Many U.S. investors were reluctant to plough money into big solar, wind, and other clean-energy sectors until they knew what technologies the U.S. government policy was going to favor, he said.

“There’s too much capital sitting on the sidelines for lack of an energy policy,” Locke said during a stop at a U.S. and Chinese joint venture project to build batteries for electric vehicles.

“The longer we wait, the more that others, whether it’s China, Germany, and other countries, will be moving ahead.”

While legislation to fight global warming and provide stronger economic incentives for renewables energy still faces an uncertain fate in Congress, China is pushing clean-energy projects on a number of fronts.

“The opportunities are stunning in China because China has enormous economic growth and that economic growth has led to enormous demands for energy,” said Locke, who headed a group of 24 U.S. clean-energy companies on a trade mission to Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Beijing this week.

The joint venture between California-based company Coda and its Chinese partner, Tianjin Lishen Battery, was a model of how cooperation in the clean-energy sector could create jobs in both countries, Locke said.

Lishen builds the batteries for an electric vehicle that Coda plans to sell in the United States. The Chinese state-owned oil company, CNOOC, is also an investor in the project.

Locke also visited the Tianjin facility of a joint venture between United Solar Ovonic, a subsidiary of Energy Conversion Devices, and Tianjin Jinneng Investment Company to convert U.S.-made solar cells into solar modules for the Chinese market.

“We do about 75 percent of the manufacturing in Michigan and then we roll it up and we ship it to Tianjin, where they finish it, cut it up into the sizes that they need,” said Uni-Solar Vice President Martha Duggan.

Uni-Solar signed an agreement during Locke’s trip to sell 500 kilowatts of its thin-film solar laminates to NYKE Solar Integrators, a Chinese company, for a demonstration project.

“Our theory is that by doing this particular business model, we’re creating and sustaining jobs in Michigan and in China,” Duggan said.

by Reuters

Story Copyright (c) 2010 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

Technorati Tags: clean energy, renwable energy, solar energy, wind energy

The measure by House Speaker Chris Benge of Tulsa creates the Oklahoma Energy Security Act. It seeks to reduce dependence on foreign oil and increase domestic energy and renewable energy production in Oklahoma and elsewhere.

It also creates a renewable energy standard for Oklahoma, a goal for efficient use of the state’s natural resources.

It calls for 15 percent of all electricity generated in Oklahoma by 2015 be produced from renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal sources as well as conservation efforts.

The bill passed 91-2 Monday and now goes to the Senate for consideration.

About 35 states have some form of renewable portfolio standard.

The Associated Press

Technorati Tags: geothermal, green energy, photovoltaic, solar energy, wind energy

Western wind turbine manufacturers are losing ground in China, the world’s fastest-growing green energy market.

The combined market share for companies such as General Electric and its European rivals, Vestas Wind Systems and Siemens, fell to 14 percent last year from 71 percent in 2005, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Sales are being eroded by local companies including Sinovel Wind and Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology.

“It’s a tough market,” said Jesus Zaldua, president of Gamesa Corporacion Tecnologica’s Chinese subsidiary, which has four wind-turbine factories in Tianjin. “Some companies will have to leave China in the next five years.”

To get back in the game, the foreign companies are introducing newer technology. Siemens, based in Munich, Germany, expects to open an $80 million plant this year in Shanghai to build 3.6-megawatt turbines — bigger than anything made by a Chinese company.

Gamesa plans to retrofit its existing plants to build 2-megawatt turbines and will open its fifth Chinese factory next year. The Spanish company’s machines cost a third more and are more reliable than Chinese models, according to Beijing-based consultancy Mint Research.

“Competing on cost isn’t the way to go,” said Jens Tommerup, president of the Chinese business unit of Vestas, which is based in Denmark. “It’s about quality.”

Chinese manufacturers say they are improving their quality. Goldwind and Sino­vel plan to introduce higher-output turbines next year.

“We already have 2.5-megawatt and 3-megawatt products” under development, said Thomas Yao, Goldwind’s public relations director. “We are going to produce some 2.5-megawatt, and they will be put into mass production early next year.”

The head start in technology may pay off for Western companies, particularly as the Chinese venture abroad, said Keith Hays, global wind research director at Emerging Energy Research.

Western bankers, who would finance the majority of projects outside China, have more faith in U.S. and European turbine makers because of the companies’ experience, he said.

“For now, the West has an advantage in quality,” said Hays, an industry consultant in Barcelona and Cambridge, Mass. “But the Chinese are catching up fast.”

Buoyed by $47 billion in stimulus spending for environmentally friendly power over two years, China installed more than double the number of wind turbines in 2009 than in the previous year. This year, the country plans to add 18 gigawatts of wind capacity, the equivalent of 15 nuclear power plants. That’s double what’s expected in the U.S., the No. 2 market, according to estimates from New Energy Finance.

Germany and Spain, Europe’s largest wind energy markets, will add 1.8 gigawatts and 1 gigawatt in 2010, respectively.

Vestas, the top foreign wind turbine maker in China, installed turbines with a total capacity of 620 megawatts on the mainland last year, New Energy Finance said. Despite losing market share, Western turbine makers still are selling more units in China, UBS estimates.

“The very explicit growth targets for wind energy in China have spurred the growth and emergence of many new competitors, which has driven down the prices of wind turbines,” Tommerup said.

The biggest domestic competitor, Beijing-based Sino­vel, sold turbines with a capacity of 3,523 megawatts.

Sinovel and Goldwind, the second-biggest Chinese wind-turbine maker, are among the top five global turbine manufacturers, even with almost no sales overseas, according to the Danish wind advisory firm MAKE Consulting.

Vestas and GE were respectively the first and second- largest suppliers of turbines worldwide in 2009, according to MAKE Consulting. Sinovel was third, followed by Germany’s Enercon. Goldwind was fifth.

By MARK SCOTT
Bloomberg News

Technorati Tags: department of energy, green energy, renewable energy, wind energy, wind power

JOHN F. KERRY (D-MASS.)

Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee

Conventional wisdom says that Congress ducks tough choices in election years, predicting at best a watered-down energy bill. The same doubters said health reform was dead until we passed it. They forget that Congress passed the Clean Air Act in an election year.

Two Congresses ago, 38 senators voted for climate legislation. Last Congress, 54. There are 59 Senate Democrats. With several Republicans looking at the American Power Act with fresh eyes, 60 votes are achievable.

This year is also different. Industries that successfully opposed previous legislation stand with environmentalists behind this one. In part, that is because if Congress doesn’t legislate, the Environmental Protection Agency will regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. The House has already passed a bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the Senate must act. President Obama has endorsed our legislation and doubled down on legislative victory. And the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has underscored the stakes.

Al Gore and I held the first climate-change hearings 22 wasted years ago. Time and again, we’ve said, “Wait till next year, don’t give up.” But Pastor Joel Hunter is right: It’s not enough to say “I really wanted to protect the Earth and the poor, but I wasn’t sure the votes were there.” We’re not waiting any longer; we can do it now.

FRANK O’DONNELL

President of Clean Air Watch

A year ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, one of the city’s best vote counters, observed that “this may surprise people, but I think health-care reform is easier than all this global warming stuff.”

Reid looks prophetic as Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) founder with climate legislation. They spent months on an inside-the-Beltway strategy: offering special deals to appease powerful special-interest lobbies — oil, coal, power, agriculture, etc. — in hopes that those lobbies would persuade Republicans to sign up.

So far that strategy is a bust. No Republicans have yet reached out for the Hail Mary pass that Kerry and Lieberman tossed, and without substantial Republican support, it doesn’t have a prayer. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) walked away after Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told him not to expect additional Republican support.

Fortunately, the powerful seniors’ lobby AARP has reminded us there is a more consumer-friendly alternative: legislation introduced by Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). It would require polluters to pay for the right to pollute and return most of the money to the public.

Though this, too, is an obvious long shot, it is better policy — and bipartisan.

PHYLLIS CUTTINO

Director of the Pew Environment Group’s climate and energy programs

To paraphrase the writing on a car’s passenger-side mirror, a comprehensive climate bill may be closer than it appears. Perception always rules the day in Congress, with nothing so obvious as legislation that has no chance — but then once it starts moving, it was always inevitable.

In fact, if President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can see a measure to the floor, adding further energy and oil spill components to the Kerry-Lieberman language and then allowing an open amendment process, senators of both parties will be confronted by a series of defining choices.

They could vote against American competitiveness, allowing China and other countries to far surpass us in the race for new, clean energy technologies and jobs. They could spurn the advice of the American military, which has termed global warming a serious threat to national and global security.

They could fail to give companies the regulatory certainty an orderly energy market craves. And they could vote to keep us hooked to what President George W. Bush called our oil addiction, continuing to produce energy the way we have for a century.

Or the Senate could face the future and give the country a rational climate and energy policy.

DAN SCHNUR

Director of the University of Southern California’s Unruh Institute of Politics; communications director for John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign

Even inside the bubble surrounding Washington, the real world matters.

Anthem Blue Cross tried to increase its insurance rates, which led directly to the passage of health-care reform. Goldman Sachs is charged with defrauding investors, which has motivated increased support for financial reform legislation. But does that mean the BP oil spill can pass an energy bill? Probably not.

As the Democrats’ cap-and-trade proposal gradually morphed into a nukes-and-drilling package this year, the prospects for bipartisan agreement grew. But the thousands of barrels of oil pouring into the Gulf of Mexico every day have stiffened the spines of both sides in the offshore-drilling debate, reducing the likelihood of compromise on the broader energy issue. Add the decision of Sen. Lindsey Graham, the bill’s lone Republican supporter, to withdraw his sponsorship in a dust-up over immigration, and the odds look even longer.

Public concern about the spill has yet to grow into the outrage that the White House successfully directed against insurance companies and Wall Street. That would require a sustained effort not only to demonize the oil industry but also to explain the direct role that this bill would have in preventing these types of accidents in the future. That’s even more difficult in a political environment in which the rawest emotional energy is expended on Arizona’s immigration law, the Times Square bomber and the private life of a potential Supreme Court justice.

There is a wild card: the oil itself, as the slick begins to hit gulf states. A steady stream of photos of oil-covered tourists and shuttered beachfront hotels could grab voters’ attention in a way that the first weeks of news coverage has not. But it might take that level of public and media frenzy to penetrate a capital culture that seems much more exercised about other topics.

JOHN W. ROWE

Chairman and chief executive of Exelon Corp.

Right now, there is an unprecedented, broad base of support for a bill to address energy security, jobs and environmental goals. Sens. John Kerry, Joseph I. Lieberman and Lindsey Graham worked to develop a new template to address climate and energy issues. They have changed the debate. Their proposal is a compelling, centrist package that has backing from a wide range of businesses, environmental groups, labor and the faith community — from the Christian Coalition to major utilities such as ours.

Conventional wisdom holds that Congress does not tackle major issues in election years. The exception is when there is a recognized crisis or a broad-based consensus in favor of action. With the looming threat of climate change, the BP oil spill and the coalition behind the Kerry-Lieberman bill, both the crisis and consensus are emerging in the energy/climate world. Indeed, Congress has passed numerous energy and environmental statutes in election years.

The Kerry-Lieberman proposal is economically sound. It has the potential to create thousands of lasting, good-paying U.S. jobs and to help ensure America’s competitiveness in the global clean-energy future. Most important, it would do so in the cheapest way possible: by putting a price on carbon.

Climate change is real. Waiting to address the problem will only make it harder and more expensive. This unparalleled coalition of business, environmental, labor and faith-based support won’t last forever. We must seize the moment.

KENNETH P. GREEN

Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute

While there is always some chance of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill catching a wave and riding it to success, most analysts find the prospects for passage unlikely this year and equally dim next year. The several reasons for this boil down to two words: taxes and jobs.

No matter how they try to pretend a cap-and-trade bill isn’t a cap-and-trade bill (and Kerry is as shameless as can be about this), every time such a bill is floated, it is quickly outed for what it is: a hidden energy tax and rationing scheme that steers money to crony capitalists and interest groups while sticking consumers with costlier, less reliable energy. And regardless of whether they are concerned about climate change, polls show that the public doesn’t want more energy taxes, and it doesn’t want more expensive energy.

Cap-and-trade is also quickly outed as a job-killer, particularly in the coal states and heavy manufacturing states, a fact that isn’t lost on members of Congress facing elections in coal states.

There’s a slim chance that Kerry-Lieberman might be propped up by the campaign environmentalists are ginning up over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill by spinning it as a “Three Mile Island” wake-up call for fossil fuels. But to the extent they succeed in driving out the oil and gas features of Kerry-Lieberman, they further reduce its prospects for garnering Republican support for passage.

WILLIAM ANTHOLIS AND STROBE TALBOTT

Managing director and president, respectively, of the Brookings Institution; authors of the forthcoming book “Fast Forward: Ethics and Politics in the Age of Global Warming”

A growing number of people are beginning to argue that it will be easier to pass comprehensive climate legislation in the next Congress, after the midterm elections. They underestimate the advantages to moving now and overestimate the ease of doing it next year.

First, the House has already passed a bill. That narrow, seven-vote margin of victory came with 44 Democrats voting against the bill but eight Republicans voting for it. House Democrats who voted in favor of the bill would much prefer to have the Senate follow suit now so that they can claim a legislative win ahead of the November elections. Moreover, the gulf oil spill has drawn public attention to the role and impact of fossil fuels and the immediate, local dangers of energy sources. Senate Democrats who have been on the fence may find advantages to acting forcefully.

Waiting until next year is perilous. In a new Congress, all uncompleted business from the previous Congress would be back to square one. The Senate and the House would need to pass new bills. Most observers think the election will reduce the number of Senate Democrats from the current 57 (plus 2 independents) to the low 50s at best. Finding enough Senate Republicans to break a filibuster seems unlikely. And it will not be much easier in the House, since the Democratic majority is likely to dwindle. It is very unlikely that it will be easier next year for House Republicans to vote for the bill than it was when Waxman-Markey was passed.

washingtonpost.com

Technorati Tags: clean energy, climate and energy bill, electricity deregulation, green energy

Technorati Tags: Geothermal heat pumps, heating your home for less, home heating

ATLANTA, Oct. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Southern Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company that acquires, builds, manages and owns wholesale generation assets, today announced that it is acquiring Nacogdoches Power, LLC from American Renewables, LLC and will move ahead with construction of the planned biomass power plant in Sacul, Texas. Groundbreaking is expected in the fall of 2009 and commercial operation is projected for the summer of 2012. When completed, the project will be one of the largest biomass-fueled electric generating facilities in the U.S., capable of generating approximately 100 megawatts.

The plant’s output is committed through a 20-year power purchase agreement with Austin Energy, the municipal utility owned by and serving Austin, Texas.

“This acquisition fits Southern Power’s business strategy of growing the business in the wholesale market through acquiring generating assets and building new units – for which the output is significantly covered by long-term bi-lateral contracts,” said Southern Power Company President and CEO Ronnie Bates. “We have a reputation of helping our customers meet their energy needs in a cost-effective, reliable and environmentally responsible manner, and we look forward to working with Austin Energy.”

Acquiring the Nacogdoches project diversifies Southern Power’s fuel mix, which aligns with Southern Company’s overall goal of using a variety of fuels to ensure reliable and affordable electricity generation.

“Southern Power continually seeks appropriate opportunities that fit the business strategy and risk profile of the company,” said David Ratcliffe, Southern Company chairman, president and CEO. “We are especially pleased that this project is consistent with our goal to pursue cost-effective renewable energy options that allow us to continue to provide reliable, affordable and cleaner electricity.”

The plant, which will be built on 165 acres, will be fueled with biomass materials, including forest residue from the surrounding areas, wood processing residues and clean municipal wood waste. The project will require approximately 1 million tons of fuel annually, which is planned to be procured within a 75-mile radius of the project site.

American Renewables develops, builds and operates clean energy facilities that utilize biomass materials as fuel. American Renewables brings together the successful track records and project development, operations, energy investment and asset management expertise of its three partners: BayCorp Holdings, Energy Management, Inc. and Tyr Energy.

Southern Power is among the largest wholesale energy providers in the Southeast, meeting the electricity needs of municipalities, electric cooperatives and investor-owned utilities. The company owns and operates more than 7,500 megawatts with facilities in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina and has an additional 820 megawatts committed to construction in North Carolina and Texas.

With 4.4 million customers and more than 42,000 megawatts of generating capacity, Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE:SO) is the premier energy company serving the Southeast. A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern Company owns electric utilities in four states and a growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics and wireless communications. Southern Company brands are known for excellent customer service, high reliability and retail electric prices that are below the national average. Southern Company is consistently listed among the top U.S. electric service providers in customer satisfaction by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Visit our Web site at www.southerncompany.com.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements:

Certain information contained in this Release is forward-looking information based on current expectations and plans that involve risks and uncertainties. Forward-looking information includes, among other things, plans and estimated costs for new generation resources for the Company, estimated construction and other expenditures for the Company and completion of the Company’s construction projects. The Company cautions that there are certain factors that can cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking information that has been provided. The reader is cautioned not to put undue reliance on this forward-looking information, which is not a guarantee of future performance and is subject to a number of uncertainties and other factors, many of which are outside the control of the Company; accordingly, there can be no assurance that such suggested results will be realized. The following factors, in addition to those discussed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, and subsequent securities filings, could cause results to differ materially from management expectations as suggested by such forward-looking information: the impact of recent and future federal and state regulatory change, including legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding deregulation and restructuring of the electric utility industry, implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, environmental laws including regulation of water quality and emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, carbon, soot, or particulate matter and other substances, and also changes in tax and other laws and regulations to which the Company and its subsidiaries are subject, as well as changes in application of existing laws and regulations; current and future litigation, regulatory investigations, proceedings, or inquiries, including Federal Energy Regulatory Commission matters; the effects, extent, and timing of the entry of additional competition in the markets in which the Company operates; variations in demand for electricity, including those relating to weather, the general economy, population and business growth (and declines), and the effects of energy conservation measures; available sources and costs of fuels; effects of inflation; ability to control costs and cost overruns during the development and construction of facilities; internal restructuring or other restructuring options that may be pursued; potential business strategies, including acquisitions or dispositions of assets or businesses, which cannot be assured to be completed or beneficial to the Company; the ability of counterparties of the Company to make payments as and when due and to perform as required; the ability to obtain new short- and long-term contracts with wholesale customers; the direct or indirect effect on the Company’s business resulting from terrorist incidents and the threat of terrorist incidents; interest rate fluctuations and financial market conditions and the results of financing efforts, including the Company’s credit ratings; the ability of the Company to obtain additional generating capacity at competitive prices; catastrophic events such as fires, earthquakes, explosions, floods, hurricanes, droughts, pandemic health events such as an avian or other influenza, or other similar occurrences; the direct or indirect effects on the Company’s business resulting from incidents similar to the August 2003 power outage in the Northeast; and the effect of accounting pronouncements issued periodically by standard setting bodies. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update any forward-looking information.

Source: PR Newswire

Technorati Tags: renewable energy

SAN FRANCISCO — California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has pledged to veto the 33 percent renewable portfolio standard passed by the California Legislature late last week.

A pair of renewable energy bills squeaked through the Statehouse late Friday, just before lawmakers adjourned their annual session. But the votes were met with immediate criticism from the governor, who believes the measures would unfairly limit out-of-state deliveries from wind, solar and geothermal energy sources.

“The poorly drafted, overly complex bills passed by the legislature are protectionist schemes that will kill the solar industry in California and drive prices up like the failed energy deregulation of the late 1990s,” Schwarzenegger spokesman Matt David said in a statement. “The bills as drafted will be vetoed by the governor.”

Schwarzenegger instead will pursue an executive order to implement what would be the most aggressive mandate in the United States, at 33 percent of total generation by 2020. His version of the RPS would attempt to permit more electricity imports from neighboring states and would likely proceed alongside a rule drafted independently of the Legislature by the California Public Utilities Commission.

The veto threat sets up a clash with environmentalists and many Democrats over their attempt to limit imports to ensure that renewable energy projects are built in-state. They argue that doing so would encourage more distributed generation and lessen the need for expensive power-line construction.

The bills that passed, from Sen. Joe Simitian (D) and Assemblyman Paul Krekorian (D), would build on the current 20-percent-by-2010 mandate, which applies only to the state’s big three investor-owned utilities. For the first time, California’s public power entities — including the sprawling Los Angeles Department of Water and Power — would be subject to the RPS under the measures.

The governor’s office and others have pointed out recently that one private utility, San Diego Gas & Electric Co., is currently getting about 6 percent of its power from renewable sources and is unlikely to meet the 2010 goal. SDG&E says it needs to access imports and build more transmission lines to meet its targets.

Other issues to be worked out on the RPS include how to count renewable energy credits and whether to establish interim benchmarks before 2020. Amendments were added in recent weeks on capping prices and cost containment (to address fears that a 33 percent goal would cause the cost of power to skyrocket) to win the support of the LADWP, the Western States Petroleum Association and others.

But those concessions were not enough to win the governor’s support, and it appears unlikely the Democrats have enough votes to overcome the veto.

Dan Adler, president of the California Clean Energy Fund, said he expects to hear more about the governor’s approach “early this week.”

Water package tanks

In another major development, Democrats in the Legislature decided late Friday that they did not have the votes to pass a comprehensive package of water bills. Last-minute negotiations over the package failed, prompting Democratic leaders to pull the bills before adjournment.

Discussions had centered on adding a water bond to the proposal to finance future levees, dams, reservoirs and canals. But the cost of that provision and a lack of consensus on how to craft it ultimately tanked the negotiations.

The collapse was another eleventh-hour defeat for environmentalists in Sacramento. Sources from the Environmental Defense Fund and the Nature Conservancy expressed disappointment but urged lawmakers to try again, perhaps in a special legislative session called specifically to address water supply issues.

“We must not lose sight of the fact that we are still in a dire situation,” said Anthony Saracino, water program director for the Nature Conservancy in California. “The status quo has led us to an impending disaster that threatens the ability for all Californians to thrive.”

The conference report that was pulled would have created a seven-member Delta Stewardship Council, a politically appointed panel that could push through new canals, levees and possibly dams outside the normal legislative process. The package also attempted to codify “coequal” water supply and ecosystem restoration goals that seek a delicate balance among fishing, farming and environmental interests.

But the package was dismissed by Republican lawmakers and Schwarzenegger aides who insisted it was meaningless without a water bond to fund projects like the proposed peripheral canal, which would theoretically shuttle water around the delta from the Sacramento Valley to farms in the south. Some environmentalists resisted a bond because they feared it would mean new dam construction; many groups instead favor efficiency, conservation and groundwater recycling measures.

Steve Evans, conservation director for Friends of the River, said the state does not have the money to finance a proposed $12.4 billion water bond.

By Colin Sullivan

Copyright 2009 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Technorati Tags: California electric power