By : William Lustgarten

Tallahassee — Today the Florida Legislature destroyed the last possibility of Florida embrassing Clean Renewable Energy.It took just two hours Tuesday to reject Gov. Charlie Crist’s proposal to give voters the chance to amend the state Constitution and ban offshore oil drilling. What goes thru the minds of our Republican leadership is very hard to understand. More than $41 million are owed to 11,000 Floridians for the expired State Rebate program to homeowners for  Solar installations made during this last year. The Legislature earlier this  year failed to  renew the property tax  exemption which existed for solar property installed by homeowners who installed solar PV or solar thermal water heating in their homes. The Legislature failed to regulate PACE which has been very sucessfull in other states. The final stroke came today, failing to ban offshore drilling off our costs.

We are doomed with the political class at the helm of the Florida Legislature. G’d help us. Florida has no future with these outdated and outmoded politicians. What will they answer their grandchildren when asked” Grandfather why can’t we swim on our beaches?”  They might answer something brilliant like “It is not my fault dear, we  could not get the number of votes for an agreement between my fellow congressmen and congresswomen.” What value or importance will this have to our future generations. These men and women are not prepared to embrace the future. G’d help us.

March 12, 2010

Senator Introduces Solar Energy Legislation
U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced legislation this week to encourage the installation of 10 million solar systems on the rooftops of homes and businesses over the next decade.  According to the New York State Department of Labor report from 2009, New York has nearly 75,000 jobs associated with solar manufacturing and installation in more than 7,000 New York companies.  Based on average wages, New York’s solar industry payroll is approximately $4.8 billion dollars.  The 10 Million Solar Roofs and 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act would provide consumers and businesses with rebates of $3 per watt for systems up to 4 megawatts.  This would help consumers overcome a key barrier to expanded solar deployment.  Solar energy requires significant upfront expenditures for systems that are otherwise cost-effective over time.  This rebate program would complement existing federal and state incentives.

Senate Democrats Hit Agency on Energy Plan
Four (4) Senate Democrats have called for a suspension of the ITC Grants for Renewable Energy Projects under section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Concerns expressed by Senators, led by Senator Schumer (D-NY), are that more than $1 million in grant funds have been paid to foreign-owned companies.  The Senators announced a new initiative requiring the “Buy American” provision of the stimulus be applied to all programs under the legislation, not simply the government ones.  They are demanding the Obama Administration suspend the current program immediately and asking Treasury Department Secretary Geithner to halt payouts for the program until Congress can correct the law.  The Department of Energy has agreed to work with Congress to further improve the program, however believe that a suspension of the program would create an immediate negative effect on the American workforce.

U.S. Department of Labor Awards Funds to Support Green Jobs
The U.S. Department of Labor announced nearly $100 million in green jobs training grants through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.  This latest round of funding will support job training programs for dislocated workers and others to help them find jobs in green industries and related occupations.  Grants have been awarded to 25 projects.  Training programs will prepare workers for a range of careers that include solar panel installation.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Announces $100 Million in Innovative Research Projects
U.S. DOE Secretary Steven Chu announced its third round of funding under the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).  $100 million in American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funding will be awarded for the acceleration of innovation in green technology, increase America’s competitiveness and create new jobs.  Three areas of focus in this funding opportunity are: 1) grid-scale rampable intermittent dispatchable storage (GRIDS), 2) agile delivery of electrical power technology (ADEPT), and 3) building energy efficiency through innovative thermodevices (BEET-IT).

Source: www.agt.com

Students at Key West High School are learning about alternative energy firsthand — by making biodiesel to power a school bus and participating in a wind turbine pilot program.

KEY WEST — The oil once used to fry grouper and conch fritters in Key West restaurants is now fueling an old Mercedes-Benz and soon could be powering a school bus.

At Key West High School, in the building that once housed auto shop classes, honors physics students have learned how to make small amounts of biodiesel fuel from donated grease, methanol and potassium hydroxide. Now, they’re working on a system that they hope by February will produce enough fuel to flow through a gas pump and run a bus, traveling 70 miles a day at seven miles a gallon.

“It’s very exciting for the students that basically grease, moonshine and drain cleaner can run a school bus,” science teacher Josh Clearman said. “And biodiesel reduces emissions by 78 percent, bio degrades quicker than sugar and is less toxic than soap.”

Three years ago, Clearman spearheaded efforts to convert the obsolete auto shop into the Alternative Energy Center, one of only a few such high school centers around the country. The school board provided $50,000 in seed money.

The investment has paid off, and not just in the practical experience gained by the students. Last year, the center won a Hewlett Packard education grant for $300,000 worth of computers and other equipment for the school district.

This year, the center received $30,000 in grant money from a nonprofit group to participate in a wind turbine pilot project that will help provide power to the Alternative Energy Center.

A 53-foot high wind turbine that spins like a windmill was installed next to the softball field last week, and a rooftop wind turbine that spins horizontally like a helicopter will be installed soon. Clearman said the turbines are predicted to produce about $800 worth of energy a year, enough to power about 20 percent of the lights and air conditioning of the 2,500-square-foot center.

Monroe County School Board member Duncan Mathewson said Key West is the first high school in the country to acquire both turbines, which the students will study as they produce power.

DIFFICULT CONCEPTSClearman said one of the most difficult concepts in physics to teach is electricity and magnetism. “The kids think of it as magic,” he said. “With the turbine, it will help take away some of the mystery of it.”

Nearly 60 students, mostly seniors, now are enrolled in the two alternative energy center classes that meet for two hours each day. Three students are working on the new design for the biodiesel system, while others are filtering used grease. One group persuaded a local auto parts dealer to donate a new battery for a 1985 Mercedes-Benz they bought for $2,000 to test the fuel. Another group is making planters to create building shade for “passive cooling.”

HANDS-ON LEARNING“They learn a lot more by doing than listening to me blabbering up at the chalkboard,” Clearman said. “I don’t get asked the question anymore: `Where am I going to use this?’ ”

Gene Lewis, director of Tallahassee-based nonprofit Florida Green Alliance, is administering the turbine grant. Lewis said he’s trying to help the school land a grant for solar panels so students can work on sun power projects.

Clearman said he saw the impact of big oil and the growing need for alternative energy while teaching at the American School of Kuwait. He and his wife arrived there just before the 9/11 attacks.

He’s taught in Key West for seven years, starting the alternative energy center after a high school teacher from Miami-Dade County told him how easy it was to make biodiesel.

While the students have made small portions of biodiesel, Clearman said they are not present for large mixes because of the poisonous, flammable liquid involved.

But the students work on all other aspects of the process, including asking restaurant managers and festival vendors for used grease. With the donated oil, biodiesel costs only about $1 per gallon to make, Clearman said.

The students like working on a “green” project. “It’s really interesting,” senior Peyton White said, “and something you should learn about because of global warming and all that stuff.”

Source: www.miamiherald.com

The current focus in the developed world is on advanced technological approaches to alternative energy sources, such as photovoltaic cells for solar power and harnessing wind and wave with elaborate systems to generate electricity. However, the cost of such systems may be prohibitive for some applications in the developing world. They also often ignore the fact that a mundane process such as heating water might best be carried out using direct heat from the sun rather than including a waste energy-conversion step.

Vivek Khambalkar, Sharashchandra Gadge, and Dhiraj S. Karale at the Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural University, in Maharashtra, India, explain how they have evaluated the various costs and benefits involved in solar hot-water production. They have compared solar hot-water production per liter with electrical energy approaches and found that solar heating is 57 percent of the internal rate of return.

“Solar energy is the only renewable energy source that has wide range of uses with commercial viability. Solar energy provide water heating, air heating and electricity through various modes of applications. The use of solar energy for thermal purposes is the most cost-effective way of utilizing the resource. A solar water heating system satisfies the need of warm water,” the researchers explain.

Importantly, the payback time for the initial investment in equipment and installation is just two years. This compares very well to a photovoltaic system used for electricity generation if it were only being used to heat water. Photovoltaics have a payback period of several at least a decade and sometimes double that.

The solar hot water system used in the study is installed at the Jijau hostel, part of the Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural University campus, in Akola, Maharashtra state, India. The team estimates that the system will effectively pay for itself five times over, given an estimated working life of about twenty years.

Source: www.sciencedaily.com

By: Michael Totty
December 6, 2009

When we recently ran an article about ideas on ways to cool the planet, we were swamped with emails from people who were impassioned in their belief that global warming is a myth. It was striking that so many people held views at odds with what is apparently the consensus among climate scientists, as well as policy makers.

That consensus, simply put, states that the planet is warming, and that most of the temperature rise is very likely due to an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity. Barring a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, the 21st century will see more frequent heat waves, intense storms and, in the tropics, declines in rainfall.

So, what do the skeptics say? In a nutshell, they argue that the warming in the past century has been modest and that human activities’ contribution to the warming has been minimal; there is no crisis. Here are some of their major points—and the response by those who believe in global warming.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: The Earth isn’t warming—at least not to any extent that could actually be called a “crisis.” And some data even suggest that the Earth is getting colder.

The planet may have grown warmer over the course of the 20th century. But that warming stopped more than 10 years ago, and since 1998 the trend shows less warming or even cooling. Indeed, the period from December 2007 through November 2008 was the coldest 12-month span of the decade. Even if the planet isn’t cooling, there’s no evidence that warming is accelerating or that temperatures are increasing at an alarming rate.

THE RESPONSE: It’s true: By most measures, average temperatures this decade seem to have plateaued.

But this isn’t evidence of a cooling planet. Partly, it’s a result of picking an exceptionally hot year—1998—as a starting point. That year experienced an unusually strong El Niño, a natural and periodic warming of the Pacific Ocean that can have powerful effects on global climate.

The long-term trend since the mid-1970s shows warming per decade of about 0.18 degree Celsius (about 0.32 degree Fahrenheit). That temperatures this decade have hardly increased demonstrates how natural year-to-year variations in climate can either add to or subtract from the long-term warming trend caused by the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The ’00s still have been exceptionally warm: The 12 years from 1997 through 2008 were among the 15 warmest on record, and the decade itself was hotter than any previous 10-year period. While 2008 was the coolest year since 2000—a result of the cooling counterpart of El Niño—it was still the 11th-warmest year on record. And 2009 is on track to be among the five warmest.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: Records of surface temperatures are unreliable and exaggerate the amount of warming.

The reason some scientists think the planet is warming drastically is that they’re relying on temperature readings from ground weather stations that in many cases have been artificially boosted by an “urban heat island” effect. Most temperature-gathering weather stations are located in cities or towns. Yet cities generally trap more heat—in asphalt, concrete and other structures—and the effect can be significantly greater than any warming effects of greenhouse gases.

THE RESPONSE: It’s true there’s an urban heat-island effect. But it hasn’t skewed the overall trends that indicate global warming.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies compares temperature readings from urban weather stations with those from nearby rural stations, and adjusts the urban data so that temperature trends match those of the rural stations. And any trends in the data are based on the rural readings alone. Other scientists have found that apparent differences between urban and rural temperature readings have probably been overstated.

There’s also plenty of evidence independent of the urban temperature readings to suggest that the planet is heating up: Oceans are warming, glaciers and permafrost are disappearing, the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, and plants and animals in the Northern Hemisphere are migrating northward out of their historic ranges.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: Satellite temperature readings are more reliable than those taken from surface weather stations, and satellites show little warming over the past 30 years.

Satellite readings of temperatures of the lower atmosphere compiled by the University of Alabama-Huntsville show a smaller warming trend over the past 30 years than the surface record. This minor temperature increase is well within natural variations. It may even point to a break, around 2002-03, in the 20th century warming trend.

THE RESPONSE: The earliest studies of temperature trends using satellite data did show significant differences with the surface-temperature trend, but much of that stemmed from problems with how the satellite data were put together.

As errors have been corrected, the satellite and weather-balloon measures of the lower atmosphere show warming trends similar to the surface measures.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: There’s nothing especially unusual about today’s temperatures.

The Earth’s climate is constantly changing, and climate shifts have been far more dramatic in the past. Temperatures rose during the Medieval Warm Period, which extended from about 800 to 1300 A.D., and the period was as warm or warmer than the 20th century. That’s long before industrialization caused an increase in CO2 levels, undermining the link between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

It’s likely that the warming trend we’re experiencing today is merely the expected return to warmer temperatures after the Little Ice Age, a period of extremely cold winters from the 16th to the early 19th century.

THE RESPONSE: Reliable temperature records go back only about 150 years.

To get a picture of the pre-modern world’s climate, it’s necessary to correlate data from a variety of proxy sources around the globe, such as ice cores, coral growth, tree rings and the like. These temperature reconstructions show a similar pattern: a warmer period during the Middle Ages, a cooler period from about 1600 into the 1800s—and much higher temperatures in the late 20th century.

While the reconstructions suggest that temperatures in the Middle Ages were as high as those in the early 20th century, they were probably lower than the sharp temperature increase over the past 30 years. The warmest temperatures before the 20th century probably occurred between 950 and 1100 and were probably more than 0.1 degree Celsius below the 1961-1990 average (which is used as a benchmark for most current temperature measures).

Still, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions, and the uncertainty increases as scientists look further back in time. While there’s evidence for warm conditions during the Medieval period, exactly when it was warmer and for how long may have varied from place to place around the world.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: Natural factors are enough to account for the moderate warming we’ve seen since 1900.

Changes in solar output in the past have contributed to wide temperature swings across the globe. Other natural phenomena, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and its cooling counterpart, La Niña, can cause large but temporary climate shifts.

These normal fluctuations are enough to cause the warming of the planet, while the effects of greenhouse-gas emissions remain relatively small.

THE RESPONSE: There’s no question that solar energy and periodic, natural changes affect the world’s climate. But these natural factors aren’t enough to account for the sharp increase in temperatures since the late 1970s.

Studies of solar output over more than 1,000 years show a strong relationship with temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere; temperatures rise when solar output increases, and they decline when solar radiance, as measured by sunspot and other activity, decreases.

But the studies have also found that solar energy doesn’t account for the steep temperature rise since the mid-1970s, a period during which solar output has remained relatively unchanged. The sun’s contribution to warming since then has been negligible.

Natural climate changes, like El Niño, also have a definite impact on weather patterns for as much as a decade; El Niño, for instance, accounted for the high temperatures in 1998. But such climate changes occur in recurring cycles and don’t show longer-term trends.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: There’s no evidence that rising sea levels are linked to increased carbon-dioxide levels.

Sea levels are certainly rising, and they have been since the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago. But the observed increases in the 20th century are relatively small, and recent studies indicate that sea levels may have risen more quickly in the first half of the century than in the second. There has been no sign of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.

The increases we have seen may reflect only periodic, decade-level fluctuations, not a continuing, long-term increase. This suggests the sea-level rises this century will be about the same as last century and could easily be accommodated.

THE RESPONSE: After rising following the last Ice Age, sea levels stabilized about 2,000 years ago and held fairly steady until about 1800, but they have been rising since then—about 1.7 millimeters a year for the 20th century. Contrary to what the skeptics say, however, satellite readings indicate sea levels rose more steeply—about 3.4 millimeters a year, or a little more than one-eighth of an inch—from 1993 to 2008.

Although such a sharp short-term climb is very likely a sign of a long-term acceleration in sea-level increases, it is recent enough that it still could indicate decade-level variability; assessing the long-term trend will require more years of data.

For the rest of the 21st century, ocean levels are projected to rise at a greater rate as the melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica accelerates. Accurate projections of the rise are difficult, however, because the mechanics of the melting ice sheets are poorly understood.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-afiliated organization, estimated in 2007 that sea levels will rise between 18 centimeters and 59 centimeters by 2095, with another rise of 10 to 20 centimeters possible if the melting of those ice sheets speeds up. But a recent report predicts that the rise in sea levels this century is likely to be twice as great as the IPCC report projects.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: Polar ice isn’t disappearing.

Warmer temperatures are partly responsible for recent declines in sea ice in the Arctic, but shifting winds are the main factor. What’s more, declines in the northern ice cap have been counterbalanced by increases in the Antarctic ice pack, so there’s little net loss of polar ice. These opposite trends argue against the existence of man-made global warming.

THE RESPONSE: The two ends of the Earth do seem to behave differently, but that reflects the complexity of the world’s climate system and isn’t evidence against global warming.

The Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land, which holds in more heat. Also, as the ice cap melts, the darker ocean absorbs more heat and accelerates the rate of warming. The Antarctic, by contrast, is a continent surrounded by ocean, and climate models predict that it will respond differently to global warming.

In the north, satellite measurements show that Arctic sea ice has decreased steadily since the late 1970s; in September, when the ice cap is at its smallest, sea ice has declined about 10% a decade, or about 28,000 square miles through 2007. Though the ice has recovered somewhat, the September 2009 minimum was still 24% below the average from 1979 to 2000. What’s more, the sea ice is thinner and probably reached a record low volume in 2008.

In the Antarctic, meanwhile, wintertime ice has extended its range by about 1%, or almost 39,000 square miles, a decade. (Most Antarctic sea ice typically disappears completely in the summer.) The mechanism for this isn’t completely understood; scientists theorize that ozone depletion in the region contributes to stronger and colder winds that promote production of sea ice.

It’s possible, too, that increased snowfall—a result of a warmer southern ocean and air temperatures—also adds to the amount of sea ice.

WHAT THE SKEPTICS SAY: There is no consensus that human-caused warming is creating a disastrous rise in global temperatures. The causes of 20th-century warming are in sharp dispute among scientists, as is the amount of warming expected in the future.

THE RESPONSE: Science is rarely final, and it always has its skeptics. Hypotheses are tested and retested as more data are collected and examined, and disagreements among researchers play a vital role in moving scientific understanding forward.

But the vast majority of scientists who study the climate agree on the essential points: that the Earth is getting warmer and that most of the warming in recent decades has been caused by carbon-dioxide emissions from human activities. As CO2 concentrations increase, the rate of warming will accelerate.

This view, summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is endorsed by the world’s leading scientific organizations, including the national academies of science in a score of countries and, in the U.S., the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

In a recent survey of more than 3,000 Earth scientists, 82% agreed that human activity is a “significant contributing factor” in changing global temperatures. Specialists were in greater agreement: 75 of the 77 climate scientists who actively publish in the field—about 97%—agreed with the statement.

Source: www.wsj.com

November 11, 2009

Several U.S. Senators have introduced a bill to provide a tax incentive to solar energy equipment manufacturers in a bid to create new jobs.

The Solar Manufacturing Jobs Creation Act, introduced by Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., would give manufacturers access to a cash grant program created by the stimulus package this year to help finance solar power installations.

Makers of components such as silicon wafers, solar cells and evacuated tubes for solar water heaters already are eligible to receive a 30 percent manufacturing tax credit for building new factories or expanding existing ones.  

This manufacturing tax credit also originated from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The U.S. Department of Energy and the Internal Revenue Service are reviewing the first batch of applications, and plan to make decisions by Jan. 15. Recipients will have four years to complete their factory plans.

The act capped the program at $2.3 billion, and makes the tax credit available not only to solar equipment makers, but also manufacturers of equipment for wind, geothermal and other renewable electricity, as well as energy storage, biofuels and electric car components (see program description).

Solar companies are worried that they will only get a small slice of this manufacturing tax credit program. So the Solar Energy Industries Association is now lobbying lawmakers to allow manufacturers to take advantage of an investment tax credit program.

The investment tax credit is meant to offset 30 percent of the cost of building a solar and other renewable energy generation project. Last fall, Congress extended the investment tax credit by eight years, so it’s set to end in 2016.

The ARRA, passed in February this year, allows developers to get a cash grant instead of the investment tax credit. The cash grant goes to energy projects that are brought online in 2009 and 2010, or if the project construction begin before Jan. 1, 2011.

The Solar Manufacturing Jobs Creation Act would allow factory owners to apply for the investment tax credit until the program sunsets in 2016. It also would allow the manufacturers to take advantage of the short-term cash grant program.

The cash grant program so far has benefited largely wind farm developers. The government has doled out a little over $1 billion from the program so far, and the majority of that money has gone to large wind companies such as Spain-based Iberdrola (see Feds Issue $550.4M Green Energy Cash Grants and Treasury Grant’s Big Winners: Wind Companies).

Making the cash grant program available to manufacturers could benefit quite a few solar companies that have announced plans to build or expand factories in the United States. They include Suntech Power, SunPower, Clairvoyant Energy, Suniva and SolarWorld  (see Oerlikon Solar Tools Coming to America and SolarWorld Plans U.S. Factory Expansion Amid Tough Competition).

Building factories in the United States would reduce the costs of shipping solar cells and panels from factories overseas. But a big reason for setting up manufacturing here is to take advantage of any “Buy American” policies that might be adopted by local or federal governments.

The ARRA already has such a provision that applies to public projects, such as installing solar panels on government buildings (see Is Buying European A Good Idea?).

The United States was once the top producer of solar cells. But manufacturing has shifted to Asia because production costs are lower there and governments provide lucrative incentives. Large U.S. manufacturers such as First Solar and SunPower are primarily making products in Malaysia, the Philippines and Germany. 

Japan, China and Taiwan had about 45 percent of the world’s solar panel production capacity in 2008, according to GTM Research. The United States had 7 percent. Whether the United States can offer similar or better incentives to keep manufacturing cost effective over long run remains to be seen. 

Some companies are shifting manufacturing out of the United States because production costs have become too high. Evergreen Solar, for one, plans to move solar panel assembly to China. General Electric is closing its only solar panel factory in the United States.

Source: www.greentechmedia.com

NEW DELHI—India plans to announce increased subsidies for solar-power generation, a senior government official said, as the country looks to scale up production of renewable energy and show it is committed to mitigating climate change.

India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy is expected to release details of the latest solar-power policy in the next several weeks. In an interview, Dr. B. Bhargava, a director in the agency, said the plans will increase significantly the number of solar projects that can receive government support.

The hope, Mr. Bhargava said, is that the new policy will encourage manufacturers of solar panels such as Moser Baer India Ltd. and Tata BP Solar India Ltd. to ramp up production, thereby reducing per-unit costs and driving down the high price of solar power.

It is currently about five times more expensive to generate solar power than oil-based power. “If the costs aren’t reduced, this \[subsidy\] policy can’t be sustained on a long-term basis,” Mr. Bhargava said.

India’s revision of its solar policies comes ahead of a global climate-change conference at Copenhagen in December. The differences between developed and developing countries are part of the reason world leaders have lowered expectations for what’s possible in Copenhagen, saying the purpose will be to set a political roadmap for further negotiations to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Developing countries such as India are under pressure to show greater commitments to controlling greenhouse-gas emissions. Climate change will be among the issues on the agenda when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits the White House next week.

India currently generates a tiny fraction of its power from solar energy. Coal accounts for more than half of the country’s power capacity, and wind makes the biggest contribution among renewable sources, which together provide about 7.5% of India’s energy.

Solar power is promising, because sunlight is abundant everywhere, unlike wind and hydro power, which are better for only some regions. The government’s new policy is aimed at increasing solar-power generation to 20,000 megawatts by 2020 from three megawatts. “The potential is infinite with solar,” Mr. Bhargava said.

India’s existing policy supports a modest amount of solar-power capacity—50 megawatts—with subsidies of up to 25 cents per kilowatt hour. Mr. Bhargava said that program is already “fully subscribed” and will be expanded substantially through the new policy, though he declined to offer specifics. He said the new guidelines also will streamline the process for solar-power developers to collect subsidies and payments from state utilities.

The major challenge for scaling up solar power has been providing the start-up capital to create demand. Many state electricity boards—which purchase power from generating companies and sell it to consumers—are in shaky financial positions. But Mr. Bhargava said the central government will take on most of the costs of the solar program in the early going. “Initially, we’ll have no choice but to do that for a few years,” he said.

Beyond expanding solar power, India has pledged in a “national action plan” on climate change to pursue a range of other measures, from increased fuel-efficiency in automobiles to more-efficient consumer appliances.

The U.S. and other developed countries have sought to persuade India to accept mandatory curbs on greenhouse-gas emissions. “Developing countries can’t say ‘this isn’t my problem’ … because most of the increase in carbon emissions in the future will be from developing countries,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, who was in India last week to meet with government officials.

But India has resisted, arguing that its per-capita emissions are still well below those of developed countries. Indian officials and corporate executives say they don’t want to put the brakes on economic growth and make it harder to provide electricity to 400 millions Indians who aren’t on the national grid.

Mr. Chu said India and the U.S. are exploring ways to combine efforts on basic research into new green technologies. He said India could be severely affected by receding glaciers and changing weather patterns if climate change isn’t addressed urgently in coming years.

He added that India will have no choice but to look beyond coal to alternative-energy sources as its population swells. India already faces a shortfall of power—with capacity about 12% below demand during peak hours—and demand is expected to increase five-fold by 2030, according to a recent McKinsey & Co. report.

Source: www.wsj.com

By: Jonathan Weisman, Spencer Swartz and Stephen Power
November 16, 2009

An acknowledgment by the world’s biggest governments that they won’t reach a climate-change agreement by next month underscores the political challenges of negotiating such a deal — and raises questions about when they might do so.

Leaders at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum over the weekend conceded that the United Nations conference on climate change, to be held in Copenhagen in December, wasn’t likely to reach a legal agreement imposing hard caps on countries’ greenhouse-gas emissions. By doing so, the leaders tacitly acknowledged that neither the U.S. nor China — the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases — was ready to commit to such a deal. The two countries have been locked in a standoff for years over the issue, with each wanting the other to shoulder more of the burden of cutting emissions.
World leaders now say they hope to use the Copenhagen meeting to forge a “politically binding” agreement, with specific commitments by countries to reduce emissions and to help poor countries fight climate change. The leaders would seek to reach a formal, legal agreement at a second conference, but the timing of that remains uncertain.

Some longtime observers of climate negotiation expressed concern that by tamping down expectations for next month’s summit, world leaders have eased pressure on concluding a deal anytime soon. They said a protracted delay would make it harder to reduce carbon emissions down the road, because wind and other alternative-energy producers want to see political and legal commitments in public policy before making additional investments.

In the interim, energy companies are likely to continue relying on cheaper but dirtier fuel sources, such as coal-fired power plants, to meet rising energy needs. Newly built projects could operate for decades.

“Alternative producers need to see the right signals from policy makers before they will make decisions to invest billions of dollars in alternative-energy sources,” said Fatih Birol, chief economist at the Paris-based International Energy Agency, which acts as an adviser to industrialized nations like the U.S. “Copenhagen is where those signals need to come from.”
The Copenhagen announcement also illustrates the political difficulty of negotiating limits on industrial greenhouse-gas emissions, as countries grapple with a weak global economy and concerns that emission caps could drive up energy prices.

During the U.S. presidential campaign, Barack Obama pledged to push for legislation capping U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, raising hopes among environmentalists that Copenhagen would produce an agreement. In Japan, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s election brought to power a new government that pledged to make deeper emissions cuts than its predecessor. And Chinese President Hu Jintao proposed in September to adopt “carbon-intensity targets,” which would set the amount of carbon released per unit of economic output.

But political opposition in the U.S. Senate to Mr. Obama’s climate-change proposals and continuing resistance among developing countries to binding emissions-reduction targets have slowed consensus ahead of the Copenhagen summit. China’s offer to set targets has failed to mollify some U.S. lawmakers, with Republicans arguing that China’s emissions would to continue to rise, albeit at a slower rate.
Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen over the weekend laid out new goals for the Copenhagen summit. He said leaders should produce a five- to eight-page text with “precise language” committing developed countries to reductions of emissions thought to be warming the planet; and with provisions on adapting to warmer temperatures, on financing such adaptation and combating climate change in poor countries. It would include pledges of immediate financing for early action.

“We are not aiming to let anyone off the hook,” Mr. Rasmussen told the leaders. “We are trying to create a framework that will allow everybody to commit.”

But the leaders didn’t specify when a final summit would be convened to ratify such a treaty.

Greenpeace International accused Denmark’s government of “caving in” to the U.S. and complained that industrialized countries “continue to postpone important decisions into eternity.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded Mr. Rasmussen for making what it said was a smart, pragmatic move.

Source: www.wsj.com

Standing in rural Florida amid 180 acres of solar panels, President Barack Obama announced $3.4 billion in federal stimulus grants to modernize America’s power grid and create jobs.

“At this moment, there’s something big happening in America when it comes to creating a clean-energy economy,” the president said while visiting the country’s largest solar plant — Florida Power & Light’s new DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center southeast of Tampa. “But getting there will take a few more days like this one, and more projects like this one.”

Among the 100 projects receiving stimulus grants: $200 million for an FPL initiative to modernize its power grid, including transmission line improvements and more than 2 million “smart meters” that enable consumers to monitor and adjust their own power use and costs.

“Here in this region of Florida, this project will reduce demand for electricity by up to 20 percent during the hottest summer days that stress the grid and power plants,” Obama said. “It will provide smart meters to 2.6 million more customers. And most importantly, it will create thousands of jobs — good jobs, by the way, that can’t be outsourced; jobs that will last and jobs that pay a decent wage.”

North Carolina-based Progress Energy also received a $200 million grant. A spokeswoman said details were unavailable Tuesday, but that it would be divided evenly between projects in Florida and North Carolina.

The grants were awarded to 100 utilities and businesses that in turn will spend another $4.7 billion in private money on the so-called “smart grid.” The current grid system relies on century-old technology that the president said “wastes too much energy, it costs us too much money, and it’s too susceptible to outages and blackouts.”

Shirt sleeves rolled up, Obama arrived at the secluded Desoto County solar power farm by helicopter, after visiting the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville and raising money for Democrats in Miami on Monday. Before talking to invited guests, he wandered among the 90,000 solar panels with FPL chairman Lewis Hay, who was among several business leaders who had lunch with Obama at the White House earlier this month.

The vast fields of panels are tucked out of sight outside Arcadia, and utility officials said the $152 million facility generates enough power for about 3,000 homes. In reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the solar facility is estimated to be the equivalent of removing 4,500 cars from the roads every year.

Glowing praise from the president was a welcome change for FPL, which lately has been battered with negative publicity about its relationship with regulators and a request for a 30 percent rate increase.

“For the very first time, a large-scale solar power plant — the largest of its kind in the entire nation — will deliver electricity produced by the sun to the citizens of the Sunshine State. And I think it’s about time,” the president said.

Gov. Charlie Crist had made alternative energy and greenhouse gas reduction a top priority early in his tenure, but he steered clear of the president this week. Many conservatives are still fuming about Crist embracing Obama in Fort Myers in February and calling for the passage of the $787 billion stimulus package.

Source: www.times.com

October 5, 2009

• 30% reduction in vehicle fleet petroleum use by 2020;
• 26% improvement in water efficiency by 2020;
• 50% recycling and waste diversion by 2015;
• 95% of all applicable contracts will meet sustainability requirements;
• Implementation of the 2030 net-zero-energy building requirement;
• Implementation of the stormwater provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, section 438; and
• Development of guidance for sustainable Federal building locations in alignment with the Livability Principles put forward by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Many federal agencies have received recognition for their work to integrate environmental considerations into their daily operations and management decisions including: the Air Force Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas for their “Sheppard Puts the R in Recycling” program, the Department of Treasury for their petroleum use reduction, the Department of Energy Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee for pollution prevention, the United States Postal Service for their Green Purchasing Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture “Sowing the Seeds for Change” Extreme Makeover Team in Deer River Ranger District in Minnesota; and the Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health in Maryland for their laboratory decommissioning protocol.

Source: www.whitehouse.gov