The UK-built Zephyr solar-powered plane has smashed the endurance record for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). The craft took off from the US Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona at 1440 BST (0640 local time) last Friday and is still in the air. Its non-stop operation, day and night, means it has now gone four times longer than the official mark recognised by the world air sports federation. The plane has been developed by the defence and research company Qinetiq.
Its project manager, Jon Saltmarsh, said Zephyr would be brought down once it had flown non-stop for a fortnight. “Zephyr is basically the first ‘eternal aircraft’,”.
The UAV has been under development for a number of years at Qinetiq. Solar-powered high-altitude long-endurance (Hale) UAVs are expected to have a wide range of applications in the future.
The military will want to use them as reconnaissance and communications platforms. Civilian and scientific programmes will equip them with small payloads for Earth observation duties. Their unique selling point is their persistence over a location. Low-Earth orbiting satellites come and go in a swift pass overhead, and the bigger drones now operated by the military still need to return to base at regular intervals for refuelling.

But as Zephyr has now proved, solar UAVs can be left in the sky. Their solar cells drive propellers during the day and top up their batteries to maintain the craft through the dark hours of night. An autopilot keeps them circling over the same spot. The latest version of Zephyr is now 50% bigger than its predecessors. The updated vehicle has a wingspan of 22.5m, and features a new wingtip and tail design that dramatically improve aero performance.

It also has a wider configuration near the main body to accommodate more equipment. In addition, the team has upgraded the avionics and power management systems on board.
“The launch was absolutely beautiful; it was just so smooth,” said Mr Saltmarsh. “We had five people lift it above their heads, start running and it just lifted away into the sky.”
The current official world endurance record for a UAV is 30 hours, 24 minutes. This was set by the US robot Global Hawk. Zephyr itself has already recorded an 83-hour continuous flight but representatives from the Federation Aeronautique Internationale (FAI) were not present to witness proceedings.

However, they are at Yuma this time and so the latest flight will go down as an official world record provided the FAI is satisfied its rules have been followed. “This is a huge milestone that puts us at the leading edge,” Mr Saltmarsh told BBC News. “It’s a practical system that can actually be used rather than simply a demonstration of small technical achievements.” The Zephyr flight is the second event of note this year in solar-powered aviation. Earlier this month, Andre Borschberg became the first person to pilot a manned solar plane through the night.

Content credits: Jonathan Amos – BBC

Post from: Green Power Mexico

Zephyr solar plane flies 7 days non-stop

Related posts:

1. Solar-powered plane set world record A UK-built solar-powered plane has set an unofficial world...
2. Uruguay city goes solar This is not a typical town square in Uruguay....
3. Solar Power – The big picture “Solar Power” no longer refers just to chunky photovoltaic...

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

“Solar Power” no longer refers just to chunky photovoltaic panels. A variety of tools for turning sunlight into usable energy– thin-film solar, solar thermal, solar heating, and more– are undergoing a burst of technological acceleration. Whether it’s powering an entire housing development or simply heating your house, taken together, their potential is huge.

Where we are: 12.4 GW What we need by 2050: 2,000 GW.

Tech to watch: Concentrating Solar Thermal
A Shortage of low- carbon power sources seems absurd when you consider that a nearby star bathes the planet in 85,000 terawatts of energy every year. We just have to capture it.

The Google-funded start-up eSolar has devised a relatively cheap and efficient form of solar power by refining concentrating solar thermal(CST), in which large mirror arrays focus light to create heat and utilimately electricity. Proponents say CST can make solar cost-comparative with coal within a decade. It is “probably the onlky thing that can be done at a big enough scale to produce terawatts,” says Bill Gross, eSolar’s CEO.

At the first eSolar power plant, a five-megawatt facility called Sierra situated northeast of Los Angeles, 24,000 mirrors gather the sunlight falling on 20 acres of land and train it on water-filled boile4r units perched on top of towers. This creates temperatures of approximately 850 degrees F, producing steam that turns an onsite turbine to generate electricity.

CST has been around since 1980, but in the 1990’s a lack of public interest sent it into hibernation. Now public interest is back in a big way, and CST has awoken with a vengeance. One new megawatt of CST hardware was installed worldwide in 2006, in 2007 there were 100. The Earth Policy Institute projects that the installation of CST worldwide will double every 16 months, from 457 megawatts in 2007 to 6,400 megawatts by 2012. At least 13 plants are in advanced planning stages in the U.S.

ESolar’s approach is comparatively cheap because, unlike most of its competitors, which use large, custom-built parabolic mirrors to capture sunlight from all angles. eSolar uses small, flat mirrors, each about the size of a big-screen television. Computerized tracking keeps each mirror focused at the optimal angle throughout the day. The mirrors are easy to manufacture, and it takes just two workers to attach them to relatively light scaffolding on-site. ESolar’s standard 44-megawatt array, which makes enough juice to power about 30,000 homes, occupies only a quarter of a square mile, which allow the company to avoid the land-use fights that have ensnared other solar companies.

Sierra is a demonstration project, but in February eSolar signed a deal to build eleven 46 megawatt plants in the Southwest, and it is set to build a full gigawatt’s worth of plants in India. “Efficiency wins in every industry,” Gross says,”and it’s going to win in solar as well.”

Post from: Green Power Mexico

Solar Power – The big picture

Related posts:

1. Uruguay city goes solar This is not a typical town square in Uruguay....
2. Green Power The New Energy Economy: Global warming issues have been...
3. Zephyr solar plane flies 7 days non-stop The UK-built Zephyr solar-powered plane has smashed the endurance...

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

This is not a typical town square in Uruguay. The square, in the town of Suarez some 40km from the capital Montevideo, has gone over to solar energy and LED technology. The aim is to reduce electricity costs and at the same time light more streets. If it works, the plan could serve as a model for other towns across the country. In the current economic crisis and upward pressure on electricity prices, it should be a way of reducing energy costs. The energy crisis will continue to get worse and city councils and the state will have to deal with that,” Leonardo D’Andrea of the local town council explained . “We decided to try out solar energy lamps in the town square and if it works, then we will apply it to all public lights in the town,” he said. “The lighting had been very unstable and a few years ago we installed sodium lights, which are more modern but use a lot of energy and are more polluting.” “Each lamp costs $30 a month (£18) and we know that with LED lamps we would save between 70% and 90% on energy costs.” Light emitting diodes (LED) are semi-conductors which give bright light but use very little energy.

They can be charged with solar energy as well as electricity and can give light for up to four days. “These lamps are very expensive if you buy them from China, Taiwan or Japan,” says Juan José Marchelli, director of Uruled, the local firm which proposed the experiment. This is why he decided to import the diodes but manufacture the bulbs locally. “We recycled lamp posts which had fallen into disrepair.” “Instead of glass, we put in anti-vandal polycarbonate and we adapted lamps that were made in Uruguay.” “Then we introduced solar panels into the supports,” he said.
The authorities are examining how cost-effective they are. If they prove worthwhile they will buy equipment to make the lamps in Uruguay. “The idea is to manufacture the lights in Uruguay and replace high energy lighting with these low energy ones. At the same time we’ll create jobs in the community,” says Mr Marchelli.

Nicolas Vilaro, director-general of public works in Canelones said: “With electricity prices continuing to rise, we are trying to find alternatives, however small the scale.” The city council’s energy bill comes $400,000 and about 70% of that is for street lighting. “For that reason we are keen to make even the smallest of energy savings so we can free up money for other projects,” says Mr Vilaro. “We are going to install some 20 columns with solar panels and energy accumulators to test out their efficiency,” he says. “Maybe in a few years’ time you won’t see single posts with a bulb – they’ll all have solar panels behind them.”

Post from: Green Power Mexico

Uruguay city goes solar

Related posts:

1. Solar Power – The big picture “Solar Power” no longer refers just to chunky photovoltaic...
2. Zephyr solar plane flies 7 days non-stop The UK-built Zephyr solar-powered plane has smashed the endurance...
3. Earthour 2009 – The big turn-off What started in Sydney in 2007 is now a...

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

President Barack Obama has called for the US to become energy independent, saying its reliance on foreign oil and global warming posed threats. Outlining his energy priorities, he said the country would not be held “hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet”. He called for greater fuel efficiency and an “energy economy” aimed at creating millions of jobs. He also ordered a review of whether states can set car emission standards. This challenges a Bush administration decision which favoured a national standard for vehicle pollution. At his first White House news conference since becoming president, Mr Obama said he would reverse America’s dependence on foreign oil while creating jobs, but warned there was no “quick fix”.

“We will commit ourselves to steady, focused, pragmatic pursuit of an America that is freed from our energy dependence, and empowered by a new energy economy that puts millions of our citizens to work.” He added: “Now is the time to meet the challenge of this crossroads of history, by choosing a future safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable.
Mr Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its refusal of a waiver which had previously allowed California to set its own – stricter – vehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards. He said California had taken bold moves in implementing the standards. Mr Obama said: “The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. “My administration will not deny facts. We will be guided by them.” His statement that the US would lead on climate change was a clear swipe at his predecessor’s sceptical view of global warming, says the BBC’s James Coomarasamy in Washington.

Energy efficiency drive
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had asked Mr Obama to reverse the Bush administration’s insistence on a single, national standard.
California wants a 30% reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, achieved by improving fuel efficiency standards. President Obama also ordered the transportation department to come up with new short-term rules on how car makers can improve fuel efficiency. A 2007 law required that new cars and trucks produced by 2020 obtain 35 miles per gallon of fuel (about 15km/liter). However, then-President George W Bush did not put in place the regulations to enable the law to be carried out.

The new rules Mr Obama wants to put in place would mean the new standard is reached by 2011, the New York Times said. The president also announced plans to make all federal government buildings more energy efficient, and pledged to cut families’s energy bills by “weatherizing” 2.5 million homes. He also said the US would double its capacity for “green” energy generation, from sources such as wind, sun, and bio fuels, over the next three years. More than 3,000 miles of transmission lines would be established to transmit the energy. In the European Union, a recently agreed climate package set out average emission targets for the whole car industry of 120g of CO2 per kilometer by 2012 for new cars, compared with current levels of 160g/km. The EU target for 2020 is 95g/km. But CO2 emissions vary from car to car, and manufacturers have been given until 2015 to meet their specific targets for each model. According to media reports, the state department is to appoint a former Clinton diplomat as its “climate change envoy”. Todd Stern served under Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001 and was involved in Kyoto climate change talks.

Barack Obama discusses his plan for a clean energy future. February 2008. – Jan. 2009::Full credits for this content go to BBC World. Follow this link to view a video with today’s statement of President Obama

Post from: Green Power Mexico

Talking the talk – let’s watch the walk….

Related posts:

1. Green Power The New Energy Economy: Global warming issues have been...

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

The New Energy Economy: Global warming issues have been pushed to the back burner by many doubting political and corporate leaders in view of the government bailouts, unemployment surge, and rise in home foreclosures. Venture capitalists are getting cautious about investments. Amid this despair some voices are saying it is the right time to launch a global uprising.
The time for a New Green Era has come paralleling the New Deal Era of post depression president Franklin Roosevelt. Not only will it put off disasters and shortages in two or three decades from now, but it will reshape the economy of the globe. In the U.S., President Elect Barack Obama is quoted as saying, “We can move toward energy independence and create 5 million new jobs across America.” The financial and housing sectors, once creating U.S. job growth are now driving unemployment. The U.S and the world need a new economic driver and growth industry.
Roosevelt’s New Deal recharged the economy during the great Depression of the 30’s and into the 40’s with the WPA (works project administration). Investments have driven the economy since but with its failure a new push or spark is needed from the government. Supporters of the New Deal propose that massive public investment and fiscal incentives can lay the ground work for the private sector to develop whole new industries and create new jobs and save the planet in the long haul. Oliver Schäfer, policy director of the European Renewable Energy Council states, “You are investing in clean technology, which is real business.” The strongest incentive of this is new jobs and the beauty of it is the resulting attentiveness to good stewardship of the planet. Barack Obama wants to create a program that trains American veterans for work in green industries and modernize factories to make green products. Given the economic conditions currently afflicting us, these are investments that governments must make.

A few European countries have taken a strong lead with substantial initiatives. The U.N. reports that Germany supports a $240 billion dollar renewable energy industry which employs 250,000 people and by the year 2020 will provide more jobs in this sector than in their current main employment industry of automotives.
Britain’s goal is to increase its wind turbine industry tremendously by the year 2020. It is imperative for the government to push ahead and provide incentives, regulations, and ‘a whole lot of money’ up front in order for this long term job producer and global conservation movement to take hold. When capital and credit are tight, and oil prices drop private investors are less likely to put billions in to R&D for a distant clean-energy future. Governments need to jumpstart their economy with regulations and public investments to create millions of new jobs.

Post from: Green Power Mexico

Green Power

Related posts:

1. Talking the talk – let’s watch the walk…. President Barack Obama has called for the US to...
2. A Green Revolution off Germanys Coast The German government envisions thousands of wind turbines in...
3. The Green Argument for Telecommuting Last week, oil prices hit another record high, topping...

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

Engineers are constantly coming up with new ways to dispose of greenhouse gases. The latest idea is to hide carbon dioxide exhaust in cement. The method could revolutionize one of the most carbon-intensive industries in the world. Vinod Khosla has a lot of money, and he wants to put it to good use, which explains his Silicon Valley nickname, “Angel Investor”. The 53-year-old Indian has already invested $450 million (€290 million) of his personal fortune in new technologies to save mankind and the planet. A little more than a year ago, Khosla received an e-mail. What it contained, in its 12 lines of text, was exactly the sort of thing this immensely wealthy philanthropist likes to read. “I have an idea for a sustainable cement” Brent Constantz, a chemistry professor, wrote. His idea was to convert the carbon dioxide emissions from a power plant into cement, thereby rendering the gas harmless.

It seemed like a bold idea, which was precisely why it caught Khosla’s attention. Although he was vacationing at the time, he promptly called the inventor and told him: “Hire five people and build a laboratory!” Constantz replied that his plan was not something for the faint of heart. In response, Khosla barked: “I’ve given you the money. So get going already!” Meanwhile, the new company, which is called Calera, has built a prototype plant on a site next to a gas-fired power plant in Moss Landing, California. In his new laboratory, chemist Constantz is studying ways to siphon off a portion of the carbon dioxide released by the plant and conduct it through sea water from the nearby Pacific Ocean. Constantz theorizes that when the carbon dioxide is combined with the magnesium and calcium dissolved in the water, the resulting substance will be something mankind uses in vast quantities: cement. “Chemically speaking, the same thing happens in coral when it grows” says Constantz, who originally developed a type of cement used to repair bone fractures and in dental applications.

This reaction with seawater would benefit the climate, because the carbon dioxide from emissions would be incorporated into the carbonate. Then heat from the power plant would be used to dry the mud-like material. “We get the smallest bricks that can be used to make cement” says Constantz. In this way, power plants, which normally eject carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, could be turned into carbon sinks. On the one hand, the CO2 they produce would be rendered harmless. On the other hand, they would eliminate the energy-intensive production of brick in the cement industry. “One ton of my cement removes half a ton of CO2 from the environment” claims Constantz, who is also a visiting professor at Stanford University.

Cement as a Greenhouse Gas Culprit

The concrete industry produces more than two billion tons of cement worldwide each year. In doing so, it releases 5 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted worldwide, making it the third-largest single producer of the greenhouse gas. The industry’s large carbon footprint is a result of energy-intensive production processes, which include temperatures of 1450 degrees Celsius (2642 degrees Fahrenheit) to bake the raw materials and the use of electric motors to pulverize the resulting cement bricks. “Because of this process, it is difficult for us to significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions” explains Martin Schneider, director of the Research Institute of the Cement Industry in Duesseldorf. The most promising method is to do away with the bricks altogether, says Schneider. This is achieved partly through the use of granulated cinder, a byproduct of the steel industry. But steel mills are already sending their entire annual production volume of seven million tons to cement plants today. “I don’t see any way of increasing that number” says Schneider. For this reason, the method Constantz has devised for turning CO2 into cement is especially appealing to Schneider. The California inventor promises to be able to produce precisely the alternative material that the cement industry needs so desperately. Constantz expects to have five prototype plants up and running by next year, and the first commercial model by 2010.

This is music to the ears of his financial backer, Khosla. But cement expert Schneider cautions against too much economic optimism. The process may work on a small scale, according to Schneider, but transferring to a large-scale production environment is a different story altogether, and Calera has yet to prove that this is possible. “Lots of things can be tested in an aquarium” says Schneider. Other ideas designed to eliminate greenhouse gases also have yet to pass the practical test. Many engineers, physicists and chemists around the world are currently developing ways to sequester carbon dioxide. Research institutes in the United States, in particular “a country where the belief in technical feasibility is especially pronounced” are constantly coming up with new proposals.

Planktos, based in California, has come up with the idea of using giant tankers to add iron dust to the world’s oceans, restoring the behavior of wind-borne dust (which diminishes with global warming) and stimulating algae growth. The CO2 captured in the algae would sink into the depths when the plants die. A large-scale test near the Galapagos Islands failed recently, due to insufficient funding. Ning Zeng, an American atmospheric researcher at the University of Maryland, has proposed submerging tree trunks deep into the oceans — and, along with them, the CO2 captured in the wood fiber. According to Zeng’s calculations, such a program could provide employment for one million forestry workers. Many of his colleagues criticize Zeng’s proposal. In fact, it does seem more sensible not to chase the greenhouse gas when it is already wafting through the earth’s atmosphere. It would be easier to collect CO2 before it is emitted through chimneys or exhaust pipes, and then store it underground, in a process called sequestration.

Norwegian national Olav Karstad, a reserved engineer with the StatoilHydro Group, devised this process. He applied it for the first time at the Sleipner North Sea gas-drilling platform, where carbon dioxide is pumped into the well, driving out valuable natural gas at the same time. Since then, many research groups, including Germany’s Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, have been looking for suitable and safe storage sites. Scientists are also studying the possibility of pumping carbon dioxide into coal seams. This would lead to the release of methane, which could be captured and used as a fuel. Even if safe final storage succeeds, all of these methods have an economic drawback. Carbon dioxide from power plants would have to be captured and sequestered in highly compressed form. However, this costs energy. A coal power plant, for instance, would lose about 10 percent of its efficiency. Nevertheless, fervent climate researchers like Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, an advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, are also open to bold proposals. “We are in a desperate situation,” says Schellnhuber, “which is why we should also pursue unconventional ideas.”

Post from: Green Power Mexico

Carbon Dioxide to Concrete?

No related posts.

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

The German government envisions thousands of wind turbines in the waters off the country’s northern coast. Construction on the first project begins in August. And many more are in the planning stages. Has Germany’s offshore energy revolution finally arrived? The official blessing came from the very top. “Wind energy is a very important prospect for the future, Germany’s President Horst Köhler said. Green energy, he added, is “in tune with nature”. The industry is in need of Köhler’s encouraging words. For the last 10 years the German government and companies have been working on plans to build enormous offshore wind farms. And, yet, not a single blade currently turns off the coast of Germany. The reasons? Technical difficulties, a lack of money and problems with the power cables.

The breakthrough, though, could finally come this summer. In the North Sea, 45 kilometers north of the German island of Borkum, the first offshore wind farm in Germany called Alpha Ventus — is finally taking shape. Construction starts in August, Lutz Wiese, a spokesman for the project stated. Every single wind turbine will weigh 1,000 tons and rise nearly as high as the Cologne Cathedral (click graphic for large display). The firms behind the project are German energy companies E.ON and EWE along with Swedish power company Vattenfall. It’s an odd collection — the trio of companies are hardly known for their interest in green energy, operating mainly coal and nuclear power plants. That, though, looks to be changing. The companies top executives are hoping to develop a multi-billion euro business in renewable energies.

A German Electricity Revolution
The official line is that Alpha Ventus is intended merely as a research project with no current plans to turn it into a commercial operation. The project isn’t especially big either: Only 12 wind turbines will be erected, with a combined capacity of 60 megawatts — enough to provide power to 60,000 homes during a good breeze.

Nevertheless, Alpha Ventus could be the beginning of a German electricity revolution. Experts predict that the new wind park will be just the first of many in the North Sea and Baltic Sea off the coast of northern Germany. By 2020, 10,000 megawatts-worth of offshore wind turbines — the output of 10 nuclear power plants — will be connected to the grid, according to the German government. As a result, the share of renewable energies in the German electricity mix will shoot up from 12 percent to 20 percent. No other energy source has such growth potential. In addition to helping reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases in Germany, such an increase in wind power would also make Germany less dependent on foreign energy sources.

The Federal Office of Maritime Navigation and Hydrography has already opened up 20 areas in the North and Baltic Seas for the construction of wind turbines. Most of the projects are still in the planning phase, but some are more advanced:

The company Bard Engineering is developing Germany’s first commercial offshore wind farm around 100 kilometers off Borkum. On top of that Bard has applied to build seven further wind farms in the North Sea.

US private equity and asset management firm Blackstone is getting into the German wind energy business on a large scale. The company recently announced it was investing over €1 billion ($1.6 billion) into a proposed wind farm, called the Meerwind project. The wind farm is supposed to be built northwest of the German island Helgoland and provide electricity for 500,000 households in a few years time.

In the Baltic Sea, plans for Park Baltic I are the most advanced. Twenty-one wind turbines are to be built off the coast of Fischland-Darss-Zingst, a peninsula on the east German coast.

All big energy companies have expressed interest in the offshore market. German energy firm EnBW alone wants to erect 260 wind turbines over the next five years; on the long term it plans to build another 500. E.ON, RWE and Vattenfall have expressed similar interest. The planned investments amount to several billion euros.

What has sparked this boom is Germany’s Renewable Energy Law (EEG) or more precisely, the changes Germany’s parliaments made to it in early June. The EEG sets fixed rates which have to be paid for renewable energy. Until now, the rate was 9 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity coming from offshore wind parks. The change means that operators can now bank on 15 cents per kilowatt hour. “That has an impact,” Ulf Gerder of the German WindEnergy Association says.

The first electricity from the flagship project Alpha Ventus is supposed to hit the grid in October. The 12 wind turbines are supplied by manufacturers Repower and Multibrid, and they will be erected in a lattice-like formation at a distance of 800 meters (a half mile) apart, meaning the wind farm will stretch over an area of four square kilometres (1.5 square miles) -the size of 550 football fields.

“World Premiere”
The advantages of such an offshore wind farm are clear. The ones currently being planned in Germany wont be visible from land, so people are unlikely to complain about them. And, because of the strength and consistency of sea winds, wind turbines located off the coast generate more power. On the other hand, the challenges are greater as well. The water at the site of the proposed Alpha Ventus wind turbines in the North Sea is 30 to 40 meters deep and the turbines have to be anchored in the seabed with steel posts. Spokesman Wiese talks about a “world premiere”, as the existing offshore wind farms off Scotland and Denmark stand in much shallower water.

Such difficulties also up the price tag. Alpha Ventus is to cost €180 million ($282 million) to build – nearly three times as much as a similar installation on land. The government is channelling €50 million ($78.7 million) into research. E.ON is footing the €40 million ($62.9 million) bill for the connection to the grid. Such sums mean that offshore wind parks are likely to remain the province of established energy giants. To reach the government’s targets, €20 billion to €30 billion will have to be spent on wind turbine construction in the North and Baltic Seas. Smaller wind farms funded by local investment groups, a major part of the land-based windmill boom won’t have a chance.

Maintenance promises to be expensive as well. Indeed, keeping offshore wind parks up and running makes up some 20 to 30 percent of total costs, according to industry estimates. Plus, the turbines have to be built to withstand gusts of 160 kilometers per hour and 15 meter high waves. On top of that there is the salty air – the Danish manufacturer Vestas, for example, has found corrosion to be a major problem on its offshore turbines. Taken together, it is unsurprising that offshore wind farms remain something of a rarity. At the moment wind turbines with a capacity of 100,000 megawatts are in operation around the world, of which a mere 1 percent are offshore. The rest are on land.

In Germany, environmental protection must also be factored in. As does the fact that new power lines would be needed to transport large quantities of offshore energy to major urban areas in the country’s south and west. Indeed, the list of obstacles means that many view the government’s goal as overly ambitious: To produce 10,000 megawatts in 2020 would using today’s technology require 2,000 to 3,000 wind turbines. “We’re building 12 such turbines,” E.ON CEO Wulf Bernotat said, referring to Alpha Ventus. “Who is going to build the other 2,988?” Fritz Vahrenhot, former head of wind power firm Repower, is also skeptical. In the coming five years, Germany will produce at most 4,000 megawatts, he said, “if we do our best.”;

Post from: Green Power Mexico

A Green Revolution off Germanys Coast

Related posts:

1. Green Power The New Energy Economy: Global warming issues have been...
2. IT companies flex their green credentials Hi-tech companies are competing on a new front –...
3. The Green Argument for Telecommuting Last week, oil prices hit another record high, topping...

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

At first sight, the G8 agreement on climate change promises much. Leaders are “committed to avoiding the most serious consequences of climate change”, and determined to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels that would avoid “dangerous climate change”. In fact, this is exactly what leaders of nearly 200 countries signed up to in the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit. So if re-stating a 16-year-old commitment is progress, then this is clearly a success. The question ever since Rio has been what to do about it. But the reality of negotiations within groups such as the G8 is that every party needs to emerge with bits of language that they can point to and say “I won”. So here is the key sentence in all its diplomatic finery: “We seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” So the EU emerges with an apparent commitment to cut emissions by at least 50%. The US and Canadian administrations can say that it is only a commitment if the major developing countries play ball, and that the 50% figure concerns global emissions, not necessarily their own. And the major developing countries, involved on the sidelines of the G8 summit, can point to inclusion of the UNFCCC phrase “common but differentiated responsibilities” as continued acknowledgment that far less would be required of them than of developed economies.

Off base The host nation Japan appears to have won two key concessions. One is that different industrial sectors could be set different targets with the aim of preserving competitiveness. The second, which is more important, concerns the baseline year against which carbon savings would be measured.

With very few exceptions, the UN process has always used 1990 as the baseline. But Japan argues this is unfair. The significant gains in energy efficiency it made before 1990 are effectively penalized, it says, while the gains made in Europe after 1990 through the clean-up of Soviet-era industry and the switch to natural gas are rewarded. The G8 document does not specify a baseline year, but asked by reporters, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said it was “current levels”. This would be significant in at least three ways. From a practical standpoint, emissions have risen by more than a quarter since 1990; so a 50% cut from now is worth far less than a 50% cut from 1990 levels. On the diplomatic front, it would raise a big question for the EU, which has taken 1990 as the baseline for its own target of cutting emissions by 20% by 2020. The UK’s domestic targets also use 1990. And from a philosophical point of view, it would again amount to turning the clock back 16 years, and saying “we’re going to ignore what we said then and start again from here”. The EU will continue to insist that 1990 stays as the baseline in UN talks; and as the G8 document does not specify any date, any party can select whatever it feels is more politically acceptable when reporting back to its electorate. But just by raising the issue, Mr Fukuda has thrown up yet another thing for parties to argue about.

Leadership questionSo it is perhaps not surprising that campaign groups have lined up to criticise the deal. WWF said it confirmed the recent trend of industrialized countries showing less, rather than more, of the leadership required. “The G8 are responsible for 62% of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth’s atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem”,

said the director of the group’s global climate initiative, Kim Carstensen. “WWF finds it pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility, and refuse to turn from the main driver of the problem into the main driver of the solution.” Tearfund, which campaigns on issues of developing world poverty rather than the environment per se, added that using a 1990 baseline was crucial. “Concrete commitments on climate change are the acid test of success at this summit,” said international director Peter Grant. “The G8 are crawling forward on emissions cuts at a time when giant leaps and bounds are needed.” The other main gripe of these organisations is that 2050 is too distant. They have been urging parties to commit to shorter timescales for achieving cuts, as the EU has done with its own 2020 target, arguing that this removes the option of delaying action until it is too late. Instead, the statement merely acknowledges that “a long-term global goal will require mid-term goals and national plans to achieve them” – without specifying what these goals should look like.

Elsewhere, there is acknowledgement that the poorest countries are going to need help to adapt to climate impacts, and that clean energy technologies need to be developed and rolled out rapidly. There is support for the rapid development of “clean coal” demonstration plants, in particular, and recognition that some countries will seek to lower carbon emissions through investing in nuclear.

Place in the world It is important to recognise what the G8 could not achieve. The UNFCCC is the sovereign body for making global agreements, and the two-year road leading from last December’s UN climate summit in Bali to next year’s in Copenhagen is still the most important route to a low-carbon future. Nothing that the G8 or G8+5 or G20 or any other expansion of the core group could agree would change that. What this week’s gathering could have done was to point the way and ease the path, by agreeing a common front to take into the UN process. On Wednesday, G8 countries meet the large group of “big emitters” or “major economies”, the latest stage in a process formulated by the Bush administration. The group includes major developing countries such as China, India and Mexico. And they have already set out their stall, responding to the G8 declaration with a statement calling on rich countries to go further and faster, committing to cuts of 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050.

So far, then, this G8 summit has confused the issue rather than clarifying it. Governments are as divided as ever on what they are prepared to pledge and what they want to achieve; and re-opening the baseline year question is potentially hugely destructive.

Credits of this analysis: Richard Black, environment correspondent

Post from: Green Power Mexico

G8 fails to set climate world alight

Related posts:

1. Climate Change Deal Reached There were tears, boos and, at the end, even...
2. Solar-powered plane set world record A UK-built solar-powered plane has set an unofficial world...

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

With energy prices going through the roof, an alternative lifestyle powered by solar panels and wind turbines has suddenly become more appealing to some. For architect Todd Bogatay, it has been reality for years. When he bought this breezy patch of scrub-covered mountaintop with views to Mexico more than two decades ago, he was one of only a few Americans with an interest in wind- and solar-powered homes. Now, Bogatay is surrounded by 15 neighbors who, like him, live off the electricity grid, with power from solar panels and wind turbines that he either built or helped to install. “People used to be attracted to living off-grid for largely environmental reasons, although that is now changing as energy prices rise,” he said, standing in blazing sunshine with a wind turbine thrashing the air like a weed whacker overhead.

Spry and energetic, Bogatay makes few sacrifices for his chosen lifestyle. He has a small, energy saving refrigerator, but otherwise his house is like any other, with satellite television and a computer with Internet service. “Electric and gas are going to skyrocket very soon. There are going to be more reasons for doing it, economic reasons,” he said.

Bogatay and his neighbors at the 120-acre development

are among a very small but fast-growing group of Americans opting to meet their own energy needs as power prices surge and home repossessions grow.

Once the domain of a few hardy pioneers, the dispersed movement is now attracting not just a few individuals and families, but institutions and developers building subdivisions that meet their own energy needs.

With rising power prices, falling installation costs, and a web of incentives to switch, analysts like Rosen believe the number of users turning to off-grid living in the United States is set to grow to 4 to 5 million in the next five to 10 years. “I don’t think we are going to see half the population of America going off-grid, ever. But I do think, we are going to see continued growth,” he said. Rosen also believes that more people still hooked up to the utilities will switch to energy saving appliances, saving money and becoming “off-grid ready” in the process.

For those who have already embarked on the adventure and have adapted to a lifestyle of eking out their energy sources, with houses designed to maximize light, retain warmth or circulate air for cooling, there is no turning back. “I like being my own power company,” said Chris Allen, a neighbor of Bogatay’s who has lived off-grid for several years.

“I wouldn’t take their electricity if they brought it to my back door. Living like this is financially and mentally very healthy.”

Credits: Reuters

Post from: Green Power Mexico

Pioneers show Americans how to live off-grid

No related posts.

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?

Last week, oil prices hit another record high, topping $126 a barrel and leading to a new rash of stories about gasoline spurting over $4 a gallon. Coincidently, my company opened a DC office last week, meaning that I’ll be commuting (by car, rail and bike) at least part-time from now on. And that gave me plenty of time to think – while I sat in my car – about the green side of telecommuting.

I’ve spent time in this space talking about the selfish reasons why telecommuting works from a business point of view and enables better work-life balance, but the time has come to talk the trend seriously from an environmental perspective.

The folks at undress4success.com, a site focused on working from home, estimated that getting the 40 percent of Americans who could work from home off of the roads and into a home office would save 625 million barrels of oil a year, spare the atmosphere from 100 million tons of carbon dioxide and save us all $43 billion in gas costs.

You can take the analysis even further. Get people to teleconference and you have an impact on airplane emissions, and enough people working virtually means fewer buildings to power, heat and cool. But you don’t even have to go that far. Teleworking even one day every two weeks should theoretically cut gas usage by 10 percent, which is hardly marginal.

Yet despite the frenzied coverage of the steady rise in gas prices (and the growing coverage of environmentally friendly lifestyle changes), there has been little chatter about employers looking at telecommuting as a way of taking the burden off their employers and the planet. The exceptions — like the Virginia Department of Taxation — seem thrilled with the arrangement.

Since all of you tend to be great about looking for ways to both help the planet and promote work-life balance, I’m curious if anyone has used the green line of argument to push for more common-sense telecommuting options at work. Have you seen any employers become more open on this or — even better — moved to encourage working from home on environmental grounds?

Post from: Green Power Mexico

The Green Argument for Telecommuting

Related posts:

1. IT companies flex their green credentials Hi-tech companies are competing on a new front –...
2. Green Power The New Energy Economy: Global warming issues have been...
3. A Green Revolution off Germanys Coast The German government envisions thousands of wind turbines in...

Looking forward to the Baja 1000 finishing 2010 here in La Paz Baja Sur. We are members at b.i.n.
Do you 411 Baja?