News aggregator
Khosla's EcoMotors to Get $18 Million for Advanced Engine Technology
British Gas Taps Trilliant for 1 Million Smart Meter Rollout
Sweden is an Energy Leader: 10 Key Points
Ever wanted to know all about the energy history of Sweden? Probably not, but it is actually a pretty interesting history. Additionally, as you can see in the graph above, Sweden is an energy leader when it comes to CO2 emissions per GDP and CO2 emissions per capita.
Evan Mills of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories recently gave us quite an introduction of Sweden's energy history, situation today, and plans for the future over on Climate Progress. You can read the full piece, Evolving energy systems: The Swedish story, over there if you want to read the whole thing. If you just want a snapshot, I've pulled out some especially interesting points.
- Stemming from a public referendum in 1980 triggered by the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979, Sweden decided to phase out and put a ban on new construction of nuclear reactors. This was one of only 6 referendums in Sweden's history. (Other referendums refer to which side of the road to drive on, prohibition, the country's pension system, and joining the EU and the Economic and Monetary Union of the EU.) Sweden didn't meet its deadline of shutting down all of its remaining nuclear reactors by January 1, 2011, but a moratorium on nuclear expansion remains and one would expect that the country will phase out nuclear relatively soon.
- Sweden put a cap on CO2 in 1988! CO2 taxes of 105 oere/kgCO2 (US$150/ton!) have brought in about $4 billion/year in revenues since 1991. “This is almost as much as is generated by regular energy taxes.”
- National greenhouse gas emissions were about 18% lower in 2009 than 1991, exceeding its Kyoto requirement. “Emissions of SOx are down 70% and NOx down 50%.”
- Electricity demand has remained steady since 1991 despite economic growth of 60%. (In other words, energy efficiency is the name of the game in Sweden.)
- “Heating energy fuel choices in buildings have been managed very aggressively. Oil’s share has dropped from 25% to about less than 10%. Electric heating’s share of energy in the household sector has been trimmed by 30%. District heating, fueled primarily with biomass has picked up most of the slack. Between 1980 and 2010 district heating went from essentially 100% oil to essentially 0% oil.”
- 1/3 of Sweden's energy supply is from renewable sources (if you include hydro). That's more than any other EU country.
- Sweden plans to get 50% of its energy supply from renewable sources by 2020 and plans to have vehicles completely free of fossil fuels by 2030.
- “Overall energy intensity (presumably energy per GDP) shall be reduced by 20% between 2008 and 2020.”
- In 2020, it plans to emit 40% of the greenhouse gases it emitted in 1990.
- It plans to have zero net emissions (i.e. be carbon neutral) by 2050.
Related Stories:
1. Europe's Largest Wind Farm Gets Approval in Sweden
2. 250,000 Swedes Heat a Building with Their Bodies
3. EU Exceeds Target for 20% Renewable Energy by 2020
Wind Energy Giant Vestas Sees a Future in Romania
Wind turbines on hillside in Romania
Wind turbine manufacturing giant Vestas is expecting a boom in wind energy growth in Romania and is locating its new Eastern European hub in its capital city, Bucharest.
Vestas cut the ribbon on its new office last week. With Romania's government recently setting ambitious wind energy targets, Vestas is hopeful that the country will be building a lot more wind farms in the years to come and is putting its money on it.
As of last June, Vestas had installed 22 wind turbines in Romania, the total capacity of which comes to 43.66 MW. It plans to install 450 MW more by the end of this year.
Hans Jörn Rieks, President of Vestas Central Europe, believes that Romania could produce up to 14 GW of wind energy in total.
“Vestas is the world leader in wind energy, and so we feel we have a responsibility to share our 30 years of experience and knowledge with customers, government, communities and others – as they work to fulfil Romania’s commitment to a clean energy future,” Rieks says. ”As a wind energy solutions provider, we want to bring the best turbines and the best business case to our customers here, but we also want to build strong and constructive partnerships to shape a sustainable wind industry.”
Romania is currently expected to get about 24% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Currently, 41,000 Vestas wind turbines are generating power around the world in 65 countries, creating approximately 20,000 jobs and cutting CO2 emissions about 40 million tons every year.
Related Stories:
1. Life as a Wind Turbine Technician [VIDEOS]
2. iPhone Wind Energy App from Vestas
Photo Credit: Raoul Pop
GE, Conoco, NRG Put $300 Million More Towards Clean Energy
General Electric (GE) seems to be in the news almost everyday lately. The latest news regarding this cleantech leader is that it, ConocoPhilips and NRG Energy Inc. are putting $300 million into a joint venture investing in “next-generation energy technologies.”
Energy Technology Ventures is the name of the investment company. It will financially back approximately 30 startups in the next four years.
In addition to financial investment in these startups, it will also offer “commercial collaboration opportunities.”
Working in coordination with ConocoPhilips and NRG Energy, large energy companies, “enables us to pool our financial resources and technological expertise – - along with our extensive relationships — to provide more than money to emerging energy technology companies,” said Kevin Skillern, managing director and leader of venture capital at GE Energy Financial Services.
Energy Technology Ventures will mostly support companies in North America, Europe, and Israel.
What Will Energy Technology Ventures Focus On?
This joint venture is reportedly going to put its focus on companies working on renewable energy, smart grid, energy efficiency, biofuels, oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, emission controls, and water technologies. Hmm, doesn't leave much out.
Its first investments are officially in:
Related Stories:
1. GE Hates US Energy Policy Too
2. Green Sparks Fly as GE and GM Boost Energy Efficiency
3. China Clean Tech Industry Gets $2 Billion More from GE
Photo Credit: @mjb
Obama’s Climate Omission: Can We Disagree on Climate and Win on Clean Energy?
By Teryn Norris & Daniel Goldfarb | Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership
President Obama’s exclusion of “climate change”from the State of the Union, combined with Carol Browner’s exit as the administration’s top climate advisor, has sparked wide debate across the climate movement. On one hand, many climate advocates are backing the president’s strategy. As Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) put it, “He's trying to unify… I think it was very smart of him.”
On the other hand, climate advocates like Joe Romm of Climate Progress and David Roberts of Grist are criticizing the president for not using climate change as a central justification for his clean energy proposals. Unfortunately, even after the collapse of cap and trade legislation, Roberts and other critics continue to follow a type of policy literalism that has undermined environmentalists and climate advocates for years.
The argument goes something like this. First, Roberts claims that without climate change as the central justification, the case for federal investment in the clean energy industry “is no stronger than the argument for supporting pharmaceuticals, or telecom, or any other industry that's likely to be big in the 21st century.” (Roberts wrote partly in response to Norris’ article on the rise of “innovation hawks.”)
However, as the American Energy Innovation Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recently explained in their reports, other industries like pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and computer electronics spend far more on research and development than the energy industry, due to a variety of market and non-market barriers. The underinvestment is dramatic: whereas pharmaceuticals invest about 18.7% of sales in R&D, the U.S. energy industry only invests 0.3%. The federal government already invests over $30 billion annually in health research, and $80 billion on military R&D, but only $3-5 billion in energy R&D.
Moreover, the current economic challenge from China and other “rising tigers” in clean-tech is clearer than any other industry, and it remains one of the most powerful motivating factors for the U.S. public and policymakers alike (analysts predict the global clean-tech market could surpass $600 billion by 2020). The importance of clean energy technology for the Department of Defense, and for saving the lives of American troops, is creating a new imperative in the defense community. Rising oil prices andinstability in the Middle East are simultaneously strengthening the energy security consensus to reduce U.S. reliance on oil. And disasters like Deepwater Horizon and Massey Energy continue to highlight the public health and environmental benefits of reduced fossil fuel consumption.
So much for the argument that only climate change can seriously justify major federal investment in clean energy technology over other industries. The case for expanding these investments for economic competitiveness, national security, and public health reasons is stronger than ever before. (And beyond domestic concerns, cheaper forms of clean energy can help alleviate the poverty of billions who lack electricity access and already suffer from the vagaries of the climate.)
The second reason Roberts criticizes President Obama is that he believes “The only way that well-worn partisan division can be transcended is through reference to climate change.” In anotherreaction to Obama's decision, Roberts asserts that “telling the truth about climate change is also good politics.”
Could it be true that only climate change can transcend partisan divisions? Was the president wrong to appeal to a broader set of public interests to advance clean energy RD&D investment and a portfolio standard? Let’s revisit the latest public opinion analysis. In a recent report titled "Little Change in Opinions about Global Warming: Increasing Partisan Divide on Energy Policies," the Pew Research Center concluded:
“Views about climate change continue to be sharply divided along party lines… Among Republicans, only 38% agree the earth is warming and just 16% say warming is caused by humans… Just 14% of Republicans say global warming is a very serious problem and 27% view it as a somewhat serious problem; only about a quarter (24%) think it requires immediate action by the government… Among Republican registered voters who agree with the Tea Party, fully 70% do not think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth is warming.”
No wonder Republican strategists have successfully used climate change as a wedge issue to rally their base and tarnish Democrats. Even with cap and trade gone, the Republican leadership sees opposition to EPA greenhouse gas emissions authority as a major linchpin of its 2012 election strategy.
How could Roberts and others possibly get the idea that focusing on climate change is good politics in this environment? Contrary to their assertions, a focus on climate change would only serve toundermine the possibility of clean energy reform, fueling an ever-greater climate war and potentially contributing to another major Democratic defeat in 2012.
Based on this data, the recent collapse of cap and trade, and the current state of climate change politics, we conclude that the president’s choice made sense. Although climate change remains extremely divisive, Gallup and Pew polling continues to indicate that federal investment in clean energy technology remains one of the most popular forms of energy policy. These investments will drive down the price of low-carbon energy and pave the way for stronger deployment efforts -- perhaps even including a strong carbon price at some point -- both here and in the developing world, where the vast majority of future emissions will originate.
The question is not whether climate change is an important reason for action on clean energy. That is obvious. The question is what type of political and policy strategy can successfully expand the national clean energy consensus and begin shifting us in the right direction. In this context, the role of effective leaders is not just to "speak truth to power," but to bridge our divides to achieve the outcomes we need.
We can agree to disagree on the role of climate and focus on policy achievements in the near and medium term. Climate change will eventually get its moment in American politics. Until then, Obama and his administration have outlined a new approach, and climate advocates would be wise to get behind it.
Tesla Motors’ Model X Electric SUV Announced to Launch by 2013
9th International ASPO Conference, April 27-29, 2011: Agenda now available
Program information about the 9th International ASPO Conference about Peakoil & Gas, 27-29 April 2011, Brussels, Belgium
Walker's wind proposal is hasty
From an editorial in the Appleton Post Crescent:
The issue of wind turbines and where to put them is a hugely controversial issue in Wisconsin. It's a hugely complex issue, too, with numerous perspectives and philosophies about it.
That's why Gov. Scott Walker's attempt to change the rules about wind turbine siting is hasty and ill-considered.
As part of his regulatory reform legislation, Walker wants to change the minimum distance from a turbine to the nearest property line from 450 feet to 1,800 feet.
By doing so, he's interjecting himself into a debate that has been going on for a long time — and had seemingly reached a conclusion — without a solid grounding of rationale.
The wind turbine issue has been most notable in eastern and northeastern Wisconsin because its wind patterns are conducive to generating power. In recent years, the debates had been conducted at the town or county level. They were often fierce debates, pitting neighbor against neighbor and sometimes family member against family member.
The prospect of a patchwork of regulations that may vary greatly led the Legislature to determine there should be a statewide standard. The Public Service Commission appointed an advisory committee to recommend one. Last year, the committee — stacked with wind energy proponents — came up with the 450-foot rule and another that said a turbine had to be 1,250 feet from a neighboring residence. The PSC approved the recommendation and the rules are supposed to take effect this year.
It's understandably a divisive — and personal — issue. If you were a property owner, would you want a turbine near your home? Would you be concerned about its effects on your property value, health and quality of life? Sure.
But there's also the perspective of economic development. Wind-turbine construction is a budding industry in Wisconsin. In fact, New North, the economic development organization for northeast Wisconsin, has a specific focus on promoting the many companies in our area that are or could be involved in building wind turbines.
Wind industry proponents say Walker's rule will kill their business in our state, costing $500 million in planned projects. They say Walker's just carrying the water for the Wisconsin Realtors Association. Those who identified themselves as being in the real estate industry gave more than $500,000 to Walker's $9 million campaign, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
New Molybdenite Transistors Could Consume Some 100,000 Times Less in Standby Mode
Sharp-owned Recurrent Energy strikes manufacturing deal with Toronto-based Celestica
To compy with Ontario's local content rules, Recurrent Energy has signed a multi-year supply agreement with contract manufacturer Celestica Inc. to produce 180 megawatts of crystalline PV modules. San Francisco-based Recurrent, which was acquired by consumer electronics giant Sharp last November, has been approved under Ontario's feed-in-tariff program to develop more than 170 megawatts of solar in the province. At least 60 per cent of the content of those projects must come from Ontario.
This is just the latest deal for Celestica in the solar space. Last November it struck a deal with SolarBridge to manufacture solar microinverters. One of its biggest rivals, Flextronics, is also actively engaged in the solar space and “cleantech” market generally. The use of contract manufacturers is a fast and effective way for companies to set up shop in markets with local content requirements. Unfortunately, they can shutter operations just as quickly as they open them.
a2a_linkname="Sharp-owned Recurrent Energy strikes manufacturing deal with Toronto-based Celestica"; a2a_linkurl="http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2011/01/31/sharp-owned-recurrent-energy-strikes-manufacturing-deal-with-toronto-based-celestica/";
