Open the Gates to a Green Economy

The United Kingdom is doing it, big time. South Korea is too. Germany is coming clean. What’s going on? They are opening the gates for investment in a low carbon, green and clean economy. The Gates of the world – in the form of Bill, the multi-billionaire – is himself investing in the future, but wonders why his own US Government is not leading the way. Australia is dragging the chain and in fact missing out on investment – and losing innovative businesses – because it cannot get its carbon price/emissions act together. There are green jobs to be had across the world. Singapore is making a promising start with solar energy moves and investing in energy efficiency measures for industry. Sustainability is gaining traction globally and those businesses which have embarked on the journey are finding its benefits “exceed expectations”. There’s hope for a clean fuel mix for jets in Australia and Malaysia is committing to a greener future, while Indonesia is struggling to keep more of its rainforests intact. New Scientist tells us that nuclear energy is more vulnerable than ever in a climate changing world and Ross Gittens shows us the ugly side of the carbon debate in Australia. Then there’s the ABC challenge. Who cares wins! – Ken Hickson

Profile: Bill Gates

Clearly an advocate for – and an investor in – renewable energy to deal with reducing carbon emissions and climate change impacts, Bill Gates says the energy sector is going to be under-invested in unless the government promotes research and encourages investment by making its policy positions on incentives and regulations clear. “We have to take it (emissions from energy) to zero. There are different approaches — carbon sequestration, natural gas, nuclear, renewable, solar — none of which is clear will be economic so we need to pursue them all. Over the next few decades, we have to invent and pilot. Then we have to deploy in unbelievably quick ways these new sources.”

How Bill Gates Would Solve the Climate Crisis

By Debbie Van Der Hyde for ClimateBiz/GreenBiz (13 May 2011):

It takes a lot — perhaps a minor miracle — to put more than a thousand people in a celebratory mood at 7:30 a.m. And apparently, a public discussion with Bill Gates about climate change and its solutions is just such an occasion.

This week, the former Microsoft chief and current philanthropist and head of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation served as the main attraction at a fundraiser in Seattle put on by Climate Solutions, a regional non-profit organization with operations in Washington, Oregon and Montana.

During the breakfast event, Climate Solutions promoted its mission of clean energy solutions, in part through the premiere of its Solutions Stories video series, and in part through presentations from other regional environmental and political leaders, including Dean Allen, CEO of architecture and construction firm McKinstry; Climate Solutions’ policy director, K.C. Golden; Washington state governor Christine Gregoire and Representative Jim McDermott were also in attendance.

But the real reason the crowds had thronged, and Climate Solutions had gathered dozens of volunteers wearing bright green hard hats as greeters and coordinators to welcome attendees, was to hear Bill Gates speak on climate change challenges and solutions, and how to, as Golden put it, “pioneer a sustainable path to prosperity that works for us for the long run and for the billions of people around world” who are less privileged.

Breakfast with Bill

Gates was interviewed by Climate Solutions’ board co-president Jabe Blumenthal, who asked Gates about his interest in energy, climate change and how these topics relate to the work being done by the Gates Foundation. Excerpts of Gates’ answers to Blumenthal’s questions follow:

Q: How and why did you get involved in climate change?

Gates: I think it’s important to think about energy and how critical it is in so many ways. Why has our civilization gotten so advanced in the last few hundred years? A lot of it is about breakthroughs in energy and intensification of energy use. If you think about poor people and improving their lives … getting around, getting fertilizer, getting lighting at night … so many of the things that count for them are related to energy.

As I learned about energy, I began to understand that we’ve got this constraint. We have to do it in a way that’s not emitting CO2. We need multiple breakthroughs — a portfolio of solutions–that deal with the environment and getting the costs down. In terms of overall planetary energy use, we have to have something that works for everyone. I’ve enjoyed learning about it and helping people understand how important this is.

Q: Can you talk about what you’ve done in the past couple of years to educate yourself about this area?

Gates: The number of great books in this area is phenomenal, including Creating the Twentieth Century by Vaclav Smil and Sustainable Energy — Without the Hot Air by David MacKay. I’m also very lucky that some of the top people on climate and energy are willing to come and talk with me.

The last session we had was on climate and agriculture. The Gates Foundation does a lot with agriculture since 70 percent of poor people have small farms. Making them more productive is important. Weather and climate are already problems and are going to get worse, as crops won’t be as productive. Understanding how that works and what can we do to mitigate it is a fascinating topic.

People who understand the political situation came out and talked to me, too. We put a group together to make the case for more basic energy R&D. This is something only the government is going to do. Once you get further downstream, there are lots of opportunities for investment. I spent yesterday with a venture capitalist talking about 15 different energy companies he’s put together. That part makes me optimistic … even though we seem to have political roadblocks around issues like carbon pricing. The innovation piece is so important. I think the government should more than double what it’s spending on that piece. The group didn’t get it done yet but we’re going to keep trying.

Q: The group you are referring to is the American Energy Innovation Council with business leaders from GE, Xerox, Martin Marietta and more, right? Can you talk about some of the recommendations you made and the reception of those?

Gates: It’s a fun group. We have a clear consensus about what should be done. I think in a normal fiscal environment, we probably would have been successful. The amount you have to tax energy in order to fund the R&D piece is pretty modest — say one-half percent. It came at a time when the idea of a tax associated with climate was going to have a tough climb. President Obama did see us, though, and he said some nice things.

I still think when you care about the future, many issues come together on this one. Why do we have a security problem? What could hurt our economy in a disastrous way? Cutting off the availability of oil would be very bad. A few good things have been done … but we have to keep pressure up on this, including being creative about what funding sources would look like. I’m kind of stunned that we can’t get a more bipartisan view on the R&D piece because it is about jobs and innovation. The world counts on America to do this well.

Q: Last year, you gave a talk at TED, saying if we’re going to get to 80 percent reduction in CO2, we have to get emissions of energy production to zero. To do it, you said we really need energy breakthroughs — or miracles.

Gates: For rich countries, we have to do more; we have to take it to zero. There are different approaches — carbon sequestration, natural gas, nuclear, renewable, solar — none of which is clear will be economic so we need to pursue them all. Over the next few decades, we have to invent and pilot. Then we have to deploy in unbelievably quick ways these new sources. Usually it takes 60 years from when you get new energy sources to when they are widely used. We’re talking about moving faster to change than we have in the past.

Q: You have been criticized for being not optimistic about current low-carbon technologies. What is your reaction? What is different between the computer industry and the energy industry?

Gates: The difference is the scale of capital investment and amount of time that it has to be useful. When you build a natural gas or nuclear plant, it has to have a 40-year life to make sense. The decisions being made now are based on some prediction of government policy in the future. It’s more risky in terms of regulatory things so there is a tendency to underinvest.

For software and computers, the life cycle is two to three years. Companies understand who wants to buy and it’s not subject to regulatory complexity.

The energy sector is going to be underinvested. R&D won’t be done as well unless the government comes in and encourages people with money, permits certain kinds of things and ensures economic incentives will stay in place for the full time period.

Q: I think everybody in the room knows you’ve got an interest in nuclear technology and have made an investment in TerraPower [A nuclear reactor design company]. But you’ve made investments in other areas, too. What do you want to say about TerraPower and other solutions?

Gates: My goal is to get a solution that is cheap energy and that emits no CO2. There are many paths that we could go down. Anyone who thinks any of these paths is easy is overlooking the difficulties. It is not easy to get wind up to 30 percent and have it be economic. It’s not easy to get solar thermal, solar electric, biothermals up to big numbers. Nuclear has particular difficulties in terms of the cost of building plants and creating systems so people can see that nuclear is safe and can feel good about it. Given this uncertainty, I think we have to go full speed ahead on every one of them.

Regarding Terrapower, on paper what we have is so cool. The difference to making it an actual plant is immensely difficult. So that is a very high risk company. But it employs brilliant people based here in Seattle, working with universities around the U.S. It’s one of a thousand companies we need to get behind to maximize our chances so that 15 years from now we will have multiple technologies that will work.

Q: Is the Gates Foundation going to get involved in climate change?

Gates: I’m very involved in energy and climate in terms of investments, learning sessions, reading and political activities. The energy market is gigantic — trillions of dollars. I think the capitalistic format is where energy innovation is going to take place, and I want to facilitate that as best I can.

If you think about the needs of the poorest — the types of biofuel they might be able to do uniquely on small farms in Africa and Asia — that draws in the Foundation. We are looking at things that are ignored, that there is no market for and relate to the poorest. Some of our agriculture work touches on energy. Getting energy for healthcare clinics in remote parts of Africa is another. We need innovative solutions for those things.

By and large, most of the money I put into energy will be done on the private side. Ideally some of those things will be successful and will generate profits that will go into the Foundation to do more things on global health.

Q: You ended last year’s TED talk with the statement: If I have one wish for the next 50 years, it would be energy at half the cost of today’s energy with zero carbon emissions. Do you feel as strongly about that today?

Gates: Absolutely. If you look at the history of mankind — why is it in the last 300 years that we’ve doubled life span, reduced childhood death by a factor of 10, raised literacy from under one percent to over 80 percent? Innovation is so core to how we’ve gotten as far as we’ve come. It’s exciting that we have the potential to solve these problems. The amount of sun that hits the earth is gigantic so it’s possible to use that as a source that will solve this. The amount of energy in uranium molecules is one million times per reaction than oxidizing carbon.

We have to get organized to do high-risk things in this area. If we can get energy improved, it is deeply empowering. Meeting with scientists working on this stuff makes me feel optimistic. Then I look at the political elements that should be in place — for example, pricing carbon, R&D. When I despair why we’re not moving forward, I have to think we are not being creative enough.

Debbie Van Der Hyde is an experienced freelance writer with a strong interest in sustainability, clean energy and the green industry.

Source: http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2011/05/13/how-bill-gates-would-solve-climate-crisis#ixzz1MHtComNv

Bill Gates Calls for More U.S. Clean Energy Investment, Urges American Companies to Work With China

By JOEY PETERS of ClimateWire/New York Times (11 May 2011):

Microsoft founder, famous billionaire and clean energy supporter Bill Gates yesterday downplayed the notion that China is overtaking the United States in renewable energy at a breakfast meeting about climate change in Seattle.

“A lot of figures that are thrown about China are sort of these bogeyman, ‘We should feel bad’-type things,” he said. “But China is very important. China can be a part of the solution here.”

The event was sponsored by Climate Solutions, a Northwest-based nonprofit aimed at curbing global warming. Seated on a stage in front of a crowd of 1,200, Gates was interviewed by Jabe Blumenthal, the co-chairman of Climate Solutions and a former Microsoft executive under Gates.

Compared with the United States, China has a much bigger and rapidly expanding market, Gates said. Its amount of total power is going up by a factor of four. Even its ambitious energy efforts can’t keep up with demand, Gates said.

China’s nuclear expansion plan, for example, calls for expanding from 10.8 gigawatts to 80 gigawatts in a decade. That means building 70 new nuclear plants, which is significant. But that’s still only enough to drive nuclear from 2 percent of China’s total energy capacity to 4 percent, Gates said.

“Unless things get very economic, they are going to have to build a lot of coal plants to go with a lot of wind, a lot of solar and a fair bit of nuclear, as well,” Gates said.

China’s rapid growth and lower manufacturing costs stand out, Gates said, but the United States still has an advantage in innovation.

“The innovation will still have to count on wherever the top universities are,” he said. “The United States has a completely gigantic share of that, so we need the innovators here. China needs to be a part of the solution, but we can’t sit back.”

Gates estimates that 70 percent of green energy startups are based in the United States, even if they’re looking at manufacturing for cheaper rates in China. The United States needs to work with China because of this, he stressed. “Any solution that turns the energy game into a nationalistic one-upmanship game isn’t going to get us where we need to go,” Gates said.

More government-supported R&D needed

At home, the government isn’t doing enough to invest in basic research and development and should more than double it, Gates said. A few good things have been done, including the founding of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. But even that doesn’t get much money and almost had it all cut, Gates said.

Last year, Gates, venture capitalist John Doerr and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt and a few others founded the American Energy Innovation Council, which lobbied the federal government to spend $16 billion a year on renewable energy development. It didn’t pan out and, in face of a conservative House, probably won’t for a while.

Still, Gates was adamant that research and development can only come from government. He said he’s shocked that there’s virtually no current bipartisan support for it.

Despite that, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation won’t focus on clean energy, which he said is better-suited for venture capital. Gates has been investing into clean energy startups on his own. Yesterday, he met with venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, with whom Gates has supported clean energy companies, and talked with several of the startups.

“That upstream part is what makes me optimistic,” he said, “even though we seem to have political road jam at least temporarily in some of the issues like carbon pricing.”

Comparing computer industry to energy

At one point, Blumenthal brought up criticism of Gates for not being optimistic enough about low-carbon technology and not understanding the lessons of the computer industry. The conventional wisdom is that once energy regulations are made, private investments in the technologies will pile up and prices go down.

But between the two industries, the scale and amount of time a plan has to be invested in is entirely different, Gates said. Any new power plant has to have a planned 40-year life span to make sense, he said.

“The decisions you make now are based on some prediction about government policy way out there, decades in the future,” he said. “Those kinds of things are so risky that there’s a tendency to underinvest. When it comes to software and chips, the life cycles are two to three years, you understand who wants to buy them, and it’s not subject to all this regulation.”

The energy sector is going to be underinvested in unless the government promotes research and encourages investment by making its policy positions on incentives and regulations clear, Gates said.

Source: www.nytimes.com

UK To Cut Emissions by 50% by 2025

 The United Kingdom is set to become a world leader on clean energy and climate policy, after announcing its ambitious plan to halve carbon emissions by 2025 – the 50% cut to emissions will be based on 1990 levels, with the final amount to be averaged out over 2023-27. The Cameron government has agreed to set the minimum price for carbon, establish a green bank to invest in off-shore wind projects, a renewable heat programme and a home improvement programme to help make houses more energy efficient. The government will also invest in the world’s large carbon capture and storage program.

UK to cut emissions by 50% by 2025

By Amber Jamieson  on Crikey.com (19 May 2011):

The United Kingdom is set to become a world leader on clean energy and climate policy, after announcing an ambitious plan to halve carbon emissions by 2025. After weeks of heated parliamentary debate, the 50% cut to emissions will be based on 1990 levels, with the final amount to be averaged out over 2023-27.

Back in 1990 total greenhouse gas emissions for the UK were 778.3 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent, compared to 582.4 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent in 2010. But last year actually saw an increase in carbon emissions in the UK, with total greenhouse gas emissions up 2.8% from 2009 levels.

In May UK PM David Cameron declared that his coalition government would be “the greenest government ever” and this promise to cut emissions is the most ambitious climate plan of the developed nations.

Greg Barker UK Environment Minister spoke to ABC Radio’s Fran Kelly on Breakfast this morning, explaining the reasoning behind the new climate policy: “That’s not out of just a commitment to the green agenda for its own sake but a very real and pragmatic recognition that that way lies economic prosperity and long-term growth. Our supplies of oil and gas are rapidly diminishing from the North Sea and we want to wean our economy off expensive, imported foreign fossil fuels and tap into the huge growth market of renewable, clean technology and make our economy much more energy efficient and really carve out a market leadership position in these fast-growing sectors.”

This is a contrast to how the Australian government and opposition frame much of the debate around protecting current investments, rather than building new markets and new technology, writes Giles Parkinson at Climate Spectator.

“It’s technically and economically more challenging, in terms of direct costs, for the UK to do this than Australia,” Matthew Wright, executive director of Beyond Zero Emissions, told Crikey. Wright noted that Australia has the geographic resources for renewable energy — wide open spaces, some of the windiest locations in the world, geographical diversity — that the UK doesn’t have.

But how does a country cut 50% of its emissions, while claiming it won’t affect economic growth?

As Barker explained this morning, it’s through a variety of different programs aimed at cutting emissions and investments in clean energy — and also largely thanks to the previous government, who already helped the country cut 25% of its 1990 carbon emissions before Cameron gained power. An emissions trading scheme was started in the UK back in 2002, although Barker says business hasn’t embraced the plan as much was previously hoped.

The Cameron government has agreed to a carbon floor price — setting the minimum price for carbon — although details of exactly what it will be has not been announced yet. A green bank is being established to invest in off-shore wind projects. A renewable heat program is being developed, as is a home improvement program to help make houses more energy efficient. The government will invest in the world’s large carbon capture and storage program.

All these smaller programs by the UK government are expected to add up to a cut in emissions, and these smaller programs are crucial, says Wright: “They know that without the complimentary measures you don’t get the outcome you intended.”

Barker explained that while government can make policies,  it is business that needs to be on-board cutting emissions and focusing on a cleaner economy, telling the ABC: “We do recognise that ultimately it’s going to be business, the private sector, who will deliver this transformation and the government has got to work in partnership with business, with investors to create the right framework for growth.”

Why can the UK set strong targets when Australia struggles to pass a carbon tax?

It’s mainly thanks to bipartisan agreement on the issue. As a contrast, Australia agreed to a 5% cut in emissions by 2020, which currently it is not even on target to hit.

However, despite the political issues, Australia has a variety of advantages for renewable energies, one big one being that the UK is moving to renewable energy after weaning itself largely off coal energy back in the late 80s-early 90s and moved towards natural gas. Now it is having to spend and invest in new energy infrastructure again, while Australia would be able to bypass the gas step.

The UK has kept a “get out of jail free” card for itself, with an option in 2014 to review the plan if other European nations are not also working towards cutting emissions.

There’s a fairly low chance of that happening, says Wright, with most countries moving to renewables and no countries moving away from them. Germany has set itself a goal of being 100% powered by renewable energy by 2050. Spain is has increased investment in renewable energy from 500 million euros per year up to 2.5 billion euros this year, even in the midst of difficult economic times. France, a country dependent on nuclear technology, is abiding by its 20% renewable energy target. Even China is increasing its large investment in solar and wind energy and taking a moratorium on its nuclear energy investment after the Japan earthquake and debate over the Fukushima plant.

Plus, the more countries that get on board with renewable energy, the cheaper it becomes.

Source: www.blogs.crikey.com.au

Malaysia’s Green Economy & Indonesia’s Forestry Moratorium

Malaysia is launching an ambitious plan to build a “green economy” with the help of an advisory council that includes economist Jeffrey Sachs and the UN climate change chief Rajendra Pachauri. Meanwhile, Indonesia has revealed a long list of exemptions to a two-year moratorium on new permits to clear forest, even though it is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation under a US$1 billion climate deal with Norway. But the final version was a let-down for environmentalists hoping for wider protection of carbon-rich peat and endemic wildlife. Read more

Wed May 18, 3:39 am ET AFP

KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – Malaysia is launching an ambitious plan to build a “green economy” with the help of an advisory council that includes economist Jeffrey Sachs and the UN climate change chief.

The initiative is part of economic reforms instituted by Prime Minister Najib Razak since taking power two years ago, aimed at pushing the Southeast Asian country towards developed-nation status by 2020.

His administration has already promised major infrastructure projects and financial market liberalisation to attract foreign investment and boost growth, but critics say the results have been limited.

Najib on Tuesday convened the first meeting of an eminent 42-member Global Science and Innovation Advisory Council in New York to help the nation achieve ambitions of becoming a science and technology innovation destination.

Malaysia’s vision of a “green economy” would see it moving beyond its status as a manufacturing hub, and establish “low carbon emissions, highly efficient use of resources, and a healthy, well-educated populace.”

“Malaysia’s ambitious goal is to simultaneously reduce poverty and achieve a green economy,” Najib said in a statement from New York.

“We see science and technology innovation as key to achieving that goal, guided by the advice and active support of some of the world’s most distinguished entrepreneurial, scientific and economic experts.”

“These experts will liaise and work actively with key Malaysian agencies and institutions to develop ‘quick wins’ in the palm oil industry, in the creation of a smart city and smart village, and in education.”

As well as Sachs and Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the panel also includes media tycoon Steve Forbes and two Nobel laureates.

Najib said the council would aim to “raise the number of scientifically and technically-trained individuals, entrepreneurs and innovators in our country.”

Malaysia also hopes to develop smart cities and villages, where the Internet is available and resources, such as water and electricity, are managed efficiently through information technology.

Currently, the middle-income nation of 27 million people suffers from urban sprawl and traffic congestion in its capital Kuala Lumpur, and a lack of basic services in rural areas.

Citigroup economist Kit Wei Zheng said Najib’s administration had achieved some successes including boosting foreign direct investment, but was under pressure to deliver ahead of elections tipped to be called within a year.

“At least on some fronts, there seem to be some results coming in… There are some steps forward but it’s slow and probably not as big as the announcements that are being made,” said the Singapore-based economist.

The export-dependent Southeast Asian nation saw a sharp decline in foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2009, tumbling 81 percent to $1.4 billion from $7.3 billion in 2008.

However, FDI jumped 141 percent to 17.1 billion ringgit ($5.5 billion) in the first nine months of 2010, in a rebound partly attributed to the reforms.

Malaysia has previously sought out high-profile international advisers like Microsoft’s Bill Gates when it launched its Multimedia Super Corridor project to build up its information technology industry in the 1990s.

“It’s a very fuzzy thing; we don’t know what it is… The word ‘green’ is used very broadly,” Gurmit Singh, chairman of the Centre For Environment, Technology and Development Malaysia, said of the latest scheme.

“There seems to be a lot of hot air. In terms of what happens sometimes at the ground level, it’s a repackaging of projects,” he told AFP.

Najib has said he expects the economy to expand by 5.0-6.0 percent this year despite the challenges of slower global growth and rising crude oil prices.

Source: www.news.yahoo.com

Indonesia Forest Moratorium a ‘Bitter Disappointment:’ Greenpeace

Olivia Rondonuwu & Michael Taylor for Reuters in The Jakarta Globe (25 May 2011):

Indonesia revealed a long list of exemptions on Friday to a two-year moratorium on new permits to clear forest, a concession to the hard-lobbying plantation industry in the world’s top palm oil producing nation but vexed some green groups.

The moratorium, taking effect on Friday after a five-month delay, will exempt permits already given in principle by the forestry ministry and extensions of existing permits, as well as projects to develop supplies of energy, rice and sugar.

The exemptions were wider than expected after pressure from firms worried about expansion and a forestry ministry concerned about losing billions each year in revenue from chopping down forests in Southeast Asia’s biggest economy.

“There were lots of pressures on the Indonesian government from the palm oil industry about this ban since we bring in significant investments. Today’s final details show that agreeable concessions have been made,” said a Malaysian planter with assets in Indonesia, who declined to be identified.

However, the moratorium will not provide compensation for firms unable to expand into protected land.

The moratorium ordered a freeze on new permits to log or convert 64 million hectares of primary forests and peatlands. This is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation under a $1 billion climate deal with Norway, but the final version was a let down for environmentalists hoping for wider protection of carbon-rich peat and endemic wildlife.

“This is a bitter disappointment. It will do little to protect Indonesia’s forests and peatlands. Seventy-five percent of the forests purportedly protected by this moratorium are already protected under existing Indonesian law, and the numerous exemptions further erode any environmental benefits,” said Paul Winn of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific. 

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on Thursday also signed a decree to allow underground mining activities in protected forests for 20 years, provided conditions such as an environmental assessment have been met, likely to further upset green groups but provide relief for miners such as Newmont, Eramet and Bumi Resources.

Yudhoyono’s adviser on climate change, Agus Purnomo, said the forest moratorium would not hinder planters’ expansion.

“There is no limitation for those who want to develop business-based plantations. We are not banning firms for palm oil expansion. We are just advising them to do so on secondary forests,” Purnomo told a news conference.

Joko Supriyono, secretary general at the Indonesian Palm Oil Association (Gapki), told Reuters that uncertainty over the plan had slowed expansion last year to 300,000 hectares of palm oil plantations, from a minimum 500,000 hectares in recent years.

“It won’t put a lot of downward pressure on the (palm oil) sector. There is plenty of land available to plant palm oil or other crops. The land is there — you can plant plantations in environmentally agreeable areas assuming there is access to infrastructure,” said Andreas Bokkenheuser, Singapore-based commodities analyst at UBS.

Indonesia-listed plantation firm Astra Agro Lestari was up 0.8 percent and SMART climbed 6.3 percent, though Gozco fell 1.3 percent. Gozco’s palm oil production is expected to rise more than 30 percent this year and it has permits for 56 percent of its landbank, but expansion in the rest could be hit by the moratorium, an executive told Reuters on Thursday. 

The forestry ministry has defined primary forest as forest that has grown naturally for hundreds of years, of which there is estimated to be around 44 million hectares in a sprawling tropical archipelago where illegal logging is common.

The exclusion of rice, sugar, oil, gas and power plant projects shows the importance of food and energy security to the government of the G20 member, aiming to feed the world’s fourth-largest population and fuel GDP growth of more than 6 percent.

Indonesia exports most of its palm oil but the former OPEC member is struggling to maintain energy supplies amid growing domestic demand. The country’s efforts to achieve self-sufficiency served it well in the financial crisis, since a lack of reliance on exports — unlike many Asian countries — kept its economy growing and led to it becoming an investor darling on the brink of a coveted sovereign investment grade rating.

The country still surprised markets with bumper rice imports early this year, and relies on sugar imports. Firms such as top listed palm oil planter Wilmar and investment firm Rajawali Group are planning to grow sugar plantations in the lushly forested eastern Papua province.

“If they are excluded from the moratorium it means they will just continue to deforest, doesn’t it?” said Jonathan Barratt, managing director of Commodity Broking Services in Sydney.

However, he said it was a step in the right direction for efforts to develop projects to cut emissions of climate-warming greenhouse gases from deforestation, in the absence of agreement on a new global climate pact following years of troubled UN talks.

“There are a lot exclusions there but there is a conscience. It gives the basis from which they can build on to reduce their emissions,” Barratt added.

Source: www.thejakartaglobe.com

Sustainability Benefits Exceed Expectations

An Accenture survey of 247 top business decision makers in the US, UK and China, reveals that 72% think the benefits of their sustainability initiatives exceeded expectations. Business leaders identify the main benefits as reputation and trust, lower costs and an improved brand. In all, 93% of companies surveyed currently have sustainability initiatives in place. Most focus on reducing the amount of electricity used and green IT (both cited by 51%), followed by sustainability talent and skills initiatives (47%) and the development of sustainability-based new products and services (44%).

CSR Wire Report (25 May 2011):

 The majority of businesses say that the benefits resulting from their sustainability initiatives have exceeded expectations, according to an international survey by Accenture (NYSE: ACN). But a hard core minority of businesses does not see sustainability as a critical or strategic investment.

The survey of 247 C-suite decision makers in the US, UK and China, reveals that 72 percent think the benefits of their sustainability initiatives exceeded expectations. Only four percent failed to meet expectations. Business leaders identify the main benefits as reputation and trust (cited by 49 percent of respondents), lower costs (42 percent) and an improved brand (41 percent).

Although two thirds (68 percent) of senior business decision makers see sustainability as an integrated part of their business, a hard core of 32 percent say it is peripheral. While 66 percent see sustainability as an investment, 34 percent see it as more of a cost. And although 60 percent believe their company is investing the right level in sustainability initiatives, 28 percent say their business invests too much or far too much. The same proportion state that businesses in general are doing too much to make their working practices more sustainable.

93 percent of respondents say their company currently has sustainability initiatives. The most common focus areas are reducing the amount of electricity used and green IT (both cited by 51 percent), followed by sustainability talent and skills initiatives (47 percent) and the development of sustainability based new products and services (44 percent).

“The good news is that companies are already seeing sustainability investments generate returns in terms of market success and cost performance,” said Bruno Berthon, managing director, Accenture Sustainability Services. “The irony is that the hardcore third of businesses who don’t enjoy these benefits are likely the ones who think sustainability is peripheral to their business. Only by placing it at the heart of commercial strategy can sustainability be a channel to growth and innovation.”

Drivers and Barriers

There is a disparity between assumed and actual drivers of sustainability initiatives. Companies expect that business in general will be driven by three key external factors: investment pressure, regulations and customer expectations. In reality, however, the top motivations are a genuine concern for the environment and society (cited by 53 percent) and reducing energy and material costs (50 percent). Also important are customer expectations (47 percent) and an opportunity for higher margins and business growth (45 percent).

Cost is the most significant barrier to sustainability initiatives, with 43 percent of respondents identifying it. Other key barriers include the inability to measure sustainability initiatives (31 percent), the lack of government / local government incentives (30 percent) and the belief that one company can’t make a difference to global warming (29 percent).

“It’s clear that sustainability is no longer merely a matter of compliance, but a proactive way to energize commercial strategy,” said Bruno Berthon. “Measuring sustainability performance and results is the first practical step business leaders need to make, but requires new skills and proven methodologies. Get it right and sustainability champions can form a business case, galvanize internal support and actively secure shareholder support.”

The Role of Government and the Financial Sector

When asked who should be more responsible for ensuring progress is made in a sustainable way, 41 percent say businesses should, versus 36 percent who think government should be more responsible and 23 percent who identify individuals. Almost half (47 percent) of respondents think that business is doing the most to promote sustainable progress, against only 28 percent who think governments are and 26 percent who identify individuals.

Although many business leaders may want more government incentives to encourage them to act, they are satisfied with the support from the financial sector. 45 percent say that the financial sector is, itself, investing the right amount in sustainability initiatives, although 28 percent say it invests too little and 26 percent too much. Meanwhile, 75% of C-suite decision makers have confidence in the financial sector to provide funding for sustainability initiatives.

Source: www.csrwire.com

An Inside Look at How CEOs View Sustainability

By Peter Lacy and Arnaud Haines Green Biz (25 May 2011):

Many business leaders have approached us giving markedly different assessments of the opportunities they see and the challenges they face since last year’s CEO study on sustainability by the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) and Accenture.

It is clear that there is no unified view of sustainability, let alone a single snapshot of progress. There are real differences in attitudes, approaches and obstacles from sector to sector. What is clear, however, is that CEOs believe environmental, social and governance issues are becoming increasingly material to business performance and future success, and a growing number of companies are looking at the growth and innovation opportunity it might promise.

Today, Georg Kell, UNGC executive director, joins me and Sander van ‘t Noordende, Accenture’s group chief executive of management consulting, as we unveil seven industry deep-dive studies based on the most comprehensive CEO survey on sustainability in business to date, spanning 766 CEOs across the globe.

We are launching these studies on Sustainability 24, a global online experience which brings together hundreds of leaders from the private and public sectors for a series of debates and discussions on business and sustainable development.

There’s no surprise that, at this relatively early stage for more commercially driven sustainability at scale, most industries see the main opportunity in enhanced trust, brand and reputation. Fully 85 percent of banking CEOs, and 75 percent of those in consumer goods, report that enhanced brand, trust and reputation will be an important opportunity presented by sustainability over the next five years.

Significantly, we are also beginning to see sustainability issues reshaping demand across industries, leading CEOs to perceive their response to these challenges as a core part of their growth and innovation agenda. Seventy-nine percent of consumer goods CEOs, for example, see the consumer as a primary stakeholder in driving their action on sustainability: Consumer electronics companies Philips and Siemens now view a significant proportion of their revenues driven by products and services which help consumers address their own environmental impact.

Similarly, 67 percent of automotive CEOs, and 61 percent of those in banking, report an important role for the consumer in shaping their response to sustainability challenges: For the automotive sector, consumer demand for new mobility solutions will provide new waves of growth, and banks’ response to sustainability challenges will play an integral role in rebuilding public trust in business.

Our industry analysis suggests that some sectors may be ahead of the pack when it comes to integrating sustainability into core business. Eighty percent of utilities CEOs, for example, report their company has embedded metrics to track sustainability performance, ahead of the cross-industry average of 64 percent. Similarly, 83 percent of CEOs in the energy sector and 81 percent of those in infrastructure say their company measures both positive and negative impacts of their activities on sustainability outcomes, a finding which suggests sustainability performance management capabilities are beginning to take root in leading industries.

Perhaps most interesting is the clear performance gap that has opened up between ambition and execution in the integration of sustainability. For example, while many CEOs recognize that a true commercially driven approach to sustainability can only be achieved by instilling the right knowledge, skills, attitudes and behavior at every level of the organization, companies are not meeting their ambition with practical action. Ninety-five percent of automotive executives believe that companies should invest in enhanced training of managers to integrate sustainability into strategy and operations, but just 52 percent report that their company already does so.

What can we conclude from this rich seam of data? A growing number of CEOs indicate that sustainability is becoming part of their innovation and growth agenda.

And while most CEOs are placing sustainability at the core of their strategies, many are struggling with execution. As we demonstrate today with the participants in Sustainability 24, cross-industry conversations are more common in sustainability than in most other business areas, and we believe that executives in every sector can learn from others as they turn ambition into action on the journey to a new era of sustainability.

Source: www.greenbiz.com

Energy Efficiency “Cost Effective” for Singapore Emissions Reductions

Singapore’s new Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, kicked off the country’s first national energy efficiency conference, telling 200 industry leaders they were crucial to tackling Singapore’s carbon emissions. Keynote speaker Pasquale Pistorio, former chief executive of European semiconductor manufacturer ST Microelectronics, stressed the importance of energy efficiency as the most cost effective solution to the problem, as fossil fuels that supported the industrial revolution have left the world with “big burdens and big uncertainty,” Sustain Ability Showcase Asia was one of the supporting organisations for the event.

Put our money where our mouth is’ – Singapore environment minister

By Jenny Marusiak in Eco-Business.com (25 May 2011):

Singapore’s new Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, kicked off the country’s first national energy efficiency conference yesterday, telling 200 industry leaders they were crucial to tackling Singapore’s carbon emissions, and that the government was ready to help.

“We will put our money where our mouth is,” he said as he announced increased funding for Singapore’s energy efficiency co-funding scheme.

The Grant for Energy Efficiency Technologies (GREET) is a S$22 million incentive programme launched in 2008 to increase industry investment in energy efficiency technologies. Funds for GREET, which has so far resulted in an expected life-time energy savings of more than S$160 million and a yearly reduction in carbon emissions of more than 40 kilotonnes, are expected to run out this year – one year ahead of schedule. To encourage further uptake of the programme, the National Environment Agency (NEA) has secured additional funding for the next two years and raised the cap on individual grants from S$2 million to S$4 million.

GREET is managed by the National Energy Efficiency Partnership (EENP), an initiative developed in response to Singapore’s goal of reaching a 35 per cent reduction in its energy intensity, or energy expended per unit of GDP,  from 2005 levels by 2030.

In his opening address, Dr Balakrishnan stressed the importance of improving Singapore’s energy efficiency in light of its limited size and resources for developing renewable energy. He said our carbon footprint is always going to be an issue in Singapore. “Go for the big, low-hanging fruit first,” he added.

Consuming nearly 60 per cent of the nation’s energy, the industry sector is one of the government’s picks for low-hanging fruit. Under the Energy Conservation Act, which will take effect in 2013, industries using large amounts of energy will have to employ energy managers to measure energy use and develop plans for improving energy efficiency.

The EENP is charged with helping industries prepare for these requirements with training and opportunities for sharing knowledge about energy efficiency methods within specific fields.

One of those opportunities is this week’s National Energy Efficiency Conference 2011 at the Singapore Convention Centre, co-organised by EENP’s government agency founders – the National Environment Agency (NEA), The Economic Development Board (EDB) and the Energy Market Authority (EMA). Attending the two-day conference are representatives from many of EENP’s 96 members, including multi-national corporations ST Microelectronics, HP Asia Pacific, IBM, Schneider Electric and McKinsey & Company.

NEA chief executive Andrew Tan said he would like more partners to incorporate energy efficiency as part of their industrial practices, set in-house energy performance goals and track their performance over time. “Overseas experiences suggest that companies (with energy management systems in place) can typically expect to reduce their energy consumption by at least 10 to 15 per cent during the first year of implementation,” he added.

Mr Tan said recent efforts by the EENP have focused on specific energy intensive sectors such as data centres, chemicals and pharmaceuticals. In addition to networking with local and international experts on improving energy management efforts, EENP is providing training to industry professionals throughout Southeast Asia through its Asean Energy Managers Accreditation Scheme (AEMAS).

Keynote speaker Pasquale Pistorio, a long-time environmental champion and former chief executive of European semiconductor manufacturer ST Microelectronics, stressed the importance of energy efficiency to Singapore and its industries.

He said the fossil fuels that supported the industrial revolution have left the world with “big burdens and big uncertainty,” adding that energy efficiency was the most cost effective solution to the problem.

“Energy saving is cheap,” said Mr Pistorio as he called on businesses to provide good examples of the effectiveness of energy efficiency. He provided his own example of a USD300 million investment by ST Microelectronics that saved the company USD900 million in a ten year time frame.

But government must do its part, he continued, by providing incentives, enacting regulations and educating the public on the benefits of energy efficiency.

Singapore’s government has prioritised energy efficiency as their key strategy to tackle carbon emissions, according to Dr Balakrishnan. He said the government must make sure the lessons learned through the EENP’s network were not just single company experiments, but lessons that improve the entire system to ensure the national goals are reached.

“We are on target, but we’re not there yet,” he said.

Source: www.eco-business.com

Climate inertia shows ugly side of the Australian character

This week’s report from the Climate Commission – established to provide expert advice on the science of climate change and its effects on Australia – tells us nothing we didn’t already know, but everything we’ve lost sight of in our efforts to advance our personal interests at the expense of the nation’s. Veteran journalist Ross Gittens says Australians are proud of their inbuilt bull-dust detectors, but on this issue they seemed to have turned them off, happily believing whatever self-serving nonsense politicians, business people and media personalities serve up to them. “The one thing humans are meant to care about above all is the survival of their young. Yet people with the highest standard of living in history are whingeing that they couldn’t possibly afford to pay a bit more for their electricity.”

Climate inertia shows ugly side of the Australian character

May 25, 2011

Ross Gittens in Sydney Morning Herald (25 May 2011):

Climate change action needed now

It’s time we all started pulling together to do something about climate change, according to Ross Gittins.

It’s a sore test of faith when people put power bills before their children’s future.

Like most people, I’m an instinctive optimist. In any case, I see no margin in pessimism. If you concluded the world was irredeemably wicked, or destined for certain destruction, what would be left but to curl up and die? Since we can never be certain the end is nigh, much better to keep living and keep plugging away for a better world.

I confess, however, I’ve needed all my optimistic instincts to avoid despair over the terrible hash we’re making of the need to take effective action against global warming. We’re showing everything that’s unattractive about the Australian character.

We pride ourselves that Aussies are good in a crisis, but until the walls start falling in on us we couldn’t reach agreement to shut the door against the cold.

This week’s report from the Climate Commission – established to provide expert advice on the science of climate change and its effects on Australia – tells us nothing we didn’t already know, but everything we’ve lost sight of in our efforts to advance our personal interests at the expense of the nation’s.

Its 70 pages boil down to four propositions we’d rather not think about. First, there is no doubt the climate is changing. The evidence is clear. The atmosphere is warming, the ocean is warming, ice is being lost from glaciers and ice caps, and sea levels are rising. Global surface temperature is rising fast; the last decade was the hottest on record.

Second, we are already seeing the social, economic and environmental effects of a changing climate. In the past 50 years, the number of record hot days in Australia has more than doubled. This has increased the risk of heatwave-associated deaths, as well as extreme bushfires.

Sea level has risen by 20 centimetres globally since the late 1800s, affecting many coastal communities. Another 20-centimetre increase by 2050 is likely, on present projections, which would more than double the risk of coastal flooding.

Third, these changes are triggered by human activities – particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation – which are increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, with carbon dioxide the most important of these gases.

Fourth, this is the critical decade. Decisions we make from now to 2020 will determine the severity of climate change our children and grandchildren experience. Without strong and rapid action, there is a significant risk that climate change will undermine society’s prosperity, health, stability and way of life.

That scientists still need to repeat these long-established truths is a measure of how much we’ve allowed short-sighted and selfish concerns to distract us from the need to respond to a clear and present danger.

In this we haven’t been well served by our leaders. The Labor government’s decline dates from Kevin Rudd’s loss of nerve following the defeat of his carbon pollution reduction scheme in the Senate in late 2009, following the success of the Coalition’s climate-change deniers in overthrowing Malcolm Turnbull and replacing him with a man whose record showed him willing to take whatever position on climate change he thought would advance his career.

Had Rudd the courage of his professed convictions, he would have taken the question to a double-dissolution election, fighting in defence of his ”great big new tax on everything”. Instead he dithered, eventually yielding to pressure from those in his party – including Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan – wanting to put the government’s survival ahead of its duty.

Opposition leaders play a vital role in a democracy and are given considerable licence. They’re not expected to speak the unvarnished truth. Dishonest scare campaigns have long been used by both sides.

I don’t like using the L-word, but Tony Abbott is setting new lows in the lightness with which he plays with the truth. He blatantly works both sides of the street, nodding happily in the company of climate-change deniers, but in more intellectually respectable company professing belief in human-caused global warming, his commitment to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and the efficacy of his no-offence policies to achieve it.

He grossly exaggerates the costs involved in a carbon tax, telling business audiences they will have to pay the lot and be destroyed by it, while telling the punters business will pass all the costs on to them. He forgets to mention that most of the proceeds from the tax will be returned as compensation.

He repeats the half-truth that nothing we could do by ourselves would reduce global emissions, while failing to correct the punters’ ignorant belief that Australia is the only country contemplating action. Last week’s news that Britain’s Conservative-led coalition government has pledged to cut emissions by half within 15 years is ignored. Economists call this mentality ”free-riding”; the old Australian word for it is ”bludging”.

But it’s far too easy to blame our failure to face up to climate change just on our hopeless politicians. Our increasingly partisan media have failed to hold Abbott to account over his duplicity. Many have sought to increase circulation or ratings by joining in the fear-mongering and denial. The media’s love of controversy has led it to give doubters of the science of climate change a credibility they don’t deserve against the overwhelming weight of science.

Australians are proud of their inbuilt bulldust detectors, but on this issue they seemed to have turned them off, happily believing whatever self-serving nonsense politicians, business people and media personalities serve up to them.

The one thing humans are meant to care about above all is the survival of their young. Yet people with the highest standard of living in history are whingeing that they couldn’t possibly afford to pay a bit more for their electricity.

Ross Gittins is a Herald senior columnist.

Source: www.smh.com.au

Australasia’s “Bio-Derived” Flight Path to Sustainable Aviation

Establishing an economically and environmentally beneficial, ‘bio-derived’ Australian and New Zealand aviation fuels industry is a viable proposition, according to a report compiled by CSIRO in collaboration with the region’s major aviation industry players. “Flight Path to Sustainable Aviation” predicts that over the next 20 years a new, sustainable, Australia-New Zealand aviation fuels 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.

New sustainable ‘bio-derived’ jet fuel industry is achievable

CSIRO Media Release

Establishing an economically and environmentally beneficial, ‘bio-derived’ Australian and New Zealand aviation fuels industry is a viable proposition, according to a report compiled by CSIRO in collaboration with the region’s major aviation industry players.

The report, Flight Path to Sustainable Aviation, predicts that over the next 20 years a new, sustainable, Australia-New Zealand aviation fuels industry could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent, generate more than 12,000 jobs and reduce Australia’s reliance on aviation fuel imports by $2 billion per annum.

“This study highlights promising options for the aviation industry,” said the project’s leader, CSIRO Energy Transformed Flagship’s economist Paul Graham.

“It also identifies the market, infrastructure and governance changes that will be required for success.

“Through the uptake of sustainable bio-derived jet fuel, together with next generation aircraft and engines, the industry can reduce both its emissions and its reliance on imported fossil fuel.”

The study was commissioned by and developed in collaboration with the members of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group– including Air New Zealand, Boeing, Qantas and Virgin Australia – together with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) and The Climate Group.

It found that production of commercially viable quantities of aviation fuels derived from non-food biomass sources (eg: crop stubble, forestry residues, municipal waste and algae) is a feasible option for Australia and New Zealand. It also found there are currently sufficient biomass stocks to support a local jet fuel industry.

Sustainable bio-derived jet fuel complies with social, environmental and economic criteria, which includes not impacting on food security or the environment and results in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The report identifies several major actions that are required by 2015 to ensure the industry can be established. These include:

•             Creation of a supportive market structure and supply chain

•             Development of refining plants

•             Certification and independent verification to ensure sustainability of the fuel.

The participants will use the findings of the report as the basis for developing implementation plans and projects, details of which will be announced in the coming months. Some related projects are already in place.

Other participants in the study include: Airbus, Australian Defence Force, Brisbane Airport Corporation, Bioenergy Association of New Zealand, Biofuels Association of Australia, GE, Honeywell UOP, New South Wales Office of Biofuels, NSW Office of Trade, Business & Industry, Pratt & Whitney, Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Rolls-Royce, Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division, South Australian Department of Premier & Cabinet, The Climate Group and Victorian Department of Innovation, and Regional Development.

The project also engaged international organisations such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels.

Source: www.csiro.au/resources/sustainable-aviation-fuel-report

Nuclear Plant Locations are Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise & Storm Surges

One important lesson of the Fukushima nuclear accident has been overlooked. Nuclear power is often touted as a solution to climate change, but this disaster serves as a warning that far from solving the climate problem, nuclear power may be highly vulnerable to it. The bottom line is that if nuclear power is to be used to mitigate the effects of climate change, it must also be capable of adapting to them. There are serious doubts that it can. The New Scientist tells us why.

By Natalie Kopytko New Scientist (24 May 2011):

Far from solving the climate problem, nuclear power may be highly vulnerable to it

THE accident at the Fukushima power plant in Japan has led to much discussion about the future of nuclear power. I believe one important lesson of the accident has been overlooked. Nuclear power is often touted as a solution to climate change, but Fukushima serves as a warning that far from solving the climate problem, nuclear power may be highly vulnerable to it.

Of course, the emergency in Japan was caused by an earthquake and tsunami. But the effects of climate change could cause very similar problems.

Two facts that everyone should now know about nuclear power are that it needs access to large volumes of water to cool the reactor and a supply of energy to move the water. For this reason nuclear power plants are typically sited near large bodies of water, often seas or estuaries. It is this attachment to water that makes nuclear power vulnerable to climate change.

First of all, coastal areas are highly dynamic: storms batter, sea levels rise, and land shifts. This already poses problems for the safety of nuclear plants, and is only going to get worse. Secondly, nuclear power can be disrupted by water scarcity and rising water temperatures.

Nuclear regulators are already well aware of several safety issues, including flooding, loss of power, loss of communications, blockage of evacuation routes and equipment malfunction. Hurricanes pose the greatest threat.

Many climate models predict an increase in hurricane intensity. Even if they are wrong, existing reactors were built (along with most coastal developments) during a period of historically low hurricane activity and a return to baseline seems likely.

This is not to say an accident will happen every time a hurricane passes by a nuclear power plant. Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes can be predicted, allowing time for preparation. Still, preventative measures are not always taken. For instance, during hurricane Francis in 2004 doors designed to protect safety equipment from flying debris at the St Lucie nuclear power plant in Florida were left open.

Another cause for concern is floods. All nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a certain level of flooding based on historical data, but these figures do not take climate change into account. Floods due to sea-level rise, storm surges and heavy rain will increase in frequency.

This isn’t a hypothetical future scenario. In 1999 the Blayais nuclear power plant on the Gironde estuary in France flooded due to a high tide and strong winds that exceeded anything it was designed to withstand. Two of the reactor units on site were severely affected by flooding.

Heat waves are another serious concern, for two reasons. One, the colder the cooling water entering a reactor, the more efficient the production of electricity. And two, once the cooling water has passed through the system it is often discharged back where it came from in a much warmer state.

During the 2003 heat wave in Europe, reactors at inland sites in France were shut down or had their power output reduced because the water receiving the discharge was already warmer than environmental regulations allowed. Citing “exceptional circumstances”, the French government relaxed the regulations to maintain the supply of electricity. After subsequent heat waves it became a permanent measure during the summer months.

The relaxing of the regulations causes thermal pollution that reduces the ability of aquatic ecosystems to adapt to warmer temperatures. Some may argue these regional impacts are insignificant compared to the global ramifications of climate change, but they illustrate that nuclear power can actually worsen its impact.

There is a human cost too. As the heat wave wore on, French consumers were asked to conserve energy, and exports to some countries, especially Italy, were reduced. While France, which generates over 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear sources, avoided blackouts, Italy did not. The heat wave caused an estimated 40,000 deaths, around half of them in Italy. These deaths cannot be attributed directly to the failure of nuclear power but energy conservation and blackouts surely made people more vulnerable.

The final problem is droughts, which climate models predict will become longer and larger. Legal battles have already been fought in the US over scarce water resources in regions with nuclear power plants, including the Catawba river basin in the Carolinas and the Apalachicola/Chattahoochee/Flint river basin in Georgia, Florida and Alabama. These battles show us that adapting our systems – including nuclear power – to a reduced supply of water will not be easy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency advises the nuclear industry to build power plants to last for 100 years. Given that climate models don’t agree on what to expect within this time period, it is not at all clear how this can be achieved.

New reactors could use dry or hybrid systems with lower water requirements, but the costs of running these systems are likely to be prohibitive. Considering nuclear power plants already have problems with construction cost overruns, any additional costs are likely to meet resistance.

What is to be done? Most forms of energy generation are vulnerable in some way to the effects of climate change, and the fact that nuclear power is among them is yet another argument against a wholesale shift towards this source of energy.

The bottom line is that if nuclear power is to be used to mitigate the effects of climate change, it must also be capable of adapting to them. There are serious doubts that it can.

Natalie Kopytko is in the environment department at the University of York, UK

Source: www.newscientist.com

Singapore Samples Solar for its Silicon & Semiconductor Strengths

Green energy in public housing is getting a boost, as the Housing Board wants to double the current capacity by launching its largest-ever single solar panel scheme. In a tender that closed this month, the HDB called for a company to own and operate panels in the eco-town of Punggol, offering to buy the electricity produced for 20 years. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last year that Singapore is focusing on solar energy because it taps the country’s strengths in electronics, silicon and semiconductors. He said this could give the country another avenue of economic growth.

The Straits Times (25 May 2011):

Green energy in public housing is getting a boost, as the Housing Board wants to double the current capacity by launching its largest-ever single solar panel scheme.

In a tender that closed this month, the HDB called for a company to own and operate panels in the eco-town of Punggol, offering to buy the electricity produced for 20 years.

The panels, or sheets, will be put up on 85 blocks and can produce 2 MWp (megawatt peak) of energy when the sun is fully out. Such an amount of energy can meet the power needs of five four-room HDB flats for a month.

But the electricity produced will not be for home use. Rather, it will be used to power lights in common areas, lifts and pumps, among other things.

The tender is part of the HDB’s $31 million, five-year scheme to test-bed solar energy in 30 precincts.

The silicon sheets – called solar photovoltaic panels – harness the sun’s energy, turning it into useful electricity, while emitting none of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that are produced by burning fossil fuels.

They are seen as green energy options that may cost more in the short term but offer long-term, environment-friendly benefits for everyone.

The scale of the latest project is comparable to the total installed solar photovoltaic capacity in Singapore currently: about 3.57 MWp for both residential and non-residential installations.

The HDB is in the midst of putting up more panels on 30 blocks in Jurong, Aljunied, Telok Blangah, Bishan, Ang Mo Kio and Jalan Besar. For this batch, one block’s solar panels will generate enough energy from a day’s sunlight to power common area services like lights and lifts for a day.

There are also solar-energy testing programmes in Tampines, Bukit Panjang, Marine Parade, Serangoon North and Wellington Circle.

Asked about the environmental benefits and cost-savings of the latest project, an HDB spokesman replied: ‘HDB is currently evaluating the tender and will announce the results at a later date. Hence, we are only able to share more on this solar initiative when the details are finalised.’

Another difference in this tender is the proposed business model. Previously, the HDB bought the solar panels and hired contractors to install and maintain them.

The current tender, on the other hand, is seeking a business model called solar leasing, in which the HDB buys only the electricity.

Solar leasing is not uncommon elsewhere, such as in the United States, but this is the first time it is being tried in Singapore.

The HDB did not explain why it is trying out this model, but industry players offered a few reasons.

‘This is more experimental. The HDB is testing the mechanism,’ said Mr Christophe Inglin, managing director of solar energy firm Phoenix Solar.

He said leasing can be attractive because users may not want to deal with buying and maintaining the panels in the same way a tenant of a house may not need to fret over furniture.

It is new here, however, so companies are cautious – only three firms had bid for the tender, with two bids in the $9 million range.

Another challenge, industry players explain, is that Singapore does not pay above-market rate for people to feed excess renewable energy back to the grid.

In many countries, this practice – called a feed-in tariff – is an incentive for people to install renewable energy in their homes and offices, as they can recoup some costs by selling spare energy to the grid.

And in the case of HDB blocks, installation is costly and difficult because many blocks are irregularly shaped and have a small roof area for panels.

Asked if the HDB’s solar-leasing tender will set a precedent for other companies and builders, Phoenix Solar’s Mr Inglin replied: ‘In the future, as prices of solar panels come down, it could certainly be an incentive for corporate entities to, say, lease their rooftops to companies for solar panels.’

Since 2008, the price of the panels has fallen by half. Still, electricity from solar panels is currently about twice as expensive as electricity from the grid.

Benefits and limitations

Why is Singapore investing in solar energy now?

Experts say possible reasons could be declining costs and growing worldwide demand.

Solar energy has become cheaper over the last decade and prices are likely to fall further with advances in technology, said Mr Christophe Inglin, managing director of solar energy firm Solar Phoenix.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said last year that Singapore is focusing on solar energy because it taps the country’s strengths in electronics, silicon and semiconductors. He said this could give the country another avenue of economic growth.

What are the benefits of using solar energy?

Using the sun for electricity cuts down on the need for fossil fuels, which will become more expensive as the supply dwindles, say experts.

Solar power is also better for the environment as burning fossil fuels to create electricity results in pollution.

What are its limitations here?

Solar power now requires 20 to 30 times as much land as a gas plant to produce the same amount of power. This makes it less attractive for land- scarce Singapore, said the Energy Market Authority (EMA).

It estimated that even if all of Singapore’s accessible space was covered with panels, solar energy would contribute, at most, 10 per cent of the country’s electricity needs.

Another obstacle is price. Electricity from solar panels is still twice as costly as electricity from the grid, although costs have fallen in the last decade.

The EMA said more research and technological improvements in the panels are needed before solar energy can be commercially viable.

Source: www.eco-business.com