Renewable energy is big, big, big: Josh just wrote about the world’s largest wind farm possibly going up in South Dakota (yahoo!), California could see the world’s largest solar power plant, and now Singapore is in the foray with landing the largest solar manufacturing facility the world’s ever seen.

A Norwegian company called Renewable Energy Corporation (REC) will build the complex, which will be completed in different stages to incorporate wafer, cell, and module production. REC already operates the world’s current largest solar plant in Norway, which produces about 650 megawatts of energy annually.

A solar manufacturing plant would be the first of its kind in Southeast Asia, and REC looked at 200 locations before settling on Singapore. A combination of tax incentives, grants, and a skilled workforce were some of the reasons REC liked it. Likewise, Singapore officials are thrilled about playing center stage in the world’s rush to clean technology. Ko Kheng Hwa of the Economic Development Board explained:

The project will be a ‘queen bee’ to attract a hive of solar activities to Singapore — big companies and young start-ups engaged in research and development, manufacturing and innovation, as well as the supplier ecosystem… This investment will be a tremendous boost to our national drive to develop the solar industry.

Once completed in 2010, the capacity of all the products the plant produces will generate up to 1.5 gigawatts (GW) of energy each year — that’s compared to the total global industry output of 2 GW in 2006. That large of an impact, combined with the 3,000 expected jobs, shines a new light on an emerging area of the world hungry for innovative and clean technology.

Accelerating Innovation
All Headline News
Manufacturing.net

Findings from a new report examining insurance companies’ responses to climate change were released at the International Association of Insurance Supervisors last week. The study found that an increasing number of companies are implementing initiatives to reduce the risk of climate change’s impacts and reduce the emissions that cause the problem.

"From Risk to Opportunity 2007: Insurer Responses to Climate Change" was commissioned by Ceres, a U.S. group of investors and clean energy supporters that also directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, which manages more than $4 trillion in assets. Mindy S. Lubber, President of Ceres, explained the report’s findings:

Insurers are beginning to respond to global warming – and not just by withdrawing from coastal markets with high financial exposure. We’re seeing a rapid proliferation of products that will reduce climate-related financial losses, as well as the pollution causing global warming. Yet, insurer responses to date are not nearly sufficient given the scale of the challenge. We need more insurers, especially U.S. insurers, to step up.

Indeed, Europe’s largest insurer, Allianz, said that climate change may increase insured losses from extreme events in an average year by 37 percent within a decade. Karolinska medical university in Sweden predicts cardiovascular health problems to rise along with global temperatures.

Some specific initiatives offered by companies around the globe include:

• Green building credits
• Drought protection
• Incentives for investing in renewable energy (London-based Willis Holdings will cover potential underproduction of wind power)
• Clean transportation (The Japanese company Sompo gives premium discounts to policyholders who drive low-emitting cars)

All in all, the report found 422 examples from 190 insurers, reinsurers, brokers, and insurance organizations from 26 nations. That’s more than double the number of products found in a similar report barely over a year ago. I was surprised to learn that forty percent of the initiatives are from U.S. companies, although not surprisingly only a small minority of companies overall are exploring how climate change may affect business or are offering products to mitigate it.

With billions of dollars lost this year from unprecedented flooding and windstorms in Europe and wildfires in the U.S., some are nervous that climate change threatens the entire industry’s long-term viability. While the products from a handful of companies certainly won’t slow the consequences on their own, they must multiply to be part of the global solution that includes private sector involvement, government leadership, and consumer response.

Depending on whom you ask, emissions from air travel make up 2-6 percent of the planet’s total CO2 emissions (as a whole, the transportation sector makes up about a quarter of those emissions). But airlines in particular have been getting a bad rap among some in the environmental community because of it, and a recent conference of European airline industries debated how to brighten their image.

One British strategic communications firm argued that the airline industry essentially needs a PR makeover. Steve Dunne of the Brighter Group went so far as to say that the industry risks sliding into a reputation akin to that of cigarette manufacturers in the U.S.: "The aviation industry is just not representing itself properly or effectively to put the lobbying efforts of the eco-warriors into some kind of perspective."

I’m not convinced the risk is that dramatic — at least here in the U.S. While there are certainly efficiency measures airlines should be considering — such as being towed to a starting point on the runway instead of burning fuel to get there – advocating a total ban on air travel as some do (or even very high taxes) is a losing cause (by the way, I want to hear a convincing argument as to why flying on a commercial plane isn’t public transportation, like taking the bus).

But the pollution problems for the industry could take off: The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that while the CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer have decreased, the increased number of passengers overall has negated that efficiency. Furthermore, the World Wildlife Fund predicts airlines to make up 15 percent of all global CO2 emissions by 2041.

So while the airlines may not be likened to cigarette manufacturers yet, they should consider some reputation management now. And there are good things happening: The International Air Transport Association says they saved 6 million tons of CO2 by shortening routes worldwide. Virgin’s Richard Branson just announced that he’s planning a 747 biofuel test flight for early next year, and Northwest put together a taskforce of employees and managers that came up with ways to cut inefficient fuel use by 31 million gallons per year. To keep up with the increasing number of passengers and the increasing concern about global warming (including carbon regulation), however, the airlines industry will have to continue decreasing their contribution to the problem and keep telling the public about it. Telling their side of the story — while performing real, meaningful leadership — will keep their reputation from taking a nose dive.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

International Herald Tribune

While General Electric announced structural changes to compensate for increased business in its energy-efficient lighting sector, BP is planning to restructure itself to emphasize…more petroleum.

Once self-dubbed "Beyond Petroleum" because of its increased focus on clean energy — and even considered to be one of the friendlier oil companies by clean energy supporters — BP is now folding its gas power and renewables division into its two exploration and refining segments. But despite the de-emphasis on renewables, it will continue to use the "Beyond Petroleum" moniker (still good for business I suppose) and build wind turbines and solar cells.

Why the change? Simple business: The company’s new CEO, Tony Hayward, is frustrated with its performance compared to rivals like ExxonMobil. While Exxon and BP produce nearly the same about of oil each day (4.2 million barrels from Exxon compared to 3.8 million from BP), the stock market "values" BP’s barrels at $59 and Exxon’s at $122. So Hayward wants to realign BP with its core mission to boost profits: find oil and gas and make it into fuel. As James Harding of the The Times (London) put it, "Mr Hayward is setting out to make BP resemble Exxon, not The Body Shop."

But is this a "brutal reality check" for clean energy supporters, as Harding opines? Or did BP never really leave its oily roots in the first place? Should we be surprised that an oil company — that commits to a hardly-a-drop-in-the-oil-bucket investment of $8 billion in the next 10 years on clean energy — goes back to emphasizing fossil fuels?

I don’t think so. But nor should we discount the fact that they are investing in wind and solar. However, I do wonder whether this restructuring also alters BP’s plan for operating in a carbon-constrained marketplace.

Back in June, Hayward addressed policymakers in Berlin about climate change and how efficient and clean technologies – combined with a price on carbon emissions — will help slow global warming. While BP is talking the talk and making some overtures to clean energy, consumers – backed by a supportive marketplace and policymakers — will still need to be the driving force behind a clean and efficient energy future.

British Petroleum
The Times
Earth2Tech

General Electric (GE) has announced it is restructuring its lighting business towards energy efficiency models and decreasing its emphasis on traditional incandescent bulbs. Thanks to consumer demand for efficient lighting and some governments even threatening to ban old fashioned bulbs, GE is refocusing its products to align more closely with the need.

Jim Campbell, President and CEO of GE’s consumer and industrial division, explained:

“We are increasing our focus on the development and production of new, innovative lighting products like LEDs, organic LEDs, our new high efficiency incandescent light bulbs and other products that our customers will increasingly demand and require.”

LEDs, or light-emitting diodes, use a semiconductor device that emits light when an electric current passes through it. They are a super-efficient form of lighting. An organic LED means that the emitting layer material is an organic compound. They are lighter and more flexible than regular LED lights, and have been used in cell phone displays and digital cameras.

GE also said it can now buy lighting components at a lower cost than what it takes to make the components itself. That means lighting factories in the U.S., Brazil, and Mexico will close, laying off about 1,400 employees.

An emerging, efficient lighting market also means competition is heading up for market share. Rumor has it that GE has been eyeing up Cree, a maker of LEDs. Acquiring Cree may give it stronger position against the other lighting giant, Royal Philips Electronics.

Associated Press, via the Sioux City Journal
Earth2Tech

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

Canadian and U.S. officials are respectively discussing impending regulation to cut down carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Businesses in both nations are slowly getting the message and working together to prepare for – and perhaps help mold – the change.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives reached an “unprecedented consensus” last week when they officially called for action that included “absolute” emissions cuts. A national strategy is needed, they argue, rather than the patchwork of provincial regulations that have cropped up. Furthermore, they acknowledged that government regulation may be needed to raise fossil fuel costs, drive efficiency measures, and instigate greater cuts.

Being open to regulation and the need to fight global warming also opens the door for the business community to be involved in the policy planning. The Globe and Mail explained that a “key goal” in the group’s declaration is to stop any measure that would hurt the economy or penalize certain sectors.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his administration are still piecing together a national global warming strategy. In addition to government regulation, the business group recognized its customers and consumers for also driving the message that the private sector needs to change for the greener in order to slow global warming.

In the States, large businesses have made similar declarations as the Canadian coalition, and small businesses are also taking the lead. With 26 million small businesses in the U.S., they make up half of the economy and about half of all energy used for commercial and industrial purposes. This means that huge strides could be made in efficiency and emissions cuts if they work together.

A recent example is the National Automobile Dealers Association’s (NADA) Energy Stewardship Initiative: About 500 auto dealers have pledged to cut energy use by 10 percent, thereby saving about $193 million and cutting more than a million tons of global warming pollution every year. The National Small Business Association is working with the Energy Star Small Business program and has issued a similar efficiency challenge to its members.

Businesses large and small will be needed to fight global warming, and they’ve begun doing just that. Now, with pressure from voters and the business community, it’s time for Canadian and U.S. policymakers to take decisive steps and implement national policies to curb CO2.

Globe and Mail
CNN

Every year, Gustavus Adolphus College in tiny St. Peter, MN holds a Nobel Conference, authorized by the Nobel Foundation of Stolkhom, Sweden. The conference brings together renowned experts to discuss timely issues, like aging or globalization. This year, it was “Heating Up: The Energy Debate.”

I attended the two-day event, which delivered in its round-up of impressive energy and global warming experts: Nobel Laureate in Physics Dr. Stephen Chu, biofuels expert Dr. Lee Rybeck Lynd, peak oil expert Ken Deffeyes, economist Paul L. Joskow, polar explorer Will Steger, hydrogen expert Joan M. Ogden, and James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

While at times the science got a bit thick, the message from all of the lecturers was clear: Global warming is urgent, we need to do something NOW, and many different solutions will get us there.

I was most interested to hear from Paul L. Joskow, an MIT economist who discussed the best methods for regulating carbon dioxide (CO2), a major contributor to global warming. Many politicians favor a cap-and-trade policy, in which a limit on CO2 is determined and then tradable/sellable permits to pollute are issued to utilities and industry. Economists, on the other hand, generally prefer a carbon tax that simply taxes CO2 at a certain rate.

Although an economist himself, Joskow argued that a cap-and-trade policy is the best way to create a market for CO2 and drive down emissions. First of all, a cap-and-trade policy is politically feasible, and making sure it actually has a chance of passing Congress in our lifetime is the most important thing to slowing global warming. Secondly, a cap-and-trade plan links the U.S. with other nations (and other states) that have already started down this path, thus creating a global solution to a global problem.

While economists favor a carbon tax that the feds could ideally use to cut taxes in another area, like income, Joskow said “perfect the enemy of good.” Sure, in a perfect world we would tax bad stuff and never tax good stuff (like working). But the urgency of global warming calls for a good system that is feasible now and gets us in sync with the rest of the planet. And the best system for that is a cap-and-trade policy.

Joan M. Ogden lectured on a hydrogen economy, although her fellow panel discussion presenters were skeptical of using hydrogen as a fuel source, at least in terms of it being ready fast enough to fight global warming. Although no option should be taken off the table, hydrogen could play a more important role in bettering existing technologies (like ethanol production) rather than creating an entirely new infrastructure.

Dr. James Hansen – you may remember him from his accusations that NASA officials edited his global warming reports – said that if someone is seriously concerned about climate change, any elected official they vote for should agree on three principals:

1) A moratorium on traditional coal-fired power plants (until we can sequester the CO2, building more plants moves us backwards)

2) Policies that encourage more renewable energy

3) Incentives for energy efficiency.

With the clean technology here but the leadership lacking, the issue of urgency was paramount throughout the lectures. In fact, I thought the statistics and scenarios put forth more dire than those I normally read in the media. More than one expert prefaced a recommendation with something like, ‘A year ago I would’ve been laughed out of the room for saying this, but now I can say that what we need to do is…’ The extensive media attention on global warming, along with some serious dialogue and action by the business sector and politicians, have made it “safer” to talk about the true consequences and costs of global warming without immediately being labeled a nutcase.

For example, MIT economist Paul L. Joskow said that any sort of carbon regulation is going to raise our utility bills “and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.” With a cap-and-trade policy that sets CO2 at $50 per ton (a price he thinks is likely), it could drive up utility bills 40-50%. But this would not happen over night: Any measure passed by Congress would give utilities several years to implement efficiency programs to soften the landing. But the message was still clear: This isn’t going to be easy, but we can do it.

Polar explorer Will Steger, who has been traveling and studying the arctic and Antarctic regions for 40 years, gave an eyewitness account of global warming’s effects at the poles (in May I interviewed him about his most recent trip). I’d heard his talk several times, but there was a big difference this time: He showed a slide of polar bear and then said in his quiet-but no-BS –sort-of-way, “This is our friend the polar bear. I’m afraid there’s nothing we can do for them – they will go extinct. I couldn’t say that 18 months ago to people, but now I am.”

Despite the wake up calls – no use in sugarcoating at this point – it was still uplifting to know that some of the planet’s smartest people are working on this and elected leaders are slowly getting the message.

Now, it’s time for the rest of us to get to work. For starters, check out Will Steger’s “Template for Action,” Lighter Footstep’s “10 First Steps,” or the Union of Concerned Scientist’s “How You Can be Involved.”

There’s big news for solar power coming out of Florida. Florida Power & Light (FPL) – one of the nation’s largest utilities and the largest producer of wind power – announced at the Clinton Global Initiative conference that it will spend $1.5 billion to build solar thermal energy in Florida, California, and other states. In addition, the utility plans on investing nearly another billion dollars nationwide to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a big contributor to global warming.

Solar thermal power makes electricity by converting solar energy to heat that drives a thermal power plant.

The utility’s plan is to build at least 300 megawatts (MW) of solar thermal in Florida; that’s enough electricity to power about 150,000 homes. It will also help the state reach its goal of cutting CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by that same year.

California will get a 200-MW plant that will cover 2 square miles with flat mirrors that track the sun.

FPL’s CEO Lew Hay told Reuters: "The thing we’ve got to make customers understand is that any fossil fuel has a hidden cost that society is paying every day, and that is the cost of carbon. We need to put a price on carbon, by doing so the illusion that coal-produced energy is low-cost will go away."

The project FPL has planned will start out as a 10MW pilot project and eventually grow to be the largest solar plant in Florida. But besides the solar investment, the company is also upgrading all 4.5 million electricity meters used by Florida customers. The replacements will be "smart network" meters that show a digital read-out of electricity consumption, and even give an hour-by-hour record of power use. This will allow customers and businesses to monitor their energy use more closely, and experiment with the most effective methods of efficiency. Other investments will go towards promoting these efforts.

As exciting as this news is, it’s easy to feel down when you learn that FPL’s solar plans for Florida only amount to about 1 percent of the state’s power plant capacity. But clean energy supporters and FPL are still optimistic. Hay pointed out that relatively large commitments to clean energy, like FPLs, will really drive the cost of the technology down.

Already the largest wind power provider, FPL now has its sights on leading the solar market.

Associated Press, via Orlando Sentinel
Reuters, via Planet Ark

Thanks to Erin over at RE-AMP for the heads-up on this great piece of news: Eight major utilities have agreed to implement energy efficiency measures in order to meet the growing demand for electricity. By emphasizing efficiency over coal, they will cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30 million tons — the equivalent of taking almost 6 million cars off the road — and avoid the need to build 50 500-megawatt peaking power plants.

The utilities involved have more than 20 million customers and cover 22 states: Con Edison (ED), Edison International (EIX), Great Plains Energy (GXP), Duke Energy (DUK), Pepco Holdings (POM), PNM Resources (PNM), Sierra Pacific Resources (SRP), and Xcel Energy (XEL). Up until now, the only utilities that want to grow profits through energy efficiency investments have been in California.

The move by these utilities comes at a time when demand is growing, concerns and lawsuits about emissions abound, and global warming is a hot political and business issue.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to cut global warming emissions, and the utilities agree: ” …we share a common belief that energy efficiency is the greatest untapped resource in addressing global climate change in the near-term.” Here are the major elements of their plan:

• Boost investments in energy efficiency projects to $1.5 billion per year in the next 10 years.

• Create a national institute for electric efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Institute will work on regulatory policy models, notably how utilities can make money when customers use less energy rather than more. It will be formed within the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities.

Innovation and multi-party collaboration will be needed to craft policies that allow companies to profit from investing in efficiency. Utilities could profit from replacing inefficient air conditioners and light bulbs, for instance. Great Plains hopes to get legislation passed in Kansas and Missouri that would allow them to earn a higher return on efficiency investments than what would be made investing in traditional power plants. The utility could install smart electricity meters that tell customers when electricity prices are highest and even allows the utility to adjust the operations of appliances in customer homes. Michael Chesser, Chairman and CEO of Great Plains, said that energy efficiency, “with the right incentives,” could take care of all the growth in electricity demand between 2010 and 2017.

The business community was also interested by the announcement. The Dow Jones Wire commented:

It’s a sign of how quickly energy efficiency has taken center stage in the utility industry’s growth plans. Even in states where rates are low, power companies increasingly see efficiency investments as an inexpensive way to satisfy growing electricity demand and boost revenue without provoking the public opposition that usually dogs proposals for new power plants and transmission lines.

The utilities are working in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, backed by former President Bill Clinton’s foundation.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

Kansas City Star
Dow Jones Wire
Yahoo Finance

Businesses seem to be flocking to appear green, lessen their carbon footprint, and talk about global warming. But scant mention of it was made in most of the reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) this year. Should investors be concerned?

A group of state officials, state pension fund managers, investors, and other organizations think so. They are asking the SEC to make all public companies formally address the financial risks their company could face as a result of climate change.

Supporters — led by organizations like Ceres (a network of investors and organizations working on sustainability issues) and the Calvert Group (an assets management firm) — have asked for this disclosure before, and the SEC ignored them. This time, they’re hoping for action by filing a formal petition stating public companies should reveal their total global warming emissions, provide a strategic analysis of the risks and opportunities present by global warming, assess the physical risks to their operations, and analyze any regulatory risks (such as limiting carbon dioxide emissions).

So far, the SEC hasn’t said much except that the requirement for triggering disclosure is that the impact or potential impact has to be material to a company, and therefore material to investors.

The petition argues that the threat and impacts of global warming are financial risks and are material. It’s the SEC’s job to ensure investors have the information they need to make smart decisions, and because climate change will have major impacts on business, those risks need to be disclosed.

While some companies are reporting on global warming already, others find it difficult to do so. Differences in potential regulation — such as a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade policy — means different outcomes for certain industries and difficulty in assessing the risks. One attorney who advises utilities and energy firms told the Washington Post: "For some of our electric power clients, depending on how allowances are distributed, they lose or gain hundreds of millions of dollars. Some are winners under some schemes and vast losers under other schemes."

Green Wombat
Washington Post