Counting the cost & paying the price

It might be hard sometimes coming
up with good news in this crazy world of ours. But we’ll keep at it. And there
are always good people to talk about – like our 100 Global Sustain Ability
Leaders. They  keep popping up all over
the place and in this issue we let you know where to meet some of them, including
Wayne Visser (also profiled), Thomas Thomas, Esther An, Jessica Cheam, Howard
Shaw, Simon Tay and Harveen Narulla. We had a positive reaction to our list
release last issue, even getting acknowledgement from the White House, when it learnt
that Energy Secretary and Nobel laureate Steven Chu had been honoured. We will
continue to draw attention to and feature our Sustain Ability Leaders in coming
issues. This issue also features positive stories about advances with tidal and
wave energy in Europe; some good news on the solar front from Australia and
China, and  deserved attention for leading
companies like GE, Ford, Toyota, BMW and Walmart for smart sustainable
investments. The insurance industry knows that climate change is for real, even
if politicians in some places don’t. There’s a new global energy management
standard and Singapore could go for urban farming, while Australia counts the
cost of its carbon price compensation “protectionist” plan. We learn that
geo-engineering is not all it is cracked up to be and maybe we need to have
another look at nitrogen. There’s a psychological as well as a physical price
to pay for all the extreme weather the world is getting and we cannot blame God
or Nature for the disastrous species loss. “The Oil Price” might be a piece of
fiction by Guy Lane but it is deadly serious. Will we ever learn? – Ken Hickson

Profile: Dr Wayne Visser

The challenge now is to admit past
failure and to make CSR 2.0 – weaving the strands of sustainability and
responsibility – into the new DNA of business. As the Founder and Director of
CSR International,  Dr Visser is the
keynote speaker at Singapore Compact’s CSR Summit 5 & 6 September, when he
will address the question: “Sustainability, the next Megatrend: How True and
how to Respond?” He is also one of the 100 Global Sustain Ability Leaders,
along with four other luminaries, speaking at the summit. Read More

In the May 2010 issue of Harvard
Business Review the article titled ‘The Sustainability Imperative’ by David
Lubin from the Sustainability Network and Daniel Esty from Yale University, was
the first to argue that sustainability
is the next transformational business megatrend comparable to mass
production, manufacturing quality movement, IT revolution, and globalization.

The DNA Model of CSR 2.0

Value Creation, Good Governance,
Societal Contribution and Ecological Integrity

By Wayne Visser

I believe that CSR 2.0 – or
Transformative CSR (I also sometimes call it Systemic CSR, Radical CSR or
Holistic CSR, so use whichever you prefer) – represents a new holistic model of
CSR. The essence of the CSR 2.0 DNA model are the four DNA Responsibility
Bases, which are like the four nitrogenous bases of biological DNA (adenine,
cytosine, guanine, and thymine), sometimes abbreviated to the four-letters GCTA
(which was the inspiration for the 1997 science fiction film GATTACA). In the
case of CSR 2.0, the DNA Responsibility Bases are Value creation, Good
governance, Societal contribution and Environmental integrity.

Hence, if we look at Value
Creation, it is clear we are talking about more than financial profitability.
The goal is economic development, which means not only contributing to the
enrichment of shareholders and executives, but improving the economic context
in which a company operates, including investing in infrastructure, creating
jobs, providing skills development and so on. There can be any number of KPIs,
but I want to highlight two that I believe are essential: beneficial products
and inclusive business. Does the company’s products and services really improve
our quality of life, or do they cause harm or add to the low-quality junk of
what Charles Handy calls the ‘chindogu society’. And how are the economic
benefits shared? Does wealth trickle up or down; are employees, SMEs in the
supply chain and poor communities genuinely empowered?

Good Governance is another area
that is not new, but in my view has failed to be properly recognised or
integrated in CSR circles. The goal of institutional effectiveness is as
important as more lofty social and environmental ideals. After all, if the institution
fails, or is not transparent and fair, this undermines everything else that CSR
is trying to accomplish. Trends in reporting, but also other forms of
transparency like social media and brand- or product-linked public databases of
CSR performance, will be increasingly important indicators of success,
alongside embedding ethical conduct in the culture of companies. Tools like
Goodguide, KPMG’s Integrity Thermometer and Covalence’s EthicalQuote ranking
will become more prevalent.

Societal Contribution is an area
that CSR is traditionally more used to addressing, with its goal of stakeholder
orientation. This gives philanthropy its rightful place in CSR – as one tile in
a larger mosaic – while also providing a spotlight for the importance of fair
labour practices. It is simply unacceptable that there are more people in
slavery today than there were before it was officially abolished in the 1800s,
just as regular exposures of high-brand companies for the use of child-labour
are despicable. This area of stakeholder engagement, community participation
and supply chain integrity remains one of the most vexing and critical elements
of CSR.

Finally, Environmental Integrity
sets the bar way higher than minimising damage and rather aims at maintaining
and improving ecosystem sustainability. The KPIs give some sense of the
ambition required here – 100% renewable energy and zero waste. We cannot
continue the same practices that have, according to WWF’s Living Planet Index,
caused us to lose a third of the biodiversity on the planet since they began
monitoring 1970. Nor can we continue to gamble with prospect of dangerous – and
perhaps catastrophic and irreversible – climate change.

A final point to make is that CSR
2.0 – standing for corporate sustainability and responsibility – also proposes
a new interpretation for these terms. Like two intertwined strands of DNA,
sustainability and responsibility can be thought of as different, yet
complementary elements of CSR. Hence, sustainability can be conceived as the
destination – the challenges, vision, strategy and goals, i.e. what we are
aiming for – while responsibility is more about the journey – our solutions,
responses, management and actions, i.e. how we get there. The challenge now is
to admit that CSR 1.0 has failed, and to make CSR 2.0 – weaving the strands of
sustainability and responsibility – into the new DNA of business.

Table 5: DNA Model of CSR 2.0

DNA Code           Strategic Goals         Key Indicators

Value creation    Economic development

• Capital investment (financial, manufacturing,
  social, human & natural capital)
• Beneficial products (sustainable &
  responsible goods & services
• Inclusive business (wealth distribution, bottom
  of the pyramid markets)

Good governance   Institutional effectiveness

• Leadership (strategic commitment to
  sustainability & responsibility)
• Transparency (sustainability &
  responsibility reporting, government payments)
• Ethical practices (bribery & corruption
  prevention, values in business)

Societal contribution     Stakeholder orientation

• Philanthropy (charitable donations, provision of
  public goods & services)
• Fair labour practices (working conditions,
  employee rights, health & safety)
• Supply chain integrity (SME empowerment, labour
  & environmental standards)

Environmental integrity         Sustainable ecosystems

• Ecosystem protection (biodiversity conservation
  & ecosystem restoration)
• Renewable resources (tackling climate change,
  renewable energy & materials)
• Zero waste production (cradle-to-cradle
  processes, waste elimination)

Article reference

Visser, W. (2011) The DNA Model
of CSR 2.0: Value Creation, Good Governance, Societal Contribution and
Ecological Integrity, CSR International Inspiration Series, No. 9.

For the full article go to the
CSR International website where it is free to join and download up to five
articles a month. A longer 10 page article “The Ages and Stages of CSR: Towards
the Future with CSR 2.0” is also available.

Biographical

In addition, Wayne is Senior
Associate at the University of Cambridge Programme for Sustainability
Leadership, Visiting Professor of Sustainability at Magna Carta College,
Oxford, and Birmingham Graduate School and of CSR at La Trobe Graduate School
of Management, Australia. Before getting his PhD in Corporate Social
Responsibility (Nottingham University, UK), Wayne was Director of
Sustainability Services for KPMG and Strategy Analyst for Cap Gemini in South
Africa.

His other qualifications include
an MSc in Human Ecology (Edinburgh University, UK) and a Bachelor of Business
Science with Honours in Marketing (Cape Town University, South Africa). Wayne
lives in London, UK, and enjoys art, writing poetry, spending time outdoors and
travelling in his home continent of Africa.

In 2010, Wayne completed a 20
country ‘CSR Quest’ World Tour, to share best practices in corporate
sustainability and responsibility. A full biography and much of his writing and
art is on www.waynevisser.com

Source: www.csrinternational.org

China Ahead in Solar Race & Toxic Waste

The bankruptcies of three
American solar power companies in the last month, including Solyndra of
California, have left China’s industry with a dominant sales position — almost
three-fifths of the world’s production capacity — and rapidly declining costs. Meanwhile,
China’s environmental watchdog will suspend reviews of all new industrial
projects in Qujing, Southwest China’s Yunnan province, until the city cleans up
its toxic chromium slag and remedies polluted soils. Pictured are the 20,000 Suntech
solar panels on the Hongqiao Station of the Beijing-Shanghai High-Speed Railway

By KEITH BRADSHER for New York
Times, 1 September 1, 2011

HONG KONG — The bankruptcies of
three American solar power companies in the last month, including Solyndra of
California on Wednesday, have left China’s industry with a dominant sales
position — almost three-fifths of the world’s production capacity — and rapidly
declining costs.

Solar panel inspection at a
factory in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province. Chinese companies’ cost advantages
overwhelm any lags in technology, analysts say.

Some American, Japanese and
European solar companies still have a technological edge over Chinese rivals,
but seldom a cost advantage, according to industry analysts.

Loans at very low rates from
state-owned banks in Beijing, cheap or free land from local and provincial
governments across China, huge economies of scale and other cost advantages
have transformed China from a minor player in the solar power industry just a
few years ago into the main producer of an increasingly competitive source of
electricity.

“The top-tier Chinese firms are
kind of the benchmark now,” said Shayle Kann, a managing director of solar
power studies at GTM Research, a renewable energy market analysis firm based in
Boston. Pricing of solar equipment is determined by the Chinese industry, he
said, “and everyone else prices at a premium or discount to them.”

Besides Solyndra, the other two
American manufacturers that filed for bankruptcy in August were Evergreen
Solar, of Massachusetts, and SpectraWatt, a New York company. Another company,
BP Solar, halted manufacturing at its complex in Frederick, Md., last spring.

Those bankruptcies and closings
represent almost one-fifth of the solar panel manufacturing capacity in the
United States, according to GTM Research.

Solyndra and Evergreen in
particular suffered because they pursued unusual technologies whose
competitiveness depended on their using less polysilicon, the main material for
solar panels. That has become less important because polysilicon prices have
tumbled more than 80 percent in the last three years as output has caught up
with demand.

Analysts say that two American
companies remain strongly placed. One is First Solar, the largest American
manufacturer, which uses a different technology but has its biggest factory in
Malaysia. The other, SunPower, is much smaller but is an industry leader in the
efficiency with which its panels convert sunlight into electricity, so that
they sell at a premium to Chinese panels.

But with Beijing heavily
supporting its industry, the Chinese companies are forging ahead.

“There is no question that
renewable energy companies in the United States feel pressure from China,” said
David B. Sandalow, the assistant secretary for policy and international affairs
at the United States Energy Department. “Many of them say it is cheap capital,
not cheap labor, that gives Chinese companies the main competitive advantage.”

China’s three biggest solar power
companies — Suntech Power, Yingli Green Energy and Trina Solar — have all in
the last two weeks announced second-quarter sales increases of 33 to 63 percent
from a year earlier.

Yingli and Trina were also
profitable in the quarter. Suntech posted a loss, mostly because it broke a
longstanding agreement to buy solar wafers — critical components in the
manufacturing process — from a Singapore affiliate of MEMC Electronic Materials
of Missouri. Suntech aims to make more wafers itself.

Shares in large and small Chinese
solar power companies have mostly rallied in the last two weeks on the New York
and Hong Kong stock markets, as investors have welcomed their strong quarterly
results and the prospect of dwindling competition from Western rivals. Besides
the bankruptcies in the United States, solar power companies in Germany,
another big producer, have been laying off workers and retrenching.

The recent strength of Chinese
stocks “truly reflects the low cost base of the Chinese solar manufacturers,
and it is great to see their positioning, particularly relative to their
American and European counterparts,” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of
Nature Elements Capital, a Chinese clean energy investment company based in
Beijing.

He attributed the Chinese
industry’s low costs not to inexpensive labor in China — high-technology solar
panel manufacturing is not labor-intensive — but rather to free or subsidized
land from local governments, extensive tax breaks and other state assistance.

Solar panel prices have plunged
by 30 to 42 percent per kilowatt-hour in the last year as manufacturers have
sharply increased capacity, particularly in China. Meanwhile, demand has been
somewhat weak in the main markets in the United States and Europe.

Costs for electricity generated
by utility-scale solar installations now approach costs for natural gas in some
markets, like California’s, when subsidies of as much as 30 percent of the
price are included. However, costs remain well above the cost of electricity
from coal.

The United States and the
European Union have tried to build demand for solar power by subsidizing the
buyers of solar panels. But increasingly those subsidies are being used to buy
solar panels from China.

The Chinese government has
pursued a different policy course. Instead of subsidizing the purchase and use
of solar power, China has focused on building the competitiveness of the
country’s manufacturers. As a result, China exports 95 percent of the solar
panels it produces. The United Steelworkers union filed a legal complaint a
year ago with the United States government, asking the Obama administration to
investigate China’s clean energy subsidies and other policies and to bring
cases against them at the World Trade Organization. The organization’s rules
strictly prohibit export subsidies, to prevent countries from buying market
share in foreign markets for their producers.

The administration did challenge
one Chinese government practice: giving subsidy grants of $6.7 million and $22.5
million to Chinese wind turbine manufacturers that agreed not to buy imported
components.

China agreed in June to
discontinue the practice, but by then it had already built the world’s largest
wind turbine manufacturing industry over the last five years and now has highly
competitive Chinese producers for almost every component.

Nkenge L. Harmon, a spokeswoman
for the United States trade representative’s office, said on Thursday that the
agency’s investigation continued into whether other Chinese green energy
policies might violate W.T.O. rules.

Source www.nytimes.com

By Li Jing (China Daily)

2 September 2011

BEIJING – The country’s
environmental watchdog will suspend reviews of all new industrial projects in
Qujing, Southwest China’s Yunnan province, until the city cleans up its toxic
chromium slag and remedies polluted soils, a senior official said on Thursday.

The Ministry of Environmental
Protection is also preparing to launch a nationwide campaign to target illegal
dumping and stockpiling of hazardous waste before the end of this year,
according to Zhang Lijun, deputy minister of environmental protection.

Enterprises involved in the
production of chromium and polycrystalline silicon, and in the disposal of
sewage sludge and electronic waste will be placed under special scrutiny, he
added.

Under Chinese law, all industrial
projects must undergo environmental reviews before being approved for
construction. The regional ban for Qujing, which will put a brake on its
economic expansion, came as a punishment after a local chemical plant illegally
dumped more than 5,000 tons of highly toxic waste in June.

The dumping contaminated nearby
water sources, caused the deaths of livestock and threatened the safety of drinking
water for cities downstream.

“This is not an isolated
case. It reflects a widespread oversight on the treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste in the country,” said Zhang.

The large amounts of toxic
industrial waste are polluting soils and water sources, and posing threats to
public health, he said.

The latest national pollution
census, in 2007, showed the country produced 45.74 million tons of hazardous
waste that year. During the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015), the amount is
expected to increase at an annual rate of 5 to 7 percent, as the country’s
demand for industrial materials will continue to grow, Zhang said.

“However, every year, only
about 8 million tons receive proper treatment, less than 20 percent of the
total amount,” he said.

Zhang cited limited treatment
capacity, the high cost of proper disposal and slack supervision by
environmental authorities as causes of the failure to control the use of
dangerous chemicals.

The ministry set the end of 2012
as a deadline for all chromium plants to properly treat all of their stockpiled
slag. Toxic waste produced after 2006 has to be cleared up by the end of this
year. Those who fail to meet the deadlines will be ordered to halt production.

An independent investigation by
environmental organization Greenpeace shows that there are still more than
140,000 tons of chromium slag stockpiled at Yunnan Luliang Chemical Industry,
the polluting company in Qujing.

Tests showed that the groundwater
near the plant has an extremely high concentration of carcinogenic sexivalent
chromium. Nearby villagers have complained about a higher than normal rate of
cancer in their communities.

Some environmentalists welcomed
the ministry’s move.

Ma Tianjie, a toxics campaigner
from Greenpeace, said: “The timetable to properly dispose of stockpiled
toxic waste is very important. But it is also essential for the ministry to
disclose relevant information so the public can participate in the
supervision.”

Source: www.chinadaily.com.cn

No Incentive to Lie: Irene & Insurance Industry

Hurricane Irene’s residue is
likely to include a confusing debate over whether insurers or property owners
are responsible for storm-caused water damage. There’s no lack of clarity,
however, over whether the insurance industry believes in climate change and its
ties to lethal weather: It does. As Bloomberg Businessweek reports  that the industry has absorbed many lessons
from Sept. 11 about anticipating risk. One is that the recent spate of weather
extremes is likely to continue — and the insurance market must reflect that.

Market, Politicians Going
Separate Ways on Climate Change: View

By the Editors  Bloomberg September  1, 2011

Hurricane Irene’s residue is
likely to include a confusing debate over whether insurers or property owners
are responsible for storm-caused water damage. There’s no lack of clarity,
however, over whether the insurance industry believes in climate change and its
ties to lethal weather: It does.

As Bloomberg Businessweek reports
in its Sept. 5 issue, the industry has absorbed many lessons from Sept. 11
about anticipating risk. One is that the recent spate of weather extremes is
likely to continue — and the insurance market must reflect that.

Interestingly, this puts the
industry at odds with a number of Republican candidates who have made
questioning climate change a not-insignificant part of their campaign strategy.
Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann dispute whether global warming is man-made.
Perry suggests that climate is affected by many variables, which scientists can
manipulate “so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” Mitt
Romney is on the fence. Only Jon Huntsman Jr. has declared definitively that he
trusts scientists on global warming.

Politicians have been known to dissemble
about risk because voters generally don’t like to hear bad news. The insurance
industry makes its money telling it to you straight — how long you’ll probably
live, what price your home will fetch, whether to repair or trade in your car.

Risk Models

For this reason, it’s worth
noting that insurers already factor climate change into their models for
measuring, pricing and distributing risk. Insurers have no incentive to lie. If
they are more scared than they should be in pricing risk, shareholders will
punish them. If they aren’t scared enough, nature will do the job.

No one can say for certain that
any single weather event flows from the warmer air caused by carbon emissions,
which in turn lead to more rainfall, floods and snowfall over some parts of the
planet, and more drought in other parts. But last year was the hottest on
record. Arctic ice is at record low levels. Regardless of what politicians say,
insurers must factor all this into premiums.

Vulnerable Areas

Swiss Re, the second-largest
reinsurer, is developing scenarios using probabilistic modeling to help
government officials cope. The reinsurer studied the effects of climate change
in vulnerable areas such as Samoa, Mali, Caribbean islands and Miami.

No matter which model it chose –
no change, moderate changes or extreme changes — Swiss Re concludes it’s
cheaper to adapt now than to sit and wait.

It recommends building codes that
require more water- and wind-proofing, zoning laws that prevent planting trees
close to buildings and power lines, redesigned beaches that absorb storm surge,
and restoration of wetlands.

Hurricane Irene, and the
estimated $5 billion to $7 billion in damage claims insurers now face, has been
swept up in this debate. Irene maintained hurricane strength farther north than
storms usually do — and dropped extraordinary amounts of rain. At the same
time, parts of the U.S. are experiencing record-high temperatures and dust-bowl
conditions. Houston hit an all-time high of 109 degrees Fahrenheit (43 degrees
Celsius) the same day Irene was roaring up the Eastern Seaboard.

Rising Seas

A storm with Irene’s fury will
only cause more damage in the future. Rising sea levels will allow storm surge
to penetrate farther inland. Americans pushing relentlessly toward the East and
West Coasts are putting themselves and their property in harm’s way.

If elected officials want to help
constituents prepare for disaster, they could fight for legislation to curb
carbon emissions, and they could keep people from building along coastlines.
Politicians have enjoyed enormous success calling scientists into question. The
market may not prove to be such an easy target.

Source: www.bloomberg.com

Profiting from Investing in Solar & Wind. What about Jet Bio Fuel?

Solar and wind farm developer CBD
Energy is unique – it actually makes a profit from its core business producing
clean energy. If the forecasts are right and huge investments come to renewable
energy, making money out of clean energy will be commonplace. Maybe that’s one
good reason for GE to announce that it has joined Virgin Australia and a
consortium of other partners to research and develop commercial biofuel for the
aviation industry.

Giles Parkinson, Climate
Spectator (2 September 2011)

Solar and wind farm developer CBD
Energy is a company that stands unique among Australian listed stocks – it
actually makes a profit from its core business – clean energy.

If the forecasts are right about
the exponential growth of the green economy and the huge investments that will
be made in renewable energy in coming decades, making money out of clean energy
will be commonplace.

For the moment, however, the
listed clean energy sector is awash in losses as development and R&D costs
swamp the paltry revenues of emerging technologies, or earnings are overwhelmed
by hig debt levels, in the case of established wind farm developers such as
Infigen Energy.

That makes CBD’s results worth
analysing, as an island of black in a sea of red ink. In the last financial
year, the Sydney-based CBD returned net earnings of $5.1 million as its
revenues surged nearly four-fold to $165 million from $45 million earlier,
mostly courtesy of its eco-kinetics solar division and the rush to install
rooftop PV.

Operating profits were up 48 per
cent, and the net profit would have been greater had it not been for a tax
credit in the previous year.

The solar business has been the
engine room of its results, and gives at least some insight into the industry,
which remains largely opaque because of the lack of listed company involvement.
Clearly, many companies have been making money. So far, however, we have only
learned that Origin, now the biggest solar PV company in the country, had
revenue of more than $300 million in the last financial year, around a 10-fold
increase, and an unspecified profit from these activities.

CBD says eco-Kinetics – the solar
PV business it acquired for $13 million two years ago – lifted its revenue from
$28 million to $127 million, and profits from $9.7 million to $12.5 million.
CBD says the division has increased market share in the industry upheaval
created by policy uncertainty, but the results suggest a significant squeeze on
margins in doing that. Eco-Kinetics has completed the construction of its 8MW
solar PV project in Thailand, and is now working on solar projects in Italy.

The company’s newly established
premium solar brand, CBD Solar, which uses panels from the German maker Solon,
returned revenue of $14.5 million, and a maiden operating profit of $635,000.
Its solar businesses had $27 million of SRECs (small scale renewable energy
certificates) in hand as at June 30.

Its energy efficiency subsidiary,
Captech, returned a small profit, but this is expected to rise considerably
when its new solar inverter manufacturing facilities go into full swing this
year. Its air conditioning services unit, Parmac, also delivered a small
profit.

CBD, meanwhile, retains grand
plans to seize a major hold of the Australian wind industry through its
AusChina Energy joint venture with the Chinese energy heavyweights, Datang and
Hianwei, that was established in April.

AusChina hopes to acquire or
develop $6 billion of wind projects in Australia, and under a new agreement
unveiled on Thursday, CBD will take management control of the company in return
for a fee of 0.5 per cent. It holds a 23.75 per cent equity stake in the
venture, and can participate in developments via a loan from its partners.

The venture will be watched with
interest. As we wrote in April, it has the potential to have a dramatic impact
on the industry dynamics, courtesy of cheap Chinese finance, and cheaper
Chinese wind turbines. Still, there is a certain amount of scepticism in the
industry about what impact the venture will have, about the ability of the
venture to attract other financiers if the Chinese want to spread the risk, and
its ability to deliver on the projects. The company says project identification
and evaluation has continued, and it may make its first announcement in coming
weeks. “While there are lead times to estalishing wind projects, AusChina
offers a substantial opportunity for building long term recurring revenue
streams.”

CEO Gerry McGowan says the
overall results are just a pointer to the potential of the business, given its
emergenc as the only fully integrated solar equipment manufacturer in the
country, the AusChina joint venture, its diversification across wind, solar and
energy efficiency, and the growing opportunities in the international markets,
which he says will offset the policy uncertainty in Australia.

Still, CBD, like others in the
sector, has some work to do to convince investors. It may be the only clean
energy company that can deliver a profit, but its shares sit squarely with its
peers – right in the doldrums. They last traded at 11c, giving it a market
capitalisation of $49 million. Over the past year they have fallen 15 per cent,
despite their lift in revenues and profits, and are well down from a 2011 peak
of 18c reached soon after the AusChina venture was first unveiled.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

31 August 2011 GE joins
consortium to develop Australian aviation biofuel

Sydney, Australia – 1 September,
2011 – GE (NYSE:GE) today announced that it has joined Virgin Australia and a
consortium of other partners to research and develop commercial biofuel for the
aviation industry. The consortium will focus on pyrolytic conversion of biomass
from mallee eucalypt trees and intend to have a pilot biofuel production unit operating
in Australia by 2012.

The agreement comes as the
aviation industry puts added focus on carbon emissions as it becomes covered by
emissions trading schemes around the world. As part of GE’s ecomagination
initiative, the company is already leading the way in the development of fuel
efficient jet engines within its sustainable transport portfolio; the
development of biofuels is a natural extension of this.

Ben Waters, Director of
ecomagination, GE Australia and New Zealand said: “Innovation and creativity
will play enormous roles as part of the transition to a low carbon future. We
already invest a huge amount in the development of more efficient and
alternative energy sources in the aviation industry and beyond, and we hope to
bring a huge amount of knowledge to this partnership.”

A recent CSIRO report estimated
that the aviation industry could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17%, generate
more than 12,000 jobs and reduce Australia’s reliance on aviation fuel imports
by $2 billion per annum over the next 20 years through the adoption of
biofuels.

The consortium includes Renewable
Oil Corporation, the Future Farm Industries CRC, and Canadian biofuels company
Dynamotive Energy Systems Corporation alongside Virgin Australia and now GE.

As well as the development of the
fuels, GE will assist with the certification process. Before being approved for
commercial use, new fuels undergo rigorous tests in laboratories, on engine
test rigs and then in carefully monitored non-commercial flights.

About GE

GE (NYSE: GE) is an advanced
technology, services and finance company taking on the world’s toughest challenges.
Dedicated to innovation in energy, health, transportation and infrastructure,
GE operates in more than 100 countries and employs about 300,000 people
worldwide. For more information, visit the company’s web site at www.ge.com/au.

About Virgin Australia

Virgin Australia group of
airlines (ASX: VBA), formerly the Virgin Blue group of airlines, was launched
in 2000 as the first sustainable low-fare airline in Australian skies. Today
the group employs over 7,000 people and includes multi-award winning domestic
airline Virgin Australia (formerly Virgin Blue); international long-haul
airline V Australia; international subsidiary airline Pacific Blue; and
Polynesian Blue, a joint venture airline with the Government of Samoa. Virgin
Australia is currently in the process of re-launching its domestic and
short-haul international product, and both V Australia and Pacific Blue
airlines will operate as Virgin Australia by the end of 2011.

About Dynamotive Energy Systems
Corporation

Dynamotive Energy Systems Corporation
is an energy solutions provider headquartered in Vancouver, Canada, with
offices in the USA and Argentina. Its carbon/greenhouse gas neutral fast
pyrolysis technology uses medium temperatures and oxygen-less conditions to
turn dry, waste cellulosic biomass into BioOil for power and heat generation.
BioOil can be further converted into vehicle fuels and chemicals. Dynamotive
has currently a co-operation agreement with IFP Energies Nouvelles on upgrading
and the parties are in exclusive negotiations for the commercial development of
this process.

About Renewable Oil Corporation

Renewable Oil Corporation Pty Ltd
(ROC ) is an Australian company established to develop pyrolysis projects in
this region. It has an exclusive technology licensing agreement with Dynamotive
and works closely with Dynamotive and its partners. ROC’s board includes
award-winning Australian engineering personnel as well as the CEO of Dynamotive
and Australian experts in corporate governance and legal and financial issues.
ROC is a private company funded by Australian and overseas investors.  www.renoil.com.au

About Future Farm Industries
Co-operative Research Centre

Future Farm Industries is an
incorporated, national joint venture of southern Australia’s leading
agricultural R&D organisations which is working on a range of profitable
and sustainable farming systems and technologies to assist livestock and crop
producers adapt to climate change. Under its ‘energy tree cropping’ initiative,
it draws on the resources and expertise of the WA Departments of Environment
and Conservation, and Agriculture and Food, and CSIRO to undertake the
necessary R&D for on-farm mallee production. Toowoomba-based Biosystems
Engineering is FFI CRC’s partner developing the mallee harvester and biomass
supply chain technologies.

Source: www.futurefarmonline.com.au and www.ge.com/au

Tilting at Windmills? Blacksliding on Energy & Protectionism in Disguise

The Australian government will
spend up to A$36,000 a year on every steel worker in Australia through carbon
tax industry compensation, prompting claims of protectionism by independent
think tank the Grattan Institute, writes Tom Arup in the Age. While Paddy Manning
in Business Day says “What is galling is watching the clock turn back on state
policies designed to help tackle climate change. Backsliding on support for
renewable energy in Victoria and NSW is a foretaste of life under Tony Abbott.”

Carbon tax compensation a ‘return
to protectionism’

Tom Arup In The Age August 30,
2011

THE government will spend up to
$36,000 a year on every steel worker in Australia through carbon tax industry
compensation, prompting claims of protectionism by independent think tank the
Grattan Institute.

In a report released today, the
institute finds the steel industry will make a windfall per tonne of steel from
carbon tax compensation over the first four years of the scheme.

The institute also finds the
government’s commitment of free permits and a $300 million adjustment fund for
steel under the carbon price will cost it more than $320,000 per worker from
2012 to 2020, or on average $36,000 a year. The finding assumes a carbon price
of $40 a tonne by 2020 – higher than Treasury’s estimate – and that BlueScope
will close the Port Kembla number six furnace. ”The steel package effectively
protects the Australian industry not from a carbon price, but from structural
adjustments in the global steel industry,” the report says.

”This industry assistance cannot
be justified by reference to carbon pricing. It reverts to the protectionist
policies abandoned in the 1980s when Australia realised that boundaries and
tariff barriers reduce Australian productivity and living standards by inhibiting
the shift of resources into sectors that would generate greater value for
Australians.”

The report also reviews
assistance for coal mining and LNG industries, finding it difficult to foresee
large job losses in either industry even with a $40 a tonne carbon price and no
industry compensation.

Contrary to industry claims, the
institute finds only one coal mine – Tasman in NSW – would be under threat of
closure, with the rest buffeted by soaring global coal prices.

Coal miners will get $1.33
billion in compensation under the carbon tax.

A spokesman for Climate Change
Minister Greg Combet said the government made no apologies for ”supporting
Australian jobs and competitiveness as our economy makes the transition to a
clean energy future”.

Source: www.theage.com.au

Paddy Manning in Sydney Morning
Herald Business Day

September 3, 2011

The wheels of clean energy are turning in
ever-diminishing circles as politics hogs its place in the sun, writes Paddy
Manning.

PARTY-POLITICKING on the carbon
tax is to be expected. It would be scandalous if a Coalition state government
came out and backed the multiparty climate change committee’s ”clean energy
future” package.

What is galling is watching the
clock turn back on state policies designed to help tackle climate change.
Backsliding on support for renewable energy in Victoria and NSW is a foretaste
of life under Tony Abbott.

According to the Clean Energy
Council, Premier Ted Baillieu happily kissed goodbye to as much as $3 billion
in wind farm investment this week – a perverse outcome given Victoria’s
excellent wind resource.

What will that do for the state’s
competitiveness in clean energy, let alone for Australia’s response to climate
change? It seems Baillieu and his colleagues couldn’t care less.

On rooftop solar, things aren’t
as bad – at least on Thursday the government retained a 25¢/kWh feed-in-tariff
(down from 60¢/kWh) that will help the PV industry along to grid parity, which
in much of the state should arrive by 2014. A bigger problem than the reduced
tariff is the 75MW capacity cap – which on past experience may be met within
months, meaning the stop-start approach to solar policy will continue.

It’s equally dire in NSW where
Premier Barry O’Farrell has replaced the old Solar Bonus Scheme with (drum
roll) nothing at all, and where the premier casually told radio 2GB that his
government hadn’t approved any new wind farm applications ”and if I had my
way, we wouldn’t”.

In a Thursday speech, NSW Energy
Minister Chris Hartcher went so far as to warn against over-reliance on
renewable energy! With federal climate change minister Greg Combet flagging a
wind-back of renewable schemes when (or if) the carbon price comes in, it feels
like there’s a backlash on in Australia – strengthening even as renewables get
more competitive.

In a revealing interview on
Climate Spectator, Origin Energy chief executive Grant King argued for lowering
our renewable energy target. He complained about a group of people who have a
”very strong ideological view that we should be moving straight to renewable
energy”, who are seeking to ”demonise coal seam gas” and other fossil fuels.

King should go back to the
dictionary, or the history books. Liberalism, socialism … renewable-ism?
Hardly. Supporting renewables has nothing to do with ideology – it’s a
perfectly rational solution to our climate challenge. The cost of renewables is
coming down – ”relentlessly” in the case of solar PV, as King acknowledged in
the same interview – and the cost of everything else is going up.

King has been a consistent
supporter of pricing carbon and has invested heavily in renewables (sometimes
badly, in the case of geothermal). But King has championed starting early and
moving gradually – an eminently sensible position 10 or even five years ago,
which is becoming outdated as we square up to the task of getting global
emissions to peak by the end of this decade.

Part of the problem is that
Australia’s renewable energy industry is, by and large, a subset of the fossil
fuel industry. Origin, AGL and Truenergy have a stranglehold on electricity
markets and they want to decide the pace of our response to climate change.

This week International Energy
Agency researchers predicted solar PV and solar-thermal plants could produce
most of the world’s electricity by 2060 – and half of all energy needs – with
wind, hydropower and biomass plants supplying much of the rest. Renewable
energies are the only zero emission solution that we know will work, at scale -
and once a plant is built we get free fuel forever.

”Loony-tunes (sic)” (as one
columnist complained this week)? Tell that to the IEA.

Source: www.smh.com.au

Innovations & Environmental Sustainability from Ford, Toyota & BMW

Ford and Toyota would be joining forces, and
sharing costs, to develop a hybrid powertrain for rear-wheel-drive light trucks
and SUVs. “This is the kind of collaborative effort that is required to
address the big global challenges of energy independence and environmental
sustainability,” says Ford CEO Alan Mulally. And German carmaker BMW
launched the first phase of a US-based pilot program to “validate the
economic and technical feasibility of converting landfill gas into hydrogen”.
Sophie Vorrath reports in Climate Spectator

Sophie Vorrath in Climate
Spectator 29 Aug 2011

The announcement last week that
Ford and Toyota would be joining forces, and sharing costs, to develop a hybrid
powertrain for rear-wheel-drive light trucks and SUVs has generated a bit of
excitement in both the automotive and cleantech worlds.

“This is the kind of collaborative effort
that is required to address the big global challenges of energy independence
and environmental sustainability,” Ford CEO Alan Mulally said in a statement
about the joint venture. And while that’s possibly not as platitudinous as it
sounds, GreenTech Media’s Martin La Monica points out that it is also just
smart business.

“This deal is about sharing
resources, raising the bar for hybrid development, and getting it done as
quickly as possible,” he says. “Since both companies already have
front-wheel-drive hybrid systems, this new architecture… fills a hole in
their technology platforms.”

But La Monica says the deal also
signals “a clear endorsement of hybrid technology.” As opposed to
‘plug-in hybrids,’ hybrid vehicles are those that get most of their power from
their internal combustion engine but, when needed, can get an extra boost of
power from the electric motor. The power for the electric motor is generated
while the car is in motion and stored in the battery, so it doesn’t need to be
plugged in to be functional. The electric motor also acts as a generator,
converting energy from regenerative braking and storing it in the battery.
Generally, hybrids can use the two propulsion means separately or at the same
time. In the more advanced pure hybrids, cars move on electric power alone for
low speed driving and idling, allowing for reduced fuel consumption in city
driving.

“Combined with other
fuel-saving tricks, hybrids are poised to spread beyond niche status and bring
better fuel economy to a broader range of vehicles,” says La Monica. And
according to the joint press statement, that’s more-or-less the plan: the two
companies intend the new hybrid powertrain to “bring the full hybrid
experience of greater fuel efficiency to a new group of truck and SUV customers
without compromising the capability they require in their vehicles.”
Certainly, the timing couldn’t be better, with stringent new EPA fuel economy
standards announced by the Obama government last month. Plug-in vehicles still
have lots of advantages for consumers who want zero petrol consumption and to
have the most environmentally friendly car possible, says La Monica. “But
hybrids mitigate the big downside of plug-ins: battery costs. A lithium ion
battery pack for a sedan with a range of about 100 miles costs in the
neighborhood of $10,000. Those costs will come down with better technology and
manufacturing scale, but there’s no clear technical breakthrough which will
make EVs undercut fuel-efficient gas cars on purchase price alone.”

Bavarian Methane Works

German carmaker BMW last month
launched the first phase of a US-based pilot program to “validate the
economic and technical feasibility of converting landfill gas into
hydrogen.” The landfill gas is, of course, methane; the rough plan being
to convert the locally-sourced methane to hydrogen, and then to use this to
power the hydrogen fuel-cell-driven equipment in its 1.2 million-square-foot Spartanburg,
South Carolina, plant which produces the company’s new X3 Sports Activity
Vehicle. Last year, BMW installed a hydrogen storage and distribution area
within the existing Energy Center the plant. If successful, the automaker says
this new project will allow it to “transition from the pilot-scale system
into a full-scale system capable of supporting the largest single-site
deployment of fuel cell material handling equipment in the world.”

“This landfill
gas-to-hydrogen project at BMW will seek to demonstrate a first-of-its-kind
solution that will serve as a model for other private sector companies,” said
SCRA CEO Bill Mahoney. “I am confident that this solution to combine
renewably-generated hydrogen with clean, efficient fuel cell technology will improve
productivity, reduce environmental pollutants and relieve electrical power
demand from the grid and am optimistic that it will be replicated nationally.”
As Fast Company points out, BMW has not divulged the technology they will use
to convert the methane gas into hydrogen power. But the automaker is involved
in at least two projects with the US DOE to develop storage of hydrogen to
power future car models. “Collaboration with the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory on a project to produce and store cryo-compressed hydrogen
is ongoing, as well as a DOE project to efficiently store hydrogen via a liquid
organic carrier,” the company said last month.

Flush with power

Converting waste-emitted methane
to hydrogen to power fuel cells is one thing, but how about fuel cells powered
by the direct conversion of organic matter to electricity using bacteria? This
is the new-ish method of renewable energy development, called microbial fuel
cells, that’s being developed by Penn State University environmental engineer
Bruce Logan. More specifically, the Penn State research team is working on
developing MFCs that can generate electricity while also treating waste water.

How do MFC’s work? Bacteria are
placed in the anode chamber of a specially-designed fuel cell that is free of
oxygen, and then attach to an electrode. Because they don’t have oxygen, they
transfer the electrons that they get from consumption (oxidation) of their food
to the electrode. In a MFC, these electrons go to the anode, while the counter
electrode (the cathode) is exposed to oxygen. At the cathode the electrons,
oxygen and protons combine to form only water. The electrons then move through
a circuit and produce power. Logan’s microbial fuel cells can produce both
electrical power and hydrogen, meaning the cells could one day be used to juice
up hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Logan’s team has also solved the
problem of the expensive and toxic chemicals that were previously needed to
make microbial fuel cells work. “In the early reactors, we used very
expensive graphite rods and expensive polymers and precious metals like
platinum. And we’ve now reached the point where we don’t have to use any
precious metals,” Logan explained to the National Science Foundation. And
while MFCs don’t yet produce enough power to be used in everyday life, Logan
estimates this will happen in the next five to 10 years, with MFCs producing
enough electricity to power waste-water treatment plants as well as
neighbouring towns, reports Fast Company. There may also be MFCs that use salt
water, while also desalinating it, using just the energy from the bacteria.

Source: www.climatespectator.com.au

Not Acts of God or Nature: World is Facing a Biodiversity Crisis

Of the six great mass extinctions
of species on Earth, five involved catastrophic events such as collisions with
huge meteorites, geological upheavals or the arrival of ice ages whose effects
lasted for millennia. The sixth mass extinction is occurring now, but it is the
behaviour of humans rather than nature that has resulted in the loss of
thousands of animal and plant species. And Australia has the worst extinction
record among all developed countries.

Geoff Maslen In The Age August
30, 2011

At risk

OF THE six great mass extinctions
of species on Earth, five involved catastrophic events such as collisions with
huge meteorites, geological upheavals or the arrival of ice ages whose effects
lasted for millennia. The sixth mass extinction is occurring now, but it is the
behaviour of humans over the past few hundred years rather than nature that has
resulted in the loss of thousands of animal and plant species.

Australia has the worst
extinction record among all developed countries. Today, more than 20 per cent
of the country’s mammals are under threat. Upwards of 700,000 species exist in
Australia, many found nowhere else in the world, but changes to the landscape
and native habitat as a result of human activity over the past 200 years have
put many of these species at risk while too many others have simply
disappeared.

“It will take more than a
million years for the world’s diversity of species to recover,” says Dr
Sarah Bekessy. “Organisations responsible for conserving and restoring the
environment need fundamental knowledge and tools to make the best use of their
resources, just as policy-makers need to know what resources are required and
how to distribute them wisely.”

Dr Bekessy, based at RMIT
University, is a chief investigator with the multi-university Australian
Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, whose
director is Professor Hugh Possingham at the University of Queensland. With a
$12 million, seven-year grant from the council, the centre has brought together
researchers from RMIT, the universities of Melbourne, Queensland, Western
Australia, the Australian National University, and others from universities in
Britain, Israel, Finland, Germany, South Africa and the US.

“Biodiversity underpins the
cultural and economic prosperity of Australia but our interventions to protect
this natural inheritance are proving inadequate,” Dr Bekessy says.
“Furthermore, our efforts to conserve biodiversity have not been managed
in such a way that allows us to learn from our investment decisions. The new
centre will generate the fundamental knowledge and tools needed to make the
best use of available resources for conservation and will provide new
techniques for assessing what resources are required and innovative ways for
learning from our investment decisions.”

The new centre builds on the work
of a Commonwealth Environmental Research Facility hub established with a
four-year grant in 2006 to develop tools and test methods to support
transparent decision-making for environmental management. The hub was headed by
Professor Possingham, who now also leads a new National Environmental Research
Program network that started this year with 26 primary researchers, 14 in
common with the ARC Centre of Excellence, and spread across the five Australian
universities and the CSIRO.

“We are a group of
researchers based here in Australia and overseas who share a common interest in
the science of environmental decision-making, and specifically decisions
surrounding the conservation of biodiversity,” Professor Possingham says.

“It includes some of the
world’s pre-eminent scientists working in this field and, if you look at the
publishing record of our members, it’s easy to justify the claim that we are
operating at the cutting edge. As well as those from the six overseas
universities, a total of 100 researchers and staff will be involved in our
work, all united by a deep and professional interest in arresting the
catastrophic declines we are witnessing in biodiversity both here and around
the world.”

He says the research questions
being explored have international significance: “For example: how can we
bend the emerging carbon markets to also deliver nature conservation outcomes?
What is the appropriate balance between resources spent monitoring actions and
the actions themselves?”

Dr Bekessy says the new ARC
centre is developing predictive models and decision-making approaches to
achieve better environmental results in the areas of habitat restoration,
spatial planning under rapid and uncertain environmental change, and adaptation
to threats, including climate change. She adds that new tools from mathematics,
statistics, economics and the social sciences are being devised, along with the
compilation of research data.

“The way we operate is to
form working groups on challenging environmental problems — it’s a very
collaborative approach. We try to keep things real with case studies, one of
which is centred on the urban fringes of Melbourne where we have been
investigating grasslands conservation with a PhD student who is looking
specifically at how landholders respond to incentive schemes. We’re using the
information derived from that study to prepare some models of landholder
behaviour that could potentially be of use elsewhere.”

Dr Bekessy says the goal is to
improve the way investment in the environment occurs, with biodiversity the
main focus. The world is facing a biodiversity crisis yet Australia invests too
little in protecting the environment or maintaining biodiversity — and when it
does, too often it is done poorly without monitoring the performance of those
investments.

She points to “debacles in
the past” such as the National Heritage Trust Fund, set up by the Howard
government in 1997 supposedly to help restore and conserve Australia’s
environment and natural resources. For the following decade, thousands of
community groups and organisations received tens of millions of dollars through
the trust for environmental and natural resource management projects.

Yet Dr Bekessy says very little
information was ever collected on how well the scheme worked or what Australia
had to show for the money spent.

“We don’t even know if it
was successful because it was poorly planned and the spending was very
inefficient. That is why our new centre is about doing that sort of thing more
efficiently, how to get more bang for the buck, monitoring so we learn about
systems, making sure that even if there is uncertainty about an investment,
that we learn from that to ensure next time we do things better.”

Source: www.theage.com.au

Geo-engineering Not the Answer. So what about Nitrogen?

A team of British academics will
undertake the world’s first major ‘geo-engineering’ field test in the next few
months. It’s atmospheric liposuction: a retrospective fix for planetary
over-indulgence, says George Monbiot.
Geo-engineering, which means either sucking carbon dioxide out of the
atmosphere or trying to shield the planet from the sun’s heat, is an admission
of failure, a failure to get to grips with climate change. But is nitrogen the
answer? Researchers have discovered that forest trees can tap into the nitrogen
found in rocks, boosting their growth and allowing them to take up more carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere.

George Monbiot

guardian.co.uk, Friday 2 September 2011

A team of British academics will
undertake the world’s first major ‘geo-engineering’ field test in the next few
months

It’s atmospheric liposuction: a
retrospective fix for planetary over-indulgence. Geo-engineering, which means
either sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere or trying to shield the
planet from the sun’s heat, is an admission of failure, a failure to get to
grips with climate change. Is it time to admit defeat and check ourselves into
the clinic?

The question has arisen again
with the launch of a new experiment funded by Britain’s Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council, injecting particles (in this case water
droplets) into the atmosphere from a gigantic balloon attached to a hosepipe.
The eventual aim, if such experiments are deemed successful, is to squirt large
amounts of sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere, to reduce global warming by
scattering sunlight back into space.

There are five issues affecting
all the proposed geo-engineering technologies. Are they effective? Are they
cheap? Are they safe? Do they solve the other problem associated with rising
greenhouse gas emissions: ocean acidification? Do they introduce moral hazard?
(This means the risk that you’ll behave more recklessly if you’re insulated
from the effects of your actions.)

Broadly speaking, the cheap and
effective options are dangerous; the safe options are expensive or useless.
This isn’t always the case. Seeding the oceans with iron filings, for example,
is probably both useless and dangerous. The intention is to stimulate a bloom
of algae which absorbs carbon dioxide then sinks to the ocean bed. Not only is
little of the gas removed from surface waters by this method; but, because the
iron mops up oxygen, it stimulates the production of methane, a potent greenhouse
gas. The technique is likely both to damage life in the oceans and cause more
global warming than it cures.

There are dozens of proposed
techniques. Here’s a small sample: Sucking CO2 out of the air using artificial
trees. Safe. Effective. Fantastically expensive.

Growing biomass then burying it
or dumping it in the sea. Ecologically damaging. Likely to exacerbate famine.
Ineffective (because it can’t be scaled up sufficiently). Fairly cheap.

Dumping lime or calcium or
magnesium silicates into the sea, where they react with carbon dioxide. Fairly
safe. Effective. Expensive. Has the advantage of potentially reversing ocean
acidification, but the amount of quarrying required to produce enough ground-up
rock is likely to be prohibitive.

Painting buildings white to
ensure that the earth absorbs less of the sun’s heat. Safe. Useless. Expensive.

Whitening clouds to reflect more
sunlight, most feasibly by spraying salt water into the air. Middling
dangerous. Middling useless. Middling cheap.

Shooting mirrors into space. Not
very dangerous. Effective. Staggeringly expensive.

You can read more detailed
summaries of these options in a report published by the Royal Society.

But of all techniques, it’s the
notion of injecting reflective particles into the atmosphere – the technique
the balloon and hosepipe experiment is designed to test – that has received
most attention. There’s an obvious reason for this: it is both cheap and
effective. It is also extremely dangerous.

The reason seems almost as
incredible as the proposed technologies, but it’s rooted in solid science. In
fact we’ve already tested the method at a very large scale, with catastrophic
results. Unfortunately no one realised we were running the experiment until
three decades after it began.

It wasn’t until 2002 that a paper
was published linking the great famines of the 1970s and 1980s with atmospheric
sulphate particles produced in the northern hemisphere. But the link, which has
now been made in a number of papers, listed below, seems to be conclusive:

LD Rotstayn and U Lohmann, 1
August 2002. Tropical Rainfall Trends and the Indirect Aerosol Effect. Journal
of Climate, vol 15, pp2103-2116

IM Held, TL Delworth, J Lu, KL
Findell, and TR Knutson, 13 December 2005. Simulation of Sahel drought in the
20th and 21st centuries. PNAS, vol 102, no 50, pp17891-17896. DOI:
10.1073/pnas.0509057102

M Biasutti and A Giannini, 8 June
2006. Robust Sahel drying in response to late 20th century forcings.
Geophysical Research Letters, vol 33, no 11. DOI: 10.1029/2006GL026067

JE Kristjansson et al, 23
December 2005. Response of the climate system to aerosol direct and indirect
forcing: Role of cloud feedbacks. Journal of Geophysical Research –
Atmospheres, vol 110, no D24

By reducing the size of the
droplets in clouds, thereby ensuring that they reflected more light (which is
the desired outcome of the current experiment), the sulphate particles lowered
the temperature of the sea’s surface in the northern hemisphere. The result was
to shift the Intertropical Convergence Zone – a region close to the equator in
which moist air rises and condenses into rain – southwards. The Sahel, which
covers countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso and
Senegal, is at the northern limits of the zone. As the rain belt was pushed
south, the Sahel was left high and dry. As a result of the clean air acts,
between 1970 and 1996 sulphur emissions in the US fell by 39%. This appears to
have helped the North Atlantic to warm, allowing the rains to return to the
Sahel in the 1990s.

The balloon and hosepipe
experiment is a complete waste of time. The hazardous effects of injecting
particles into the atmosphere are unlikely to make themselves known until the
technique is deployed on a very large scale and for several years. The impacts
of small-scale tests will be lost in the noise of global weather. A full-scale
experiment would be, to say the least, unethical.

As a recent paper in Nature
Geoscience points out, it is “physically not feasible” to stabilise
global rainfall and temperature by means of this technique while greenhouse gas
emissions are still rising. The effects of shooting particles into the
atmosphere will vary dramatically in different parts of the world, helping
some, harming others. It’s impossible to see how the countries likely to be
harmed by this technique would agree to it. If it were imposed on them it would
lead to the mother of all conflicts – and the mother of all lawsuits.

It is so obvious that this
approach is a non-starter that the £1.6m the UK government is spending on the
experiment would be better used to investigate those age-old questions of how
to turn lead into gold or extract sunshine from cucumbers.

This is not to suggest that we
should dismiss all geo-engineering techniques out of hand. But, like liposuction,
none of those being proposed are simultaneously safer, cheaper and more
effective than addressing the problem at source. This means reducing our
greenhouse gases. A good diet and plenty of exercise are better than the knife.

Source: www.guardian.co.uk

Posted on September 1, 2011 -
03:53 by Emma Woollacott in TG Daily

Researchers have discovered that
forest trees can tap into the nitrogen found in rocks, boosting their growth
and allowing them to take up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The nitrogen in rocks could
therefore significantly affect how rapidly the Earth warms in future, says the
University of California, Davis team.

“We were really shocked;
everything we’ve ever thought about the nitrogen cycle and all of the textbook
theories have been turned on their heads by these data,” says
biogeochemist Professor Benjamin Houlton.

“Findings from this study
suggest that our climate-change models should not only consider the importance
of nitrogen from the atmosphere, but now we also have to start thinking about
how rocks may affect climate change.”

It was previously believed that
nitrogen could only enter ecosystems from the atmosphere – either dissolved in
rainwater or biologically ‘fixed’ by specialized groups of plants and other
organisms.

However, says the team, there’s
enough nitrogen contained in one inch of the rocks at the study site to
completely support the growth of a typical coniferous forest for about 25
years.

“This nitrogen is released
slowly over time and helps to maintain the long-term fertility of many
California forests,” says biogeochemist
Professor Randy Dahlgren.

In fact, forests growing on
nitrogen-rich rock were about 50 percent more productive than those growing on
nitrogen-poor rocks throughout Northern California and into Oregon.

The researchers found that the
nitrogen isotopes in the rock matched those of the soils and trees, confirming
that the nitrogen was coming from the rocks.

“It was like a fingerprint;
we found the culprit, and it was the nitrogen in the rocks,” says graduate
student Scott Morford.

Since nitrogen tends to be
highest in sedimentary rocks – which cover roughly 75 percent of the Earth’s
land surface – the discovery has tremendous global significance, says the team.

“The stunning finding that
forests can also feed on nitrogen in rocks has the potential to change all
projections related to climate change,” says Houlton.

“This discovery may also
help explain several other studies that have found that the nitrogen ‘budgets’
of forests are out of balance, the nitrogen accumulation in their soil and
plants being substantially greater than the apparent nitrogen inputs.”

Researchers now include nitrogen
in their climate-change models, and some indicate that it could cause an
additional increase in global temperatures of up to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, as
it limits the amount of carbon dioxide that plants can extract from the
atmosphere.

If more nitrogen is available
than predicted from the traditional nitrogen-cycling pathways, as the UC Davis
study suggests, it could lead to more carbon storage on land and less carbon
remaining in the atmosphere.

Source: www.tgdaily.com

Time and Tide Waits No Longer: Tidal Energy in Scotland & Wales

Scotland’s first commercial-scale
tidal turbine has been connected to the electricity grid off the Orkney coast
and begun generating power. Atlantis Resources gigantic 1MW machine, which
resembles an underwater wind turbine, weighs 1,500 tonnes and stands 70 feet
off the seabed. It will generate enough electricity annually to power about
1,000 homes. And the UK’s Carbon Trust has offered a grant of up to £390k
through its Entrepreneurs Fast Track service to Cardiff-based Tidal Energy Ltd.

By Jenny Fyall  Environment Correspondent  Scotsman.com (11 August 2011):

SCOTLAND’S first commercial-scale
tidal turbine has been connected to the electricity grid off the Orkney coast
and begun generating power.

The gigantic machine which
resembles an underwater wind turbine weighs 1,500 tonnes and stands 70 feet off
the seabed.

Atlantis Resources Corporation
hopes the 1MW device, known as AR1000, will generate enough electricity
annually to power about 1,000 homes.

If the project proves successful,
within the next decade, the company is hoping to install hundreds of the
machines in the turbulent waters of the Pentland Firth off Scotland’s north
coast.

The machine was lowered into the
sea at the European Marine Energy Centre (Emec) off Orkney and will undergo a
further two years of tests. Atlantis chief executive Tim Cornelius said that he
was proud of the achievement of the team that successfully installed the
machine.

“By connecting a 1MW single
rotor device in Scottish waters to the national grid, they have achieved
something that has never been done before,” he said.

He added that he was “very
confident” the turbine would work effectively as it is monitored over the
next two years. We will measure success by showing that we can match
theoretical output with actual output,” he said.

The AR1000 device was built using
expertise from across the UK, with the parts being constructed in Poole,
Newcastle, Invergordon, Scunthorpe and Bedford. Professional divers were
provided by Leask Marine in Orkney and site surveyors came from Edinburgh.

Mr Cornelius told The Scotsman it
was an exciting time for the tidal turbine sector and added that they had been
shown “overwhelming support” locally for helping to kick-start new
employment and industry in the region.

Atlantis Resources is part of
MeyGen Ltd, which has a lease from the Crown Estate to develop part of the
seabed in the Pentland Firth, known as the Inner Sound tidal site. The joint
venture, one of the biggest of its kind, aims to build up to 400 of the
turbines in the Inner Sound tidal site in the Pentland Firth, behind the island
of Stroma and the mainland, starting in 2013. This would provide enough
electricity for about 400,000 homes.

Tidal turbines harness the energy
provided by the movement of the tides and supporters say they will provide a
predictable, reliable source of green electricity.

However, questions remain about
whether the technology will be effective, the impact of tidal renewable energy
on marine life and some concerns have been raised by shipping and fishing
groups. And the scheme to install 400 turbines will require planning permission
before it can go ahead.

Neil Kermode, managing director
of Emec, said: “It is wonderful to see this commercial-scale tidal turbine
connect to the grid from Orkney waters.

“The marine energy industry
in Scotland continues to gather pace and is working towards world-leading
targets in terms of deployment and generation of renewable energy.”

Dozens of wave and tidal
companies are developing machines to try to harness the power of the sea. They
include Pelamis, an Edinburgh-based firm that has created its “sea
snake” wave device that sits on the surface of the water, and Aquamarine
Power, also based in Scotland’s capital creators of the Oyster.

Source: www.news.scotsman.com and www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com

19 August 2011

The Carbon Trust

Environmental impact assessment
to benefit wider marine energy industry

The Carbon Trust has offered a
grant of up to £390k through its Entrepreneurs Fast Track service to
Cardiff-based Tidal Energy Ltd. The grant represents up to 60% of the funding
needed to monitor the environmental impacts associated with the deployment of
Wales’s first tidal stream renewable energy device at Ramsey Sound, off the
Pembrokeshire coast. The findings will then be publically disseminated for the
benefit of the wider marine energy industry.

The Carbon Trust Entrepreneurs
Fast Track has been supporting Tidal Energy Ltd, a tidal energy device
developer, with advice on commercialising its technology since February 2011.
Earlier this year, Tidal Energy obtained consent from the Welsh Government (WG)
and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to install its 1.2MW
DeltaStream device in Welsh waters.

Benj Sykes, Director of
Innovation at the Carbon Trust, said:

“The UK’s marine energy industry
is world-leading and generating energy from the tides could be a major driver
of green growth for us. This grant should provide essential insight into the
effects of tidal turbines in sensitive marine environments and, as the findings
will be made publicly available, benefit the entire industry.

“Through our Entrepreneurs Fast
Track programme we accelerate the UK’s best early stage clean technologies
towards commercialisation and the companies behind them from start-up to
attractive investment proposition.”

Chris Williams, development
director at Tidal Energy Limited, said:

“We were accepted onto the Carbon
Trust’s Entrepreneurs Fast Track programme earlier this year, in order to
obtain the commercial advice and support we needed to take our renewable tidal
technology to market. We have benefited from the Carbon Trust’s considerable
expertise and are now delighted to have been awarded up to 60% of the funding
we require to conduct environmental assessments for our Ramsey Sound project.

“Tidal Energy Ltd and its majority
shareholder Eco2 will make environmental monitoring data available to the
market and are pleased to work with the Carbon Trust for the benefit of the
whole industry.”

The grant, matched by a
contribution from Tidal Energy Ltd., will enable underwater monitoring
techniques and study of the interaction of the tidal energy device with the
surrounding marine environment.

Analysis released earlier this
year by the Carbon Trust shows the UK could capture just under a quarter of the
global marine energy market. Equivalent to up to £76bn to the UK economy by
2050, this growing sector could also generate over 68,000 UK jobs if the
technology is successfully developed and deployed internationally and the UK
builds on its existing lead.

The Carbon Trust is a not-for-profit
company with the mission to accelerate the move to a low carbon economy,
providing specialist support to business and the public sector to help cut
carbon emissions, save energy and commercialise low carbon technologies. By
stimulating low carbon action we contribute to key UK goals of lower carbon
emissions, the development of low carbon businesses, increased energy security
and associated jobs.

Source: www.carbontrust.co.uk