From: Brazil Windpower 2010
Date: Mon, Feb 8, 2010
Subject: Brazil Windpower 2010

 http://www.zonaeletrica.com.br/nwlt2/bwp…

GWEC | 63-65 Rue d’Arlon | Brussels | Belgium | 1040 | Belgium

Arava Power Gets Deals For 15 Mid-Size Solar Fields

Date: 08-Feb-10
Country: ISRAEL
Author: Tova Cohen, Reuthers

TEL AVIV – Israeli solar energy developer Arava Power said on Sunday it signed long-term contracts with 15 agricultural cooperatives to build mid-size solar fields at an investment of 2 billion shekels ($533 million).

The fields will produce a total of 100 megawatts of solar energy using photovoltaics, for an average of 6.5 megawatts per field.

Arava said it is advancing rooftop solar installations on cowsheds and factories in the signatory cooperatives.

Last year German conglomerate Siemens invested $15 million in Arava Power to build 10 five-megawatt solar fields.

In December the Public Utilities Authority decided to allow mid-size solar fields at a nationwide capacity of 300 megawatts but many in the industry believe this cap will be filled quickly.

“The goal to produce 300 solar megawatts is an important step toward implementing the government’s decision to produce 5 percent of Israel’s energy consumption from renewable sources by 2014, but it’s not enough,” Arava Power Chief Executive Jon Cohen said.

“In order to achieve this goal, at least 1,000 megawatts are needed, and the market indicates that … mid-size solar fields can fill the gap faster than any other source.”

Arava Power President Yosef Abramowitz said that in each of the 15 mid-size field locations the company plans to build a large-size field, adding another 500 megawatts to its pipeline.

“Together with our partners from Siemens, we are weighing additional proposals from investors,” he said, without providing further details.

Siemens also acquired Israel’s Solel Solar Systems in October for $418 million.

OP-ED COLUMNIST, The New York Times.
TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

By BOB HERBERT
Published: February 5, 2010
Palo Alto, Calif. – We’ve now lost 8.4 million jobs in this recession, and a vast majority of them are gone for good. The politicians are clambering aboard the jobs bandwagon, belatedly, but very few are telling the truth about the structural employment problems in the U.S. and the extremely heavy lift that is necessary to halt our declining living standards and get us back to an economy that is self-sustaining.

We don’t hear a lot that is serious about the sorry state of the nation’s infrastructure or the trade policies that crippled so many American industries or our inability (or unwillingness) to compete effectively with China when it comes to the new world of energy for the 21st century or our abject failure to provide a quality public education for the next generation of American workers, scientists, artists and entrepreneurs.

Speaking at a conference here on Wednesday, Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania said that if we don’t act quickly in developing long-term solutions to these and other problems, the United States will be a second-rate economic power by the end of this decade. A failure to act boldly, he said, will result in the U.S. becoming “a cooked goose.”

{Governor Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, early backer of Hillary Clinton for President, but later switched to Barak Obama Saying he would be the better President, we hope is not the kind of leader that will just back the labor unions by using key word “infrastructure” and mean what he says when calling for a green future as the main motor for creating the needed jobs. Editor comment for ST,info}

Neither the politicians nor much of the mainstream media are spelling out the severity of these enormous structural problems or the sense of urgency needed to address them. Living standards are sinking in the United States, and there is no coherent vision or plan for reversing that ominous trend over the long term.

The conference was titled, “The Next American Economy: Transforming Energy and Infrastructure Investment.” It was put together by the Brookings Institution and Lazard, the investment banking advisory firm.

When Governor Rendell addressed the conference on Wednesday, he used words like “stunning” and “unbelievable” to describe what has happened to the nation’s infrastructure. His words echoed the warnings we’ve been hearing for years from the American Society of Civil Engineers, which tells us: “The broken water mains, gridlocked streets, crumbling dams and levees, and delayed flights that come from failing infrastructure have a negative impact on the checkbook and on the quality of life of each and every American.”

The conference was sparked by a sense of dismay over what has happened to the U.S. economy over the past several years and a feeling that constructive ideas about solutions were being smothered by an obsessive focus on the short-term in this society, and by the chronic dysfunction and hyperpartisanship in much of the government.

I was struck by the absence of grousing and finger-pointing at the conference and the emphasis on trying to develop new ways to establish an economy that is not based on financial flimflammery, that enhances America’s competitive position in the world, and that relieves us of the terrible burden of reliance on foreign energy sources.

I was also struck by the pervasive sense that if we don’t get our act together then the glory days of the go-go American economic empire will fade like the triumphs of an aging Hollywood star. One of the participants raised the very real possibility of Americans having to get used to living in an economy “that won’t be number one,” an economy that perhaps is more like Germany’s.

Rescuing the U.S. economy will require a commitment, and undoubtedly sacrifices, that need to start now. And it will require leadership that pulls together the best talents from all sectors of the society — not just business, not just government, but from everywhere.

Bruce Katz, the director of Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program, discussed some of the steps that need to be taken to remake an economy that has been thrown completely out of whack by frantic, debt-driven consumption, speculative bubbles, exotic financial instruments, and so on.

A new, saner, more sustainable economy will have to be more export-oriented, powered by cleaner fuels, bolstered by innovation that comes from a renewed focus on research and development, and committed to delivering a better-educated, more highly skilled work force.

Mr. Katz believes this is doable, but by no means easy. The nation’s infrastructure, he said, will have to “shift from 20th-century models of transport and energy transmission to rapid bus, ubiquitous broadband, congestion pricing, smart grid, high-speed rail and intelligent transport.”

New ways of financing such transformative changes will have to be developed, linking public and private capital, preferably through the creation of a national infrastructure bank, among other things. The nation’s political leaders and the public at large will have to grasp the difference between wasteful spending and crucial investments in the future.

It’s time for serious people to step forward and help lead on these critically important issues. Time is short.

US Oil Imports From Western Hemisphere Countries To The US Are Dropping:

Mexico Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

= = = =

Venezuela Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

= = = =

Combined Annual Net Oil Exports From Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Source: Jeffrey J. Brown, Samuel Foucher, PhD, Jorge Silveus.

= = = =

The Oil Export Crisis Has Unofficially Arrived.
By Chris Nelder | Friday, February 5th, 2010

Last March, his study of the effect of peak oil on U.S. imports had
brought Mexico to the forefront. “As our #3 source of imports, the
crashing of its supergiant Cantarell field had put the future of our
oil supply in serious jeopardy.”

The possibility that Mexico’s oil and gas exports to the U.S. could go
to zero within seven years looked very real.

As I explained in that piece, rising domestic consumption coupled with
declining supply puts an ever-tightening squeeze on imports. I have
found no evidence that policymakers are paying any attention to this
critically important dynamic, but it is the very point of the peak oil
spear.

Were it not for the market meltdown and recession, it would have
pierced our vital organs. Instead we felt a pinprick. Hardly anybody
realized what it really was, and most ran off on a wild goose chase
for evil oil speculators.

Now Venezuela has appeared on my radar for similar reasons… only
this time, we’re really going to feel it.

Let’s begin with a review of Mexico’s exports.

Mexico:

Shortly after publishing that article, I casually remarked to my
friend and fellow energy analyst Gregor Macdonald that Cantarell’s
production could fall to under 0.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) by
the end of the year.

I arrived at this somewhat startling conclusion by calculating the
effect of its decline rate — 38% at the time and accelerating — on
production of 0.77 mbpd in January, down precipitously from its 2.1
mbpd peak in 2003.

Gregor’s recent data sleuthing on Cantarell found its production in
December 2009 was 0.527688 mbpd, just a hair above my estimate.

To update the data on Mexico, it’s now our #2 source of imported
petroleum because Saudi Arabia has fallen from #2 to #4.

As of November 2009 (the latest data available) the U.S. imported 1.08
mbpd of crude and finished petroleum products from Mexico. Its exports
to the U.S. peaked at 1.46 mbpd in 2004, the same year as its
production peaked. Net exports (production minus consumption) fell to
1.06 mbpd in 2008.

For the years 2005-2008, Mexico’s exports to the U.S. declined by 0.51
barrels per day. In 2010, supply is expected to fall to 2.5 mbpd —
nearly half a million barrels per day less than 2009.

Mexico nationalized its petroleum operations in 1938 in a
constitutional amendment and handed over total control to the state
oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), with predictable results.

Oil now provides more than 40% of the country’s revenues, which have
been used to pay for a vast array of public services and line the
pockets of the oligarchy while starving investment in both upstream
activities (new oil supply) and downstream (finished products).

Consequently, Mexico’s oil reserves have decreased by more than 75% in
two decades (owing partly to the correction of a previous,
ridiculously inflated figure), production has begun to decline and
exports are falling fast.

It now imports $4.5 billion a year worth of gasoline, $10 billion a
year in petrochemicals, and 25% of its natural gas, mostly from the
U.S. This despite having nearly 13 billion barrels of proven oil
reserves and more than 50 billion barrels of (unproven) reserve
potential.

Mexico would be in a far better position, were it not for its hostile
stance on foreign participation. PEMEX simply lacks the technical
ability to develop its more difficult, remaining resources —
particularly deep water.

Venezuela:

As of November, the U.S. was importing 0.9 mbpd from Venezuela, making
it our #3 source. Its exports to the U.S. peaked at 1.8 mbpd in 1997,
the same year as its production peaked. Net exports (production minus
consumption) have fallen 38% from the 1997 peak of 3.1 mbpd to 1.9
mbpd in 2008.

Venezuela’s oil exports to the U.S. have been declining markedly since
2004, after a long period of relative stability. From 2004 through
2009, Venezuelan petroleum exports fell 0.7 mbpd.

Like Mexico, Venezuela is endowed with enormous energy resources and
could be producing at a far higher level. Estimates of its oil
reserves range from 153 billion barrels of certified proven; to 513
billion barrels technically recoverable in the USGS’ January estimate;
to 1.5 trillion barrels in offshore potential, if you believe the
effervescent Dr. Marcio Mello of Brazil.

Most of it is heavy oil, a low-grade which must be upgraded to synthetic crude.

And like Mexico, President Hugo Chavez has exiled the Western oil
companies who might have made the investment to bring those resources
to market.

A Nation in Free Fall

The good times rolled for Chavez in the first years after his election
in 1998. His socialist programs to rebuild the country and raise its
standard of living were popular but expensive, and soon began to fail
under the crush of declining energy supply.

Oil revenues make up 90% of Venezuela’s foreign earnings, so its
dependence on oil exports is extreme.

Billions of dollars in profits from the national oil company,
Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) were diverted to welfare programs
and into the pockets of oligarchs, while investment in future
petroleum and power supply languished.

The precipitous drop in oil prices since mid-2008 only compounded the
revenue shortfall.

Oil production has fallen 25% since Chavez was elected, and a long,
devastating drought has cut into its hydropower supply, of which 73%
comes from the massive Guri Dam.

Chavez responded by nationalizing most of its petroleum operations and
its grid in 2007.

In 2009, another 76 oil services companies on the Maracaibo Lake were
taken over. The projects now sit abandoned, waiting for PDVSA to
compensate the displaced operators and put them back into operation.

Almost half a million hectares of land were seized in 2009 with the
rationalization that it was underused.

Measures to counter the declining hydro supply have been implemented
in a haphazard fashion, resulting in frequent, unscheduled blackouts,
including seven national blackouts since 2007. Malls and government
offices have had their hours of operation cut and water rationing has
been imposed.

“Some people sing in the bath for half an hour,” Chávez cried at a
cabinet session in October. “What kind of communism is that? Three
minutes is more than enough!”

In January, a wave of public protest erupted, prompting Chavez to
implement a rapid series of desperate measures.

Rolling blackouts were imposed in the capital city of Caracas. After a
few days of protests, Chavez lifted the blackouts and fired the
electricity minister. Blackouts are expected to be reinstated in an
effort to keep hydro reservoir levels from falling to the point of
collapse.
A recent report gave the power shortage a paradoxical twist,
indicating that power from one of the state refineries may have to be
diverted to the grid, cutting distillate output by 200,000 barrels per
day — or more. This will result in less heating oil for China, who
will make up the loss by burning more coal.
Chavez devalued Venezuela’s bolivar currency by half; the president
went on to nationalize a chain of French-owned supermarkets over
alleged price gouging.
He ordered cutbacks in the operation of state-run steel and aluminum
manufacturing operations, which account for up to 20% of the country’s
power demand.
This week he turned to Cuba for help on how to cope with the power
shortage, since Cuba has been through similar problems. The island
nation is providing tens of thousands of energy-efficient lightbulbs
and cloud-seeding technology to Venezuela.
Last weekend, he forced six television channels off the air for
failing to broadcast one of his speeches — up to six hours in length —
in a continuation of his campaign for “communicational hegemony.”
Since December, all radio and television networks are required by law
to broadcast his speeches live, whenever he chooses to make one.
Nationwide student marches have been met by troops armed with rubber
bullets, and at least two deaths have been recorded.
Chavez has said he’s prepared to take “radical measures” should the
situation worsen, begging the unsettling question of what could be
more radical than what he has already done.

Looking East, Not North

Now Chavez is turning east for help in developing his nation’s oil and
gas resources. Recent agreements include a $20 billion joint venture
with Russia to develop the Junin 6 field in the Orinoco oil belt, with
a potential top production rate of 450,000 barrels per day.

China has agreed to build a refinery and develop the Orinoco heavy oil
fields, and Venezuela has guaranteed 560,000 barrels per day to China
this year.

Venezuela has launched its first major auction for drilling rights in
more than a decade, for access to areas east of the existing
operations in the Orinoco. Developing the leases will be expensive
because of their distance from the existing infrastructure, and
winning bidders are expected to make offers in the $10 billion-plus
range including early payments of at least $1 billion, financing
plans, and commitments to build the necessary roads, pipelines, ports,
and upgraders. Potential bidders include Spain’s Repsol, Japan’s
Mitsubishi, the UK’s BP, and Chevron.

Given the sheer size of its resources, it’s too soon to declare the
end of Venezuela’s glory days in the oil patch. However, it does seem
likely that the new barrels it brings to market will be headed east —
not north — and Western producers will have very little stake in the
projects.

Chavez will put exports to the U.S. on a short path to zero the first
chance he gets.

—————–

Oh Imports, Where Art Thou?

The combined decline in imports from Mexico and Venezuela for 2005
through 2008 is 0.89 mbpd. If the trend continues in 2009, then over 1
mbpd will have disappeared from the U.S. import stream in the last
five years — a decline of 8% from 2004 levels.

Since 2007, the loss of production from Cantarell alone was 0.7 mbpd,
but the recession cut U.S. demand by 2 mbpd, effectively masking the
decline. This raises the question: If U.S. demand rises from here,
where will those barrels come from… and how much will they cost?

The U.S. is not only in first place worldwide in its demand for oil,
but in paying the market rate for it. Nobody else buys 8.5 mbpd of
crude at retail.

Drivers in Venezuela are still filling up for 25 cents a gallon, even
as their exports decline.

Mexico’s gasoline prices are more on par with the U.S., but its
consumption has been rising steadily since 1997 and continues to cut
into exports.

Saudi Arabia’s domestic consumption is currently growing at the rate
of 7% per year, following a trend of more than three decades. It uses
a whopping 1.5 mbpd — 1.8% of total world oil supply! — to desalinate
water, at the equivalent of 7 cents a gallon.

Before the OPEC cuts of 2009, its exports to the U.S. had essentially
flatlined at 1.5 mbpd since 2004.

Exports from our #5 source, Nigeria, have also declined — from 1.17
mbpd in 2005 to 0.98 mbpd in 2008.

In fact, of the top five oil exporting countries to the U.S.,
representing 63% of our crude imports, only Canada posted an increase
(of 0.2 mbpd).

The combined annual net oil exports from our top three exporting
countries — Canada, Mexico and Venezuela — illustrate our situation:

Given the very modest increases from unconventional domestic production and Canada, the decline of imports from Mexico and Venezuela means the U.S. will be increasingly forced to depend on suppliers farther afield — the very same suppliers that China has been buying into in size. The “collision course with China” that I wrote about in July 2005 has nearly reached the point of impact.

It also means that when oil prices rise again, the pain will be far greater for the U.S. than it is for our top suppliers. Next time, the spear of declining oil exports will puncture a lung.

The oil export crisis has arrived… We just haven’t felt it yet.

Production, consumption, and export data herein is the latest available from the EIA.

Until next time,
Chris

Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions to this
article: Venezuelan oil expert Carlos Rossi for sharing excerpts from
his forthcoming book, The Completion of the Oil Era: The Economic
Impact; Gregor Macdonald for sharing his data on Cantarell; and
Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher, for their work on net exports data
and the Export Land Model.

Investor’s Note: While declining oil imports from Mexico and Venezuela
paint a nightmare scenario for meeting future U.S. demand, all hope
isn’t lost… In fact, one U.S. oil play is developing at a breakneck
pace. You’re likely aware of the Bakken oil formation. But you may not
realize fully how the Bakken has single-handedly thrust North Dakota
into the international investment spotlight.

Of course, members of the $20 Trillion Report know how profitable the
Bakken oil formation is. So far, they’ve raked in gains of 305%, 249%
and 130%! We want you to share in their success.

—————————-

Our reaction to the above goes in two directions:

To every straights there is also the possibility for an answer that provides for new opportunities. in this case:

(1) it becomes even clearer that the US has here an opportunity to make policy accommodations with its neighbors to the south.

(2) the US does not have to – and will not – continue its dependence on oil alone as its source for energy. The US can go for novel and mostly renewable sources of energy, then the Saudis might also discover sun and wind as good replacement for this insanity of using 25% of their oil to provide their water needs. Whatever – energy independence – or at least oil imports reduction for the US – is not an excuse for  a “drill baby drill” US energy policy. Actually, put a carbon tax on the use of oil in the US as a good way to tell the world that the US is capable to detoxify from its addiction to oil imports.

The problem was the 51 cents/gallon of ethanol from sugar-cane tariff, the US imposes against imports from international producers of bioethanol – so they do not compete with US agro-ethanol.

We are cynics by nature and wonder if the release today has anything to do with Shell Oil Company having announced last weekend that they will invest over a billion dollars in the production of sugar-cane ethanol in Brazil. So, did we have to wait until an oil company steps heavily into this area – so we finally allow US door to be opened to a non-petroleum liquid fuel?

WE ARE VERY PARTIAL TO THIS TOPIC BECAUSE BACK IN 1978 AT UNIDO IN VIENNA, AND IN 1979 IN NEW ORLEANS, I WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN BRINGING THIS SUBJECT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LIQUID FUEL HUNGRY WESTERN WORLD. IN VIENNA WE SHOWED THE CUBAN EXPERIENCE AT A UN – AUSTRIA – SWEDEN EVENT. IN NEW ORLEANS THIS WAS “THE FIRST INTER-AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY” THAT I HELPED ORGANIZE. OBVIOUSLY – TO LOUISIANA WE COULD NOT BRING THE CUBANS – BUT BRAZIL, ARGENTINA AND MANY OTHERS WERE PRESENT UNDER THE FRIENDLY EYES OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. ETHANOL BECAME A RECOGNIZED FUEL, BUT US AGRICULTURE MADE SURE IT WILL BE US CORN AS FEEDSTOCK. WE COULD NOT EVEN GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR IMPORTS FROM FRIENDLY COUNTRIES BECAUSE OIL AND AGRICULTURE – SOME OF THE STRONGEST LOBBIES IN WASHINGTON – WOULD NOT ALLOW IT , EVEN AFTER THE INTERVENTION OF US REPUBLICAN SENATORS LIKE FRANK CHURCH, JACOB JAVITS, CHARLES PERCY – SO WHAT WILL IT BE NOW? WILL THOSE TARIFFS COME OFF?

—————-
EPA Reaffirms Sugarcane Biofuel is Advanced Renewable Fuel with 61% Less Emissions than Gasoline.
Brazil Sugarcane Update – Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Welcomes U.S. EPA’s Renewable Fuels Rules.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has confirmed that ethanol made from sugarcane is a low carbon renewable fuel, which can contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As part of today’s announcement finalizing regulations for the implementation of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2), the EPA designated sugarcane ethanol as an advanced biofuel that lowers GHG emissions by more than 50%.

“The EPA’s decision underscores the many environmental benefits of sugarcane ethanol and reaffirms how this low carbon, advanced renewable fuel can help the world mitigate against climate change while diversifying America’s energy resources,” said Joel Velasco, Chief Representative in Washington for the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA).

Sugarcane ethanol is a renewable fuel refined from cane that grows typically in tropical climates. Compared to other types of ethanol available today, using sugarcane ethanol to power cars and trucks yields greater reductions in greenhouse gases and is usually much cheaper for drivers to purchase. Brazil has replaced more than half of its fuel needs with sugarcane ethanol – making gasoline the alternative fuel in that country and ethanol the standard.  Many observers point to sugarcane ethanol as a good option for diversifying U.S. energy supplies, increasing healthy competition among biofuel manufacturers and improving America’s energy security.

The RFS2 will help the United States meet energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals sought by the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2007 (EISA). The new regulations establish minimum biofuels consumption in the U.S. of more than 12 billion gallons (45 billion liters) in 2010, rising to 36 billion gallons (136 billion liters) in 2022, of which 21 billion gallons per year would have to be one of three types of advanced biofuels: cellulosic, biomass diesel, and “other advanced,” that meet required GHG reduction thresholds as determined by the EPA.

Today, EPA affirmed that sugarcane ethanol meets the “other advanced” category in the RFS2, although with a GHG reduction level that exceeds the requirement for all categories as well.  Specifically, EPA’s calculations show that sugarcane ethanol from Brazil reduces GHG emissions compared to gasoline by 61%, using a 30-year payback for indirect land use change (iLUC) emissions.

“We are pleased that EPA took the time to improve the regulations, particularly by more accurately quantifying the full lifecycle greenhouse emission reductions of biofuels. EPA’s reaffirmation of sugarcane ethanol’s superior GHG reduction confirms that sustainably-produced biofuels can play a important role in climate mitigation. Perhaps this recognition will sway those who have sought to raise trade barriers against clean energy here in the U.S. and around the world. Sugarcane ethanol is a first generation biofuel with third generation performance,” noted Velasco.

Last year, UNICA submitted comments to EPA with abundant scientifically credible evidence showing that – even including indirect emissions – sugarcane ethanol has a reduction of GHG emissions of 73-82% compared with gasoline, on a 30- or 100-year time horizon respectively. The RFS2 requires the use of at least 4 billion gallons (over 15 billion liters) of “other advanced” renewable fuels a year by 2022. In 2010, the RFS requires 200 million gallons of this type of advanced renewable fuels.

“While we are reviewing the final rule, it is clear that EPA has incorporated many of the comments that UNICA and other stakeholders made during the public process. EPA should be congratulated for the way it upheld the Obama’s goals of transparency and scientific integrity in the environmental rulemaking. And we hope that other governments should take note of the manner that EPA has handled this process,” concluded Velasco.

Brazil is a leader in the production of sugarcane ethanol, which is widely considered as the most efficient biofuel available today. In 2009, Brazil produced over 7 billion gallons of sugarcane ethanol, most of which is used in Brazil in flex fuel vehicles. As a result of Brazil’s innovative use of sugarcane ethanol in transportation and biomass for cogeneration, sugarcane is the leading source of renewable energy in the nation, representing 16% of the country’s total energy needs. In fact, gasoline has become the alternative in Brazil, reducing the country’s dependence on fossil fuels lowering emissions. A recent study in the November 2009 edition of the journal Energy Policy indicated that since 1975, over 600 million tons of CO2 emissions have been avoided thanks to the use of ethanol in Brazil.

———

ABOUT UNICA. The Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA) represents the
top producers of sugar and ethanol in the country’s South-Central region, especially the
state of Sao Paulo, which accounts for about 50% of the country’s sugarcane harvest
and 60% of total ethanol production. UNICA develops position papers, statistics and
specific research in support of Brazil’s sugar, ethanol and bioelectricity sectors. In 2008,
Brazil produced an estimated 565 million metric tons of sugarcane, which yielded 31.3
million tons of sugar and 25.7 billion liters (6.8 billion gallons) of ethanol, making it the
number-one sugarcane grower and sugar producer in the world, and the second-largest
ethanol producer on the planet, behind the United States.

—————-

Brazil Hopes Shell-Cosan Can Boost Ethanol Exports

Date: 04-Feb-10, Reuters from Brazil
Author: Inae Riveras – Analysis

SAO PAULO – Brazil’s ethanol industry, which invested heavily to boost output of the cane-based biofuel, is counting on a tie-up between sugar and ethanol producer Cosan and Royal Dutch Shell Plc to revive its prospects after exports fell short of expectations.

The $21-billion-a-year ethanol joint venture announced by the two companies on Monday will enable Cosan, Brazil’s biggest ethanol maker, to move product more efficiently thanks to Shell’s global fuel distribution and retail system.

Cosan views the venture as a way to make Brazil’s ethanol a global commodity.

But whether that happens will depend largely on outside factors: whether oil is costly enough to make ethanol competitive; whether Brazil’s mills can provide a steady stream of biofuel; and whether key markets such as the United States will be more open to ethanol imports.

“Shell chose ethanol as the renewable fuel they want to be in and it chose Brazil. Whether this will mean more exports will depend on a series of circumstances beyond the companies’ control,” said ethanol expert Eduardo Pereira de Carvalho.

The slow rate of growth for ethanol exports has disappointed Brazil, where more than 450 mills joined the ethanol sector’s expansion drive in recent years.

Some analysts say any growth in ethanol exports will depend on oil prices more than other factor.

“The deal itself does not raise or reduce the economic viability of blending anhydrous ethanol in gasoline. This will be determined by the oil market,” said sugar and ethanol analyst Julio Maria Borges, director at Job Economia.

In 2008, when oil prices reached record highs of $147 per barrel, Brazil exported 5.1 billion liters of ethanol, up sharply from 3.5 billion liters the previous year. Countries simply bought more of the fuel to replace gasoline.

High oil prices together with environmental woes were then feeding discussions about a broader adoption of biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels.

But oil prices tumbled as the global credit crisis intensified, and there was a similar decline in foreign interest for the cane-based fuel. Brazilian ethanol exports in 2009 slipped to 3.3 billion liters despite extremely low prices on the Brazilian market.

STEADY SUPPLIES, TARIFFS

If ethanol is economically viable compared to oil, however, Brazilian ethanol exports should benefit from Shell’s global infrastructure, commercial relationships and know-how.

Shell, with distribution centers and 45,000 filling stations around the world, will have access to annual supplies of 2 billion liters of Cosan ethanol.

“Shell will be able to strike long-term deals with clients around the world, something that currently hardly exists, as it will be backed by a big provider,” Borges said.

But the lack of steady supplies from Brazil, which produces 26 billion liters of ethanol a year that are mostly consumed domestically, may trouble potential long-term buyers.

Futures markets for ethanol have been incapable of minimizing producers’ risks. Deals are largely done on a spot basis — both in and outside Brazil. This makes it difficult for buyers and sellers to hedge against market volatility.

Brazil’s government has worked on ways of softening this problem by providing financing to mills to build stocks, which also smoothes out local prices over the year. But the system remains stubbornly inefficient.

“The same old problem will continue. Mills say they will expand production if there’s demand but demand will only be created if there’s the certainty of stable supplies,” said an ethanol expert based in the United States.

A U.S. tariff on imports of cane-derived ethanol is another roadblock to Brazil’s expansion goals. Some in the industry have suggested Shell’s entry into ethanol production in Brazil could mean extra pressure for removal of the tariff.

But it is not clear whether there could be a move in that direction.

“The oil industry was always against the U.S. tariff. The news is that it is now seeing a solution in cane,” said Joel Velasco, the North American representative for Brazil’s Sugarcane Industry Association, Unica.

But the announcement that the biggest-ever foray into biofuels by an oil major would happen in Brazil was a clear sign of preference for the fuel over other options.

“It’s difficult to predict (when exports could rise)… but the strategic meaning of a company the size of Shell to invest here is the most important point,” Carvalho said.

The EU refuses to see the multi headed Hydra it has become and expects President Obama to play along. Reality calls – EU please get serious at becoming some sort of one headed entity! The US President is a busy man now with all that US Jazz.

It slowly starts sinking in – we said it a long time ago!

Battling the ‘Multilateral Zombie’ – EU climate strategy after Copenhagen.
LEIGH PHILLIPS

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29354/?rk=1,
 http://old.norden.org/analysnorden/defau…

EUOBSERVER / ANALYSIS – “The EU’s post-Copenhagen strategy should be
just to have a strategy, any strategy,” quips one Brussels think-tank
wag during an interview.

The rough hip-check Europe received in the Danish capital in December,
sidelining the bloc during the eleventh-hour huddle between major
powers that produced the Copenhagen Accord, has produced a wave of
despondency and cynicism amongst Brussels politicians, green
lobbyists, and analysts – and carbon traders across the continent to
boot. They’re all having a crack at how poorly the EU played its hand
during climate negotiations.

For the last three years, if it hasn’t been the institutional reform
of the Lisbon Treaty, it’s been the bloc’s obsession with climate
change that has dominated the EU agenda. Even if the EU is well off
the at least 40 percent cut in emissions that science demands if we
are to avoid catastrophic climate change, it remains the case that as
a result of its 2008 climate and energy package, Europe remains the
most advanced rich-country power on the planet in terms of its binding
CO2 reduction commitment.

With its climate boy-scout badge afixed to its sleeve, Brussels headed
off to Camp Copenhagen expecting at least to see its self-proclaimed
leadership reflected in winning something along the lines of a broad
commitment from other powers to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But in the end, the EU ended up the goody-two-shoes pupil who’s top of
the class, but yet, when he invites all the other kids over for a
party, glumly watches as they end up playing among each other instead
of with him. It was the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa that
cobbled together the last-minute three-page-long Copenhagen Accord
without the EU even in the room, while most of the developing world
complained throughout the two weeks that Brussels was at best just a
cat’s paw for Washington.

Denmark’s Connie Hedegaard, now incoming EU
climate commissioner, was repeatedly attacked for favouring rich
countries over the developing world.

“It was the strangest conference I have been at in my life, from all
points of view,” Mr Barroso told a pow-wow of the leading European
think-tanks in early January.

Typical of the initial EU reaction were comments from Swedish
environment minister Andres Carlgren, who, when meeting in Brussels in
late December with his EU counterparts to debrief after the UN summit
and begin the discussion of what to do next, slammed the result as a
“disaster.”

“It was a really great failure and we have to learn from that,” he
said at the time. { but the gentleman forgot to say whose failure it was!}

Glass half full!

However, after the holidays, a clutch of pollyanna-ish EU officials
have since fervently urged everyone to consider the Accord’s silver
lining. Both President Barroso and the bloc’s chief climate
negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, in various venues have emphasised
that many of the things the EU had been pushing for were contained in
the final result – developed countries agreed for the first time a
concrete sum for climate finance, a target maximum average global
temperature increase of two degrees was embraced and a review,
allowing for a ratcheting up of targets if necessary, is foreseen for
2015.

Ms Hedegaard during the parliamentary hearing to confirm her
appointment as commissioner gave a robust defence of the document.

“I would very much have liked to have seen more progress in
Copenhagen, but finance was delivered; all the emerging developing
nations have accepted co-responsibility [for reducing emissions] and
Brazil, South Africa, China, India and the US, all of whom were not
part of the Kyoto Protocol, have now set targets for domestic action,”
she told MEPs mid-January.

But even as the EU begins to view the Copenhagen glass as half full,
elsewhere, support for the document is beginning to unravel.

Last week, realising that only around 20 countries had listed their
emissions reductions commitments in a schedule attached to the Accord,
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer quietly abandoned the 31 January deadline
for states to have done so.

At the same time, EU member states that have never been comfortable
with the bloc’s climate ambitions have used the opportunity to delay
or block European plans to boost its CO2 emissions reduction
commitment from 20 percent on 1990 levels to 30 percent. On 18
January, environment ministers met in Seville, to assess, for the
second time, the reasons for the failure in the Danish capital. UK,
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain continued to push for the increased
pledge, while Italy and Poland said now was not the time given the
poverty of ambition by other states at Copenhagen.

As of this week, the consensus in the bloc is to maintain its target
of 20 percent and conditional offer of 30 percent if other powers make
comparable efforts – in other words exactly the same position the EU
has held for the last year, although Ms Hedegaard has publicly said
she hopes to see a move to 30 percent “by Mexico,” meaning the next UN
climate summit in the Central American nation at the end of 2010.

At the same time, the commission itself is in the ‘twenty-percenter’
camp, pushing this position in Copenhagen, “afraid to be naked” with
nothing left to put on the table in the game of climate strip poker.
Moreover, crucially, the executive’s goal of a transatlantic emissions
trading system is unworkable with cuts pledges that are wildly
divergent and without legally binding commitments from Washington.

The US is looking to a 17 percent emissions reduction on 2005 levels,
which works out to be just three percent when using the same 1990
baseline year as the EU. Watch for the US, if legislation gets
through, at some point to somehow nudge up its cut to 20 percent and
the EU to stick to the same figure, dressed up in language about how
the two targets are now comparable, with a fudge over the differing
baseline years.

Support unravelling:

Separately, four of the five architects of the Accord, Brazil, South
Africa, India and China, have themselves gone lukewarm on the project,
smarting from accusations from much of the rest of the developing
world that these four richest of the poor countries had broken ranks
after a year of unprecedented global south unity.

Last weekend, meeting in New Delhi, the four so-called Basic countries
described the accord as merely a “political understanding” without any
legal basis and that action should instead proceed on the basis of the
two documents to come out of the official UN process – one outlining
the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and the other
dealing with climate actions by the US and emerging economies.

Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: “We support the
Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were unanimously of the view that its
value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the
two-track negotiation process under the UNFCCC.”

“The two-track negotiating process …is the only legitimate process
to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico,” he added.

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the Accord, an understanding that
however limited America’s commitment, Washington would at least be
able to deliver on this promise.

But with the surprise election to the US Senate of Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown on an anti-climate-bill ticket, killing the
Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority, the country’s climate
legislation is threatened. A defeated or heavily watered down bill
only engenders further reservations in the minds of Chinese, Indian
and even European leadership about promising tough reduction targets.

For all the public talk of Latin American, Chinese and African climate
“villains” blocking the process in Copenhagen, privately, there is
frustration with Washington as well. A senior EU policy official
speaking to EUobserver described President Obama’s position as the
same as that of George Bush. “We are willing but only if others move,”
the official said, attributing the position to both the current and
former US leaders.

One EU climate voice {?}

A popular post-Copenhagen analysis from the Brookings Institute, the
centrist US think-tank, that has made the rounds of officialdom and
NGO-land warns of a slow-motion failure scenario similar to the Doha
round of WTO talks, a process it describes as a “multilateral zombie”
in which climate negotiations “stagger on piteously, never making much
progress while never quite dying either.”

Nevertheless, despite the dark days and the cynicism of some
onlookers, we can already begin to sense the outlines of a European
strategy.

EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has already said he hopes to
see a common climate strategy emerge from an 11 February extraordinary
EU summit originally scheduled to deal with the economy. Angela
Merkel, as well, has upgraded a climate meeting in Bonn in June from
expert to ministerial level and the European Commission is preparing a
series of proposals that it is to put to the member states.

One of the main lessons the European Commission has drawn from the
Copenhagen failure is that European representation in climate change
talks needs to be streamlined in order to project its position more
effectively, even if the commission is not awarded the task of
negotiating on behalf of the bloc, as it does in trade talks,

“We are fragmented from a negotiating point of view,” President
Barroso said in his first public appearance of the year. “In trade
matters, this is different. The European Commission is the voice.”

Ms Hedegaard is of the same mind. In her parliamentary hearing, her
top message concerned European disunity: “In the last hours, China,
India, Russia, Japan each spoke with one voice, while Europe spoke
with many different voices.”

“A lot of Europeans in the room is not a problem, but there is only an
advantage if we sing from same hymn sheet. We need to think about this
and reflect on this very seriously, or we will lose our leadership
role in the world,” she told MEPs.

In a similar vein, the commission president has also suggested that
the new EU External Action Service – the bloc’s diplomatic corps born
of the Lisbon Treaty – be given more leeway to engage in climate
bargaining.

Until now, this sort of bilateral pressure has been left up to the
member states, with Paris tasked with winning over Francophone Africa,
London with arm-twisting the Commonwealth and Berlin given the job of
seducing Pacific islands.

Before last autumn’s federal election in Germany,
then-foreign-minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was meeting regularly
with the Association of Small Island States and 20 Aosis ministers
visited the country last year specifically to discuss climate issues,
while Ethiopia’s surprise intervention at Copenhagen proposing a deal
that mirrored almost word for word a European Commission proposal from
September came as the result of UK and French behind-the-scenes
intercession.

While this sort of member-state activity is likely to continue, the
Lisbon Treaty has given the commission a powerful new diplomatic
weapon it intends to use to the fullest.

Sidelining the UN:

Related to this, the major task will be to break the remarkable unity
shown by developing nations. The UNFCCC’s principle dating back to
Kyoto of “common but differentiated responsibility,” is understood by
developing nations to mean that those countries that caused the
problem should pay for solving it and make binding commitments to CO2
reductions.

The third world has said that it would be happy to develop along a
low-carbon path itself, but that the rich north will have to pay for
this and that their emissions cuts should in any case be voluntary.
The World Bank, unhelpfully, has estimated the cost of all this to be
$400 billion a year. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, would rather that the
developing world, but specifically China and to a lesser extent India,
agree to binding, verifiable CO2 cuts without the price tag.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord for rich countries is that
it “weakens or even does away with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities,” as the South Centre, a Geneva-based
think-tank close to developing world governments, warns – another
reason why the Basic countries, upon reflection, have taken a distance
from the deal.

In many ways, Copenhagen was a victory for the developing world, in
that it managed to hold off against pressure to junk the Kyoto
Protocol and in the end ensured that the Copenhagen Accord was only
“noted” by the UN plenary instead of endorsed, making it a document
floating in a legal limbo.

For this reason, the US has called for a junking of the UN process,
hoping that it can win other countries to its perspective via more
manageable arenas such as the G20 or the Major Emitters Forum, where
there are far fewer than the UN’s 192 nations to deal with and the
‘awkward squad’ of left-wing Latin American nations and the G77 group
of nations are absent. Both Jonathan Pershing, America’s chief
negotiator, and US climate envoy Todd Stern have said the UN should be
sidelined.

EU leaders however “are less neurotic about the UN than the Americans
are,” in the words of the Centre for European Policy Studies’ climate
specialist, Christian Egenhofer.

At the same time that President Barroso admitted to pulling his hair
out at the UN process, he also said there is no other option. “We need
to have a more efficient and results-oriented process in the future
…With unanimity, it is easier for one country to block – it’s the
basic logic of the system,” he said in early January, adding however:
“It’s very easy to criticise the UN …but the UN is what the members
make out of it.”

Although some Spanish presidency officials at one point said that
climate negotiations should pass through the G20 instead, everyone
else, from Mr Runge-Metzger to Ms Hedegaard believe this cannot be
done. “Some ask: ‘Shouldn’t we give up on the UN process?’ I say:
‘No.’ We would waste too much work,” she told the European Parliament.

Instead, according to Mr Runge-Metzger: “The next step for the EU is
to get the accord translated into the UN process,” to try to lock in
agreement in other fora and then feed this into the main UN
negotiations. The key is to appear to be endorsing the UN process
while still pushing for other fora to do the heavy lifting.

One arena in particular that climate watchers should keep an eye on is
the UN High-Level Panel on Climate Change and Development, announced
by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon last September and to be launched
early this year. Made up of a handful of current heads of government,
along with experts, senior government officials and community leaders,
the panel will be a much more manageable entity, but will also have
the imprimatur of the UN.

Border tariff:

Meanwhile, EU officials are briefing heavily against the awkward
squad, attempting to paint them as obstructionist and
unrepresentative. Reporters are reminded of G77-chair Sudan’s
authoritarian government, while Ethiopia, which has authoritarian rule
but is on side, is never criticized. With Yemen, the birthplace of the
infamous underpants bomber, holding the 2010 presidency of the group,
this will be an even easier public relations hatchet job.

But it was not just a handful of countries, but the entire Africa
Group of Nations that forced a suspension of proceedings when they
twice walked out of the UN complaining of rich country shenanigans.
Latin America and the loudmouthed-or-eloquent (depending on who you
asked) Oxford-educated G77 negotiator Lumumba di-Aping, famous for his
line that an offer of $10 billion in climate finance “is not enough to
buy us coffins,” were only the most vocal of a host of frustrated
countries.

At the same time, even ardent developing world advocates privately
express their discomfort at the wealthy elites of China and India
using the poor of their own countries to advance an agenda of growth
that primarily benefits them. And it is true that the developing world
is not all of one mind. Tuvalu is bitterly opposed to the Copenhagen
Accord while the Maldives embraces it as the best it can get while the
tides are rapidly rising.

Elsewhere, the EU is also almost certain to take a fresh look at
slapping carbon tariffs on goods entering the bloc. There is no way
industry would allow a move to a 30 percent emissions reduction pledge
without such protection. “I will fight for a carbon tax levied on EU
borders,” French President Nicolas Sarkozy said earlier this month.

It’s always easy to dismiss such ambition when expressed by a man
known for his crafting of public policy by press conference, and EU
commissioner-designate for trade, Karel de Gucht has ruled a carbon
border tariff out, saying: “it will …lead to an escalating trade war
on a global level.”

But this is what a trade commissioner has to say. Many analysts
believe that a carbon tariff is inevitable and even WTO-compatible if
multilaterally agreed. The US climate bill already includes a carbon
tariff provision and, crucially, this is the stick that could be used
to force China, India and other nations to submit to its preferred
climate regime of binding reduction commitments for emerging
economies.

The EU is still essential here. Washington could not move ahead with a
tariff without Brussels on board.

It should also be remembered that many other major powers were
sidelined at Copenhagen. Japan and Russia were also absent from
Copenhagen’s endgame. In many ways, the EU’s limited influence has
been largely a product of its own climate success. Although Europe is
the world’s third largest emitter, this will likely change in the near
future. Ironically, if the continent isn’t going to be as much of a
problem in absolute (as opposed to per capita) terms as China or India
by 2030, it doesn’t have much of a bargaining chip. Washington was
always going to be far more interested in Beijing.

Copenhagen was very much the US and China show, but it won’t always be.

——–

This feature was originially written for the Nordic Council’s Analys
Norden website.

{ We wonder at the last sentence of the article because we think that unless the EU does in fact unite under  one leadership it will not amount to much when the US continues to deal with the BASICs – I mean the countries that are form the basic future. The EU should aim at becoming the G3 to be added to China and the US in future global negotiations that will include also the IBSA and one or two more states. See please next article.}

——————————————————————————-

US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco. Mr Obama – the Madrid summit decision is being seen as a diplomatic snub to Spain.
by ANDREW RETTMAN from Brussels.

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  writes -  The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama’s decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when. { that sounds very clear to me.}

“Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals,
as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that
was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency
within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the
rotating EU presidency, you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got
a European Commission president,” he said.

“We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working
through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will
host it and where will it be held?” he added. “All of this is kind of
being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.”

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December, 2009. It created the post
of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order
to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as
well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of
behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU
manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council
president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But
Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department’s Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in
touch “directly” to discuss Mr Obama’s decision after Madrid learned
about it through the media on Monday.

“Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the
government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with
them on that,” he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both
expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on
Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

The informal event sees some 3,500 celebrities, businessmen,
politicians and religious leaders get together in the US capital each
year. It is organised by the Fellowship Foundation, a Christian
fundamentalist pressure group.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in
Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend
the prayer event “shocking.”

Climate change http://bit.ly/5iZZ41
12:39 PM Jan 8th from Ecademy.com

Green jobs http://bit.ly/5MsDHG
5:04 AM Jan 8th from Ecademy.com

Climate change – No hiding place?
The betting is that 2010 will be the hottest year on record. But
understanding how the planet’s temperature changes is still a
challenge to science
Jan 7th 2010  From The Economist print edition

IT MAY seem implausible at the moment, as northern Europe, Asia and
parts of America shiver in the snow, but 2010 may well turn out as the
hottest year on record. Those who doubt that greenhouse gases are
quite the problem they have been cracked up to be by most of the
world’s climatologists have taken comfort from the fact that the
Hadley Centre, part of Britain’s Meteorological Office, reckons the
warmest year since records began was 1998 (see chart 1). Twelve years
without a new record would, the sceptics reckon, be rather a large
lull in what is supposed to be a rising trend. Computer modelling by
the Met Office, though, gives odds-on chances of the lull being
broken.

The fact that no record high happened in the 2000s does not mean that
there was no warming over the decade—trends at scales coarser than the
annual continued to point upwards, and other authorities suggest there
have been record years during the period. Nor was the length of time
without an annual record exceptional. Models simulating centuries of
warming normally have the occasional decade in which no rise in
surface temperatures is observed. This is because heat can be stored
in other parts of the system, such as the oceans, for a time, and thus
not show up on meteorologists’ thermometers.

Indeed, one reason for thinking that the coming year will be hotter
than all known previous ones is that the tropical Pacific is currently
dumping heat. This phenomenon, by which heat that has been stored up
in the sea over the previous few years is released into the
atmosphere, is known as El Niño. A strong Niño contributed to the
record temperatures in 1998. In 2007 and 2008 the opposite phenomenon,
a cooling Niña, was happening. That goes some way to explaining why
those years were chilly by the standards of the 2000s.

And on top of El Niño, there is the sun. The sun’s brightness
fluctuates over an 11-year cycle. Though the fluctuation is not vast,
it is enough to make a difference from peak to trough. In 2009 the sun
was at the bottom of its cycle. Unless it is behaving particularly
strangely, it should, over the next 12 months, begin to brighten.

The Met Office’s forecast was made using the Decadal Prediction
System, or DePreSys (pronounced “depresses”, which is what it
sometimes does to Doug Smith and his colleagues, who run it). Climate
models are normally used to show how the climate’s behaviour will
respond to changes in things like greenhouse-gas levels. But though a
model’s response will, it is hoped, be similar to the real climate’s,
models are caricatures, not portraits. Trying to force one into a
state that looks exactly like the real climate at a specific time, as
prediction requires, will distort it, and it is likely to misbehave as
a result.

DePreSys is an attempt to work round this “initialisation” problem—to
give the model’s caricature not just an all-purpose resemblance to the
way the real climate behaves, but one that captures its pose and
expression at a particular moment. In 2007 the first study using
DePreSys correctly predicted that there would be a few more years
which would set no records. After this, it said, there would be a
definite rise in temperature. More recently, Dr Smith and his team
have been using clusters of computers around Britain to run multiple
models with slightly different initial conditions. Four-fifths of
these runs suggest 2010 will be warmer than any previous year—which
could be taken as odds of four-to-one on. The techniques are still in
their infancy. But they are at least making predictions that can be
checked.

Balancing the books:
Dr Smith and his colleagues are trying to predict some of the natural
variability to come. Kevin Trenberth of America’s National Centre for
Atmospheric Research wants to understand in detail the natural
variability just seen. His quest gained unexpected prominence when one
of his forcefully expressed e-mails on the subject—“The fact is that
we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t”—found its way into the public domain as one of
thousands of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit of the University
of East Anglia in the “climategate” furore of November 2009.

Dr Trenberth was not, he has since been at pains to stress, saying
that the relatively unwarmed 2000s were particularly out of the
ordinary. Instead, he was saying that, given the panoply of satellites
and measurement networks that are being installed to monitor the
climate, it should now be possible to identify the places and
processes that hide energy from the prying eyes of climatologists.
That would make it possible to determine what has actually happened to
the energy trapped by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

For the first part of the decade this turns out to be possible. From
1998 to 2003, although surface temperatures were not rising, a lot of
energy was mopped up by the oceans (see chart 2). This is borne out by
the rise in sea level during the period, which matches (once the
additional effects of melting glaciers and ice sheets are taken into
account) the expansion of the water in the oceans caused by this
heating. Until the middle of the 2000s, therefore, the sums seem to
balance.

It is after that that the problem comes. Runoff’s role in the rising
sea level increases, meaning the fraction attributable to expansion,
and thus the amount of heat taken up by the sea, has fallen (and the
chart therefore levels out). The missing heat must therefore be going
somewhere else. One possibility is that it is being reflected back
into space by changes in cloud cover. The data, however, seem to say
no. America’s CERES programme, the result of observations by seven
different instruments on six different satellites, suggests the Earth
has actually absorbed more energy and reflected away less over the
past few years, rather than the other way round. It is all rather
mysterious.

Nevertheless, while there is a lot of scepticism in, around and about
climate science, none of it is aimed at the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
The energy that the sun delivers to the Earth must therefore be equal
to the energy that is reflected back into space, plus that re-emitted
as infra-red radiation, plus that stored in some part of the
atmosphere, the oceans or the land.

The fact that the books cannot currently be balanced is therefore an
admission of ignorance—an ignorance that better, future measurements
should help abolish. That, in turn, should allow predictions of what
the climate will do next, for good or ill, to become significantly
better, and thus deprive climatic bookies of their trade.

————

Britain may get green jobs, but not the sort ministers promise.
Jan 7th 2010 | From The Economist print edition

BRUISED by the worst recession since the second world war, and staring
glumly at a megalithic national debt that their children will be
repaying decades hence, few Britons are keen for finance to make up as
big a slice of the national economy in the future as it has in the
past. Politicians from all parties are keen to talk about new ways for
Britain to earn a living.

One popular idea is to turn to greenery: Britain (like the rest of the
world) must cut its emissions of greenhouse gases in any case, so it
makes sense to profit from the endeavour. The claim that greenery is
the future goes back to the fiscal-stimulus package launched by the
government last year to revive the credit-crunched economy. Gordon
Brown, the prime minister, was beating the drum again in an interview
on January 3rd, claiming that a “strong industrial strategy” would
turn Britain into the world’s “leader in low-carbon industry”.

On the face of it, Britain ought to be attractive for budding green
industrialists. There is plenty of rain and wind for renewable-energy
firms to play with, and a reasonably well-educated and scientifically
literate workforce to build better batteries, turbines and
nuclear-power plants. In normal times finance is generally available.
And ambitious targets to cut emissions ought to ensure a big market to
sell into.

Yet out there in the real world of factories and small businesses, not
much seems to be happening. The day after the prime minister’s
interview, it emerged that, thanks to a dearth of British suppliers,
€1.8 billion (£1.6 billion) of the €2 billion earmarked to build the
world’s largest offshore wind farm in the Thames Estuary would be
going to foreign firms. In August Britain’s only wind-turbine factory,
on the Isle of Wight, shut its doors for good. As countries such as
Denmark, Germany and Japan build big low-carbon industries, Britain,
far from being a world leader, is in danger of “missing the boat”,
warns the EEF, a manufacturers’ organisation.

Official support for greenery is not as generous as it seems. When
analysts at HSBC, a big bank, studied last year’s fiscal-stimulus
plan, they concluded that only around 7% of the spending would go to
the environment—compared with 81% in South Korea, 34% in China and 12%
in America. Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics
Foundation, a think-tank, points out that much of the supposedly new
spending had already been announced (a favourite Labour trick).

Roger Salomone, an energy adviser at the EEF, says that, although
things have improved over the past couple of years, much government
support is small, temporary and vaguely defined. The problem is not
just penny-pinching, he argues. After the disastrous experience of
industrial policy in the 1970s and the free-market zealotry of the
Thatcher years, the very phrase “industrial strategy” is suspect in
Whitehall.

Those reluctant to interfere could well point to Spain, where generous
government subsidies created a bubble market in solar energy that has
burst spectacularly. Yet at the moment, says one industry boss,
British ministers seem to want to have their cake and eat it, claiming
to have an industrial policy without running the risk of actually
implementing it.

Not all is lost. There is one part of the environmental industry where
Britain is doing rather well: the traditional British (or Londonish)
activities of trading, lawyering and consulting. British firms advise
on green projects around the world, and the City hosts the world’s
largest active carbon-trading market, the European Carbon Exchange.
But with public hatred of bankers and finance still running strong,
these are the sorts of green jobs that politicians will probably want
to keep quiet about.

from Sierra Club -  Meet Michael Brune the incoming new Executive Director of The Sierra Club who is the author of “Coming Clean: Breaking America’s Addiction to Oil and Coal by Sierra Club Books.”

Last month, the Sierra Club announced that Michael Brune will be the next executive director of the organization. He’s been the leader of Rainforest Action Network for the past seven years, and you can read about his work there (and a good deal more) on our website.

Though he won’t officially start his new job until sometime next month, Michael’s already appeared on CNN’s Mad Money to talk about clean energy and the Sierra Club’s campaign to stop the Coal Rush. It’s an issue he knows well, as his relationship with the Club actually goes back a couple of years to the publication of his book Coming Clean: Breaking America’s Addiction to Oil and Coal by Sierra Club Books.

You can leave a message for Michael at the “Welcome Michael Brune” group on Climate Crossroads. And, for the next week, Insider readers who want to check out Coming Clean can purchase it from the Sierra Club store at a 30 percent discount by using the code CLEAN2010.

==================================

From Kim Coetze

You are invited to apply to attend the conference: “PUTTING A PRICE ON CARBON: Economic instruments to mitigate climate change in South Africa and other developing countries” to be held at the University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa on 23 and 24 March 2010.

The objectives of this conference are to:
* Build on discussions undertaken at a side-event and a workshop at the Climate Change Summit 2009
* Contribute to the development of climate policy in South Africa, by further exploring practical options for putting a price on carbon,
* Deepen the understanding of economic instruments, through a conference with peer-reviewed papers,
* Broaden the community of experts working in this emerging field, by having attracted papers from researchers and analysts in cognate disciplines that are not currently working on carbon pricing
* including economics and environmental economics, but also
* researchers working on institutional and political dimensions
* Draw on experiences and lessons from other countries, in particular
* other developing countries in their exploration of the same issues in similar contexts, and
* experiences of implementation in developed countries examining the applicability in the context of development.

Further details can be found on the conference website – a link to which is on the ERC website http://www.erc.uct.ac.za. Or direct queries to Meagan Jooste at  erc-climatechange at uct.ac.za.
Participation is free, but no costs will be covered.

Regards,
Kim Coetzee
Energy Research Centre
University of Cape Town

WIND ENERGY IS MAKING STRIDES – THE BRUSSELS EUROPEAN OFFICE OF GWEC WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION AT A MEETING ON FEBRUARY 3, 2010.

from:   angelika.pullen at gwec.net.

GWEC | 63-65 Rue d’Arlon | Brussels | 1040 | Belgium
Canadian Government revenues from wind farms more than offset federal financial incentive, GE study estimates

Date: 28 / 01 / 2010
OTTAWA, Canada, Jan. 14, 2010 – GE Energy Financial Services, a unit of GE (NYSE: GE), unveiled today a study estimating that renewing a Canadian federal financial incentive that has now allocated virtually all of its funding for wind energy projects would more than pay for itself through tax revenues from the projects’ income, vendors’ profits and individual workers’ wages. The study estimated that injecting an additional $1.5 billion CDN into Canada’s ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program could spawn 5.2 gigawatts of new wind projects and carry a net present value benefit to Canada’s governments of $287 million CDN.

[more]

U.S. Wind Energy Industry Breaks all Records, Installs Nearly 10,000 MW in 2009

Date: 28 / 01 / 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. wind industry broke all previous records by installing nearly 10,000 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity in 2009 (enough to serve over 2.4 million homes), but still lags in manufacturing, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said today in its Q4 report.
[more]

Renewables Interactive Map published by REN21

Date: 20 / 01 / 2010
Paris, 6 January 2010: The Renewable Energy Policy Network REN21 today launched its Renewables Interactive Map (beta-version). The Map contains a wealth of information on renewable energy, including support policies, expansion targets, current shares, installed capacity, current production, future scenarios, and policy pledges.

[more]

European offshore wind power market grew 54% in 2009

Date: 19 / 01 / 2010
In 2009, a total of eight new wind farms consisting of 199 offshore wind turbines, with a combined power generating capacity of 577 MW, were connected to the grid in Europe. This represents a growth rate of 54% compared to the 373 MW installed during 2008. For 2010, the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) expects the completion of 10 additional European offshore wind farms, adding 1,000 MW and equivalent to market growth of 75% compared to 2009.
[more]

European offshore wind power set to increase tenfold

Date: 08 / 01 / 2010
The development of a new European industry – offshore wind power – took an important step forward today with the announcement by the British government of the go-ahead for offshore wind farm development areas with a capacity ten times greater than Europe’s existing European offshore wind energy capacity.
[more]

Zero Carbon Caravan newsletter #4

Chris Keene , January 29, 2010.
The Zero Carbon Caravan finally made it to Copenhagen – see the blog zerocarboncaravan.blogspot.com (although it isn’t quite complete yet – we still have some audio recordings of meetings to upload).

You can follow Zero Carbon on Twitter http://twitter.com/0co2caravan

We got quite a bit of media coverage, they say  – three TV interviews and four on radio, mentions in the Times, Independent, Guardian and Telegraph and dozens of local newspapers, and lots of coverage on the internet.

We visited lots of interesting places showing solutions to climate change – in transport, energy, buildings, lifestyle and food production, as well as interviewing lots of people and visiting some really inspiring places demonstrating such ideas to the public.

We had four zero carbon concerts – two acoustic, one using solar electricity, and the other using electricity generated by a bicycle, and we held an international telephone conference at the University of East Anglia, as well as numerous public meetings.

In Copenhagen, the information collected on the journey was put onto datasticks and presented to two parliamentarians, Colin Challen, the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group in the UK, and Ingrid Nestle, the spokesperson on energy economics for the Greens in the German Parliament.

Unfortunately we failed in our objective – to get a good deal in the Copenhagen climate summit. But all is not lost. The Kyoto Protocol doesn’t end until the end of 2012, and there is a chance to influence the negotiators before the next COP (Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol) in Mexico starting in late November this year.

AND THIS TIME WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE SUCCEED in replacing the Kyoto Protocol with a new treaty which is adequate to the challenge of avoiding runaway climate change (like the situation at the end of the last ice age, when temperatures suddenly shot up 5C in 20 years – contrast that with the global warming we have had so far – less than 1C, which has already led to massive instability of the climate) and which is also fair.

So we’ve come  up with an idea which should get more attention than the caravan – a zero carbon world concert for a zero carbon world, some time in autumn 2010. Below are a few ideas we’ve had about how to organise it.  Tell us what you think of them – they are by no means set in stone yet, and it would be nice to get some more input into our plans.

The concert would be run over a 24 hour period, moving around the world as the day progresses (starting New Zealand, finishing Alaska?). All musicians would use only renewable electricity, and we could have a variety of different kinds, solar power, wind power, bicycle power etc, so it would be an opportunity for the different suppliers of green energy to showcase their products.

We would also use renewable electricity to put the concerts on the internet (there are internet service providers who use renewable electricity), so it would be a world concert, which would reinforce the idea of international solidarity, and the fact that global warming is a global problem which needs a global solution.

It would be nice to have 350 of something (different bands, or musicians, or, if we are able to manage it, different venues) to bring the public’s attention to the 350 ppm CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere, which is the maximum safe level <http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf>. I believe it would be useful to have some celebrities involved, in order to get maximum attention (though when I spoke to Bill McKibben of <http://www.350.org> in Copenhagen he said they didn’t work with celebrities).

Any celebrities participating would need to be very green in their lifestyles in order to avoid the accusations of hypocrisy levelled at the super rich celebrity rock stars with massive carbon footprints who took part in Live Earth, but we wouldn’t need many of them (assuming they each played for 2 hours it would just require 12 acts to cover the 24 hour day).  And I think needing to be super green could be useful to persuade people to take part – they would be seen to be the greenest musicians in the world, which would be very useful for their branding.

Getting the equipment to the venue in a zero carbon way is likely to prove difficult. They could use biodiesel made from waste vegetable oil (though definitely not palm oil, or anything else especially grown for fuel), though the trouble with this is there is not nearly enough for everyone to adopt this alternative to oil.  The truly progressive way forward for transport is to use electricity (see www.zerocarbonbritain.com), but as far as I know there are very few electric vehicles capable of carrying large loads (though I did investigate one, the cargo hopper in Utrecht, http://www.cargohopper.com/ on my zero carbon journey cycling and sailing to Copenhagen).

Finally,  watching the concert on the internet has to be done in a zero carbon way, and this is very easy to do – simply switch to a renewable electricity provider (it’s simple in Britain, though I’m not sure of the situation elsewhere).  In my view the best is Good Energy <http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/> but there are a number out there. Let me know what you think of the others.

ANY THOUGHTS, COMMENTS ON THE IDEAS ABOVE, CONTACTS (WITH MUSICIANS, ORGANISERS, RENEWABLE ENERGY SUPPLIERS ETC) OR ADVICE ON THE CONCERT WOULD BE VERY WELCOME

Please email me at  chris.keene at tiscali.co.uk or phone 0044 (0) 1603 614535 or 0044 (0) 7801 250982

Chris Keene
Coordinator, Zero Carbon Caravan <zerocarboncaravan.net>

Committed to Sustainability
The 2010 Green California Summit

Dear Colleagues:

The GreenMoney Journal thought you’d want to know about a chance to
get the inside scoop on the coming changes in policy and purchasing in
the nation’s largest green market – the Green California Summit,
coming to Sacramento from March 15-17, 2010

From legislating greenhouse gas reductions and providing models for
federal environmental programs to attracting green venture capital,
California has the policy climate and economic clout to set the pace
for a green economic resurgence – and to help new companies and
products gain a foothold.

Advisory Board Co-Chairs

Linda Adams
Secretary
California Environmental Protection Agency

Thomas L. Sheehy
Acting Secretary
California State and Consumer Services Agency

Summit at a Glance
Click Here

2010 Exhibitors List
Click Here

2009 Exhibitors List
Click Here

Education Program Overview
Click Here

Questions? Call 626.577.5700

Bright Green Light: the 2009 Green California Summit and Exposition

Sustaining the California Dream

Engines of Change

California’s Emerald Cities

Green Report Roundup

“Protecting our environment is one of my administration’s top
priorities, and I know that the steps being taken at this conference
will help us succeed in our efforts.”California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger

State and local governments in California have long set the standard
for public sector sustainability programs.

The annual Green California Summit has become an essential resource to
support their efforts to meet the challenges of managing energy and
water resources, and to create clean and sustainable communities
throughout the state.

From stimulus funds to clean tech investment, California remains
central to the nation’s hopes for a greener future.

If you want to stay up to date on the policy innovations,
technologies, strategies and best practices that are keeping the
Golden State on the cutting edge of the green revolution, this is the
one event all year that you can’t miss!

Speakers

Tuesday, March 16
Keynote Speaker
Alec Loorz
Founder, Kids vs. Global Warming
Bio

Featured Speaker
Senator Fran Pavley
Bio

Wednesday, March 17
Keynote Speaker
F. Noel Perry
Bio

Keynote Speaker
David Roland-Holst
Bio

Event Sponsors

Champion Sponsors

Opening Keynote Sponsor

Advocate Sponsors

Cyber Café sponsor

Outreach Partners

News Alert: Bin Laden blasts U.S. for climate change
06:49 AM EST Friday, January 29, 2010
——————–

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has called in a new audiotape for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming. In the tape, aired in part on Al-Jazeera television Friday, bin Laden warns of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt

This information we picked up on a page of The Washington Post that includes a large advertisement from CHEVRON Oil Company:

“HUMAN ENERGY” “Every day Chevron invests $59 million in People. In ideas. In progress – Learn more”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901463.html?hpid=topnews

Bin Laden blasts US for climate change.

Includes also a photo from the FILE – “This is an undated photo of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden. Bin
Laden issued a new audio message claiming responsibility for the Christmas day bombing attempt in Detroit and vowed further attacks. (Anonymous – AP)

The Associated Press
Friday, January 29, 2010; 6:52 AM
CAIRO — Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called in a new audiotape for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming.

In the tape, aired in part on Al-Jazeera television Friday, bin Laden
warns of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop
it is to bring “the wheels of the American economy” to a halt.

He says the world should “stop consuming American products” and
“refrain from using the dollar,” according to a transcript on
Al-Jazeera’s Web site.

The new message, whose authenticity could not immediately be
confirmed, comes after a bin Laden tape released last week in which he
endorsed a failed attempt to blow up an American airliner on Christmas
Day.

—————-

UNFCCC should take notice of this when next time Saudi Arabia will claim to be paid US Dollars for the losses that it will incur when the world will finally decide to use less oil – their hidden treasure under the desert sand. Whatever we think of Bin Laden – we know that it is the US dollars paid for oil that fuelled both – the monarchy of The House of Saud and the Bin Laden family complaints that these dollars corrupted the purity of the faith as they see it. Now – that is why we post the piece also on our “cartoons” column – not really because of our disbelief in the Chevron statement or the actual content of what is attributed to Osama.

We are afraid that some narrow minded people might actually say that because Osama says that the US is to be blamed for Global Warming – it is obvious that Global Warming is a non-issue – and US CATO will thus bless on Bin Laden – so The Heartland Institute can put him up im its Gallery of Fame. Crazy – I told you so.

Venture Capitalist Bullish On Green Startups.

Poornima Gupta, January 29, 2010.
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. recession and slow global economy have created big opportunities for investments in promising green startups, an area that at one time had lofty valuations, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Steve Westly said.

Westly, a former California state controller and eBay Inc executive, said he is seeing some “great quality of deals.”

“Two years ago when we were investing, there was huge competition and people had bid the market higher,” Westly said in an interview this week. “Because of the recession, we think entrepreneurs’ expectations have moved back to reality.”

He said: “It’s a terrible time to raise money, but we think this is a great buying opportunity.”

Westly, founder of Menlo Park, California-based Westly Group, is currently in the process of assessing business plans of green startups.

Westly Group closed its second fund, exceeding $127 million, in December and has already invested about half of that money in diverse green technology companies, including light emitting diode (LED) fixtures startup Lunera, solar cell maker Solexel and smart grid company Eka Systems.

The fund’s investors include pension funds, strategic investors and high net worth families, with the principles committing over 20 percent of the capital of the fund.

Westly is especially excited about the potential of California startup Lunera, which makes ultra-thin LED lighting units for offices.

The commercial market for LED lights is huge, he said, adding that Lunera is growing rapidly.

Looking forward, Westly said he expects many more investors to come into the green space in 2010.

Green technology “is not a bubble and is not going away,” he said. “It has the potential to become one of the largest sectors.”

“The only thing that held the industry back is a lack of IPOs,” he added.

After a first round of initial public offerings, mainly by solar companies, in 2006 and 2007, the market for green IPOs has been slow.

The financial market turmoil following the collapse of Lehman Bros. in the latter half of 2008 virtually shut down the IPO market.

The appetite for IPOs has picked up since mid-September this year and the sector saw the successful debut of lithium- ion battery maker A123 Systems Inc.

Already a few green technology companies have filed registration statements for IPOs, including solar firm Solyndra Inc and biofuel firm Codexis Inc.

Westly says some widely expected high-profile green IPOs, such as Silver Spring Networks, would ignite the market this year.

He also expects a lot of activity in the electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle sector, including lithium-ion batteries.

And: “The area I am most intrigued with is green building materials,” he said. “It’s not very sexy and is a blue-collar space that most people overlook.”

Silicon Valley is finding high-tech ways to make age-old materials, such as energy-efficient ways to make concrete, windows that insulate better than walls, and wood substitutes.

Although the field is new, the green building materials sector is gaining attention and growing fast.

Some surveys and studies estimate that the green building materials market is expected to reach as high as $500 billion in the next decade.

“The dollar amounts are huge and the opportunity is great,” Westly said.

Pictures from a walking tour of Masdar City
January 17, 2010 – by Dallas Kachan, Cleantech Group

The best-marketed eco city in the world is rising from the Abu Dhabi desert. Cleantech Group got a tour today. See the city’s progress to date in this photo essay.  Gil Friend has called it “a playground for the rich.”

Yet he and others also anticipate it becoming an essential center of innovation and commercial proving ground to help accelerate clean technologies in other cities around the planet.

Whatever it ultimately ends up as, Masdar City—an ambitious vision of the future that the Abu Dhabi government is almost solely bankrolling with tens of billions in petroleum money—is becoming more than just a vision.

Its modest first phase is a portion of its Masdar Institute that’s due to start accepting students later this year as the academic year begins. Its initial handful of buildings is now looking surprisingly simliar to artist renderings.

Yet it’s clear, as you’ll see, much needs to be done in the next critical months.

The city could be a work in progress for many years. It’s far from the grand scale laid out in its glossy brochure. The vast majority of the site is still open desert, waiting for decisions, materials and additional partners.

Cleantech Group Executive Editor Dallas Kachan was among a handful of international journalists shown through the facility today. Come along on this series of photos as he walks you through Masdar City as it currently stands.

To see the photos – please go to: http://cleantech.com/news/5505/masdar-city-pictures
——————-

Our comment – please do not build the future on Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) – this just does not hold great promise in the real world.

Among the dreamers at the Abu Dhabi meeting:

Is carbon capture and storage (CCS) about to break out?

Cited repeatedly at the World Future Energy Summit this week in Abu Dhabi (see Heads of state slam COP15, celebrate cleantech) and featured today in a day of CCS-related content at the conference, the set of technologies could find its time is soon to arrive.

While marginalized to date because of high costs and technology fine tuning, speakers pointed to the maturation of CCS and many successful pilot facilities around the world. And they set the expectation that the industry is now ready to see production facilities built in large numbers.

There are two general types of CCS: the capture of carbon associated with power generation—in particular with the burning of coal and natural gas—and the capture of carbon associated with industry.

Leading approaches include pre-combustion gasification, and post-combustion using liquid amine (ammonia-like) solvents, as well as emerging oxyfuel-based processes.

Generally, in each case, CO2 is captured and either routed into pipelines or storage vessels, where it’s sold to offtakers, pumped underground to aid in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), otherwise pumped underground for permanent sequestration or turned into other materials.

Milton Catelin, CEO of the World Coal Institute, showed data illustrating 24 coal sequestration projects either in construction or operational around the world, with another 23 planned. Many other natural gas carbon capture projects are also in the works.

BP, Statoil, HTC Purenergy, Masdar, Shell and others told delegates repeatedly that the technology was now ready for large scale deployment. They acknowledged the expense of CCS ($1B per plant was a working figure cited by several), but maintained the price would drop over time, while the price of carbon would only increase over time.

“The sooner we get going with widespread implementations and policy support, the sooner costs will fall,” said Gardiner Hill, Director of CCS technology for BP.

He and many other speakers also underscored the need for stable, long term government commitment.

“It must be enduring so that financial players have the confidence to get involved,” he said.

“We need to determine what the incentives will look like and what the regulations are [now, in 2010] if we’re to get new plants built by 2015 so as to have a meaningful effect in fighting temperate increase.”

In its Energy Technology Perspectives report in 2008, the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggested up to 19 percent of the carbon reduction required to fight global climate change would need to come from CCS. The same report only saw 21 percent of the carbon savings needed from renewable power generation.

That’s had the CCS community feeling like poor second cousins to wind and solar, which have gotten all the project capital of late. But their day may have finally arrived, speakers suggested, now that CCS technology is ready.

“It’s a political negotiation, it’s not a rational one,” according to Jim Carter, Chair of the Alberta Carbon Capture & Storage Development Council. “If we wait [for policy], it’ll be too late for CCS to have a significant role in fighting climate change.”

Other challenges pointed to by speakers included forming initial collaborations, achieving commercial scale, building capacity, project financing and public support—especially with respect to safety concerns.

For instance, critics of CCS have worried about leakage from underground sequestration reservoirs.

“We’ve been sequestering 2 million tonnes a year for 10 years now, with no problems,” said Paitoon Tontiwachwuthikul, Dean and Professor of Engineering at the University of Regina in Canada, a leading research institute in CCS.

Tontiwachwuthikul said carbon dioxide turns solids once pumped deep underground. He also dismissed criticisms of high water use in CCS, pointing out that CCS towers can be air cooled, run at high temperatures with no adverse affect or even be cooled with seawater if necessary.

William J. Antholis of The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, comes to the UN Headquarters to Discuss “Climate Change: Between Trust and Trade” – hosted Friday, January 29, 2010 by UNU-NYO and open to all.

January 29, 2010 – from The UN University – New York Office:

“Climate Change: Between Trust and Trade” with Dr. William Antholis, Managing Director of Brookings Institution.

Date: Friday, January 29, 2010
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Venue: Conference Room D, Temporary North Lawn Building, UN Headquarters, First Avenue, New York City.

Speaker Profiles: William J. Antholis, Managing Director, Brookings Institution.

Moderator Profile: Jean-Marc Coicaud, Director, UNU-ONY

————————

Please contact:
Nika Naiyi ZHU
Junior Professional Fellow
United Nations University
Office at the UN, New York
2 UN Plaza, DC2-2060
New York, NY 10017
tel: 212-963-6387
fax: 212-371-2144
email:  unu.edu
web: ony.unu.edu

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), based in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi, had to invite Israel for its January 2010 meeting as per a commitment to be open to all, but Israeli Minister Uzi Landau had no meetings with UAE officials as per www.albawaba.com

 http://www.albawaba.com/en/news/259483

Israeli minister attends international conference in Abu Dhabi.

Posted: 17-01-2010 , 13:33 GMT

Israel for the first time sent a Cabinet minister to the United Arab Emirates, with which it does not have relations, to attend a conference on alternative energy. National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau told The Associated Press on Sunday he did not meet with any Emirati officials while attending a conference of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), based in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi.

Landau conveyed the Israeli delegation entered the Arab country after “special arrangements” were made. “They had to do it since they committed themselves to making it possible for all member states, with or without relations, to participate in the agency’s activities,” Landau said while in Abu Dhabi.

An official with the UAE’s Foreign Ministry told The Associated Press that allowing Israel Cabinet minister to participate in the agency’s activities was “part of obligations in hosting (the agency) in the UAE.” He added, that Israel’s participation in the international event in Abu Dhabi will have “no implications or indications for bilateral links between the UAE and any other party.”

————–

From Israel the HAARETZ paper provides further enlightenment to the story.
 https://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143160…

IRENA is the first ever international organization based in the UAE.

IRENA was established a year ago with a mission to promote sustainable use of al forms of renewable energy. In June, Abu Dhabi was selected as the agency’s headquarters.

Last year the UAE denied entry to Israeli tennis player Shahar Peer to an international tournament in Dubai. The UAE officials said Peer was denied a visa because of anti-Israel sentiments in the Gulf state following last year’s three-week war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

The tournament was fined a record $300,000 for refusing Peer the entry. Last week the UAE authorities sent a written assurance to the World Tennis Association that all players who will qualify for the 2010 championships will be allowed into the country and welcome to play in Dubai.

On Sunday, an official with the UAE’s Foreign Ministry told The Associated Press that “allowing an Israeli cabinet minister to participate in the agency’s activities was part of obligations in hosting (the agency) in the UAE.”

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the press. He added, that Israel’s participation in the international event in the oil-rich Abu Dhabi will have no implications or indications for bilateral links between the UAE and any other party.

Israel only has diplomatic relations with two Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan.

Last year, Mauritania and Qatar suspended contacts with Israel to protest the Gaza bloodshed. Mauritania, an Arab League member, had full diplomatic relations with Israel. Qatar, an energy-rich Gulf state had maintained low-level relations with the Jewish state by hosting an Israeli trade office in the capital Doha since 1996.

From: James Hansen

An essay (The People vs. Cap-and-Tax), delivered to the Chairperson of the Carbon Trading Summit in New York on 12 January 2010, is available at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2…

The People vs. Cap?and?Tax.

The public is largely unaware of a momentous battle about to be fought in Washington.  The
stakes are enormous.  Yet the public has not been well informed.

Ignorance of the matter derives in part from the fact that the conflict was initiated via the
highly charged issue of climate change.  Climate is complex.  People have different opinions
about the extent to which humans are causing climate change.  Fundamental belief systems are
involved and discussion can be emotional.

Yet the core issue can be defined independent of climate.  It concerns how society can phase
out its addictive use of fossil fuels and move on, in the most economically efficient and
equitable way, to a clean energy future.  Conservatives, independents and liberals should be
united in this fight.

Washington could define a path that would lead the world toward a clean energy future. And,
incidentally, it would solve the climate problem – without requiring anyone to agree that there
even is a climate problem.

Yet Washington appears intent on choosing a path defined by corporate greed.  Unless the
public gets engaged, the present Administration may jam down the public’s throat just such an
approach, which, it can be shown, is not a solution at all.

The frustrating thing to me is my inability to communicate these alternatives to the public.  This
feeling is consuming, because I believe with all my mind and heart that the well?being of my
children and grandchildren (and yours) depends upon whether the public becomes informed
and interested.  So far, it isn’t.

I had an opportunity on a recent David Letterman Show  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiJJgC7B_…),
where I said that, for the sake of the people and the planet, the public must understand the
difference between “cap?and?trade” and “fee?and?dividend”.  Of course, I could not continue
with that topic there.  But it is the heart of the matter.  So how to proceed?

I decided to write an op?ed for the New York Times.  I got city?slickered by the editors, as I will
relate here.  Perhaps this story can help people understand – it is not necessary to be a
physicist or economist to understand the basic issues – it is mostly common sense.

My op?ed, which I submitted to the Times in early December, just prior to the UN climate
meeting in Copenhagen, excoriated “cap?and?trade?with?offsets”.  As I will explain, cap?and?
trade with offsets is the approach taken in the Waxman?Markey bill that narrowly passed the
House of Representatives last June and the Kerry?Boxer bill that is currently languishing in the
Senate.

The four legislators whose names adorn those bills have been stalwart environmentalists for
their entire long and honorable careers.  Yet cap?and?trade, which is ostensibly designed to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and preserve global climate, has been a proven loser in
Europe.  And the cap?and?trade bills, which also have the support of the White House and its
environmentalist allies, are even worse.

Cap?and?trade?with?offsets would benefit a handful of wealthy people, while consigning our
children to a downhill slide toward a lower standard of living – on a planet whose wondrous life
forms are being decimated.  So how can it be the basis of legislation being pushed by the
Democratic Administration in both the House and Senate?

Easy.  The proposed bills in Congress are loaded with goodies for special financial and corporate
interests.  These bills would cheat the American public – again.  Cap?and?trade was designed in
part by Wall Street, which is eager to exploit a trading market expected to grow to two trillion
dollars.  The revolving door between Washington and Wall Street helped bring the scheme
about.

My op?ed  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinio… is the published
version; http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2… is a
saltier version] proposed an alternative approach, fee?and?dividend, designed to benefit the
public rather than Wall Street.  A carbon fee would be collected from the fossil fuel companies
on the first sale of oil, gas and coal at the mine, wellhead or port of entry.  One hundred
percent of the collected fee would be given to the public monthly, deposited electronically in
people’s bank accounts or debit cards, an equal amount to each household.

I titled my op?ed “Sack Goldman Sachs’ Cap?and?Trade”. But editors can distort articles with
titles of their choosing – and I know the Times tends to favor mainstream environmentalist
ideology.  So I asked the editors if they would retain my title.  They refused to tell me.  For good
reason.  If I had known their plans, I would have withdrawn the op?ed.

Their published title: “Cap and Fade”.  Not one person has offered a sensible explanation of
that title.  Worse, the editors added a subtitle indicating that “fee?and?dividend” was a tax,
implying that cap?and?trade was not a tax.  This is a case of calling black white and white black.

Cap?and?trade is a hidden tax. An accurate name would be cap?and?tax, because cap?and?trade
increases the cost of energy for the public, as utilities and other industries purchase the right to
pollute with one hand, adding it to fuel prices, while with the other hand they take back most of
the permit revenues from the government.  Costs and profits of the trading infrastructure are
also added to the public’s energy bill.

Fee?and?dividend, in contrast, is a non?tax.  The fee collected at the first sale of oil, gas and coal
in the country does increase the price of fossil fuel energy.  But 100 percent of the fee is
distributed monthly to the public as electronic deposits to the bank account or debit card of all
legal residents, with half shares for children, up to two children per family.

The dividend keeps families whole while providing an economic stimulus to boot.  By the time
the fee reaches $115 per ton of carbon dioxide (equivalent to $1 per gallon of gasoline) the
dividend will be $2,000?$3,000 per legal resident per year ?? $6000?$9,000 for a family with two
or more children.

People who keep their carbon footprint smaller than average will make money.  The fee will
rise gradually so people have a chance to choose more efficient vehicles, insulate their homes,
and so on.  The dividend will help people afford these investments.  Jobs will be created as
society retools the economy from high?carbon to low.

Perhaps coincidentally, the Times published alongside my op?ed an article by their columnist
Paul Krugman  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinio…) extolling the
merits of cap?and?trade.  Krugman asserted that cap?and?trade provided the basis for a
successful international agreement at Copenhagen on climate.

This one?two punch, evisceration of my article via a nonsensical title and an opposing piece
 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12…) by Nobel Prize winning
Krugman, was not enough.  By the time readers were ready for their second cup of coffee, at
10:45 AM, an article “Unhelpful Hansen” appeared on Krugman’s heavily trafficked blog.

Krugman is one of my favorite columnists.  I am amazed at his productivity, and I agree with
most of his opinions.  I am not suggesting that he was given prior knowledge of my piece by
Times editors – I assume that he just works fast.  My hope is that he is open to persuasion.  Our
aims are similar, and this matter is so important that it deserves careful reanalysis.

I also think the public can distinguish the forest from the trees.  This topic is not rocket science.
It is mostly a matter of common sense.  And, contrary to Krugman’s insinuation, most
economists are in closer agreement with my perspective than with his.

First we must recognize one basic fact.  Then I will describe the three main issues on which
Krugman and I disagree.  Then you can make up your own mind.

Basic fact.  As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy their use will continue and
even increase.

Consider the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated at a prior UN climate meeting in 1997.
National emissions of signatory countries were capped at some agreed levels.  Nations evaded
these limits by purchasing “offsets” – putative but often illusory reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from developing countries.  Offsets destroy the effectiveness of the agreement,
because the scientific requirement for stabilizing climate is that the fossil fuel emissions are
phased down rapidly.  And some nations just ignored the limits, because there was no realistic
way to enforce them.  However, the fundamental problem was that “Kyoto” did not increase
the price of fossil fuels relative to non?carbon energies.

The handful of nations that claimed to have reduced their carbon emissions were joshing their
citizens and everybody else.  They were just pretending to be “green”.  Manufacture of
products based heavily on fossil fuels simply moved to developing countries, which had no cap.
Then the products were flown to the developed countries, while burning aircraft fuel that is
untaxed because of a 1940s agreement to support the fledgling airline industry.

Prior to “Kyoto” global fossil fuel emissions were increasing 11?2 percent per year.  Afterwards,
they increased 3 percent per year.  Kyoto may not have caused the increase (although shifting
production to developing countries, often by coal?fired inefficient industries, with shipping to
developed countries, did not help), but it certainly did not stop it.

Now let’s address the three main arguments of Krugman, common arguments wielded by
proponents of cap?and?trade.

Krugman Argument #1.   Cap?and?trade is the only way to get an effective agreement rapidly.
That is a myth.  In fact, every cap?and?trade regime has taken many years to hammer out.
Kyoto negotiations dragged on a decade and were not completed.  Individual countries had to
be bribed to participate, yet some still would not.  And the result was not successful, as we
have seen.

Proposed cap?and?trade within the United States would be even more complex than “Kyoto.”
The Waxman?Markey and Boxer?Kerry cap?and?trade bills in Congress are larded with 2,000
pages of give?aways to special interests, soaking the public who must pay higher energy prices.

Fee?and?dividend, in contrast, is defined by a single number: the fee (tax) rate that the fossil
fuel companies must hand over at the first sale of oil, gas or coal.  All the government must do
is divide this collected revenue by the number of legal residents and punch a button monthly to
deliver the dividend to the public.

What is the chance that a United States cap?and?trade law could be a precursor for a global
agreement?  Zero.  There is no chance that China will accept a cap.  Nor should they.  They are
still in the early phase of their economic development.

But would China be willing to place a carbon fee on their fossil fuels?  Yes, for many reasons.
First, China wants to avoid, or at least minimize, the problems of fossil fuel addiction that
plague the United States, such as the need for military protection of global supply lines.
Second, China would be hit hardest by climate change, with several hundred million people
living close to sea level and a still?enormous agrarian population.  Third, air and water pollution
from fossil fuels are a huge problem in China.

China is taking the right steps.  They are investing heavily in energy efficiency, renewable
energy, and nuclear power, threatening to take over technical and economic leadership as the
United States continues to dawdle.  The Chinese government knows that replacement of fossil
fuels with energy efficiency, renewable energies, and non?carbon energies requires a price
signal (in addition to other more?targeted policies and investments).

Compare the difficulty of negotiating national carbon fee (tax) rates with the difficulty of
convincing China that they should have Waxman?Markey?like cap?and?trade.  Because of our
historical energy profligacy, versus China’s energy penury, a U.S. cap — even expressed as a
percentage reduction — has no moral standing in China.  On the other hand, the Chinese
leadership appears to be smart enough to realize that a rising carbon price is just what their
country needs as the underpinning to policies aimed at a clean energy future.

International agreement requires principally that the United States and China agree to apply
such internal fees across the board on fossil fuels at the mine or port of entry.   Agreement on
such action is in the best interests of both nations, making it far easier to reach than
agreements on caps.

With the United States and China acting in concert on a carbon fee, Europe, Japan and other
nations would surely follow.  Import duties based on standard amounts of fossil fuels used in
production could be applied to products from countries that did not have a carbon fee,
removing any competitive disadvantage from the fee and providing strong incentive for
participation in the carbon fee.

Krugman Argument #2.  Cap?and?trade and fee?and?dividend are really equivalent.
Krugman says that the fee?and?dividend I propose is “essentially equivalent” to cap?and?trade.
Here I may not have been clear.  I do not dispute the economic theory that a cap and a fee are,
in principle, equivalent.  But cap?and?trade’s complexity allows special interests to take over,
killing its effectiveness.

The devil is in the implementations, as I discuss in my book “Storms of My Grandchildren”.  I
believe lay people can appreciate the differences.  Cap?and?trade’s complexity provides a
breeding ground for special interests.  A fee at the mine, wellhead or port of entry, with
distribution of proceeds to the public, has a great advantage in simplicity.  Let me note here its
superiority in transparency and fairness.

One can appreciate the difference in transparency by comparing the 2,000?page Waxman?
Markey cap?and?trade bill with the simplicity of a single fee (tax) rate on fossil fuels.  With fee?
and?dividend we know who gets the money – equal amounts to all legal residents.  But try
reading the Waxman?Markey 2,000?page bill to figure out who would get the money!  Why do
those special interests deserve it anyhow?

Regarding fairness, I should note that there is a variant of fee?and?dividend preferred by Al
Gore.  He would use the money collected by the fee to reduce payroll taxes, rather than give
U.S. residents a dividend.  It seems to me that a payroll tax deduction fails the fairness test,
because half of adults are not on payrolls, being either retired or out of work involuntarily.

However, some economists also prefer a payroll tax deduction.  Their argument is that reducing
taxes on employment creates jobs and stimulates the economy.  It seems to me that dividends
do the same, but I suppose that using half of the collected fee to reduce payroll taxes would be
an acceptable compromise.  However, it would be important to be certain that the payroll tax
deduction is real and matches the fee collection.  With a dividend it is easier to be sure that the
government is coughing up the full amount.

Krugman Argument #3.  Wall Street will not be involved in carbon trading
Krugman says that my suggestion that carbon trading will be an open invitation to Wall Street
to again pillage the financial system “is bizarre.”  What is bizarre, in my opinion, is his implicit
presumption that government regulators can outwit Wall Street executives.

Congress can write a cap?and?trade bill that tries to exclude Wall Street.  But to think that Wall
Street will not get involved in carbon profits, directly or indirectly, is naïve.  This is a free
country.  Wall Street banks can buy the companies most affected by carbon price.

Notice what happened after we bailed out the big banks?  They decided the chump?change in
loans to home?owners wasn’t worth their trouble.  Instead they went to trading – in the stock
market – making billions.  Their secretive trading units are good – very good – there is a reason
that they get big bonuses.

Wall Street and the big banks took us to the cleaners once – shame on them.  If we allow
Congress to pass cap?and?trade, letting the banks do it to us again – shame on us.

Trading schemes make sense only when they provide added value.  Carbon trading provides
mostly added cost.  What we need is a transparent, honest approach that benefits the public.

The Fundamental Requirement
We can cure our fossil fuel addiction and in the process reduce emissions that cause climate
change.  It requires that we take actions for the public interest, not for special interests.

What we need is an approach that addresses the fundamental fact that keeps us addicted to
fossil fuels: they are the cheapest form of energy, provided their prices do not have to include
the damage they do to human health, the environment, and the future of our children.

For the sake of the people, especially young people, there should be a rising price on carbon
emissions.  The price should rise at a known economically sensible rate, so that businesses have
time to plan their investments accordingly.  The money collected should be put in the hands of
the public, so they are able to make the purchases necessary to reduce their carbon footprint.

The money collected should not be used by Congress to invest in energy R&D.  It has been
shown time and again that Congress does not invest efficiently, and certainly not compared to
the private sector.  Private sector investments will be made if a rising price of carbon emissions
is legislated through a carbon fee that makes the rising price explicit.  The government already
has resources to support research – it should not steal fee?and?dividend money from the public.

Contrary to claims of mainstream environmental groups and others politically invested in cap?
and?trade, the legislative train has not left the station.  There is time to negotiate and pass a
simple transparent bill that is in the interest of the public.  It should be a bi?partisan bill that can
be supported by conservatives.

Congress is accustomed to working with special interests.  There is a revolving door between
Congress and lobbyists.  Ex?members know the Washington ropes.  The lobbyists wrote most of
the pages in the 2,000?page bills in Congress.

We, the public, cannot allow politics?as?usual to steamroll this topic.  It is too important for the
health of our economy, our children, and the other life on the planet.  Fortunately, there are
members of Congress who are beginning to understand the problem and move in the direction
to address it.

Congressman Larson’s bill, with a rising carbon fee, addresses half of the task.  The rate at
which the fee rises in this bill is perhaps too slow, but the important point is to provide the
business community and the public some certainty that carbon prices will rise so they can make
decisions and investments accordingly.

Senator Cantwell’s cap?and?dividend bill also addresses half of the solution – distributing 100
percent of the proceeds to the public as a dividend.  However, it is just as important to dispense
with the “cap” approach, still present in the Cantwell bill, as it is with the “trade” aspect.

A cap is more complex than a fee (dollars per ton of CO2, applied uniformly at the source), so a
cap is more subject to jerry?rigging by special interests.  But the fundamental reasons to remain
dead?set against the cap approach are these:

(1) Caps inherently cause prices to fluctuate wildly.  Even if legislators attempt to outsmart the
market by building in limits on the fluctuations, there is still uncertainty in the impact on energy
prices.  Business people need to have confidence about how prices will change in the future.
Ditto, the public. If they expect prices to be fluctuating they are not as likely to make the
lifestyle decisions that are needed to move us toward the cleaner future beyond fossil fuels.

(2) A cap?and?dividend approach is not a route to a global agreement.  There is no way that
developing countries such as China can accept a cap, given their state of development.  The
United States should be a global leader.  The way to do that is to demonstrate an
understanding of the global problem and provide a leadership example in solving it.

Postscript:
One of the economists I consult with suggested alternative ways to address Krugman’s
arguments.  These suggestions are so extensive that I cannot incorporate them as if they were
my own – but they provide additional insight.  So I edited them a bit and put on my web site at
 http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2… This discussion
refers to two of arguments listed above, and to an addition argument (Cap?and?trade worked
for acid rain, so it will work for climate change).

Letter
The letter delivered to the chairperson of the Carbon Trading Summit is at
  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Copenhagen COP15, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, Obama Styling, Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Real World's News, Reporting from Washington DC, The US States

Discuss this article

When you go to www.SustainabiliTank.info and type in to the search function the word “Hydrogen” you get many postings  – starting from December 2003 – about the time we started this website. There was always talk about this perfect fuel – the kind of fuel that when it burns emits only water vapors, turning into  a good answer to our energy needs. From time to time we had also some practical ideas to report.

2010 started for us with a strange combination of invitations involving Hydrogen. Some may think that the following posting is
frivolous – but to us it seems rather the essence of what its all about – the strange combination of culture and technology – this
because we strongly believe that if technology does not come to serve cultural and social needs – then really who needs it. This belief allows us to exist in this miserable world where we are led to witness how Wall Street misleads the White House leaving us, this country, and the world at large, in that corner that forces us to shed our pants for security inspection so that the financial institutions’ managers can rake in those huge bonuses paid out by the poor suckers.

There really was nobody better then poet and philosopher Allen Ginsberg to see this with clarity, even if he had to get high in order to have the courage to face this vision. We always had high esteem for him, even though we are rather square and conventional, but open enough to have recognized his value.

See his poem AMERICA and tell us who else saw already in 1965 the mere
corner in which the US was put by its financial and political leadership?

I reread now AMERICA (Berkeley, 1956) and it has something terrific – prophetic:

“Asia is rising against me.
I haven’t got a chinaman’s chance.
I’d better consider my national resources.”

NOW – HE SAID NATIONAL RESOURCES – TRUST ME THIS DOES NOT MEAN OIL FROM ASIA!
You know, already in 1959, still years before my interest in the
environment, I spent four months in Spain researching what a country,
that did not want to be dependent on imported oil, was doing with its
oil shales resource.

But you will think I am crazy – Allen Ginsberg in 1956 did not talk
oil shales – he actually was talking hydrogen! He was no scientist
attempting to get a grant! He just was a visionary with the right visions!

In one of his most famous writings – in “Howl” (San Francisco
1955-1956) I found in part II -

“Moloch whose love is endless oil and stone!
Moloch whose sole is electricity and banks!
Moloch whose poverty is the specter of genius!
Moloch whose fate is a cloud of SEXLESS HYDROGEN!”

The way I understand the sexless hydrogen – is sort of a mere and
common – not exciting as such – but very useful and does not need the
Moloch or Wall Street love for oil and stone – those natural
resources we buy from overseas.

We also see that banks rule over the the conventional electricity -
who knows – maybe of nuclear provenance. Genius is rather in poverty
and sustainability. Can you accept this?

HOWL For Carl Solomon by Allen Ginsberg -
 http://cda.mrs.umn.edu/~beaversg/ginsber…

—————

Further, there is the Philip Glass opera with Allen Ginsberg libretto
- HYDROGEN JUKEBOX – the term came from HOWL – and evolved. Allen
Ginsberg further coined those words when saying -   “…who sank all
night in submarine light of Bickford’s floated out and sat through the
stale beer after noon in desolate Fugazzi’s, listening to the crack of
doom on the hydrogen jukebox.”

Does that mean that later hydrogen and electricity fused to the same
term in Ginsberg’s mind?
Had he also allusions to the Hydrogen bomb? So far as I can judge his
real grudge was with the
nuclear bombs that were let go over Hiroshima and Nagasaki – rather
then the later Hydrogen bomb.
The Philip Glass Opera was written starting 1988 and first performed
in 1990. The published version is of 1993.

 http://www.glasspages.org/hydrogen.html

the last songs are:

Song #11 from THE GREEN AUTOMOBILE
(Vocal ensemble)
Song #12 from N. S. A. DOPE CALYPSO
(Vocal ensemble)
Song #13 from NAGASAKI DAYS (EVERYBODY’S FANTASY)
(Vocal ensemble)
Song #14 AYERS ROCK/ULURU SONG and “THROW OUT THE YELLOW JOURNALISTS…”
(Vocal ensemble, Futral, Fracker, Hart, Watson, Ginsberg)
Song #15 FATHER DEATH BLUES (from DON’T GROW OLD)
(Vocal ensemble)

Of the project, Glass said:
“In 1988…I happened to run into Allen Ginsberg at St. Mark’s
bookshop in New York and asked him if he would perform with me. We
were in the poetry section, and he grabbed a book from the shelf and
pointed out Wichita Vortex Sutra. The poem, written in 1966 and
reflecting the anti-war mood of the times, seemed highly appropriate
for the occasion. I composed a piano piece to accompany Allen’s
reading, which took place at the Schubert Theater on Broadway.
“Allen and I so thoroughly enjoyed the collaboration that we soon
began talking about expanding our performance into an evening-length
music-theater work. It was right after the 1988 presidential election,
and neither Bush nor Dukakis seemed to talk about anything that was
going on. I remember saying to Allen, if these guys aren’t going to
talk about the issues then we should.”

The piece was intended to form a portrait of America covering the
1950s through the late 1980s. Glass and Ginsberg sought to incorporate
the personal poems of Ginsberg, reflecting on social issues: the
anti-war movement, the sexual revolution, drugs, eastern philosophy,
environmental issues. The six vocal parts were thought to represent
six archetypal American characters- a waitress, a policeman, a
businessman, a cheerleader, a priest, and a mechanic.

Ginsberg said:
“Ultimately, the motif of Hydrogen Jukebox, the underpinning, the
secret message, secret activity, is to relieve human suffering by
communicating some kind of enlightened awareness of various themes,
topics, obsessions, neuroses, difficulties, problems, perplexities
that we encounter as we end the millennium.

“The title Hydrogen Jukebox comes from a verse in the poem Howl:
‘…listening to the crack of doom on the hydrogen jukebox…’ It
signifies a state of hypertrophic high-tech, a psychological state in
which people are at the limit of their sensory input with
civilization’s military jukebox, a loud industrial roar, or a music
that begins to shake the bones and penetrate the nervous system as a
hydrogen bomb may do someday, reminder of apocalypse.”

The work premiered May 26, 1990 at the Spoleto Music Festival in
Charleston, SC. The concert version had premiered one month earlier at
the American Music Theater Festival Philadelphia, PA on April 29.
The Australasian premiere was given on April 17 2003 at the Mount
Nelson Theatre (Hobart, Tasmania) by the Tasmanian Conservatorium of

———

With above introduction in mind, let’s see the two invitations I
received – these to such seemingly different events – and which I
dutifully posted on the web January 5th:

The Hydrogen Battery to be presented January 8, 2010, breakfast, at
Dickstein Shapiro LLP on Broadway Avenue – New York City.
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
Posted in Future Meetings, Futurism, New York, Obama Styling,
Reporting from Washington DC |

http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01/05/the-hydrogen-battery-to-be-presented-january-8-2010-breakfast-at-dickstein-shapiro-llp-on-broadway-avenue-new-york-city/

and

Hydrogen must be in fashion and coming up – see also – HYDROGEN
JUKEBOX COMES TO CORNELIA ST. CAFE TONIGHT FOR 2010!
Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
Posted in Art Performance reviews |

http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/01/05/hydrogen-must-be-in-fashion-and-coming-up-see-also-hydrogen-jukebox-comes-to-cornelia-st-cafe-tonight-for-2010/

Instinctively I made the connection between the two and HYDROGEN BECAME MY HERO.

———

The concert was first, so I will start with the larger horizons.

As I was told by by poet-composer Brant Lyon the curator of the series
- HYDROGEN JUKEBOX is a monthly reading series in New York City where
poets and musicians come together onstage to catalyze the spoken word
with improvisational music in ways that makes poetry explode on the
tongue!

Its inspiration (and moniker) are taken from the late great Beat poet
Allen Ginsberg’s 1956 epic poem, Howl, whose vision of America,
“…listening to the crack of doom on the hydrogen jukebox…”, warned
of society’s psycho-techno-militaristic sensory overload about to
detonate the apocalypse.

This year  HYDROGEN JUKEBOX moved to  The Cornelia Street Cafe, 29
Cornelia St. NYC in the Village, close to Sheridan Square, a place
rich in its own history. Previously, Hydrogen Jukebox was located at
the SOHO Playhouse.

————–

Tuesday, January 05, 2010    6:00PM  -  HYDROGEN JUKEBOX.
Brant Lyon, host with DAVID AVENDANO;  MOIRA T. SMITH

HYDROGEN JUKEBOX comes to Cornelia Street !!!
Popular Poetry-Music Reading Series comes to Cornelia in 2010!

January 5, 2010, kicking off the first season at the new location,
wher featured poets, David Avendano and Moira T. Smith, jamming with
the Hydro Juke improv band, The Ne’er-do-wells, and there was also an
“Open mic-sign up.”

As advertised:

“David Avendano, from Mexico City, started writing poetry at 11 years
of age, when a tsunami of feelings brought irreversible change to his
life, the use of words giving light to his nascent soul made easier to
feel, su aliento, la voz gritan al mundo mil palabras y demas,
utilizando letras con sentido, dejenos en paz…

Moira T. Smith is a poet/singer-songwriter/artist who grew up
listening to her father’s inspired collection of 78s: blues, jazz and
traditional music of the 1920’s and ’30’s. She is, despite this, a
thoroughly modern girl on a mission to wholeheartedly embody the
fullness of her mythos–and do it in a cool-ass pair of boots, as she
flashes her darkly glittering musical gems and preaches the Victrola
blues in a ring-tone world gone screwy.”

BRANT LYON seems to be into – “Beauty Keeps Laying its Sharp KnifeAgainst Me”

as POEMusic – producing a a highly eclectic collection of contemporary
poets/spoken word artists integrating a wide range of musical genres
from hard-driving R&B / funk to ambient / soundscape.
He says that “When I think of these words by the great Sufi
mystic-poet, Hafiz, I am reminded that he also said Beauty itself
wields a sharp knife. It ever pierces through unreality to one’s core.
Everything in this world is helplessly reeling, he declared, stay
close to those sounds that make you glad you are alive. I hope the
voices and beautifully incisive visioning of the poets gathered here
at least makes you glad you listened. They speak truth and beauty, and
I think you’ll find the love that underlies that shines through, too.”

I told him that what brings me there is the effort to make bigger
connections and that I am after such issues as international energy
policy and global climate change. Lyon surprised me by actually
showing that he understood my search and that he was well aware of the
latest news about Copenhagen – I would say much more then members of
US Congress seem to be.

————–

The NY Funders Breakfast Hydrogen event announcement arrived before the New Year, and seemed a very good idea to start the year with. The actual breakfast was only Friday January 8th, and by the time you will get through reading this – if you are still at it – the surprise I will bring upon you, will be that the technology as presented is an excellent idea and if repackaged, so that hydrogen becomes subservient to the real issue, which is electricity, it could indeed be turned into a slum-dunk by the right people. Thanks Allen for the enlightenment that comes from you!

———–

From: Gelvin Stevenson, Ph.D.
Program Director, Center for Economic and Environmental Partnership, Inc.

Welcome to 2010,

We will kick off the new year with a hydrogen company.
Even though hydrogen is off the front pages and out of favor at the
Department of Energy, it is still a clean, efficient fuel.

The Hydrogen Battery, which we will hear about on January 8, produces
hydrogen fuel and heat on-site and on-demand through a safe chemical
reaction, eliminating the cost of transporting and storing the
combustible fuel. The technology captures and stores the electrical
power used in the production of aluminum (and therefore embodied in
the aluminum) and allows it to be released in the form of hydrogen,
when the aluminum is combined with certain industrial chemicals. The
technology stores the electricity until needed (decades if need be) in
a completely secure manner with absolutely no environmental risks. The
stored energy may be safely and widely transported (no special
handling – temperature, pressurization, etc.) and expended at a future
time and place through the creation of hydrogen, be it in a fixed or
mobile application, i.e. at a power plant or a fueling station.

Please register at www.ceepinc.org.

Happy New Year to one and all – Gelvin.

————-

The Hosting Sponsor was the Dickstein Shapiro LLP legal company -
 The presenter explained that the problem before us is that there is no efficient way to transport electricity in a vehicle – that is in both senses – in order to operate the electrical vehicle and in order to plainly move the electricity from one place to another.

The actual presenter was John P. Mayo, the founder of the company.

He explained that at present Hydrogen is made of 95% from Natural Gas – a method that is accompanied with CO2 emissions.

Further, we have the problem of how to get the hydrogen to a motor vehicle engine; We have already the vehicles that can be fueled with hydrogen, but then we have this problem of how to supply them with Hydrogen.

What the company is proposing is to prepare an Aluminum gel that when extruded into a chamber where it is mixed with water it produces Hydrogen, a Na Aluminate and high temperature. We can thus use on demand the Hydrogen and the heat. The Na Aluminate can be seen as a byproduct, and in stage I can be sold to an existing $600 million existing market in the paper & pulp production and for water treatment. It sells for $700/ton. The NaOH sells for $277/ton.

The presenter suggested that after the stage I market for this byproduct has been exhausted, the stage II of the implementation of this technology will involve recycling via Aluminum smelters operated with electricity. The electricity to come from solar towers or wind mills.

Asked how do you collect the Na Aluminate residue in case you use the Aluminum gel to fuel automotive engines, really no satisfactory answer was provided. But that should not doom this technology – in effect we believe that the idea is excellent – but it calls out for repackaging.

—————

The Hydrogen Battery concept came about because of the devise supplying us with Hydrogen upon demand – but this is really not the major achievement of the devise. What this cycle that uses  hydrogen in an electric engine released by using an Aluminum gel – Na Aluminate – then recycling via input of electric power does, is no less then what a lithium battery can do. What it in effect  executes is, what we have here is, storage of electricity in a mobile devise – and its release when needed – with aluminum and Hydrogen intermediaries. Further, the recycling of the Aluminum gel can be done at times convenient to us when wind and sun are available and we store their power in that Aluminum gel.

To be most efficient, and in order to avoid environmental hazards, like poisoning of underground water resources, with Aluminum compounds, we can apply the technology first to captive fleets with central exchange locations – new gel in – old residue out. Further, in my excitement at the end of the presentation, I suggested to the presenter to buy himself a one way ticket to China and make sure that next high speed train in China will run efficiently on hydrogen released via Aluminum gel. I could even contemplate having this prototype paid from CDM carbon credits by the EU. With wind or solar electricity, and recycled Aluminum, water vapors being the only emissions in the process, this becomes a worthwhile memorial to Allen Ginsberg who foresaw the electricity in this sexless hydrogen.

I reached here the end of my own cycle – will only say that this was the brightest technology I heard described for many moons – the electric energy stored and transported in recyclable Aluminum gel!

Renewable Energy and RETScreen Workshop in Barbados, 16-18 Feb 2010

from: Roland Clarke PhD

You are invited to a workshop on renewable energy project analysis using RETScreen on 16-18 February 2010 at the Barbados Hilton Hotel.  This workshop is led by Dr. Roland Clarke, an international expert in renewable energy now resident in Barbados.

RETScreen is a clean energy analysis spreadsheet software that was developed by Natural Resources Canada, a Federal agency of the Government of Canada. It may be downloaded free of cost from http://www.retscreen.net . It is widely used having been downloaded by more than 215,000 users in 222 countries and territories, and is available in 35 languages.

The value of RETscreen to users is that it provides a platform for building technical models within Excel, communication with technical specialist, policy makers, economists and financiers, and provides for continuous learning.  It also shortens the lead time to perform pre-feasibility analyses and reduce external consulting costs.

This workshop will provide a hands-on introduction to the analytical methods employed by the most recent RETScreen Version 4, together with its resource and product databases, and its new Clean Energy Legal Toolkit. Analysis methods include energy systems, financial, economic, risk and sensitivity, and greenhouse gas analysis.

At the end of the workshop, participants will be able to build project analysis models for photovoltaics, wind, biogas, and combined heat and power projects.

While the workshop will focus on imparting hands-on skills on the use of RETScreen, participants will also gain insights that will enable their self-learning about the algorithms and engineering behind the models.

This workshop is suitable for those involved in programme design, market planning, due diligence, investments, feasibility analysis, project finance, economics, infrastructure finance, business development, project development, private equity, banking, and financial analysis etc

Registration details and updates can be found at http://www.retscreen.net/ang/11_form2.ph….

This event builds on earlier workshops conducted by Dr Roland Clarke in Hanoi – Vietnam, Beijing China, Manila – the Philippines and Jakarta – Indonesia as a Consultant to the World Bank during November 2009. See http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL…

———-
Roland Clarke PhD (UPenn 95)
 http://www.retscreen.net/ang/11_form2.ph…