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

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak may be the first mayor in the nation to drive a plug-in hybrid vehicle as his official city car.

Since he was first elected in 2002, Mayor Rybak’s official car has been a Toyota Prius. But the dramatically superior gas mileage of a plug-in hybrid vehicle prompted him to make the switch: he had his hybrid converted to a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, from which he expects to get about 70 miles per gallon (mpg) compared to his average 40 mpg with the Prius.

A plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is like a regular hybrid with a cord. That is, its battery can be recharged by plugging it into a regular 120-volt outlet.

Typical of many PHEVs, Mayor Rybak’s car can travel about 30 miles solely on battery power if the speeds are 30 mph or less. If he drives further or needs to go faster, the car automatically switches over to using the gas engine. But for local city driving — when speeds are low and distances are shorter — he could go days without using any gasoline to power the engine.

Although most of Minnesota’s electricity comes from coal power, powering a vehicle with the electric grid is still cleaner than gasoline. But the Mayor and other city officials want to make it even cleaner: Minneapolis has applied for a state grant to install solar panels on some city buildings so that future plug-in cars could charge up using solar power instead of fossil fuels. Rybak told the Minnesota Daily:

It became clear to me that the two big things we had to do were convert to plug-in hybrids and find a way to have them use electricity from non-coal sources … I become very frustrated with people saying we need to do years of research on all these issues. Research is great, but the technology is there right now.

Last year, Minnesota became the first state in the nation to pass legislation promoting plug-in hybrids. The law instructs the state to buy plug-in hybrids on a preferred basis when they become available and encourages Minnesota State University - Mankato to develop flex-fuel plug-in hybrid vehicles (plug-ins that can run on an ethanol blend).

Minneapolis has about 100 government vehicles that are either hybrids or use E-85 fuel (an 85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gasoline blend). Leadership from the city and supportive government policies could make plug-in hybrids a more common occurrence on Twin Cities roads.

BIOconversion Blog
Cal Cars
City of Minneapolis
Minnesota Daily

Photo Source: City of Minneapolis

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.

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

Coal and nuclear plants may not be dropping like flies, but the business climate and the planet’s climate have caused some utilities to think twice about investing in them.

Tampa Electric of Florida has announced that it won’t build a coal plant to meet future energy needs, as originally planned. The coal plant was going to be an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant, or IGCC, which means that the coal is broken down into different gases that make it easier to pull out and store the carbon dioxide (CO2) so it doesn’t get released into the atmosphere. It’s still a very expensive technology and has yet to be tested on a very large scale, but because the U.S. is so reliant on coal power, many believe sequestration is the only way to cut emissions fast enough to slow global warming.

Tampa Electric cited the uncertain future regulation of CO2, the challenge of carbon capture and sequestration, and the associated costs. Although the utility sees IGCC as playing a significant role in future energy needs, the economic risks were too high and too uncertain at this time to proceed. Instead, the utility will look at other technologies like renewables, natural gas, and efficiency. Florida has also had a slew of new clean energy laws, including limits on global warming emissions and requiring utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewables.

Likewise, Xcel Energy says it can delay the need for new baseload generation in Minnesota because of its diversification into new, cleaner energy (particularly wind power and efficiency measures). Xcel argued that more hydropower from Canada — not considered “green” by many because of its destruction to native communities there — and upgrades to nuclear plants are not needed because of the aggressive energy bills passed during the last legislative session. Those laws direct Xcel to get 30 percent of its energy from renewable sources and to begin cutting energy use 1.5 percent annually beginning in 2010. Xcel’s own analysis concluded: “[C]learly there will be periods when available wind energy will supplant base-load resources to meet our customers’ energy needs.”

Diversifying our energy sources and emphasizing efficiency measures have started impacting how utilities do business and how their customers power their lives. While there is no silver bullet for a clean energy future, changes like these are all part of the “silver BB” approach to get us moving towards a smarter energy system in the 21st century.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

The Energy Blog
Wind Energy Weekly

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

Two large U.S. corporations have announced commitments to solar power.

Costco – the giant discount retailer – is installing its first solar array on the Kailua-Kona store in Hawaii. A 680-kilowatt solar electric system – big enough to power about 111 Hawaiian homes – will be installed by REC Solar of San Luis Obispo, CA. It’s expected to be completed in the next five or six weeks.

The Kailua-Kona store may save up to a one-third of its electricity costs by producing its own energy from the sun. Costco has more solar planned for other stores, mostly in Hawaii and in California.

A Safeway store in Dublin, CA has started generating electricity from its own solar panels, and the company plans to install systems on 23 of its stores – enough to power about 20 percent of a stores’ average energy use. That’s enough to avoid over 10 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) – a major contributor to global warming.

Efficiency is another part of Safeway’s plan: Since 2005, super-efficient refrigeration systems and LED lights have been installed that have allowed the company’s stores to do the same amount of work using less energy.

Companies may be scrambling to expand their green credentials, but they’re also moving forward because of ample incentives from the states. In Hawaii, commercial photovoltaic systems are eligible for credits of up to $500,000 and net metering laws are in place that allow companies to offset electric bills with surplus power put back on the electric grid. Additionally, the federal government offers a 30 percent tax credit.

Local, state, and national incentives for renewable energy will continue to drive business to do the right thing by making it economically sensible to do so. That, combined with a better brand reputation among consumers and investors, may drive even more companies to choose greener options.

GreenBiz.com
Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Also on GO:

Google Flips The Switch On Largest Corporate Solar Installation In U.S.

Wal-Mart Launching Solar Power Pilot Program

Clean energy was the hot topic at the National Press Club this week, where public leaders gathered to discuss "Securing a Clean Energy Future." Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was there, as was Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) and Minnesota Governor and president of the National Governors Association (NGA), Tim Pawlenty (R).

Pawlenty explained that cutting global warming emissions was a top priority for the group of governors, with the hope that it would spur federal action. From the Associated Press: "We have a federal government that doesn’t seem to want to move as fast or as bold as many would like" on these issues, Pawlenty said… If enough states act to curtail greenhouse gases, "it becomes a de facto national policy.”

So far, 12 states have plans to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a major contributor to global warming.

The NGA announced an 8-governor task force to advance clean energy development in the states, and the Energy Department promised $610,000 to support its work.

But we may want to dig a little deeper into Pawlenthy’s enthusiasm. He supports the construction of the dirty Big Stone II coal plant, proposed for two miles over the Minnesota border in South Dakota. Minnesota is slated to receive a large portion of its electricity, and also has a say in the construction of the plant.

Pawlenty said that he disagrees with the statement "the future involved no coal"; he wants "clean" coal technology and carbon sequestration. Okay, but the controversial Big Stone II plant has neither of those, and some worry that its construction will make it harder for Minnesota to reach its renewable energy standard of 25 percent renewables by 2020. Pawlenty conceded that there would be an "awkward five-year transition in between and in the meantime the world goes on." Except that the coal plants hang around for 50 years.

Associated Press
Union of Concerned Scientists

Last week China reiterated its commitment to renewable energy, particularly hydropower. The Asian nation plans to triple its hydropower production to 300,000 megawatts by 2020.

Chinese officials also asked the world to cut them some slack in their efforts to cut global warming pollution.

China’s contribution to global warming has been relatively small compared to the more developed Western nations, they argue, and they shouldn’t be held overly accountable. According to Chen Deming of the National Development and Reform Commission, "I hope the international media will give us some development rights, some development space and not overly blame us."

Wind power and biofuels, in addition to big hydro, will help China reach its goal of producing 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. But it’s the hydropower expansion that is raising the eyebrows of some who are concerned about the large dams’ environmental impact.

Chen Deming argued that cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that contribute to global warming is more important than any negative environmental impact of huge hydropower. Other groups like Greenpeace argue that the damage caused by large dams – like the Three Gorges on the Yangtze River — could have more consequences than conventional power plants because of the massive amount of CO2 released when trees and plant life are destroyed.

AFX News, via Forbes
Associated Press, via DelawareOnline

Image: China’s Three Gorges Dam