Category Archives: Thoughts

In parallel to developing and implementing new technologies, we have to develop the nation’s infrastructure for solar installation training

DOE also announced plans to offer up to $27 million to develop the nation’s infrastructure for solar installation training. DOE will fund this effort using $5 million from the Recovery Act, as well as $22 million in annual appropriations. The funds will go to a single national organization that will facilitate the development and distribution of model training curricula, best practices in training, and information on solar career pathways. A select number of regional training centers that also receive funding to offer solar instructors advanced courses on solar technologies, instructional design, and course development. The funds will help create green jobs by ensuring that a trained workforce is ready to support significant growth in solar energy.

source: DOE

“We need to recognize that if we aren’t careful, we may spend the next few years chasing China to do more, but then spend all the years after that chasing them”

Todd Stern

The top climate change envoy for President Barack Obama warned, before heading to Beijing for talks with his Chinese counterparts this week that the US could fall behind China.

The US team is pressing China to do more in terms of slowing the growth in emissions. They are right. Regardless of the massive “new energy” investment, the country will remain dependent on coal and pump out more greenhouse gas than other nations for decades to come. True to its ability to produce superlatives and contradictions, China is likely to be both a black and a green superpower at the same time.

But the new energy plans may change the perceptions and parameters of the climate debate. While a proper assesment must wait until the details are released, the stimulus package ought to force Europe and the US to be more ambitious. The world might finally start to see a race to the top rather than the bottom.

Source:  The Guardian.

Who is next in line for buyout? Solel? Solar Millennium? Turning point for solar thermal project developers in Spain & Israel – sink or swim -

THIS BLOG URGED Solel – already more than 1.5 years ago – to concentrate on enhancing its products, stick to its competition with Schott and becoming the leading trough technology provider, instead of trying to become project developers…. We also indicated that they does not have the long term commercial potential.

In Jan 2008 – following securing 105MUSD investment from ECOFIN  we wrote – “without a second significant round of investment and a strategic partner with track record of building power plants – Solel’s management should suffer from broken sleep….”

Unfortunately, it seems that we were right. Solel, (as Solar Millennium) are probably facing huge financing problems in Spain, partly due to revised capital required for getting permits to operate solar power plants. It seems that if you believe in Solar technologies and you have 120 to 150M€ to invest (ballpark figure) – talk to Solel and/or Solar Millennium….

[If you have only 5 to 15M€ we'll tip you later… hint: higher temperatures....]

 Solel has good technology & knowhow….. it did not rest on Luz’s laurels, and enhanced the performance of their linear receivers,  but needs to take the right decisions… the right business model…. and lead the way as a leading  solar technology provider. (Sell your potential projects and concentrate on technology & products. It’s a tall order, but will bear fruit!).

Candidates for the Board of the First multi-national Task Force for 100% Renewable Energy?

 www.OilAway.org,

The Board will be established at the Energy Summit in 2010: http://www.energysummit2010.com/

  [The Apollo/Manhattan Clean Energy project was first announced by Amnon Samid at the Eilot International Renewable Energy Conference in Feb 2009] 

Martin Hoffert‏
Department of Physics, New York University
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution / Stanford University
John Katzenberger
Aspen Global Change Institute
David Archer
Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
Maurice Averner
Ames Research Center, NASA
Scott Barrett
School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Gregory Benford
Department of Physics, University of California, Irvine
Baruch Blumberg (Nobel laureate)
Fox Chase Cancer Center / University of Pennsylvania
Paul Crutzen (Nobel laureate)
University of California (San Diego) / Max Planck Institute for Chemistry
William Fulkerson
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment, University of Tennessee
Christopher Green
Department of Economics, McGill University
Susan Hassol
Climate Communication
Eric Hoffert
Versatility Inc.
Thomas Homer-Dixon
Trudeau Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Feng Hsu
Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA
Mark Jacobson
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University
David Keith
Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy, University of Calgary
Geoffrey Landis
Glenn Research Center, NASA
Jane C. S. Long
hydrogeologist and geotechnical engineer
Michael MacCracken
Climate Institute, Washington, DC
John C. Mankins
Sunsat Energy Council / Managed Energy Technologies
Michael E. Mann
Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University
Gregg Marland
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Mark Nelson
Institute of Ecotechnics, Santa Fe, NM
Darel Preble
Space Solar Power Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology
Gregory H. Rau
Institute of Marine Sciences, University of California, Santa Cruz
Steve Rayner
Said Business School, Oxford, UK
Kim Stanley Robinson
Author, “Forty Signs of Rain”
Gregory Dennis Sachs
Alternative Power Program, US Merchant Marine Academy
Thomas Schelling (Nobel laureate)
Department of Economics, University of Maryland
Michael Schlesinger
Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Steven E. Schwartz
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Department of Energy
John Turner
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Department of Energy
Tyler Volk
Department of Biology, New York University
Tom M. L. Wigley
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Steven C. Wofsy
School of Engineering and Applied Science / Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Harvard University
Lowell Wood
Hoover Institution / Stanford University

Dear ______,

Dear Member of Congress,

We the undersigned urge you to accelerate our transition to a clean energy economy with the ambition of an Apollo or Manhattan program, by dramatically increasing America’s investment in innovative new energy technologies and systems.

A wide range of policies aimed at increasing conservation, efficiency, and reducing emissions is vital, but carbon prices and regulations alone will not create new, clean and affordable energy systems soon enough or at the scale needed.

America should be ramping up to invest a minimum of $30 billion per year to develop, demonstrate, and stimulate the commercialization of a range of technologies and approaches that can provide affordable carbon-neutral energy and use that energy more wisely. This is less than half of what America already invests in military research and development.

The United States is in a unique position to take the lead in this research and development effort, but we must work with others. The world, including China, India and other developing nations, needs affordable clean technologies now to avoid the lock-in of massive carbon emissions from conventional coal plants.

Energy sources available today cannot provide enough power to drive economic growth without damaging our climate system. We cannot predict with confidence which energy technologies will win in a future marketplace. For this reason, we need a diverse and strategically selected portfolio of investments. Potential solutions need to be explored and tested with hardware. Because the taxpayer dollar should be invested wisely, a relatively open process should be established that will select and support research and development projects based on technical merits.

Public investment in clean energy will more than pay for itself, just as did the U.S. government investment in computer science and aerospace during the 1950s and ’60s. Much of our economic growth since World War II resulted from technological developments that were accelerated and incubated by public investment – the Internet being only one example. Particularly critical are technologies that can be commercialized in five to twenty-five years — too long for venture capital, too short for basic research. Private firms are not making — and cannot be expected to make – the necessary level of long-term investments in energy and energy infrastructure research and development.

The major problems confronting the nation and world require clean, secure, and affordable energy.

Sustained public investment now in a diverse portfolio of energy technologies will reduce climate risk, increase energy security, revitalize education, enhance our competitiveness, and strengthen the American economy.

Sincerely*,

 

India-EU Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement as part of the European Commission’s Seventh Framework of Research

The 2009 India-EU Call on Solar Energy System to be announced in July 2009 will facilitate India-EU Project mode partnerships with a view to:

  • Catalyzing emergence of solar power as an economically viable, commercially attractive, environment friendly and sustainable energy option;
  • Advancing the transition to clean energy technologies (such conversion of solar radiation into electricity using ST,CSP/SPV) ) that are sustainable, affordable, add to energy security and have no adverse impact on climate;
  • Building institutional tie-ups with EU partners to incubate feasibility of and/or scaling up of research, pilot scale production and creation of new knowledge with output in the form of joint patents and co-authored publications;
  • Achieving cost reduction , higher efficiency & reliability of solar photovoltaic devices and systems;
  • Improving design, fabrication and demonstration of innovative solar thermal power generating technology

Looking for partners…. eu@ags-tech.com

Moving U.S. from carbon energy to clean power

Michael Honda,Amy Smart

 The American Clean Energy and Security Act begins to lay the groundwork for a future powered by the wind and sun. America needs this bill to maximize job creation, invest in the skills of our workers and the long-term economic prosperity of our country, and significantly reduce the pollution that has been caused by fossil fuel industries for decades.

University of Massachusetts economists estimate that investing $100 billion in clean energy and green infrastructure over two years would generate 235,198 jobs here in California. Between the $80 billion in the president’s economic recovery plan and funding in his budget, we’re on track to do even more.

To deliver on the promise that clean energy holds to transform our economy, the House of Representatives should strengthen the act in these ways:

– Increase the clean energy standards to 30 percent by 2020, combine renewable energy and energy efficiency to deliver more clean energy jobs to the U.S. economy more quickly.

– Restore authority to the EPA to regulate carbon emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act.

– Reduce incentives to polluting industries to supplement programs that create green jobs and train workers to fill them.

There may be efforts to roll back the target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. The bill’s science-based standards aim to reduce U.S. global warming pollution by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and achieve an additional 10 percent reduction through agreements to prevent tropical deforestation, for a total reduction of 27 percent by 2020. By 2050, the bill would reduce emissions by 83 percent. We are urging Congress to oppose any effort to weaken the pollution reduction targets.

Congress needs to hear from people who are ready to repower America – to move away from the polluting energy sources of the past and toward the clean energy technologies of the future.

Rep. Michael Honda, D-San Jose, is a member of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. Actress Amy Smart serves on the boards of the Environmental Media Association and Heal the Bay.

This article appeared on page H – 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

The price of oil has leapt to nearly $69 a barrel. Another spike may be on the way

The Economist
RISING oil prices, believes Ali al-Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, may soon “take the wheels off an already derailed world economy”. On the face of things, this concern is absurd. The plunge of $115 in the price of oil from its peak last July to its nadir in December was the most precipitous the world has ever seen. Demand for oil is still falling, as the world economy atrophies. Rumours abound of traders hiring tankers to store their excess oil. Rich countries’ stocks cover 62 days’ consumption, the most since 1993 . The average over the past five years has been 52 days’ worth.

Nor are oil firms pumping nearly as much as they could. OPEC has announced three separate rounds of production cuts since September in a bid to steady prices. In all, it has vowed to trim its output by 4.2m barrels a day (b/d). That leaves them with as much as 6m b/d of spare capacity. Despite this growing glut, however, the price of oil has been rising steadily in recent weeks . On Wednesday May 20th it closed above $60 a barrel for the first time in more than six months. That marks an increase of more than 75% since February. The price of futures contracts suggests that energy traders see the price rising higher still in the coming months and years. (During the day on Friday it appeared to be nearing $62 a barrel.)

The explanation is simple. Oilmen are worried because they believe that many of the factors behind the record-breaking ascent last year remain in place. Much of the world’s “easy” oil has already been extracted, or is in the hands of nationalist governments that will not allow foreigners to exploit it. That leaves firms to hunt for new reserves in ever more inhospitable and inaccessible places, such as the deep waters off Africa or the frozen oceans of the Arctic. Such fields take a long time and a lot of expensive technology to develop. Worse, new discoveries tend to be smaller than in the past and to run dry faster.

So oil firms must work doubly hard to replace declining fields and to increase output. Yet the oil industry is short of equipment and manpower, thanks to underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s, when prices were low. As soon as the world economy starts growing again, the theory runs, demand for oil will once again outstrip the industry’s ability to supply it. In other words, the global recession has only interrupted the “supercycle” of which many analysts used to speak, during which the normal boom-and-bust cycle of oil and other commodities would give way to a protracted period of high prices, as ever-growing demand from emerging markets swallowed everything the extractive industries could produce.

Oil bosses, OPEC ministers and anxious bankers all agree on what is needed to prevent this scenario becoming reality: lavish investment in the development of new fields and in exploration. Yet the reverse is happening. The oil industry is cutting its spending, bringing fewer new fields into production and exploring less. The International Energy Agency reckons that overall investment will drop by 15-20% this year.

In theory, this should not be happening. Big Western oil firms (“majors” in the industry jargon) claim that they continue to invest steadily throughout the cycle, irrespective of gyrations in price. Big fields, they argue, can take a decade or more to develop, and may then produce oil or gas for several decades more. The price of oil at the time the investment is approved is irrelevant; the important thing is to make sure projects will be profitable across a range of possible future prices. If anything, given that most oilmen expect prices to rise in the medium term, you would expect them to be increasing their investment, to capitalise on the good times to come. Nonetheless, the extreme volatility of prices over the past year must have made big firms more cautious about future investments.

Then there are the state-owned firms in oil-soaked countries. These companies control the overwhelming majority of the world’s oil. The better managed and funded of them plan to continue investing despite the downturn. Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil producer, recently completed a five-year scheme to expand its production capacity from 10m b/d to 12.5m b/d, at a cost of $70 billion. But in Russia, the world’s second-biggest oil producer, output is falling largely because private capital has been scared off by a series of expropriations, while the state starves the firms it controls of sufficient cash for investment. And most oil-rich states, naturally enough, are happy to see the price rise. Many have become used to bumper revenues in recent years and have struggled to balance their budgets since the price slumped last year.

Falling costs within the industry will offset the impact of falling investment budgets to some extent. BP argues its slight cut in investment does not really represent a reduction, thanks to deflation. Yet many constraints on expansion remain. For one thing, the world still does not have as many experienced petroleum engineers and geologists as it needs, says Iain Manson of Korn/Ferry, a recruiting firm. He expects it to take a decade or more to overcome the shortage. Meanwhile, he says, wages in the oil industry are not falling by nearly as much as other costs.

Worse, there is little sign that governments are willing to grant oil companies easier access to the most promising territory for exploration. Iraq’s plans to sign big new contracts with foreign firms are years behind schedule, as is its new oil law. American sanctions continue to impede investment in Iran. The Nigerian government has been unable to quell the insurgency in the Niger delta, making it difficult for oil firms to operate there. Even in America, despite years of debate, most coastal waters and much of Alaska remain off-limits to drilling.

So when demand begins to revive, a sharp rise in prices is inevitable. That does not mean that a price spike is just around the corner, however. The speed with which it arrives will depend on the strength of the global recovery. For the moment, global consumption of oil continues to fall, despite the slight brightening of the economic outlook. At the recent OPEC powwow Mr al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, argued that a low oil price always sowed the seeds of a future price rise, since it led to underinvestment. The only question this time is how quickly the strain will emerge.

Join the The PeakOilWhen Initiative http://www.peakoilwhen.org/

Residential and commercial photovoltaic projects will continue to be important stimulants for job creation and small business growth, but they will be complemented by large-scale photovoltaic and concentrating solar power projects

Mike Taylor, director of research and education at The Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA).

“The variety of ways solar power is being implemented signals an increased maturity in the market…”We are working with many creative companies to find utility business models that provide solid financial returns, increased renewable energy adoption and customer benefits”.

http://downloads.pennnet.com/sepa/sepa.pdf

start now a global priority shift

Taking over GM is an ultimate opportunity to start a global priority shift and developing, designing and building clean energy technologies and infrastructure. A GLOBAL PRIORITY SHIFT is a MUST. GM could survive and even prosper and we all gain from getting clean energy in place. Join the www.OilAway.org

.

Concentrated solar power could meet up to 7 percent of the world’s power needs by 2030 and fully one quarter by 2050

Concentrated solar power could meet up to 7 percent of the world’s power needs by 2030 and fully one quarter by 2050.

The 3rd joint report from Greenpeace International, the European Solar Thermal Electricity Association (ESTELA) and IEA SolarPACES since 2003. With every edition we have increased the projected market volume significantly, and it finally turned over a billion dollars in 2008, this amount could double in 2009. While we highlighted in our first joint report the huge market potential, we were able to move to another message in 2005 when we launched the second report in Egypt: “CSP is ready for take off!”.

We now are delighted to say “CSP has taken off”, is about to step out of the shadow of other renewable technologies and can establish itself as the third biggest player in the sustainable power generation industry. CSP does not compete against other renewable energies; it is an additional one that is now economically viable.

Fighting climate change is paramount as such it is essential that the power generation sector becomes virtually CO2 free as soon as possible. Greenpeace and the European Renewable Industry Council developed a joint global vision – the Energy [R]evolution scenario – which provides a practical blueprint for rapidly cutting energy-related CO2 emissions in order to help ensure that greenhouse gas emissions peak and then fall by 2015. This can be achieved while ensuring economies in China, India and other developing nations have access to the energy that they need in order to develop. CSP plays an important role in this concept.

The Global CSP Outlook 2009 goes actually one step further. While the moderate CSP market scenario is in line with the Energy [R]evolution scenario, the advanced scenario shows that this technology has even more to offer. Globally, the CSP industry could employ as many as 2 million people by 2050 who will help save the climate and produce up to one quarter of the world’s electricity. This is a truly inspiring vision. Especially as this technology has developed it’s very own striking beauty – the stunning pictures in this report show that saving the climate look spectacular.