China-Renewable Energy-Wind,Solar Compete w/Coal

China's Clean Energy May Make Wind, Solar Competitive With Coal

By Stuart Biggs

June 8 (Bloomberg) -- China's decision to step up work in renewable energy may help make solar and wind power as cheap as coal as a fuel generating electricity, executives at a conference in Shanghai said today.
Solar projects in China are bringing closer "grid parity" where clean power costs are similar to those for fossil fuels, said Anil Srivastava, executive president for renewable energy at the French power generator Areva SA. Johnny Kwan, a senior vice president at chemical company BASF SE said China is on the way to being "the most successful low-carbon economy."
"The biggest benefit from China is that it will get us closer to the Holy Grail," Srivastava said at the Bloomberg Businessweek Global Green Business Summit in Shanghai. "The larger the developments that happen across the world, the closer we get to grid parity."
China spent $34.6 billion on clean-fuel projects last year, almost double the $18.6 billion invested by the U.S., Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates. Those figures and the comments from executives signal China is pushing ahead with clean energy technologies even after Premier Wen Jiabao resisted forming a binding agreement on greenhouse gas emissions at climate talks in Copenhagen last year.
"There's a big difference between the politics of Copenhagen and what's happening in China on the ground," said Bruno Berthon, global managing director for sustainability at Accenture Plc.
Shift From Oil
China's shift to clean energy from fossil fuels stems from an over reliance on imported oil and coal, Han Wenke, director general of the Energy Research Institute at China's National development and Reform Commission said today.
Thirst for energy has led China to sign deals with Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Myanmar, Peru, Venezuela, Chad, Iran, Russia and Oman in recent years, while the International Energy Agency projects oil imports will almost quadruple over the 2006 level by 2030 to fuel the country's economic growth.
Environmental damage has also shifted the government's thinking, Han said. Twenty of the world's 30 most air polluted cities are in China, according to the World Bank.
"The environment is a key issue facing our economic development," Han said. "The problem is quite severe."
The government introduced feed-in tariffs for wind power last year. Companies added 14.1 gigawatts of wind capacity in 2009 compared with 14.1 gigawatts a year earlier, according to New Energy Finance.
Green Incentives
In solar energy, the government has introduced incentives for power companies to install panels churned out by companies including Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. that typically were exported to countries like Spain and the U.S.
"It's become clear to us that we needed to change," Wan Bentai, chief engineer at China's Ministry of Environmental Protection, said today. "We need to transform our economic growth from a quantitative growth to a qualitative growth."
China is benefitting from government decisiveness in demanding the diversification of energy and reduction of carbon emissions, Areva's Srivastava said. Providing a cheap source of financing, often in the form of soft loans, ensures projects go ahead, he said.
China aims to produce renewable energy equivalent to about 700 million metric tons of coal, or 15 percent of its power, by 2020. The government wants to cut carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product by as much as 45 percent of 2005 levels by 2020.
Mandate and Targets
"Developments happen in China faster than in any other part of the world -- faster than in any other part of the world,' Srivastava said. "China has mandated a target and is sticking to that. In the U.S. there are all kinds of debates and many states come out with their own renewable policies and most of them fail to implement."
President Barack Obama has been urging Congress to pass legislation for an emissions cap-and-trade program in which companies buy and sell pollution allowances. The plan passed the House last year and stalled in the Senate. Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman released a revamped bill in May aiming to boost domestic energy production while cutting greenhouse gases 17 percent from their 2005 level by 2020.
Still, China still lags behind in many areas in renewable energy, the Energy Research Institute's Han said. China's 70 wind turbine makers "mostly" use licensed international intellectual property for their core technology, he said. It may take "20 to 30 years" for China to catch up with energy technology development in the U.S., he said.
About 25 percent of China's wind plants also aren't connected to the national power grid, according to a New Energy Finance report published in May.
"China is still a developing economy," Zhu Hongren, chief engineer at the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, said in a speech today. "We're in the stage of fast industrial development. We are trying to alleviate poverty at the same time that we're trying to manage emissions and increase environmental protection."
To contact the reporters on this story: Stuart Biggs in Tokyo at sbiggs3@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: June 8, 2010 08:46 EDT












--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

New Gadgets that Produce Electricity

June 08, 2010 12:40 PM

Gadgets Harvest Renewable Energy

By Agam Shah, IDG News

Experiments are under way to harvest free energy through motion and the environment, which could lead to devices such as mobile phones that can be recharged without electricity. One Laptop Per Child has experimented with charging XO laptops through solar power, foot pedal and pull-string. Nokia last week released a kit that draws energy from cycling to recharge phones.

Orange said it would demonstrate boots that recharge mobile phones through energy derived while walking. While Orange's contraption is experimental, Tremont Electric is already selling a device that captures energy from running or walking to recharge mobile devices.

Gumboots that charge mobile phones

Orange this week announced rain boots that can generate energy through walking to recharge mobile devices such as cell phones and MP3 players. Called "Orange Power Wellies," the boots use modified soles that generate energy with each step, which is then channeled to recharge mobile devices.

A sole includes thermoelectric modules sandwiched between two thin ceramic wafers. Stepping creates heat on the top ceramic wafer and coolness from the ground is applied to the lower wafer, which generates electricity. The hotter a foot gets, the more energy it produces. Around 12 hours of walking charges a mobile phone for one hour of use.

Orange announced the electric boots in time for the Glastonbury Festival in the U.K., where they will be on display between June 23 and 27. The festival is a vehicle for Orange to announce renewable energy prototypes -- last year the company pitched the Glastonbury Solar Concept Tent, which included photovoltaic threads for solar energy to recharge devices.

The Wellies were developed with GotWind, a company that experiments with renewable technology resources. Orange and GotWind two years ago at Glastonbury demonstrated a "Dance Charger," a small generator mounted in an armband that created kinetic energy through dancing.

Kinetic energy goes commercial

Speaking of kinetic energy, Tremont Electric is selling a portable device that can recharge smartphones through everyday activities like running or walking. The NPower PEG (personal energy generator) is small enough to be carried or placed in a backpack, according to company executives. It includes a recyclable lithium-polymer battery that stores energy and attaches to portable devices through a USB port. Tremont sells the charger for US$149.99. It works with Apple's iPhone, Research In Motion's BlackBerry and HTC smartphones.

Five minutes of walking with the NPower PEG will produce enough power for one minute of talk time, said Jessica Davis, a spokeswoman for Tremont Electric. In general terms, walking an hour translates to 12 minutes of talk time.

The device is ideal for active outdoors people, said Aaron LeMieux, founder of Tremont Electric, who is an adventurer. For example, hikers and backpackers going on treks could use the charger to power phones, as wall outlets may be hard to find. The company is still developing the technology to reach a larger audience.

The device weighs about 9 ounces (255 grams), which is more than an iPhone 3GS smartphone, which weighs 135 grams.

Chargers in small packages

Solio sells portable solar chargers that gather energy from the sun to recharge portable devices. The devices include internal batteries that store power, which can be transferred to portable devices. If there's no sunlight, the chargers also work with power outlets.

The $79.95 Solio Classic-i charger is the most expensive of the company's offerings, but also the most worthwhile. It stores power for up to one year, takes around nine hours to charge under the sun, and provides about 10 hours of talk time on a mobile device. The cheapest solar charger is the $49.95 Mono-i, which takes 17 hours to fully charge and provides six-and-a-half hours of talk time.

Eton's solar-charged products

Eton last month introduced Scorpion, a gadget designed for hikers who may not have access to power outlets. The device can be powered by multiple natural energy resources including a hand crank and solar cells. The device includes a USB port to recharge mobile devices including cell phones. It includes a flashlight and a radio to get updates on weather conditions through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather band. It also has a digital radio tuner, a flashlight, and for good effect, a bottle opener. The device is priced at $50.

The company earlier this month also shipped the Soulra, a solar-powered sound system for the iPod and iPhone. The system features a ruggedized rubber exterior with a solar panel that can be pulled out from the middle. An iPod or iPhone can be placed on the device for playback. The device comes with a lithium-ion battery pack and can be plugged into power outlets. The device is priced at $199.

--
Scott's Contracting
314-243-1953
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

vote NO on Senator Murkowski's Dirty Air Act

Dear Scotty,

Call your Senators and ask them to vote NO on Senator Murkowski's Dirty Air Act. Senator Bond: 202-224-5721 Senator McCaskill: 202-224-6154 Report your call here.

It must be nice for the big oil companies to know they have a true friend in Senator Lisa Murkowski.

As the Deepwater Oil Disaster escalated last month, Senator Murkowski single-handedly blocked a Senate proposal to increase oil company liability in the event of a major spill.¹

Now, she's focusing her attacks on the Clean Air Act in a resolution written by oil company lobbyists² behind closed doors in back rooms. Worse still, her Dirty Air Act is coming up for a vote in the Senate tomorrow.

In other words, in the face of the unprecedented environmental catastrophe on our Gulf shore, Murkowski wants to take away one of the strongest tools we have to rein in oil companies and end our nation's addiction to fossil fuels -- on marching orders taken directly from the biggest polluters themselves. It's outrageous and we have to stop it.

Call your Senators and ask them to vote NO on Senator Murkowski's Dirty Air Act.

Your Senators can be reached at:

Senator Bond: 202-224-5721
Senator McCaskill: 202-224-6154

When you've made your call, please report it by clicking here.

Once you're connected, remember to tell the staff member you're speaking to that:

• You're a constituent.
  
• The Deepwater Oil Disaster is just further proof that we need to take action now to reduce our dangerous dependence on oil and dirty fossil fuels.
  
• Lisa Murkowski's "Dirty Air Act" is exactly the wrong approach. Your Senator must side with the American people, not the oil companies, and vote NO.

Report your call here

With oil still gushing into the Gulf, it takes a whole lot of gall to side with the oil companies and undermine the Clean Air Act -- which plays a crucial role in keeping our air and water clean and reducing the harmful effects of fossil fuels.

Murkowski has been trying to introduce her proposal for almost a year now -- and every time she's gotten close, our flood of phone calls, letters to the editor and more have stopped her. But under Senate rules, next week is her last chance -- and right now the vote count is too close to call, with dozens of Senators on the fence.

We need to shut down this big oil bailout once and for all. Please call your Senators and tell them to vote NO on Murkowski's Dirty Air Act. Then report your call here.

Thanks,

Dave Boundy
Campaign Manager
The Climate Protection Action Fund's Repower America campaign

___________
1. Jake Sherman, "Murkowski blocks oil liability bill," Politico, May 13, 2010. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37207.html

2. Juliet Eilperin, "Murkowski and her lobbyist allies," The Washington Post, January 11, 2010. http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/01/murkowski_and_her_lobbyist_allies.html


Info supplied by: Scotty-Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.blogspot.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com
scotty@stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Survey: Electricity costs up, ability to pay down

Survey: Electricity costs up, ability to pay down When Wednesday, Jun 9, 2010 GMT-05:00 Where http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com Who • Scott's Contracting • scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com

--> Washington, D.C., June 7, 2010 — About 85 percent of state energy regulators responding to an annual survey expect the cost of residential electricity to increase next year, according to the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions.
The survey, which Deloitte conducted earlier in the spring, also found a growing number of surveyed regulators fear rate increases will be financially onerous on the public.

More than a third (34.3 percent) felt that consumers would not accept any rate increase at all — up from 23.3 percent one year ago. Moreover, while 53.3 percent of surveyed regulators last year said that the public would accept a five percent rate increase, this year that number dropped almost 20 percentage points to 34.3 percent.

"Our survey demonstrates that state utility regulators are increasingly cognizant of electricity costs and the burden they represent on the average consumer," says Branko Terzic, energy and resources regulatory policy leader for Deloitte.
Terzic, previously a state regulator and a former commissioner with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), explains that most surveyed regulators (65.7 percent) expect rate increases because of rising environmental costs, while many (48.6 percent) also believe they will be linked to capital costs.

He goes on to point out that surveyed regulators see the high costs associated with renewable energy sources as an impediment to their adoption. "The vast majority of commissioners (68.6 percent) this year listed 'high prices to consumers' as the leading barrier to more renewable energy. This is a 10 point increase over last year's 58.3 percent number."

Exploring another issue that could have a dramatic impact on the consumer's pocketbook, Deloitte's survey looked at the regulatory preferences for 'time-of-day rates,' a concept that would allow utilities to adjust the rates they charge consumers throughout the day depending on demand peaks and dips.
Of the regulators responding to the survey, 60 percent reported that they were considering 'time-of-day' rates for their rate payers. And, when asked 'whether they believed that time-of-day should be considered,' 82.9 percent responded by saying 'yes.'

"Clearly," commented Terzic, "regulators are interested in time-of-day rates as way for the public to benefit from cheaper access to energy, especially in light of the current economic downturn."

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

Invitation: Survey: Electricity costs up, ability to pay down @ Wed Jun 9, 2010 (scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com)

more details » Survey: Electricity costs up, ability to pay down When Wed Jun 9, 2010 Where http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com (map) Calendar scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com Who • Scott's Contracting - organizer • scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com Going?   Yes - Maybe - No    more options »

Invitation from Google Calendar You are receiving this courtesy email at the account scottscontracting.renewableenergy@blogger.com because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

Solar Information

Solar Panels Guide contact-

 Scotty for additional information and to schedule a Free Site Evaluation

Solar panels, mounting hardware, inverter, wiring and conduit, specialized meters: these are the components of all photovoltaic (PV) systems. But it's the solar panels themselves that not only make up the bulk of your solar quote, but whose technology, costs, and applications are the most hotly contested. People ask all the time what the differences are among panels–here's a thorough but lay-person friendly answer.

Before the overview, a quick vocab lesson:  A solar cell is the actual, wafer-thin semiconductor that produces electricity. A solar module is multiple solar cells connected to one another. A solar panel is one or more solar modules sealed up in a single object (frame) and used as part of a solar array. A solar array is the whole shebang mentioned above: the solar panels plus all the ancillary equipment necessary to not only produce electricity from sunlight, but to channel and use it.

Crystalline Solar
Crystalline solar panels have been around, in varying stages of efficiency and attractiveness, for decades. They're on space stations and satellites–they're reliable and they last for ages. The semicondutor–the element responsible for the actual electric generation–is a thin sheet of crystalline silicon. There are two kinds of crystalline solar cells, which differ in how they're manufactured, their efficiency levels, and ultimately, their end cost to the consumer.

• monocrystalline solar cells: Literally of one crystal, these cells are wafers sliced off one large, organically grown cylindrical silicon crystal. With their nearly perfect crystalline structure, these wafers are superb conductors of electricity. Current monocrystalline solar panels on the market can turn more than 15 percent of the sunlight that hits their surface into electricity.
  • The crystal growth and extrusion process is time- and labor-intensive, and there is great materials loss involved in cutting the circular crystal wafers into usable octagonal solar cells, which is why solar modules made with these cells are the most expensive ones on the market.
  • They are only cost-effective in some scenarios because their high efficiency means they produce more power over time than other, cheaper modules. Efficiency can go as high as 22 percent on the market, and just over 25 percent in the lab.
  • You can tell when you're looking at a monocrystalline solar module because you'll see little white diamonds (or black, with some manufacturers) formed by the empty space between the edges of the octagonal cells.

• polycrystalline solar cells: These solar cells are cut from multicrystalline silicon cast in large shallow trays. There's a lot less labor, cutting, and waste involved with polycrystalline, so they're cheaper than their mono brethren. However, the casting process produces a less perfect crystalline structure, which means these cells don't transmit energy as efficiently. These are very standard solar modules: good efficiency, decent price.
  • Polycrystalline solar modules have a uniform appearance. Their color is a prettily mottled blue-black. Efficiency is usually more like 12-15 percent. These are the go-to type of solar panel for residential installations in particular, where the slight step down from monocrystalline efficiency is more than offset by the cost savings. You'll hear monocrystalline solar panels referred to as "the best"; this isn't necessarily true. Mono- and poly-cells simply have different niches.

Amorphous or Thin-Film Solar
This is the technology that's set the industry abuzz with news of ultra-cheap solar: $1/watt or less. For the record, they're talking about manufactured costs here–by no means does that number reflect what you could expect to pay as a consumer. Super cheap solar is indeed nothing more than a rumor. It's simply fact: this is high technology. High technology costs money. Federal, state, and utility solar incentives, however, can combine to lower the net cost of solar energy systems drastically, and turn a big ticket item into one excellent investment.

But yes, it's exciting that there is a cheaper solar technology afoot, and it has some great applications. Thin film can be made of different materials, sometimes silicon based and sometimes using chemical polymers as the semiconductor.  Thin film drawbacks? Very low efficiency compared to crystalline, with rates typically in the 8-9 percent range; and dubious life expectancy. Crystalline solar panels are warrantied for 25-30 years, and history has proven that they can and will produce energy long after that range. Thin-film has no such tried and true promise of efficacy, which means it can be difficult to predict its returns over a longer period. It's also easier to damage. Crystalline solar modules, encased in glass and weather-sealed, are built to tough out the elements and have been proven to do so successfully. Additionally, thin film only works for solar installation sites where space is no object and angle no concern–either a perfectly tilted roof (best angle for solar is equal to the latitude of the install site) or a perfectly flat one.
In summary:

Monocrystalline: Most efficient; most expensive; attractive octagonal design; especially good for solar installations where space is at a premium.

Polycrystalline: Efficient; moderately priced; classic "solar panel" coloration and design; best all-around choice.

Thin film: Inefficient; cheap; best for commercial installations where higher quantity can compensate for lower quality.

 http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com for your solar systems

--
Scott's Contracting
scottscontracting@gmail.com
http://www.stlouisrenewableenergy.com

BPs Financial Woes

BP bankruptcy ahead? Rivals 'licking their chops

Play Video CNBC – BP's Worst Case Scenario

• Slideshow:Gulf Coast Oil Spill
• Play Video Video:New video of blaze after rig blast Reuters

Related Quotes

Symbol	Price	Change
^DJI	9,939.98	+123.49
^GSPC	1,062.00	+11.53
^IXIC	2,170.57	-3.33

Reuters – A sea turtle is mired in oil from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on Grand Terre Island, Louisiana, June …

More from The Newsroom:

• Primary elections live blog: SC, AR, NV, CA
• Lieberman coy about supporting former culture-war foe Linda McMahon
• Border Patrol agent kills 15-year-old boy in Texas after rocks were thrown
• Oil spill dominates week in traditional media, while Israeli flotilla raid was leading story online
• Obama's 'needy' media exhorters demand more emotion
• How Nikki Haley managed a Teflon primary run
• Iconic Princess Diana dress sells at auction
• Solider accused of murder in Afghanistan crossed paths with the Palin family

More »

Tue Jun 8, 2:40 pm ET

Some have wondered whether BP can financially survive the disaster in the Gulf. Sure, the oil giant is a diverse, international money-making machine, but the Guardian reported Monday that BP had already spent $1.25 billion seven weeks into the oil spill, with no clear end in sight. The company will be dealing with an avalanche of lawsuits for years (a New Orleans attorney told me she expects that some local law school grads will spend the bulk of their careers working on spill-related cases) and the company's stock recently nose-dived. In spite of all this, BP CEO Tony Hayward has repeatedly insisted that his company will see the disaster through until the Gulf Coast is "made whole" again.

But New York Times financial reporter Andrew Ross Sorkin notes that many industry watchers doubt BP can survive. Rivals Exxon and Shell are already circling like buzzards in anticipation that the company may stagger into oblivion. Or, as Sorkin puts it, they're "licking their chops" hoping to acquire a BP in bankruptcy: "Flinty legal minds are dreaming up scenarios in which BP would file a prepackaged bankruptcy and separate the costs of the cleanup — and potentially billions of dollars in legal claims — into a separate corporate entity."

Sorkin reckons that the company's legal liability and long-term cleanup costs could work out to a red-ink tally of $15 billion to $40 billion. He writes: "The company has about $12 billion in cash and short-term investments, but there is already a debate about whether it should cut its dividend out of fear that it could run out of money. Of course, it could sell assets or seek loans, which in this environment is still not that easy."

Sorkin notes that Wall Streeters are already talking about a "Texaco scenario" — a buyout from an industry rival akin to the deal struck allowing Pennzoil to take over Texaco after the former firm won a multibillion-dollar jury verdict against the latter in a dispute over the sale of Getty Oil. But that was the outcome of a bare-knuckled clash of corporate chieftains, and the BP catastrophe probably won't produce any such dramatic resolution overnight. After all, Exxon — the company responsible for the Alaska Valdez disaster, which had formerly been the largest oil spill in U.S. history — is now the most profitable and highest-capitalized corporation in the country.

— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.