Fuel Cell Energy Yahoo Group Digest # 1400
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute
From: "janson2997"
2. Super-Hot Particles Give Science Its Sizzle ; Experiment is Step Toward Fusion P
From: "janson2997"
3. US Army: Peak Oil and the Army's future
From: "janson2997"
4. Military looks for ways to trim soaring energy costs
From: "janson2997"
5. It's a waste
From: "janson2997"
6. Drain America First
From: "janson2997"
7. Oil Prices Rise on Nigeria, Iran Concerns
From: "janson2997"
8. Nano-scale fuel cells may be closer than we think, thanks to an inexpensive new
From: "janson2997"
9. Low Costs, Plentiful Talent Make China a Global Magnet for R&D
From: "janson2997"
10. Study previews ice sheet melting, rapid climate change
From: "janson2997"
11. Energiepreis: Am Wendepunkt
From: "janson2997"
12. Nuclear would face tough tests – Wicks
From: "janson2997"
13. Oil regains $60 mark on Iran
From: "janson2997"
14. The prospects for a hydrogen economy based on renewable energy
From: "janson2997"
15. The Energizer (R)
From: "janson2997"
16. MW Size Fuel CellPower is Here
From: "janson2997"
17. Operational Experience with MTU’s hotmodule® MCFC
From: "janson2997"
18. End of the Hydrocarbon Age - By Jon T. Brock
From: "janson2997"
19. Minimizing risk of attack on electric grid
From: "janson2997"
20. QuestAir Demonstration Plant at City of Vancouver Landfill Recovers
From: "janson2997"
21. UK: Councils say no to nuclear power station Mar 13 2006
From: "janson2997"
22. World experts gather in New York to discuss the feasibility of
From: "janson2997"
23. Clean Energy's Long Boom
From: "janson2997"
24. Energy mythology and its reality
From: "janson2997"
25. March 16th 2006:Regional Clean Energy Seminars Hosted by the Connecticut Audubon
From: "janson2997"
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:52:49 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute
An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute
By David Roberts
06 Mar 2006
There are few titans remaining in the environmental world -- figures
that command respect not only inside the movement but in the larger
global political milieu as well.
Lester Brown is one of them. In 1974, he founded the Worldwatch
Institute, one of the first think tanks to focus on the global
environmental situation (its agenda-setting yearly reports, State of
the World, remain required reading among the green set). In 2001, he
left Worldwatch to start the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), a small
outfit dedicated to envisioning an "eco-economy" and figuring out how
to get there.
In 2003, EPI released Plan B, a book synthesizing research on the
earth's multiple converging ecological crises and laying out a step-
by-step plan (including a budget -- if you're curious, it's $161
billion) for how to transition to a sustainable path. Reception was
enthusiastic; mogul Ted Turner was one of many influential figures to
buy dozens of copies to send to friends.
Late last year saw Plan B 2.0, a revised, expanded edition
incorporating the many developments -- good and bad -- of the
intervening two years. In addition to your local bookstore, the book
is available in its entirety as PDF or HTML on EPI's website.
Brown's been globe-trotting since the book's release, promoting the
plan. Weeks before I met with him, he spoke to world leaders in
Davos, Switzerland, at the World Economic Forum, at the invitation of
founder and executive director Klaus Schwab. He and I met in a small
cafe in Seattle and, over omelets, discussed biofuels, plug-in
hybrids, China, the Bush administration, and sudden, unpredictable
social change.
Q: What was the genesis of Plan B?
Our goal was to give a sense of what an environmentally sustainable
economy would look like. If you don't know where you want to go,
there's a good chance you won't get there. And within the
environmental community there was no global vision.
Q: Do you envision regular two-year updates?
Things are happening fast enough now, in terms of new opportunities,
new technologies, new success stories, new problems developing, new
understandings of climate change, and so forth. So I'm beginning to
think this is going to be an every-two-year effort.
Even since this book came out, Goldman Sachs got in the wind-energy
business big time. A year ago it bought Horizon, which was a small
company building wind farms, and now that company has 5,000 megawatts
of generating capacity under construction or in the planning stage.
That's equal to 17 typical coal-fired power plants.
Q: What trend in the world is most alarming?
One is climate change and the other is population growth.
On population growth, close to 3 billion people will be added between
now and mid-century, the vast majority in countries where water
tables are already falling and wells are going dry. That's not a
happy situation.
China's growth is illuminating, but it's just that they're growing
faster than most of the rest of the world. In that sense they're
doing us a favor: they're telescoping history so that we can see what
the future looks like.
Q: You discuss nuclear energy very little in the book. What are your
thoughts on it?
I've tried to love nuclear, but I haven't been very successful. I
don't think it can get beyond the economics. If we insist that
utilities bear the full cost of nuclear power -- and that's something
we need to do -- they have to set aside money for decommissioning and
include that in the rates. That would cost as much or more than
construction. They have to deal with the waste issue. And they have
to find an insurance company that will insure them.
There are other questions as well. If we decide to go nuclear, do we
mean all countries can have nuclear power? Do we have an A-list and a
B-list? If so, who makes that list? Who enforces it? Looking at Iran
and North Korea right now, I'm not sure we're very good at that.
What is Lester Brown's preferred source of renewable energy? And what
does Brown think about the political climate around the world, and
how that will affect environmental issues? See page 2.
An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute
Interview with Lester Brown, continued from page 1.
Q: Do you consider biofuels a permanent solution or a bridge?
I think we're going to need almost all agricultural resources to
produce food. We keep forgetting the water issue, which is a sleeper.
Half the world's people live in countries where water tables are
falling. We may wake up one morning and there won't be enough grain
to go around, and not enough water to produce enough grain.
We've always been concerned about the effect of high oil prices on
food-production costs, and those are very real, given the oil
intensity of world agriculture today. But more important is the
effect of high oil prices on the demand for agriculture commodities.
Once oil gets up to $60 a barrel, it becomes profitable to convert
agricultural commodities into automotive fuels. In effect, the price
of oil becomes a support price for agricultural commodities, and
therefore food prices. If at any point the food value of the
commodity drops below the fuel value, the market will move that
commodity into the energy economy.
I don't think we yet quite grasp the effect of $60-a-barrel oil on
food prices, because the capacity to distill ethanol and produce
biodiesel is not yet large enough to really have an impact. But it's
exploding all over the world. Up until a year or two ago, all the
government programs here [in the U.S.], in Europe, and in Brazil were
driven by government subsidies. In Brazil there are no more
subsidies. Ethanol investment is just exploding; it's entirely a
market-based operation.
There's enormous investment in this country in ethanol distilleries
and biodiesel refineries. Most people aren't even aware that on Jan.
1 a year ago, we adopted a $1-a-gallon subsidy for biodiesel. But
we're setting up competition between supermarkets and service
stations for the same commodities.
There is a very attractive alternative automotive-fuel model: gas-
electric hybrids with a plug-in and wind energy.
Q: Is it scaleable quickly enough?
Oh yeah. There's a lot of momentum building behind plug-in hybrids.
There was a conference organized [a month] ago in Washington on plug-
ins. It was organized by the , the NGO that organizes these things
for Congress. [Sen.] Orrin Hatch [R-Utah] left the Alito hearings to
come and make a statement.
The interesting thing about the plug-in effort is that the neocons
and the environmentalists are both supporting it, and that's a unique
combination. There were more neocons speaking at the conference than
environmentalists; they want to break dependence on Middle Eastern
oil.
What are your thoughts on this idea of breaking our dependence on
Middle East oil?
Middle East oil accounts for 15, at most 20 percent [PDF] of our oil.
But it's far more important to other parts of the world, and we're
all in this together. We have to think about it broadly.
One of the attractive features of moving toward gas-electric hybrids
and wind power is that we have the infrastructure already in place.
In Plan B, the original, I talk about a hydrogen fuel-cell automotive-
energy economy. And that may come, but it's a generation down the
road. With the gas-electric hybrids, you need gasoline service
stations and you need an electrical grid. We have both.
It's relatively easy to increase wind-generating capacity tenfold.
The companies are there, the technologies are there -- it's just a
matter of incentives. We might not even need many of those now. We
could start doubling each year.
One of the neat things about the gas-electric hybrid plug-in is that
the batteries in the vehicle fleet become a storage facility forwind
energy. And there's a tank of gasoline as additional backup. So it's
really an ideal marriage, a great way of rapidly exploiting wind. And
wind is such a huge resource.
Q: Is there a reason that you seem so much more enthusiastic about
wind than solar?
It's mostly timing. If you look at the cost curves, wind is roughly a
decade ahead of solar. It's just a matter of time.
One knock you often hear on environmentalists is that they care more
about flora and fauna than human beings. But it strikes me that your
book is extremely humanist, centered on human welfare.
One of the strengths of the book is that it integrates economics and
the environment in a socially responsible way. One of the important
developments of the past year was Jared Diamond's book Collapse. He
legitimized the discussion of early 21st century global civilization,
in terms of where we're headed and what the prospects are. You can
talk about that now in a way that you couldn't before.
How does Lester Brown stay optimistic about the future of the
environment? What are Brown's views on other countries and the
environment? And what lessons will we learn from Hurricane Katrina?
See page 3.
An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute
Interview with Lester Brown, continued from page 2.
Q: How do you maintain your optimism?
Social change comes rapidly and unexpectedly sometimes.
The Berlin wall coming down was essentially a bloodless political
revolution in Eastern Europe. There were no articles in political
science journals in the '80s that said, hey, keep an eye on Eastern
Europe, big change is coming there. But one morning people woke up
and realized the great socialist experiment was over.
What if we'd been sitting at this table 10 years ago and I had
said, "I think that the tobacco industry is going to cave"? It was
the most powerful lobby in Washington. It controlled committee
chairs. But there was a steady flow of articles on smoking and health
over a period of a few decades, along with persistent denial. The
industry just lost its credibility.
The two things looming large are oil -- security of supply,
disruptions around the world, a vague notion that China's out there
now competing for it, the price of gasoline, the price of home
heating oil -- and the climate issue, the steady drumbeat. Every week
or two another major study comes out, nailing down another piece of
the climate puzzle. People are beginning to feel uncertain now.
Q: Is it frustrating to you that people seem to need human enemies,
human bogeymen?
To a very substantial degree that's a cultivated anxiety. It doesn't
exist in Europe, or elsewhere, the way it does here. They're
concerned, but they're not preoccupied with it. And if I had to make
a list of the top 10 threats to our future in the world, terrorism
would be on the list, but it would be in the lower part of the list.
All this leads me to sense that we're moving toward one of those
thresholds that are hard to define, at least until you cross them.
Among the manifestations are the 100 mayors -- maybe more than that
now -- who've signed on to the Kyoto Protocol. This is a grassroots
political revolution.
I don't think we realize yet what Katrina is. Most of us had assumed
the first climate refugees would be from Tuvalu and the Maldive
Islands. But it's the U.S. Gulf Coast. There are a few hundred
thousand environmental refugees there -- climate refugees.
One of the lessons of Katrina is how grossly unprepared we were for
something that could easily be worse next time, or happen two places
simultaneously next time.
The interesting thing about this current administration is they don't
seem to be interested in governing, in trying to make things work.
FEMA's a classic case, symbolic of this entire government.
Q: Plan B seems deliberately apolitical.
I didn't want it to be a political tract. But I could happily have
weighed in on [politics]. When societies are in trouble, sometimes
they have a Nero and sometimes they have a Churchill. One of the
questions is how this administration will respond to the mounting
pressure to do something about these issues.
However little competence they've shown in other areas, they've
certainly demonstrated an amazing talent for avoiding moments of
accountability. It's like performance art.
It's a public-relations operation with a hidden agenda.
Q: Does anybody know the concrete political, media, and advocacy
steps needed to pull off a fundamental transition to a sustainable
economy?
In order for these changes to occur, we have to cross a social
threshold, and societies don't cross those easily or quickly. Things
have to build up enough steam ... and then suddenly it just goes.
And when you cross them, it's not always clear what the response will
be; there's enough energy driving things that it can go in many
directions. You can't plan that change. You can offer a new model for
an automotive fuel economy, and these sorts of things, so when the
time comes there'll be some sense of what to do.
Q: It's at least as possible that Americans will react with
retrenchment, defensiveness, trade barriers, and military buildup --
an island mentality.
Right. It could happen that way. The reason for doing a book like
Plan B is to make it clear that we're all in this together. If our
civilization goes down, it's not going to be pieces of it here and
there -- the whole thing's going to go down.
What's happening with environmental issues in the growing nation of
China? What actions does Brown suggest for individuals who are
concerned about the environment? And how have environmental issues
affected the political climate in the United States? See page 4.
An interview with the founder of Worldwatch and Earth Policy Institute
Interview with Lester Brown, continued from page 3.
Q: Does it concern you that many of your book's exemplary solutions
come out of semi-authoritarian political situations?
I was looking for success stories, whether it's breakthroughs in fish
farming in China or dairy production in India overtaking the U.S.
Wind energy in Western Europe. Solar-cell manufacturing in Japan.
Reforestation in South Korea. I didn't look at the form of government
to sort out what would work. Carp polyculture's roots go back 2,000
years; it doesn't require a one-party dictatorship.
I remember when the Soviets beat us into space with Sputnik. A lot of
Americans were despairing, and said the Soviets have a command
economy, they can beat us at anything they want. But what that system
lacked was a free flow of information and ideas, and in the end
that's what really weakened them. We were on the moon 10 years later,
and now it's been almost half a century and the Russians still
haven't gotten there.
Q: Does it worry you that China's ultimate success may be hampered in
the same way, by inhibited flow of information and political freedom?
The answer is, I don't know. They're having great trouble. We tend to
think of China as this monolith: You have the party in Beijing
sending down regulations. But at the grassroots there are no
enforcement mechanisms. The Chinese EPA is at most 600 people. That's
a tiny organization. They can't do anything about this in any
meaningful way. There are hundreds of thousands of factories to be
monitored. They're a long way from doing that.
Q: What's the most important thing for humanity to start doing?
Get the market to tell the ecological truth. Calculate the cost of
burning a gallon of gasoline, for example, and incorporate the
indirect cost in the form of a tax. We're all economic decision-
makers -- consumers, corporate planners, government policymakers,
investment bankers -- and we respond to market signals. But the
market's giving us bad information. I mean grossly distorted
information. So we're making bad decisions and getting in more and
more trouble every day. Whether we can pull out of that or not, I'm
not sure.
Q: What should I do? Talk to congressfolk? Write a letter to the
editor? Buy a hybrid?
Most of the people in audiences I'm talking with have been asking
themselves that question. Recycle paper, buy a Prius, whatever --
lifestyle changes. But we've reached the point where we have to go
beyond that. We now have to go for systemic change; otherwise we're
not going to make it. That's why tax restructuring is so important.
(Incidentally, the Chinese authorities are studying and working on a
major tax restructuring just for this purpose.)
That means becoming politically active. Each of us is going to have
to define that in our own terms. Maybe it's lobbying city council or
representatives in Washington, letting them know what we think, what
we want them to do. If enough of us do that, change will begin.
We're seeing signs that Republicans are beginning to cross over on
some of these issues, because of the concerns of their constituents.
We're getting some major corporate crossovers. GE is now a major
player in wind energy. They are cranking up 300 turbines year before
last, 600 last year, 1,200 this year -- they're just going. And
Goldman Sachs is beginning to invest heavily. When I talk about
Goldman Sachs, it changes the way people think about wind energy.
Things may be starting to change.
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. This piece first appeared in
Grist. For more environmental news and humor sign up for Grist's free
e-mail service.
http://environment.about.com/od/activismvolunteering/a/lesterbrown_p.h
tm
http://tinyurl.com/za4h7
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:55:15 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Super-Hot Particles Give Science Its Sizzle ; Experiment is Step Toward Fusion P
Super-Hot Particles Give Science Its Sizzle ; Experiment is Step
Toward Fusion Power
Source: Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.
Publication date: 2006-03-10
By SUE MAJOR HOLMES, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. A particle accelerator at Sandia National
Laboratories has heated a swarm of charged particles to a record 2
billion degrees Kelvin, a temperature beyond that of a star's
interior.
Scientists working with Sandia's Z machine said the feat also
revealed a new phenomenon that could eventually make future nuclear
fusion power plants smaller and cheaper to operate than if the plants
relied on previously known physics.
"At first, we were disbelieving," said Chris Deeney, head of the
project. "We repeated the experiment many times to make sure we had a
true result and not an 'Oops!' "
Sandia's experiment, which held up in tests and computer modeling in
the 14 months since it was first done, was outlined in the Feb. 24
edition of Physical Review Letters. The authors also presented a
theoretical explanation of what happened by Sandia consultant Malcolm
Haines, a physicist at Imperial College in London.
The achievement will not mean fusion in the near future, but it's
another step toward that goal, said Neal Singer, a Sandia spokesman.
Sandia's Z machine, housed in a warehouse-sized laboratory, is
designed to generate tremendous amounts of energy. It normally passes
20 million amps of electrical current through a cluster of tungsten
wires about the size of a spool of thread. The massive electrical
pulse instantly vaporizes the wires into a cloud of charged, super-
hot particles known as plasma.
At the same time, the Z machine compresses the plasma in a powerful
magnetic field. Almost instantly, the particles smash together in a
collision that can emit temperatures in the millions of degrees.
Sandia boosted the Z machine's output into the billions of degrees in
part by substituting steel wires around a larger, coffee cup-sized
core. Increasing the size of the core increased the distance the ions
traveled, giving them more time to gain velocity and therefore
energy.
But the larger core did not account for all the heat generated in the
collision. It also could not explain why the plasma particles did not
stop moving once they collided with one another for about 10
billionths of a second, some unknown energy caused them to keep
pushing back against the magnetic field.
Haines theorized that the energy of the Z machine's magnetic field
itself added energy to the particles.
The new phenomenon could be exploited in fusion power as a trigger
that would set off a controlled nuclear reaction by heating a small
amount of deuterium or tritium. It is likely to be more efficient
than other proposed methods because it produces higher temperatures
while requiring less input energy.
Publication date: 2006-03-10
© 2006, YellowBrix, Inc.
http://www.memagazine.org/Story.html?
story_id=90449823&category=Engineering&ID=asme
http://tinyurl.com/nwsc9
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:02:34 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: US Army: Peak Oil and the Army's future
US Army: Peak Oil and the Army's future
By Adam Fenderson and Bart Anderson
"The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy sources are
quickly drawing to a close," according to a recently released US Army
strategic report. The report posits that a peak in global oil
production looks likely to be imminent, with wide reaching
implications for the US Army and society in general.
The report was sent to Energy Bulletin by a reader, and does not
appear to be available elsewhere on the internet. However it is
marked as unclassified and approved for public release.
[ UPDATE: Since we wrote those words several hours ago we've been
informed that a reference to the document now appears on a Google
search, including a link to the full PDF on a .mil server. "Somebody
must be watching you guys!" writes reader SG. Who knows? I've updated
the links to the report in this article to the location on the
government servers. -AF]
The report, Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army
Installations (PDF – 1.2mb), was conducted by the U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and is dated September 2005.
Author Eileen Westervelt, PE, CEM, is a mechanical engineer at the
Engineer Research and Development Center (US Army Corps of Engineers)
in Champaign, Ill. Author Donald Fournier is a senior research
specialist at the University of Illinois' Building Research Council
and has worked with the Corps in the past.
Westervelt and Fournier give special credence to the work of
independent energy experts, such as the Association for the Study of
Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) and the Oil Depletion Analysis Center (ODAC).
They seem to place very little credibility on the more optimistic oil
production forecasts of the international energy agencies. They
reproduce ASPO graphs and quote ASPO member Jean Laherrere on why the
US Geological Survey (USGS) future oil availability estimates are
clearly overly optimistic:
The USGS estimate implies a five-fold increase in discovery rate and
reserve addition, for which no evidence is presented. Such an
improvement in performance is in fact utterly implausible, given the
great technological achievements of the industry over the past twenty
years, the worldwide search, and the deliberate effort to find the
largest remaining prospects.
The authors warn that in order to sustain its mission, "the Army must
insulate itself from the economic and logistical energy-related
problems coming in the near to mid future. This requires a transition
to modern, secure, and efficient energy systems, and to building
technologies that are safe and environmental friendly." The best
energy options they conclude are "energy efficiency and renewable
sources." However, "currently, there is no viable substitute for
petroleum."
They do not expect that any transition will be easy: "energy
consumption is indispensable to our standard of living and a
necessity for the Army to carry out its mission. However, current
trends are not sustainable. The impact of excessive, unsustainable
energy consumption may undermine the very culture and activities it
supports. There is no perfect energy source; all are used at a cost."
The report includes what looks like a solid overview of the pros and
cons of all major renewable and non-renewable energy options. They
consider problems associated with hydrogen, shale oil, biofuels and
tar sands. On nuclear energy they note that "our current throw-away
nuclear cycle uses up the world reserve of low-cost uranium in about
20 years." They hold more hope for certain solar technologies and
wind turbines, however, "renewables tend to be a more local or
regional commodity and except for a few instances, not necessarily a
global resource that is traded between nations."
Overall this is surprisingly green sounding advice, and one might
think out of left field for one of the most environmentally
destructive and energy consuming institutions on the planet. And yet
the report does not seem to be at odds with the Army's new Energy
Strategy which sets out five major initiatives:
Eliminate energy waste in existing facilities
Increase energy efficiency in new construction and renovations
Reduce dependence on fossil fuels
Conserve water resources
Improve energy security
(See: hqda-energypolicy.pnl.gov/programs/plan.asp)
Westervelt and Fournier assert that changes must be made with
urgency. However they express concerns that "we have a large and
robust energy system with tremendous inertia, both from a policy
perspective and a great resistance to change." In light of this, "the
Army needs to present its perspective to higher authorities and be
prepared to proceed regardless of the national measures that are
taken."
Westervelt and Fournier suggest "it is time to think strategically
about energy and how the Army
should respond to the global and national energy picture. A path of
enlightened self-interest is encouraged." As we approach Peak Oil,
what is ecologically sound and what is perceived to be to in an
institution's practical benefit might tend to converge, at least in
some respects - even those of an institution such as the US Army.
Links:
An 8 page summary of the report (PDF – 75kb)
Energy Trends and Their Implications for U.S. Army Installations -
full report (PDF – 1.2mb)
A related powerpoint presentation by Donald Fournier( PDF – 1mb)
Sustainable energy demands decisions that look beyond cost (one-page
commentary by Westervelt and Fournier in Public Works Digest, p. 16;
PDF – 723kb)
A Candidate Army Energy and Water Management Strategy by Westervelt
and Fournier (118 pages, PDF – 2mb)
Some extended quotations from the document:
Energy Implications for Army Installations
The days of inexpensive, convenient, abundant energy sources are
quickly drawing to a close. Domestic natural gas production peaked in
1973. The proved domestic reserve lifetime for natural gas at current
consumption rates is about 8.4 yrs. The proved world reserve lifetime
for natural gas is about 40 years, but will follow a traditional rise
to a peak and then a rapid decline. Domestic oil production peaked in
1970 and continues to decline. Proved domestic reserve lifetime for
oil is about 3.4 yrs. World oil production is at or near its peak and
current world demand exceeds the supply. Saudi Arabia is considered
the bellwether nation for oil production and has not increased
production since April 2003. After peak production, supply no longer
meets demand, prices and competition increase. World proved reserve
lifetime for oil is about 41 years, most of this at a declining
availability. Our current throw-away nuclear cycle will consume the
world reserve of low-cost uranium in about 20 years. Unless we
dramatically change our consumption practices, the Earth's finite
resources of petroleum and natural gas will become depleted in this
century. Coal supplies may last into the next century depending on
technology and consumption trends as it starts to replace oil and
natural gas.
We must act now to develop the technology and infrastructure
necessary to transition to other energy sources. Policy changes, leap
ahead technology breakthroughs, cultural changes, and significant
investment is requisite for this new energy future. Time is essential
to enact these changes. The process should begin now.
Our best options for meeting future energy requirements are energy
efficiency and renewable sources. Energy efficiency is the least
expensive, most readily available, and environmentally friendly way
to stretch our current energy supplies. ... For efficiency and
renewables, the intangible and hard to quantify benefits — such as
reduced pollution and increased security — yield indisputable
economic value.
Many of the issues in the energy arena are outside the control of the
Army. Several actions are in the purview of the national government
to foster the ability of all groups, including the Army, to optimize
their natural resource management. The Army needs to present its
perspective to higher authorities and be prepared to proceed
regardless of the national measures that are taken.
...
Petroleum
Historically, no other energy source equals oil's intrinsic qualities
of extractability, transportability, versatility, and cost. The
qualities that enabled oil to take over from coal as the front-line
energy source for the industrialized world in the middle of the 20th
century are as relevant today as they were then. Oil's many
advantages provide 1.3 to 2.45 times more economic value per MBtu
than coal (Gever, Kaufman et al. 1991). Currently, there is no viable
substitute for petroleum.
In summary, the outlook for petroleum is not good. This especially
applies to conventional oil, which has been the lowest cost resource.
Production peaks for non-OPEC conventional oil are at hand; many
nations have already past their peak, or are now producing at peak
capacity.
...
Conventional Oil Resources
In general, all nonrenewable resources follow a natural supply curve.
Production increases rapidly, slows, reaches a peak, and then
declines (at a rapid pace, similar to its initial increase). The
major question for petroleum is not whether production will peak, but
when. There are many estimates of recoverable petroleum reserves
giving rise to many estimates of when peak oil will occur and how
high the peak will be. A careful review of all the estimates leads to
the conclusion that world oil production may peak within a few short
years, after which it will decline (Campbell and Laherrere 1998;
Deffeyes 2001; Laherrere 2003). Once peak oil occurs, then the
historic patterns of world oil demand and price cycles will cease.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Notes from BA
The military's commitment to energy policy
A notice in the report says, "The findings of this report are not to
be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so
designated by other authorized documents." However, as AF notes,
other U.S. Army planning documents seem to share the concern about
energy supply. And as USA TODAY reports:
Spurred by a 57% increase in fuel costs, the Pentagon is speeding up
its efforts to save energy and develop new sources of power. ...All
military bases and facilities have been ordered to cut energy use by
2% per year and pursue alternative energy sources, such as solar and
wind.
The recent spate of articles about the military and energy policy
bespeaks a more comprehensive outlook than either that of the
Democratic or Republican parties, or most environmental
organizations. For example, see:
America's strategic imperative: a "Manhattan Project" for energy
(Joint Forces Quarterly)
Toward a Long-Range Energy Security Policy - Parameters (US Army War
College).
Energy efficiency
The report only surveys energy sources, and does not cover efficiency
or conservation. Nonetheless, the report notes that energy efficiency
is "the cheapest, fastest, cleanest source of new energy." (p.58). In
other publications, the authors do cover energy efficiency in detail,
for example in A Candidate Army Energy and Water Management Strategy
(118 pages, PDF – 2mb).
Many of the projects pursued by author Fournier are related to
sustainability and energy efficiency (also see article in Green Biz).
Online accessibility
The fact that the document does not seem to be online is puzzling.
Searching with Google yielded no results. According to a note on page
4 of the report, the report should be available at
http://www.cecer.army.mil/, a URL which seems to be obsolete or
inaccessible.
Possibility for an alliance
I'm more sanguine about the role of the military than AF. Within the
military and intelligence communities, there seems to be a lack of
enthusiasm for unproductive resource wars. See the talks by Ex-CIA
directors James R. Schlesinger and James Woolsey as well as the work
of Gal Luft at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security
(IAGS).
Is the unlikely alliance described in the following article more
widely possible?
You wouldn't have thought it possible: a former director of the
Central Intelligence Agency drawing a standing ovation from a room
full of left-leaning environmentalists right here in Eugene.
But that's exactly what happened at the University of Oregon's Public
Interest Environmental Law Conference Saturday afternoon as R. James
Woolsey - the nation's chief "spook" under President Bill Clinton
from 1993-1995 - spoke passionately about the need to reduce
America's dependence on foreign oil.
"There is a moral dimension to this," Woolsey said. "We should be
good custodians of the Earth.
And if that means creating an unlikely alliance between national
security hawks, American farmers, Christian evangelicals, liberal do-
gooders and tree-hugging environmentalists, Woolsey said, that's just
fine with him.
"All these groups are starting to come around on this set of issues,"
he said...
"Speaker inspires no-oil thinking" in the Eugene Register Guard,
March 5, 2006.
Article found at :
http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=13737
http://tinyurl.com/heso5
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:06:46 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Military looks for ways to trim soaring energy costs
Military looks for ways to trim soaring energy costs
By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY
Spurred by a 57% increase in fuel costs, the Pentagon is speeding up
its efforts to save energy and develop new sources of power.
During the last budget year, the Pentagon's fuel bill hit $7.4
billion, a jump of more than $2.7 billion from fiscal 2004. Fuel
costs were pushed higher by developing nations' increased consumption
and problems with oil-producing countries — the same market forces
that had American motorists paying a national average of $2.77 for a
gallon of unleaded gasoline on Sept. 30, the end of fiscal 2005,
compared with $1.90 a year before. (Related story: Military looks at
gas-guzzlers)
Those figures got the military's attention even before President Bush
called last month for America to end its addiction to foreign oil,
says Michael Aimone, Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff.
Adding to the pressure: fear of fuel shortages following Hurricane
Katrina, which shut down many Gulf Coast refineries.
All military bases and facilities have been ordered to cut energy use
by 2% per year and pursue alternative energy sources, such as solar
and wind.
The Air Force, which burns more fuel than the rest of the military
combined, is speeding long-awaited programs to fit modern engines on
its old,thirsty aircraft, including the B-52 bomber and C-5 transport.
Aimone says the Air Force also will adopt procedures used by cost-
conscious airlines, such as flushing jet engines between major
overhauls to rid carbon and other efficiency-robbing buildup. That
could save tens of thousands of barrels of oil.
Some services already report progress. The Air Force says 11% of the
electricity at its bases comes from biomass, geothermal, solar or
wind power.
Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq make it tougher for ground forces to
conserve. From 2004 to 2005, fuel use by the Army and Marine Corps
increased by more than one third, to 15.4 million barrels. One major
reason: Adding armor to Humvees, trucks and combat vehicles
dramatically increases fuel use.
The Army and Marines are developing a successor to the Humvee that
would use hybrid engines to save fuel and extend the vehicle's range
in the field.
Still, critics say the military ignored chances to save fuel and
should have done more.
"In 2005, the Department of Defense had about 27,000 vehicles in
Iraq, and every one of them had poor gas mileage," says Carlton
Meyer, a retired Marine officer who runs an Internet portal on
military issues.
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-08-military-alternate-
fuel_x.htm
http://tinyurl.com/o3ctk
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:08:56 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: It's a waste
It's a waste
Email Print Normal font Large font March 11, 2006
Be warned: choosing nuclear energy is short-sighted and too risky.
Louise Williams reports.
Advertisement
AdvertisementIT'S ONE of the most extraordinary global image
makeovers the world has ever seen. Two decades ago the Chernobyl
power-plant disaster in Ukraine was the dirty, ugly face of nuclear
energy. Governments everywhere retreated so fast from nuclear power
that the glut of cheap uranium left on the world market took years to
absorb.
Today, nuclear energy is back on the table as the new "green power",
an emissions-free alternative to fossil fuels as the threat of global
warming dwarfs the dangers of nuclear waste.
Australia, more than any other nation, stands to reap huge profits
from a global nuclear power boom, says a visiting German expert, Dr
Hermann Scheer. He says Australia is under intense pressure to expand
uranium mining, including within sensitive environments such as
Kakadu National Park.
"The entire nuclear energy community is pushing Australia to
dismantle legal barriers to uranium mining and I am sure the world is
prepared to pay a lot of money for that," he says.
Scheer was in Australia last week meeting federal and state MPs,
scientists and academics to argue against a "nuclear solution" to
climate change and to put forward a radical blueprint for
restructuring the power industry.
The world's uranium, he warns, will be exhausted almost as fast as
fossil fuels, and nuclear power is an expensive, dangerous and short-
sighted alternative to polluting coal- and gas-fired power.
"Uranium will be depleted in 50 years and even earlier if a large
number of new nuclear power stations come on line. If Australia does
not expand uranium mining beyond its current restricted mining
policy, nuclear fuel will run out in as little as 30 years."
Australia has 40 per cent of the world's uranium deposits and uranium
prices have trebled over the past two years. Australia is eyeing new
export markets in China and, potentially, India, where rapid
industrialisation is fast pushing up global greenhouse gas levels.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, says he has "no hang-ups" about
nuclear energy.
"Those who are calling for a global nuclear renaissance will have a
very short run … the technology is incredibly expensive even before
the costs of nuclear waste and the risk of the proliferation of
illegal nuclear weapons is factored in," Scheer says.
"Even if nuclear power was free it wouldn't be worth the risks."
Scheer, who worked for the German Nuclear Research Centre, is an
economist and leading proponent of new economic models for renewable
energy, such as solar and wind power.
Germany is one of a handful of nations phasing out coal- and gas-
fired power and nuclear power at the same time. Scheer says Germany
is increasing its renewable power by 1.5 per cent a year and has
already installed enough wind and solar power to replace seven fossil
fuel-fired power stations.
Fifteen countries, including Japan, South Korea and Thailand, have
recently adopted German-style incentives for renewable energy. That
means buying power for the national electricity grid from solar
panels and windmills owned by tens of thousands of individual home
owners, farmers and businesses.
The incentive is in the price; a much higher price is paid for
renewable energy fed into the grid because each small-scale power
producer effectively owns a part of the nation's power
infrastructure, collectively offsetting the huge costs of building
central power plants. The model challenges long-held norms that rely
on large companies to deliver electricity.
Howard has referred to the high cost of producing renewable energy.
But Scheer says the belief that renewable energy is more expensive
than fossil fuels or nuclear power is based on a false comparison. He
said the cost comparisons should factor in the billions of dollars
governments have provided for nuclear research and development, the
costs of future clean-ups and the reality that coal, gas and oil
prices will inevitably increase sharply as fossils fuels diminish. He
also dismissed the view that the world needs a "nuclear bridge" to
give it time to find new, high-tech solutions, such as Australia's
proposal to bury carbon emissions.
"We have the technology that is immediately available; it takes only
a week to install a windmill and a couple of hours to install solar
panels. It takes years to build conventional power stations," he says.
Scheer is dismayed Australia is doing so little to promote renewable
energy. "In no country in the world would it be easier to replace
conventional energy with free, sustainable energy like wind and
solar. Australia has all the preconditions for renewable energy - a
large land mass, a small, well-educated population and quality
technology."
But Australia's power is among the cheapest in the world. It has
abundant reserves of low-cost fuel such as coal, uranium and a
multibillion-dollar energy export industry. The Howard Government has
made it clear Australia's priority is new technology to make coal and
gas cleaner, with renewable energy way down the list.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/its-a-
waste/2006/03/10/1141701698694.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
http://tinyurl.com/nascf
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:11:16 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Drain America First
Drain America First
Joseph E. Stiglitz
March 10, 2006
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of
Economics at Columbia University and was Chairman of the Council of
Economic Advisers to President Clinton and Chief Economist and Senior
Vice President at the World Bank.
One of the more surreal sessions at this year's World Economic Forum
in Davos had oil industry experts explaining how the melting of the
polar ice cap—which is occurring faster than anyone anticipated—
represents not only a problem, but also an opportunity: vast amounts
of oil may now be accessible.
Similarly, these experts concede that the fact that the United States
has not signed the Law of the Sea, the international convention
determining who has access to offshore oil and other maritime mineral
rights, presents a risk of international conflict. But they also
point to the upside: the oil industry, in its never-ending search for
more reserves, need not beg Congress for the right to despoil Alaska.
President George W. Bush has an uncanny ability not to see the big
message. For years, it has become increasingly clear that much is
amiss with his energy policy. Scripted by the oil industry, even
members of his own party referred to an earlier energy bill as one
that "left no lobbyist behind." While praising the virtues of the
free market, Bush has been only too willing to give huge handouts to
the energy industry, even as the country faces soaring deficits.
There is a market failure when it comes to energy, but government
intervention should run in precisely the opposite direction from what
the Bush administration has proposed. The fact that Americans do not
pay the full price for the pollution—especially enormous
contributions to greenhouse gases—that results from their profligate
energy use means that energy is under-priced, in turn sustaining
excessive consumption.
The government needs to encourage conservation, and intervening in
the price system—namely, through taxes on energy—is an efficient way
to do it. But, rather than encouraging conservation, Bush has pursued
a policy of "drain America first," leaving America more dependent on
external oil in the future. Never mind that high demand drives up oil
prices, creating a windfall for many in the Middle East who are not
among America's friends.
Now, more than four years after the terrorist attacks of September
2001, Bush appears to have finally woken up to the reality of
America's increasing dependence; with soaring oil prices, it was hard
for him not to note the consequences. But, again, his
administration's faltering moves will almost surely make matters
worse in the immediate future. Bush still refuses to do anything
about conservation, and he has put very little money behind his
continuing prayer than technology will save us.
What, then, to make of Bush's recent declaration of a commitment to
make America 75% free of dependence on Middle East oil within 25
years? For investors, the message is clear: do not invest more in
developing reserves in the Middle East, which is by far the lowest-
cost source of oil in the world.
But without new investment in developing Middle East reserves,
unbridled growth of energy consumption in the U.S., China and
elsewhere implies that demand will outpace supply. If that were not
enough, Bush's threat of sanctions against Iran poses the risks of
interruptions of supplies from one of the world's largest producers.
With world oil production close to full capacity and prices already
more than double their pre-Iraq War level, this portends still higher
prices, and still higher profits for the oil industry—the only clear
winner in Bush's Middle East policy.
To be sure, one shouldn't begrudge Bush for having at last recognized
that there is a problem. But, as always, a closer look at what he is
proposing suggests another sleight of hand by his administration.
Aside from refusing to recognize the importance of global warming,
encourage conservation, or devote enough funds to research to make a
real difference, Bush's grandiose promise of a reduction of
dependence on Middle East oil means less than it appears. With only
20 percent of US oil coming from the Middle East, his goal could be
achieved by a modest shift of sourcing elsewhere.
But surely, one would think, the Bush administration must realize
that oil trades on a global market. Even if America were 100 percent
independent of Middle East oil, a reduction in supply of Middle East
oil could have devastating effects on the world price—and on the
American economy.
As is too often the case with the Bush administration, there is no
flattering explanation of official policy. Is Bush playing politics
by pandering to anti-Arab and anti-Iranian sentiment in America? Or
is this just another example of incompetence and muddle? From what we
have seen over the past five years, the correct answer probably
contains more than a little bad faith and sheer ineptitude.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/10/drain_america_first.php
http://tinyurl.com/ryufv
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:17:16 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Oil Prices Rise on Nigeria, Iran Concerns
Oil Prices Rise on Nigeria, Iran Concerns
SINGAPORE (AP) -- Oil prices rose Monday in Asian trading amid
lingering concerns about unrest in Nigeria and the possibility of
U.N. sanctions against Iran.
Light, sweet crude for April delivery rose 24 cents to $60.20 a
barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Gasoline increased less than half a cent to $1.6925 a gallon.
Heating oil rose half a cent to $1.6896 a gallon, while natural gas
rose 12.4 cents to $6.770 per 1,000 cubic feet.
Brent crude for April traded 22 cents higher at $61.05 a barrel.
Advertisement
On Friday, oil prices settled at $59.96 a barrel, the lowest
settlement price since Feb. 17, when the contract settled at $59.88.
Gasoline futures had rallied last week on expectations that
inventories would be drawn down as refineries in the United States
reduce output while undergoing spring maintenance.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported last week that
commercial gasoline stocks fell 1.1 million barrels to 224.8 million
barrels last week as refiners lowered utilization by 2.2 percentage
points to a relatively low 83 percent of operating capacity.
Gasoline futures have seen especially big swings this season, as many
states are banning the gasoline additive MTBE, a ground pollutant,
and gasoline contracts will eventually have to phase it out.
Latest News
OPEC to Keep Pumping at Current Levels
Ecuador Oil Workers Seize Jungle Wells
Former Yukos Executive Faces New Trial
China Aviation Oil Says CEO Has Resigned
Buy AP Photo Reprints
Still, oil markets are on edge over militant attacks on oil
facilities from the Middle East to Nigeria and the confrontation over
Iran's nuclear program.
Kuwaiti oil minister Sheik Ahmed Fahd Al Ahmed Al Sabah has said he
believes political turmoil and extremism have added $5 to $8 to the
price of a barrel of oil.
Iran, the No. 2 producer within the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries, says its nuclear program is aimed at generating
energy, while the United States contends that Tehran is working
toward developing a nuclear weapon.
Recent attacks by militants on Nigerian pipelines and oil facilities
have left the country's production still down by about 400,000
barrels a day. Analysts said the renewed violence dampened hopes that
Nigerian production can soon return to normal.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more
about our Privacy Policy.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OIL_PRICES?
SITE=CAWOO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-13-02-42-57
http://tinyurl.com/pmcxt
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:25:45 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Nano-scale fuel cells may be closer than we think, thanks to an inexpensive new
inexpensive new manufacturing method
Nano-scale fuel cells may be closer than we think, thanks to an
inexpensive new manufacturing method
Fuel cell prototype. Copyright Kenneth Lux. Used with permission.
We live in a world of hand-held devices: iPods, cell phones, PDAs,
pagers... the list of essential personal technology keeps expanding,
and the natural response is consolidation. It's rare these days to
see a new cell phone that isn't also a digital camera, and MP3
players can be integrated into just about anything. We're just a
short step away from universal, hand-held devices that combine
communication, media, and entertainment into one slim package. What's
stopping us? In a word, power.
Cell phones last a few days on a single battery; laptop computers,
two to three hours. If you could have a pocket-sized personal
computer with a cell-phone sized battery, how long do you think it
would last? Just long enough to check your e-mail, or play a game of
solitaire? It's a sad but unavoidable fact that the more complicated
an electronic device gets, the less efficient it is.
Enter fuel cells, with an energy capacity at least ten times greater
than that of conventional batteries. Where a lithium-ion battery can
provide 300 Watt-hours per liter, a methanol fuel cell can
theoretically produce up to 4800 Watt-hours per liter! Imagine your
laptop running for a full day without needing to recharge, and you
can see why industry leaders such as Toshiba, IBM, and NEC have been
pouring funds into fuel cell research.
A fuel cell generates current by stripping hydrogen atoms from a
chemical source, breaking them apart on a catalyst (such as
platinum), and harvesting the electrons. The hydrogen ions (protons)
left over from this process are separated from the fuel by an
electrolyte, and when brought into contact with the atmosphere they
bind to oxygen molecules and produce water. The more fuel you can
bring into contact with the catalyst, the more current can be drawn
from the cell. A high catalytic surface area is the key to
efficiency.
To compress more power into smaller volumes, researchers have begun
to build fuel cells on the fuzzy frontier of nanotechnology. Silicon
etching, evaporation, and other processes borrowed from chip
manufacturers have been used to create tightly packed channel arrays
to guide the flow of fuel through the cell. The point is to pack a
large catalytic surface area into a wafer-thin volume. This approach
is not only expensive, but inherently limited by its two-dimensional
nature.
Scanning electron microscope image of two individual electrodes.
Copyright Kenneth Lux. Used with permission.
Fiat Lux!
Researchers Kenneth Lux and Karien Rodriguez, at the University of
Wisconson, came up with an exciting new approach to the problem.
Their method not only improves the performance of nano-scale fuel
cells, but completely sidesteps the need for industrial-strength
technology. "Even the best electrocatalysts, on a flat surface, give
only 100 milliAmps per square centimeter. What you really want is …
to increase the surface area by orders of magnitude." Lux explains to
PhysOrg.com, "To do this you need a three-dimensional structure."
Lux and Rodriguez found their fuel channels ready-made in a commonly
available, porous alumina filter costing less than $100. The filter
is riddled with neat, cylindrical holes only 200 nanometers in
diameter, and was already being used at their lab as a template for
the growth of nanowires. Lux hit on the idea of creating nanowires in
a platinum-copper alloy, then dissolving the copper by soaking the
filter in nitric acid. In place of a solid nanowire, each hole was
left with a porous platinum electrode. The partially dissolved wires
are structurally complex, as befits their random nature, and have an
enormous surface area for their size.
To build a fuel cell, they fill the pores with sodium borahydrate
(NaBH4) solution. A sheet of electrolytic filter paper is placed
between two nanotube arrays to draw off the hydrogen ions. Electrodes
can then be placed anywhere on the outer surface of the sandwich,
allowing the electrical connections to be easily configured. Stacks
of these fuel cell arrays can be connected in series or parallel, to
provide higher voltage or current respectively.
Of course, the result is hardly perfect. Lux estimates that only a
third of the electrodes are active, and admits that there is a lot of
room for improvement. Even this proof-of-concept prototype, however,
has an energy capacity an order of magnitude higher than its two-
dimensional lithographic counterparts! The cost can't be beat,
either. "It's a really simple method." says Lux, "My power source was
a AA battery."
If fuel-cell technology can be perfected, we might be looking at a
future of cheap, disposable battery packs for our favorite electronic
gadgets. When your universal media manager runs out of energy, you'll
just run to the store and buy it a methanol sandwich!
Citation: Template Synthesis of Arrays of Nano Fuel Cells, Kenneth W.
Lux and Karien Rodriguez, Nano Letters 6, 2006
by Ben Mathiesen, Copyright 2006 PhysOrg.com
http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=11654
http://tinyurl.com/gtddh
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:43:16 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Low Costs, Plentiful Talent Make China a Global Magnet for R&D
Low Costs, Plentiful Talent Make
China a Global Magnet for R&D
By KATHY CHEN and JASON DEAN
March 13, 2006; Page A1
BEIJING -- Multinational companies, drawn by a huge and inexpensive
talent pool, are pouring money into research and development in
China -- a trend that promises to broaden the country's huge role in
the global economy.
The total number of foreign-invested R&D centers in the country has
surged to about 750 from 200 four years ago, according to China's
Ministry of Commerce. And in a survey of multinationals published in
September by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,
China was by far the most frequently cited location for R&D
expansion, well ahead of the U.S. and third-place India, China's
chief rival as an emerging innovator.
Still, China's growth as a global R&D hub faces some constraints.
Among them is the country's weak protection of patents and other
intellectual-property rights. That has encouraged some foreign
companies, fearful of risking their trade secrets, to keep more
cutting-edge research out of China, analysts say. But others have
rushed to expand the scope of their development efforts here.
Whereas R&D investment in China initially focused on adapting
existing products and technologies to the Chinese market, companies
such as Procter & Gamble Co., Motorola Inc. and International
Business Machines Corp., among many others, have been investing to
expand their Chinese R&D operations to develop products for the
global market.
P&G opened a research arm in China in 1988, consisting of two dozen
employees concerned mainly with studying Chinese consumers' laundry
habits and oral hygiene. Today, the U.S. consumer-products giant runs
five R&D facilities in China with about 300 researchers who work on
innovations for everything from Crest toothpaste to Oil of Olay face
cream.
The Chinese facilities have been a lead site for developing a new
grease-fighting formula of Tide laundry detergent that sells in Asia,
Eastern Europe and Latin America. At one facility in Beijing's
university district, researchers use computer modeling to tinker with
other promising formulas that chemists in white lab coats and
protective glasses then mix and test. "We are developing capabilities
in China that we can use globally," says Dick Carpenter, director of
P&G Technology (Beijing) Ltd.
Giving impetus to the R&D expansion in sectors from biotechnology to
pharmaceuticals to semiconductors is China's government. Having
enlisted foreign investment to transform China into a manufacturing
powerhouse over the past few decades, Beijing now is mounting a
campaign to strengthen domestic innovation that could help push the
country into more advanced niches of the global economy.
In his annual report at the National People's Congress in Beijing,
which ends tomorrow, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said the central
government will increase spending on science and technology by nearly
20% this year. "China has entered a stage in its history where it
must increase its reliance on scientific and technological advances
and innovation to drive social and economic development," he said.
China's State Council, or cabinet, recently said the country would
seek to boost R&D investment to 2% of gross domestic product in 2010
and 2.5% by 2020. At a news conference Friday, senior officials
outlined tax breaks and other tools they plan to use to meet that
target. Last year, total R&D spending in China -- not including
foreign investment -- reached $29.4 billion, rising steadily from
$11.13 billion in 2000, according to the government.
China faces numerous obstacles to joining the ranks of the world's
innovation leaders -- beyond its weak intellectual-property
protections. Research spending is still small compared with that of
developed countries; the U.S., for example, spends about 2.7% of GDP
on R&D, compared with 1.3% of GDP in China last year. And much of
what is spent in China still comes from foreign companies: Less than
a quarter of Chinese midsize and large enterprises had their own
science and technology institutions in 2004. Of China's high-tech
exports, valued at $218.3 billion last year, nearly 90% was produced
by foreign-invested companies, according to the Ministry of Commerce.
Still, the R&D trend is bolstering China's position relative to other
developing countries, particularly India, which is also seeking to
build its innovation abilities. India's total domestic spending on
R&D rose an estimated 9.7% to $4.9 billion, or 0.77% of GDP, in the
fiscal year ended March 2005, according to India's Ministry of
Science and Technology.
India is also trying to build R&D, "but the scale of investment
[compared with China] is not much" because of budgetary constraints,
says V.S. Ramamurthy, a top official at the ministry. Foreign
investment in Indian R&D has also lagged behind that of China, he
says. And while Mr. Ramamurthy argues that the amount of investment
isn't the only way to measure R&D success, "it is a concern for us."
Zhang Jun, director of the China Center for Economic Studies at
Shanghai's Fudan University, says that given time, "China's
advantages in this area will become more obvious...and its
attractiveness will increasingly become stronger than India's."
Among China's draws, he says: the relatively low cost of hiring
engineers and researchers; a huge talent pool, including five million
university graduates annually (one-fifth majoring in science or
engineering); and China's own huge market of 1.3 billion consumers.
China offers its students abroad incentives to return once they
graduate, including generous research grants and chances to run their
own R&D projects.
One early returnee is Enge Wang. Mr. Wang, who had worked as a
research associate at the University of Houston, decided to return to
Beijing to conduct research under a Chinese Academy of Sciences
program in 1995. At the time, he says, his U.S. colleagues and
friends questioned his decision, but he says he is glad he made the
move. Today, Mr. Wang is director of the Institute of Physics under
the academy, one of China's top research organizations, which is
engaged in several R&D cooperative ventures with foreign companies.
China's "research funding is getting much better," Mr. Wang says, and
as a result, overseas Chinese are flocking back from top U.S.
institutions like Harvard University and Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. Talented returnees can secure enough backing "to build up
their own lab and extend their research in one direction for 10
years," he says. "It's hard to find such conditions elsewhere."
"There's been a paradigm shift among foreign companies in China,"
says Chen Zhu, a Chinese Academy of Sciences vice president. "Now,
more foreign companies realize China is not just a market but a
country with huge amounts of talent."
Motorola, which began investing in low-level R&D in China in 1993,
now has 16 R&D offices in five Chinese cities, with an accumulated
investment of about $500 million. The U.S. company has more than
1,800 Chinese engineers, and the number is expected to surpass 2,000
this year. They have recently begun developing new phones and other
products for sale not only in China, but also overseas, executives
say.
One phone developed in China, the A780, lets users write on the
screen with just a finger, rather than a stylus. It's now available
in the U.S. and Europe. Another phone that can scan contact
information from business cards using a built-in camera and enter it
into a contact database is expected to be marketed in the U.S. "China
is moving from the manufacturing center into advanced R&D," says
Ching Chuang, who heads Motorola's Chinese R&D operations.
Microsoft Corp.'s basic-research lab in Beijing was only its second
outside the U.S. when it opened in 1998. That China lab now employs
about 200 full-time scientists, and the software giant expects its
total R&D headcount in China to double in this year to about 800
researchers.
At IBM's research lab in Beijing, Chinese scientists have led the
development of several technologies now being used abroad. Among
them: "voice morphing" software that can convert typescript or a
recorded voice into another voice. "Our R&D now has a global
mission," says Thomas S. Li, director of IBM China Research Lab.
At the state-run Institute of Computing Technology, engineers are
tackling one of technology's tougher challenges: designing a computer
microprocessor. Though still many years behind industry leaders like
Intel Corp., the institute last year unveiled its second-generation
microprocessor, with about the same computing power as mainstream
chips in the late 1990s. This year, it plans to finish work on a
third-generation chip that could narrow the gap.
China is also emerging as an R&D force in such sectors as
nanotechnology, biotech and genetically modified crops. It was the
first country to establish a full rice genome database, which has
helped Chinese scientists develop hardier and higher-yielding strains
of the staple cereal.
Swiss pharmaceuticals companies Novartis AG and Debiopharm SA have
teamed up with the Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica under the
Chinese Academy of Sciences to conduct research into traditional
Chinese medicines to look for treatments for malaria and Alzheimer's
disease. "This last decade, the progress we have seen in China's
scientific research sector is phenomenal," says Ju Li-ya, director of
Debiopharm's China department.
--Ellen Zhu in Shanghai and Rasul Bailay in New Delhi contributed to
this article.
Write to Kathy Chen at kathy.chen@wsj.com and
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114222108031396357.html?
mod=hps_us_pageone
http://tinyurl.com/pol8a
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:09:18 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Study previews ice sheet melting, rapid climate change
Study previews ice sheet melting, rapid climate change
The behavior of a massive ice sheet that existed in northern Europe
at the end of the last Ice Age has been outlined for the first time,
and researchers believe it may provide a sneak preview of how major
ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica will act in the face of global
warming.
The study, which will be published Friday in the journal Science by
researchers from Oregon State University, shows that ice sheets can
react quite differently depending on the climatic conditions at the
time global warming occurs – sometimes actually growing larger and
sometimes rapidly disappearing, depending on whether increased snow
offsets melting effects, or not.
In this analysis of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet that existed as
recently as 10,000 years ago, the study showed that it actually grew
for a long period while the climate was warming but still very cold,
and then rapidly disintegrated once the climate warmed even further.
OSU experts say those same forces are at work today, and probably
mean that in the face of future global warming, the ice in large
parts of Antarctica may actually increase, while the massive
Greenland ice sheet – which exists in a slightly warmer setting –
will almost certainly disappear.
"This study supports what we've been learning about the Greenland ice
sheet, which is that it will completely melt within 500 to 1,000
years," said Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at OSU and an
international expert in the study of ancient ice sheets. "Our new
analysis of the ancient Scandinavian Ice Sheet, like other studies,
is showing how these events unfolded in the past, which will help us
better understand what the future will hold."
If there is a net gain in ice in Antarctica, it will probably not be
enough to offset the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, scientists
say. By itself and without any offsetting mechanisms, a collapse of
the Greenland ice sheet would raise sea levels by about 20-25 feet.
One prediction is that sea levels should increase by a foot or two by
2100, and up to 25 feet within 500 years. Some of that sea level rise
is based on melting of glaciers and major ice sheets, and some is
based on thermal expansion of water in the oceans, which increases in
size as it gets warmer.
In their study, the OSU researchers used a fairly new and
sophisticated technique to date the time that rocks have been exposed
at the surface, after they had been dumped in the open by an ice
sheet. This technique, which measures isotopes of the element
beryllium, allows scientists to determine with much greater accuracy
how ice sheets may have moved in the distant past.
"On exposure to cosmic rays from the atmosphere, beryllium isotopes
are produced at a known rate and we can use that to understand ice
movements at the time," said Ed Brook, a professor of geosciences at
OSU and an expert in this dating technique. "It's like a rock getting
a very slow suntan, and we can learn a lot from it."
The huge ice sheet the OSU scientists studied once covered much of
Northern Europe, including Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Belarus and Finland, where the study was conducted. At its peak it
was about 6,000 feet thick and, after the massive ice sheet in North
America, was the largest in the Northern Hemisphere. In the most
recent Ice Age it existed from 10,000 to about 100,000 years ago, and
its melting occurred at the same time as a major sea level rise. But
only with this study has its behavior been analyzed in detail.
It appears this ice sheet grew and retreated three different times
during this Ice Age. Of particular interest is that it behaved
differently depending on whether climate conditions were cold or
warmer. Researchers were able to correlate information about climate,
largely obtained from ice cores drilled in Greenland, with data about
sea level conditions and the ice sheet behavior.
"This study clearly showed that when the climate was warming but
still pretty cold, the ice sheet grew due to increased precipitation
that fell as snow, and more than made up for any melting," Clark
said. "But at some point the warming became more pronounced, did not
offset any increases in snow, and the ice sheet disappeared fairly
rapidly."
Scientists believe those exact forces may both be displayed as the
Earth warms due to the greenhouse effect – there may be some increase
in the East Antarctic ice sheet, where the climate is much colder,
and rapid loss of ice in Greenland. Of less certainty,
Brook said, is the fate of the West Antarctic ice sheet, whose bottom
is actually below sea level and may be at risk of collapse in a
warming climate.
Also uncertain, the scientists said, is what effects the rapid
melting of Greenland's ice sheet may have on ocean currents. There is
significant concern that the rapid injection of large amounts of
fresh water into this part of the North Atlantic Ocean may interfere
with a major "thermohaline circulation" pattern that is responsible
for the currents that warm much of Europe. Lacking those currents,
much of Europe's climate would more closely resemble that of central
Canada than the comparatively mild climate it currently has. It
appears this current pattern has shut down several times in the
distant past.
Much of the work on this study was done by Vincent Rinterknecht, an
OSU doctoral student in geosciences at the time of the research and
now a visiting scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at
Columbia University.
These studies are confirming that the melting of ice sheets and their
associated effects can be comparatively abrupt and rapid, the
researchers said, once a certain level of warming is reached.
Weitere Informationen: www.geo.orst.edu
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/studien/bericht-
56550.html
http://tinyurl.com/gmew4
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:16:00 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Energiepreis: Am Wendepunkt
Energiepreis: Am Wendepunkt
Der hohe Ölpreis macht fossile Brennstoffe teuer und inspiriert die
Suche nach anderen Energiequellen. Mittlerweile stehen zahlreiche
Technologien zur Verfügung. Doch ab wann rechnet sich der Umstieg auf
alternative Energien auch wirtschaftlich?
Die Prognosen der Internationalen Energieagen-tur (IEA) klingen
ernüchternd. Selbst im Jahr 2030 müssen demnach über 80 Prozent der
benötigten Energie durch fossile Energieträger gedeckt werden.
Schweden will aber bis dahin dem fossilen Zeitalter längst entflohen
sein. Die Ankündigung der Regierung in Stockholm, bis 2020 völlig auf
Brennstoffe auf Ölbasis verzichten zu wollen, um nicht mehr vom
Ölpreis abhängig zu sein, sorgte Anfang Februar für einiges Aufsehen.
Ähnliche Ankündigungen hat bislang nur Island gewagt. Der Inselstaat
nutzt – unter anderem dank großer geothermischer Energiereserven –
mit insgesamt mehr als 70 Prozent schon jetzt den höchsten Anteil an
erneuerbarer Energie.
In Österreich macht man sich zumindest Gedanken über vergleichbare
Strategien. Das Symposium für Energieinnovationen der TU Graz, das
Mitte Februar abgehalten wurde, trug denn auch den Titel „Die dritte
Energiepreiskrise – Anforderungen an die Energieinnovationen". Eine
Patentlösung, um von Öl, Gas und Kohle loszukommen, konnte freilich
nicht präsentiert werden. In Österreich liegt Öl mit einem Anteil von
über 42 Prozent am gesamten Bruttoinlandsenergieverbrauch noch
eindeutig vor Strom und Gas an der Spitze.
Wenn der Ölpreis steigt, werden aber auch Forschungsausgaben im
Energiesektor erhöht und alternative Energien gefördert, um sie
marktfähig zu machen. Und einige neue Energieformen könnten im
Schatten des Ölpreises nach Jahren der Forschung schon in absehbarer
Zeit wirtschaftlich konkurrenzfähig werden.
Faktorenmix. Bereits jetzt hat der aktuelle Ölpreis konkret messbare
Folgen für die künftige Energienutzung. Ölheizungen werden in
Österreich derzeit so gut wie nicht mehr verkauft. „Pellets,
Hackschnitzel, Scheitholz, Nahwärme, Wärmepumpen und thermische
Solaranlagen rechnen sich jetzt schon", meint Gerhard Dell,
Geschäftsführer des oberösterreichischen Energiesparverbandes. Diese
Effekte nur dem Ölpreis zuzuschreiben wäre aber zu kurz gegriffen.
Oft haben Faktoren wie unterschiedliche Besteuerungen und direkte
Förderungen mehr Gewicht, die vor allem die anfangs höheren
Investitionskosten für die meist in der Anschaffung noch teuren
alternativen Heizsysteme ausgleichen sollen.
Selbst an der Lehre, dass der Ölpreis einen alles bestimmenden
Einfluss auf die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung hat, wird gerüttelt. Als
der Ölpreis 1973 das erste Mal radikal stieg, löste er eine
Weltwirtschaftskrise aus. Anfang 1980 stieg der reale Preis
inflationsbereinigt sogar auf mehr als 80 Dollar pro Barrel (159
Liter). 2005 wurde immerhin wieder die 70-Dollar-Grenze erreicht. Die
globale Wirtschaftskrise blieb diesmal aber vorerst aus.
Derzeit notiert der Rohölpreis für die Marke Brent bei etwas über 60
Dollar pro Barrel und könnte nach Meinung vieler Experten für längere
Zeit auf diesem Preisniveau bleiben. Der Ölpreis gilt zwar heute noch
als Auslöser für viele Entwicklungen, die bestimmende Kraft von einst
hat er aber verloren. Das liegt zum Teil auch an der Gewissheit, dass
das Erdöl nicht so bald ausgehen wird. „1999 lag der Preis für Rohöl
noch teils unter zehn Dollar, deswegen wurde lange zu wenig in
Extraktion und Produktion investiert", sagt Wolfgang Ernst von der
Strategieabteilung der OMV.
Die IEA sieht den „Peak of Oil", den Zeitpunkt, zu dem die weltweite
jährliche Fördermenge an Rohöl abnehmen wird, erst weit nach 2030. Zu
diesem Zeitpunkt sollten aber Alternativen den Ölhunger deutlich
reduzieren.
Reserven. Die derzeit gesicherten Erdölreserven reichen laut
Schätzungen noch mindestens 40 Jahre. Aufgrund immer besserer
Ausbeutungstechniken und der gestiegenen Preise, welche die
Exploration vieler Lagerstätten, deren Ausbeutung derzeit kommerziell
noch nicht sinnvoll ist, allmählich wirtschaftlich werden lassen,
können aber noch zusätzliche Reserven angezapft werden, die den
Ölsegen bis ins nächste Jahrhundert verlängern sollen. Die kritische
Frage ist eher, ob nicht die CO2-Problematik früher zur Reduktion
fossiler Energieträger zwingt. Deshalb will die EU nun besonders in
erneuerbare Energien investieren – erst am Dienstag der Vorwoche
bekräftigte die EU-Kommission auch ihre Absicht, die Abhängigkeit von
fossilen Energiequellen reduzieren zu wollen. Die EU muss zugleich
freilich analysieren, inwieweit Energien aus Sonne, Wind oder
Biomasse schon marktfähig sind.
Zurzeit ergibt sich eine Marktfähigkeit zumindest dank entsprechender
Förderungen. Berechnungen ohne Steuern und Förderungen sehen freilich
ganz anders aus. Zu noch weit ungünstigeren Zahlen gelangt man, wenn
auch die externen Kosten berücksichtigt werden. Dazu zählen jene
Posten, die durch Umweltverschmutzung, Erderwärmung oder andere
Folgen einer Technologieanwendung (etwa Todesfälle im Kohleabbau oder
Kriege, die um den Zugang zu den Ölquellen geführt wurden) zustande
kommen. Die externen Kosten differieren freilich je nach
Energieträger: Bei Kernkraftwerken reichen sie von 0,7 bis über 20
Cent je Kilowattstunde (kWh), bei Gaskraftwerken von drei bis 18,5
Cent/kWh. (Kilowattstunde ist eine Maßeinheit für Leistung und die am
meisten verwendete Einheit für Energie. Mit einer kWh kann ein Mit-
tagessen für eine Familie gekocht werden oder sieben Stunden der
Fernseher laufen.)
Umweltschützer beklagen schon lange, dass etwa Energie aus fossilen
Quellen und Atomkraft viel zu billig sei. Gezahlt werde mit dem
Marktpreis nur ein Teil der tatsächlich verursachten Kosten. Mit den
CO2-Zertifikaten, die als Emissionsrechte international gehandelt
werden können, wurde bei fossiler Energie das erste
ordnungspolitische Element eingeführt, mit dem versucht wird,
zumindest einen Faktor, die Umweltkosten, in die Rechnung
einzubringen. Die Tonne CO2 wird derzeit mit rund 25 Euro gehandelt.
Aber auch nachhaltige Energien wie Windkraft verursachen mit 0,05 bis
0,7 Cent/kWh externe Kosten. Zum Vergleich: Der aktuelle
Großhandelspreis für Strom schwankt derzeit zwischen 0,5 und 0,7
Cent/kWh. Der Endverbraucherpreis, der auch Netzkosten, Steuern und
Zuschläge enthält, liegt bei rund 16 Cent/kWh. Die Einberechnung der
Allgemeinkosten würde also auch die Kosten alternativer Energien
massiv erhöhen.
„In Österreich stammen derzeit rund 21,3 Prozent der verbrauchten
Energie aus erneuerbaren Quellen", erklärt Gerhard Faninger von der
Universität Klagenfurt, der als Österreichs IEA-Delegierter für
erneuerbare Energien fungiert. Damit liegt Österreich deutlich über
dem europäischen Durchschnitt, der bei sechs Prozent liegt. Einen
höheren Anteil können nur Island (70,7), Norwegen (40,1), Schweden
(24,7) und Finnland (22,1 Prozent) aufweisen. Österreich hat den
hohen Anteil vor allem der Wasserkraft zu verdanken, die rund 65
Prozent des heimischen Strombedarfs abdeckt. Weltweit könnte laut IEA
bis 2030 der Anteil der erneuerbaren Energien auf 16 bis 25 Prozent
ansteigen. Die EU will bis 2020 den Anteil von derzeit sechs auf 20
Prozent erhöhen.
Der Wirtschaftswissenschafter Shimon Awerbuch von der britischen
University of Sussex hat dazu folgende Rechnung aufgestellt: Schon
die immer neuen Ölpreisrekorde in den Jahren 2000 bis 2004 hätten die
Volkswirtschaften der Europäischen Union rund 400 Milliarden Dollar
gekostet. Allein dieser Betrag sei höher als die Ausgaben, die nötig
wären, um das EU-Ziel für erneuerbare Energien für 2020 zu erreichen.
Ökostrom. Was Förderungen bewirken können, zeigt das nun schon wieder
alte Ökostromgesetz, das den Betreibern 13 Jahre lang fixe
Einspeisetarife – je nach Reife der Technologie – garantierte und
einen wahren Investitionsboom auslöste. „Derzeit zahlt ein
durchschnittlicher Haushalt mit der Stromrechnung etwa 18 Euro pro
Jahr für die Finanzierung der Ökostromsubventionen", erklärt
Christian Schönbauer, Leiter Ökoenergie der Energie-Control
GmbH. „Das wird bis 2008 auf etwa 40 Euro pro Jahr steigen, wenn die
vielen bereits genehmigten Projekte errichtet und damit kostenwirksam
sind." Nun wurden mit einem neuen und umstrittenen Gesetz deutlich
schärfere Kriterien angelegt und neue Förderschwerpunkte gesetzt.
Eine Auswirkung: Nach dem Boom sind ab nächstem Jahr keine neuen
Windparks mehr in Österreich geplant. Projekte im Ausland versprechen
höhere Renditen.
Der derzeit günstigste grüne Strom, dessen Herstellungskosten weit
unter dem Großhandelspreis von derzeit rund 5,25 Cent/kWh liegen,
stammt aus den schon lange abgeschriebenen, einst mit Steuergeldern
finanzierten großen Wasserkraftwerken. Sie gelten nun als wahre Cash
Cows für die Energieversorger und werden freilich nicht gefördert.
Unter den geförderten Strom-erzeugern liegen die
Kleinwasserkraftwerke schon am nächsten am Marktpreis: Der
Einspeisetarif lag 2005 durchschnittlich bei 6,42 Cent/kWh. Für
Windstrom lag dieser Tarif bei 7,75 Cent/kWh und für Strom aus fester
Biomasse bei rund 10,43 Cent/kWh. Wirklich Sinn hat die
Stromproduktion aus Biomasse aber nur, wenn zugleich auch die Abwärme
genutzt werden kann (Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung). In Wien und Güssing
werden dieses Jahr zwei große Biomassewerke eröffnet. Am teuersten
ist eindeutig noch die Fotovoltaik mit einem Einspeisetarif von 65,84
Cent/kWh. „Bei der Fotovoltaik hofft man noch auf den Quantensprung",
so Energieexperte Faninger.
Zugleich werden in Österreich auch wieder konventionelle kalorische
Kraftwerke errichtet, da der Stromverbrauch laut Daten des
Wirtschaftsforschungsinstitutes bis 2050 von derzeit 65.000 auf
89.000 Gigawattstunden steigen wird. Deshalb wird massiv in
Gaskraftwerke investiert, die mit dem neuen Ökostromgesetz indirekt –
durch Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung – gefördert werden sollen.
„Der Vorteil von Windenergie oder auch Wasserkraft ist aber, dass der
Preis, anders als bei Erdgas oder Biomasse, sicher stabil bleibt",
argumentiert Stefan Hantsch, Geschäftsführer der
Interessengemeinschaft IG-Windkraft. Der Gas- und Kohlebedarf werde
künftig noch kräftig steigen und somit auch die Preise, da derzeit
auch einige europäische Staaten wie Deutschland den Ausstieg aus der
Kernenergie planen.
Alternative Treibstoffe. Der größte Ölverbraucher ist derzeit der
Verkehr, der in Österreich rund 63 Prozent des Öls verschlingt. An
umweltverträglicheren Treibstoffen wird schon lange geforscht. Noch
dazu will Österreich bis Oktober 2008 den Biotreibstoffanteil auf
5,75 Prozent erhöhen. Aufgrund steuerlicher Begünstigung ist
Biodiesel jetzt schon günstiger als herkömmlicher Diesel. Das gilt
auch für Erdgas und bald auch Biogas. In Leoben wird in Kooperation
mit der Steirischen Gas-Wärme gerade die erste öffentliche Biogas-
Tankstelle in der Steiermark errichtet.
Die größte Hoffnung als Erdölersatz bieten derzeit aber synthetische
Treibstoffe – und zwar vor allem solche aus Gas und langfristig aus
Biomasse. Shell bietet etwa GTL (Gas to Liquid) schon in Österreich
an, das insofern umweltverträglich ist, als es aus bislang kaum
nutzbaren Gasquellen und abgefackeltem Gas gewonnen wird. Dass sich
dieser Treibstoff bei den aktuellen Ölpreisen schon zu rechnen
beginnt, belegen indirekt wohl die massiven Ausbaupläne der
Ölkonzerne.
Der biogene Verwandte BTL nützt, anders als Biodiesel, die ganze
Pflanze, etwa auch Holz und Fasern, zur Treibstoffproduktion. Die
größte Versuchsanlage betreibt die Choren Industries GmbH in
Deutschland. Als Partner fungieren Konzerne wie Shell, VW und
DaimlerChrysler. Derzeit wird eine weitere „Beta-Anlage" errichtet,
die ab 2007 15.000 Tonnen Treibstoff aus 67.500 Tonnen trockener
Biomasse produzieren soll.
Allerdings hat die Befürchtung stetig steigender Energiepreise auch
eine sehr subjektive Komponente. Eigentlich seien die Energiepreise
bislang kontinuierlich gefallen, erklärt Hans Auer,
Universitätsassistent am Institut für Energiewirtschaft der TU
Wien. „Bis vor einem Jahr waren die Energiepreise noch auf dem realen
Niveau der sechziger Jahre, zugleich hat sich das
Bruttoinlandsprodukt verdreifacht", so Auer. „Deshalb haben die
Energiepreise bislang nicht wirklich wehgetan."
Von Alfred Bankhamer
http://www.profil.at/articles/0610/560/135212.shtml?print
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:25:29 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Nuclear would face tough tests – Wicks
Nuclear would face tough tests – Wicks
Monday 13 March 2006
Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks has claimed that nuclear power will
come under intense scrutiny over its safety and security if it is to
play a part in the UK's future energy policy. The Minister's comments
come after last week's report from the Sustainable Development
Commission that identified a range of issues as to why the benefits
of a large-scale nuclear programme could be outweighed by
environmental and economic problems.
Key issues for opponents of nuclear are primarily the disposal of
radioactive waste and the potential security threat.
"The Energy Review is not about resurrecting the demons and
prejudices of the past. Nor is it about a headlong rush into building
new nuclear plants. It is about hard evidence, not just on the
potential of nuclear, but also of renewables, fossil fuels and
greater energy efficiency," commented Mr. Wicks during a visit to
Manchester's Dalton Nuclear Institute.
"The challenges are big and there'll be no easy or single solution.
But I am certain of one thing - robust scrutiny of safety, security
and environmental impact would be the prerequisite of going down the
road of building new nuclear power stations."
http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=3021
http://tinyurl.com/otv8s
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:34:32 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Oil regains $60 mark on Iran
Oil regains $60 mark on Iran
By MarketWatch
Last Update: 6:16 AM ET Mar 13, 2006
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Oil futures regained a key level on Monday as
the deadlock continued between Iran and the West over its nuclear-
research program.
Iran on the weekend rejected a possible compromise solution from
Russia related to its nuclear-enrichment program.
Crude for April delivery was recently up 33 cents at $60.29 a barrel
in electronic trading.
The contract on Friday closed under $60 a barrel for the first time
since mid-February, notching up a loss of almost 6% for the week as
U.S. crude inventories neared a seven-year high.
However, ongoing political instability in Nigeria and tension between
the U.S. and Iran over Iran's nuclear proposals offered the contract
some support last week.
This support looked likely to continue after Iran said the proposal
to move its uranium-enrichment program to Russian territory is off
the agenda, according to remarks on its Foreign Ministry Web site.
Russia had sought to persuade Iran to move its enrichment program in
order to allow closer international monitoring.
Ongoing political tension and high demand could ensure that prices
remain strong, said Merrill Lynch analysts.
"Robust oil-demand growth around the world and the upside pressure
associated with major unexpected output cuts...continue to suggest
that crude-oil prices will remain high throughout the year," these
analysts said.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?
column=Futures+Movers&siteid=mktw&dist=&print=true&dist=printTop
http://tinyurl.com/rpaj7
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:48:32 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: The prospects for a hydrogen economy based on renewable energy
See:
http://www.feasta.org/documents/wells/contents.html?two/zittel.html
http://tinyurl.com/z435q
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:28:31 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: The Energizer (R)
The Energizer
Amory Lovins has a vision: The U.S. economy keeps going and going and
going—without any oil
By Cal Fussman
Photography by Ben Stechschulte
DISCOVER Vol. 27 No. 02 | February 2006 | Environment
The Energizer
Amory Lovins has a vision: The U.S. economy keeps going and going and
going—without any oil
By Cal Fussman
Photography by Ben Stechschulte
DISCOVER Vol. 27 No. 02 | February 2006 | Environment
Lovins waters tropical plants in a hothouse that serves as
a "furnace" for his home/office in Old Snowmass, Colorado, where
subfreezing temperatures are common throughout the winter. Overhead
windows have special coatings that let light through but reflect
interior heat. The pond is home to catfish, frogs, and crayfish.
AMORY LOVINS is a physicist, economist, inventor, automobile
designer, consultant to 18 heads of state, author of 29 books, and
cofounder of Rocky Mountain Institute, an environmental think tank.
most of all, he's a man who takes pride in saving energy. The
electricity bill at his 4,000-square-foot home in Old Snowmass,
Colorado, is five dollars a month, and he's convinced he can do the
same for all of us. his book winning the oil endgame shows how the
united states can save as much oil as it gets from the persian gulf
by 2015 and how all oil imports can be eliminated by 2040. And that's
just for starters.
As told to Cal Fussman
When I give talks about energy, the audience already knows about the
problems. That's not what they've come to hear. So I don't talk about
problems, only solutions. But after a while, during the question
period, someone in the back will get up and give a long riff about
all the bad things that are happening—most of which are basically
true. There's only one way I've found to deal with that. After this
person calms down, I gently ask whether feeling that way makes him
more effective.
As René Dubos, the famous biologist, once said, "Despair is a sin."
ENERGY
I used to work for Edwin Land, the father of Polaroid photography.
Land said that invention was the sudden cessation of stupidity. He
also said that people who seem to have had a new idea often have just
stopped having an old idea. So I suppose if I bring something unusual
to this business, it's that maybe I find it easier to stop having old
ideas.
I can't point to any one moment in particular from my past that made
me who I am. It's been more like seeing the world through an evolving
lens. Gradually, I've learned to ask different questions and look at
problems from different angles than most people.
I'm probably best known for having redefined the energy problem in
1976 with a Foreign Affairs article titled "Energy Strategy: The Road
Not Taken?"
Until then, the energy problem was generally considered to be: Where
do we get more energy? People were preoccupied with where we could
get more energy of any kind, from any sources, for any price—as if
all our needs were the same. I started instead at the other end of
the problem: What do we want the energy for?
You don't generally want lumps of coal or barrels of sticky black
goo. You want comfort, illumination, mobility, baked bread, and so
on. And for each of these end uses we should ask: How much energy, of
what quality, at what scale, from what source will do the job in the
cheapest way? That's now called the end-use/least-cost approach, and
a lot of the work we do at Rocky Mountain Institute involves applying
it to a wide range of situations.
End-use/least-cost analysis begins with a simple question: What are
you really trying to do? If you go to the hardware store looking for
a drill, chances are what you really want is not a drill but a hole.
And then there's a reason you want the hole. If you ask enough layers
of "Why?"—as Taiichi Ohno, the inventor of the Toyota production
system, told us—you typically get to the root of the problem.
OIL
Let's start with one basic problem. Saudi Arabia has a quarter of the
world's oil reserves. It is the sole swing producer with significant
capacity to increase output, and therefore it controls the world
price.
Two-thirds of Saudi oil flows through one processing plant and two
terminals that are in the crosshairs of terrorists. That stuff could
go down any day for a long time. And that would presumably crash both
the House of Saud and the Western economy. So for the bad guys it's a
twofer. They would love to do that, and they've already had a couple
of cracks at it.
Now, this should make you uncomfortable. But we don't have to
continue on our current path. We can go a different way.
Let's look at oil through a historic analogy. Around 1850, the
biggest or second-biggest industry in America was whaling. Most
buildings were lit with whale oil. But in the nine years before Edwin
Drake struck oil in 1859 in Pennsylvania and made kerosene
ubiquitous, at least five-sixths of the whale oil–lighting market had
already been lost to competing products made from coal. This was
elicited by the relatively high price of whale oil as the whales got
shy and scarce.
The whalers were astounded that they ran out of customers before they
ran out of whales. They didn't see this coming because they hadn't
added up the competitors. Oil fields can be like this today.
The United States today wrings twice as much work from each barrel of
oil as it did in 1975. With even more advanced technologies, we can
double oil efficiency all over again at a cost averaging $12 a
barrel. We can replace the rest of our oil needs with advanced
biofuels and saved natural gas at a cost averaging $18 a barrel.
Combined, these two approaches average out at a cost of $15 a barrel.
That's a lot cheaper than the $61 per barrel oil was the other day or
even the $26 that's officially forecast for the year 2025.
How much cheaper than $26 a barrel? Well, about $70 billion a year,
plus a million jobs, mostly in rural and small-town America. Plus a
million saved jobs now at risk, mainly in the automaking states.
We've got a choice: Either we're going to continue importing
efficient cars to help replace foreign oil, or we're going to employ
our own people to make efficient cars and import neither the oil nor
the car—which sounds like a better idea.
WEIGHT
A modern car, after 120 years of devoted engineering effort since
Gottlieb Daimler built the first gasoline-powered vehicle, uses less
than 1 percent of its fuel to move the driver. How does that happen?
Well, only an eighth of the fuel energy reaches the wheels. The rest
of it is lost in the engine, drivetrain, and accessories, or wasted
while the car is idling. Of the one-eighth that reaches the wheels,
over half heats the tires on the road or the air that the car pushes
aside. So only 6 percent of the original fuel energy accelerates the
car. But remember, about 95 percent of the mass being accelerated is
the car—not the driver. Hence, less than 1 percent of the fuel energy
moves the driver. This is not very gratifying.
Well, the solution is equally inherent in the basic physics I just
described. Three-quarters of the fuel usage is caused by the car's
weight. Every unit of energy you save at the wheels by making the car
a lot lighter will save an additional seven units of fuel that you
don't need to waste getting it to the wheels.
So you can get this roughly eightfold leverage (three- to fourfold in
the case of a hybrid) from the wheels back to the fuel tank by
starting with the physics of the car, making it lighter and with
lower drag. And indeed you can make the car radically lighter. We've
figured out a cost-effective way to do that so you can end up with a
66-mile-per-gallon uncompromised SUV that has half the normal weight,
has a third the normal fuel use, is safer, and repays the extra cost
that comes with being a hybrid in less than two years.
PLASTIC
FIBER HOT SEAT
An automotive seat bucket from Fiberforge, a company chaired by
Lovins, is ultralight and ultrastrong. Carbon fibers are laid into
predetermined positions and sandwiched with reinforcing nylon. The
flat, tailored blank is then heated, stamped on a hot molding die,
cooled, and trimmed to produce the finished part.
Henry Ford said you don't need weight for strength. If you did need
weight for strength, your bicycle helmet would be made of steel, not
carbon fiber. And if you want to know how strong a very light
material can be, try eating an Atlantic lobster with no tools.
The auto industry needs to move toward ultralight, ultrastrong carbon-
fiber composites, almost certainly using thermoplastics that flow
when heated and that can be easily molded—instead of the more
brittle, expensive thermosets that need chemistry, baking, or some
other change to set the resin into its final hard form.
Thermoplastics are incredibly tough. They can absorb 12 times as much
crash energy per pound as steel. So even though your car will be only
half as heavy as it was before, it will still be safer when whacked
by a heavier one.
With such materials, you can decouple size from weight. You can make
the car big—protected and comfortable. But it won't be heavy—hostile
and inefficient. This can save oil and lives at the same time, and it
turns out you can greatly improve the economics of making the car
because you might have in a carbon SUV only 14 body parts—instead of
140 to 280 in a steel auto body—each needing one low-pressure die
set, instead of an average of four high-pressure steel-stamping die
sets in the steel body. The parts snap together precisely in the
right positions for gluing, like assembling a kid's toy, so you don't
need all those jigs and robots. You basically get rid of the body
shop this way, and then by laying color in the mold, you get rid of
the paint shop too. There go the two hardest and costliest parts of
making the car.
New jobs come partly by having a vibrantly competitive car industry
rather than a failing one and partly due to the logical evolution of
the auto industry toward computerization. Imagine the aftermarket for
improved and customized software. The industry structure would be
different, but we don't think there would be a net loss of jobs. The
jobs would be safer, healthier, and better distributed. And the same
revolution that's coming to automaking from advanced materials also
applies to anything else that moves.
HYDROGEN
Many automakers are starting to understand that whoever goes
ultralight first will take the lead in the hydrogen fuel-cell race.
The winning strategy will be improving the physics of the car. They
still need to make a cheap, durable fuel cell. But if they can reduce
the fuel cell and the hydrogen storage volume by three times, the
cost reduces threefold.
That said, superefficient cars need hydrogen a lot less than hydrogen
needs superefficient cars. If you have, say, an ultralight hybrid SUV
burning gasoline at 66 miles per gallon, that isn't so bad—at least
not compared to a similar one getting 18.5 miles per gallon on the
road today.
If you then combine that with E85 fuel, which is 15 percent gasoline
and 85 percent ethanol, you just got a 320-mile-per-gallon SUV
because the efficiency times the biofuel saving of oil multiplies.
For that matter, if every car or light truck on the road in 2025 is
only as efficient as the best hybrid cars and SUVs now in the
showrooms, that would save twice as much oil as we currently import
from the Persian Gulf. So it's not a very ambitious goal—and it
doesn't even involve making vehicles ultralight.
Very efficient vehicles can get most of the same benefits without
hydrogen by using today's gasoline/hybrid propulsion. However, once
you have such vehicles, there is a robust business case for running
them on hydrogen. Until you have those efficient vehicles, that
business case is not very convincing.
I think hydrogen will be an important if not dominant energy carrier
by 2050. In Winning the Oil Endgame, the comprehensive strategy we've
developed at Rocky Mountain Institute for ending oil dependence, we
see hydrogen as an optional add-on. It would be the most profitable
and efficient way to use and save natural gas. But it's not necessary
to get the country off oil at a profit; it's just icing on the cake.
ELECTRICITY
A question I ask a lot is, What's the right size for the job? I have
a book called Small Is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of
Making Electrical Resources the Right Size. It points out 207
benefits of distributed resources, such as solar and wind power. When
I begin to describe them, you'll find them really obvious:
Renewables, such as wind energy, have less financial risk from
volatile fuel prices than fossil-fuel power plants because they don't
need any fuel.
Small resources like solar cells or wind turbines have less financial
risk than giant power plants that take many years to build.
Portable resources like solar panels have less financial risk than
stationary power plants, because if the system evolves differently
than you'd expected and you'd rather put it somewhere else, you
simply stick it on a truck and move it.
This is all blindingly obvious, yet it hasn't been taken into account
by the utility industry while buying its half trillion dollars' worth
of assets.
Here's what happened: For the first century of the electricity
business, the power plants were costlier and less reliable than the
grid, so it made sense to build a bunch of big power plants backing
each other up through the grid. Well—surprise—over the last 20 years,
power plants have become cheaper and more reliable than the grid.
Ninety-nine percent of our power failures originate in the grid—
mostly in distribution. So now if you want to deliver reliable,
affordable electricity, you need to make it at or near the customer's
location.
Many people didn't notice this happening. But despite the market's
not yet recognizing the benefits, the decentralized low- or no-carbon
generators turn out to be greater in capacity and output than nuclear
power worldwide. David already beat Goliath, but nobody noticed.
The nuclear advocates frequently state that only nuclear is big and
fast enough to deal with global warming. Well, five years from now
the official industry forecast suggests that decentralized low- and
no-carbon generators will be adding 160 times as much capacity as
nuclear will add up to that year. So those who think that the
decentralized generators are small, slow, and futuristic or have an
unacceptable risk of not being adopted at scale in the market have
some serious explaining to do.
WIND
If I could do just one thing to solve our energy problems, I would
allow energy to compete fairly at honest prices regardless of which
kind it is, what technology it uses, how big it is, or who owns it.
If we did that, we wouldn't have an oil problem, a climate problem,
or a nuclear proliferation problem. Those are all artifacts of public
policies that have distorted the market into buying things it
wouldn't otherwise have bought because they were turkeys.
We have more than enough cost-effective wind power just on available
land in the Dakotas to meet the United States' electricity needs. We
wouldn't necessarily want to do it all in two states, and there are
cheaper combinations of other technologies to do the whole job, but
it's an enormous resource.
Germany and Spain each install over 2,000 megawatts of wind power
every year. That figure exceeds the average global net addition of
nuclear power every year in this decade. Denmark is now one-fifth
wind powered; Germany, about a tenth.
Wind power is doubling every three years worldwide and solar power
every two, and not because some countries subsidize it strongly. In
fact, the subsidies are being phased out slowly in Germany and
rapidly in Japan because they have achieved their purpose of creating
world-class industries that will be able to make it on their own.
If everything competed solely on merit, wind energy in the United
States would be a lot better off. It gets subsidized less than its
competitors, and its subsidies are temporary, while its competitors'
are permanent. In other words, the fossil and nuclear subsidies—
nuclear being the biggest—are permanent, while renewable subsidies
are temporary.
Congress's brief and irregular renewals of the tax credit for wind
power have several times bankrupted wind-turbine manufacturers in the
United States. Similar misguided policies have diminished the solar-
cell industry. Half of the solar cells sold in the United States a
decade ago were domestically made. Now that figure is only 8 percent.
DEFENSE
A major player in our energy future will be the Pentagon. Here's why:
Trailing behind every half-mile-a-gallon Abrams tank—a peerless
fighting machine if you can get it there—are two unarmored fuel
trucks. Guess what the bad guys shoot at?
This is a very teachable moment—when the Pentagon becomes acutely
aware of the cost and the risk of delivering fuel on the battlefield.
They obviously need much lighter, more agile, radically more fuel-
efficient forces.
A military transformation will have a much bigger payoff, in exactly
the same way the Pentagon's research and development created the
Internet, global positioning systems, the modern microchip industry,
and advanced aero engines.
If you align military science and technology investments to capture
this enormous improvement at a tactical, operational, and strategic
level, guess what? You thereby transform the car, truck, and plane
industries to get the country off oil, so we won't need to fight over
the oil because we won't be using it. Mission unnecessary.
Lovins noshes on a banana in front of one of two 3-by-6-foot
tracking photovoltaic collectors that together provide all his
household power. Over the years, he and his colleagues have produced
multiple banana crops in the hothouse atrium. "We sometimes call the
building the passive solar banana farm," Lovins says.
BANANAS
When we designed the research facilities at Rocky Mountain Institute,
we didn't plan on having a banana farm inside. We're up 7,100 feet in
the Rockies, and it has gotten as low as –47 degrees in the winter.
We planned about 900 square feet of jungle space with five different
kinds of energy collection: heat, hot air, hot water, light, and
photosynthesis. The arch that holds it up has 12 different functions,
but I paid for it only once. The whole building exemplifies design
integration: getting multiple benefits from single expenditures. It
saves about 99 percent of the normal need for space- and water-
heating energy, about 90 percent of the household electricity, and
half the water. All that efficiency paid for itself in 10 months—and
that's with 1983 technology! Now we can do a lot better.
Anyway, we weren't planning on growing bananas here, but somebody who
owed me something gave me a banana tree to settle the obligation. He
said it would grow to six feet and never fruit—but he forgot to tell
the tree. When it got 12-year-old horse manure, it went bananas, grew
to 25 feet, put out nine crops in the first year and a half, and
tried to go through the roof. Then it tried to eat the fishpond.
I was afraid of a hydraulic disaster, so we chopped it down, dug it
up, and put a steel fence between what was left of the root-ball and
the fishpond. But it grew back and put out another 18 crops.
Eventually, a few years ago, it wore out at twice its designed life,
so we took it out for good and put in a variety of young banana
trees. We've also done mangoes, grapes, papayas, and passion fruit—
here in the Rocky Mountains.
The tangled tale of the banana tree offers a very simple lesson: Be
open to possibilities.
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/features/energizer/?page=1
http://tinyurl.com/edac7
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:40:08 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: MW Size Fuel CellPower is Here
MW Size Fuel CellPower is Here
worldAndrew Skok
FuelCellEnergy
Greg Bush
King County Dept of Natural Resources and Parks
2005 Fuel Cell SeminarPalm Springs, CA
November 15, 2005MW
http://www.fuelcellseminar.com/pdf/2005/Tuesday-
Nov15/Skok_Andrew_647.pdf
(22 pages)
http://tinyurl.com/d2bbu
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:46:56 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Operational Experience with MTU’s hotmodule® MCFC
MTU CFC Solutions
Operational Experience with MTU's hotmodule® MCFC
Stefan Rolf
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Fuel Cell Seminar 2005 Palm Springs
http://www.fuelcellseminar.com/pdf/2005/Tuesday-
Nov15/Rolf_Stefan_425.PDF
(26pages)
http://tinyurl.com/cykyy
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:48:00 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: End of the Hydrocarbon Age - By Jon T. Brock
End of the Hydrocarbon Age - By Jon T. Brock
Daily IssueAlert
3/7/2006
Free
"Big Oil must prepare itself for the end of the hydrocarbon age as
alternative energies win over consumers in coming decades. Oil giants
from the last century will have to look to their laurels if they are
not to be unseated as motorists move toward hydrogen-powered
vehicles, and renewable energies, such as wind or solar power
emerge." Although this sounds timely, it is not new. In fact this is
a quote from then-Chairman of Shell, Phil Watts, almost four and a
half years ago. I pulled it out after watching the Olympics recently
and seeing the Exxon commercials talk about making an alternative
energy future possible (with a hint of our children becoming
Olympians, because they try what may seem to be the impossible).
It seems that "Big Oil" is beginning to look at scenarios that have
alternative energy sources to oil and gas. Four and a half years ago,
two of the three "Bigs" were prominently playing alternatives into
their long-range planning. British Petroleum (BP) had (and still
does) an aggressive campaign on alternative energy sources, while
Exxon continued to be focused solely on oil and gas. That has changed
as the new ad campaign from Exxon announced to the world that it too
was seeking alternative energy sources.
Watts originally spoke to reporters about Shell's scenario planning
in 2001. This long-range outlook of world energy has oil shrinking
from 40 percent of the world's energy source to 25 percent by 2050.
Oil will still be the leader, with gas coming in at 20 percent in
2050. However, it is still quite a drop.
I was recently asked by one of my colleagues what petroleum is used
for in the United States. So I visited the DOE's Energy Information
Administration and found the following finished petroleum product
supplied for the month of December 2005:
Clearly automobile gasoline is the leader in the United States when
it comes to finished petroleum products. My colleague and I were
surmising that jet fuel may be up in the top two (possibly because we
were flying on business) but to our surprise, it is not. Fuel oil
comes in an easy second to automobile gasoline. So if one were to
make a dent in our use of these finished products, they might focus
on gasoline. Hybrid vehicles are becoming popular right now in the
automobile industry.
>From Oil to Gas
Watts mentioned over four years ago that "we could see an
evolutionary progression, the so-called carbon shift, from coal to
gas, to renewables, or possibly even to nuclear." One could argue
that the United States has already seen a shift of sorts from coal to
gas in the generation sector. The Energy Information Administration
(EIA) had estimated previously that at the forecasted rate of
electricity consumption, 1,300 new power plants would be needed over
the next two decades years. The majority of those new plants built in
the last five years were fueled by natural gas. Peak oil is a
favorite debate of those looking at future energy resources and some
even claim that the remaining natural gas resource in the United
States is expected to be near depletion within 45 years. Coal is
clearly the nation's greatest resource, representing approximately 90
percent of our fossil energy reserves.
Canadian imports of natural gas are expected to expand substantially
through 2020. This anticipated increased imports requires expansion
of gas pipeline and storage capacity. Duke Energy originally
recognized this trend and capitalized by announcing the purchase of
Westcoast Energy, Inc., a Canadian-based utility engaged primarily in
natural-gas gathering, processing, transmission, storage, and
distribution, as well as electric power generation, international,
financial, information technology, and energy services businesses.
More recently Kinder Morgan has acquired Vancouver-based Terasen Gas,
which includes a robust pipeline business.
>From Gas to Renewables
According to one of Shell's original scenarios, at some point we will
move from gas to renewables. That appears to be happening right now,
probably earlier than Shell had expected due to the high price of
natural gas. Shell listed those options as solar and wind energy and
backed up its claim with a $500 million to $1 billion spending
package over the last five years, focused primarily on—you guessed it—
solar and wind.
Worthy of noting here is the fact that Shell competitor BP had
already entered into the renewable arena and had formed a new
division known as BP Solar. Based in Linthicum, Md., they produce
high-efficiency silicon cells and modules, custom-designed batteries,
power control electronics and where appropriate, load equipment in
the solar industry. Fueling Shell's interest may be some of the
success that BP Solar has enjoyed.
In March of 2001, BP Solar announced that over 400,000 residents of
the Philippines would benefit from a deal signed between them and the
Spanish and Philippine governments to bring solar power to 150
isolated villages in the Philippines. Led by the Philippine
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the $48-million contract—the
largest solar energy project ever, at least in 2001—was financed by
the Spanish government and implemented in two phases.
In April of 2001, BP Solar announced plans to build a solar-module
assembly plant in Hamlin, Lower Saxony, Germany. With a total
investment in Hamlin of $12 million, the plant would have an annual
production capacity of 20 MW and create more than 100 new jobs.
The Hamlin plant was soon surpassed by the announcement of an
Australian facility in June 2001. Opening in Homebush Bay in Sydney,
the new plant would manufacture BP's high-efficiency solar panels,
bringing valuable export dollars to the country with over 60 percent
of the panels to be exported around the world. BP invested over $20
million to build the plant that is providing over 200 high tech jobs.
The new facility houses all of BP Solar's Australian manufacturing,
design and market support facilities. Cell annual output capacity
will reach 25MW in 2001 and the plant has the capability for possible
further expansion.
BP Solar has expanded since 2001 and now has projects in Germany, the
United States, the United Kingdom, China, Angola, India, Australia,
and the Philippines.
Do Renewables Include Fuel Cells?
Many big oil companies have historically viewed an increase in the
fuel cell industry. According to the fuel cell scenario, growth in
fuel cells—which produce electricity from hydrogen and cut harmful
emissions—could shift the energy business dramatically away from oil
long before oil becomes scarce. Today's fuel cells typically create
hydrogen by reforming natural gas, so they do not fit the definition
of being a renewable resource. Rather, fuel cells hold promise to
reduce air pollution emissions when compared to combustion
technologies. Fuel cells produce near-zero emissions and highly pure
water when converting a hydrogen-rich source into electric energy.
Recently the excitement around fuel cells seem to be replaced by
technologies that can be commercialized sooner, such as hybrid-fuel
automobiles. The question is what is the next logical step? Do we go
from hybrids to fuel cells to hydrogen automobiles? Those are
questions that the nation's renewable energy labs are entertaining.
I am impressed that the three largest oil producers in the world are
looking at their mainstay business as being limited in the long run.
Radical changes that are possible in the energy business means that
the industry participants which dominated the last century such as
Exxon, BP and Shell cannot afford to assume they will dominate for
the next 100 years. The oil companies' current belief towards
renewable and alternative energy reminds me of an exercise performed
in many business schools around the country today. Look at the New
York Stock Exchange 100 years ago and try to find companies that are
still in the "mix." Surprisingly, it is difficult to find many. Those
that are still in existence have had to change dramatically in order
to survive. IBM used to be a typewriter manufacturer. Then they
became the world's largest computer company. Today they have
transformed into a services company. Where will the oil companies be
in 2050? Will they still be strictly oil and gas? It certainly sounds
like they won't be.
http://www.utilipoint.com/issuealert/article.asp?id=2641
http://tinyurl.com/gaho5
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:51:54 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Minimizing risk of attack on electric grid
Minimizing risk of attack on electric grid
By Meredith Mackenzie
Mar 8, 2006, 19:00 GMT
BOSTON, MA, United States (UPI) -- In the 2001 remake of the 1960
film \'Ocean`s Eleven,\' a team of larcenists detonate an
electromagnetic pulse, essentially a broad-reaching burst of
electromagnetic energy, to disable the electric grid of Las Vegas in
order to breach the security system of the casino they are intending
to rob. Electricity flickers in the city for 30 seconds and then
resumes.
But Joel Gordes, a former Air Force navigator and head of
Environmental Energy Solutions, warned Tuesday at the Northeast
Sustainable Energy annual conference that this fancy of director
Stephen Soderberg`s imagination could become a very real terrorist
attack on America`s centralized power system.
\'You can get a relatively low-cost ($400) weapons system called a
flux-compression generator that can make an electromagnetic pulse,\'
Gordes said. \'We used to talk about how every time you blow up a
nuclear devise you get an electromagnetic pulse that will wipe out
your semiconductors. Basically, it would take us pretty much back to
the stone age ... anything with a computer chip in it would not
work.\'
Gordes said that the centralized power grid has long been seen as
vulnerable and recently a terrorist target. Richard Clark, a former
White House counter-terrorism adviser, has warned as much. \'The
owners and operators of electric power grids, banks and railroads;
they`re the ones who have to defend our infrastructure. The
government doesn`t own it, the government doesn`t operate it, the
government can`t defend it.\'
Gordes offered a solution in his Tuesday workshop -- distributed
generation. The Department of Energy defines distributed generation
as \'a variety of small, modular power-generating technologies that
used to improve the operation of the local electricity delivery
system. These systems can be combined with energy storage and power
management and are usually, but not always, connected to an
electricity distribution grid.\' This means smaller power generation
plants, including nuclear, solar, and biodiesel, that are located
closer to the homes and businesses where the power is meant to be
used. This reduces energy lost in transmission and creates what
Gordes calls \'microgrids.\'
Not only is distributed generation an excellent opportunity to
integrate renewable technologies, said Gordes, but a redundant,
separately administered, power system would lesson the effect of a
terrorist attack on the system by decentralizing power.
The concept is as old as the stock market: diversify in order to
reduce risk.
Distributed generation, Gordes writes in NESEA`s publication
\'Northeast Sun,\' offers multiple benefits.
\'(Placement of diverse fuel generators) avoids costly vulnerable,
ugly, and inefficient transmission systems and increases energy
security in two ways. First, it reduces our dependence upon foreign
oil and the increasing need for foreign liquefied natural gas.
Second, it provides resiliency when used with the existing power
grid, providing high reliability and power quality demands in a
digital society.\'
Dave Sjoding manages the Northwest Combined Heat and Power
Application Center in Olympia, Washington, where six states
collaborate on distributed generation projects that serve to provide
both heat and power. He said that despite transitional costs, utility
companies benefit because a great degree of stability is added to the
existing grid through the integration of alternative energy sources.
\'Distributed generation reduces transmission and distribution
issues,\' he said. \'Now the power is produced locally and used
locally and you`re not having to move it a huge distance.\'
And as far as national security goes, Sjoding said that the benefit
is obvious, \'As you bring distributed power into the system, you
ensure that all the eggs are not in one basket.\'
Copyright 2006 by United Press International
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/printer_1135555.php
http://tinyurl.com/ocdw7
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:04:06 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: QuestAir Demonstration Plant at City of Vancouver Landfill Recovers
Methane from Landfill Gas
QuestAir Demonstration Plant at City of Vancouver Landfill Recovers
Methane from Landfill Gas
Monday March 13, 9:00 am ET
VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(CCNMatthews - March 13, 2006) -
QuestAir Technologies Inc. (TSX:QAR - News; AIM:QAR) and the City of
Vancouver announced today that a demonstration project at the
Vancouver Landfill Site has begun upgrading landfill gas to methane
suitable for injection into the natural gas distribution system or
for use as a transportation fuel.
ADVERTISEMENT
Jonathan Wilkinson, President and CEO of QuestAir, said that the
demonstration plant will help the company market its commercially
available M-3100 landfill gas ("LFG") upgrading system to municipal
landfills around the world.
"Oil and natural gas prices are at record levels and are likely to
stay high for the foreseeable future. These prices improve the
economics of upgrading LFG to a high value fuel that can supplement
existing supplies of natural gas."
"In addition, purified methane recovered from LFG can also be used to
fuel the waste disposal trucks servicing municipal landfills,
reducing both operating costs and the greenhouse gas emissions of
waste collection fleets," Wilkinson said.
Paul Henderson, the City of Vancouver's Manager of Transfer &
Landfill Operations, said the joint demonstration project is an
opportunity for the City of Vancouver to participate in innovative
work that can help extend the use of landfill gas as a fuel source
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"Vancouver is among the leading municipalities embracing
sustainability objectives. The Vancouver Landfill is a model facility
demonstrating sustainable disposal of the fraction of solid waste
that is not recycled or otherwise removed from the waste stream,"
Henderson said.
"QuestAir's plant demonstrates an alternative to existing uses of
landfill gas - and is likely to be seen by other municipalities and
landfill operators throughout North America and Europe as a new
technology to add economic value to their LFG projects," Henderson
said.
The Vancouver Landfill Site, owned and operated by the City of
Vancouver and located in the Municipality of Delta, serves
approximately 940,000 residents in the Greater Vancouver region. A
system to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and local air
pollutants from the landfill site by collecting and burning LFG was
installed in 1991 and expanded in 2001. In 2003 the City began
utilizing a portion of the LFG generated at the site for commercial
purposes. Maxim Power Corporation currently uses LFG from the site to
generate electricity for sale to the local electrical utility B.C.
Hydro and hot water to heat a nearby greenhouse operation owned Hot
House Growers Inc.
The QuestAir demonstration plant upgrades up to 317,000 cubic feet of
LFG per day, producing sufficient purified methane to heat
approximately 470 suburban homes.
Energy Recovery from Landfill Gas
- LFG is produced by the decomposition of organic waste at municipal
landfills. LFG typically contains between 40 and 55 percent methane,
with the balance primarily carbon dioxide, plus minor amounts of
nitrogen and other non-methane organic compounds.
- More than 1,000 landfills in Canada, the United States and Europe
capture energy from LFG by burning it to generate electricity or to
heat buildings. To date, only a handful of landfills in the US and
the Netherlands pursue a higher-value use for LFG by upgrading it
into high-purity methane. QuestAir's M-3100 pressure swing adsorption
("PSA") system offers landfills a cost-effective means of upgrading
LFG into high-purity methane suitable for injection into natural gas
distribution networks or for the production of transportation fuels,
such as compressed natural gas or liquefied natural gas.
- In the United States, there are approximately 2,200 landfills.
Approximately 450 of these landfills have operating energy projects,
most generating electricity and/or heat through the combustion of
LFG. These projects reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately
61.3 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year-roughly
equal to removing the carbon dioxide emissions of 11.8 million
passenger vehicles. The U.S. Government's Environmental Protection
Agency estimates that there are an additional 600 landfills suitable
for LFG projects that can recover energy and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
- In Europe, including the United Kingdom, there are more than 700
landfills that recover energy from LFG, with Germany, Italy and the
UK having the largest number of installed LFG plants. As in the US,
electricity generation is currently the most common method of energy
recovery from LFG in Europe.
- In Canada, 16 landfills currently recover energy from LFG, with
nine projects generating electricity and seven projects generating
heat for industrial or agricultural uses. These projects reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 3.7 million tons of carbon
dioxide equivalents per year-equal to removing the carbon dioxide
emissions of about 723,000 passenger vehicles.
About the QuestAir M-3100
QuestAir's M-3100 PSA product upgrades methane-containing gas streams
to high-purity methane, suitable for supplementing existing natural
gas supplies. QuestAir's M-3100 system can upgrade up to 9.0 million
cubic feet of LFG per day, producing sufficient purified methane to
heat approximately 13,400 homes.
QuestAir's proprietary PSA technology was originally developed to
purify hydrogen for industrial markets, such as oil refineries, and
for fuel cell markets. QuestAir's PSA process and proprietary rotary
valve technology deliver higher efficiency than conventional PSA
systems in a more compact, cost-effective package. QuestAir has sold
more than 60 PSA systems since 1997 to customers in North America,
Asia and Europe.
About QuestAir Technologies Inc.
QuestAir Technologies Inc. is a developer and supplier of proprietary
gas purification systems for several large international markets,
including existing markets such as oil refining, biogas production
and natural gas processing, and emerging markets such as fuel cell
power plants and fuel cell vehicle refuelling stations. The Company
has joint development agreements with Exxon Mobil Research and
Engineering Company and Shell Hydrogen, and a collaboration with
FuelCell Energy. QuestAir is based in Burnaby, British Columbia and
its shares trade on the AIM Market of the London Stock Exchange Plc.
and on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "QAR".
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this press release may constitute "forward-
looking" statements which involve known and unknown risks,
uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results,
performance or achievements of the Company, or industry results, to
be materially different from any future results, performance or
achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.
When used in this press release, such statements use such words
as "anticipate", "believe", "plan", "estimate", "expect", "intend", "m
ay", "will" and other similar terminology. These statements reflect
current expectations regarding future events and operating
performance and speak only as of the date of this press release.
Forward-looking statements involve significant risks and
uncertainties, should not be read as guarantees of future performance
or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of
whether or not such results will be achieved. A number of factors
could cause actual results to differ materially from the results
discussed in the forward-looking statements.
Contact:
Andrew Hall
QuestAir Technologies Inc.
Director, Corporate Development and External Communications
(604)-453-6967
hall@questairinc.com
www.questairinc.com
Charles Ryland
Buchanan Communications
UK Media Contact
020 7466 5000
Ben Willey
Buchanan Communications
UK Media Contact
020 7466 5000
Eleanor Williamson
Buchanan Communications
UK Media Contact
020 7466 5000
Terry Foster
James Hoggan & Associates
Canadian Media Contact
(604) 739-7500
http://biz.yahoo.com/ccn/060313/200603130315348001.html?.v=1
http://tinyurl.com/zdxg9
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:08:32 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: UK: Councils say no to nuclear power station Mar 13 2006
Councils say no to nuclear power station Mar 13 2006
icWales
COUNCILS on both sides of the Irish Sea have joined forces and
pledged to oppose the building of a new nuclear power station at
Wylfa.
Local authorities in Ireland and Wales have also vowed to petition
any plans to extend the life of the current plant in Cemaes Bay,
Anglesey, and backed the Irish Government's aim to highlight the
risks from a new reactor.
"The nearest large city to Wylfa is not in Wales or even England, but
is Dublin, the capital of Ireland, just 60 miles away across the
Irish Sea," said Tony McDermott, of South Dublin County Council.
"Keeping Wylfa open exposes Dublin and towns in the east of Ireland
to unnecessary and unacceptable risks from pollution and accidents.
Building another reactor there is out of the question."
Welsh anti-nuclear councils are also raising their voices against a
new nuclear power station at Wylfa, which they believe would
undermine efforts to fight climate change by diverting resources from
investment in energy conservation and renewable energy schemes.
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) network in Wales and
Ireland believes that a new nuclear power station would pose obvious
safety and security threats, while members of Ynys Mon/Anglesey
Council last week voted to back a new reactor at Wylfa if the UK
Government decides to build a new generation of nuclear power
stations.
Louth County Councillor Michael O'Dowd, chair of the All-Ireland
Nuclear Free Local Authorities Forum, is calling on the Irish
Government to ensure that the Welsh Assembly Government and the
Department of Trade and Industry understand why they oppose building
a new nuclear power station.
Councillor Peter Lloyd, from Neath-Port Talbot Council in Wales, and
chairman of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities National Steering
Committee, added: "There are worries about the economic impacts of
closing the Wylfa nuclear power station for local businesses, and
certainly no-one wants to see jobs go, but investment in renewables
and energy-saving creates new employment opportunities."
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=16809011
&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=councils-say-no-to-nuclear-power-
station-name_page.html
http://tinyurl.com/hfnxy
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:10:45 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: World experts gather in New York to discuss the feasibility of
sustainable development
World experts gather in New York to discuss the feasibility of
sustainable development
State of the Planet 06, March 28 to 29, 2006 at Columbia University
More than 25 leading experts from across diverse private and public
sectors will converge at the fourth biennial State of the Planet
conference, hosted by The Earth Institute at Columbia University, in
New York on March 28 and 29. Bringing years of experience in fields
related to development, these hand-selected experts will examine some
of the most urgent challenges faced by the world today, ultimately
attempting to answer "Is Sustainable Development Feasible?"--the
theme of this year's conference.
State of the Planet 06 speakers are among the world's most recognized
actors and thinkers in their fields, including scientific research,
media, business and international development. In this open forum,
each of these experts will present new research, question prevailing
ideas and/or propose bold actions that may help more than 6 billion
people achieve sustainability. Among the 2006 speakers are:
Nicholas D. Kristof, Columnist, The New York Times
Carol Bellamy, President and Chief Executive Officer, World Learning;
Former Executive Director, UNICEF
John Coomber, Retired Chief Executive Officer, Swiss Re Group
Jeffrey D. Sachs, Director, The Earth Institute at Columbia
University
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Director-General, The Energy and Resources
Institute; Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The two-day conference will be divided into four panel discussions on
the following themes:
Research and Ingenuity
How can research protect and provide resources for energy, water and
biodiversity, particularly as they are affected by or contribute to
climate change?
Tapping into Market Forces and the Economy
What are the strengths and limits of free market mechanisms versus
government regulation in achieving sustainable development?
Developing Effective Institutional Structures
What are the strengths and weaknesses of global governance in
tackling issues of sustainable development?
Challenging Behavioral Patterns and Perspectives
Will societies, with all of their complex social, cultural and
religious components, need to modify their behaviors to achieve
sustainable development?
Through a range of events and programs, the Earth Institute remains
committed to building awareness about complex sustainable development
issues, including climate change, poverty, neglected diseases,
natural disasters, and others. In 2000, the first State of the Planet
conference brought together a select group of scholars, scientists,
humanitarians, and business and government leaders to provide a
special opportunity for the public to engage in a lively debate on
global development. Continuing its decade-long tradition of bridging
perspectives and ideas, the Earth Institute presents State of the
Planet 06, a singular event that promises to shed light on the
challenges as well as the solutions to some of the world's most
urgent problems.
For a complete list of speakers and a schedule of the two-day
conference, please visit www.stateoftheplanet.org
Members of the press who would like to attend State of the Planet 06,
or have questions about the event, please contact Clare Oh, Public
Information Officer at The Earth Institute, at (212) 854-5479 or
coh@ei.columbia.edu
State of the Planet 06:
Tuesday, March 28, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Wednesday, March 29, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Doors open at 8:00 a.m. for continental breakfast on both days. Boxed
lunches will be provided to all audience members. Registration
required.
Columbia University, Alfred Lerner Hall, Roone Arledge Auditorium
2920 Broadway (between 114th & 115th Streets), New York, NY
For directions, please visit:
http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/directions.html
###
The Earth Institute at Columbia University is among the world's
leading academic centers for the integrated study of Earth, its
environment, and society. The Earth Institute builds upon excellence
in the core disciplines--earth sciences, biological sciences,
engineering sciences, social sciences and health sciences--and
stresses cross-disciplinary approaches to complex problems. Through
its research training and global partnerships, it mobilizes science
and technology to advance sustainable development, while placing
special emphasis on the needs of the world's poor. For more
information, visit www.earth.columbia.edu.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/teia-weg031106.php
http://tinyurl.com/jofcz
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:15:16 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Clean Energy's Long Boom
Clean Energy's Long Boom
by Ron Pernick, Clean Edge
12 maart 2006
""But opportunity is a double-edged sword; those who miss it could
well lose out to those who take advantage. Evidence is mounting that
businesses, regions, and nations that move to and embrace clean
energy are indeed pulling ahead of their competitors in the global
marketplace. "
Back in 2001, when we launched Clean Edge, recognition of clean
energy among corporations, investors, governments, and the media was
barely palpable. The signs of a coming boom were there -- with
governments like Japan and Germany, corporations such as Sharp and
BP, and a handful of venture capitalists making strategic
investments -- but we had to look long and hard at the road ahead to
uncover the trends.
"But opportunity is a double-edged sword; those who miss it could
well lose out to those who take advantage. Evidence is mounting that
businesses, regions, and nations that move to and embrace clean
energy are indeed pulling ahead of their competitors in the global
marketplace. " Today, things couldn't be more different.
As we note in our fifth annual Clean Energy Trends 2006 report (see
link below) the clean-energy tipping point is nigh. For the first
time in modern history, clean- energy technologies are becoming cost-
competitive with their "dirtier" counterparts. While oil and natural
gas prices increase dramatically, wind and solar continue their near-
relentless downward trend. Biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) are
growing at double digit rates and now represent a larger global
market than either solar or wind.
At a time when the U.S. economy struggles to gain traction and faces
unprecedented challenges from volatile energy prices, depleted
natural resources, unreliable sources of foreign oil, record
deficits, and new environmental and security challenges, we believe
clean energy offers the promise to be the next big driver of business
and economic growth.
But opportunity is a double-edged sword; those who miss it could well
lose out to those who take advantage. Evidence is mounting that
businesses, regions, and nations that move to and embrace clean
energy are indeed pulling ahead of their competitors in the global
marketplace.
Witness the hybrid vehicle market. Toyota now dominates the industry,
having shipped more than 200,000 hybrids in 2005. Toyota was the only
major automaker to increase its year-to-year U.S. sales when gasoline
prices hit record highs in last October. By early next decade, the
company plans to have at least 10 hybrid models on the road and is
targeting annual global sales of one million hybrid vehicles. Toyota
now has a market capitalization ten times that of General Motors.
General Electric is taking note as well. GE, the world's largest
diversified manufacturer, last spring launched an "Ecomagination"
business strategy in which it committed to doubling its investments
in clean technologies by 2010. Revenues from the company's wind
energy division now exceed $2 billion annually and the company is
targeting up to $1 billion in yearly revenue from its solar division
by the end of the decade. "Ecomagination is GE's commitment to
address challenges such as the need for cleaner, more efficient
sources of energy, reduced emissions and abundant sources of clean
water," says GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt. "And we plan to make money doing
it. Increasingly for business, 'green' is green."
And in Brazil, nothing short of an automotive revolution is taking
shape. The nation now represents nearly half of global ethanol
production -- pumping out more than 4 billion gallons of sugar-cane
based fuel in 2005. Flex fuel vehicles capable of running on E85 (a
blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent petrol gasoline) have
grown from just 6 percent of Brazil's new car market in 2003 to an
impressive 70 percent plus of the new car market in 2005.
The clean-energy "long boom" knows no geographical boundaries. The
U.S. has a choice to either embrace and lead in this brave new world
of clean energy and clean tech innovation, like it has done in many
earlier tech revolutions, or fall behind a host of competitors in
Europe, Asia, and beyond.
As we point out in this year's report, the growth of some
technologies has been nothing short of astounding -- expansion rates
akin to the personal computer revolution during its more than 20-
year growth heyday. Back in 2000, the markets for solar photovoltaics
(PV) and wind power represented annual global revenues of $2.5
billion and $4 billion, respectively. Both have quadrupled to more
than $11 billion annually today.
In this year's Clean Energy Trends publication, Clean Edge reports
that ethanol and biodiesel hit $15.7 billion globally in 2005 and are
projected to grow to $52.5 billion by 2015. We project that markets
for solar photovoltaics (modules, system components, and
installations) will grow from $11.2 billion in 2005 to $51.1 billion
by 2015; wind power installations will expand from $11.8 billion last
year to $48.5 billion in 2015; and fuel cells and distributed
hydrogen will grow from $1.2 billion in 2005 to $15.1 billion by
2015.
Clean Edge, in collaboration with Nth Power, a leading energy-tech
venture firm, also released Nth Power's annual energy-tech venture
data. This year's findings show that venture capital investors poured
$917 million, an increase of approximately 28 percent from 2004, into
more than 80 private companies. These investments, primarily in
distributed energy, energy intelligence, power reliability, advanced
materials and nanotechnology, and related services, represented more
than 4 percent of the $21.7 billion U.S. venture capital market, up
from less than 1 percent of the venture market in 1999.
Global electricity and transportation fuels represent multi-trillion
dollar markets -- two of the largest industries on the planet.
Combine that with significant technological advances in solar, wind
and biofuels; China and India's insatiable appetite for expansion;
large corporate and venture investments; and the instability of
foreign-based fossil fuel supplies (to name just a few key drivers),
and we believe we are positioned for a long boom in clean-energy
technologies.
It won't be an easy road ahead. Change never is. But for those that
heed the call and can discern the signposts, untold opportunities
await.
Ron Pernick is Co-founder and Principal of Clean Edge, Inc. He is
currently writing a book on the clean-tech revolution with co-author
Clint Wilder, to be published by HarperCollins Business.
The information and views expressed in this article are those of the
author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyAccess.com or the
companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.
http://renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44327
http://tinyurl.com/g26dj
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:04:28 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: Energy mythology and its reality
Energy mythology and its reality
By Dan Larson
For the Daily Times
Mar 13, 2006, 06:00 am
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Energy security, climate change, peak oil and industry profits are
hot topics and the subject of popular myths.
Leading the list of popular mythology is the recent film "Syriana,"
which, according to BP CEO Lord John Browne, may have earned Oscar
nominations but wouldn't earn a nomination for absolute truth.
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking Feb. 15 at International Petroleum Week in London, Browne
said the film is entertaining fiction and will shape what some people
think about the oil industry, but it only serves to add to the
mythology "the cloud of misunderstanding" through which the public
and political leaders see the industry. Unfortunately, the film is
only one of several myths about the industry that, while not as
dramatic, can be just as damaging since they are taken too seriously
by too many people.
The first myth is a popular belief that oil prices are the result of
a conscious choice by the industry. This myth suggests that companies
do not invest sufficiently to meet the growing demands of the world,
but instead extract huge windfall profits and exploit a vulnerable
consumer.
The reality is very different, said Browne. In the five years ending
in 2004, more than $550 billion was invested in exploration,
development and production of oil and natural gas by the world's top
50 private energy companies. When 2005 investments are counted, that
total will likely increase by $100 billion. Production in non-OPEC
countries has risen by 3.1 million barrels a day over the same
period, enough to meet nearly two-thirds of global demand growth.
Much of that investment has come in new developments, including the
Caspian, Russia and Angola, and established fields like the Gulf of
Mexico and the North Sea.
Yet the myth of under investment persists, making the reality more
difficult to see. Browne then noted that a second, related myth holds
that the industry simply pockets its extra profits. The reality is
that companies reinvest in securing tomorrow's energy and return the
rest to shareholders. In BP's case, the company reinvested $13.9
billion of $26.7 billion in operating cash it generated a year ago
and returned $19.2 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends
and buybacks.
In addition to investors, such shareholder returns support people who
rely on pensions and those saving for pensions. So the myth that oil
companies simply pocket the extra income doesn't stand up to reality.
Another myth heard for some time now is that the industry doesn't
care about the environment. According to this fable, the industry
pollutes at will, resists attempts to force controls on it and
blithely leaves the costs of cleaning up to others, or worse, to
another generation.
"Perhaps that was once the reality," said Browne, "but it isn't now."
As the industry continues to make tremendous strides in improving the
quality and performance of its products, the improvements in air
quality compared to a generation ago is apparent and measurable. And
this is while the industry confronts the impact of a global increase
in vehicle use, a challenging proposition.
The bigger challenge is how the industry faces climate change. Many
companies, including BP, have accepted the precautionary principle
that states while the science of climate change isn't certain, the
mounting evidence cannot be ignored. "We can't afford to wait for
certainty," said Browne.
Companies have begun to face this challenge by reducing their own
emissions and by helping their customers do the same. However, what's
been done so far isn't sufficient, Browne said. Emissions, tied to
economic growth, are still rising and so are the risks. The challenge
is in the fact that the world's prosperity and its use of
hydrocarbons are inseparable.
Another, more recent, myth says that the world is running out of oil
and gas and "we are walking towards the edge of the cliff," said
Browne. "The idea that oil is running out is simply untrue. There is
no physical shortage of oil or gas."
In reality, the world's base of oil and gas is strong and the amount
that can be recovered is constantly being expanded as technology
advances.
The other side of the coin, however, is the myth that says since
there is an ample resource base, there is no need for concern. The
reality is that much of the oil and gas yet to be recovered is
controlled by governments and not private companies. Often, these
governments have their own interests, many of which don't align with
the interests of energy consumers.
These conflicting interests represent "the next great challenge
facing the industry," said Browne. Companies will need new approaches
to energy development if confidence in energy security is to be
restored. A first step will be continued investment in all segments
of the business that are open to investment.
Ultimately, the challenge facing the industry is how to provide
clean, reasonably priced energy that is low in carbon and can be
supplied to an open market, free of the risks of political
interference.
To meet that challenge, the industry is well equipped, said Browne.
It has the financial strength, a proven ability to adapt and adjust
to changing circumstances, a heritage of technology and creativity,
and the global reach needed to match supply with demand.
"We're at a point of great change in this industry," said
Browne. "Demand is growing, but we have to meet that demand in
different ways from different sources."
And while change is exciting, it may be no match for the excitement
of a film such as "Syriana," said Browne. However, it is because we
are leaving such myths behind that such change is exciting. In this
case, he says, the drama is real.
For more information or a full text version of Lord Browne's speech,
contact Dan Larson, BP Public Affairs, Durango, at 970-247-6817.
http://www.daily-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
AID=/20060313/BUSINESS/603130310/1002
http://tinyurl.com/zpr5d
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:12:37 -0000
From: "janson2997"
Subject: March 16th 2006:Regional Clean Energy Seminars Hosted by the Connecticut Audubon
Regional Clean Energy Seminars Hosted by the Connecticut Audubon
Society
Five Clean Energy Seminars scheduled for Spring 2006 and located at
Connecticut Audubon Centers.
Location Address Phone Day Date Time
CAS Fairfield Center 2325 Burr Street, Fairfield, CT 06824 (203) 259-
6305 Thursday 16-Mar-2006 7:00 PM
CAS Glastonbury 1361 Main Street, Glastonbury, CT 06033 (860) 633-
8402 Thursday 23-Mar-2006 7:00 PM
CAS Milford 1 Milford Point Road, Milford, CT 06460 (203) 878-7440
Thursday 20-Apr-2006 7:00 PM
CAS Pomfret 189 Pomfret St. (Rt. 169), Pomfret Center, CT 06259 (860)
928-4948 Wednesday 17-May-2006 7:00 PM
CAS Birdcraft Museum - Fairfield 314 Unquowa Road, Fairfield, CT
06824 (203) 259-0416 Thursday 8-Jun-2006 7:00 PM
The Connecticut Clean Energy Fund (CCEF), in partnership with
Connecticut Audubon Society (CAS) will present five Clean Energy
seminars this spring which will be hosted by CAS regional centers.
The seminars will provide information about several CCEF programs
that promote the use and development of clean energy in Connecticut
for the benefit of the environment, health of our citizens, and
overall energy independence. The efforts of CCEF fit well with
Connecticut Audubon Society's mission to provide excellence in
environmental education while encouraging the conservation of the
state's natural resources.
The seminars will discuss several ways we all can support and use
clean energy in our homes and businesses. Come to an Audubon center
near you to learn more about the following:
CTCleanEnergyOptions is a program that is offered to customers of
CL&P and United Illuminating which promotes the creation of clean,
renewable energy from sources such as wind, landfill gas, small hydro
and solar energy. Learn about how you can support clean energy and
how easy it is to sign up to CTCleanEnergyOptions.
The SmartPower 20% by 2010 Clean Energy Campaign is a challenge to
cities and towns, faith communities, educational institutions and
businesses to start choosing clean energy. Through the 20% by 2010
Campaign we will continue to prove that clean energy is real, it's
here, and it's working. To date, nearly twenty cities and towns in
Connecticut have made the switch to clean energy with many more
taking steps. Come to learn how you can get involved and help your
town choose clean energy.
CCEF's Clean Energy Communities program is designed to provide
additional incentives for municipal, business and residential
electric customers to choose clean energy. For every 100 residential
sign-ups to the CTCleanEnergyOptions program (large business
purchases qualify as more) the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund will
install a 1kW solar electric (PV) system on a community building at
no cost. This program puts cities and towns in partnership with their
residents. As the free solar systems are earned, everyone wins with
reduced emissions from municipal and residential electric use, free
electricity generated by the solar system and the great educational
opportunity the solar system provides.
CCEF's Rebates for Residential Solar (PV) Installations are
encouraging state residents to install clean energy generation
systems on their homes. The rebates, as much $25,000 per household,
are offered through select participating solar installation
companies. Solar PV systems utilize the clean, renewable energy of
the sun to produce electricity for your home. Learn about the
benefits of these systems, what size system to consider, system
payback economics, and much more from experts in the field.
CCEF's "Connecticut Consumer's Guide to Buying a Solar Electric
System" will be available to all seminar attendees.
The promotion and development of a robust clean energy industry is
designed to protect our environment, improve our health, and provide
for a more secure energy future. Energy efficiency measures in
existing homes and new building design are also very important.
During these seminars you will learn ways to conserve energy at home
and at work. The Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund will be on hand
to provide the latest information available to state residents.
These seminars are presented by the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund and
supported by Connecticut Audubon Society. They are being offered at
no charge and will run approximately two hours. All seminars will
start promptly at 7:00 p.m. Please consult the schedule above for
seminar dates and locations.
http://www.ctcleanenergy.com/audubon/
j2997
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fuelcell-energy/
A personal quest to promote the use of wind energy and hydrogen technology in the Great Lakes area of the United States. The Great Lakes area is in a unique position to become an energy exporting region through these and other renewable energy technologies. *Update 2014: Just do it everywhere - Dan*
Monday, March 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment