Waste to Bio Fuel on the Clean Energy Horizon

A Canadian company started construction this week on what it says is the world’s first industrial-scale plant to turn municipal waste into biofuel. Enerkem’s C$80 million ($75 million) facility will produce enough biofuel to keep more than 400,000 cars a year running. Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator also reports on other clean energy projects and plans.

Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator (1 September 2010):

Perth-based biofuel company Mission NewEnergy has been forced into a massive writedown of its refining assets because US legislation prevents it from being able to deliver its major contract with a US oil company. Mission has written $73 million off the value of its assets, leading to a net loss of $93 million, because it is unable, for the moment, to deliver on its five year contract to deliver 200,000 tonnes of biodiesel a year. Mission wants to use palm oil and jatropha as feedstock for its biodiesel, but neither has been approved under the US Renewable Fuels Standard.

Jatropha, an inedible oilseed bearing plant, is being touted as an important feedstock in so-called next generation biofuels because it can grow on marginal soil without displacing land used for food – although some of these claims have been contested by environmental groups. Mission says it has 177,000 acres of jatropha plantation under contract, mostly from 120,000 farmers in India, capable of delivering 170,000 tonnes of crude jatropha oil, but for the moment its refineries in India and Malaysia have been placed on standby until it can deliver on its biodiesel contract.

All Systems go

Solar and nuclear technology group Silex Systems is forecasting more than $60 million in sales from the newly refurbished solar PV manufacturing plant that it bought from BP Solar. The Sydney plant, the only solar PV panel manufacturing facility in Australia, has been operating in its new guise for just three months and generated $3 million in sales. But Silex now anticipates sales of about 20MW of panels and around 5MW of cells in the coming year. Silex says the business should become cash-flow positive in 2011 as demand increases, and says orders from the residential sector look likely to remain strong for the foreseeable future, and it is also in discussions with other parties on several larger commercial-scale projects. The solar PV market in Australia is expected to jump to around 150MW in calendar 2010 from 80MW in 2009. The global market is also expected to double to 15,000MW, Silex noted.

Meanwhile, Silex says it is hopeful that research into advanced solar materials could provide a mechanism to drive down the cost structures of multi-junction solar cells, which can nearly double the efficiency of solar cells but have hitherto been prohibitively expensive. “The net effect would be to dramatically drive down the cost structures – thus enabling potentially a significant breakthrough in the solar photovoltaic industry,” the company says. The technology would be applicable to large-scale solar PV installations, such as that being developed at Solar Systems, the bankrupted solar developer that Silex bought last year.

Silex says it is also making progress on its unique, laser-based technology to enrich uranium for fuel used in nuclear power plants. The Tennessee Valley Authority has apparently approved a $US400 million contract for uranium enrichment from 2015 to 2025, which broking house Wilson HTM noted was not a “firm contract” but an “encouraging sign”. Silex is expected to conduct engineering design and prototype developments in 2011 before developing final design and specifications of a commercial production facility.

Losses abound

Developers of emerging energy technologies are not expected to make money, at least in their formative years, but there is merit in stemming the losses. Silex Systems net loss for the full year blew out five-fold to $19 million due to the money spent on the solar PV plant and funding research at the newly acquired Silex Systems, among its other R&D commitments. Cash was down to $40.7 million at year end from $58.6 million 12 months earlier.

Geothermal energy developer Geodynamics has declared a net loss of $14.7 million for the 2009/10 financial year, a slight improvement on last year, as it continues to spend money proving up its hot fractured rock resources in the Cooper Basin. The company received some $4.1 million in revenue from interest in its considerable cash resources, although this was down from $6.2 million the previous year. The accounts also reveal Geodynamics has written down a $2.9 million investment in an unlisted Iceland geothermal energy company called Geysir, which apparently went broke during the year. Geodynamics held a 3 per cent stake.

Meanwhile, wave energy developer Carnegie has more than halved its net loss for the year to $4.2 million, mostly as a result of a decision to capitalise development costs of its Ceto wave technology. The company is currently working on the deployment of a full-scale model of Ceto at Garden Island off Perth, and is also exploring desalination options for its technology. It says it remains in a strong financial position with cash in hand of $5.9 million, which it says is no mean feat in the current economic environment.

Take cash, not options

The emergence of new technologies and the anticipated transition to low-carbon economies is an exciting prospect for engineers and other professions. It is well known, for example, that the geothermal industry has attracted many from the oil and gas sector, many of them willing to accept lower salaries in exchange for the excitement of being involved in the development of an energy source. But how much can they expect to be paid? The annual reports are starting to give a glimpse of the salaries on offer in the sector and the principal conclusion is that, while the rewards are not negligible, incentives are best taken in cash rather than options, at least at this juncture.

At Geodynamics, the newly appointed stand-in CEO Jack Hamilton, a former Woodside executive, will receive an annualised base salary of $530,000 – about 10 per cent better than his predecessor, Gerry Grove-White, although the latter’s total package, including cash bonus and options, stood at $836,000. The company’s top eight executives, not including the CEO, shared packages totaling around $3.2 million in fiscal 2010, the annual report reveals, but around one million options lapsed, with the share price (now 45c), well short of the $1.50 exercise price last December.

It may be construed that the market price for wave energy executives is around the same as for geothermal, with Carnegie CEO Michael Ottaviano collecting a package just south of $800,000, including a $310,000 cash bonus. Which is just as well, as the 30 million options each held by Ottaviano and Ceto inventor and Carnegie founder Alan Burns will lapse later this year, with exercise prices of 20c, 30c and 40c well above current levels. Carnegie’s share price has experienced the same sinking feeling afflicting renewable energy stocks around the globe and it is currently trading around 9.5c.

Reuters report in Climate Spectator (1 September 2010):

A Canadian company started construction this week on what it says is the world’s first industrial-scale plant to turn municipal waste into biofuel.

Privately-owned Enerkem Inc said the C$80 million ($75 million) facility in Edmonton, Alberta, will produce enough biofuel to keep more than 400,000 cars a year running on a 5 percent ethanol fuel blend.

Canada, which has invested heavily in the biofuel industry as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is set to announce in September a 5 percent renewable content mandate for gasoline. Some of the country’s provinces already have such a mandate in place.

Enerkem has signed a 25-year agreement with Edmonton to convert 100,000 tonnes of the city’s solid waste into biofuels annually.

The plant, which will create 180 direct and indirect jobs, is scheduled to start operations toward the end of 2011.

Municipal waste-to-biofuels plants are on the drawing board in several U.S. states but several were halted as funds dried up during the global recession.

Montreal-based Enerkem was founded in 2000 around an in-house developed technology to produce biofuels through a heat-induced gasification process.

It operates two plants in Quebec: a pilot facility and a commercial-scale plant. The latter uses electricity poles as feedstock.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Algae Biofuel Energy in Argentina, Australia and Singapore

An Argentine company has opened the country’s first factory to make biodiesel from algae, hoping to use pond scum as a replacement for soy in making biodiesel as part of a push for renewable energy. Argentina is the world’s top exporter of soy oil, but using the edible oil to make fuel is controversial because it cuts into food supplies. While “Technological Development of Algal Carbon Capture and Storage” is the subject of a talk by Tony St Clair, Agribusiness Manager for MBD Energy at the 3rd Algae World Congress in  Singapore, 19-20 October.

Luis Andres Henao reports from Argentina (31 August 2010):

An Argentine company has opened the country’s first factory to make biodiesel from algae, hoping to use pond scum as a replacement for soy in making biodiesel as part of a push for renewable energy

Argentina is the world’s top exporter of soy oil, but using the edible oil to make fuel is controversial because it cuts into food supplies.

Oil extracted from algae is also seen as an attractive alternative to soyoil and other vegetable oils because it does not use land that could be used for food crops and can absorb carbon dioxide from power plants or factories.

The oil-extraction process also produces a protein-rich paste, which is edible.

“We’re not competing with the food supply but generating food, at a low cost and helping the environment because algae grow fast and trap carbon dioxide,” said Jorge Kaloustian, president of Oilfox S.A., the company that owns the plant northeast of Buenos Aires.

The Oilfox plant’s feedstock is currently 90 percent soyoil and 10 percent algae oil, but the company hopes to eventually depend entirely on algae, which can grow in seawater and even contaminated water.

The algae, which is grown in tanks inside greenhouses, produces a green oil in the photosynthesis process. It grows fast and can duplicate its weight several times a day.

“Algae can get a much higher yield per acre than say soybeans,” said John Williams, spokesman for the Algal BioMASS Association, a trade organization that groups companies involved with developing algae biofuels. “It can produce more than 10 times more fuel per acre than soybeans.”

Some researchers say algae-based fuel would be too costly to produce commercially, but plants that use algae oil have sprouted everywhere, from Australia to China as companies bet on growing demand for renewable fuels.

Exxon Mobil Corp last year announced a $600 million investment over the next five years to develop biofuel from algae.

Kaloustian said the new Oilfox biodiesel plant is the first of its kind in Latin America, and that it is cost effective, partly because the electricity it uses is generated from biogas that comes from sewage waste and compost is fed to the algae to encourage growth.

Through a deal with a JP Morgan-owned company, the carbon dioxide emissions that are pumped into the algae greenhouses from a nearby power plant will eventually be sold as bonds in the carbon market, Kaloustian said.

Oilfox has also signed an agreement with YPF, the country’s biggest energy firm, to produce 50,000 tonnes of biodiesel per year. Under Argentine law, energy companies will have to blend diesel with 10 percent biodiesel by year’s end.

“There’s great enthusiasm for producing renewable energy in Argentina because we have the material needed to make the blend which is soyoil,” Kaloustian said. “We made a bet on using soyoil with a bit of algae, but one day, it will all be algae.”

Source: www.planetaazul.com.mx

Technological Development of Algal Carbon Capture and Storage is the subject of a talk by

Tony St Clair, Agribusiness Manager for MBD Energy at the 3^rd Algae World Congress in 

Singapore, 19-20 October.

Tony was Chief Executive of Federated Farmers of New Zealand for eight years (1997-2005) with the organisation having approximately 19,000 farm members at the end of Tony’s tenure. He has been on multiple committees at CEO level within New Zealand, which have involved International trade, food safety, human capacity building, farm safety and various emergency response groups for both adverse events and biosecurity.
During his time in New Zealand he also represented the Agriculture Sector in W.T.O. forums (Seattle, Cancun) and International Federation of Agricultural Producers, Cairns Group Farm Leaders and CER Ministerials. He was Chair of the Australian New Zealand Business Council in 2004. Tony also attended the COP 15 in Copenhagen in late 2009.

Prior to his time in New Zealand he was Executive Director of the Victorian Farmers Federation (1990-97) and had extensive commodity trading and commercial background in the agricultural production and processing industry. This included terms as a livestock auctioneer, Commercial Manager for Uncle Ben’s of Australia (1978 -85) and D.R.Johnston /Conagra (1986-1990).

MBD technology recycles captured industrial flue-gas emissions into oils suitable for manufacture of high grade plastics, transport fuel and nutritious feed for livestock and monogastric consumption.

MBD bypass the inherent problems associated with ‘geosequestration’ by keeping captured CO₂ above ground for immediate large-scale production of valuable input commodities fundamental to the global economic supply-chain. MBD’s environmentally friendly carbon-recycling process also produces large quantities of ‘A1 quality’ fresh water and masses of pure oxygen.

MBD Energy has reached agreements with three of Australia’s largest greenhouse gas emitters:

• Loy Yang A (Vic);
• Eraring Energy (NSW);
• Tarong Energy (Qld).

The agreements are for the planning and provision of a pilot MBD Energy Carbon Capture and Recycling (CCR) plant at each location.

Each of these major coal-fired power stations has selected MBD Energy’s algal carbon capture, storage and recycling solution for three compelling reasons:

• Captured CO₂ is immediately recycled into oil-rich micro algae suitable for oil and meal;
• 100% of the algae is recycled; 35% as oil for plastics or fuel, 65% for low-methane stock-feed;
• MBD’s CCR is today’s premier green house gas reduction solution for use by power stations.

Supported by an extensive, expert team, MBD Energy is co-operatively enabling delivery of a number of large-scale Demonstration Projects to be operating before 2020, as identified by the ‘G8 mandate on climate change.’ MBD expects to play a significant role in the newly created Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.

The 3 major projects will enable MBD to implement solutions that will soon enable broad industrial-scale deployment of its CCR technology.

Source: www.mbdenergy.com

Boost for Clean Energy Projects in Victoria & Asia Pacific

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) plans to issue Clean Energy Bonds to support its clean energy projects in Asia and the Pacific. They are expected to have four tranches, one each denominated in Australian dollars and Turkish lira and two tranches in Brazilian real. Meanwhile, the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) has welcomed the Victorian Government’s commitment to advance renewable energy sources and options through a new Office of Solar Energy and a $30 million dollar boost.

A new Office of Solar Energy and a $30 million boost to support r

Tuesday 31 August 2010: The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) has welcomed the Brumby Government’s commitment to advance renewable energy sources and options.

A new Office of Solar Energy and a $30 million boost to support renewable energy technology was announced by Premier John Brumby today.

“The GBCA is always pleased to see encouragement and support for renewable energy,” says the Chief Executive of the GBCA, Romilly Madew.

“The Brumby Government continues to demonstrate strong leadership in the area of climate change, and we welcome the government’s willingness to partner with industry to produce and operate technologies which accelerate the development of renewable energy options.

“We do believe that more work needs to be done if Victorians are to cut their emissions by at least 20 per cent by 2020. Residential and commercial buildings are responsible for 23 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, which means that buildings should be a top priority for government action.

“There is a wealth of research that supports our message – that buildings represent the single largest opportunity for greenhouse gas abatement, outstripping the energy, transport and industry sectors combined. With the right policy support, green building can be a cost-effective solution to the nation’s climate change challenges,” Ms Madew concludes.

About the Green Building Council of Australia

The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) is Australia’s leading authority on green building. The GBCA was established in 2002 to develop a sustainable property industry in Australia and drive the adoption of green building practices. The GBCA has more than 900 member companies who work together to support the Council and its activities. The GBCA promotes green building programs, technologies, design practices and processes, and operates Australia’s only national voluntary comprehensive environmental rating system for buildings – Green Star.

Source: www.gbcaus.org

India Infoline News Service (1 September 2010):

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) plans to issue its inaugural Clean Energy Bond to support its clean energy projects in Asia and the Pacific.

The Clean Energy Bond is expected to have four tranches, one each denominated in Australian dollars and Turkish lira and two tranches in Brazilian real. It will carry tenors of between 4 and 7 years and will be issued in September. ADB will provide assistance to clean energy projects in an amount at least equal to the amount raised by the Clean Energy Bond.

The issuance, targeted at Japanese retail investors, will be arranged through HSBC Securities (Japan) Ltd. and will be distributed nationwide by more than 20 securities firms.

The planned bond issue follows the successful sale in April of ADB’s inaugural Water Bond, which is supporting the ADB’s work in the water sector in Asia and the Pacific.Rapid economic expansion in the region has put immense pressure on resources and the environment. The use of coal and oil and other carbon-based fossil resources to meet the region’s growing energy needs has added to the release of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change.

At the same time, insufficient energy investment in the region is preventing many developing countries and individuals from reaching their full potential. A quarter of the population of Asia and the Pacific – or more than 800 million people – still have no access to basic electricity services, while some 1.8 billion people continue to rely on traditional biomass fuels for cooking and heating.

“Clean energy is a crucial element in the fight against poverty in Asia and the Pacific. To put the region on a path to sustainable and inclusive economic growth, we are committed to supporting clean energy projects in the region that avoid harming people or the environment,” said ADB President Haruhiko Kuroda.

Between 2005 and 2009, ADB’s total clean energy investments exceeded US$5 bn.

Additionally, the ADB is targeting US$2 bn a year in clean energy investments by 2013 focusing on renewable energy projects such as biomass, wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal as well as on energy efficiency projects in industrial, commercial and residential sectors.

Through its clean energy program, ADB intends to help the region meet its energy security needs, facilitate a shift to a low-carbon economy, and ensure everyone in the region has access to energy.

Source: www.indiainfoline.com

Can Green Business Make Big Change Fast Enough?

Over 70% of Fortune 500 companies have sustainability mandates, but do they go far enough? In a sea of corporate social responsibility programmes, green “seals of approval” and eco claims, business really has not changed significantly. Seeking to enable a deep green business transformation, the Environmental Defense Fund is hosting a series of Sustainable Solutions Labs across the U.S. Teresa Burrelsman has the story.

Teresa Burrelsman, Eco Via Consulting in the Environmental Leader (30 August 2010):

Over 70% of Fortune 500 companies have sustainability mandates, but do they go far enough? In a sea of corporate social responsibility programs, green “seals of approval” and eco claims, business really has not changed significantly.

Seeking to enable a deep green business transformation, the Environmental Defense Fund is hosting a series of Sustainable Solutions Labs across the U.S., “un-conference” think-tanks. Orchestrated by DigIn, the Labs bring together green business leaders throughout each region to share successes, lessons learned and needed future actions that will accelerate the sustainability shift.

At the Seattle event, on August 10th at the lovely eco campus of Seattle University, conversation catalysts from Microsoft, REI, Starbucks, Brittingham Partners, and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute shared their experiences to spur the ensuing discussions.

Microsoft’s Director of Environmental Sustainability Steve Lippman described a successful new practice of billing data center energy use by square foot to individual business units. The result: business units specify more efficient equipment and share in the savings. “But it’s low-hanging fruit,” he said. “The systems we create [as a society] don’t harbor sustainability.” He went on to state that the real challenge is creating large scale change, and soon.

Scientists say we have 10 years in which to bring down CO2 levels in the atmosphere to avoid irreversible climate change. Despite scientific consensus, many of our policy makers, business leaders and consumers believe it’s all hype. However, if green business is good business anyway, change will do us good regardless of the climate issue. Lippmann emphasized, “Don’t let small wins distract from the bigger task at hand.” Microsoft, REI and other NW companies are part of a business coalition pushing for bigger changes through tougher energy efficiency legislation in Washington State.

As one of the event’s facilitator’s, I spent the day with the Effective Collaboration for Sustainability discussion. Our discussion groups agreed that a big focus of collaboration should be getting major corporations to support green business policies, incentives and legislation. Additional suggestions repeated across many of the day’s topics. Whether discussing Organizational & Cultural Change, Urban Agriculture Infrastructure, or Green Investing, a consensus emerged. Attendees urge corporate America to ask better questions, establish industry-wide metrics that help everyone make better decisions, and educate themselves and each other about proven success strategies.

Kevin Hagen, Director of CSR at retailer REI, underscored the need to overhaul the business decision process; “Question your assumptions, which are almost always wrong!” When looking into the company’s carbon footprint the REI team expected product transportation would be the heavy hitter. Instead, employee commuting had twice the footprint, at 14% of their total carbon emissions. Another assumption overturned, REI says they save money by purchasing renewable power, by using long term contracts that hedge them against spikes in conventional power prices.

A good example of finding and addressing the larger environmental issues is the ubiquitous disposable coffee cup. Ben Packard, Starbucks’ VP of Global Sustainability, relayed the fact that consumer concern focuses on use of disposable cups. However, only 1.9% of those concerned customers bring their own cup. Furthermore, the bigger environmental impact for coffee drinkers is tropical deforestation, not cup disposal. Starbucks has integrated sustainable purchasing practices into its entire coffee supply chain, a fact that is relatively little known yet has enormous environmental benefit.

We have a long way to go, but a lot of good data is already out there. If you have something to share or want to get involved in creating change, visit the Sustainable Solutions Lab 2010 wiki and join the discussion.

Teresa Burrelsman is a senior sustainability consultant at Eco Via Consulting in Seattle. She has worked with private and public organizations on implementing green buildings and sustainability programs. She is also a member of the Sustainability Collaboration Network, a multi-disciplinary consultant collective that focuses on regenerative development and creating sustainable expertise through training and research.

Source: www.environmentalleader.com

Lucky Last – Change of Heart for Climate Skeptics?

Two of the world’s most influential climate sceptics appear to have had a change of heart. The Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book in 2001 called The Skeptical Environmentalist which said climate change wasn’t that serious and we couldn’t and shouldn’t do much about it. But now he says it’s undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today.

Michael Hanlon the formerly ultra-sceptic science editor of Britain’s two-million-copies-a-day Daily Mail has also changed his mind after a recent trip to see a glacier in Greenland. The apparent about-face comes as the UN’s climate body completes a review aimed at restoring its credibility for reporting on climate change.

Paula Kruger reports for the ABC’s PM programme. Read More.

Paula Kruger reported this story on PM on ABC (31 August 2010):

Danish academic Bjorn Lomborg became famous for being a climate-change doubter after his 2001 book The Skeptical Environmentalist and in 2004, when he organised an event called the Copenhagen Consensus. It brought together a groups of economists and asked them what global problems should be addressed with a hypothetical budget of $50 billion. The group decided addressing climate change wasn’t a priority.

He was interviewed about that position on the Foreign Exchange show on America’s PBS network in 2006.

BJORN LOMBORG (2006): I’m not saying it’s not going to be a problem. But I’m saying we’ve got to look at, how big a problem is it? It’s not devastation. It’s a problem. The second part is you also got to ask how much change can you do? How much can you actually affect this?

PAULA KRUGER: But Bjorn Lomborg has a new book on the way and with it a new position. He has told The Guardian newspaper that global warming is “undoubtedly the chief concern facing the world today” and by investing $100 billion annually the climate change problem will be resolved.

Professor Bob Carter from James Cook University is often labelled a climate change sceptic but he prefers the term climate agnostic. And he doesn’t take Bjorn Lomborg seriously because he isn’t a climate scientist.

BOB CARTER: What’s with all these economists? It’s just astonishing. The climate change issue is an issue of science. 

Professor Shapiro who chaired the InterAcademy Council is an economist at Princeton University. We have in Australia at the moment the author of the discredited report done for the British government about three years ago, Nicholas Stern, giving talks. He’s an economist. And now we have Bjorn Lomborg who is a statistician and also in a sense an economist, a social scientist issuing a new book on climate change.

It’s about time that people especially governments started asking scientists. The economists only come into play in this debate if there is a problem. There first has to be demonstrated a problem with dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. 

That has not yet been demonstrated. And until it has most of these books by economists are beside the point. They’re discussing a problem which hasn’t even yet been shown to exist. 

PAULA KRUGER: But there is another high-profile sceptic who was a science writer for Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper. Michael Hanlon has slowly been shifting his views over recent years. But it was 10 years ago he compared some warnings about climate change to the ancient Romans who blamed thunderbolts on punishing gods.

Today he still says he still believes climate change is exaggerated. But in a report filed from Greenland after a trip to see the break-up of a glacier he wrote, “it is impossible to maintain that nothing is going on”.

Ben McNeil is a senior researcher at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. He says scientific evidence is what is altering the tone of the climate change debate.

BEN MCNEIL: In the climate science community the sceptics are very few and far between. But then you’ve got on the other, the wider community side there’s obviously a lot of sceptics. Now they’re going to change their thinking as the evidence comes forward. And as we’ve seen the evidence is compelling. 

And so I think for someone who is reasonable in their assessment of things it would be easy to flip sides. But for unreasonable sceptics, which many out there many are, I don’t think they will change.

PAULA KRUGER: In an attempt to provide a more transparent process for delivering information on climate change the UN’s body on climate, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has just completed a review.

In 2007 there was controversy after a IPCC review asserted Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The IPCC says that mistake did not change the broad picture of manmade climate change.

Ben McNeil again.

BEN MCNEIL: It’s very important for it to not play an outward advocacy role. It’s a scientific role. So I think this review is going to shore up the transparency and the trust in this process which is actually important.

PAULA KRUGER: Critics had been calling for the resignation of the IPCC’s chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri. But he says he wants to instead stay on to implement changes recommended in the review.

Source: www.abc.net.au

We’re on our way to Singapore when most of you read this. Moderating at a Sustainable Development Forum at Raffles City Friday night and staying on for a few days to get the Sustain Ability Showcase Asia underway.

Thinking Green Sprouts

Are decisive elections and Governments a thing of the past? Now Australia is in limbo with a hung parliament, as Britain was a few months ago. But there’s some hope that with the influence of the energised Greens and some Independents, climate change action and a carbon price might well be on the cards. It’s what Grant King of Origin Energy would like to see, while Giles Parkinson and Ellen Sandell give their views on what’s possible. India is advancing with its climate action commitment and Asia gears up with a clean tech showcase. Small business gets a look in with UK climate policy and green jobs are on the way. Social enterprise shows how it’s done for renewable energy, while GE sets out the technology and investment for clean energy distribution. Some US states demonstrate that you can have cap & trade scheme even before the Feds decide to act, while the UN is facing up to improving the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). News of meetings and expos in Asia and Australia for Carbon Trading and Green Buildings, while Earthcheck and Travel Wild get together to showcase sustainable hotels and resorts. Even car service centres are cleaning up their act and the last word goes to greener funerals. To die for! – Ken Hickson

Profile: Grant King

Origin Energy CEO Grant King is naturally disappointed with both the political limbo in Australia and because there’s no definitive commitment for the introduction of a carbon price. A carbon price clearly will cause fuel substitution, from more carbon intensive to less carbon intensive fuels – and that is the one shift that our economies have to make. Canberra might be in gridlock, but that isn’t stopping Origin from snapping up enough renewable energy certificates at bargain prices to last them up to three years.

By Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator (25 August 2010):

Origin Energy managing director Grant King tells Climate Spectator editor Giles Parkinson that Canberra might be in gridlock, but that isn’t stopping the company from snapping up enough renewable energy certificates at bargain prices to last them up to three years.

But King warns that his company and all companies are likely to take the debatable course of ‘the lowest risk decisions’.

Meanwhile, King is convinced of the immediate potential of gas to provide baseload power in conjunction with renewables, pointing out that geothermal baseload power is still up to four years away.

He also argues that while warnings about electricity consumption in the advent of electric cars have merit, concerns about capacity are probably overblown.

Giles Parkinson (GP): Grant, thanks for joining us. What’s your reading on the current political situation and the implications for your business?

Grant King (GK): Look, without being too sort of evasive, clearly the electoral task is not yet done, and that’s extraordinarily unusual in an Australian context. So, we don’t know who the next government is and, frankly, I’m not going to speculate. I have no idea how it plays out. I only know what I read in the papers. So, clearly the electoral task is not yet done. It is possible that there are different outcomes which could have different implications for important public policy issues like climate change and carbon emissions, at large, and specifically in relation to the company. But to speculate today how they play out is just not possible because, as I say, the electoral task is not yet done.

GP: Sure. But you’ve argued strongly for a carbon price in the past and been fairly consistent about that.

GK: Yes.

GP: Neither mainstream party came to the election with a carbon price proposal. Were you disappointed in that?

GK: By definition we are because it’s impossible to advocate that that’s the most efficient solution and then be sanguine when it’s not implemented. But equally, you know, we do respect that the community elects its politicians and they make our policies. So, from my point of view, you look through the carbon price into the commitment that is bipartisan and that is that both parties took to the election a reaffirmation that they desire to reduce carbon emissions by 5 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. My inclination is always to look to the area where there is bipartisan support and recognise that the difference between the parties is as to means rather than to end.

GP: Yes, but you’ve said in the past that important investment decisions need to be made now for the investment in Australia’s energy industry, and whether we have or don’t have a carbon price is going to influence what sort of decisions are made and what sort of costs are imposed.

GK: And that’s correct, so hopefully make some sense of that comment… I don’t believe it makes sense to argue nobody will invest in the face of uncertainty. Now, what people do when faced with uncertainty is make those decisions which risk the least amount of capital. In other words, you make the lowest risk decisions you can. And so to the extent that our governments have chosen a particular policy position, we will still see investment, but it will be different investment than that which would otherwise occur under some different policy setting, and the risk that we’ve always pointed to is that under the current policy settings, for example, we will build a system that has a lot more renewables, arguably a lot more wind. We’ll build into that system a lot more intermittency. We’ll put a lot of open cycle gas in to balance that system out. We’ll have much more volatile pricing as a result of that. And with renewables like wind, you know, the wind can blow all night when we don’t need the power for example, so we’ll have long periods of maybe even negative prices which will make subsequent investments in different forms of base load generation much more difficult.

So, there will be a set of consequences that arise from the current policy settings, but at the end of the day people will still invest and we’ll still have our power. You know people will still get electricity for example, but whether it would be the least cost, most effective system that you could have otherwise had is highly debatable.

GP: And with a carbon price, I think you argued that then you can actually go ahead with some of these baseload gas facilities, for instance.

GK: Well, we will, inevitably, because a carbon price clearly will cause fuel substitution and that’s from more carbon intensive to less carbon intensive fuels – and that is the one shift that our economies have to make. At the moment, to the extent that politicians are not doing that through a carbon price, they’ll try and do it through other means like efficiency or mandatory schemes like the renewable scheme. In my view there’s little evidence that people or policymakers can connect the costs that that will cause to incur in the system, compared with the costs that a carbon price might have caused in the system.

For the full interview with Grant King, go to climate spectator.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Grant A King
Managing Director

Grant King was appointed Managing Director of Origin Energy at the time of its demerger from Boral Limited, in February 2000, and was Managing Director of Boral Energy from 1994. Prior to joining Boral, he was General Manager, AGL Gas Companies. Grant is Chairman of Contact Energy Limited (since October 2004), a councillor of the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, a former director of Envestra Limited (1997-2007) and former Chairman of the Energy Supply Association of Australia Limited. Grant has a Civil Engineering Degree and a Master of Management.

Source: www.originenergy.com.au

A Well Hung Parliament for Climate Policy

It is starting to look like a hung parliament might just be better for climate policy than the majority governments we’ve had in the past, says young environmental of the year and climate observer Ellen Sandell, while the TheGuardian (United Kingdom) observes that the independent MPs might insist on climate change action as a condition of any king-making deal with Labor or the Liberal-led coalition as horse-trading begins in the wake of Saturday’s inconclusive Australian election.

Tom Young for Business Green in The Guardian (24 August 2010):

Independent MPs are meeting to discuss whether action on climate change should be a condition of any king-making deal with Labor or the Liberal-led coalition as horse-trading begins in the wake of Saturday’s inconclusive Australian election.

Rob Oakeshott, Bob Katter and Tony Windsor are aiming to decide what demands should be presented to the two parties in the likely event of a hung parliament. Climate change policy is reportedly a key part of their agenda.

At the latest count Labor was hopeful of holding 73 seats in the 150-seat parliament, while the coalition holds 70, both short of the 76 seats needed in the lower house to form a government.

Greens MP Adam Bandt and independent Andrew Wilkie are not taking part in the meeting, but are also said to be weighing up their options. Bandt is widely expected to align himself with the Labor party, but Wilkie has said that he could support either of the two main parties.

Oakeshott, who has emerged as a key negotiator in the group of three independents, yesterday called for action on climate change to form part of any deal. “That is one example of what we may be able to deliver for this country, which the last parliament couldn’t do,” he told ABC news.

Meanwhile, both parties are also looking to woo those Greens elected to the upper house, known as the senate, to ensure that legislation can be approved without opposition.

As a result, the Greens have some leverage with which to persuade a potential Labor or coalition administration to adopt more ambitious climate change policies, including a strong price on carbon and binding national emission and energy efficiency targets.

Prime minister Julia Gillard has signalled that she would like to introduce some form of carbon price if she forms the next government and is likely to set out ambitious proposals if she is required to call on support for her plans from the Greens.

However, Liberal leader Tony Abbott has consistently opposed any form of emissions trading or carbon tax legislation, instead setting out plans for an AU$2.5bn (US$2.2bn) emissions reduction fund.

Despite the fact that if elected as prime minister he may be forced to do a deal with the Greens in order to pass any legislation, Abbott today warned any continuing Labor government would effectively be a Labor-Green alliance. “I think that would be very bad for regional Australia,” he told the Australian newspaper, adding it would “almost certainly” result in a carbon tax

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Ellen Sandell for The Age (25 August 2010):

Independents’ day: a nation waits

Independent MPs expected to hold initial meetings today with Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott.

I was asked to write this article as an analysis of what the election results mean for climate policy in this country, depending on who won. The problem is, we still don’t know who won. However, it’s starting to look like a hung parliament might just be better for climate policy than the majority governments we’ve had in the past.

I spent most of Saturday night grappling with the odd situation we find ourselves in: a lower house controlled by three rural MPs and a Greens balance of power in the Senate. But it’s not just the outcome of the election that has implications for climate policy. The entire campaign and the context surrounding it are almost more important.

It’s not an accident that the Australian people have given power in both houses to minority parties and independents. In fact, it could be seen as a backfire on both major parties, who wrongly thought that appealing to minor issues and self-interest would work. Fortunately (or unfortunately for the major parties), Australians have more smarts and more integrity than that.

Both parties miscalculated which issues were most important to the electorate. At the end of the day, quibbles about the number of debates, negativity and small-issue politics simply didn’t resonate. What people wanted to hear about was integrity and vision, as well as larger issues such as gay marriage, climate change and mental health.

Should this come as a surprise? I don’t think so. 2007 was known globally as Australia’s “climate change election”. Most people predicted that in 2010, climate change would no longer be an issue. But with a strong swing to the Greens and no trust placed in either major party, it goes to show that people won’t drop important issues overnight. In fact, global and national issues are more important than ever before.

It’s been widely documented that young people are more interested in issues than ideology (see Don Tapscott’s bookGrowing Up Digital for a discussion on this matter). Young people might have low membership rates of political parties, but they are still engaged in politics, and this election was a perfect demonstration of that. For example, if you voted at Melbourne Town Hall on Saturday, you would have seen young volunteers from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) handing out “climate scorecards” – ranking the three major parties on their climate policies. At this particular booth, AYCC volunteers outnumbered all the political party volunteers combined.

AYCC, GetUp! and other non-partisan groups covered hundreds of voting booths across the country on election day. In failing to address the big issues that people are concerned about, political parties are losing grassroots organisers to organisations who are more focused on issues than blind party allegiance. They’re losing the kind of people that will get up at 5am, hand out how-to-vote cards all day, talk to their friends and family about politics and ultimately change votes. Without these passionate people to do the groundwork for them, political parties are left to rely on paid employees and stage-managed media appearances to get their message across, and as this election showed, that only goes so far.

As for what all this means for climate policy, there could still be a surprisingly good outcome this election.

We know that Rob Oakeshott was one of only two non-Labor MPs (along with Malcolm Turnbull) to vote with the then Rudd government in favour of its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We know that New England independent MP Tony Windsor has been a strident critic of the coal industry and in 2008 sponsored the “Climate Protection Bill” in the Parliament, calling for 30 per cent cuts by 2020. We know that all three independents support increased clean energy and will be looking beyond pork-barreling or partisanship to make their decision on who to support. We know that the Greens in the Senate want to make climate action their first priority when they take over balance of power next July.

All these factors serve to indicate that climate action might become one of the key negotiating points for Prime Minister Julia Gillard or Opposition Leader Tony Abbott in their dealings with the independents. A price tag on pollution and increased renewable energy investment is not out of the question in the short term. The independents have indicated that they will back the party most likely to uphold stability. With climate change threatening to derail our economy, the party that commits to strong, lasting action on climate change is the most stable and responsible option, and putting a price tag on pollution is widely acknowledged as the most efficient way to achieve that action.

On first glance, it seems like madness that just three people can determine the climate policy of this country, which in turn will have an impact on the climate response globally. But then again, traditional politics in Australia has proven unable to get good climate outcomes so far. Who knows: this unconventional situation, as confusing as it is, just might do a better job.

Ellen Sandell is general manager of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition and joint 2009 Young Environmentalist of the Year.

Source: www.theage.com.au

Farming, Forestry & Energy in NZ Style Trading Scheme?

The very idea of an ETS, in any form, seemed inconceivable a week ago. But one focused on agriculture, and possibly the energy industry, could be a deal-maker, along with the broadband network. The great irony of this would be that agriculture was excluded from the ill-fated CPRS because the leading farming bodies couldn’t get their mind around the matter. So says Giles Parkinson in Climate Spectator.

Giles Parkinson in Cimate Spectator 24 August 2010

Australia may have a New Zealand-style emissions trading scheme – centred around agriculture – quicker than anyone might have expected before the election.

It is just one of the fascinating scenarios being painted by observers and analysts as the trio of country, or “populist agrarian”, independents prepare to begin negotiations with the mainstream political parties.

The very idea of an ETS, in any form, seemed inconceivable last Friday. But one focused on agriculture, and possibly the energy industry, could be a deal-maker, along with the broadband network.

The great irony of this would be that agriculture was excluded from the ill-fated CPRS because the leading farming bodies couldn’t get their mind around the matter.

But what has made a change entirely conceivable is the huge popularity of the recently introduced ETS among the farming community in New Zealand, and a wholesale change of attitude in the US.

This has been accompanied by a growing appreciation in Australia – including among the three independents in question – that a carbon trading scheme could provide enormous opportunities for farmers.

For the past several weeks, New Zealand government ministers and bureaucrats have barely missed an opportunity to trumpet the positive reception to that country’s ETS. The decline in forestry plantings has been dramatically reversed, and farmers are finding new and profitable uses for marginal lands, particularly those that have steep, erosion-prone and largely unproductive land.

Bloomberg reported late last week that New Zealand’s sheep farmers are flocking to a government carbon trading program because some of them are finding that it pays more to plant trees than sell wool and mutton.

“The New Zealand experience shows that bringing in an ETS could be very positive,” says Anthony Hobley, the head of climate change practice at legal firm Norton Rose. Hobley says that, while the US legislation didn’t get up, the idea of an ETS was receiving positive support from the agricultural community because of the way that it was designed.

One of the three country independents, Rob Oakeshott, made it clear yesterday that re-engaging the mainstream parties on the subject of an ETS would be one of his biggest priorities. The other two are likely to be sympathetic if it can be skewed in favour of their rural constituencies.

“The independents, on balance, seem to support action on climate change,” Deutsche Bank analyst Tim Jordan wrote in a report on Monday. He says an ETS could be accelerated, particularly under a minority Labor government.

The irony is that it would only need a small flick of the switch for either mainstream party to support such a measure. Tony Abbott would simply need to re-brand his party’s proposed “abatement market” for soil carbon, and allow it to include forestry, and for the units to be traded, rather than simply bought by the taxpayer.

That shouldn’t be beyond the bounds of a classic conservative agenda that trumpets free markets and small government. He could even use the opportunity to rebrand the “great big new tax” slogan and call it a “great big new asset”.

For Labor, it would simply mean bringing a much abbreviated CPRS back into the sort of timetable that had been envisaged when they were originally elected in 2007, even if it means bypassing the citizen’s assembly.

An agricultural-based scheme would be relatively simple – at least compared to Labor’s CPRS – and simplicity and clarity is key if a carbon price is to successfully introduced.

To make any sense at all, any ETS would need to include at least an energy-based carbon price, as either a tax or a market-based scheme. But that should not be too controversial, because it is now well accepted that the tens of billions of investment so desperately needed in the sector cannot be made without it.

In the energy industry, no one pretends that a carbon price of some sort will not emerge at some point: better for all to deal with it now.

The Greens, however, will be in a position from next July to demand less indulgence towards the heavy emitters than was offered in the CPRS, and might be convinced to allow a staged introduction – with mechanisms to bring in a softer tax-based scheme in other sectors over time – if that was the case. That is the sort of hybrid scheme that was entertained by US Congress before it was all put in the too-hard basket so close to the mid-term elections.

The influence of the country politicians, and their ability to guide the debate towards the substantive issues, rather than rhetoric, could provide a surprising and unique opportunity to develop good policy. That is the attraction of an influential third force.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Asia Invests in Clean Tech & Energy Efficiency

The Indian government has sanctioned US$6.4 billion to finance climate change mitigation plans, including an energy efficiency certificate trading mechanism, where standards will be mandated for over 700 industries. If the industries fail they have to buy certificates to compensate. And with Asia emerging as a leading cleantech investment hub, Clean Technology World Asia in Hong Kong next week (Ipromises to attract attention from business through the region.

By Mridul Chadha for Ecopolitology on (25 August 2010):

The Indian government has sanctioned US$6.4 billion to finance the efforts to mitigate the perspective impacts of climate change on the environmentally sensitive and populous areas of the country.

These funds will be used to achieve the targets and goals mentioned in the National Action Plan for Climate Change released by the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change in 2008. The plan of action to mitigate the impacts of climate change have been subdivided into eight broad categories covering the most critical areas.

These areas include energy efficiency, solar energy, sustainable agriculture, water conservation, sustaining the Himalayan ecosystem and building a knowledge base for understanding climate change and its impacts better.

Answering a question in the Parliament, the Environment and Forest minster Mr. Jairam Ramesh said that India would be among the most gravely affected areas in the world because of the changing climate. He said that the government needs to be more responsible and should bear in mind the possible adverse impacts climate change while negotiating for an international climate treaty.

Flow of Funds

The government has announced several initiatives through which this multi-billion dollar fund would be constituted. The government will soon launch the energy efficiency certificate trading mechanism. Under this initiative, energy efficiency standards will be mandated for over 700 industries and if the industries fail to achieve the standards they would have to buy certificates to compensate for the exceedance.

Another initiative, the renewable energy certificate program would also be launched soon. The government has mandated states to buy a minimum amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources failing which, they would have to buy renewable energy certificates from authorized renewable energy power projects. This would ensure a steady and partially self-sustainable growth of the renewable energy sector.

The Clean Energy Fund is yet another financial resource at the government’s disposal. From July 1, 2010, the government started levying INR 50 ($1.1) on every tonne of coal mined or imported. This year an estimated $650 million is likely to be generated which could increase to over $2 billion by 2015.

These funds would be simultaneously used for funding various clean energy, pollution control and environment management projects. Projects like the National Solar Mission, afforestation projects to increase the carbon offsetting capacities of the Indian forests, projects associated with coastline management to counter rise in sea levels, eco-restoration of sensitive areas in the Himalayan ecosystem, improving the condition of the water resources and switching to energy efficient lighting systems are some of the projects that will benefit from this climate change mitigation fund.

US based Ecopolitology features fresh news and critical analyses of the politics of energy and the environment. Founded by Timothy B. Hurst in 2007 as a creative outlet and informal repository for some of his graduate research ideas, ecopolitology has grown into a much larger project than he ever anticipated. After joining Live Oak Media in September of 2009, ecopolitology opened its doors to regular contributions from several talented writers bringing their diverse passions and perspectives to this little experiment in new media and environmental politics.

Source: www.ecopolitology.org

Clean Technology Investment World Asia

Venue: Kowloon Shangri-La, Hong Kong August 31, 2010 to September 3, 2010

Connecting Capital with Asian Clean Technology Innovations

Accessing Asian Clean Technology Investment, Licensing Rights, Partnerships and Capital with innovators, investors, governments and industry players

Clean Technology Investment World Asia is Asia’s definite platform where investors, financiers, energy users, governments, clean technology innovators and business leaders convene to identify investment opportunities, raise capital, access licensing rights to new innovative technologies and form strategic partnerships
This event will provide critical insights into how:

• Institutional investors, venture capitalist, private equity, asset & fund managers, corporate venture capitalist, large scale energy user, angel investors, family office executives and high net worth individuals can tap into the investment potential of innovative clean technologies in Asia
• Asian Clean technology companies can access capital from regional and global investors
• Corporate companies can access innovative patents through licensing and other partnership models, invest direct into new start-ups or nurture entrepreneurs to develop innovative clean technologies

Clean Technology Investment World Asia 2010 will accelerate your connection to global capital, Asian innovation and source for potential partners. A priority event for all senior executives looking to tap on Asian Clean Technology Innovation or Capital. 

Our Track Record with Investors, Government & Clean Technology Companies 

Following the success of the Australasian Clean Technology Forum now in its 6th Asia, overwhelming investor demand to tap on the clean technology innovation in Asia has lead to the birth of an encompassing platform in Asia showcasing Asian clean technology innovation – Clean Technology Investment World Asia

Source: www.greenbusinesstimes.com, www.terrapinn.com and www.wholesaleinvestor.com.au