Author: admin

  • Bigger engines, two car households and school runs on rise

    At the same time there has been continued growth in the number of households with access to two or more cars, from around 2 per cent in the 1950s to more than 30 per cent in 2008.



    The number of journeys made by public transport has risen slightly since the 1990s from around six to seven billion, but is still well below the 12 billion figure of the 1960s.

    Richard George, from the Campaign for Better Transport, said the rising trend towards bigger engines showed improved engine efficiency was not persuading people to slim down in their choice of car.

    ‘The style of vehicle people are buying does not reflect the type of journeys they are making. You might need a bigger engine if you are towing a caravan but not for driving to Tesco,’ said George.

    He said only by increasing the cost of motoring (which the ONS statistics revealed had fallen over the past decade) and making cars a less attractive alternative to public transport and walking could you tackle the trend.

    The statistics also revealed that the number of primary school children walking to school had fallen below 50 per cent.

  • Big firms drop support for US climate bill

     

    But the loan decision in favour of Southern Company, which was framed by the White House as a kick-start for new nuclear plants, was upstaged by the departure of the big three firms from the climate partnership.

    Officials from BP and ConocoPhillips said that the proposals before Congress for curbing greenhouse gas emissions did not do enough to recognise the importance of natural gas, and were too favourable to the coal industry.

    The house of representatives passed a climate change bill last June, but the effort has stalled in the Senate.

    “House climate legislation and Senate proposals to date have disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers, left domestic refineries unfairly penalised versus international competition, and ignored the critical role that natural gas can play in reducing GHG emissions,” said the ConocoPhillips chairman and chief executive, Jim Mulva, in a statement. “We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort.”

    Opponents of climate change legislation said the departure of the big three companies had all but killed off Obama’s last chances of pushing his agenda through Congress.

    “Cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the US Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly,” said Myron Ebell, director of global warming for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    Obama this week is stepping up White House pressure on Congress with a series of events intended to show the job-creating potential of his green energy agenda.

    His announcement at a Maryland job training centre of the new nuclear loan guarantees was a key part of the strategy.

    “Even though we haven’t broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions,” he said. “To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It’s that simple.” The guarantees would commit the US government to repaying Southern’s loans if the company defaulted. They cover some 70% of the estimated $8.8bn cost of building two reactors at the company’s Vogtle plant, east of Atlanta.

    White House officials said today’syesterday’s announcement reinforced Obama’s pledge in his state of the union address last month to expand America’s use of nuclear energy and to open up offshore drilling.

    Obama has also asked Congress to triple loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, to $54bn from the current $18.5bn.

    The pledge to the nuclear industry was seen as part of a strategy to win Republican support for the climate and energy bill. Expanding nuclear power, which supplies about 20% of the country’s electricity, is one of the few elements of Obama’s energy and climate agenda to win broad-based support. A number of Republican senators have demanded Obama help fund the construction of 100 new nuclear plants over the next decade.

    Lindsey Graham, the Republican who is working closely with Democrats to draft a compromise cap and trade bill, is also on board with a greater role for nuclear power. His state, South Carolina, gets nearly half of its electricity from nuclear power.

    But the subsidies have made some senators as well as environmental organisations uneasy. “It’s a heck of a lot of money,” said the Vermont senator, Bernie Sanders, who is an independent. “The construction of new nuclear plants may well be the most expensive way to go.”The administration is also stuck on a solution for nuclear waste, after shutting down plans to bury the waste in the Yucca Mountain range in Nevada. The administration last month set up a panel to recommend new waste disposal solution.

    Obama acknowledged those controversies , saying: “There will be those who welcome this announcement, and those who strongly disagree with it. The same has been true in other areas of our energy debate, from offshore drilling to putting a price on carbon pollution. But what I want to emphasise is this: even when we have differences, we cannot allow those differences to prevent us from making progress. On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs.”

    The Southern projects must still win licensing approval.

    White House officials said the new reactors could come on line by 2016 or 2017, and would generate 2.2GW. Construction alone would create 3,500 jobs, and the plant itself would create 800 operations jobs.

    The loan guarantees are the first of some $18.5bn in funding originally approved by Congress in 2005.

    Steven Chu, the energy secretary, said the loans were the first of “at least half a dozen, probably more” loans for new nuclear reactor construction. “We have a lot of projects in the pipeline”, he told reporters, but did not indicate a time for further announcements.

    The Southern reactors are to be built with the new Westinghouse AP1000 design, which Chu said was safer and more economical than the older generation of reactors. “If you lose control, it will not melt down,” he said. “Three Mile Island was a partial melt down. It was serious, but on the other hand the containment vessel held.”

    Chu also disputed a report from the Congressional Budget Office that put the risk of default on loans to the nuclear industry as high as 50%. “We are looking at ways to increase ways of building these projects on time and on budget,” he said.

  • U.S, Has (almost) 100.000 Grid-tied PV Systems

     

    US_Installs_Map

     

    About the Data

    The largest number, from California, is based on adding 15% to current California Solar Initiative (CSI) projects to account for the non-IOU installations. 15% may be optimistic, but it is in line with what was happening in 2008.

    Here are the details behind my estimates. The lovely underlying map is from the Open PV project. For links to the original reports and press releases visit SolarInstallData.com, where I try to drop all the data resources I find.

    [apologies for the formatting]

     

    State # systems Source data
    California 72,575 CaliforniaSolarStatistics.ca.gov + 15% for MUNIs. Plus 33,000 systems installed prior to the CSI program (according to CEC data)
    New Jersey 4,894 Report from Clean Energy Program through 12/09
    New York 4,421 NYSERDA 2121 systems installed through 2/10, an addt’l 576 are approved and 496 in process. Long Island press release stated 2,300 systems installed through 12/09. Added LIPA and NYSERDA installed.
    Colorado 3,833 2072 projects in Xcel in 2009, 1413 projects in 2008. Estimated +10% for rest of state
    Arizona 2,700 State summary report as of 4/08 showed 1700 systems. Estimated another 1,000 installed since then based on growth of installers in state.
    Texas 2,000 Austin Energy press release of 1,104 systems as of 12/09 and best guess for rest of state.
    Massachusetts 1,888  Open PV
    Nevada 955 Solar Generations status report through 2009 = 869 incentives paid. Estimated +10% for rest of state.
    Connecticut 830 From State summary, 830 through 12/09, (507 were from CCEF)
    Oregon 735 Oregon Energy Trust chart from 2008 shows 102+116+152+365 for total program
    Wisconsin 715 Open PV
    Maryland 487 Open PV
    Pennsylvania 371 Open PV
    Vermont 276 Open PV
    New Mexico 263 Open PV
    Wyoming 142 Open PV
    Florida 132 Open PV
    Lousiana 69 Open PV
    Montana 56 Open PV
    Minnesota 54 Open PV
    Ohio 36 Open PV
    Tennesse 14 Open PV
    North Carolina 12 Open PV
    Washington 8 Open PV
    Alabama 4 Open PV
    Missouri 3 Open PV
    Iowa 2 Open PV

    Total: 97,475

    There must be more systems out there unreported. Let’s get them counted!

    Excellent resources for tracking the number and capacity of grid-tied PV systems include Larry Sherwood, and his annual market update reports supported by IREC. More recently, the Open PV project from NREL has been compiling actual installation data from utilities, installers, and individuals. I am told by Brendan Heberton from NREL’s Open PV project that a system doesn’t make it into their database unless they have the size, location, cost, and installation date. This is a pretty high bar so the Open PV project is still recruting confirmations from much of the U.S. market. The sales and costs data they are recruiting is going to make a big difference for emerging markets across the U.S.

    Then there is the grandaddy PV database, CaliforniaSolarStatistics.ca.gov. While thre are still plenty of errors and glitches, it is still missing the first 33,000 systems installed in the state (under the previous incentive program), and there is no way to confirm contract price accuracy – the CSI database is the best thing since sliced bread for consumers, regulators, and installers for tracking what is happening in the PV market.

    If you are in a state that seems to be missing a few thousand systems, please help the Open PV project get them reported. If you know of installation reports and data resources not already listed at SolarInstallData.com, email me and we’ll get them on there.

  • Fixers twisted metro files

     

    The Herald has discovered:

    A leading transport consultant, Sandy Thomas, resigned in December in protest at a request to censor his work, because it would have been “materially misleading and deceptive”.

    Public servants linked to the metro have manipulated official data models to bolster the case for the project.

    Tom Forrest, a former Labor adviser appointed to an executive job in RailCorp, amended a consultant’s report which was used in RailCorp’s submission to Planning on the metro.

    A confidential planning document from last October about congestion at Central and Town Hall stations was shelved by RailCorp over fears of political retribution because it undercut the case for the metro.

    A second version of this report, in December, was also shelved.

    After ending his consultancy, Mr Thomas joined the Herald-commissioned transport inquiry, for which he was not paid.

    His resignation letter, obtained independently by the Herald, said: ‘In more than 30 years of preparing technical and legal reports this is the first time I have ever been presented with such a proposition with normal ethical and professional standards apparently having been ‘relaxed’ in favour of ‘political’ considerations to the extent that concepts of honest, frank and fearless internal-to-government advice are now simply deemed unacceptable.”

    Mr Thomas, who declined to comment, discovered assumptions supporting the metro had been manipulated to make other options look less attractive.

    While 2041 population and employment forecasts, and more frequent train services, were used to model the favoured railway plan, alternatives were modelled against 2021 forecasts, which contained fewer services because of lower populations.

    The modelling also used slower train travel times for those alternatives – by as much as eight minutes between Parramatta and the city.

    ”[The] … report you have asked me to compile … is to be ‘entirely positive in tone’ and will not be including any of the ‘offending’ topics, and will therefore, in my view, also be likely to be misleading and deceptive by omission,” Mr Thomas’s letter said.

    ”My concern about the last of these risks has been heightened this morning by your admission that you knew at the time that the STM modelling had been and is being based on lower population and employment estimates than those described in the materials you wrote as inputs to the second report,” he wrote.

    ”This continues a pattern throughout the investigations of several ‘inconvenient truths’, especially about the critical and often dominant inconsistencies in train plan assumptions, being revealed only when queries were raised, rather than volunteered at the outset.”

    In a highly unusual move, the government retained Veitch Lister Consulting to model the metro’s patronage.

    The Herald has established this occurred after a dispute with the government’s own transport modelling unit, the Transport Data Centre, which refused a request to delete the delays associated with passengers changing trains between CityRail and the new metro.

    Alec Brown, a spokesman for the Sydney Metro Authority, said: ”Sydney Metro stands by its modelling, which is robust and extremely comprehensive.

    ”All modelling for Sydney Metro stages 1 and 2, at Central and all other interchange stations, has always included time penalties for switching between metro and CityRail.”

    investigations@smh.com.au

  • Canada looks to China to exploit oil sands rejected by US

     

    Whole Foods, the high-end organic grocery chain, and retailer Bed Bath & Beyond last week both signed up to a campaign by ForestEthics to stop US firms using oil from Canadian tar sands. The Pentagon is also scaling down its use of tar sands oil to meet a 2007 law requiring the US government to source fuels with lower greenhouse gas emissions.

    Major oil companies such as Shell are also coming under shareholder pressure to pull out of the Canadian projects. Earlier this year, Shell announced it was scaling back its expansion plans for the tar sands after a revolt by shareholders. Producing oil from the Alberta tar sands causes up to five times more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude oil, according to the campaign group Greenpeace.

    In the most significant deal to date, the Canadian government recently approved a C$1.9bn (£1.5bn) investment giving the Chinese state-owned oil company Petro­China a majority share in two projects. Prime minister Stephen Harper said: “Expect more Chinese investment in the resource and energy sectors … there will definitely be more.” China’s growing investment in the tar sands is seen in Canada as a useful counter to waning demand for tar sands oil from the US, its biggest customer. The moves, which have largely gone unnoticed outside north America, could add further tension to efforts to try to reach a global action plan on climate change.

    The state department envoy, Todd Stern, on Tuesday accused China of being “a bit ambiguous” in its commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts to impose national carbon limits in the US have stalled in Congress, but a number of leading US firms are moving to reduce their carbon footprint by moving away from abandoning tar sands oil.

    Canada is the biggest source of US oil imports, with 65% of tar sands production going to refineries in the midwest. “Companies have been hitting the pause button on projects,” said Simon Dyer, of the Pembina Institute oil sands watch project.

    But not China. PetroChina has taken a 60% stake in two new tar sands projects due to get under way in the MacKay River and Dover areas next year, with plans to produce up to 35,000 barrels a day by 2014, and eventually up to 500,000 a day.

    China made its first investment in the tar sands in 2005, with state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation spending C$150m for a 17% stake in a startup MEG Energy Corp. Another Chinese state-owned firm, Sinopec, last year increased its interest in the Northern Lights oil project to 50%. China’s National Petroleum Corp has also bought oil sands leases that it has not yet developed.

    The projects, which will begin coming on line over the next decade, are seen as crucial to a long term strategy of finding new sources of energy as China’s economy continues to expand. “Right now I would characterise it as a token toehold,” said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at ARC Financial Corporation, an energy-focused private equity firm in Calgary, Alberta.

    But he said the move by China could also represent the beginnings of a major shift in control of the tar sands. “Hitherto we were very accustomed to have western countries coming here, particularly American companies or companies from the UK, taking an interest in oil and gas companies and we were OK with that,” he said. “From a continental energy security perspective of course, there is a little more hesitation when emerging powers come here, but the Canadian government has over the last year indicated more willingness to do business with China.”

    Japanese and South Korean companies have also begun moving in, opening up potential new markets for Canada at a time when forecasts show a fall in global demand for oil. India’s Reliance Industries is also reportedly bidding on a project. The move by China has also crystalised increased concerns among conservationists and First Nation groups about a proposed 1,200 kilometre pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from northern Alberta, across British Columbia to oil tankers off the Pacific coast.

  • Sea-level fears as Greenland ice begins to melt

     

    At present, the ocean watermark is rising at about 3 millimetres per year, a figure that compares with 1.8 millimetres annually in the early 1960s.

    But Greenland’s contribution has more than doubled in the past decade, and scientists suspect climate change is largely to blame, although exactly how this is occurring is fiercely debated.

    Some theories point to air temperatures, which are rising faster in far northern latitudes than the global average.

    A rival idea is that shifting currents and subtropical ocean waters moving north are eroding the foundation of coastal glaciers, accelerating their slide into the sea, especially those inside Greenland’s many fiords.

    Agence France-Presse