EcoRadio

Category: Energy Matters

The twentieth century way of life has been made available, largely due to the miracle of cheap energy. The price of energy has been at record lows for the past century and a half.As oil becomes increasingly scarce, it is becoming obvious to everyone, that the rapid economic and industrial growth we have enjoyed for that time is not sustainable.Now, the hunt is on. For renewable sources of energy, for alternative sources of energy, for a way of life that is less dependent on cheap energy. 

  • Wind drives back economic gloom

    From the American Wind Energy Association

    Washington, D.C. (April 13) –  Wind energy leaders in several categories maintained their #1 positions even as other leaders emerged in new categories, while 24 states saw new wind turbine and component manufacturing facilities opened, expanded or announced in 2008, according to the annual wind energy industry rankings report released today by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

    The new listings, based on 2008 year-end numbers, show Texas leading in wind capacity and largest wind farms installed, Minnesota and Iowa both generating over 7% of their electricity from wind, and Indiana as the state with the fastest growth in wind on a percentage basis.

    In company rankings, NextEra Energy Resources (formerly FPL Energy) continues to lead in wind farm ownership; GE Energy remained the wind turbine maker with the largest amount of new capacity installed, and Xcel Energy again leads investor-owned utilities in wind power.  Wind power’s recent growth has also accelerated investment in manufacturing: wind turbine and turbine component manufacturers announced, added or expanded more than 55 facilities in 2008 alone, spanning 24 states from Alabama to Wisconsin.  

    “The wind energy industry today generates not only clean energy for our economy, but also hope and opportunity for American workers and businesses,” said AWEA CEO Denise Bode.  “Whether it is building or maintaining a wind project, or producing wind turbine components, you’ll find people employed in wind power in nearly all 50 states today,” Bode said.

    “But we cannot rest on past achievements. We need the right policies in place for our industry to maintain its momentum. A national Renewable Electricity Standard, requiring utilities to generate 25 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2025, is vital to provide the long-term, U.S.-wide commitment businesses need to invest tens of billions of dollars in clean energy installations and manufacturing facilities, and create hundreds of thousands of American jobs,” Bode said.

    Highlights from AWEA’s new report include:

    • Iowa, with 2,791 MW installed, surpassed California (2,517 MW) for the No. 2 position in wind power generating capacity.
    • The top five states in terms of capacity installed are: 
      • Texas, with 7,118 MW
      • Iowa, with 2,791 MW
      • California, with 2,517 MW
      • Minnesota , with 1,754 MW
      • Washington, with 1,447 MW
    • Oregon moved into the 1,000-MW club, which now counts seven states, including Texas, Iowa, California, Minnesota, Washington and Colorado.
    • Indiana ranked as the state with the fastest growth rate, expanding installations from zero to 131 MW, followed by Michigan (48%), Utah (21%), New Hampshire (17%) and Wisconsin (6%).
    • Two states – Minnesota and Iowa – now get over 7% of their electricity needs from wind.  Minnesota ranks first in this list (7.48%), followed closely by Iowa (7.1%).  The rest of the top five are Colorado, North Dakota, and New Mexico.
    • Ten new manufacturing facilities came online, 17 were expanded, and 30 were announced in 2008, according to AWEA estimates.  These investments and announcements span 24 states: Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Tennessee, Wisconsin, South Carolina, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Illinois, Alabama, Ohio, Indiana, Montana, Texas, Minnesota, Idaho, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Massachusetts.
    • Approximately 85,000 people are employed in the wind industry today—a 70% increase from 50,000 a year ago—and hold jobs in areas as varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more.
    • NextEra Energy Resources remains atop the list of project owners, with 6,290 MW of wind power assets, roughly 25% of the total installed in the U.S.  The three companies that make up the next 25% are Iberdrola Renewables, MidAmerican Energy (including PacifiCorp), and Horizon-Energia de Portugal.
    • GE Energy turbines accounted for 43% of all new capacity installed in the U.S. in 2008.  The rest of the top five include Vestas, which accounted for 13%, Siemens and Suzlon at 9% each, and Gamesa at 7%.  Several new companies–Acciona, REPower, Fuhrlander, DeWind and AWE–entered the U.S. market in 2008.
    • The wind power generating fleet of over 25,300 MW in place as of December 31,2008 will generate an estimated 73 billion kWh in 2009, enough to serve the equivalent of close to 7 million average U.S. homes.  

     
    The full annual rankings report is available on the AWEA Web site at www.awea.org/publications/reports/AWEA-Annual-Wind-Report-2009.pdf; the new annual Outlook brochure is available at http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/Outlook_2009.pdf; and a state-by-state listing of existing and proposed wind energy projects is available at http://www.awea.org/projects.

  • Water limiist solar power in California

    Power companies are facing challenges in setting up solar thermal power generation plants in California’s Mojave desert. The limited supply of water and the delicate ecosystem of the region have both contributed to a scaling back of plans to build more than 150 solar powered electricity generators across the region. Solar thermal power generation which superheats an oil or saline solution to drive traditional steam powered turbines have been the hardest hit, because of the volume of water they use. Some companies have proposed to switch over to concentrated photovoltaic systems, others are exploring air cooled turbines, which are less efficient. As well as the shortage of water, the impact of the development on wildlife has become an issue.

     

    Related story in the Boston Globe

     

  • US power company to tap solar energy in space

     

      

    US power company to tap solar energy in space

    Orbiting solar farms will be commercially viable within next seven years, says group

    solar farm

    Ground-based solar installations require huge tracts of land, and cannot produce a constant supply of electricity. Photograph: OLIVIA HAMPTON/AFP/Getty Images

    A leading American power company is hoping to turn science fiction into reality by supporting a project to set up solar panels in outer space and beam the electricity generated back to Earth.

    Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which serves San Francisco and northern California, has agreed to buy electricity from a startup company claiming to have found a way to unlock the potential power supply in space.

    The firm, Solaren Corp, says it will launch solar panels into orbit and then convert the power generated into radio-frequency transmissions, which will be beamed back down into a depot in Fresno, California. The energy would then be converted into electricity and fed into the regular power grid, PG&E said.

    Although spacecraft and satellites routinely use solar panels, the project marks the first serious attempt to take advantage of the powerful and near-constant supply of sunshine in space.

    Nasa and the Pentagon have been studying the idea of orbiting solar farms since the 1960s, and a number of private researchers have been looking at ways to tap into space-based solar energy.

    But Solaren Corp, founded by a former spacecraft engineer, says it has developed a technology that would make it commercially viable within the next seven years to transmit electricity generated in space to a terrestrial power grid.

    PG&E announced this week that it had agreed to buy 200 megawatts of electricity from Solaren starting in 2016. The deal has yet to be approved by California state government regulators and PG&E has not put any money into Solaren, but the promise alone has turned the notion of space based solar power from fantasy to reality.

    “There is a very serious possibility they can make this work,” said PG&E’s spokesman Jonathan Marshall.

     

    Unlike on earth, with its cycle of nights and days and where there can be clouds, sunshine in space is practically constant – aside from a few days around the spring and autumn equinoxes. That means the space-based solar panels could potentially produce a steady supply of electricity.

    The sunlight hitting solar panels 200 miles in space would be 10 times as powerful as the light filtering down to Earth through the atmosphere. The satellite would then convert the energy into radio waves and beam them down to a receiving station on Earth. Spirnak did not give details of how this would work but said the technology was based on that now used by communications satellites, describing it as “very mature”. He added that power losses via the radio-wave route are lower than transmission cables used on Earth. Another advantage of the plan is that it does not require large amounts of real estate. Ground-based solar installations require huge tracts of land.

    Solaren has released relatively few details about the project. But Solaren’s CEO, Gary Spirnak, said the company, a group of about 10 former satellite and aerospace engineers, was confident in the technology and timing behind the venture.

    He argued that the science behind the orbiting solar farms was little different to that of communications satellites. “This is the exact same thing that satellites do every day. The basic technology is there,” said Spirnak. “The bottom line is that this is not really a technology issue.”

    Daniel Kammen, a professor in energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, agreed: the most daunting challenge to Spirnak is cost.

    “The ground rules are looking kind of promising. Whether we can do it at scale, whether we can do it affordably, whether it is too much of a technological leap or not, those are all factors,” Kammen said. “It is doable. Whether it is doable at a reasonable cost, we just don’t know.”

    Spirnak argues that a confluence of recent events now make the project more commercially viable. The cost of rocket launches – though still prohibitive – has been dropping because of the commercialisation of space, making it cheaper to send up and service solar panels.

     

    Spirnak will face a difficult task raising funds for his project though, especially in this time of global economic recession. He said he was seeking in the low billions of dollars in investment – much higher than the usual $100m (£67m) to $200m costs for projects in renewable energy.

  • Europeans start planning PV recycling

    by David Appleyard, Associate Editor

    London, UK [Renewable Energy World Magazine]

    The extraordinary development of the photovoltaic market over recent years has emphasized the need for a sustainable method for disposal of PV modules once they reach the end of their life. Recognizing this, the industry has been busy developing strategies and techniques that make the most of the valuable materials contained in their products and simultaneously improve their positive environmental impact. David Appleyard reports

    Sleek, modern and high-tech, with a lifespan of 25 years or more, it is sometimes difficult to imagine a photovoltaic module being disposed of. Indeed, with the first significant volumes of PV installations only really beginning in the early 1990s, the appearance of large numbers of end-of-life modules are still another 10 or 15 years away.

    The issue of life-cycle assessment and ultimate disposal of retired modules and materials has nonetheless long been a significant one for the industry. In the face of rapid growth over recent years, and projections of continued growth despite the economic downturn, this issue has gathered momentum. At around 3800 tonnes, the total PV waste expected in Europe for 2008 is still relatively small. However, this figure is expected to double every two to four years, and is forecast to reach 35,000 tonnes in 2020.

    The majority of Europe’s photovoltaic producers are German and the country is currently home to the world’s largest PV market. Furthermore, given its early lead in Europe, it is no surprise that Germany will be the first European country to see large volumes of PV modules reaching the end of their operational lives and becoming a disposal issue. PV waste generated in the country accounted for about 80% by mass in 2008 and it is forecast to still be producing around half of all European PV waste in 2020. Logic suggests that it will also be one of the first countries to develop dedicated facilities for PV materials recovery processes.

    However, in Europe, second place in terms of installed solar PV is held by Spain, followed by the Netherlands, Italy, France, Austria, Luxembourg and the UK. Such nations would also be expected to progressively develop appropriate infrastructure as their requirements grow, which itself depends to a certain extent on future PV market development.

    What format such infrastructure would take would further depend on how the individual national markets develop. For instance, in Germany there is a broad mix of both utility-scale installations and much smaller domestic units. This compares with Spain, which is dominated by larger grid-connected applications or, say France, where BIPV holds a significant share. Beyond Europe, there are the large US and Asian markets, particularly Japan, to consider.

    Technologies and treatments

    The market share, materials prices, availability, and consumption during production, are all factors that determine the economic threshold for materials recovery, but PV modules contain various high value materials which in many cases can be economically recovered. Indeed, materials shortages – a notable example coming from silicon – can limit growth in the industry and increase prices. Recycling is therefore one option that can ease materials supply constraints. Research into module recycling started at an international level at the beginning of the 1990s, with companies like AEG and successors, Pilkington Solar International GmbH, BP Solar, Siemens Solar, Soltech, Solar Cells Inc. – a precursor to FirstSolar – and institutes such as AIST, Japan and BNL, USA, all getting involved.

    The range of technologies representing the current PV product market is sufficiently broad to require a variety of approaches to recycling and materials recovery. Currently, there are two major groups; crystalline and thin-film. For modules with crystalline solar cells the recovery of silicon, metals and especially silver are particularly important. For thin-film technology the key high value materials are metals, including tellurium and indium.

    Although many companies are actively considering the issues involved, First Solar, the US-based thin-film manufacturer, and Deutsche Solar AG – whose systems cover crystalline silicon modules – are the only two companies to have implemented active module recycling schemes to date.

    Squeezing value from waste

    Crystalline PV technologies still have a market share of more than 90% in Europe and even as this decreases, the total recycling load will remain proportionately dominated by crystalline modules over the coming decades.

    Karsten Wambach, head of SolarMaterial, a business unit of Deutsche Solar AG, oversees the pioneering work at the company in materials recovery and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). By developing a benchmarking system with core research, the company aims to quantify the avoided carbon dioxide emissions and energy payback time that result from the recycling process, for instance considering factors such as the energy saved during primary silicon production. He says the company was conceived with an environmental policy along the whole value chain, and is fundamentally concerned with optimizing the entire process on an economic and environmental basis.

    In the past, the main focus of the recycling efforts had been the recovery of complete cells, which were separated from the module by means of thermal decomposition of the plastic encapsulation. Recovered wafers were then reprocessed in an etching line and used for new module assemblies with no apparent loss in performance.

    The technique proved that old silicon wafers maintain quality and display good long-term stability, with the energy balance calculation in one trial recycling operation showing that the original modules had an Energy-Pay-Back time (EPBT) of seven years, a figure which fell to two years with modules using recovered cells.

    However, as the thickness of wafers decreases it is expected to become more difficult to recover intact cells and, today, the main focus is to recover the silicon as a raw material, recovering separate pure fractions of different metals, glass and silicon. A primary requirement of such a strategy is that any recovered silicon must be pure enough for reuse in wafer manufacturing and have low costs.

    In the current recycling process, In the current recycling process, despite any damage to the returned products, all the modules – complete or crushed – are thermally decomposed. Next, the different materials are separated from each other, for example by density and sieving. Silicon cell materials are then etched in a similar series of processes to remove metallization layers, anti-reflective coatings and so on. During the removal of the metallization layer the silver typically found in older modules is dissolved in acids and then precipitated before finally being recovered by electrolysis. With more modern aluminium backside metallization silver content is lower, but research suggests that the silver can still be economically recovered.

    After crushing and etching, the silicon material is melted and directionally solidified. In general, the edges, tops and bottoms of the ingots are cut off and recycled as well. The bricks are cut to solar wafers which can be sold to cell manufacturers.

     

    Table 1, above, shows the composition of crystalline modules and the quantities typically recovered through the recycling process.

     

    Having launched a pilot recycling plant in 2003, the company has now developed a proprietary technique to recycle solar PV materials, with a particular focus on technology relating to broken cells. Solar silicon by-products like cut-offs of crystals, ingots or bricks, broken wafers and process failures, have became an important material source. Indeed, recycled materials always had a long tradition in crystalline solar silicon technology and make a significant contribution to the company’s feedstocks, supplying up to 40% including scrap from the semiconductor industry in the 1990s, around 20% of the increased global total demand today. Silicon to be reclaimed is sourced from pot scrap, the sides, tops or bottoms of multicrystalline ingots and wafer breakageand even by-products of poly silicon manufacturing. However, depending on the production process, in each case the material is contaminated to varying degrees and the recovery process must be adapted to reflect this.

    With recycling of silicon developed to such a point that it allows assurance of feedstock supply while maintaining the high purity required by PV applications, recycling under current market conditions appears cost effective for many kinds of material. Further improvements to the processes are expected to maintain cost effectiveness even if the market conditions change and, market aside, efficient silicon recycling always carries an environmental benefit when compared to the primary production of silicon, the company says.

    Thin-film turns up the volume

    Though the market share of thin-film technologies remains relatively small, led by CdTe and CIS type modules, it is expected to grow dramatically over the coming years (see Renewable Energy World, Jan/Feb 2008, pages 32–40). The proportion of thin-film technologies in newly installed systems is expected to increase to at least 20%–30% by 2020. Even newer technologies, such as pigment-based cells, are also forecast to grow to form a significant share by 2020.

    While the major constituents of the active medium of most thin-film products, indium and tellurium, are not particularly rare elements – both are obtained as by-products of metals production, copper and zinc respectively – supply and demand may still critically affect potential growth. The semiconductor layer is normally less than 1% of the module composition for thin-film technologies.

    In one recycling process, initially a thermal treatment removes the EVA bonding layer allowing the module to be separated into the various components. The front glass can then be removed and collected for glass recycling while the pane with the semiconductor material can be treated chemically.

    The environmental impact of thin-film recycling processes is negligibly small in comparison with the production processes and it is reasonable to conclude that recycling such modules will result in a lower environmental impact. Recycling CIGS and CdTe modules also secures valuable resources (indium, tellurium, selenium).

    For polycrystalline thin-film CdTe modules, a mixture of mineral acids and hydrogen peroxide solution may be used to remove the semiconductor layer. Afterwards the solution is passed through a chelating resin column, for the removal of copper and iron, and a cation-exchange resin to remove cadmium and iron. In a subsequent treatment cadmium (Cd) is recovered by electrolytic deposition and tellurium (Te) by reactive precipitation. An alternative treatment involves treating crushed modules in an attrition process. Due to the shear and friction forces on the surface of the particles the semiconductor material is separated from the glass particles.

    The take-back and recycle strategy launched by FirstSolar, which supplies CdTe modules, is also based on a crushing process. The modules are shredded and crushed in a hammer-mill into approximately 4–5 mm pieces – small enough to ensure the lamination bond is broken. The semiconductor films are removed by the addition of acid in a slowly rotating, stainless steel drum. The drum is emptied into a classifier where glass materials are separated from the metal-rich liquids, which move on to the precipitation unit. The metal compounds are precipitated in three stages at increasing pH and are concentrated in a thickening tank. A resulting filter cake or ‘cullet’ is further processed by a third party to separate the various component materials for use in new modules. Using the process, 95% of the semiconductor material is recycled for use in new modules, together with 90% of the glass.

    The company, which is unique in offering a pre-funded collection and recycling scheme, says its module recycling process enables substantially all components of its frameless modules to be recovered, sourcing valuable materials, and reducing the life cycle energy consumption. Industrial-scale recycling facilities are located at each of its plants.

    FirstSolar says the programme is designed to provide collection and recycling of waste modules at no additional cost to customers, reducing the number of PV modules that are disposed of as waste at end-of-life. Their initiative sets aside the estimated future cost of collecting and recycling the modules at the time of sale.

    Lisa Krueger, who heads up FirstSolar’s sustainable development group, says that the company’s policy of ‘Product Life Cycle Management’ or extended producer responsibility formed part of its earliest foundations.

    As with Deutsche Solar, FirstSolar’s strategy included a product life cycle analysis to determine the full impacts of the product from the sourcing of raw materials, through manufacturing, transportation to project site and the module collection and recycling components. The company says that the results of this analysis indicate that CdTe PV technology has the lowest carbon footprint of all current PV technologies, primarily due to its lower energy use during module production, and achieves the lowest energy payback time.

    Sowing the seeds of change

    Individual company initiatives aside, in response to the growing demand for a robust approach to dealing with the entire product life cycle, in May 2007, Germany’s renewable energy agency the BSW and the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA), commissioned a study on the development of a take-back and recovery system for photovoltaic products. Completed in March 2008, this study on the relevant technical, ecological, economic, legal and political parameters is the basis for the work of the European ‘PV Cycle Association’, which was founded in Brussels in July 2007.

    An open association, with 37 members, currently representing some 75% of the European photovoltaic market, this voluntary industry body was created in order to provide a focused approach to realizing an adequate recovery system for end-of-life PV modules, together with any intermediate products or those damaged during their transport, assembly or operational phases.

    By taking responsibility for PV modules throughout their entire value chain and clearly addressing future recycling needs now, the industry hopes to offer true sustainability, very much in line with its consumer perception of a ‘clean’ energy option.

    Given that the PV industry is still relatively young, it is perhaps not surprising that it is already taking into consideration the environmental impacts of all stages of the product lifecycle. Taking early action may also possibly head off potential legislative interdicts, the like of which have been imposed on other related manufacturing sectors such as consumer microelectronics, for instance under the EU’s WEEE Directive.

    Certainly EU policy shows a clear trend towards waste avoidance, recycling and eco-design requirements. FirstSolar’s Krueger notes that similar factors are driving the US market, particularly in California. Achieving recycling goals without legislation keeps the full organizational and cost control within the PV industry, an obvious advantage. But even so, Jan Clyncke, managing director of PV Cycle, points out that the PV industry is the only manufacturing sector to have devised, developed and implemented its own recycling programme. It is through PV Cycle that the photovoltaic industry plans to install an overall waste management and recycling policy across the EU, the wider European Economic Area (EEA), which includes nations such as Norway and one separate EFTA country, Switzerland.

    In December 2008, members signed a joint declaration committing them to set up a scheme to collect a minimum of 65% of all modules installed in Europe since 1990 and to recycle 85% of the waste. The alliance adds that minimum collection, as well as the recycling rates of the voluntary system, will be significantly above those of any waste Directive, even if future review processes establish higher minimum rates.

    Already covering 31 countries, the PV Cycle initiative as envisaged hopes to demonstrate that it is both possible and profitable to implement region-wide take-back and recycle structure for PV products that will have at its heart high value recycling, with no materials being disposed of either through landfill or incineration.

    Succeeding will undoubtedly encourage other markets such as the US and Japan to adopt similar policies. And by counting companies such as GE, Sanyo and Sharp among its membership, PV Cycle could already be judged a global-scale PV initiative. ‘Co-operation is excellent, including with those companies outside of Europe,’ observes Wambach. Nonetheless, its immediate focus is clearly Europe and inevitably considerable obstacles remain to be overcome.

    Acknowledging that the targets are ambitious, Clyncke comments: ‘We are not aiming for 27 solutions, it is not required with an appropriate structure.’ Besides which, he adds, the EU provides a tool with a Communication on voluntary agreements. This sets out seven criteria such as targets, consideration for civil society, and so forth, which acts as the basis for the first draft on the PV Cycle voluntary initiative. The group hopes to commence negotiations with the European Commission in April this year (2009) and once these discussions are finalized it is likely that the document will be sent to both the EU Council and Parliament for further feedback and comment.

    Clyncke is optimistic that a completed agreement will be ready in the next six to nine months and expects that with an EC stamp of approval, the acceptance and implementation of the strategy by the various national authorities will become that much easier. The association has a logistics model close to completion, together with its associated costing estimates.

    The goal of the closed loop industry

    It is already clear from the development of the PV market and the range of products available, that any recycling system must be able, not least for economic reasons, to treat a wide range of different products. This range of products is also expected to expand over time as new technologies reach commercial volumes.

    Certainly processes for other technologies are under development, although some doubt remains over how rapidly commercial technologies will emerge. SolarMaterial has already developed a new process which is capable of managing most types of solar modules, including those from different manufacturers. Although still at pilot stage, in due course the company is looking to commercialize the process and is currently looking for investment partners. Even so, while they have made an early start, Wambach notes that there is ‘a lot of activity, with many companies looking at recycling.’

    A key future development is likely to see recycling built into new PV products. Krueger points out that module designs are already changing from both a cost and an environmental perspective, in a process of continuous improvement. An example comes from the use of frameless modules, which have dispensed with the requirement for an aluminium frame found in earlier types.

    ‘There are still many questions to answer’, says Clyncke, ‘but we are making some important decisions. ‘Ultimately’, he adds, ‘it is the market which will give us the right direction.’

    Observing that as the first industry to implement such a scheme, it will have to learn by experience without the benefit of comparison with other waste flows, Clyncke says: ‘We cannot look to benchmark from other industries, this is the challenge.’

    But, with two different operational processes already able to successfully and economically treat modules of both major types, it seems that perhaps, as young as it is, the PV industry is leading the way.

    David Appleyard is associate editor of Renewable Energy World.

  • US Coal fights for its life

    Related story from Congress Quarterly

    By Coral Davenport, CQ Staff

    Among the hundreds of industry and environmental groups that are ramping up their lobbying in anticipation of climate change legislation, the coal and power industries stand out — because they have the most to lose. Consequently, they seem to have the most to spend.

    The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which represents 48 major coal producing and consuming companies, was officially formed in April 2008, but it grew out of another group, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, which had been lobbying since 2000 for the fossil fuel industry.

    Between 2002 and 2007, the earlier group spent an average of $93,000 annually on federal lobbying. In 2008, the renamed group saw that figure rocket to $9.9 million — which came on top of a $38 million ad campaign extolling the virtues of so-called clean coal.

     
    DIGGING IN: The coal and power industries have accelerated their lobbying on climate change. (BLOOMBERG NEWS / ALIZA MARCUS)  

    Comparing spending is difficult because such associations can report lobbying costs under different laws — one requiring more detail and the other, a broader scope of spending. The Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, for instance, includes more general advertising costs in its disclosure reports than other lobbying groups do but provides fewer details.

    Nevertheless, the coal and power industry’s spending last year was staggering. Of the nine other multi-company coalitions that lobbied the federal government on climate change, none reported spending more than $1 million. The largest, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a vocal alliance of 30 major corporations and nonprofits, spent $870,000.

    The coal companies say the surge was essential. “We’re fighting for our livelihood,” says Steve Miller, the coalition’s president. That’s probably not an overstatement.

    “Relative to what’s at stake for the coal industry,” says Ken Kollman, a lobbying expert who teaches political science at the University of Michigan, “that’s not a lot of money.”

    Tackling climate change by limiting carbon emissions is a top priority of President Obama, and though Congress may spend the next year wrangling over the details, industries see the writing on the wall — and none more clearly than coal, which produces 36 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.

    The clean-coal coalition won’t try to block a climate bill — it’s inevitable, Miller says — but will try to influence how it’s structured, chiefly by delaying emission limits until clean coal is a commercial reality — if it ever is. That means the companies are lobbying lawmakers to pump billions into technology that could capture carbon emissions and store them underground. In Congress, the group targets influential moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, who chairs the Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee.

    So was the money worth it? Dorgan helped put almost $3.5 billion in the economic stimulus law for clean-coal research — but that also had the support of the administration and lawmakers from Illinois delegation, which hopes to revive a clean-coal pilot project. Privately, some K Street insiders say the spending is probably overkill. “You can only influence and pressure people so much,” says one lobbyist. “If you’re spending that kind of money, you’re not getting your money’s worth.”

    The group’s barrage of ads led to a backlash of commercials by environmental groups, but coal is not letting up and has hired major Washington firm Quinn Gillespie & Associates. “We are ramping up even more beyond the effort we had last year,” Miller says. “These issues are too big, too important for us not to address them fully, and we will.”

  • Change in UK policy leaves solar sector in the cold

    By Ashley Seager inThe Guardian

    The government ran into a storm of criticism yesterday after quietly closing its grant programme for solar energy last week, which campaigners said made a mockery of its commitment to build a low-carbon economy.

    The controversial low-carbon buildings programme is a grant system aimed at boosting renewable energies including wind, biomass and solar. It was due to close this summer but last week the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) put an announcement on its website saying that applications for solar photovoltaic (PV) projects on public buildings such as schools and hospitals were running at such high levels that they had used up their allocated share of half of the £50m grant pot ahead of time.

    PV has proved to be the most popular renewable technology under phase two of the grants programme and the industry argues that the unspent money available for other technologies should be thrown open to PV because otherwise it simply will not get spent. They also want the grant money recycled to other projects if some are cancelled.

    Environmental campaigners are furious that the solar industry will undergo a gap in support for well over a year at a time when Gordon Brown and other ministers are talking of creating 400,000 green jobs as a way of boosting the economy and combating climate change.

    Paul King, head of the UK Green Building Council, said: “The prime minister has talked of the need to both invest in low-carbon infrastructure and to stimulate the economy. [This grant system] did just that, so it seems absurd that government has now suspended grant applications for solar PV. This emerging industry needs to be confident of government’s commitment – which this decision seriously calls into question.”

    A DECC spokesperson said: “We recognise that the popularity of the low-carbon buildings programme has led to an over-subscription in solar PV applications. We are discussing with industry what options are open to us to address this.”

    Friends of the Earth accused DECC officials of standing in the way of progress towards a low-carbon economy by remaining too sympathetic to fossil fuel firms.