Researchers have analysed the environmental impact of the proposed US high-speed rail system. From environmentalresearchweb, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 11.03 GMT
Several regions of the US are planning high-speed electric rail services to cut pressure on congested road and air transport systems. California is one of the areas to have won most public support for the service – a link between San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento – as it looks like investment in high-speed rail could provide reduced door-to-door trip times and cheaper journeys than the same amount of investment in transit by auto, air or heavy rail.
Now researchers from the University of California Berkeley, US, have analysed the environmental impact of the proposed high-speed rail system, taking into account not just greenhouse-gas emissions from its operation but also those created during its entire lifecycle, including processes such as manufacturing the train carriages; creating stations; laying track; forming cuttings and bridges; maintaining the system; and generating the electricity required.
"We thought it was important that total energy and emissions accounting be presented for decision and policy makers," Mikhail Chester told environmentalresearchweb. "We think it is important that high-speed rail and the modes it will compete with be evaluated with a comprehensive environmental inventory that includes all vehicle, infrastructure and fuel components that are required to facilitate the vehicles in operation."
The team compared the lifecycle emissions of high-speed electric rail with transport by car, by heavy rail (the Amtrak diesel system) and by air. At the moment around 90% of trips in the California corridor are made by automobile while 9% are made by air and 1% by heavy rail. The equivalent figures for passenger kilometres are 75% by automobile, 24% by air and 1% by heavy rail.
For the high-speed rail system, the team assumed a total of 86 trains based on the German ICE train, consuming 170 kW/h per vehicle and using California's current mix of electricity sources, along with 25 stations and 1100 km of two-way track.
"Energy consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions increase by 15% to 40% [for high-speed rail] from evaluating the 'tailpipe' (vehicle propulsion) component," said Chester. "Carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter emitted from infrastructure construction are larger than those emitted from vehicle propulsion when normalized per passenger kilometre. Additionally, by looking at low- and high-passenger occupancy scenarios, we show that high-speed rail is not universally better or worse than the other modes."
The trains are likely to have between 650 and 1200 seats; the use of small trains with higher frequency or larger trains operating less frequently could well affect passenger numbers. For the purposes of the study, the team set low occupancy as 120 passengers (10% of the capacity of the longest trains), and the high as 1200 passengers (a full train). When it came to end-use energy consumption, a high-speed rail train with 1011 passengers was equivalent to a car with five passengers.
"It is necessary to consider modes at their best and worst ridership levels to understand the potential of the system," said Chester. "While at the average one mode may be better or worse than another, this may not always be the case and by considering the different utilizations a different set of policies may be drawn to reduce the environmental burdens of a mode, for example, increasing ridership in the off-peak instead of encouraging people to switch to another mode."
The researchers discovered that while high-speed rail may lower energy consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions per trip, the current electricity mix in California means that it can create more sulphur dioxide emissions, leading to environmental acidification and human health issues.
In a study last year, Chester and colleagues found that including lifecycle factors boosted the emissions of train transport by 155% on average. This paper examined commuter rail including heavy rail electric metro, heavy rail diesel commuter transit, and light rail transit (LRT) but not high-speed electric rail for long distances. For cars and buses the equivalent figure was 63% and for air transport, which has relatively little infrastructure for the distances travelled, it was 31%.
Now the team plans to continue evaluating the high-speed rail system once decisions are made for system design, vehicle choice and clean energy options. "We'd like to identify the steps that policy and decision makers should take in developing high-speed rail systems to minimize their environmental burdens by considering appropriate transit integration to increase ridership, vehicle design selection to operate appropriate-sized trains, and the potential of integrating cleaner sources of energy," said Chester.
The researchers reported their work in ERL.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
US cult of greed is now a global environmental threat
Suzanne Goldenberg US environment correspondent
The Guardian, Wednesday 13 January 2010
The average American consumes more than his or her weight in products each day, fuelling a global culture of excess that is emerging as the biggest threat to the planet, according to a report published today. In its annual report, Worldwatch Institute says the cult of consumption and greed could wipe out any gains from government action on climate change or a shift to a clean energy economy.
Erik Assadourian, the project director who led a team of 35 behind the report, said: "Until we recognise that our environmental problems, from climate change to deforestation to species loss, are driven by unsustainable habits, we will not be able to solve the ecological crises that threaten to wash over civilisation."
The world's population is burning through the planet's resources at a reckless rate, the US thinktank said. In the last decade, consumption of goods and services rose 28% to $30.5tn (£18.8bn).
The consumer culture is no longer a mostly American habit but is spreading across the planet. Over the last 50 years, excess has been adopted as a symbol of success in developing countries from Brazil to India to China, the report said. China this week overtook the US as the world's top car market. It is already the biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions.
Such trends were not a natural consequence of economic growth, the report said, but the result of deliberate efforts by businesses to win over consumers. Products such as the hamburger – dismissed as an unwholesome food for the poor at the beginning of the 20th century – and bottled water are now commonplace.
The average western family spends more on their pet than is spent by a human in Bangladesh.
The report did note encouraging signs of a shift away from the high spend culture. It said school meals programmes marked greater efforts to encourage healthier eating habits among children. The younger generation was also more aware of their impact on the environment.
There has to be a wholesale transformation of values and attitudes, the report said. At current rates of consumption, the world needs to erect 24 wind turbines an hour to produce enough energy to replace fossil fuel.
"We've seen some encouraging efforts to combat the world's climate crisis in the past few years," said Assadourian. "But making policy and technology changes while keeping cultures centred on consumerism and growth can only go so far.
"If we don't shift our very culture there will be new crises we have to face. Ultimately, consumerism is not going to be viable as the world population grows by 2bn and as more countries grow in economic power."
In the preface to the report, Worldwatch Institute's president, Christopher Flavin, writes: "As the world struggles to recover from the most serious global economic crisis since the Great Depression, we have an unprecedented opportunity to turn away from consumerism. In the end, the human instinct for survival must triumph over the urge to consume at any cost."
The Guardian, Wednesday 13 January 2010
The average American consumes more than his or her weight in products each day, fuelling a global culture of excess that is emerging as the biggest threat to the planet, according to a report published today. In its annual report, Worldwatch Institute says the cult of consumption and greed could wipe out any gains from government action on climate change or a shift to a clean energy economy.
Erik Assadourian, the project director who led a team of 35 behind the report, said: "Until we recognise that our environmental problems, from climate change to deforestation to species loss, are driven by unsustainable habits, we will not be able to solve the ecological crises that threaten to wash over civilisation."
The world's population is burning through the planet's resources at a reckless rate, the US thinktank said. In the last decade, consumption of goods and services rose 28% to $30.5tn (£18.8bn).
The consumer culture is no longer a mostly American habit but is spreading across the planet. Over the last 50 years, excess has been adopted as a symbol of success in developing countries from Brazil to India to China, the report said. China this week overtook the US as the world's top car market. It is already the biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions.
Such trends were not a natural consequence of economic growth, the report said, but the result of deliberate efforts by businesses to win over consumers. Products such as the hamburger – dismissed as an unwholesome food for the poor at the beginning of the 20th century – and bottled water are now commonplace.
The average western family spends more on their pet than is spent by a human in Bangladesh.
The report did note encouraging signs of a shift away from the high spend culture. It said school meals programmes marked greater efforts to encourage healthier eating habits among children. The younger generation was also more aware of their impact on the environment.
There has to be a wholesale transformation of values and attitudes, the report said. At current rates of consumption, the world needs to erect 24 wind turbines an hour to produce enough energy to replace fossil fuel.
"We've seen some encouraging efforts to combat the world's climate crisis in the past few years," said Assadourian. "But making policy and technology changes while keeping cultures centred on consumerism and growth can only go so far.
"If we don't shift our very culture there will be new crises we have to face. Ultimately, consumerism is not going to be viable as the world population grows by 2bn and as more countries grow in economic power."
In the preface to the report, Worldwatch Institute's president, Christopher Flavin, writes: "As the world struggles to recover from the most serious global economic crisis since the Great Depression, we have an unprecedented opportunity to turn away from consumerism. In the end, the human instinct for survival must triumph over the urge to consume at any cost."
Climate scientists convene global geo-engineering summit
Meeting in California in March will discuss possible field trials of schemes that would tackle climate change by reflecting sunlight or fertilising the ocean with iron
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 16.58 GMT
Geo-engineering techniques, such as filling the sky with shiny dust to reflect sunlight, could curb such temperature rises without the need to restrict greenhouse gas emissions
Scientists are to hold a high-level summit to discuss how the world could take emergency measures such as blocking out the sun to slow dangerous global warming.
Experts from around the world have been invited to attend the meeting in March in California, which will examine possible field trials of so-called geo-engineering schemes, such as pumping chemicals into the air and oceans to combat climate change.
The move follows the failure of the recent Copenhagen climate talks to set meaningful carbon reduction targets, and comes amid mounting concern that such controversial techniques may be the only way to curb rising temperatures.
Mike MacCracken, a global warming expert at the Climate Institute in Washington DC, who is organising the conference's scientific programme, said: "Most of the talk about these geo-engineering techniques say they should be saved until we get to an emergency situation. Well the people of the Arctic might say they are in an emergency situation now."
He added: "It is hard to see how mitigation [carbon cuts] can save the Arctic and losing the Arctic is a tremendous risk, not just for the region but for the rest of the world. So are there other ways to save it?"
Without significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say global average temperatures could rise by 4C within many of our lifetimes, which could devastate wildlife and threaten the water and food supplies of hundreds of millions of people.
Geo-engineering techniques, such as filling the sky with shiny dust to reflect sunlight, could curb such temperature rises without the need to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. The meeting aims to assess risks and benefits, establish ground rules for research and plan experiments that would be needed before a full scale geo-engineering attempt.
Calls for such research have increased as pessimism grows about the likely course of global warming.
In an influential report last year, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, concluded that geo-engineering methods that block out the sun "may provide a potentially useful short-term back-up to mitigation in case rapid reductions in global temperature are needed". The society stressed that emissions reductions were the primary solution, but recommended international research and development of the "more promising" geo-engineering techniques.
Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the Guardian in November he backed such research. "We should at least be looking at it. I would see what the theoretical models say, and ask ourselves the question: how can we do medium-sized experiments in the field," Watson said. "I think it should be a real international effort, so it isn't just the UK funding it."
MacCracken said: "If there is going to be funding for this kind of research and you are someone in the UK government, then what kind of safeguards do you want to have in place that nothing can go wrong? Because if something does go wrong then you could be up before parliament or worse."
He added: "We also have to be mindful about how we communicate these ideas to the public because some of them can sound a little like Doctor Strangelove."
He said the March meeting was based on a landmark gathering of scientists involved in research with genetically modified (GM) organisms in 1975, which established voluntary guidelines to protect the public, and paved the way for breakthroughs such as the mass production of synthetic insulin in GM bacteria. The geo-engineering conference will take place at the same Asilomar centre, on the Monterey Peninsula.
Some scientists have criticised the upcoming conference because its funding is being arranged by a US group called the Climate Response Fund, which promotes geo-engineering research, and is run by Margaret Leinen, a marine biologist. Leinen's son, Dan Whaley, runs a firm called Climos, a company set up to profit from geo-engineering by selling carbon credits generated by fertilising ocean plankton with iron. Leinen was formerly chief scientific officer with Climos, but told Science magazine she has taken all possible steps to avoid a conflict of interest, and no longer holds a position, shares or intellectual property in the firm.
MacCracken said one aim of the conference was to judge which techniques could work on a global scale, which could count against ocean iron fertilisation. "We don't want to go out and test approaches that could not be scaled up enough to be useful. Would we risk doing anything in the ocean that would only have a small effect? Almost certainly not."
The push towards geo-engineering research has not pleased everyone. A recent report (pdf) for the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation by the ETC group called geo-engineering an act of "geo-piracy" and warned that the "the world runs a serious risk of choosing solutions that turn out to be new global problems".
There are also concerns about how to regulate geo-engineering and whether its techniques could be developed and unleashed by a single nation, or even a wealthy individual, without wide international approval.
The House of Commons science and technology committee will tomorrow open an inquiry into the regulation of geo-engineering, with David MacKay, chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, among those due to give evidence.
From artificial trees to giant space mirrors: Possible geo-engineering solutions
Stratospheric aerosols
Spray shiny sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight. Relatively cheap and easy to do, though the chemicals gradually fall back to earth. The most likely option, though possible side effects include changes to global rainfall.
Ocean fertilisation
Dump iron into the sea to boost plankton growth and soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Hard to do on a significant scale, and doubts about how deep the plankton would sink have raised doubts about how long the carbon would be secured.
Cloud whitening
Fleets of sailing ships strung across the world's oceans could spray seawater into the sky to evaporate and leave behind shiny salt crystals to brighten clouds, which would then reflect sunlight back into space. Could be turned off at any time, but might interfere with wind and rain patterns.
Space mirrors
A giant orbiting sunshade in space to block the sun. More likely to be a collection of millions or even trillions of small mirrors rather than a giant orbiting parasol. Very expensive and impractical with current technology.
Artificial trees
Devices that use a chemical process to soak up carbon dioxide from the air. Technically possible but very expensive on a meaningful scale.
David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 16.58 GMT
Geo-engineering techniques, such as filling the sky with shiny dust to reflect sunlight, could curb such temperature rises without the need to restrict greenhouse gas emissions
Scientists are to hold a high-level summit to discuss how the world could take emergency measures such as blocking out the sun to slow dangerous global warming.
Experts from around the world have been invited to attend the meeting in March in California, which will examine possible field trials of so-called geo-engineering schemes, such as pumping chemicals into the air and oceans to combat climate change.
The move follows the failure of the recent Copenhagen climate talks to set meaningful carbon reduction targets, and comes amid mounting concern that such controversial techniques may be the only way to curb rising temperatures.
Mike MacCracken, a global warming expert at the Climate Institute in Washington DC, who is organising the conference's scientific programme, said: "Most of the talk about these geo-engineering techniques say they should be saved until we get to an emergency situation. Well the people of the Arctic might say they are in an emergency situation now."
He added: "It is hard to see how mitigation [carbon cuts] can save the Arctic and losing the Arctic is a tremendous risk, not just for the region but for the rest of the world. So are there other ways to save it?"
Without significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say global average temperatures could rise by 4C within many of our lifetimes, which could devastate wildlife and threaten the water and food supplies of hundreds of millions of people.
Geo-engineering techniques, such as filling the sky with shiny dust to reflect sunlight, could curb such temperature rises without the need to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. The meeting aims to assess risks and benefits, establish ground rules for research and plan experiments that would be needed before a full scale geo-engineering attempt.
Calls for such research have increased as pessimism grows about the likely course of global warming.
In an influential report last year, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, concluded that geo-engineering methods that block out the sun "may provide a potentially useful short-term back-up to mitigation in case rapid reductions in global temperature are needed". The society stressed that emissions reductions were the primary solution, but recommended international research and development of the "more promising" geo-engineering techniques.
Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the Guardian in November he backed such research. "We should at least be looking at it. I would see what the theoretical models say, and ask ourselves the question: how can we do medium-sized experiments in the field," Watson said. "I think it should be a real international effort, so it isn't just the UK funding it."
MacCracken said: "If there is going to be funding for this kind of research and you are someone in the UK government, then what kind of safeguards do you want to have in place that nothing can go wrong? Because if something does go wrong then you could be up before parliament or worse."
He added: "We also have to be mindful about how we communicate these ideas to the public because some of them can sound a little like Doctor Strangelove."
He said the March meeting was based on a landmark gathering of scientists involved in research with genetically modified (GM) organisms in 1975, which established voluntary guidelines to protect the public, and paved the way for breakthroughs such as the mass production of synthetic insulin in GM bacteria. The geo-engineering conference will take place at the same Asilomar centre, on the Monterey Peninsula.
Some scientists have criticised the upcoming conference because its funding is being arranged by a US group called the Climate Response Fund, which promotes geo-engineering research, and is run by Margaret Leinen, a marine biologist. Leinen's son, Dan Whaley, runs a firm called Climos, a company set up to profit from geo-engineering by selling carbon credits generated by fertilising ocean plankton with iron. Leinen was formerly chief scientific officer with Climos, but told Science magazine she has taken all possible steps to avoid a conflict of interest, and no longer holds a position, shares or intellectual property in the firm.
MacCracken said one aim of the conference was to judge which techniques could work on a global scale, which could count against ocean iron fertilisation. "We don't want to go out and test approaches that could not be scaled up enough to be useful. Would we risk doing anything in the ocean that would only have a small effect? Almost certainly not."
The push towards geo-engineering research has not pleased everyone. A recent report (pdf) for the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation by the ETC group called geo-engineering an act of "geo-piracy" and warned that the "the world runs a serious risk of choosing solutions that turn out to be new global problems".
There are also concerns about how to regulate geo-engineering and whether its techniques could be developed and unleashed by a single nation, or even a wealthy individual, without wide international approval.
The House of Commons science and technology committee will tomorrow open an inquiry into the regulation of geo-engineering, with David MacKay, chief scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, among those due to give evidence.
From artificial trees to giant space mirrors: Possible geo-engineering solutions
Stratospheric aerosols
Spray shiny sulphur compounds into the high atmosphere to reflect sunlight. Relatively cheap and easy to do, though the chemicals gradually fall back to earth. The most likely option, though possible side effects include changes to global rainfall.
Ocean fertilisation
Dump iron into the sea to boost plankton growth and soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Hard to do on a significant scale, and doubts about how deep the plankton would sink have raised doubts about how long the carbon would be secured.
Cloud whitening
Fleets of sailing ships strung across the world's oceans could spray seawater into the sky to evaporate and leave behind shiny salt crystals to brighten clouds, which would then reflect sunlight back into space. Could be turned off at any time, but might interfere with wind and rain patterns.
Space mirrors
A giant orbiting sunshade in space to block the sun. More likely to be a collection of millions or even trillions of small mirrors rather than a giant orbiting parasol. Very expensive and impractical with current technology.
Artificial trees
Devices that use a chemical process to soak up carbon dioxide from the air. Technically possible but very expensive on a meaningful scale.
Basic countries to meet ahead of crucial Copenhagen accord deadline
New Delhi meeting to further cement Basic coalition ahead of next round of climate change talks. From James Murray for BusinessGreen, part of the Guardian Environment Network
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 11.02 GMT
Environment ministers from Brazil, South Africa, India and China are to meet in New Delhi later this month to co-ordinate their position ahead of the January 31 deadline for countries supporting the Copenhagen Accord to submit formal emission targets and climate change action plans.
The so-called Basic bloc of countries, which brokered the controversial draft version of the Copenhagen Accord with the US during the frantic final hours of last month's Copenhagen Summit, is seeking to cement its alliance ahead of the next round of UN-backed negotiations in Bonn in the spring.
Speaking late last week, Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said that he had invited his counterparts from the Basic countries to attend a meeting in New Delhi from January 25-28.
The countries are expected to agree to put forward their existing plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions to be included in the annex to the Copenhagen Accord that features commitments from developing countries. These include a pledge from China to cut its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020, a similar commitment from India to cut its carbon intensity by 20 to 25 per cent by the same date, and promises from Brazil and South Africa to cut emissions by 36 per cent and 34 per cent respectively on business-as-usual levels by 2020.
Significantly, Ramesh told the Economic Times of India that they will also discuss how to convince other countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord. "The main challenge is that an agreement by 29 countries needs to be converted into one by 194 countries," he said.
During the final hours of the negotiations, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Sudan all opposed the agreement, and Cuba has already told the UN that it will not sign up to the accord. However, China has considerable close relations with each of the countries opposing the Accord and it could yet use its influence to encourage them to accept the agreement.
The Basic countries are also expected to agree their position ahead of the Bonn talks, where the UN organisers are hoping to deliver further progress on many of the details debated at the Copenhagen summit, including how to raise climate funding, enhance forest protection and independently verify emission reductions.
However, any negotiator hoping the Basic negotiators will adopt a more conciliatory tone after being widely criticised for scuppering any chance of a more ambitious deal being agreed in Copenhagen, is likely to be disappointed.
Speaking at an address to the Aspen Institute of India, Ramesh hailed the alliance between the Basic countries as a "watershed" moment that highlighted the growing influence of emerging economies in general and China in particular.
He hailed the commitment from industrialised countries to provide $100bn (£61bn) a year in climate funding without wringing significant concessions out of emerging powers as a significant victory, and signalled that the close links with China were set to continue.
His comments came as China's ambassador for climate change, Yu Qingtai, struck a similarly defiant tone, telling the Sydney Morning Herald that China would not be bullied by rich countries into accepting more-demanding emission targets
"During and before Copenhagen there was a concerted effort by a small group of developed countries who believed that by joining hands [they could] force us to go beyond what we are responsible for or capable of," Yu said. "But Copenhagen proved that those attempts will not be successful. In fact they should have known better. So what the developed countries need to learn from this whole process is to make up their minds whether they want to pursue confrontation or co-operation with China."
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 12 January 2010 11.02 GMT
Environment ministers from Brazil, South Africa, India and China are to meet in New Delhi later this month to co-ordinate their position ahead of the January 31 deadline for countries supporting the Copenhagen Accord to submit formal emission targets and climate change action plans.
The so-called Basic bloc of countries, which brokered the controversial draft version of the Copenhagen Accord with the US during the frantic final hours of last month's Copenhagen Summit, is seeking to cement its alliance ahead of the next round of UN-backed negotiations in Bonn in the spring.
Speaking late last week, Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said that he had invited his counterparts from the Basic countries to attend a meeting in New Delhi from January 25-28.
The countries are expected to agree to put forward their existing plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions to be included in the annex to the Copenhagen Accord that features commitments from developing countries. These include a pledge from China to cut its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020, a similar commitment from India to cut its carbon intensity by 20 to 25 per cent by the same date, and promises from Brazil and South Africa to cut emissions by 36 per cent and 34 per cent respectively on business-as-usual levels by 2020.
Significantly, Ramesh told the Economic Times of India that they will also discuss how to convince other countries to sign up to the Copenhagen accord. "The main challenge is that an agreement by 29 countries needs to be converted into one by 194 countries," he said.
During the final hours of the negotiations, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Sudan all opposed the agreement, and Cuba has already told the UN that it will not sign up to the accord. However, China has considerable close relations with each of the countries opposing the Accord and it could yet use its influence to encourage them to accept the agreement.
The Basic countries are also expected to agree their position ahead of the Bonn talks, where the UN organisers are hoping to deliver further progress on many of the details debated at the Copenhagen summit, including how to raise climate funding, enhance forest protection and independently verify emission reductions.
However, any negotiator hoping the Basic negotiators will adopt a more conciliatory tone after being widely criticised for scuppering any chance of a more ambitious deal being agreed in Copenhagen, is likely to be disappointed.
Speaking at an address to the Aspen Institute of India, Ramesh hailed the alliance between the Basic countries as a "watershed" moment that highlighted the growing influence of emerging economies in general and China in particular.
He hailed the commitment from industrialised countries to provide $100bn (£61bn) a year in climate funding without wringing significant concessions out of emerging powers as a significant victory, and signalled that the close links with China were set to continue.
His comments came as China's ambassador for climate change, Yu Qingtai, struck a similarly defiant tone, telling the Sydney Morning Herald that China would not be bullied by rich countries into accepting more-demanding emission targets
"During and before Copenhagen there was a concerted effort by a small group of developed countries who believed that by joining hands [they could] force us to go beyond what we are responsible for or capable of," Yu said. "But Copenhagen proved that those attempts will not be successful. In fact they should have known better. So what the developed countries need to learn from this whole process is to make up their minds whether they want to pursue confrontation or co-operation with China."
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
India to Boost Support for Solar Power
By SUNIL RAGHU
NEW DELHI -- India aims to install 20 million square meters of solar thermal panels and 20 million solar-powered lights as part of a plan to add 20 gigawatt of solar-based power generation capacity by 2022, the country's renewable energy minister said Monday.
"We propose to provide up to 90% support for setting up solar power plants," Farooq Abdullah said at the launch of the National Solar Mission.
"In many other solar applications, where the initial cost is still very high, we're considering proposals for providing up to a 30% grant in aid," he said.
Currently, about 10% of India's total installed generation capacity of 155.859 gigawatt is renewable-sources based. India plans to increase its renewable energy generation capacity in order to reduce its heavy dependence on coal and cut emissions.
Mr. Abdullah later told reporters that within next three years India plans to add 1,300 MW solar power, out of which 1,100 MW will be grid-connected and 200 MW will be off-grid.
"This is our first benchmark," he said. "If we achieve this, achieving the remaining target would not be impossible."
State-run power producer NTPC Ltd.'s power trading arm, NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., will purchase solar power at the rate fixed by power tariff regulator Central Electricity Regulatory Commission for the first three years, Abdullah said. He didn't say how much of the solar power generated will be purchased by NTPC unit.
NTPC's unit will bundle four units of thermal power with each unit of solar power to bring down the cost of power to around 5 rupees per unit or 5.5 rupees per unit. One unit is equal to one kilowatt hour.
The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission in September said power produced by solar photovoltaic plants could have a tariff of 18.80 rupees ($0.4) per kilowatt hour. The power produced by coal-fired plants located at the pit head site costs around 1.70 rupees per kilowatt hour while imported coal-based power costs up to 2.60 rupees per kilowatt hour.
Earlier Monday, in his speech on the launch of the National Solar Mission, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that the solar mission was "no doubt ambitious, but doable."
"In the mean time we may need to explore hybrid solutions combining solar power generation with gas, biomass or even coal-based power," he said.
Write to Sunil Raghu at Sunil.Raghu@dowjones.com
NEW DELHI -- India aims to install 20 million square meters of solar thermal panels and 20 million solar-powered lights as part of a plan to add 20 gigawatt of solar-based power generation capacity by 2022, the country's renewable energy minister said Monday.
"We propose to provide up to 90% support for setting up solar power plants," Farooq Abdullah said at the launch of the National Solar Mission.
"In many other solar applications, where the initial cost is still very high, we're considering proposals for providing up to a 30% grant in aid," he said.
Currently, about 10% of India's total installed generation capacity of 155.859 gigawatt is renewable-sources based. India plans to increase its renewable energy generation capacity in order to reduce its heavy dependence on coal and cut emissions.
Mr. Abdullah later told reporters that within next three years India plans to add 1,300 MW solar power, out of which 1,100 MW will be grid-connected and 200 MW will be off-grid.
"This is our first benchmark," he said. "If we achieve this, achieving the remaining target would not be impossible."
State-run power producer NTPC Ltd.'s power trading arm, NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., will purchase solar power at the rate fixed by power tariff regulator Central Electricity Regulatory Commission for the first three years, Abdullah said. He didn't say how much of the solar power generated will be purchased by NTPC unit.
NTPC's unit will bundle four units of thermal power with each unit of solar power to bring down the cost of power to around 5 rupees per unit or 5.5 rupees per unit. One unit is equal to one kilowatt hour.
The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission in September said power produced by solar photovoltaic plants could have a tariff of 18.80 rupees ($0.4) per kilowatt hour. The power produced by coal-fired plants located at the pit head site costs around 1.70 rupees per kilowatt hour while imported coal-based power costs up to 2.60 rupees per kilowatt hour.
Earlier Monday, in his speech on the launch of the National Solar Mission, India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that the solar mission was "no doubt ambitious, but doable."
"In the mean time we may need to explore hybrid solutions combining solar power generation with gas, biomass or even coal-based power," he said.
Write to Sunil Raghu at Sunil.Raghu@dowjones.com
Fusion breakthrough a magic bullet for energy crisis?
By Pat Pilcher
Monday, 11 January 2010
Sceptics and environmentalists may be locked into endless arguments around global warming, but there's little debate that an energy crisis looms large.
A Florida based research team, however, may have found a solution to the world's energy woes that could provide a clean and near limitless supply of energy in as little as a decade.
The Energy Crisis
Global energy production and consumption is a complex beast and many nations remain heavily reliant on a lethal mix of oil and coal, both of which are finite, and have huge impacts on the environment.
While there is much conjecture on just how long oil and coal reserves will last, the stark reality is that they will both eventually run out.
In the 1950s, many thought atomic energy would allow humanity to dodge the energy crisis, with newly nuclear fission reactors providing an affordable and near limitless supply of energy.
More recently however, incidents such as the Chernobyl meltdown, the growing pile of incredibly toxic nuclear waste and the spectre of rogue nations manufacturing weapons- grade plutonium have taken the shine off nuclear fission.
With the energy requirements of developed nations continuing to grow, and developing nations gaining a serious appetite for energy consumption, demand will soon outstrip supply, and many predict that massive economic and social impacts are probable.
The fusion magic bullet?
Thankfully, a new type of nuclear fusion energy generation technology holds the potential to provide a cheap and clean source of energy without toxic radioactive waste or the environmental impacts of oil or coal.
Unlike nuclear fission, where the nucleus of an atom is split to release energy, nuclear fusion uses the same process as our sun and works by fusing atoms together to release of large amounts of energy.
Nuclear fusion generates energy leaving little to nothing in the way of by-products, and uses fuels that are plentiful but far less dangerous than the uranium used with conventional nuclear fission reactors.
Whilst physicists have generated nuclear fusion reactions, doing has involved creating the earthbound equivalent of a small star, which in turn has required ultra-strong magnetic fields to contain superheated gases many times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Unfortunately, doing so has tended to consume almost as much energy as was being generated by the fusion reaction. Creating a nuclear fusion reactor that is commercially viable and able to output surplus energy beyond sustaining its own reaction was thought to be at least 20-30 years away.
Thanks to work being done by a group of physicists at the University of Florida, all things fusion related could however be set to change in as little as a decade.
Where conventional fission reactors use uranium which can be refined to make nuclear weapons, the University of Florida's concept uses hydrogen and an isotope of boron called Boron 11, both of which are abundant on earth and can't be used to make atomic weapons.
When fusion reactions occur in the heart of a star such as our sun, atoms are subject to intense heat and pressure which stops the atoms from repelling each other, allowing them to fuse.
To date, experimental fusion projects have largely been focused on generating intense heat so they can fuse, and containing the super hot gases from this reaction consumes most if not all of the energy being produced by the fusion reaction.
The University of Florida have taken a different tack, by putting hydrogen and boron fuel into an accelerator that fires them towards each other at incredibly high velocities. When the hydrogen and boron 11 atoms smash into each other, they fuse, producing fast moving helium nuclei whose motion is converted into electricity.
This new process is clean, highly efficient and most important of all, simple. The output of the new reactor is electricity with its by-product being the same helium gas used to make voices squeaky and party balloons float, so there's no toxic radioactive waste to dispose of.
Initial calculations also show that this new type of fusion generation could produce clean electricity at similar levels but far more cheaply than oil or coal.
Because the reactor also operates using relatively simple engineering principles (especially compared to the current crop of fusion reactors), commercialising it is likely to involve significantly shorter time-frames than other fusion technologies.
Although technology is still however very experimental and has yet to be fully proven, a feasibility study into this new fusion process has been kicked off, and if it is found to be viable, it could become commercially available in as little as a decade, here's hoping.
Source: NZ Herald
Monday, 11 January 2010
Sceptics and environmentalists may be locked into endless arguments around global warming, but there's little debate that an energy crisis looms large.
A Florida based research team, however, may have found a solution to the world's energy woes that could provide a clean and near limitless supply of energy in as little as a decade.
The Energy Crisis
Global energy production and consumption is a complex beast and many nations remain heavily reliant on a lethal mix of oil and coal, both of which are finite, and have huge impacts on the environment.
While there is much conjecture on just how long oil and coal reserves will last, the stark reality is that they will both eventually run out.
In the 1950s, many thought atomic energy would allow humanity to dodge the energy crisis, with newly nuclear fission reactors providing an affordable and near limitless supply of energy.
More recently however, incidents such as the Chernobyl meltdown, the growing pile of incredibly toxic nuclear waste and the spectre of rogue nations manufacturing weapons- grade plutonium have taken the shine off nuclear fission.
With the energy requirements of developed nations continuing to grow, and developing nations gaining a serious appetite for energy consumption, demand will soon outstrip supply, and many predict that massive economic and social impacts are probable.
The fusion magic bullet?
Thankfully, a new type of nuclear fusion energy generation technology holds the potential to provide a cheap and clean source of energy without toxic radioactive waste or the environmental impacts of oil or coal.
Unlike nuclear fission, where the nucleus of an atom is split to release energy, nuclear fusion uses the same process as our sun and works by fusing atoms together to release of large amounts of energy.
Nuclear fusion generates energy leaving little to nothing in the way of by-products, and uses fuels that are plentiful but far less dangerous than the uranium used with conventional nuclear fission reactors.
Whilst physicists have generated nuclear fusion reactions, doing has involved creating the earthbound equivalent of a small star, which in turn has required ultra-strong magnetic fields to contain superheated gases many times hotter than the surface of the sun.
Unfortunately, doing so has tended to consume almost as much energy as was being generated by the fusion reaction. Creating a nuclear fusion reactor that is commercially viable and able to output surplus energy beyond sustaining its own reaction was thought to be at least 20-30 years away.
Thanks to work being done by a group of physicists at the University of Florida, all things fusion related could however be set to change in as little as a decade.
Where conventional fission reactors use uranium which can be refined to make nuclear weapons, the University of Florida's concept uses hydrogen and an isotope of boron called Boron 11, both of which are abundant on earth and can't be used to make atomic weapons.
When fusion reactions occur in the heart of a star such as our sun, atoms are subject to intense heat and pressure which stops the atoms from repelling each other, allowing them to fuse.
To date, experimental fusion projects have largely been focused on generating intense heat so they can fuse, and containing the super hot gases from this reaction consumes most if not all of the energy being produced by the fusion reaction.
The University of Florida have taken a different tack, by putting hydrogen and boron fuel into an accelerator that fires them towards each other at incredibly high velocities. When the hydrogen and boron 11 atoms smash into each other, they fuse, producing fast moving helium nuclei whose motion is converted into electricity.
This new process is clean, highly efficient and most important of all, simple. The output of the new reactor is electricity with its by-product being the same helium gas used to make voices squeaky and party balloons float, so there's no toxic radioactive waste to dispose of.
Initial calculations also show that this new type of fusion generation could produce clean electricity at similar levels but far more cheaply than oil or coal.
Because the reactor also operates using relatively simple engineering principles (especially compared to the current crop of fusion reactors), commercialising it is likely to involve significantly shorter time-frames than other fusion technologies.
Although technology is still however very experimental and has yet to be fully proven, a feasibility study into this new fusion process has been kicked off, and if it is found to be viable, it could become commercially available in as little as a decade, here's hoping.
Source: NZ Herald
Petrol engines will rule for at least another decade - top GM executive
The car industry may be all atwitter with talk of plug-in cars and hybrid engines. But there was a cold, hard assessment on the ongoing dominance of petrol today from Bob Lutz, the veteran vice-chairman for product design at General Motors.
Lutz, a top lieutenant to GM's chairman Ed Whitacre, predicted that more than 90% of the automotive industry's sales will continue to be petrol-driven vehicles for at least another decade - because the vast majority of motorists simply will not pay extra for the more expensive technology of eco-friendly cars.
"For the next ten years or so, we're going to be heavily dependant on the internal combustion engine," Lutz told a group of reporters, including The Guardian, at the Detroit motor show. "It's going to be years and years before [alternatively powered vehicles] even make up 10% of the US market."
Unless the cost of fuel at the pump rockets, Lutz said the cost of cars such as GM's own widely hyped Chevrolet Volt, which can generate its own electricity on the go, are simply going to be too high to snatch significant market share.
The problem, he argues, is straightforward economics - parts and components for electric vehicles are not being manufactured in sufficient volumes to make them competitive. If a manufacturer set out today to invent the internal combustion engine, Lutz said petrol-powered cars would initally cost "$200,000 each" because of a lack of large-scale factories to make, say, piston shafts.
"Other than the 5% of the public who will willingly make a sacrifice to buy green vehicles, the other 95% will ask 'what am I getting? What's the deal?'" said Lutz. "They're not going to spend an extra $5,000 to $6,000 on technology they don't need and don't particularly care about."
A 77-year-old industry authority who was a top figure at Chrysler during the 1990s, Lutz has never been one to hide his opinions - two years ago, he caused a raising of collective eyebrows by describing global warming as "a total crock of shit".
His views have since mellowed slightly - and curiously, he has some sympathy for a graduated tax on petrol to encourage the shift towards greener motoring. Although he stopped short of endorsing such a policy, he said a government commitment to increase fuel tax by, say, 25 cents per gallon annually, would create visibility both for consumers and carmakers.
"It would have the benefit of giving automobile companies a planning base and of giving families who own a vehicle a planning base," said Lutz, suggesting that carbuying couples might say "look, sweetheart, we'd better go one size down because we know what fuel prices are going to do".
That's a considerably more radical suggestion than the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is willing to countenance. Visiting the Detroit show, Pelosi waxed lyrical about using "the soil, the wind and the sun" as fuel, adding that green technology was "a moral issue if you believe, as we do, that this planet is God's creation".
But when asked about the possibility of raising petrol taxes, she was blunt: "There certainly is an advocacy for such a position. But it certainly doesn't have a majority in the United States Congress at this time."
Incidentally, there are those who feel that America's leading carmakers were short-sighted in the run-up to the global economic crisis in concentrating too hard on gas-guzzling trucks and sports utility vehicles, rather than moving faster towards smaller vehicles. Lutz, who is the top four executives at America's biggest carmaker, isn't having anything of it, pointing out that nobody anticipated the volatility of fuel prices over the past two years - and that the gestation period of a new model of car is at least 36 months.
"People say 'those dumb Detroit companies just didn't get it - they just kept building trucks as oil prices rose'," said Lutz. "Some of your colleagues think designing and producing new cars is like putting the evening's edition together and then printing it the next day."
Lutz, a top lieutenant to GM's chairman Ed Whitacre, predicted that more than 90% of the automotive industry's sales will continue to be petrol-driven vehicles for at least another decade - because the vast majority of motorists simply will not pay extra for the more expensive technology of eco-friendly cars.
"For the next ten years or so, we're going to be heavily dependant on the internal combustion engine," Lutz told a group of reporters, including The Guardian, at the Detroit motor show. "It's going to be years and years before [alternatively powered vehicles] even make up 10% of the US market."
Unless the cost of fuel at the pump rockets, Lutz said the cost of cars such as GM's own widely hyped Chevrolet Volt, which can generate its own electricity on the go, are simply going to be too high to snatch significant market share.
The problem, he argues, is straightforward economics - parts and components for electric vehicles are not being manufactured in sufficient volumes to make them competitive. If a manufacturer set out today to invent the internal combustion engine, Lutz said petrol-powered cars would initally cost "$200,000 each" because of a lack of large-scale factories to make, say, piston shafts.
"Other than the 5% of the public who will willingly make a sacrifice to buy green vehicles, the other 95% will ask 'what am I getting? What's the deal?'" said Lutz. "They're not going to spend an extra $5,000 to $6,000 on technology they don't need and don't particularly care about."
A 77-year-old industry authority who was a top figure at Chrysler during the 1990s, Lutz has never been one to hide his opinions - two years ago, he caused a raising of collective eyebrows by describing global warming as "a total crock of shit".
His views have since mellowed slightly - and curiously, he has some sympathy for a graduated tax on petrol to encourage the shift towards greener motoring. Although he stopped short of endorsing such a policy, he said a government commitment to increase fuel tax by, say, 25 cents per gallon annually, would create visibility both for consumers and carmakers.
"It would have the benefit of giving automobile companies a planning base and of giving families who own a vehicle a planning base," said Lutz, suggesting that carbuying couples might say "look, sweetheart, we'd better go one size down because we know what fuel prices are going to do".
That's a considerably more radical suggestion than the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is willing to countenance. Visiting the Detroit show, Pelosi waxed lyrical about using "the soil, the wind and the sun" as fuel, adding that green technology was "a moral issue if you believe, as we do, that this planet is God's creation".
But when asked about the possibility of raising petrol taxes, she was blunt: "There certainly is an advocacy for such a position. But it certainly doesn't have a majority in the United States Congress at this time."
Incidentally, there are those who feel that America's leading carmakers were short-sighted in the run-up to the global economic crisis in concentrating too hard on gas-guzzling trucks and sports utility vehicles, rather than moving faster towards smaller vehicles. Lutz, who is the top four executives at America's biggest carmaker, isn't having anything of it, pointing out that nobody anticipated the volatility of fuel prices over the past two years - and that the gestation period of a new model of car is at least 36 months.
"People say 'those dumb Detroit companies just didn't get it - they just kept building trucks as oil prices rose'," said Lutz. "Some of your colleagues think designing and producing new cars is like putting the evening's edition together and then printing it the next day."
Sweeep frustrated in efforts to get loans
An award winning recycling company that wants to recover valuable metals from old TV screens by investing in new processing technology has been frustrated by the reluctance of its bank to lend it any more money .
By Richard TylerPublished: 12:01AM GMT 12 Jan 2010
Sweeep, based in Sittingbourne, Kent, has recycled 20,000 tonnes of electronic and electrical waste that can no longer be sent to landfill and had planned to expand to take advantage of the piles of old TV sets piling up across the UK to extract valuable lead, copper, steel, aluminium and precious metals from circuits boards.
But attempts to secure the £1.5m it needs to buy the innovative British-made waste treatment equipment stalled when its bank, Barclays, baulked at extending further credit lines to the profitable company, which made sales of £5m last year and has £2m of outstanding borrowings.
Pam Watts, who founded the business with her husband Patrick, a former professional touring car driver, in 1997, said: “We buy very expensive, innovative and complicated machinery that’s at the forefront of the recycling sector. We employ it to create a profit and as soon as it’s established Patrick is on to the next project that will require more investment. For the recycling sector to move forward it needs support from banks that trust us to get on with the job.”
She added: “We are now relying on a 25 year old partnership with Barclays which has been pretty exemplary and we are hoping that will be taken into account.”
Sweeep have been finalists in Barclays’ own green business awards and have been endorsed by Tory leader David Cameron, who visited their recycling facility in 2008.
Mrs Watts said they began talking to their bank manager early last year but the application was only submitted in November. Barclays said it would be considered by its asset finance arm, but this may now switch to its team that considers Government-backed Enterprise Finance Guarantee loan applications.
Mrs Watts said: “[Lord] Mandelson is telling the public both the government and banks are supporting industry and small businesses financially and Britain is fully behind the green revolution and reducing carbon emission. Sweeep ticks almost every box in all of this.
“We are offering innovation and a new project to reduce landfill and recover lead from hazardous old style TV glass. We have a proven track record, years of experience, no hidden failures in the past, a profitable business, can demonstrate our ability to service debt comfortably, employ over 100 unskilled workers and have the confidence to offer our banks personal guarantees. Yet somehow getting hold of this financial support is like catching mist.”
Barclays said it was “exploring all possible options” to help finance the company. A spokesperson said: “Sweeep is a valued client and quality business, with a strong track record and excellent prospects for growth. However, the business has already borrowed very heavily, and has utilised virtually all of its available security for this borrowing.
“Therefore we need to be innovative in how we approach new lending; with high borrowing comes high risk, for us and for the business. We are currently working through options with Sweeep including asset based lending and an Enterprise Finance Guarantee loan to try and find a way forward.
“In cases such as this, where taking on more debt is becoming increasingly risky for the size of the business, many clients we work with will instead seek out new, long term investment, as it spreads the risk and takes the focus away from servicing loans.”
By Richard TylerPublished: 12:01AM GMT 12 Jan 2010
Sweeep, based in Sittingbourne, Kent, has recycled 20,000 tonnes of electronic and electrical waste that can no longer be sent to landfill and had planned to expand to take advantage of the piles of old TV sets piling up across the UK to extract valuable lead, copper, steel, aluminium and precious metals from circuits boards.
But attempts to secure the £1.5m it needs to buy the innovative British-made waste treatment equipment stalled when its bank, Barclays, baulked at extending further credit lines to the profitable company, which made sales of £5m last year and has £2m of outstanding borrowings.
Pam Watts, who founded the business with her husband Patrick, a former professional touring car driver, in 1997, said: “We buy very expensive, innovative and complicated machinery that’s at the forefront of the recycling sector. We employ it to create a profit and as soon as it’s established Patrick is on to the next project that will require more investment. For the recycling sector to move forward it needs support from banks that trust us to get on with the job.”
She added: “We are now relying on a 25 year old partnership with Barclays which has been pretty exemplary and we are hoping that will be taken into account.”
Sweeep have been finalists in Barclays’ own green business awards and have been endorsed by Tory leader David Cameron, who visited their recycling facility in 2008.
Mrs Watts said they began talking to their bank manager early last year but the application was only submitted in November. Barclays said it would be considered by its asset finance arm, but this may now switch to its team that considers Government-backed Enterprise Finance Guarantee loan applications.
Mrs Watts said: “[Lord] Mandelson is telling the public both the government and banks are supporting industry and small businesses financially and Britain is fully behind the green revolution and reducing carbon emission. Sweeep ticks almost every box in all of this.
“We are offering innovation and a new project to reduce landfill and recover lead from hazardous old style TV glass. We have a proven track record, years of experience, no hidden failures in the past, a profitable business, can demonstrate our ability to service debt comfortably, employ over 100 unskilled workers and have the confidence to offer our banks personal guarantees. Yet somehow getting hold of this financial support is like catching mist.”
Barclays said it was “exploring all possible options” to help finance the company. A spokesperson said: “Sweeep is a valued client and quality business, with a strong track record and excellent prospects for growth. However, the business has already borrowed very heavily, and has utilised virtually all of its available security for this borrowing.
“Therefore we need to be innovative in how we approach new lending; with high borrowing comes high risk, for us and for the business. We are currently working through options with Sweeep including asset based lending and an Enterprise Finance Guarantee loan to try and find a way forward.
“In cases such as this, where taking on more debt is becoming increasingly risky for the size of the business, many clients we work with will instead seek out new, long term investment, as it spreads the risk and takes the focus away from servicing loans.”
Electric Cars' Range Is Expected to Vary
Robert Lutz, General Motors Co.'s vice chairman, said Monday that the first buyers of electric vehicles may be unpleasantly surprised by how quickly the batteries run down during certain driving conditions.
GM plans to launch its battery-powered Chevrolet Volt in California later this year, and said Monday that Michigan would be the second launch state in 2010. The auto maker has promised the car will travel 40 miles on battery power alone, and then draw from a gasoline engine to keep the vehicle going once the charge has been spent.
Mr. Lutz said he drove one of the early vehicles for a weekend recently and found that, during a Michigan winter, the battery's range was only 28 miles.
Weather, driving conditions and drivers' behavior can cause the battery range to vary far more than mileage on a traditional vehicle.
GM is banking on the Volt to help create a green image similar to Toyota Motor Corp.'s success with its Prius hybrid. —Sharon Terlep
GM plans to launch its battery-powered Chevrolet Volt in California later this year, and said Monday that Michigan would be the second launch state in 2010. The auto maker has promised the car will travel 40 miles on battery power alone, and then draw from a gasoline engine to keep the vehicle going once the charge has been spent.
Mr. Lutz said he drove one of the early vehicles for a weekend recently and found that, during a Michigan winter, the battery's range was only 28 miles.
Weather, driving conditions and drivers' behavior can cause the battery range to vary far more than mileage on a traditional vehicle.
GM is banking on the Volt to help create a green image similar to Toyota Motor Corp.'s success with its Prius hybrid. —Sharon Terlep
PV Crystalox - Solar stock
Solar power stocks risk getting short shrift on grey, near-zero-degree days in January. So it proved with PV Crystalox Solar, the Oxfordshire-based maker of silicon wafers used to produce solar cells. Shares in the mid-cap company — one of the London stock market’s dozen worst performers in 2009 — failed to budge, despite a year-end trading update that showed shipments over the past four months modestly better than forecast.
Ironically, the improvement in sales — largely in Germany and Japan — can be credited to the phenomenon that has brought the company’s shares so low: the collapse in solar cell prices. With prices down 45 per cent last year (amid static demand and increased Chinese supply), the economics of solar generation have become much more favourable — closer to the point of “grid parity”, where the cost of consumers producing their own power from roof-top panels is the same as buying it in from the grid.
PV Crystalox’s immediate appeal is that, fuelled by government initiatives to meet long-term renewable energy targets, solar installations in Europe are forecast to rise strongly in 2010: to 10.8 GW from 6.8 GW in 2009 on usually reliable industry estimates. The concern is whether solar prices will get any worse.
However, PV Crystalox remained profitable even at last year’s depressed prices (a forecast £40 million at the pre-tax level), sits on £56 million of net cash, has a strong customer base and, through a new manufacturing plant in Germany, is less reliant on buying silicon from elsewhere. Those strengths suggest that the low rating of shares — about nine times 2010 earnings — owes more to the lack of a London-listed peer group than its medium-term prospects.
At 68¼p, buy.
Ironically, the improvement in sales — largely in Germany and Japan — can be credited to the phenomenon that has brought the company’s shares so low: the collapse in solar cell prices. With prices down 45 per cent last year (amid static demand and increased Chinese supply), the economics of solar generation have become much more favourable — closer to the point of “grid parity”, where the cost of consumers producing their own power from roof-top panels is the same as buying it in from the grid.
PV Crystalox’s immediate appeal is that, fuelled by government initiatives to meet long-term renewable energy targets, solar installations in Europe are forecast to rise strongly in 2010: to 10.8 GW from 6.8 GW in 2009 on usually reliable industry estimates. The concern is whether solar prices will get any worse.
However, PV Crystalox remained profitable even at last year’s depressed prices (a forecast £40 million at the pre-tax level), sits on £56 million of net cash, has a strong customer base and, through a new manufacturing plant in Germany, is less reliant on buying silicon from elsewhere. Those strengths suggest that the low rating of shares — about nine times 2010 earnings — owes more to the lack of a London-listed peer group than its medium-term prospects.
At 68¼p, buy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
