The Times
March 18, 2009
Richard Lloyd Parry
Tokyo Global warming will increase the risk of war, conflict and terrorism and represents perhaps the greatest challenge to global stability, a British minister warned yesterday.
Speaking at a conference here, Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister, predicted a tenfold increase in piracy as populations suffering the effects of climate change seized scarce resources from the high seas, and the radicalisation of impoverished people, leading to terror attacks. “It’s not difficult to imagine how the ‘have-nots’ could be radicalised,” he said.
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Insurers Must Disclose Climate-Change Exposure
By JEFFREY BALL
Insurance companies must start disclosing how climate change is likely to affect their businesses, state insurance regulators decided Tuesday.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners voted to require insurers to submit annual "climate-risk" reports, an unusually aggressive stance on the environmental issue from industry regulators.
The officials acted after concluding that climate change threatens insurers in two ways. It increases the risk of extreme weather events such as floods and wildfires, which would boost claims. And it is prompting governments to cap industrial carbon emissions that contribute to global warming -- a move threatens the profits of companies such as coal-fired utilities in which insurers commonly invest.
Climate change "will have a huge impact on the insurance industry," particularly on property and casualty insurers, said Joel Ario, Pennsylvania's insurance commissioner and the head of the association's global-warming task force.
Insurance commissioners also foresee climate change offering savvy insurers new ways to make money. One example: auto insurance with premiums based on the number of miles a person drives. Such policies would prod consumers to drive less, curbing their vehicles' carbon emissions.
The commissioners' decision shows how the politics of climate change are shifting. In the past, a handful of insurers have expressed concern that the phenomenon threatens their portfolios. Most of those companies have been based in Europe, which already has imposed carbon-emission limits. But momentum is moving in the U.S. toward some sort of emission constraint, as the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers have said they intend to impose such a cap.
The insurance commissioners' decision came only after delicate negotiations over how tough to make the environmental requirements. Environmental activists wanted insurers to have to disclose specific information about how their businesses might be threatened by climate change, said Andrew Logan, director of the insurance program at Ceres, a Boston-based environmental group involved in the talks. The activists believe such disclosures will help them press their case in Washington for a tough federal cap on carbon emissions.
Many insurers resisted. In the end, the regulators stipulated that insurers need not provide information that is "quantitative," that is "forward-looking," or that insurers "in good faith believe is commercially sensitive or proprietary."
What information insurers choose to disclose will become public next year. Insurance companies with annual premiums totaling more than $500 million must submit their first annual climate-risk disclosure reports by May 1, 2010.
Some carriers aren't happy with the regulators' decision. David Kodama, director of policy analysis for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, which represents more than 1,000 insurance companies, said his group is concerned that insurers that provide climate-risk information could face lawsuits alleging that their information isn't detailed enough.
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
Insurance companies must start disclosing how climate change is likely to affect their businesses, state insurance regulators decided Tuesday.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners voted to require insurers to submit annual "climate-risk" reports, an unusually aggressive stance on the environmental issue from industry regulators.
The officials acted after concluding that climate change threatens insurers in two ways. It increases the risk of extreme weather events such as floods and wildfires, which would boost claims. And it is prompting governments to cap industrial carbon emissions that contribute to global warming -- a move threatens the profits of companies such as coal-fired utilities in which insurers commonly invest.
Climate change "will have a huge impact on the insurance industry," particularly on property and casualty insurers, said Joel Ario, Pennsylvania's insurance commissioner and the head of the association's global-warming task force.
Insurance commissioners also foresee climate change offering savvy insurers new ways to make money. One example: auto insurance with premiums based on the number of miles a person drives. Such policies would prod consumers to drive less, curbing their vehicles' carbon emissions.
The commissioners' decision shows how the politics of climate change are shifting. In the past, a handful of insurers have expressed concern that the phenomenon threatens their portfolios. Most of those companies have been based in Europe, which already has imposed carbon-emission limits. But momentum is moving in the U.S. toward some sort of emission constraint, as the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers have said they intend to impose such a cap.
The insurance commissioners' decision came only after delicate negotiations over how tough to make the environmental requirements. Environmental activists wanted insurers to have to disclose specific information about how their businesses might be threatened by climate change, said Andrew Logan, director of the insurance program at Ceres, a Boston-based environmental group involved in the talks. The activists believe such disclosures will help them press their case in Washington for a tough federal cap on carbon emissions.
Many insurers resisted. In the end, the regulators stipulated that insurers need not provide information that is "quantitative," that is "forward-looking," or that insurers "in good faith believe is commercially sensitive or proprietary."
What information insurers choose to disclose will become public next year. Insurance companies with annual premiums totaling more than $500 million must submit their first annual climate-risk disclosure reports by May 1, 2010.
Some carriers aren't happy with the regulators' decision. David Kodama, director of policy analysis for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, which represents more than 1,000 insurance companies, said his group is concerned that insurers that provide climate-risk information could face lawsuits alleging that their information isn't detailed enough.
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
Consuming nations should pay for carbon dioxide emissions, not manufacturing countries, says China
Tough stance on responsibility for emissions could be crucial obstacle to US agreement on climate change in December
Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 March 2009 16.59 GMT
China wants consumer countries to take responsibility for the carbon emissions generated in the manufacture of goods, not the producer countries that export them, according to its top climate change negotiator.
The tough bargaining position set out by Li Gao, whose country is now the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, looks set to be a major hurdle for the Obama administration and other developed nations as they seek to find common ground ahead of a crucial UN climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December.
Since taking power, President Barack Obama has signalled his readiness to enter into an international agreement on reducing emissions, to be negotiated in Copenhagen. This is in contrast with his predecessor George Bush who dropped out of the Kyoto protocol because it did not set binding targets for big developing nations China.
A deal between the two countries is widely seen as critical in reaching an international agreement. China overtook the United States as the biggest emitter in 2006 and its dependence on coal-fired power looks likely to ensure that it will remain in this position for decades to come. Li, who was in Washington for a preliminary meeting of the major emitting nations, set out China's position that western consumers were largely to blame.
"As one of the developing countries, we are at the low end of the production line for the global economy. We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries... This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers, not the producers," said Li, who serves in China's powerful National Development and Reform Commission. He added that between 15% and 25% of all the country's global warming emissions resulted from manufacturing exports.
His counterparts from Japan and the European Union said the position was unacceptable. "I think the issue here is we take full responsibility and we ... regulate all the emissions that come from our territory," said Artur Runge-Metzger, who heads the climate change strategy and international negotiations unit at the European Commission.
Softer ground may be found between these two positions. British lawmaker and former environment minister Elliot Morley believes importers and exporters share responsibility because while emissions have been outsourced from the west, China has benefited from extra jobs.
Several recent academic papers have noted how European nations have outsourced emissions and other forms of pollution to developing nations instead of tackling emissions at home. According to Oslo's Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, a third of all Chinese emissions are linked to exports, with 9 per cent caused by exports to the US, and 6 per cent from producing goods for Europe.
Karl Hallding, of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), said a shift to a consumption-based system was worth considering. "This has been debated among economists. The argument makes sense. It would be better if emissions were owned by consumers. It would provide incentives for us to put the money into reducing emission in producing countries."
The SEI has determined that Britain's calculated emissions would have risen by 20 per cent relative the 1990 if imports and international transport were factored in to the total. In contrast, under Kyoto protocol accounting methods, the UK government says emissions have fallen by 18 per cent over the same period.
While the US-China talks are still in an early stage, the difference of opinion indicates the ground that the Obama team will need to make up. Their efforts to forge a compromise have been further complicated by US lawmakers considering the imposition of carbon tariffs on countries that do not set binding caps on their emissions. Li said such a trade barrier would be a "disaster".
China argues that wealthy nations should contribute more because they have a greater historical responsibility for the carbon that has entered the atmosphere over the past two centuries.
But State Department spokesman Robert Wood remained upbeat about the dialogue between the US and the visiting delegations. "There's a willingness, particularly on the Chinese side, to really engage on the subject of climate change, and we welcome that."
Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 March 2009 16.59 GMT
China wants consumer countries to take responsibility for the carbon emissions generated in the manufacture of goods, not the producer countries that export them, according to its top climate change negotiator.
The tough bargaining position set out by Li Gao, whose country is now the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, looks set to be a major hurdle for the Obama administration and other developed nations as they seek to find common ground ahead of a crucial UN climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December.
Since taking power, President Barack Obama has signalled his readiness to enter into an international agreement on reducing emissions, to be negotiated in Copenhagen. This is in contrast with his predecessor George Bush who dropped out of the Kyoto protocol because it did not set binding targets for big developing nations China.
A deal between the two countries is widely seen as critical in reaching an international agreement. China overtook the United States as the biggest emitter in 2006 and its dependence on coal-fired power looks likely to ensure that it will remain in this position for decades to come. Li, who was in Washington for a preliminary meeting of the major emitting nations, set out China's position that western consumers were largely to blame.
"As one of the developing countries, we are at the low end of the production line for the global economy. We produce products and these products are consumed by other countries... This share of emissions should be taken by the consumers, not the producers," said Li, who serves in China's powerful National Development and Reform Commission. He added that between 15% and 25% of all the country's global warming emissions resulted from manufacturing exports.
His counterparts from Japan and the European Union said the position was unacceptable. "I think the issue here is we take full responsibility and we ... regulate all the emissions that come from our territory," said Artur Runge-Metzger, who heads the climate change strategy and international negotiations unit at the European Commission.
Softer ground may be found between these two positions. British lawmaker and former environment minister Elliot Morley believes importers and exporters share responsibility because while emissions have been outsourced from the west, China has benefited from extra jobs.
Several recent academic papers have noted how European nations have outsourced emissions and other forms of pollution to developing nations instead of tackling emissions at home. According to Oslo's Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, a third of all Chinese emissions are linked to exports, with 9 per cent caused by exports to the US, and 6 per cent from producing goods for Europe.
Karl Hallding, of the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), said a shift to a consumption-based system was worth considering. "This has been debated among economists. The argument makes sense. It would be better if emissions were owned by consumers. It would provide incentives for us to put the money into reducing emission in producing countries."
The SEI has determined that Britain's calculated emissions would have risen by 20 per cent relative the 1990 if imports and international transport were factored in to the total. In contrast, under Kyoto protocol accounting methods, the UK government says emissions have fallen by 18 per cent over the same period.
While the US-China talks are still in an early stage, the difference of opinion indicates the ground that the Obama team will need to make up. Their efforts to forge a compromise have been further complicated by US lawmakers considering the imposition of carbon tariffs on countries that do not set binding caps on their emissions. Li said such a trade barrier would be a "disaster".
China argues that wealthy nations should contribute more because they have a greater historical responsibility for the carbon that has entered the atmosphere over the past two centuries.
But State Department spokesman Robert Wood remained upbeat about the dialogue between the US and the visiting delegations. "There's a willingness, particularly on the Chinese side, to really engage on the subject of climate change, and we welcome that."
Without commercial carbon capture, it's 'game over', E.ON boss tells government
Chief executive Paul Golby says technology will only be developed with state funding
Mark Milner, industrial editor
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 March 2009 17.41 GMT
Leading energy industry executives today called on the government to ensure the development of carbon capture and storage becomes commercially viable.
Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK said the commercial development of the technology, which stops the carbon dioxide produced through burning fossil fuels being released into the atmosphere, was vital if the world was to meet the growing demand for energy and still tackle climate change.
"For me it is clear there will be worldwide coal-fuelled growth in energy supply and that CCS is the most important technology in the fight against climate change.CCS is by no means the only low-carbon technology we are investing in, but it's the most important. Without it, it really is game over."
E.ON is seeking permission to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, a project which has attracted furious opposition from climate change campaigners.
Golby told the Adam Smith Institute's future of utilities conference in London today that a mechanism would be needed for investors to recoup the costs of developing and operating carbon capture on a commercial scale. "Without it no one will be able to build it," he said.
He said if the government did provide a "level playing field" then E.ON would expect, and accept, that it would have to fit the technology to Kingsnorth. "If they fund it, we will fit it."
The government is holding a competition to encourage the development of carbon capture on a commercial basis.
Also at the conference, Scottish Power's chief executive, Nick Horler, said the UK had a huge opportunity to carve out a leading position in the world market for carbon capture.
"We cannot afford to lose this lead. The economic benefits of getting CCS right could be huge for UK plc."
He warned that the government would have to act. "Without clear signals from government, the rates of return on new coal will remain uncertain, resulting in power generators being more likely to invest in generation plant with a more predictable cost and performance base, such as gas or nuclear.
"We are currently in the grip of a deployment catch 22. We cannot be confident in the product until we have seen it work at commercial scale but the levels of investment and technical risk required to do this are too great for a commercial organisation to bear alone – particularly given other competing priorities for increasingly scarce and expensive capital."
Responding to Golby's comments about Kingsnorth, the head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, Robin Oakley, said: "E.ON has finally admitted that the plans for a new coal plant at Kingsnorth that it submitted to the government fall well short of what is needed and what is possible.
"The ball is now in Ed Miliband's court. He should use an upcoming consultation on coal policy to call E.ON's bluff by ruling out new unabated coal plants across the board from day one."
Mark Milner, industrial editor
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 17 March 2009 17.41 GMT
Leading energy industry executives today called on the government to ensure the development of carbon capture and storage becomes commercially viable.
Paul Golby, chief executive of E.ON UK said the commercial development of the technology, which stops the carbon dioxide produced through burning fossil fuels being released into the atmosphere, was vital if the world was to meet the growing demand for energy and still tackle climate change.
"For me it is clear there will be worldwide coal-fuelled growth in energy supply and that CCS is the most important technology in the fight against climate change.CCS is by no means the only low-carbon technology we are investing in, but it's the most important. Without it, it really is game over."
E.ON is seeking permission to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, a project which has attracted furious opposition from climate change campaigners.
Golby told the Adam Smith Institute's future of utilities conference in London today that a mechanism would be needed for investors to recoup the costs of developing and operating carbon capture on a commercial scale. "Without it no one will be able to build it," he said.
He said if the government did provide a "level playing field" then E.ON would expect, and accept, that it would have to fit the technology to Kingsnorth. "If they fund it, we will fit it."
The government is holding a competition to encourage the development of carbon capture on a commercial basis.
Also at the conference, Scottish Power's chief executive, Nick Horler, said the UK had a huge opportunity to carve out a leading position in the world market for carbon capture.
"We cannot afford to lose this lead. The economic benefits of getting CCS right could be huge for UK plc."
He warned that the government would have to act. "Without clear signals from government, the rates of return on new coal will remain uncertain, resulting in power generators being more likely to invest in generation plant with a more predictable cost and performance base, such as gas or nuclear.
"We are currently in the grip of a deployment catch 22. We cannot be confident in the product until we have seen it work at commercial scale but the levels of investment and technical risk required to do this are too great for a commercial organisation to bear alone – particularly given other competing priorities for increasingly scarce and expensive capital."
Responding to Golby's comments about Kingsnorth, the head of Greenpeace's climate and energy campaign, Robin Oakley, said: "E.ON has finally admitted that the plans for a new coal plant at Kingsnorth that it submitted to the government fall well short of what is needed and what is possible.
"The ball is now in Ed Miliband's court. He should use an upcoming consultation on coal policy to call E.ON's bluff by ruling out new unabated coal plants across the board from day one."
Stimulus money puts clean coal projects on a faster track
By Matthew L. Wald
Published: March 17, 2009
EDWARDSPORT, Indiana: Near the middle of a dusty construction site here is a patch of land, about the size of two U.S. football fields, notable because it is empty.
Duke Energy has high hopes for this two-acre, or 0.8-hectare, plot: If all goes right, and there is a happy convergence of technology, money and federal energy policy, the construction project could become the first environment-friendly coal-fired power plant in the United States.
The company is studying a method for capturing the carbon dioxide produced by using coal and storing the gas underground, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. Machines to separate carbon dioxide from other elements in the coal may someday stand on the empty land.
For years, scientists have been experimenting with ways to ‘‘clean’’ coal, a carbon-heavy fuel that countries around the world increasingly rely on. But the technology for carbon capture and storage has been tried on only a small scale. Governments have not required companies to do what Duke is proposing here, in part because costs were so uncertain.
The allocation of $3.4 billion in the federal stimulus bill for carbon capture and sequestration, as carbon storage is often called, however, has allowed Duke Energy and other companies to consider mounting full-scale projects.
The federal money is the latest sign of a growing interest worldwide in clean coal technologies, which backers believe could prove one of the most significant ways to tackle global warming.
The Duke effort ‘‘may be the first commercial carbon sequestration site in the United States,’’ said John Thompson, a coal expert at the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.
If Duke is successful, the plant could be capturing about 18 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions within four or five years and an additional 40 percent a few years after that. Carbon dioxide is the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.
Duke had already received some money under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to build a $2.35 billion coal-burning power plant, the largest new construction project in Indiana.
The new plant will differ from conventional coal plants in significant ways, cooking the coal into a fuel gas rather than burning it as a powder, and then thoroughly cleaning the gas and burning it in a jet engine, similar to that used to burn natural gas. Emissions of conventional pollutants, like sulfur, soot and smog-forming nitrogen, will be extremely low.
Two other such ‘‘gasification’’ plants already operate, in Florida and Indiana. Duke’s first addition would be to use a machine to strip the carbon dioxide out of the fuel gas.
Duke is conducting a $17 million study of that idea and has asked permission from its regulators to study a second step, to capture an additional 40 percent or so of the carbon dioxide produced at a later stage. The carbon would then be stored in a deep well on the site or sent by pipeline to an old oil field, where it would stimulate oil production. Part of the test is meant to demonstrate that carbon dioxide can safely stay put underground.
Other companies around the country also are exploring carbon capture and storage projects. According to a recent report by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm, Illinois has passed legislation that could require its utilities to buy electricity from plants that sequester their carbon. Six other states are considering legislation to help pay for carbon capture or ease the way for carbon storage.
There are several competing technologies for approaching the problem — more than the money in the stimulus bill can pay for. And experts say that before new methods can be commercialized, projects need three to five years of planning and construction, followed by 8 to 10 years of actual pumping of carbon dioxide into the ground.
‘‘We need to get off the dime with this and build some full scale projects to demonstrate this technology at scale,’’ said Edward S. Rubin, a professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, ‘‘but the price tag per project is $800 million to $1 billion.’’
The Edwardsport venture might prove a little cheaper. The first step, capturing the carbon dioxide created when coal is turned into a fuel gas, would add 5 to 15 percent to the initial $2.35 billion cost, according to W. Michael Womack, vice president of Duke Energy in charge of the project.
In the second stage, one of the components of the fuel gas, carbon monoxide, is mixed with water to make hydrogen, for fuel, and carbon dioxide, for sequestration. The cost of that is ‘‘a little fuzzier,’’ he said, and probably higher than the cost for the first step.
Until the beginning of last year, the Energy Department had backed a more ambitious effort, the FutureGen gasification plant in Mattoon, Illinois, that would have sequestered 90 percent of its carbon dioxide, compared with a maximum of less than 60 percent at Edwardsport. Companies from the United States, Britain, China and Australia were to contribute.
But in January 2008, the administration of President George W. Bush decided that the price for FutureGen had grown too high and withdrew financing, proposing instead to finance add-ons like the ones contemplated at Edwardsport. Last week, a report by the federal Government Accountability Office found that because of a math error, the Energy Department had greatly overestimated the FutureGen cost increase.
At Peabody Energy, one of the FutureGen partners, Fred Palmer, a spokesman, said that the $1 billion in the stimulus bill that seemed to be directed toward a project like FutureGen was not enough to finish that project but that the partners could seek another appropriation in a couple of years.
An independent expert, Sarah Forbes, head of the carbon capture and storage project at the World Resources Institute, an environmental group, said that FutureGen had a tremendous strength, demonstrating the integration of capture and of storage at a large scale. But the project was so big, she said, that it could squeeze out others.
Proponents of smaller projects hope that there is enough money left in the stimulus bill for them. For example, Babcock & Wilcox has a different approach for capturing carbon: Remove all the nitrogen from the air going into the boiler, so the output is nearly pure carbon dioxide.
A project that captured 92 percent of its carbon dioxide would cost nearly $1 billion, and the company is hoping the government will pay half, said Donald C. Langley, vice president and chief technology officer of Babcock & Wilcox.
Later this year, American Electric Power will begin capturing carbon dioxide from 2 percent of the smokestack gases at its Mountaineer plant in West Virginia, by using ammonia and injecting the gas into a $4.2 million well nearly two miles, or three kilometers, deep.
If the ammonia works well, and if the carbon dioxide flows underground as expected, the company will try using the method to treat about 20 percent of the plant’s smoke and seeking government help to do it. The approach is important because it is intended for old plants.
Some environmentalists oppose carbon capture from coal under any circumstances. Greenpeace argues that the energy required to capture the carbon, pressurize it and pump it underground is too large and the risks of underground storage too high. The effort, the group says, would divert money from more promising alternatives. Others argue that making coal safe to burn would simply encourage damaging mining, like mountaintop removal.
But energy experts predict that countries around the world are certain to keep using coal, so someone had better find a safer way.
‘‘With a big lump of money, the No. 1 priority is moving out with urgency,’’ said Ernest J. Moniz, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former under secretary of energy. ‘‘If we want sequestration to have a serious market share in managing the climate problem by 2040, we have to start yesterday,’’ he said.
Published: March 17, 2009
EDWARDSPORT, Indiana: Near the middle of a dusty construction site here is a patch of land, about the size of two U.S. football fields, notable because it is empty.
Duke Energy has high hopes for this two-acre, or 0.8-hectare, plot: If all goes right, and there is a happy convergence of technology, money and federal energy policy, the construction project could become the first environment-friendly coal-fired power plant in the United States.
The company is studying a method for capturing the carbon dioxide produced by using coal and storing the gas underground, preventing it from entering the atmosphere. Machines to separate carbon dioxide from other elements in the coal may someday stand on the empty land.
For years, scientists have been experimenting with ways to ‘‘clean’’ coal, a carbon-heavy fuel that countries around the world increasingly rely on. But the technology for carbon capture and storage has been tried on only a small scale. Governments have not required companies to do what Duke is proposing here, in part because costs were so uncertain.
The allocation of $3.4 billion in the federal stimulus bill for carbon capture and sequestration, as carbon storage is often called, however, has allowed Duke Energy and other companies to consider mounting full-scale projects.
The federal money is the latest sign of a growing interest worldwide in clean coal technologies, which backers believe could prove one of the most significant ways to tackle global warming.
The Duke effort ‘‘may be the first commercial carbon sequestration site in the United States,’’ said John Thompson, a coal expert at the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.
If Duke is successful, the plant could be capturing about 18 percent of its carbon dioxide emissions within four or five years and an additional 40 percent a few years after that. Carbon dioxide is the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.
Duke had already received some money under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to build a $2.35 billion coal-burning power plant, the largest new construction project in Indiana.
The new plant will differ from conventional coal plants in significant ways, cooking the coal into a fuel gas rather than burning it as a powder, and then thoroughly cleaning the gas and burning it in a jet engine, similar to that used to burn natural gas. Emissions of conventional pollutants, like sulfur, soot and smog-forming nitrogen, will be extremely low.
Two other such ‘‘gasification’’ plants already operate, in Florida and Indiana. Duke’s first addition would be to use a machine to strip the carbon dioxide out of the fuel gas.
Duke is conducting a $17 million study of that idea and has asked permission from its regulators to study a second step, to capture an additional 40 percent or so of the carbon dioxide produced at a later stage. The carbon would then be stored in a deep well on the site or sent by pipeline to an old oil field, where it would stimulate oil production. Part of the test is meant to demonstrate that carbon dioxide can safely stay put underground.
Other companies around the country also are exploring carbon capture and storage projects. According to a recent report by Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm, Illinois has passed legislation that could require its utilities to buy electricity from plants that sequester their carbon. Six other states are considering legislation to help pay for carbon capture or ease the way for carbon storage.
There are several competing technologies for approaching the problem — more than the money in the stimulus bill can pay for. And experts say that before new methods can be commercialized, projects need three to five years of planning and construction, followed by 8 to 10 years of actual pumping of carbon dioxide into the ground.
‘‘We need to get off the dime with this and build some full scale projects to demonstrate this technology at scale,’’ said Edward S. Rubin, a professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, ‘‘but the price tag per project is $800 million to $1 billion.’’
The Edwardsport venture might prove a little cheaper. The first step, capturing the carbon dioxide created when coal is turned into a fuel gas, would add 5 to 15 percent to the initial $2.35 billion cost, according to W. Michael Womack, vice president of Duke Energy in charge of the project.
In the second stage, one of the components of the fuel gas, carbon monoxide, is mixed with water to make hydrogen, for fuel, and carbon dioxide, for sequestration. The cost of that is ‘‘a little fuzzier,’’ he said, and probably higher than the cost for the first step.
Until the beginning of last year, the Energy Department had backed a more ambitious effort, the FutureGen gasification plant in Mattoon, Illinois, that would have sequestered 90 percent of its carbon dioxide, compared with a maximum of less than 60 percent at Edwardsport. Companies from the United States, Britain, China and Australia were to contribute.
But in January 2008, the administration of President George W. Bush decided that the price for FutureGen had grown too high and withdrew financing, proposing instead to finance add-ons like the ones contemplated at Edwardsport. Last week, a report by the federal Government Accountability Office found that because of a math error, the Energy Department had greatly overestimated the FutureGen cost increase.
At Peabody Energy, one of the FutureGen partners, Fred Palmer, a spokesman, said that the $1 billion in the stimulus bill that seemed to be directed toward a project like FutureGen was not enough to finish that project but that the partners could seek another appropriation in a couple of years.
An independent expert, Sarah Forbes, head of the carbon capture and storage project at the World Resources Institute, an environmental group, said that FutureGen had a tremendous strength, demonstrating the integration of capture and of storage at a large scale. But the project was so big, she said, that it could squeeze out others.
Proponents of smaller projects hope that there is enough money left in the stimulus bill for them. For example, Babcock & Wilcox has a different approach for capturing carbon: Remove all the nitrogen from the air going into the boiler, so the output is nearly pure carbon dioxide.
A project that captured 92 percent of its carbon dioxide would cost nearly $1 billion, and the company is hoping the government will pay half, said Donald C. Langley, vice president and chief technology officer of Babcock & Wilcox.
Later this year, American Electric Power will begin capturing carbon dioxide from 2 percent of the smokestack gases at its Mountaineer plant in West Virginia, by using ammonia and injecting the gas into a $4.2 million well nearly two miles, or three kilometers, deep.
If the ammonia works well, and if the carbon dioxide flows underground as expected, the company will try using the method to treat about 20 percent of the plant’s smoke and seeking government help to do it. The approach is important because it is intended for old plants.
Some environmentalists oppose carbon capture from coal under any circumstances. Greenpeace argues that the energy required to capture the carbon, pressurize it and pump it underground is too large and the risks of underground storage too high. The effort, the group says, would divert money from more promising alternatives. Others argue that making coal safe to burn would simply encourage damaging mining, like mountaintop removal.
But energy experts predict that countries around the world are certain to keep using coal, so someone had better find a safer way.
‘‘With a big lump of money, the No. 1 priority is moving out with urgency,’’ said Ernest J. Moniz, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former under secretary of energy. ‘‘If we want sequestration to have a serious market share in managing the climate problem by 2040, we have to start yesterday,’’ he said.
Energy Chief Says U.S. Is Open to Carbon Tariff
MARCH 18, 2009
By IAN TALLEY and TOM BARKLEY
WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday advocated adjusting trade duties as a "weapon" to protect U.S. manufacturing, just a day after one of China's top climate envoys warned of a trade war if developed countries impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports.
Mr. Chu, speaking before a House science panel, said establishing a carbon tariff would help "level the playing field" if other countries haven't imposed greenhouse-gas-reduction mandates similar to the one President Barack Obama plans to implement over the next couple of years. It is the first time the Obama administration has made public its view on the issue.
"If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage...[and] we would look at considering perhaps duties that would offset that cost," Mr. Chu said.
Li Gao, a senior Chinese negotiator from the National Development and Reform Commission, told Dow Jones Newswires Monday that a carbon tariff would be a "disaster," would prompt a trade war and wouldn't be legal under World Trade Organization agreements
"It does not abide by the rule of [the] WTO and, secondly, it's not fair," Mr. Gao said, adding that his delegation would relate China's concerns to U.S. officials.
Mr. Chu's comments came amid other signs of concern among U.S. trading partners about protectionist rhetoric and legislation from Washington. On Monday, Mexico announced it would put tariffs on $2.4 billion of U.S. goods in retaliation for a measure to limit the access of Mexican truckers to U.S. roads. "Buy American" provisions tied to the recent stimulus package have prompted concerns from some U.S. trading partners, and trade issues are expected to be prominent on the agenda at meetings next month among leaders of the Group of 20 leading nations.
European Union Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton said in an interview in Washington Tuesday that she hopes the Obama administration will give strong backing to relaunching talks on the WTO's stalled Doha round at the G-20 meeting. Ms. Ashton said U.S. support for completing a new global trade deal would boost confidence in world markets.
The carbon tax issue is important to energy-intensive U.S. industries -- including paper, cement, fertilizer, steel and glass manufacturers -- that worry that costs imposed by climate-change laws will put them at a disadvantage to rivals in nations that aren't bound by similar requirements.
European Union officials are considering a similar tariff, prompting some developing nations to caution that trade restrictions run the risk of retaliatory action.
China is seeking to require importers of its carbon-intensive goods to bear the emission costs, concerned that targets such as those proposed by the U.S. would cripple the nation's growth as an industrializing nation.
The U.S. does agree with China that an international agreement should be based on a principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" that allows a less-stringent and longer-term flexibility for developed countries. Obama administration officials also agree that developed countries need to help to finance the technology transfer for low carbon energy and efficiency measures.
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com and Tom Barkley at tom.barkley@dowjones.com
By IAN TALLEY and TOM BARKLEY
WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Tuesday advocated adjusting trade duties as a "weapon" to protect U.S. manufacturing, just a day after one of China's top climate envoys warned of a trade war if developed countries impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports.
Mr. Chu, speaking before a House science panel, said establishing a carbon tariff would help "level the playing field" if other countries haven't imposed greenhouse-gas-reduction mandates similar to the one President Barack Obama plans to implement over the next couple of years. It is the first time the Obama administration has made public its view on the issue.
"If other countries don't impose a cost on carbon, then we will be at a disadvantage...[and] we would look at considering perhaps duties that would offset that cost," Mr. Chu said.
Li Gao, a senior Chinese negotiator from the National Development and Reform Commission, told Dow Jones Newswires Monday that a carbon tariff would be a "disaster," would prompt a trade war and wouldn't be legal under World Trade Organization agreements
"It does not abide by the rule of [the] WTO and, secondly, it's not fair," Mr. Gao said, adding that his delegation would relate China's concerns to U.S. officials.
Mr. Chu's comments came amid other signs of concern among U.S. trading partners about protectionist rhetoric and legislation from Washington. On Monday, Mexico announced it would put tariffs on $2.4 billion of U.S. goods in retaliation for a measure to limit the access of Mexican truckers to U.S. roads. "Buy American" provisions tied to the recent stimulus package have prompted concerns from some U.S. trading partners, and trade issues are expected to be prominent on the agenda at meetings next month among leaders of the Group of 20 leading nations.
European Union Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton said in an interview in Washington Tuesday that she hopes the Obama administration will give strong backing to relaunching talks on the WTO's stalled Doha round at the G-20 meeting. Ms. Ashton said U.S. support for completing a new global trade deal would boost confidence in world markets.
The carbon tax issue is important to energy-intensive U.S. industries -- including paper, cement, fertilizer, steel and glass manufacturers -- that worry that costs imposed by climate-change laws will put them at a disadvantage to rivals in nations that aren't bound by similar requirements.
European Union officials are considering a similar tariff, prompting some developing nations to caution that trade restrictions run the risk of retaliatory action.
China is seeking to require importers of its carbon-intensive goods to bear the emission costs, concerned that targets such as those proposed by the U.S. would cripple the nation's growth as an industrializing nation.
The U.S. does agree with China that an international agreement should be based on a principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" that allows a less-stringent and longer-term flexibility for developed countries. Obama administration officials also agree that developed countries need to help to finance the technology transfer for low carbon energy and efficiency measures.
Write to Ian Talley at ian.talley@dowjones.com and Tom Barkley at tom.barkley@dowjones.com
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
European satellite launch delayed on mission to reveal oceanic secrets
Countdown in Russia suspended for the European Space Agency's 'Ferrari' of satellites that will measure gravity around the Earth and help scientists understand how oceans are changing as the planet heats up
Robin McKie
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 March 2009 13.53 GMT
The launch of Europe's gravity mapping satellite, Gravity and Ocean Circulation Explorer, has been delayed. Controllers at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in Arkangel in north-west Russia suspended its countdown only seven seconds away from blast off on a SS-19 ex-Soviet missile at 1421 GMT today.
The European Space Agency said launch controllers had suspended the countdown when the tower protecting its SS-19 launcher failed to move clear to allow blast-off. Russian space engineers are now studying the problem and if they can correct it easily, a launch may be attempted tomorrow. A press conference will be held later today when further details will be announced.
The satellite is scheduled to map tiny variations in Earth's gravity and reveal new data about the circulation of heat in the oceans. It is not known yet why the delay was ordered - or how long the launch will remain postponed.
It has been described as one of the most stylish, and important, satellites ever built by European scientists. The 16ft torpedo-shaped probe – the Gravity and Ocean Circulation Explorer, or Goce – will be blasted into space on a Russian SS-19 missile from the Plesetsk cosmodrome near Arkangel.
Once in orbit the £200m satellite – constructed by the European Space Agency, Esa - will swoop over the atmosphere to measure Earth's gravity with unprecedented accuracy. The data it returns will be vital to scientists trying to understand the impact of climate change on Earth, and in particular for climate researchers who are seeking to understand how oceans transport heat around the planet.
"Gravity varies depending where you are on the planet," says Professor Marek Ziebert, of University College, London. "And those variations have an effect on how the oceans circulate. Goce will provide crucial information that will allow us to gain a new understanding of how the oceans behave."
But Goce is also distinctive because of its elegant design and its covering of silver-blue solar cells. It has been labelled the Ferrari of space probes by its manufacturers, Thales Alenia Space Italia while Volker Liebig, Director of Earth Observation Programmes at Esa described the craft as "a jewel of innovations".
Liebig added that Goce has been designed to fly at an extremely low orbit, just 250km (155 miles) above Earth, where it will encounter friction from the thin atmosphere: "For this reason it has an eye-catching aerodynamic shape and will actively compensate for the air drag by using the finely controlled thrust of its ion engine."
The probe's T5 ion rocket was built by QinetiQ in the UK and will be fired constantly throughout its 20-month mission in order to keep Goce in its correct orbit. At the same time, computers will send 10 messages a second to its engines to ensure the probe orbits at the right height. Goce will also use GPS devices to plot its exact position and a gradiometer, a machine that can detect fluctuations of a million millionth in Earth's gravity.
This data will then be transmitted daily and used to build a model of Earth's shape, one that is accurate to within a centimetre, as well as putting together a highly accurate gravity map of the planet. "Gravity is the force that drives the circulation of the oceans," added Dr Mark Drinkwater, Goce's project scientist. "Until we understand its exact role we cannot predict how the seas — and planet — will behave as the climate gets warmer. That is why Goce is being launched."
Ocean currents take a third of all the heat that falls on equatorial regions and carry it to higher latitudes. One of the most important currents is the Gulf Stream, which scientists fear could be destroyed or diverted by melting Arctic ice. But they need to know all the gravitational effects that influence the stream's course across the Atlantic before they can make accurate predictions.
The problem is that Earth's gravity is not constant. The planet is flattened at the poles, for example, so gravity is stronger there, and weaker at the equator. Gas fields, mineral deposits, groundwater reservoirs and rock strata also produce variations in gravity.
"There are all sorts of wiggles and bumps in Earth's gravity field," said Dr Chris Hughes, of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool. "Each will influence ocean currents, which have a crucial role in moving heat around the world. If we are to understand how climate change is going to affect the planet, we have to have a precise picture of its gravity field.
Once we combine the data we will get from Goce with observations of sea height and ocean current flow — information that is provided by other satellites — we will get a clear idea of what our oceans are doing. Then we will get a better picture of how the seas are changing as the world heats up."
Robin McKie
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 March 2009 13.53 GMT
The launch of Europe's gravity mapping satellite, Gravity and Ocean Circulation Explorer, has been delayed. Controllers at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in Arkangel in north-west Russia suspended its countdown only seven seconds away from blast off on a SS-19 ex-Soviet missile at 1421 GMT today.
The European Space Agency said launch controllers had suspended the countdown when the tower protecting its SS-19 launcher failed to move clear to allow blast-off. Russian space engineers are now studying the problem and if they can correct it easily, a launch may be attempted tomorrow. A press conference will be held later today when further details will be announced.
The satellite is scheduled to map tiny variations in Earth's gravity and reveal new data about the circulation of heat in the oceans. It is not known yet why the delay was ordered - or how long the launch will remain postponed.
It has been described as one of the most stylish, and important, satellites ever built by European scientists. The 16ft torpedo-shaped probe – the Gravity and Ocean Circulation Explorer, or Goce – will be blasted into space on a Russian SS-19 missile from the Plesetsk cosmodrome near Arkangel.
Once in orbit the £200m satellite – constructed by the European Space Agency, Esa - will swoop over the atmosphere to measure Earth's gravity with unprecedented accuracy. The data it returns will be vital to scientists trying to understand the impact of climate change on Earth, and in particular for climate researchers who are seeking to understand how oceans transport heat around the planet.
"Gravity varies depending where you are on the planet," says Professor Marek Ziebert, of University College, London. "And those variations have an effect on how the oceans circulate. Goce will provide crucial information that will allow us to gain a new understanding of how the oceans behave."
But Goce is also distinctive because of its elegant design and its covering of silver-blue solar cells. It has been labelled the Ferrari of space probes by its manufacturers, Thales Alenia Space Italia while Volker Liebig, Director of Earth Observation Programmes at Esa described the craft as "a jewel of innovations".
Liebig added that Goce has been designed to fly at an extremely low orbit, just 250km (155 miles) above Earth, where it will encounter friction from the thin atmosphere: "For this reason it has an eye-catching aerodynamic shape and will actively compensate for the air drag by using the finely controlled thrust of its ion engine."
The probe's T5 ion rocket was built by QinetiQ in the UK and will be fired constantly throughout its 20-month mission in order to keep Goce in its correct orbit. At the same time, computers will send 10 messages a second to its engines to ensure the probe orbits at the right height. Goce will also use GPS devices to plot its exact position and a gradiometer, a machine that can detect fluctuations of a million millionth in Earth's gravity.
This data will then be transmitted daily and used to build a model of Earth's shape, one that is accurate to within a centimetre, as well as putting together a highly accurate gravity map of the planet. "Gravity is the force that drives the circulation of the oceans," added Dr Mark Drinkwater, Goce's project scientist. "Until we understand its exact role we cannot predict how the seas — and planet — will behave as the climate gets warmer. That is why Goce is being launched."
Ocean currents take a third of all the heat that falls on equatorial regions and carry it to higher latitudes. One of the most important currents is the Gulf Stream, which scientists fear could be destroyed or diverted by melting Arctic ice. But they need to know all the gravitational effects that influence the stream's course across the Atlantic before they can make accurate predictions.
The problem is that Earth's gravity is not constant. The planet is flattened at the poles, for example, so gravity is stronger there, and weaker at the equator. Gas fields, mineral deposits, groundwater reservoirs and rock strata also produce variations in gravity.
"There are all sorts of wiggles and bumps in Earth's gravity field," said Dr Chris Hughes, of the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool. "Each will influence ocean currents, which have a crucial role in moving heat around the world. If we are to understand how climate change is going to affect the planet, we have to have a precise picture of its gravity field.
Once we combine the data we will get from Goce with observations of sea height and ocean current flow — information that is provided by other satellites — we will get a clear idea of what our oceans are doing. Then we will get a better picture of how the seas are changing as the world heats up."
EPA re-evaluates 'green club' for companies
The Associated Press
Published: March 17, 2009
WASHINGTON: The Environmental Protection Agency is closing a program that drew complaints from environmentalists for cutting back on company inspections and regulations as a reward for voluntary controls on pollution.
The National Environmental Performance Track Program, established in 2000 but administered mainly during the Bush presidency, enrolled hundreds of corporations in its "green club" if they agreed to undertake initiatives to save energy and reduce pollution. However, investigations of the program questioned its effectiveness.
The agency said in a statement Monday that it would evaluate and refine the program's concepts "in order to develop a stronger system to protect human health and the environment."
In a report issued in 2007, the EPA's inspector general found that underperforming facilities in Performance Track reduced its integrity and value. The program itself lacked clear plans that connected activities with goals and did not show whether it achieved anticipated results, the report said.
The Philadelphia Inquirer first reported on the EPA's plan to halt the program. An Inquirer investigation published in December found that Performance Track lauded companies with suspect environmental records, spent millions on recruiting and publicity, failed to confirm members' environmental pledges independently, and padded its numbers to build membership.
Performance Track had 548 members ranging from Fortune 500 corporations to trailer parks, the Inquirer reported, and some of those recruited by the EPA had mixed if not poor environmental records.
Published: March 17, 2009
WASHINGTON: The Environmental Protection Agency is closing a program that drew complaints from environmentalists for cutting back on company inspections and regulations as a reward for voluntary controls on pollution.
The National Environmental Performance Track Program, established in 2000 but administered mainly during the Bush presidency, enrolled hundreds of corporations in its "green club" if they agreed to undertake initiatives to save energy and reduce pollution. However, investigations of the program questioned its effectiveness.
The agency said in a statement Monday that it would evaluate and refine the program's concepts "in order to develop a stronger system to protect human health and the environment."
In a report issued in 2007, the EPA's inspector general found that underperforming facilities in Performance Track reduced its integrity and value. The program itself lacked clear plans that connected activities with goals and did not show whether it achieved anticipated results, the report said.
The Philadelphia Inquirer first reported on the EPA's plan to halt the program. An Inquirer investigation published in December found that Performance Track lauded companies with suspect environmental records, spent millions on recruiting and publicity, failed to confirm members' environmental pledges independently, and padded its numbers to build membership.
Performance Track had 548 members ranging from Fortune 500 corporations to trailer parks, the Inquirer reported, and some of those recruited by the EPA had mixed if not poor environmental records.
SeaEnergy link with EDP
Published Date: 17 March 2009
A SPECIALIST Aberdeen wind farm business has announced a joint venture with the world's fourth-largest renewable energy company, its third tie-up with a major European utility this year, writes Hamish Rutherford
SeaEnergy said it had formed a consortium with Portuguese group EDP Renewables to bid for projects in the third round of Crown Estate allocations, with nine sites up for grabs.Formed as a majority-owned subsidiary of Aberdeen-based energy company Ramco last June, SeaEnergy is built around a team of experts that oversaw the construction of the vast deep-water Beatrice turbine in the North Sea. In February, it was awarded 25 per cent stakes in projects off the coast of Scotland, with Scottish & Southern Energy's wind farm unit, Airtricity, and Germany's RWE.The latest consortium with Lisbon-based EDP has already submitted bids to the Crown Estate for sites off the English coast, and is thought to be planning to bid for others in Europe.Ramco's broker Ambrian was bullish about the firm's prospects with the new team. Analyst Dean Cooper said in a note to clients yesterday: "Partnering with these industry behemoths to chase the grand prize of the UK offshore wind industry build-out suggests that the future is bright for SeaEnergy".
Electric ATV maker hopes to tap farmers market
The Associated Press
Published: March 17, 2009
ASHLAND, Oregon: Electric all-terrain vehicles may not impress the dune- and trail-riding crowd that rides for recreation, but a few small companies expect organic farmers and vineyard growers will pay a premium to gather cattle and spray vines without the carbon footprint of a gas vehicle.
While automakers are toiling to produce electric cars that will fit the demands of American drivers, Ashland-based Barefoot Motors is on the verge of turning out heavy-duty ATVs that can go 50 miles (80 kilometers) on a charge costing about 90 cents.
"I think a lot of attention is focused on the more glamorous vehicles — the cars," said Chief Executive Max Scheder-Bieschin. "But there are lots of other applications where the strength of the technology can be focused."
Debby Zygielbaum, vineyard manager at organic Robert Sinskey Vineyards in Napa, California, test-drove an early Barefoot prototype last year and is eager to be an early adopter when production starts in June. She'd like to haul her spraying equipment without fogging the vines with exhaust fumes, and the ATV could get free power from the vineyard's solar panels.
"It's becoming feasible where it will actually become a working vehicle to use in the field," she said.
The Barefoot ATV's $12,000 price is 50 percent higher than a heavy-duty gas-powered ATV. But with gas around $2 a gallon and electricity averaging 11.35 cents a kilowatt-hour nationally, the cost evens out over seven years if a farmer drives 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) a year. It's even more cost-efficient for farms producing their own power from solar panels or manure digesters, and as gas prices go up.
Barefoot is not the first electric ATV coming to market. Bad Boy Buggies in Natchez, Mississippi, has vehicles intended for hunters. Doran Electric Vehicles in Huntington Beach, California, has been selling the Gorilla for years. Zap Electric Vehicles in Santa Rosa, California — where Scheder-Bieschin formerly worked — has a model called the Dude coming out soon.
The high price of Barefoot's model comes from the lithium iron phosphate batteries, the same technology General Motors Corp. is putting in the Chevrolet Volt electric car. To keep the price of the Dude around $5,000, Zap had to use lead-acid batteries, which charge slower and have less power.
"I think with electric vehicles, it's going to be hard, unless you use very expensive and exotic battery technology, to match the performance and price of gasoline vehicles," said Zap spokesman Alex Campbell. "Our goal was to simply make an affordable and powerful ATV that can satisfy the majority of the needs for ATV owners."
Rick Doran, president of Doran Electric Vehicles, is also skeptical that electric ATVs will replace gas-powered machines. He said his company has sold only a couple hundred at prices around $8,000. Some have gone to underground mining operations and electric utilities where the lack of exhaust and short turning radius are a plus.
"Personally, I don't think it's practical yet," he said of the technology.
But Scheder-Bieschin said customers don't have to compromise on performance, as long as their needs fit the vehicle. Farms smaller than 1,000 acres (404 hectares) are perfect. The vehicle can work the morning, get recharged at lunch, and go back out in the afternoon, all while staying close to their power source.
"Our goal is not necessarily to replace all the million ATVs sold every year," he said. "There is room for a different technology. There may be people who love their noise, who love their Harleys. But a guy going up and down the rows of a vineyard doesn't like the noise, doesn't like the fumes. If we can get 10,000 of those guys every year we'll be happy."
Albert Straus, president of Straus Family Creamery in Marshall, California, is so into sustainability that his milk is sold in glass bottles, he uses methane gas from his cows to produce electricity and hot water, and he drives an electric Toyota RAV4 EV.
"My goal has been to get away from fossil fuels as much as possible," he said.
But he finds it hard to justify the expense of buying an electric ATV for gathering cows and fixing fences until there are tax incentives.
"I think if we can get the government and society backing this type of technology, it is going to make things happen a lot faster," he said.
Barefoot's majority owner, Mary Jo Gresens, said the company plans to start slowly, producing 120 vehicles in the first year and growing with the awareness of global warming.
"Up until now, the ATV market has concentrated on fun, sport kinds of things," said Gresens, a Detroit native who has worked in the automotive industry in the U.S. and Europe. "We're not that vehicle."
Barefoot's first prototype was a stock utility ATV retrofitted with golf cart batteries. But engineers Dave Mounce and Eli Schless have put the production model together from the ground up, taking care to reduce drag from things like brakes and improve efficiency from the drivetrain and steering, which translates into greater range.
"We're talking about a Yugo versus a Ferrari as far as the level of technological difference," Mounce said.
Components will be outsourced — batteries from China, most of the rest from the U.S. — and assembled in Ashland. Barefoot expects to expand its staff from five people to as many as 15 when production gets going.
The company started in Santa Rosa, California, in 2007, and moved to Oregon to be closer to the growing organic farming and vineyard market and take advantage of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's efforts to promote green energy.
Current tax credits for electric vehicles apply only to on-road vehicles, but the budget pending in the Legislature would go even further to promote renewable sources of electricity, particularly solar, said Jillian Schoene, a spokeswoman for the governor.
Published: March 17, 2009
ASHLAND, Oregon: Electric all-terrain vehicles may not impress the dune- and trail-riding crowd that rides for recreation, but a few small companies expect organic farmers and vineyard growers will pay a premium to gather cattle and spray vines without the carbon footprint of a gas vehicle.
While automakers are toiling to produce electric cars that will fit the demands of American drivers, Ashland-based Barefoot Motors is on the verge of turning out heavy-duty ATVs that can go 50 miles (80 kilometers) on a charge costing about 90 cents.
"I think a lot of attention is focused on the more glamorous vehicles — the cars," said Chief Executive Max Scheder-Bieschin. "But there are lots of other applications where the strength of the technology can be focused."
Debby Zygielbaum, vineyard manager at organic Robert Sinskey Vineyards in Napa, California, test-drove an early Barefoot prototype last year and is eager to be an early adopter when production starts in June. She'd like to haul her spraying equipment without fogging the vines with exhaust fumes, and the ATV could get free power from the vineyard's solar panels.
"It's becoming feasible where it will actually become a working vehicle to use in the field," she said.
The Barefoot ATV's $12,000 price is 50 percent higher than a heavy-duty gas-powered ATV. But with gas around $2 a gallon and electricity averaging 11.35 cents a kilowatt-hour nationally, the cost evens out over seven years if a farmer drives 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) a year. It's even more cost-efficient for farms producing their own power from solar panels or manure digesters, and as gas prices go up.
Barefoot is not the first electric ATV coming to market. Bad Boy Buggies in Natchez, Mississippi, has vehicles intended for hunters. Doran Electric Vehicles in Huntington Beach, California, has been selling the Gorilla for years. Zap Electric Vehicles in Santa Rosa, California — where Scheder-Bieschin formerly worked — has a model called the Dude coming out soon.
The high price of Barefoot's model comes from the lithium iron phosphate batteries, the same technology General Motors Corp. is putting in the Chevrolet Volt electric car. To keep the price of the Dude around $5,000, Zap had to use lead-acid batteries, which charge slower and have less power.
"I think with electric vehicles, it's going to be hard, unless you use very expensive and exotic battery technology, to match the performance and price of gasoline vehicles," said Zap spokesman Alex Campbell. "Our goal was to simply make an affordable and powerful ATV that can satisfy the majority of the needs for ATV owners."
Rick Doran, president of Doran Electric Vehicles, is also skeptical that electric ATVs will replace gas-powered machines. He said his company has sold only a couple hundred at prices around $8,000. Some have gone to underground mining operations and electric utilities where the lack of exhaust and short turning radius are a plus.
"Personally, I don't think it's practical yet," he said of the technology.
But Scheder-Bieschin said customers don't have to compromise on performance, as long as their needs fit the vehicle. Farms smaller than 1,000 acres (404 hectares) are perfect. The vehicle can work the morning, get recharged at lunch, and go back out in the afternoon, all while staying close to their power source.
"Our goal is not necessarily to replace all the million ATVs sold every year," he said. "There is room for a different technology. There may be people who love their noise, who love their Harleys. But a guy going up and down the rows of a vineyard doesn't like the noise, doesn't like the fumes. If we can get 10,000 of those guys every year we'll be happy."
Albert Straus, president of Straus Family Creamery in Marshall, California, is so into sustainability that his milk is sold in glass bottles, he uses methane gas from his cows to produce electricity and hot water, and he drives an electric Toyota RAV4 EV.
"My goal has been to get away from fossil fuels as much as possible," he said.
But he finds it hard to justify the expense of buying an electric ATV for gathering cows and fixing fences until there are tax incentives.
"I think if we can get the government and society backing this type of technology, it is going to make things happen a lot faster," he said.
Barefoot's majority owner, Mary Jo Gresens, said the company plans to start slowly, producing 120 vehicles in the first year and growing with the awareness of global warming.
"Up until now, the ATV market has concentrated on fun, sport kinds of things," said Gresens, a Detroit native who has worked in the automotive industry in the U.S. and Europe. "We're not that vehicle."
Barefoot's first prototype was a stock utility ATV retrofitted with golf cart batteries. But engineers Dave Mounce and Eli Schless have put the production model together from the ground up, taking care to reduce drag from things like brakes and improve efficiency from the drivetrain and steering, which translates into greater range.
"We're talking about a Yugo versus a Ferrari as far as the level of technological difference," Mounce said.
Components will be outsourced — batteries from China, most of the rest from the U.S. — and assembled in Ashland. Barefoot expects to expand its staff from five people to as many as 15 when production gets going.
The company started in Santa Rosa, California, in 2007, and moved to Oregon to be closer to the growing organic farming and vineyard market and take advantage of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's efforts to promote green energy.
Current tax credits for electric vehicles apply only to on-road vehicles, but the budget pending in the Legislature would go even further to promote renewable sources of electricity, particularly solar, said Jillian Schoene, a spokeswoman for the governor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
