and this is something that hasn't been shown before."
The team is testing the new catalyst for commercial value and hope to bring the technology to the developing world as soon as possible. Their research was recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The article can be viewed online at the link below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)