Fueling our future - Clean energy - Energy efficiency

message test 4

2008-12-29T22:40:00.001-08:00

message test 3

2008-12-29T22:39:00.003-08:00

Message test 2

2008-12-29T22:39:00.001-08:00

Message test 1

2008-12-29T22:38:00.000-08:00

Wind and gas

2008-11-09T12:14:00.000-08:00

Wind turbines generate electricity very irregularly, because the wind itself is inconsistent. Therefore wind turbines always need backup power from fossil fuels to keep the electricity grid in balance. Gas turbines are the best way to do this. They are able to respond quickly and push power production when wind generators stop suddenly. They can be turned on and off almost instantly, whereas traditional coal-fired plants need to be maintained in a very inefficient standby mode if they are to respond to large fluctuations in power demand.

A proliferation of windmills, then, can become a windfall for gas sellers, as the cases of Spain and Germany, Europe’s leading producers of wind power, show.

By the end of 2007 Spain had 14,700 megawatts (MW) of installed wind capacity, according to Enagás, which manages the national gas network, producing 8.7% of the country’s total power supplies. Most of these wind generators are located in scarcely populated areas, while the power consumption is concentrated in big cities with their many air-conditioned buildings. The peak load of the Spanish power grid is thus in the hot summer months—but this is precisely the time of year when there usually isn’t much wind.

For this reason, more and more gas turbines are being installed near consumers in the suburbs of Spain’s cities. Only last year, Spanish power providers added 6,400 MW of gas-turbine power capacity, taking the total installed capacity of gas turbines to 21,000 MW. Natural gas has become the main source of electricity generation in Spain, and according to Enagás, 99.8% of the gas used in Spain is imported. Most of this comes via pipeline from Algeria, but the import of liquid natural gas (LNG) by ships will increase.

Germany has more than 20,000 wind turbines with a total capacity of 21,400 MW. Wind power’s share of total electricity generation has risen in line with that of natural gas since 1990. Germany’s gas consumption for power generation more than doubled between 1990 and 2007, and now represents 11.7% of the country’s total power generation. The country imported 83% of its natural gas supplies.

Source: WSJ, 11/09/08

Norway's tax on emissions

2008-11-09T12:10:00.000-08:00

In 1991, Norway became one of the first countries in the world to impose a stiff tax on harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the country's emissions have risen by 15%.

By making it more expensive to pollute, carbon taxes should spur companies and individuals to clean up. Norway's sobering experience shows how difficult it is to cut emissions in the real world

Norway gave exemptions to some local industries, such as fishing, because it feared the tax would damage economic growth and hurt employment. On the other hand, it levied on the oil and gas industry a $65 tax per ton of carbon emitted. In contrast, the cost of a permit to emit the equivalent of one ton of carbon in Europe's current cap-and-trade system is $35.

After the tax was passed, domestic oil and gas giant StatoilHydro was forced to rethink nearly every aspect of its drilling cycle.

Around the time the tax was being debated, Statoil was developing a new gas field in the North Sea. At the Sleipner field, the natural gas Statoil extracts from under the sea bed contains 9% carbon dioxide. That's too high for Statoil's customers, whose power plants are designed to burn gas with only 2% carbon dioxide. Before Statoil can sell the gas, it has to separate and discard some of the carbon dioxide. Usually the excess carbon dioxide is spewed directly into the air.

Statoil spent two years and some $200 million on the project, which was launched in 1996. Since then, some 10 million tons of carbon dioxide have been buried, saving Statoil about $60 million on its carbon tax bill every year.

Other industries that were successful in negotiating exceptions for themselves have made little progress. Paper manufacturers were given a low tax rate of between $16 and $18.40 per ton -- less than a third what the oil sector pays. For the country's biggest paper company, Norske Skog, the carbon tax amounted to only about $200,000 a year, it didn't have a major influence on its investments or project decisions

The carbon tax's most glaring failure was in the transportation sector. The tax has also done little to quench Norwegians' thirst for automobiles. The number of registered cars has risen 27% in the past decade. Norwegians are used to paying high prices at the pump: a gallon of gasoline costs around $9 to $10, and about 6% of the price comes from the carbon tax. Yet since two-thirds of Norwegians live in the countryside, they pay up and keep driving.

Europe struggled with a similar dilemma as it set up its "cap-and-trade" system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by utilities and heavy industry. Regulators cushioned industry in the early years of the system, giving them little incentive to improve. As a result, emissions have crept up 1% a year since 2005.

A few countries have cut emissions without injuring their economies. Sweden and Denmark, both of which introduced a carbon tax, have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 14% and 8% respectively since 1990 while maintaining growth. Their emission reductions can't be attributed to the tax alone, economists say. Additional moves to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy, which are government-subsidized, played a part.

Norway's strong economic growth -- gross domestic product has swelled 70% since 1990 -- has far outstripped its 15% rise in greenhouse-gas emissions, according to the Norwegian government. Since the tax hasn't reduced emissions enough, the country voluntarily joined the bloc's cap-and-trade system earlier this year.

Source: WSJ, 30/09/08

Sanyo's air wash

2008-11-09T11:52:00.001-08:00

On the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit, Sanyo Electric Co. displayed a washing machine, dubbed Aqua, that uses high-powered air, or ozone, to wash closes without a single drop of water. The process of ozonation, which disinfects bacteria on contact, can air-wash clothes removing about 80% of biodegradable stains without using any water, according to Sanyo.

The company says a full-cycle of air-wash uses about twice as much electricity as a regular wash but only one-fifth the energy of a comparable full cycle wash and dry in part because the air wash doesn’t need a drying system. The Aqua washer can also purify and recycle water that has been used for a bath use for a regular wash, reducing the amount of fresh water required to a half-bucket.

Source: WSJ, 08/07/08

Cellulosic biofuels

2008-11-09T11:50:00.002-08:00

Currently there are two primary feedstocks for the production of renewable biofuels: sugar from sugar cane (primarily used in Brazil) and starch from corn (the source of most US-based ethanol).

Corn ethanol’s lack of scalability means that it will not be able to satisfy our fuel needs in the medium term. However, it is useful as a stepping stone by mitigating many of the early technological and capital risks associated with cellulosic ethanol and helping develop the infrastructure necessary for cellulosic ethanol.

Switchgrass, sorghums and miscanthus-like grasses as well as certain trees, such as poplar and willow are the most likely feedstocks to satisfy liquid fuel requirements in the long run. Other promising feedstocks are
• waste: municipal sewage and even municipal solid waste,
• excess forest product that is currently unused.

The most critical factor regarding cellulosic biofuels is land efficiency (tons of biomass per acre and hence gallons of fuels produced per acre – or more accurately, miles driven per acre). V. Khosla believes biomass yields per acre will improve 2-4 times from today’s norms by 2030.

This increase in yield will come from genetic optimization, as well as improvement of harvesting, storage and transport processes. Increasing yields while decreasing inputs will also come from a combination of:
1. Crop rotation, such as:
• 10 year energy and row crop rotation, which would improve the carbon content of the soil and decrease the need for inputs;
• Cover crops such as grasses, legumes or small grains between regular crop production periods
2. Polyculture plantation, since many processes can accept a mixture of biomass types
3. Perennials as energy crops, which require less nutrients because of their extensive roots and improve soil carbon since they do not need to be replanted each year
4. Better agronomic practices, such as no-till or minimum till farming

Regarding the food vs. fuel debate, it is worth noting that unless we dramatically reduce carbon emissions and stop global warming, millions of acres of land will be dislocated from their current uses and must be figured into the “net land use” equation.

Equally important, ethanol is compatible and complementary to other petroleum use reduction technologies like hybrids and plug-in electric hybrid cars. The high cost of hybrids and plug-in hybrids will limit their penetration in the coming two decades. In contrast, flex-fuel vehicles (FFV’s) capable of running on either gasoline or ethanol for a marginal cost of only $35 per car could see their penetration greatly increase. Moreover, as biofuel penetration grows, engines should be optimized for biofuels. Engines designed for ethanol first will operate at much higher compression ratios and thus get far more mileage per gallon of ethanol.

Source: V. Khosla

Biodiesel vs. ethanol

2008-11-09T11:50:00.001-08:00

The primary feedstocks for classic biodiesel are vegetable oils such as rape seed, soybean and palm oil, as well as jatropha. Unfortunately, none of these sources have high enough yields per acre. Plus, food grains are well-optimized crops and should therefore, unlike cellulosic biomass, not see their oil yields increase significantly over time.

The two biodiesel feedstocks that might have more potential are jatropha and algae. Jatropha has the benefit of growing on non-food crop lands, limiting the food vs. fuel conflicts. Algae, which has not been optimised, could offer high yields. Enclosed bioreactors and synthetic biology could be used to improve yields but:
• raising capital and operating costs could undermine profitability,
• using genetically engineered organisms in oceans is controversial.

Other disadvantages of biodiesel are the following:
• Biodiesel from different feedstocks has different properties.
• Biodiesel cannot be customized to meet needs, where as it is possible to dictate the structure of hydrocarbons and thus control the properties of the fuel.

In contrast, ethanol is compatible and complementary to other petroleum use reduction technologies like hybrids and plug-in electric hybrid cars.

The high cost of hybrids and plug-in hybrids will limit their penetration in the coming two decades. In contrast, flex-fuel vehicles (FFV’s) capable of running on either gasoline or ethanol for a marginal cost of only $35 per car could see their penetration greatly increase.

Moreover, as biofuel penetration grows, engines should be optimized for biofuels. Engines designed for ethanol first will operate at much higher compression ratios and thus get far more mileage per gallon of ethanol.

Source: V. Khosla

Butanol vs. ethanol

2008-10-02T09:16:00.001-07:00

The science to produce butanol from plants has been around for decades. Although today butanol is mostly produced from fossil fuels to be used as a solvent, it was first made in the early part of the last century by fermenting feedstock such as molasses.

But the traditional fermentation process is too inefficient to make biobutanol in the large amount that would be needed for it to be used as a biofuel. That’s because, aside from butanol, the fermentation also yields tow other products: acetone and ethanol. In comparison, the yeast that is used to transform feedstock into ethanol doesn’t create any byproducts. That means it takes more feedstock to producte butanol than ethanol. Additionally, butanol in high concentration is toxic for the bacteria that makes it, so at a certain point, they shut down production. The yeast that produces ethanol is more resistant.

Because of these limitations, making butanol with existing techniques is about 50% more expensive than the $1.75 to $2 it costs to make a gallon of ethanol. The key to changing those economics is bioengineering a more tolerant bug thant transforms feedstock more purely into butanol. DuPont has been working on such a butanol bug since 2004 and is said to be making headway.

Meanwhile BP has been conducting trials showing that gasoline blended with butanol behaves more like regular gasoline than ethanol. That is because ethanol, unlike gasoline and other oil-based fuels, mixes easily with water. So if ethanol finds any water residues in transit, it can separate from the gasoline it is blended with. This is a big advantage for butanol over ethanol, because it means that ethanol needs to be hauled by truck or train, which creates more logistical headaches than a fuel that can be piped.

BP also says it has been able to add up to 16% of butanol to gasoline without the need to modify car engines. Researchers generally believe higher concentrations than that may be possible. In contrast, according to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group in the U.S., ethanol concentration in gasoline higher than 10% can corrode engine parts, except in flex-fuel vehicles, which are designed to tolerate higher ethanol content. About 2% of the cars on the road in the U.S. are flex-fuel vehicles, according to the trade group.

One major challenge is figuring out how to make butanol out of non-food feedstocks. Butanol can be made form any form of sugar and sugar comes in many forms. For example, Green Biologics, a British company, is testing feedstocks such as paper pulp derivatives and food waste.

Source: WSJ, 30/07/08

Pros and cons of REs

2008-08-31T02:56:00.000-07:00

To replace conventional energy sources, a renewable energy would have to have to provide:
• Dispatchable power: power needs to be available when the primary customers (the utilities, and their consumers and industrial customers) need it. An energy source should therefore have a high capacity factor. Utility base load plants are designed to achieve power generation over 65% of the hours in a typical year.
• Cost effective power: To be as cost effective as a fossil source, a renewable source must produce power at about $0.10 per KWh. Peak load power can afford somewhat higher costs of around $0.12 - $0.15 per KWh.
• Reliable power: Any source vying to replace coal-based electric power should be as reliable as that technology.

Solar PV is not likely to scale up massively in the near future because of its high cost and variability. Wind power is also unlikely to scale beyond about 10% of our grid electricity needs partly because of its high variability.

Geothermal can provide another 10% and because of built in heat storage it can meet many utility requirements if it can be produced cost effectively. Enhanced geothermal energy is the solution to scalable geothermal power. Enhanced geothermal is simply an extrapolation of naturally occurring hydrothermal systems, using artificial geothermal wells. It operates as follows:
1. Drill a production-injection well into hot rock (the rock in question should have limited permeability).
2. Inject water into the well at a pressure high enough to cause fracturing, until fractures extend a significant distance from the initial well.
3. Drill multiple injection wells around the initial production well, with the intent of overlapping the fracture system
4. Circulate water to capture the heat from the rock, which can then be used to generate power.

Solar thermal concentrates the sun's rays to heat a fluid to generate steam that can then run a regular steam turbine. Its great advantage is that the heat can be stored cheaply either as steam, hot water, molten salt or hot oil and used when the sun's heat is not available. Storing this energy using batteries would be prohibitively expensive and battery technology costs are not declining very rapidly.

Advantages of solar thermal energy compared with other sources of renewable energy
• Low price-variability and supply-availability. CSP bears no transportation, supply or commodity price risk.
• Low land requirements and high siting potential. The total space required to power Europe would be equivalent to about 3% of the land of Morocco. The sun intensity constraint could be reduced by building a high voltage DC power grid for long distance electricity transmission.
• Decreasing cost. Capital and operating costs are both likely to be lower than nuclear. Solar thermal is about 75% cheaper than solar PV.
• Ability to reach capacity factors of 65% and hence supply base power needs.

Source: V. Khosla

Downside of coal

2008-08-31T02:55:00.000-07:00

One of the common criticisms regarding renewables vs. coal is that the latter is cheap – a misguided perception, based, among other things, on not pricing in externalities like pollution.

A typical 500 MW coal plant generates 3.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide, as much as cutting
down 100 million trees. In 2004, coal accounted for around half of the electricity produced in the U.S. but produced roughly 83% of the resulting carbon dioxide emissions from electric power generation. Coal-fired power plants emit twice as much CO2 per KWH as any other form of power generation. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, one 500 MW coal plant produces as much emissions as 600,000 cars.

Additional pollutants emitted by coal power plants include sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, as well as carbon monoxide, arsenic, lead mercury and cadmium. A coal plant can even generate uranium and thorium.

Should the cost of CO2 emissions be included using a conservative $20 per ton of CO2 emission, the price of coal would increase by 2-4X. Two technologies could help reduce the carbon footprint of coal – Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).

IGCC technology involves two major processes:
• The gasification of coal, a process in which coal is reacted with steam and oxygen to form syngas, a combination of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The syngas is then cleaned to remove pollutants.
• A combined cycle process to generate electricity. The produced syngas is then used as the main fuel for a gas turbine (which produces electricity), while the waste heat generated by the gas turbine is used to power an second, steam turbine (additional electricity production), thus increasing the energy efficiency of the plant as a whole.

In theory, IGCC produces less solid waste, lower emission levels (as a result of better efficiencies) as compared to pulverized coal. Aside from consistency and reliability issues, the key question is whether the capital costs of IGCC will be able to fall as projected with learning and increased economies of scale in manufacturing, engineering and so forth.

CCS brings its own host of problems and cost issues. In 2005, carbon dioxide emissions were at least 27.9 billion metric tons. Sequestering just 10% of the world’s fossil-fuel combustion CO2 would require an industry whose throughput would have to be 1.3 times that of the oil industry. Moreover, both the sheer scale and cost of the project remain unknown, as are the safety and operating reliability conditions.

Another approach could be to convert coal to an environmentally friendlier fuel, such as natural gas. Advantages of such a process include the ability to use the transportation infrastructure in place.

Source: V. Khosla

Nuclear power pros and cons

2008-08-31T02:41:00.000-07:00

Pros and cons of nuclear energy

Nuclear power plants emit neither carbon dioxide, nor sulphur or mercury. Currently, the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. generate about a fifth of the nation’s energy. Wind accounts for about 1% and solar even less. Nuclear can meet power demand 24 hours a day, in contrast with solar and wind.

Nuclear power can help, even if it won’t solve the whole problem. In the short to medium term, it is probably too late for nuclear power to make a material difference in carbon emission, given nuclear power's slow political, legal and technological development cycle.

Critics argue that nuclear energy has significant capital and decommissioning costs. Those capital costs have risen significantly lately, and there is a debate as to whether nuclear energy is still economic.

The high cost of nuclear power may be ascribed to two factors: a lack of experience in building plants as well as shortage of parts and skills, both due to the fact that no new plant has been started in the U.S. since 1977. But if new plants are started, construction timing will become more predictable, bringing financing costs down as lenders become more comfortable. At the same time, the number of companies supplying parts and providing engineering will increase to meet the demand, lowering the price.

Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of fossil fuels doesn’t reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Should the price of environmental degradation be taken into account either through a direct tax based on the carbon content of a fuel or a so-called cap-and-trade system, fossil-fuel would look much less competitive compared with low-carbon sources, such as nuclear, wind and hydropower. It is estimated that a carbon price of between $25 and $50 a ton makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal.

By far the greatest risk it the possibility that an expansion of nuclear power will contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Plants that enrich uranium for power plants can also be used to enrich it for bombs. The dangers of nuclear proliferation would be heightened if a nuclear revival turned to reprocessing of spent fuel to reduce the amount of high-level waste that builds up and to maintain adequate fuel supplies. Reprocessing is a problem because it can produce separated plutonium – which is easier to steal or divert for weapons production, than plutonium contained in highly radioactive fuel.

Source: WSJ, 30/06/08

CSP technologies

2008-08-31T02:34:00.000-07:00

Algeria’s government is building an experimental solar-thermal power station at Hassi R’mel, about 400 km south of Algiers, which if all goes well will open next year. In April, work started on a similar project at Aïn Béni Mathar, in Morroco.

There are four competing solar thermal power designs:
• Parabolic-trough mirrors,
• Parabolic-dish mirrors
• “power towers” which use an array of mirrors to focus to sun’s rays on to an elevated platform,
• Fresnel systems, which mimic a parabolic trough using (cheaper) flat mirrors.

All four of these designs are now either operating commercially or undergoing pre-commercial trials. Although the total capacity at the moment, according to Cambridge Energy Research Associates, is a mere 400 megawatts, this will grow tenfold over the next four years if all projects now scheduled come to fruition.

Source: The Economist, 19/06/08

Carbon capture technology

2008-08-31T02:31:00.000-07:00

Fossil fuels make up two-thirds of the global energy mix and would still make up almost half by midcentury - even under scenarios where annual emissions are kept at the same level as today. That is why many experts say developing carbon capture technologies is critical in the fight against climate change.

Statoil of Norway is already pumping under the seabed significant quantities of unwanted carbon dioxide from a natural gas field. Sonatrach, the Algerian natural gas and oil company, has a similar project to store unwanted carbon dioxide at its In Salah field. In Canada, EnCana, an energy company, injects unwanted carbon dioxide piped from a coal gasification plant in the United States into its Weyburn, Saskatchewan, field to make it easier to recover hard-to- reach oil.

These and other experiments show that carbon dioxide can be trapped underground with little or no leakage. But commercial-scale facilities to capture and bury the carbon emitted by utilities and installations like refineries still do not exist. Two high-profile projects - one in Scotland led by the British oil company BP, and another in Illinois led by a consortium called FutureGen that includes the coal giant Xstrata - were dealt setbacks over the past year because of ballooning costs and shortfalls in public funding.

Source: IHT, 23/07/08

Nuclear power in Germany

2008-07-23T07:23:00.001-07:00

Conservatives in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition want to freeze its current phase out of nuclear power plants, which was decided in 2000 by a government of Greens and Social Democrats. But Ms. Merkel’s coalition partners, the left-leaning Social Democrats, are insisting she upholds a pact to shut down the country’s last nuclear power plants by 2021.

Germany gets around 22% of its electricity supply from nuclear energy, compared with around half from coal, and the rest mostly from natural gas and renewable sources such as wind.

The country is investing heavily in wind and solar power and is drawing up laws that require higher energy efficiency in buildings and transport. But many experts doubt wind and solar power can both compensate for lost nuclear energy and meet Germany’s ambitious carbon-cutting goals at the same time.

Replacing nuclear power would probably entail more use of coal and gas. Natural gas is getting costlier along with oil, and greater use will make Germany even more reliant on supplies from Russia. Coal-fired power stations emit the most greenhouse gas – especially the ones using lignite or brown coal, which Germany has in abundance, unlike oil, natural gas or sunshine.

Social Democrats say they might agree to prolong the life of the most modern nuclear reactors by a few years, if conservatives agree to a constitutional amendment banning the construction of any new reactors.

Source: WSJ, 10/07/08

Cost of electric cars

2008-07-23T07:12:00.000-07:00

Recent cost comparisons by Deutsche Bank’s auto analysts suggest electric cars will be cheaper to operate than conventional vehicles. Fuel costs per mile for gasoline-fuelled cars are $0.27 in Germany, $0.24 in Britain, $0.17 in Brazil and $0.11 in the United States, with differences driven by fuel taxes.

For electric vehicles, the cost per mile is a mere $0.02. If one adds in the cost of a battery amortised over the life of the car, the cost is still only $0.10. Batteries will be expensive, at least in the early years, but electric cars won’t need costly engines or complex transmissions like today’s autos. With fewer moving parts, reliability will increase.

Obviously, it would take a while to replace the existing transportation fleet made up of cars that last 15 years.

Source: WSJ, 08/07/08

G8 summit conclusions

2008-07-23T07:08:00.000-07:00

On July 9, 2008, leaders of the Group of Eight nations plus others including the biggest developing economies agreed to “combat climate change in accordance with common but differentiated responsibilities”.

But the statement – on the final day of the annual G-8 summit – contained no jointly agreed-to numerical targets for reducing emissions that contribute to global warming. Poorer nations said they wouldn’t sign up to greenhouse gas reduction targets until richer ones did more, while the richer countries as a group will commit to more only when the developing world signs up for targets.

Unlike the U.S., the E.U. and Japan have both offered significant reductions in greenhouse gases. The E.U. has said it will reduce emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. Japan has a goal of a 14% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 and a long-term goal of a 60-80% reduction by 2050.

Source: WSJ, 10/07/08

CDM and coal-fired plants

2008-07-23T07:07:00.001-07:00

In September 2007, the U.N.’s Clean Development Mechanism board opened the door to subsidizing new coal-burning plants. U.N. official strongly defend their approach, arguing that since the world is widely expected to get most of its energy from fossil fuel for decades, it is entirely appropriate for the program to subsidize plants that burn fuel more cleanly.

Among the plants seeking subsidies under the U.N. program is a $4 billion plant currently under construction in the Western Indian state of Gujarat. When it is finished in 2012, it will be one of the biggest coal-fired plants in the world.

Tata says the plant will emit an average 26.7 million tons of carbon dioxide annually during its first decade of operations. That’s 2.8 million fewer tons that the plant would discharge if it used the less-efficient coal-fired technology prevalent in India today. So Tata is asking the U.N. to let it sell 2.8 million carbon credits annually. Given that such credits are selling for about $13 apiece, U.N. approval would translate into about $36 million at current market price.

Tata Power’s application to sell carbon credits is being reviewed on behalf of the Board by a Norwegian auditing firm, Det Norske Veritas. The firm has its doubts about Tata’s bid, arguing that the project has already received funding and is part of an electrification push by the Indian government.

In the past year or so, the CDM board has also approved the sale of carbon credits by 13 big plants in India and China that burn natural gas. Based on projects that have applied to sell carbon credits through 2012, when the Kyoto treaty’s emission caps expire, fossil-fuelled power plants account for only about 7% of the carbon credits market.

The architects of the CDM program hoped it would spark a renewable-energy revolution, prompting a shift away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy. In fact, renewable energy accounts for only about a third of the carbon credits proposed to be issued by 2012, according to U.N. figures.

Concern about the program is spreading in the U.S. Doubts about the validity of some pollution-cutting project in the developing world were one factor in the Senate’s rejection last month of a bill that would have capped U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

Source: WSJ, 15/07/08

A second EPR

2008-07-06T09:41:00.001-07:00

On Thursday 3 July, 2008, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that France will build a second of its new-generation nuclear reactors. A decision about where to build the second French EPR will be made in 2009, with construction expected to begin in 2011.

France has been construction its first European Pressurized Reactor, or EPR, on the Normandy coast, with the unit expected to go into service in 2012. The Normandy site is one of only two EPRs in the world currently under construction: the other is in Finland.

Source: WSJ, 04/07/08

Carbon savings rating service

2008-06-30T13:38:00.006-07:00

Lord Nicholas Stern put his imprimatur on a carbon-ratings service that analyzes whether emissions-reducing efforts are likely to achieve their targets.

The service was launched on June 25, 2008, by IDEAcarbon, a consultancy on carbon finance and part of IDEAglobalGroup, a Singapore-based research company, where Lord Stern is vice chairman.

The service is an attempt to draw mainstream investment to the carbon market by increasing transparency. Concerns have been raised that a significant proportion of the greenhouse gas saving projects will not deliver the savings that they have claimed.

IDEAcarbon rates projects from AAA to D depending on the likelihood that they will deliver the promised emissions reductions within the stated time period. The ratings take into account five risks: the project’s size and complexity, the participants’ experience, the local and market context, implementation factors and the regulatory framework.

Source: WSJ, 26/06/08

Impact of rising gasoline prices

2008-06-30T13:38:00.005-07:00

Five years after the price of gasoline started climbing, Americans are finally beginning to spend less time at the wheel and drive smaller cars.

Federal Highway Administration figures show that that in March U.S. drivers logged 18 billion fewer kilometres than a year earlier. That is a 4.3% drop and the biggest-ever year-over-year reduction in kilometres driven.

As a percentage of total U.S. auto sales, sales of light trucks – a category that includes SUVs – peaked at 55% in 2005. So far this year, light trucks have accounted for 47% of auto sales.

The persistence of high energy prices plays a role. It take time for consumers to make changes that substantially lower energy use such as buying a more efficient refrigerator, a smaller house or car.

Source: WSJ, 18/06/08

Hungary's unconventional gas reserves

2008-06-30T13:38:00.003-07:00

Located in Southeastern Hungary near the Romanian border, the Mako Trough’s reserves are widely thought to be massive.

But the gas is trapped in a rock that isn’t porous and permeable to let molecules flow through it easily. Until now, such unconventional oil-and-gas reserves were viewed as too difficult and expensive to exploit. But soaring energy prices and advances in technology such as “fraking” have made gas locked in coal, sandstone or shale economically and technically viable to extract.

Though Mako is tougher than other gas plays, it has one big advantage. Most of the large gas finds left in the world are far from global markets. By contrast, Mako is in the middle of the existing European gas-pipeline grid. That would make it easy to export the gas to Hungary’s neighbors.

Source: WSJ, 26/06/08

Chinese energy prices

2008-06-30T13:38:00.001-07:00

The Chinese government announced on June 19, 2008 that it will boost retail prices for gasoline, diesel and electricity.

China is the world’s second-largest oil consumer, after the U.S. With the sharp run-up in oil in recent month, Beijing’s longstanding policy of fixing retail prices for gasoline, diesel and electricity has been widely criticised.

The logic behind the criticism of that policy is straightforward: By keeping down the prices that its companies and consumers pay for fuel, China is impending the normal market mechanisms that would cause demand to soften as global prices soar.

Another effect of China’s price controls has been to make it unprofitable for Chinese refiners to make gasoline and diesel, since they have to buy crude oil at global prices but sell their products at controlled local prices. Those producers have been pulling back from the market, creating widespread fuel shortages.

Similarly, power plants’ losses have been mounting as they burn coal bought at market prices to sell electricity at a low state-set price, and power shortages have been spreading.

But because of that unsatisfied demand, the increase in price should actually cause a surge in oil use that could exacerbate price gains in the near term.

The Chinese government also indicated that will not dismantle the system of government-set prices but will seek to change it. With the country facing the highest inflation in more than a decade – more than 8% since this year – officials seem unwilling to expose Chinese consumers to the full brunt of global oil price swings.

Source: WSJ, 20-22/06/08

U.S. offshore wind power

2008-06-30T13:37:00.001-07:00

There are already more than 20 offshore wind farms in Europe, as opposed to none in the U.S. Opponents, including beachfront homeowners, claim that such installations would threaten avian and aquatic life and ruin scenic vistas.

Onshore, U.S. wind-power capacity is growing fast, thanks to federal tax credits and state laws encouraging the production of energy form renewable sources. In 2007, U.S. wind-power generating capacity grew by 45% to nearly 17,000 megawatts per hour, second only to Germany.

Wind turbines in the U.S. are expected to generate about 48 billion kilowatt hours of energy this year, or enough to power about 4,5 million homes. Even so, that is only about 1.2% of the nation’s demand for electricity. By comparison, wind already meets about 20% of Denmark’s needs and about 12% of Spain’s.

Because of favourable wind conditions, much of the U.S. construction to date has been in areas far from big population centres. In many cases, transmission systems lack the capacity to move all of the resulting electricity to where it is most needed.

Building offshore would allow developers to produce electricity closer to big cities, particularly along the East Coast. The downside is that it would also boost construction costs by 30% or more.

Another key benefit of offshore wind power is the lower rate of wind turbulence at sea vs. on land. Sunlight penetrates the water evenly, resulting in a more even range of temperature directly above the water surface, thus reducing irregularity in the flow of the wind.

Less wind turbulence means that the height of the offshore wind turbines can be lower than similar models on land, as well as potentially longer lifetime for the turbine.

Source: WSJ, 20/06/08