There are three energy and climate bill currently before the US Senate. These are:

• The American Power Act.

• The American Clean Energy Leadership Act.

• Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan.

The first of these-  the American Power Act proposed by Senators Kerry and Lieberman, which is the Senate version of the House’s Waxman- Markey Bill passed last year would mandate a cap and trade system and require a 17 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2020.

The second bill emerged from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in June 2009, sponsored jointly by Democrat chairman Jeff Bingaman and Ranking Republican Lisa Markowski is a bipartisan measure designed to accelerate clean energy technologies in the US, including clean energy project financing, a renewable electricity standard, and a robust and secure national electricity transmission highway.

The bill which is yet to go to the floor of the Senate would also require increased energy efficiency in buildings.

The third measure, Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan S 3464 by Republicans Senators Richard Lugar and Lindsay Graham is a “possible bipartisan framework for making progress on energy driven national security, economic, and environmental concerns.”

The Plan would reduce by over 40 per cent the need for foreign oil; cut energy use by 11 per cent; cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20 per cent over “business as usual” by 2030. This climate savings trajectory meets nearly half of President Obama’s 2020 climate goal.

Barack Obama’s (June 15 2010) powerful speech from the Oval Office to the American people, at a time when the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf is a blow to the American psyche deliberately made no mention of the Kerry-Lieberman bill.

The problem is that the Republicans won’t swallow the  carbon cap and trade  measure.. Democrats would like it,, but they can’t secure the support of 60 Senators for passing such a requirement. But in a design to secure wavering Republican support for some meaningful legislation, Obama mentioned the other two proposals before the Senate.

Obama said in part: “ Last year, the House of Representatives passed a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill- a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses. Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And there are some who believe that we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy- because the long term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.”

“ So, I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high tech industry does on research and development- and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.”

“All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction.”

The excellent  online newsletter on Congress, Politico.com (June 17 2010), said that the Senate Democrats held a special caucus meeting on the three bills. But there was no consensus, on which bill was likely to gather sufficient support for a bipartisan energy and climate bill could emerge on the floor of the Senate,  before the August recess. The November elections is expected to hand ccntrol of both Huses back to the Republicans, so time is short. Another caucus meeting is tentatively scheduled for next week.

The Democrat Majority would like to get through the floor of the Senate a climate and energy bill that puts a price on carbon, but they lack the numbers to execute such a plan.

What is likely to happen in a consensus measure, is one which  cobbles together pieces from all three bills. No cap and trade for the US economy as a whole,. But possibly some measure which includes  a mandated reuirement for power plants to use less hydrocarbons and more renewables. This would be accompanied by large tax benefits for the energy utilities to dramatically increase their renewable energy facilities in wind and solar power.Also a ban on new coal fired power plants. That would be a big advance to the bits and pieces the US has now.

After all, seven of the largest electric utilities- AES, Duke Energy, Exelon, NextEra Energy, NRG, PG&E, PNM Resources are members of the US Climate Action Partnership, which says “we are committed to a pathway that will slow, stop and reverse the growth in US emissions, while expanding the US economy.”

Other large greenhouse gas polluting companies in the Climat Action  group  include DuPont, Dow Chemical, Alcoa, Shell Oil, Rio Tinto, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which share the same passion with some leading environmental organisations, who are also members of the partnership.

In was not until 1982, before the first motor vehicle was assembled in China. And it took a further 10 years before one million vehicles were sold in any one year. But over the last 18 years, an astonishingly giant industry has been created to become in 2009 the largest auto market in the world.

And having come this far, it is inevitable that like the steel industry, where the Chinese produce about 50 per cent of global supply, the same trends are emerging in motor vehicles.

In hybrids and fully electric cars, China with its still current 200 auto manufacturers will dominate this space, with the government goal for 2011 of 500,000 electric vehicles seen as a modest beginning.

All the major international auto companies, with hopes of marketing success in the hybrid and electric vehicle space, with affiliates in China are extremely busy right now.

Indeed, all of the majors, whether joint ventures with foreign auto companies, state owned, municipal owned, or private owned are currently working two and three shifts throughout the week, with an almost endless supply of customers.

Passenger car sales rose 63 per cent to 1.26 million vehicles in March 2010, and commercial vehicles rose even more strongly to 470,000 units over the same month, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM).

In 2009, vehicle sales totalled 13.6 million units, a gain over the previous year of 45 per cent. CAAM expects the domestic auto market to grow 15 per cent this year suggesting a total market of 15-16 million. Another auto trade association, Shanghai based China Passenger Car Association is even more confident, suggesting that China’s vehicle sales will surpass 17 million units in 2010.

In 2008, the Ministry of Science and Technology mandated that 10 per cent of Chinese cars will run on alternative fuels by 2012 and called for research subsidies. The Ministry of Finance announced a new commitment to promote new energy vehicles in the country’s 13 largest cities- Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing, Zhangchun, Dalian, Hangzhou, Jinan, Wuhan, Shenzhen, Hefei, Kunming and Nanchang.

The mandate called for public services to begin buying alternative fuel vehicles in these cities and provide subsidies for their production and purchasing. The subsidies included 50,000 yuan for hybrids and 60,000 yuan for pure electric cars.

A revised subsidy scheme is eagerly expected for new energy vehicles. China Daily (April 9 2010) reported that electric cars qualifying for subsidies are those that have received the government’s production license and are assembled in China, regardless whether they come from domestic or joint venture firms.

Zero emission pure electric cars is now the preferred technology path for new energy cars in China, which will be reflected in the new stimulus plan. Where hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles fit in is not clear, as they were targeted as the priority for new energy vehicle development in China’s 11th Five Year Plan (2005-2010).

Zhang Jinhua, vice secretary general of the Chinese Society of Automotive Engineers, who is also an official for the national 863 research program on energy saving and new energy vehicles says that China’s roadmap for new energy cars has shifted in “giving priority to pure electric cars and taking hybrid cars as complement.”

As part of China’s new12th Five Year Plan, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s major planning body has highlighted nuclear energy, wind energy and new energy vehicles as priorities.

Frank Liao, chief engineer of Chery, now China’s fifth largest automaker, says that the first round of competition for the electric car market share would mainly be between medium and small sized domestic private automakers, and the large state owned domestic automakers ,which had acted “sluggishly” in electric car research and development.

There has since been an element of change, with even the highly profitable state and municipal owned SAIC, the No 1 auto company in China, too content in its cosy joint ventures, finally getting the message that the government wants the industry to accelerate change. SAIC is releasing a hybrid model this year, and a pure electric car in 2012.

A number of pure electric cars are about to enter the market. BYD, the 7.5 per cent affiliate of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway was first in with its own hybrid F3DM introduced in 2009. BYD for “Build Your Dreams” started in 1995 in auto batteries, and it is only in recent years that it entered the vehicle market.

For many years, a notorious reverse engineering outfit, which never paid for foreign technology,was openly exposed as such in a prominent online piece by Caexon Online. BYD sold 430,000 vehicles in 2009, and is building a new plant to double that output. It now wants to do its own research and development, and is prominent in the export market.

Chery started in 1997, and became the fifth Chinese automaker to reach a production goal of two million vehicles, the first one million was in 2007, and the second in 2009. At the beginning of 2010, Chery began a $350 million R&D program to develop traditional automotive technologies and new energy technologies at the same time.

The aim is to continue a strong program of technical improvements spending around 4.6 per cent of yearly sales on R&D. Chery, which launched its S18 electric car in March 2009, the first of its S series of fully electric cars, has been concentrating on “high efficiency, energy saving, easy operation, continuous variable transmission and quietness.”

The largest of the private auto companies Geely, which nreleased its EK-1 fully electric car, has just concluded a deal with Ford to buy Volvo, the Swedish motor firm for $1.8 billlion. Whether the Chinese company can meet the full purchase price at this stage is up in the air, but they retain first right of refusal advantage to purchase the prestige marque.

To make the 500,000 electric car target by 2011, there are generous production subsidies, and there is a scramble among large state owned enterprises to set up charging stations to enable the new car revolution to take place.

I have written on algae three times before. It is back in the news.

This time, the emphasis is not on Sapphire Energy, but on Solzayme, the South San Francisco start up. With an additional $ 22 million from the US Department of Energy for financing demonstration scale facilities preparatory to scaling up to a commercial plant. The company now has a capital base of $100 million. This should be sufficient for it make a faster breakout than its peers to become a real supplier of diesel and aviation fuel. And not just in token amounts.

The problem so far has been the great  difficulties biofuel companies, outside the highly subsidised corn ethanol producers, are having in getting costs down to a point, where they can ever compete with conventional hydrocarbons.

I must confess that there is something appealing to me in algae, the humble pond scum, turning into a highly valuable commodity. And for good measure, you can make very tasty goodies out of it as well. Solazyme is gaining valuable cash flow in a sideline, which is quickly taking off.

Bryan Walsh writing in Time magazine (March 17 2010) says “the vanilla drink is the colour of butter and tastes almost as good- creamy and sweet, like a liquid pudding. Next I try a pair of golden cookies, lightly touched with sugar- they’re soft, chewy and filling. Last is a mustard dipping sauce, tangy, that coats a handful of pretzels with a pleasant honeyed zing.”

And to top it off for the health conscious, “the vanilla drink has 20 per cent fewer calories and 75 per cent less saturated fat than regular milk, while the dipping sauce has 74 per cent less calories and 85 less overall fat than average honey mustard dip.”

Unlike, Sapphire Energy, which grows algae by feeding it on carbon dioxide in sunlight in ponds, this is the process of photosynthesis to make the fuel, Solazyme feeds algae sugar fermenting it in a dark kind of beer brewing kettle.

The economics of production in the two systems are very different.

The open ponds and photo-bioreactor (PBR) techniques are infinitely more expensive. Says Joshua Kagan, who has researched algae in detail, Greentech Media(April 3 2010 “an algae strain must be identified and optimised for maximum growth. The correct location must be found, and as the algae grows, they need a constant supply of nutrients, C02, heat and light, which requires the consistent movement of water.

“Once the algae grows to a sufficient mass, it must be harvested, dewatered and dried before extracts of the oil can commence. These steps are energy and capital intensive. Once the oil is extracted, it is relatively simple to upgrade the fuel into jet fuel or diesel using traditional refinery techniques, but still costs an additional $0.25-0.40/gal. Taken together, algae grown in open ponds or PBRs are estimated to cost $8-$30/gal.”

The comparison to Solazyme’s methods of production could not be any greater, and it is also far more cost effective. By growing the algae in the dark, the energy costs of artificial light is avoided, and the fermentation process requires a fraction of the water usage. Another positive is that the strains of algae don’t require CO2, which depending on the location can be a big cost. Finally, removing the water isn’t an issue when grown in dark vessels.

Although Solazyme uses a lot of sugar to feed the algae, the company has a supply agreement with second generation sugar producer, BlueFire Energy to obtain sugars derived from non food sources.

The big advantage algae has is that it can double in size daily and account for approximately 60 per cent of the oxygen production on earth. By comparison with corn ethanol, harvesting yields the equivalence of 270 gallons per acre per year, compared with algae’s 1500-1800 gallons per acre per year.

Let’s hope that Solazyme’s dark vessel production method is as cost effective as they say, and commercial production is only around the corner.

an

I have never been as excited in alternative energy technologies, such as wind and solar, as I am about fuel cells, now powering hydrogen fuelled vehicles. My interest here is in small stationary fuel cells, a segment of the market, which is starting to take off in a big way, although total revenue numbers are still small (under US$ 1 billion).

 As a reference source puts it modestly: “fuel cells are the perfect melding of benefits from energy sources.” They combine the benefits of easy refuelling and continuous operation potential of internal combustion engines, and the efficient and quiet operation of batteries. So they are the ideal energy alternative.

 They don’t require recharging as batteries do, and they are pollution free, unlike batteries and combustion engines. However, they do require refuelling, although this can be as simple as using low cost biogas.

 “Fuel cells work via an electrochemical reaction that converts the chemical energy stored in a fuel directly into electricity. There are five types of fuel cells, which utilise different electrochemical reactions, but the general process is always the same. Fuel is oxidised at the anode, electrons flow through an external circuit to do electrical work, and then fuel is reduced at the cathode.”

 The different fuel cell technologies are PEM (polymer electrolyte membrane); PA (phosphoric acid); SO (solid oxide); AFC (alkaline); (MC) molten carbonate; DM (direct methanol)

 Fuel cells first came to light back in 1838, when “William Robert Grove arranged two platinum electrodes with one end of each immersed in a container of sulphuric acid and the other ends separately sealed in containers of oxygen and hydrogen, a constant current would flow between the electrodes.”

 Fast forward to the late 1930s, when Frederick Thomas Bacon began researching alkali electrolyte fuel cells. During the second world war, Bacon worked on developing a fuel cell that could be used in Royal Navy submarines. In 1958, he demonstrated an alkali cell using a stack of 10 inch diameter electrodes for UK’s National Research Development Corp. Bacon’s fuel cells proved reliable and attracted the interest of Pratt & Whitney. The US company licensed Bacon’s research work for the Apollo spacecraft fuel cells.

 United Technologies Corp is the parent company of  Pratt & Whitney, and today UTC Power is a world leader in fuel cells using  the phosphoric acid technology.

 UTC Power’s latest 400kW fuel cell system is to be installed in Whole Foods Market 50,000 sq ft store, currently under construction in South San Jose CA). This will be the third Whole Foods fuel cell supermarket installation. “The UTC Power fuel cell system will generate 90 per cent of the store’s electricity needs and its thermal energy waste heat will be used for store heating, cooling and refrigeration for an overall efficiency of approximately 60 per cent, nearly twice the efficiency of the US electricity grid.”

The market research firm Fuel Cells Today says that to date more than 80 per cent of the small stationary market is held by companies producing polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFC).

As to the new sensation of Bloom Energy, with the technology of solid oxide fuel cells, which Science Daily (May 29, 2009) says has great potential for stationary and mobile applications. Stationary uses ranges from residential applications to power plants. Mobile applications include power for ships at sea and in space, as well as for autos. In addition to electricity, when SOFCs are operated in reverse mode as solid oxide electrolyzer cells, pure hydrogen can be generated by splitting water.

“The flaw in solid oxide fuel cells, which has delayed commercial production is in the integrity of the seals within and between power producing units. Composed of ceramic materials that can operate at temperatures as high as 1,000C (1,800 degrees F). SOFCs use high temperatures to separate oxygen ions from air. The ions pass through a crystal lattice and oxidize a fuel. The chemical reaction produces electrons, which flow through an external circuit creating electricity.”

“To produce enough energy for a particular application, SOFC modules are stacked together.  Each module’s compartments must be sealed, and there must be seals between the modules in a stack, so that air and fuel do not leak or mix.”

Bloom Energy, unlike other fuel cell systems makes a distributed energy system replacing the electricity grid, with its solid oxide fuel cells. The unveiling of Bloom attracted  around 900 articles in February 2009 in “unprecedented publicity” across major TV, newspaper and internet blogs. According to Google News, Bloom attracted one of the highest ever hit rates for a single product launch.

Commenced in 2002,   with sales of Bloom 100kW systems from 2009, the company will have its initial public offer in 2010, with John Doerr the doyen of venture capitalists of Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers, who floated Google so brilliantly, as the pivotal force behind the public float. Judging by the recent overwhelming successful IPO of Telsa Motors, Bloom Energy will be the big US float this year.

KR Sirdah, Bloom’s chief executive headed NASA’s fuel cells systems for use in the Apollo Mars probe, and when that mission was axed on the grounds of high costs, he took his scientific team with him. Bloom Energy located at Sunnyvale, Calif. first started raising venture capital in 2001, and was the first alternative energy company to be funded by Kleiner Perkins.

Four Bloom 100kV SOFCs have already been installed at Google’s Mountain View Californian headquarters. The 100-kilowatt modules are made of small flat 25-watt fuel cell wafers made of zirconium oxide that are stacked together.

This eliminates the problem of leaks, which as stated above, has slowed the development of this technology. The stacks are made of ceramics and metal. The Bloom box sells for US$700,000 to $800,000. Larger Bloom Boxes of 400 kW systems provides electricity to a Google building housing an experimental data centre, and similar systems are installed in Walmart’s stores.

 The company is also partnering with other blue chip companies,such as Bank of America; Coca Cola; Cox Enterprises (diversified media and communications group); eBay is said to have five Bloom Boxes; FedEx; Staples Center, (the Los  Angeles sports and entertainment landmark)  The Bloom box operates at high temperatures (over 600 C).

 It’s great to see the substantial growth in wind energy installations in 2009, as the international economy struggles to get out of recession. But what is disturbing is that if the rate of growth in new wind energy capacity continues to grow at its existing pace, China the spoiler and wrecker of the Copenhagen climate change meetings in December will end up as No 1.

 For the fifth year in a row, Chinese wind energy capacity continues to double. The global wind energy association (GWEA) reported (February 3 2010) that China was the world’s biggest market in 2009, increasing capacity from 12.1 GW (that is 12,100 MW) in 2008 to 25.1 GW at the end of last year.

 Along with newly added capacity of 1.27 GW in India, and smaller additions in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, more than 14 GW of new wind energy capacity was added in Asia in 2009.

 Last year also saw a significant increase in Australia’s wind energy installed capacity by 406 MW in 2008 to 1.712 GW at the end of last year. Australia has now legislated for a mandatory 20 per cent renewable energy level by 2020.

 United States continues to shine in new wind energy capacity of 9.922 GW in 2009 to reach a cumulative total of 35.159 GW, with Texas and California still well in the lead. Canada also did well in new wind energy additions of 950 MW to a new total of 3.319 GW installed capacity, while in Latin America total installed capacity doubled over 2009 to a new level of 1.274 GW.

 Europe, the original home of windmills, and where the modern wind energy market commenced in 1976 had a good year in 2009, with new wind energy installations of 10.526 GW, of which more than 95 per cent is in the 27 countries making up the European Union.

 Spain continued to lead over Germany in new wind energy capacity, followed closely by Germany. Then came in close order Italy, France and UK. Total installed wind energy capacity at the end of 2009 rose to 76.152 GW.

 As in wind energy, wind turbine manufacturing has become a very competitive battleground, with intense price competition from Chinese producers, upsetting the old leadership in which traditional world leader Vestas of Denmark was No 1 and Gamesa of Spain No2.

 With the US catching up and then outdistancing Germany, GE Energy came into the industry by acquisition, and then recently consolidated this with the takeover of Norwegian based Scan Wind, a novel producer of gearless turbines for use in the offshore wind market.

 Calendar year 2008 saw GE nearly catching up to the traditional world leader Vestas of Denmark. Gamesa of Spain was far behind in third place. Then followed in close order Enercon (Germany), Suzlon (India) and Siemens(Germany).

 The three largest Chinese producers Sinovel, Dongfang and Goldwind were a little behind, but growing very rapidly, to take advantage both of China’s leap ahead in wind energy, and a preferential tariff favouring local producers. This has enabled Chinese producers to gain a 70 per cent share of the Chinese wind turbine market.

 Even in 2008, one of every eight wind turbines produced were Chinese. But 2009 is another story again, with Vestas facing eroding market share, its share price in February 2010 falling 60 per cent from its peak 2008 value. Gamesa went backward in 2009, losing market share and falling into losses.

 The ever expanding domestic Chinese wind turbine market has enabled the domestic wind turbine producers to both expand aggressively offshore with substantial price competition, and to produce larger capacity wind turbines.

 The average Chinese wind turbine  was  until recently a 1.5 megawatt unit, with Sinovel Wind Group, the largest Chinese producer in 2009 accounting for an output of  2,400 1.5 MW wind turbines and 100 300 MW turbines.

 Sinovel commenced a production line for its 5 MW wind turbine in January, and this is expected to come on line at the end of 2010. The 300 MW and 500 MW turbines are destined for the offshore and near offshore wind power markets.

 Dongfang Turbine Co., a subsidiary of China’s largest provider of power generating equipment has a contract with American Superconductor Corporation (AMSC) to develop a 5 MW wind turbine for the offshore wind market, having already supplied a 2.5 MW prototype to the Chinese.

It’s becoming readily accepted in the community that energy efficiency is important. But it isn’t really understood that the No1 priority on the road to a low carbon economy is achieving energy savings.

Investment in energy savings in buildings, industry and transportation ranks above investment in new energy sources including wind, solar, biomass and biofuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA), in its World Energy Outlook November 2009, says that end-use efficiency is the biggest contributor to the cutting back of CO2 emissions.

The agency also said that energy efficiency investment has a short payback period in fuel cost savings. Expressed as a fuel source in its own right, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), says in its report on the cost of saved energy September 2009, that energy efficiency would cost the equivalent of 1.6 cents/kilowatt hour (kWh) to 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour kWh, averaging 2.5 cents/kWh.

This compared with pulverised coal at 7 cents/kWh to 14 cents/kWh, combined cycle natural gas 7 cents/ kWh to 10 cents/kWh, and wind energy 4 cents/kWh to 9 cents/kWh.

This led the authors of the ACEEE report to say that “energy efficiency is by far the least cost resource option. They went on: “it appears to be a resource that continues to renew itself- the more energy efficiency opportunities we look for, the more we find.”

The biggest area for energy savings is in buildings, adding together industrial, commercial and residential, which collectively amounts to 38 per cent of energy use.

This is one and half times energy use in transportation. The figures are derived from a four year international survey by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD.

Energy codes and standards are largely ineffective, and safety standards are not much better. So how do you bring about change? A price on carbon, with appropriate tax incentives helps. There is a big role for research and development. But no matter how much is achieved in R & D, both with new technology and incremental change, the biggest problem remaining is the overwhelming tendency of inertia, clinging to traditional ways of doing things.

George David, chairman of the privately funded Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington (September 2009) said that “higher carbon costs and improved efficiency technologies will increase the attractiveness of investments and lessen the economic drag of otherwise lower returns. But we still need the stimulus of regulation to get us started”

Two ways of achieving energy savings provide a transformational way of approach.

The first example comes from George David. He quoted the example of newer elevators, which recapture and make available for re-use the energy on descent that was expended on ascent. Reducing energy consumption by 75 per cent for the same speed and load, compared to older models, with non-regenerative elevators.

The other example comes from Green Inc, the environmental blog of the New York Times. It involves the installation of a stationary fuel cell in a 69,000 sq ft supermarket in upstate New York, which has largely supplanted the electricity grid supply for the store’s lighting, heating and cooling requirements.

As the fuel cell supplier, UTC Power says fuel cells don’t have the energy waste of traditional power generation, where more than half of the energy goes up the stack as greenhouse gas. By contrast, fuel cell systems convert heat exhaust into cooling and heating, turning potential waste into usable energy, with an energy conversion efficiency exceeding 85 per cent.

by Ray Block

Despite the global recession, solar PV (photovoltaics) continued to grow in calendar 2009, increasing by an estimated 5 per cent. However, it largely took to the fourth quarter before the market became revitalised.

Global market estimates from forecaster Solarbuzz, is for an expected 6.37 GW PV in calendar 2009, with European demand accounting for 71 per cent of the market. Germany’s third quarter (July-September) demand of 980 MW was eclipsed by a more robust 1680 MW fourth quarter.

Germany regained the world lead from Spain, after losing the top spot in.2008, with an estimated 2.5 GW installed. After a record Spanish demand of 2.5 GW in 2008, with the inducement of an exceptional level of feed- in-tariff (FIT), the government capped demand for 2009 at 500 MW and reduced the FIT subsidy. As a result, solar companies downsized their staff from 40,000 to 4,000. With a reduced FIT, demand in 2009 fell to only 150 MW.

The Italian government has set a goal of 3 GW PV by 2016, with 2009 demand expected at 400MW. France wants to achieve PV demand of 1GW a year by 2013, with an installed capacity of 5.4 GW by 2020.

US PV demand for calendar 2009 is estimated by Solarbuzz at 556 MW up from 290 MW in 2008. Enterprise Florida and Greentechmedia, in a study of emerging trends in the US market point to the beginnings of a cost based feed-in-tariff, with California supporting a FIT of up to 750 MW total demand. A major growth factor is the enthusiasm for power utility scale PV systems. 16 states currently have a renewable portfolio standard, with specific provisions for support to solar power.

In the next four years, the utility-scale market will begin to rise markedly, outdistancing the residential market. Enterprise Florida and Greentechmedia expect with falling PV system prices to see the “gradual achievement of price convergence between utility-scale PV and wholesale peak electricity prices.” The study suggests that price convergence could occur as early as this year, initially in the No1 PV market in California.

The most remarkable solar PV company so far is First Solar of Tempe, Arizona, with its outstanding success in thin fim cadmium telluride (CdTe) modules, challenging the traditional dominance of crystalline silicon. CdTe modules don’t have the energy efficiency of silicon, but First Solar makes up for that with the ability to decrease radically the cost of solar cells per unit of generated power.

In 2009, First Solar was able to reduce the cost of solar cells to 85 cents (US) per watt, which had been never before achievable.  2009 module production was 1.1GW, almost catching up to industry leaders Q-cells of Germany and Sharp of Japan.

iSuppli forecasts that the thin-film PV module share of the overall market will rise from the 2008 global level of 14.2 per cent to an impressive 34.5 per cent by 2013. First Solar, with nearly 28 per cent of the global market in 2009 is well placed to benefit from this expected growth.

Japan, which had an installed PV capacity of 2.1 GW in 2009 aims to have 28 GW of installed PV by 2020. The government introduced a FIT taking effect on November 1 2009, requiring power utilities to purchase PV generated electricity at Y48/kWh for 10 years.

By all accounts, geothermal resources in the world are immense. The Union of Concerned Scientists says that within 10 km (about 33,000 feet) of the Earth’s surface, the amount of heat contains 50,000 times more energy than all the known oil and natural gas reserves in the world.

Greater effort is now being made to exploit these resources, as the need to create low carbon economies becomes more urgent. Although there is a small volume of greenhouse gases involved, geothermal energy is available 24 hours a day, providing base load power at a price almost competitive with coal.

At September 2009, United States with the largest known geothermal resources in the world, is generating geothermal electric power in eight western states. California is the long time leader, with more than 40 geothermal plants providing nearly 5 per cent of the state’s electricity.

The state’s renewable energy requirement of 33 per cent by 2020 will spur more development. Nevada, the second largest geothermal producer has a 25 per cent renewable energy target by 2020, and this will also facilitate increased production. Soon another five states will also be generating electricity.

Total US installed geothermal capacity is currently 3.1 GW. Although representing less than 1 per cent of total US electricity capacity today, the aim is to reach at least 5 per cent of US power needs by 2020, and 10 per cent by 2030. The US Geothermal Energy Association says that 144 projects are now under development in 24 states, which could provide additional electricity capacity of 7 GW.

Up to $338 million in Recovery Act funding was allotted by the Obama Administration in 2009 for the exploration and development of new geothermal fields and research into advanced geothermal technologies. These grants matched on a one-for-one basis with private and non-federal cost share funds will support 123 projects in 39 states.

Conventional US geothermal resources on private and accessible public lands has a mean estimate of 33 GW, while the latest study by the US Geological Survey of geothermal resources in hot rock technology suggest an additional mean estimate of 518 GW available.

While the capacity factor in conventional geothermal production, (the amount of electricity produced) is at least 73 per cent, and may be only 30 per cent in hot rock technology, the overall resources are so large, that one day they may be able to supply much of the country’s electricity needs.

European geothermal resources are mainly in heating and cooling, directly exploiting the aquifers (Paris leads in low and medium energy resources), where the temperature ranges between 30 degrees C. and 150 degrees C. The second way is to produce heat using geothermal ground source heat pumps. The major European producers are Sweden, Italy, France, Hungary, Germany, Denmark.

The EU-27 country geothermal electricity target for 2020 is 6 GW, and for geothermal heating installed 39 GW. Outside the EU, Iceland with about 300,000 people is the geothermal standout,with 17 per cent of its electricity and 87 per cent of its direct heating from geothermal energy.

Everywhere on Earth, the deeper you go, the hotter it gets. Some of the regions are within the “Ring of Fire,” characterised by volcanoes, hot springs and fumaroles, (vents emitting hot gases), where the heat is close to the surface. These areas are around the rim of the Pacific Coast on the US and Canadian west coast – California, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, and down the Asian coast to include Japan, China, Philippines and Indonesia.

There is also the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, an underwater mountain stretching from Iceland and the Azores to Antarctica, the East African Rift Valley mainly around Kenya, the East Pacific Rise paralleling the west coast of South America, the Rio Grande Rift running up through New Mexico and Colorado and the Juan de Fuca Ridge (tectonic spreading centre off the coast of Washington state and the adjoining province of British Columbia.)

There are two additional levels of geothermal resources. One of these is a steady supply of milder heat available for direct space heating, at depths down to 200 metres or so, which is available in parts of Europe and North America.

There is also the very large resource at depths of 3 km to 10 km (about 2 to 10 miles), where enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), also known as hot rock technology, has opened up a virtual Pandora box of energy treasures. In addition to the US, Australia, France, Germany and Japan have R&D programs to make EGS commercially viable.

In the EGS process, a fractured reservoir is created at a depth where the rock is hot. Water is continuously injected down a well into the engineered fractures, where the water heats as it flows through. The water is then brought to the surface via production wells, and its heat is extracted to generate electricity in power plants. Finally, the water depleted of its heat, is re-injected to be heated again.

Susan Petty, President of AltaRock Energy, whose company is exploiting an EGS project in Oregon gave evidence to the US Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in 2007.She discussed the economics of the cost of geothermal electricity at depths of 3 km, and temperature of 300 degree C.

Her experience is that EGS at current technology could be generated for a cost of about US$74 MWh. This price includes financing costs and amortising the capital investment of the well field, but before profit. With incremental technology improvement, the cost of power could be cut in half

During calendar year 2009, the extremely disruptive year of very low economic growth world-wide, when venture capital was scarce, at least 26 GW (26,000 MW) of new wind energy was installed in the big three economic blocs- United States, European Union and China. The year set up a new challenge, with China- the country which had doubled new wind energy installations each year over the previous five years to December 2008, almost doubling it again in 2009, and for the first time exceeding new wind energy installations in United States.

Preliminary figures for country totals from the global wind energy council (GWEC) and the two country group associations, AWEA in the US, and EWEA in the 27 country- EU, are still being assessed. China stole a march on its economic rivals adding about 10 GW (10,000 MW) in new wind energy installations in 2009 to reach a total capacity of 22.2 GW.

United States added only a disappointing 7 GW in new wind energy capacity in 2009 to reach a cumulative installed capacity of 32.2 GW. The first quarter started very strongly, but the financial crisis led to a sharp fall in the second quarter, followed by some growth in the third quarter, and finally a retreat towards the end of the year.The American wind energy history in recent years is marked by a ziz zig pattern of strong growth followed by low or even no growth. This disruptive pattern is associated with periods when the US Congress didn’t renew the production tax credits. This occurred three times in seven years, between 1999 and 2006.

Understandably, the wind energy industry needs tax certainly, as a means of encouraging long term infrastructure capital to invest in costly large scale wind farms. The largest wind farm in the world consisting of 627 wind turbines with a total capacity of 781.5 MW opened in Roscoe Texas in October 2009. Significantly, the developer is the German energy supplier, E.ON, and some of the turbines predictably came from Siemens.

In 2009, the equally hard hit European Union added about 8.6 GW in new wind energy installations to reach a cumulative capacity of 73.5 GW.Looking forward to 2020, the EU is forecasting installed wind energy capacity of 230 GW, which would comprise 190 GW in onshore installations and 40 GW in offshore installations. This would represent between 14.3 per cent and 16.6 per cent of total electricity consumption in the 27 country community.

Denmark, the original home of the modern wind energy industry opened the world’s largest offshore wind park, Horns Rev11, 30 km from its shoreline in September 2009.

For 2030, the EU is forecasting installed capacity of 400 GW, made up of 250 GW onshore and 150 GW offshore. In this scenario, wind energy would represent between 26.2 per cent and 34.3 per cent of total EU electricity consumed.

China is currently aiming for 150 GW of cumulative installed capacity by 2020. But it is more than likely that China will continue to surprise, with substantially higher levels of installed capacity. Its six wind bases are mainly located in the north west of the country, with the best wind resources, and where the population is relatively sparse. The National Energy Administration chose Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Hebei, Jiangsu as the most suitable locations. No estimate for installed capacity in 2030 has yet been released.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) report “20% Wind Energy by 2030” was released in July 2008. The 20 per cent refers to the assumption that US wind energy installed capacity by 2030 would be more than 300GW, which would deliver 20 per cent of total electricity consumed.

The race for wind energy leadership goes on unabated. It is best seen in the highly competitive market for wind turbines, with Vestas of Denmark hanging on to a slight lead over GE Wind Energy (US). Gamesa (Spain) is in third place, followed by Evercon (Germany), and Suzlon (India) in fifth place

Suzlon is the largest offshore wind supplier. No 6 spot goes to German giant, Siemens, and bringing up the rear are three very ambitious Chinese turbine suppliers, destined to be in the top tier – Sinovel,Goldwind and Dongfang.

 by Ray Block

Wind energy, a race for long term leadership

By Ray Block December 28 2009

Wind energy is by far the largest renewable energy source in the world, and its leadership over solar and other renewables is likely to continue in coming years. The implications for the industry including wind turbines, the electricity generating companies, the high voltage transmission lines yet to be developed, and the long term infrastructure investors to be involved in wind farms and wind parks is becoming very big business in the 21^st Century. There is a competitive race for world leadership. This note sets the scene.

During calendar year 2009, the extremely disruptive year of very low economic growth world-wide, when venture capital was scarce, at least 26 GW (26,000 MW) of new wind energy was installed in the big three economic blocs- United States, European Union and China. The year set up a new challenge, with China- the country which had doubled new wind energy installations each year over the previous five years to December 2008, almost doubling it again in 2009, and for the first time exceeding new wind energy installations in United States.

Preliminary figures for country totals from the global wind energy council (GWEC) and the two country group associations, AWEA in the US, and EWEA in the 27 country- EU, are still being assessed. China stole a march on its economic rivals adding about 10 GW (10,000 MW) in new wind energy installations in 2009 to reach a total capacity of 22.2 GW.

United States added only a disappointing 7 GW in new wind energy capacity in 2009 to reach a cumulative installed capacity of 32.2 GW. The first quarter started very strongly, but the financial crisis led to a sharp fall in the second quarter, followed by some growth in the third quarter, and finally a retreat towards the end of the year.The American wind energy history in recent years is marked by a ziz zig pattern of strong growth followed by low or even no growth. This disruptive pattern is associated with periods when the US Congress didn’t renew the production tax credits. This occurred three times in seven years, between 1999 and 2006.

Understandably, the wind energy industry needs tax certainly, as a means of encouraging long term infrastructure capital to invest in costly large scale wind farms. The largest wind farm in the world consisting of 627 wind turbines with a total capacity of 781.5 MW opened in Roscoe Texas in October 2009. Significantly, the developer is the German energy supplier, E.ON, and some of the turbines predictably came from Siemens.

In 2009, the equally hard hit European Union added about 8.6 GW in new wind energy installations to reach a cumulative capacity of 73.5 GW.Looking forward to 2020, the EU is forecasting installed wind energy capacity of 230 GW, which would comprise 190 GW in onshore installations and 40 GW in offshore installations. This would represent between 14.3 per cent and 16.6 per cent of total electricity consumption in the 27 country community.

Denmark, the original home of the modern wind energy industry opened the world’s largest offshore wind park, Horns Rev11, 30 km from its shoreline in September 2009.

For 2030, the EU is forecasting installed capacity of 400 GW, made up of 250 GW onshore and 150 GW offshore. In this scenario, wind energy would represent between 26.2 per cent and 34.3 per cent of total EU electricity consumed.

China is currently aiming for 150 GW of cumulative installed capacity by 2020. But it is more than likely that China will continue to surprise, with substantially higher levels of installed capacity. Its six wind bases are mainly located in the north west of the country, with the best wind resources, and where the population is relatively sparse. The National Energy Administration chose Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Hebei, Jiangsu as the most suitable locations. No estimate for installed capacity in 2030 has yet been released.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) report “20% Wind Energy by 2030” was released in July 2008. The 20 per cent refers to the assumption that US wind energy installed capacity by 2030 would be more than 300GW, which would deliver 20 per cent of total electricity consumed.

The race for wind energy leadership goes on unabated. It is best seen in the highly competitive market for wind turbines, with Vestas of Denmark hanging on to a slight lead over GE Wind Energy (US). Gamesa (Spain) is in third place, followed by Evercon (Germany), and Suzlon (India) in fifth place

Suzlon is the largest offshore wind supplier. No 6 spot goes to German giant, Siemens, and bringing up the rear are three very ambitious Chinese turbine suppliers, destined to be in the top tier – Sinovel,Goldwind and Dongfang.

by Ray Block

 Although the Chinese were downright difficult and even hostile in the Copenhagen Accord fizzer, showing off their defiance to impress the allies in the E7 (India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey), there is a serious race going on between United States and China over leadership.

 The fact that China would not commit to emissions reductions and to international inspectors doesn’t mean that much. What China has been doing in a flat out campaign extending back to 1978 is to keep on increasing energy efficiency. As Julian Wong said in his blog, GreenLeapForward by 2000, Chinese GDP output required two thirds less energy than it did in 1978.

 From the beginning of 2006 to the end of  2010, the headline target has been to reduce energy intensity, that is the amount of primary energy per unit of GDP by 20 per cent. Now the big goal is to further reduce energy intensity per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030.

 The Chinese have caught up to the Americans in modernization of plant and equipment, and at this rate of growth will leave them behind in the time range 2020-2030.

 A report in China Daily, and further circulated by Reuters dated August 18 2009, says that a panel from the chief planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Development Research Center of the State Council, are saying that with the right policies, emissions could slow after 2020, with a peak around 2030.

 The emphasis is to invest significantly in low carbon technology R&D, and this is what the Chinese are doing.

 I believe that once China’s emissions peaks, the next step is that they will move quickly to be carbon neutral at least by 2050, if not before. Carbon neutral is to achieve net zero carbon emissions by balancing the carbon generated with an equivalent amount sequestered (that is stored underground), or offset.

 Norway is expecting to be carbon neutral by 2030, which given the export commodity base of oil resources, and 80 per cent of its energy usage coming from hydro power makes it understandable, that they can move relatively quickly.

 Industrialised Sweden is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2050, with renewable energy levels at 50 per cent by 2020. Sweden made a u-turn in 2009, having voted decisively in 1980 to ban expansion of its 10 nuclear power stations, and pledged to close them all down by 2010. Now Sweden is embracing nuclear technology with a new excitement, and so too are a number of other European countries.

 If China as probably the largest superpower by the mid century can reach carbon neutrality by 2050, that will be a giant step forward.

 by Ray Block

Zero emissions by 2050?

By Ray Block December 23 2009

Although the Chinese were downright difficult and even hostile in the Copenhagen Accord fizzer, showing off their defiance to impress the allies in the E7 (India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey), there is a serious race going on between United States and China over leadership.

The fact that China would not commit to emissions reduction and to international inspectors doesn’t mean that much. What China has been doing in a flat out campaign extending back to 1978 is to keep on increasing energy efficiency. As Julian Wong said in his blog, GreenLeapForward by 2000, Chinese GDP output required two thirds less energy than it did in 1978.

From the beginning of 2006 to the end of  2010, the headline target has been to reduce energy intensity, that is the amount of primary energy per unit of GDP by 20 per cent. Now the big goal is to further reduce energy intensity per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 per cent by 2030.

The Chinese have caught up to the Americans in modernization of plant and equipment, and at this rate of growth will leave them behind in the time range 2020-2030.

A report in China Daily, and further circulated by Reuters dated August 18 2009, says that a panel from the chief planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the Development Research Center of the State Council, are saying that with the right policies, emissions could slow after 2020, with a peak around 2030.

The emphasis is to invest significantly in low carbon technology R&D, and this is what the Chinese are doing.

I believe that once China’s emissions peaks, the next step is that they will move quickly to be carbon neutral at least by 2050, if not before. Carbon neutral is to achieve net zero carbon emissions by balancing the carbon generated with an equivalent amount sequestered (that is stored underground), or offset.

Norway is expecting to be carbon neutral by 2030, which given the export commodity base of oil resources, and 80 per cent of its energy usage coming from hydro power makes it more meaningful, that they can move relatively quickly.

Industrialised Sweden is aiming to be carbon neutral by 2050, with renewable energy levels at 50 per cent by 2020. Sweden made a u-turn in 2009, having voted decisively in 1980 to ban expansion of its 10 nuclear power stations, and pledged to close them all down by 2010. Now Sweden is embracing nuclear technology with a new excitement, and so too are a number of other European countries.

If China as probably the largest superpower by the mid century can reach carbon neutrality by 2050, that will be a giant step forward.