Extracts from NATTA's journal
Renew, issue 144 July- Aug 2003

12. World Developments

German Solar gets more subsidies

Solar power, both for heating and electricity production, is booming in Germany thanks to some visionary subsidies, designed to help pump prime the market and create an expanding industry, which in turn should help get prices down. Juergen Trittin, Germany's Minister for the Environment, has raised the subsidies for solar thermal installations from 92 Euros to 125 Euros per square metre of collector surface as of 1st February. And within the 100,000 roofs programme, low-interest loans are available for photovoltaic installations with a total output of 95 MWp this year. In combination with the Renewable Energies Act (EEG), this allows an almost cost-efficient operation of photovoltaic installations.

The German solar industry has enjoyed massive growth. In 2000, the sales of photovoltaics installations trebled, and doubled again in 2001, to 81 MWp. This made Germany the world's second largest market for photovoltaics after Japan. By the end of 2001, 195 MWp (50,000 photovoltaics installations) had been installed in Germany. The number of solar thermal installations experienced a similar growth: the total collector area reached 900,000 sqm in 2001, a 40% increase in comparison with the previous year. This puts Germany at the top of the European solar thermal technology market. However, after the boom which lasted until the end of 2001, the German solar thermal technology industry suffered a drop of up to 40% last year. This was due to a general hesitation of consumers and the economic crisis, which was reinforced by a cut in subsidies for solar collectors. With subsidies now increased to 125 Euros, the German government hopes to create an incentive for consumers and to give the industry a clear boost.

Source: Solar Promotion GmbH/Intersolar

EU and Green Energy

According to an EU wide survey of public opinion reported by Greenprices (www.greenprics.com) 37% of the respondents were willing to pay more, 24% up to 5% more and 11% between 6% and 10% more for green energy and in the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Denmark the percentages were much higher: more than 50% were willing to pay more. However, overall, more than half the respondents (54%) were not willing to pay more for sustainable energy. Two-thirds intended to do more in the future, focussed on domestic use. However, instead of changing their own habits concerning energy consumption, specifically transport habits, most respondents called for more research into energy-saving devices and new energy sources. The survey revealed interesting differences between the member states concerning the future. The southern European countries and Finland favoured development of new technologies. Denmark, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands preferred energy savings.

Source: ‘Eurobarometer survey’ in which 16,000 EU citizens gave their opinion about "Energy: issues, options and technologies".

Emission Trading

Greenprices also reported on views on emission trading emerging from the first European meeting of the Emissions Marketing Association, in March in Brussels. Greenprices noted that some people fear the introduction of the emissions trading scheme, ‘because cheap options will attract most financial funds. Green energy, which in terms of costs per avoided tonne greenhouse gas, is much more expensive, will no longer attract enough investors’.

However, according to Greenprices, it was claimed by some contributors that ‘as long as green power generation is supported separately, there will be no important impact to the green energy markets by the introduction of the European greenhouse gas Emissions Trading System as of the year 2005.’

But Jonathan Pershing, head of the Energy and Environment division of the International Energy Agency warned that ‘in the project oriented emission reduction options, such as Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism (respectively projects in Eastern Europe and developing countries, ed.) there is a problem. There are no separate targets, so renewable energy projects simply have to compete with energy efficiency or other options.’

* See also the new very critical report on Carbon Trading by the Trans National Institute (‘The Sky is not the Limit’) discussed in the Reviews section of Renew 144.

Bush Big on Hydrogen

As we noted in Renew 143, in Feb, President Bush called for a $1.2 bn national commitment over the next five years ‘to take hydrogen fuel cell cars from the laboratory to the showroom’ with coal, biomass and other indigenous fuels, along with nuclear and even fusion, being used as a source of hydrogen for vehicles, thereby reducing US reliance on imported oil.

He commented ‘Hydrogen fuel cells represent one of the most encouraging, innovative technologies of our era’ and listed the advantage of a switch to hydrogen. ‘First, the hydrogen can be produced from domestic sources- initially, natural gas; eventually, biomass, ethanol, clean coal, or nuclear energy. That’s important. If you can produce something yourself, it means you’re less dependant upon somebody else to produce it.’

He went on ‘Hydrogen power is also clean to use. Cars that will run on hydrogen fuel produce only water, not exhaust fumes. Eliminating pollution from cars will obviously make our air healthier. Hydrogen power will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, helping this nation take the lead when it comes to tackling the long-term challenges of global climate change. One of the greatest results of using hydrogen power, of course, will be energy independence for this nation. It’s important for our country to understand- I think most Americans do- that we import over half of our crude oil stocks from abroad. And sometimes we import that oil from countries that don’t particularly like us. It puts us at a disadvantage- it jeopardizes our national security to be dependant on sources of energy from countries that don’t care for America, what we stand for, what we love. It’s also a matter of economic security, to be dependent on energy from volatile regions of the world. Our economy becomes subject to price shocks or shortages or disruptions, or one time in our history, cartels.’

The solution? ‘If we develop hydrogen power to its full potential, we can reduce our demand for oil by over 11 million barrels per day by the year 2040. That would be a fantastic legacy to leave for future generations of Americans. See, we can make the world more peaceful, and we will; we can promote freedom, and we will. Those will be wonderful legacies. But also think about a legacy here at home, about making investments today that will make future citizens of our great country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.’

He added ‘The new effort that we’re undertaking with Congress’s help is to develop a system for producing and delivering hydrogen fuel so that when the cars are ready, people can fill them up at their convenience. It’s a big project because we’ll be changing years of habit, years of infrastructure must be replaced by a modern way. But we’ll achieve this. It’s going to make economic sense to do this, it’s going to mean that our air is cleaner, and our national security is more secure. It’s going to happen.’

Finally, he turned to fusion ‘We’re also going to work to produce electricity and hydrogen through a process called fusion. Fusion is the same kind of nuclear reaction that powers the sun. The energy produced will be safe and clean and abundant. We’ve spent quite a bit of money, as the senators here will tell you, on whether or not fusion works. And we’re not sure if it will be able to produce affordable energy for everyday use. But it’s worth a try. It’s worth a look. Because the promise is so great. So the United States will work with Great Britain and several European nations, as well as Canada, Japan, Russia and China, to build a fusion test facility and create the largest and most advanced fusion experiment in the world’. More in the Technology section of Renew144.

...but US renewables R&D cut

However not many environmentalist were impressed with this plan- many felt it could siphon off money from more desirable projects, and at best saw it as a smokescreen for other much less desirable policies. For example, although there are some increases, many of the federal government’s renewable energy and energy efficiency research programmes will face cuts under the newly proposed 2004 budget. If the proposal goes through, total research funding for the Energy Department’s energy efficiency and renewable energy programmes would only increase $1.3m, or 0.1%, to $1.32bn for the 2004 spending year. Funding for solar energy R&D would increase 0.1%, but wind energy funding would fall 5.5%, while hydro R&D would remain the same.

The rationale was familiar- the bulk of the R&D had been done, and the private sector could now take over. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said ‘We’ve concluded that since much of that research was quite advanced it made sense for the private sector at this point to take on a greater share of the cost.’

Meanwhile, research funding for hydrogen technology jumped 121% to $88m. The total amount of money in the budget for the hydrogen-based "FreedomFuel" and FreedomCAR initiatives is $272.4 m. for the upcoming energy spending.

To be fair, research on traditional fossil fuels, although still substantial at $533m, was not increased and R&D on petroleum was cut by 58%, but natural gas R&D funding was increased 18%.

• In addition to the R&D cutbacks for some renewables, there has also been some consternation about the $115 million that Congress approved under the Farm Bill 2000 for grants to farmers to support local renewable projects in rural area over a five-year period. The Bush administration has evidently proposed reducing the $23m Congress mandated for 2003, to $18m and eliminating $23 m set aside for 2004. Source: Chicago Tribune.

* Bush’s hydrogen plan took a bit of a knock from a study by MIT which found that hybrid cars will produce less emissions than hydrogen cars, at least until non fossil sources are used for hydrogen production.

New York goes tidal

In co-operation with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), New York Power Authority, and Columbia University, Verdant Power is deploying a demonstration turbine system in the East River in New York City. Situated on the Eastern side of Roosevelt Island in tidal currents reaching 7.5 knots, the demonstration unit, with 10 foot diameter blades, will be capable of generating up to 25 kW of electric power. Verdant Power has received a $500K grant from NYSERDA for the $1.5 million, first phase of this three-phase project and also has been issued a preliminary permit for this project by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In addition to its assistance with local and state permits and licensing issues, Verdant Power also expects additional funding from NYSERDA over the next five years as the build-out progresses to the project’s ultimate goal of a 10 megawatt power field.

See : www.co.nassau.ny.us/parkmuse.html#Saddle

California to backtrack- after the power crisis

Declaring that ‘deregulation in any form simply will not work,’ Orange County Sen. Joe Dunn has tabled legislation to re-regulate California’s electricity market- utilities would be forced to supply customers at the lowest reasonable cost, with wholesale prices tied to production costs.