August 19, 2010, 1:21 PM

Basking in Energy-Efficient A.C.

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

Of all the things I could spend $8,800 to buy, a new central air-conditioning system is not near the top of my most-wanted list. But that’s what I did this week, and I actually feel pretty good about it.

Department of Energy

I am happy about the $1,500 tax credit I am going to get for buying a very efficient system, one that is going to save me hundreds of dollars a year. To sweeten the pot, the manufacturer offered a plan that allows me to pay for the system over three years with no interest. My installer told me that the financing deal was unusual for this time of year, but business has been slow in these recessionary times.

Of course, I am happy about the fact that I am going to reduce my family’s carbon footprint. But as I think about the process I went through to buy my new air-conditioner, the economics really came first. And right now, possibly for a limited time only, the economics and green thinking coincide.

My air-conditioner story begins with my old system, 17 years old and leaking Freon, that organic compound linked to ozone depletion. Over the last two years, my regular air-conditioning service guy would pour in some Freon, and I would be good to go for another year. $175 was a small cost to put off replacing my old system.

This year, he came back again when a Houston heat wave overwhelmed my air-conditioner. But this time the Freon refill didn’t do the trick. He returned to tell me that now I needed a new evaporator coil, at a cost of $1,675. I still didn’t need to replace my air-conditioner, he said.

I said O.K., but then I stopped to think. That’s a lot of money to invest in an old clunker. He came back with a proposal to replace the system with a 13-Seer unit that would cost $3,925. I stopped to think again. Would that qualify for the tax credit under the stimulus package? The SEER rating, the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio, was too low — even though the new system would be at least a third more efficient than my leaky clunker.

So I went up the price scale to a much more efficient and expensive system. My new system, which is rated at 16-SEER, should be 50 percent more efficient than my old system and should save me well over $500 a year. (We would save more, but we keep our thermostat at 77 during the day and 79 at night.) We may not stay in the home enough years to pay for the system, but my real estate agent tells me prospective buyers will be impressed with our efficient new air-conditioner.

Good thing my clunker broke down when it did. A few months from now, the tax credit will be history. I probably would have bought the less efficient system. Chalk it up as one small victory for government climate change policy.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/basking-in-energy-efficient-a-c/#more-67489

Nuclear Plant’s Use of River Water Prompts $1.1 Billion Debate With State

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Published: August 23, 2010

BUCHANAN, N.Y. — Just beneath the wind-stippled surface of the Hudson River here, huge pipes suck enough water into the Indian Point nuclear plant every second to fill three Olympic swimming pools. And each second they take in dozens of organisms — fish and crabs, but mostly larvae — that are at the center of a $1.1 billion debate: should the plant have to put in cooling towers that would vastly reduce the intake of water?

Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

A canal carrying water used at the Indian Point nuclear power plant and soon to be reintroduced into the Hudson River. The use of river water and the effect on wildlife has caused disagreement.

Multimedia

Graphic

Cooling Down Indian Point’s Reactors

which would eliminate the need for Indian Point to take in a huge volume of water from the Hudson to condense steam from the power generation process back into water.

“We think the world would be a better place with cooling towers,” said Phillip Musegaas, Riverkeeper’s program director. “For us, that’s a separate question from ultimate closure.”

The debate over Indian Point’s water use takes physical form at the river’s edge.

In between the reactor domes and the shore sit the water intake structures, including big metal machines with thick windows that look a bit like subway cars and enclose a cluster of sprays and rotating parts, like a car wash.

Inside the structures, wire mesh screens rotate in a continuous loop in front of six intake pipes, each seven feet in diameter, for each reactor.

The screens undergo a gentle spraying that is intended to free animals that have “impinged” on them, releasing them back into the river, and then a stronger one that blasts off leaves and twigs, litter and whatever else came in with the water.

The machines were installed in the 1990s as part of an earlier compromise over cooling water.

There is some debate about how effective they are at returning fish to the river, but James Steets, a spokesman for the plant, demonstrated one recent morning that they returned at least some.

He opened a hatch on a white fiberglass chute that slightly resembled a water slide at a theme park. Inside, swimming vigorously upstream, was a dark fish about the size of a little finger that had been caught on the screen and rinsed off.

Then it turned and zipped down with the flow toward a pipe that would carry it out to the middle of the river.

A few seconds later, a small crab followed.

Smaller living things are sucked right through the screens and then into the plant’s condenser, a giant metal box crossed by rows of small metal tubes. The tubes carry steam that has come from the reactor building and has given off much of its energy to turn a turbine. The turbine spins a generator that makes electricity.

With the cool river water inside the box but outside the tubes, the steam condenses back into water that is pumped toward the reactor again to be reboiled into steam.

The river water then flows out of the box, through a canal, and eventually back into the river, its temperature, at this time of year, about 15 degrees higher than when it entered.

Some eggs and small fish survive their transit through the condenser, Mr. Steets said, but for regulatory purposes, they are assumed to be killed. Among the eggs and baby fish are the shortnose sturgeon, which is endangered.

The cooling towers would cut the water intake by about 97 percent and eliminate the threat to the marine organisms. But plant officials argue that the towers would dump salt particles from the Hudson into the air, lowering the area’s air quality. Entergy’s engineers also point out that Indian Point’s two reactors are flanked by hills overlooking the Hudson. The cooling towers, which each would be the size of Yankee Stadium, would have to sit near the level of the Hudson River, requiring extensive excavation, they say.

Advocates of the towers counter that Entergy is trying to make construction seem as complicated as possible.

Entergy is instead proposing an updated kind of water intake called a “wedge wire” system with a cigar-shape cage covered with a screen like the one on a screen door. It is proposing to install 144 of these cages, which would suck in water more slowly. Entergy argues that far fewer fish hit the screen this way.

But the state says Indian Point should use the “best technology available,” which means cooling towers. In a letter denying Entergy’s application for a new water permit, the state said the tower system would save more than 90 percent of the organisms that are now killed.

Entergy replies that the wedge wire system would be nearly as effective and could be built years earlier, allowing far more wildlife to be saved in coming years.

The view of Mr. Pollock, Entergy’s senior executive at the plant, that the water permit is merely a surrogate for a bigger issue is shared by some industry observers. Some point out that the political outlook for Indian Point is not favorable; the New York attorney general,Andrew M. Cuomo, who is running for governor, has made closing down the plant the most specific part of his energy platform.

Shelby Tucker, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Company who follows utilities and independent power producers, attributes much of the opposition not to the fate of aquatic wildlife but to anxieties dating from the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa.

“There still persists a certain element that is very much against nuclear, for reasons they feel are appropriate,” he said. “But they might use other reasons to stop the nuclear plant from running.”

Yet the stakes are higher than simply the plant’s future, he said.

If Indian Point is shut, something will have to take its place to ensure the reliability of the grid in downstate New York. And with the plant’s output removed, Mr. Tucker says, electricity prices would rise for consumers around the state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/science/earth/23cooling.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bay Area officials push to build chargers for electric cars

By Paul Rogers

progers@mercurynews.com

Posted: 08/23/2010 12:00:00 AM PDT

Updated: 08/24/2010 05:15:44 AM PDT

Charging stations in front of the BYD Headquarters in Shenzhen, China... (LiPo Ching, Mercury News)

The Bay Area is expected to soon become one of America's hottest markets for the first mass-produced electric cars, the Nissan Leaf and the Chevy Volt.

But in the rush to drive electric, one thing is missing -- places to charge up.

Concerned that the next generation of green drivers not be left stalled by the roadside, air officials have approved a $5 million plan to install 5,000 electric car chargers around the nine-county Bay Area in the next five years at homes, apartments, office buildings, parking garages and other locations from San Jose to Santa Rosa.

There are currently about 120 public electric vehicle chargers in the Bay Area.

"We're trying to address range anxiety," said Damian Breen, director of grant programs for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which approved the program earlier this month. "We want people not to be worried their electric vehicle is going to run out of juice."

Funding for the program comes from a $4 fee for air pollution programs that motorists pay as part of their vehicle registration.

Within the next few years, there could be tens of thousands of electric vehicles on Bay Area roads. Already, Nissan has taken 20,000 paid reservations nationwide for the Leaf, and GM is putting 10,000 Volts up for sale in November. By 2012, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Tesla, Mitsubishi and other companies are expected to sell electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Exact locations for the charging stations have not been chosen yet, Breen said. But the goal of what is one of the largest programs in the nation of its kind is to divide chargers among homes, apartment buildings and public areas, from airports to supermarkets.

The Nissan Leaf, a five-seat vehicle that goes on sale in December and will travel 100 miles on a charge, will cost Californians $20,380 after rebates and tax credits. A 110/120-volt cord from the car can be plugged into any wall socket but will take 20 hours to charge the vehicle.

Most Leaf drivers are expected to buy a 220/240-volt charger to install in their garages, cutting the recharge time to eight hours. But the charger costs $2,200. Federal tax credits will pay up to half, and Breen said the air district will likely offer a voucher to cover 25 percent of up to 3,000 home units as part of its charger program.

The air district will place an additional 2,000 chargers -- 220/240-volt -- in public areas such as BART stations, shopping malls and parking garages. In most cases, motorists will swipe a credit card, like at a gas pump, and pay $5 to $10 to fully recharge a car, depending on the time of day and cost of PG&E power.

Lastly, 50 public high-speed chargers -- 480 volts -- also will be installed. Those will be able to recharge a Nissan Leaf in 30 minutes.

In the next few years, charging stations for electric vehicles will become commonplace, said Felix Kramer, founder of CalCars, a nonprofit group in Palo Alto that retrofits vehicles so they can be plugged in.

"Commercial parking lots are going to offer charging as a competitive advantage," he said. "New buildings will start announcing them as a feature to attract tenants. Condos will have them."

Kramer drives a 2003 Toyota Prius, which he converted to a plug-in hybrid in 2004 by adding dozens of lithium-ion batteries to the trunk. Because it can run on electricity before the gasoline engine kicks in, the car gets 100 miles per gallon of gas or more. Plugging it in at night to recharge the batteries is an afterthought.

"Everybody plugs in their cell phones to recharge them. It's no big deal," he said. "It takes me eight seconds to plug my car in."

Kramer said the air district's program should place most emphasis on home charging stations. Because the Leaf has a range of only 100 miles, he said, it will be purchased by many families as a second car, and charged mostly at home.

Chevy Volts will be able to travel 40 miles on electricity, and 340 miles total, because they also run on gasoline. The Volt, which will cost $33,250 after federal tax credits (it isn't eligible for a state tax credit because it isn't a purely battery vehicle), recharges faster than the Leaf.

It will take about four hours to recharge the Volt on 220/240 power and nine hours on 110/120 power. Unlike the Leaf, the Volt doesn't need a separate charging station, but will have different power cords for 110/120 and 220/240, the latter of which requires special outlets, similar to the kind used for home dryers.

Homes and workplaces should be the air district's main priority, said Shad Balch, a GM spokesman.

"It's not about where you frequent the most," he said, "but where you spend the most time."

Last year, the air district approved a smaller, $1.8 million program to install 474 chargers over the next two years. Those will be located at Safeways, Best Buys, Google and in public garages in San Jose, San Francisco, Oakland and other locations.

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_15872290

PG&E seeks more 'pumped hydro' to store energy

David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Reservoirs in the Sierra Nevada foothills don't just store water - they can store energy as well.

Through a system called pumped hydro storage, water from one reservoir can be released into another downhill, turning turbines along the way and generating electricity when the state's power grid needs it. Then, when the grid has ample energy, the water is pumped back uphill, to wait until it's needed again.

Six of these systems already exist in California. Now Pacific Gas and Electric Co. wants to build at least one more, arguing that large-scale energy storage will help smooth out the addition of more solar and wind power to the grid. The project is likely to take six years or more to receive all the necessary government permits.

The utility, based in San Francisco, asked California regulators on Friday for permission to spend almost $33.5 million to study and design a pumped hydro system in the Mokelumne River watershed in Amador County. Some of the money would also pay for exploring other possible sites, including one in the Kings River watershed in Fresno County.

The Mokelumne River project would connect two existing reservoirs that PG&E already uses to generate hydroelectric power on a regular basis: the Lower Bear and Salt Springs reservoirs. Other possible variations would include using Upper Bear Reservoir or a new reservoir that would be built on nearby Cole Creek.

Construction of the entire project would cost an estimated $2.5 billion, although the price could vary significantly depending on the final design.

The importance of large-scale energy storage has grown as the nation increases its use of renewable power.

Solar cells and wind turbines are notoriously fickle, their energy output literally changing with the weather. Relying on them for a substantial portion of our electricity supply requires adding backup generation from fossil-fuel power plants or developing some form of energy storage.

"Often wind blows the hardest overnight, when we least need it," said Stephanie McCorkle, spokeswoman for the California Independent System Operator, which manages the state's electrical grid. "Some of the storage technologies could be beneficial in terms of capturing wind power and using it when needed."

But storing energy at that scale isn't easy.

Pumped hydro has been around for decades, with PG&E operating one such system in Fresno County since the 1980s. But other proposed storage technologies remain in the experimental stages. A PG&E project announced last year would use renewable power sources to compress air and pump it into an underground reservoir. The pressurized air would later be fed into turbines, when needed.

Pumped hydro is limited by geography. It requires steep terrain, which the Mokelumne watershed has in spades. Salt Springs Reservoir sits 1,863 feet below Lower Bear Reservoir, lending velocity to the water as it flows from one to the other.

PG&E estimates that the project could one day generate between 400 megawatts and 1,200 megawatts of electricity. A megawatt is a snapshot figure, roughly equal to the amount of electricity used by 750 typical homes at any given instant.

Despite the limitation, pumped hydro has several benefits, including speed. A pumped hydro facility can increase its power output quickly.

"It's really almost a matter of turning the valve and increasing the water flow," said PG&E spokesman Paul Moreno. "Hydropower has the ability to ramp up very quickly, much faster even than fossil-fuel plants."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/24/BUKL1F24UC.DTL

Clean energy laws, utility costs make New Jersey a solar hotbed

Published: Sunday, August 22, 2010, 6:00 AM

Abby Gruen/The Star-Ledger 

PHOTOS BY MITSU YASUKAWA/THE STAR-LEDGEREdward Fischer of Pompton Lakes waited nine years to have solar panels installed in his 1950s Cape Cod. A California company's financing method made the project affordable.

Edward Fischer of Pompton Lakes finally got solar panels this week on his tidy, 1950s Cape Cod with sky blue shutters.

He had been trying for nine years to figure out how to afford them. But two years ago he gave up when he was quoted an out-of-pocket price — with rebates — of $30,000.

Then, he read a newspaper article in January about a California company that had a better method for financing solar power.

"I called them in a flash, and when they said it was going to cost me $600 I said, ‘Hallelujah, my dream of having the power meter go backward was finally going to be granted,’ " Fischer said.

New Jersey is the hottest place in the United States for solar energy these days, and it is not because it is so sunny. The Garden State’s progressive clean energy laws and high electricity costs make it the best place to install solar power because systems can pay for themselves in less than five years — faster than any state in the nation.

Mercury Solar Systems, one of the larger solar installers in New Jersey, built the array on Fischers’ steep roof. But the financing, insurance and maintenance was handled by SunRun, the California-based company that caught Fischer’s eye.

The state’s burgeoning solar industry is attracting the attention of companies from around the country, especially from California, which has long been the nation’s largest solar market. Its 66,000 solar installations dwarf New Jersey’s 6,500 projects.

In the past year, established San Francisco-area solar companies like SunRun, Tioga Energy and One Block off the Grid have been partnering with local installers and bringing new methods for financing solar to New Jersey.

"SunRun and One Block off the Grid are pursuing alternative business models," said Justin Barnes, a solar policy analyst at the N.C. Solar Center in Raleigh, N.C. "They figured out all the details in California, and now they are looking into new markets to make money."

Since January, when SunRun started operating in New Jersey, the company has had a 60 percent growth rate each month, completing nearly 500 deals, said Lynn Jurich, co-founder and president. The 3-year-old firm owns the solar panels, and sells the power back to the homeowners.

A worker from Mercury Solar Systems carries a solar panel into Fischer's home. Fischer estimates the installation will cost him $600.

In December, San Mateo-based Tioga Energy won a $22.3 million contract with its partner, SunDurance Energy of South Plainfield, to build a solar project at 19 municipal and school buildings in Morris County. Tioga will own and maintain the equipment and sell the energy back to the county. The county will buy the power for less from Tioga than it would pay the local utility.

The financing arrangement is complex, as it combines power purchase agreements from Tioga and low-interest bonds issued by the Morris County Improvement Authority. That allows the county to benefit from federal tax incentives and save $3.5 million in electricity costs over the next 15 years.

"Being in the solar industry, I talk about policy a lot and I regularly point to New Jersey for having the very best policies for renewables," said Marc Roper, vice president of sales and marketing for Tioga, who formerly lived in Hunterdon County. "The market creates competition so consumers are not paying more than they need to, and it lets us plan for the long term."

New Jersey is a leader among states from Arizona to Massachusetts, which are using a solar renewable energy credit systems to encourage property owners to invest in solar. New Jersey’s solar renewable energy credits are the most generous in the nation, giving homeowners $655 for every megawatt of sun power they generate. That’s more than twice the amount for any other state.

"The California gold rush is a solar credit story," said Gary Lakritz, president of Knollwood Energy in Chester Township, an energy credit financial advisor. "I have a lot of customers investing in solar wondering whether to go to Pennsylvania or New Jersey, and I always recommend New Jersey because of the price of the credits."

New Jersey’s solar credits can be traded on an exchange. One of the largest online marketplaces for New Jersey’s solar credits, SRECTrade, is based in San Francisco.

It was formed three years ago by Stanford University business school graduates who saw the opportunity in trading SRECs — solar renewable energy credits. SRECs from 15 states are sold through the auction site, but New Jersey’s make up the bulk of their business.

While New Jersey is the second-largest solar market in the U.S. for installations after California, it lags behind the West Coast state considerably in solar product manufacturing. Petra Solar of South Plainfield is the only producer of solar panels here.

Petra Solar is best known for providing solar panels for utility poles to PSE&G for a large program that will generate 40 megawatts of energy, enough to power 40,000 homes a year. The 4-year-old firm has grown from 14 employees last year to 140 this year, and has raised $54 million in the past three years, all from sources outside of New Jersey.

"We are the only manufacturer in New Jersey, and we need a lot more," said Shihab Kuran, president of Petra Solar. "We need a supply chain."

Recently Kuran, who has made a number of deals this year for sales outside of New Jersey, has been able to turn the tables on the California invasion into the Garden State.

"We opened an office in California earlier this year, in Santa Monica," said Kuran. "We are exporting a unique product invented here to California."

http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2010/08/clean_energy_laws_utility_cost.html

Article location:http://www.fastcompany.com/1683897/let-the-great-wind-spin

August 19, 2010

Windy City's Gusts Supply Power to Stylish Turbines

By Rachel Arndt

If you say it right, “urban turbine” rhymes. But can it move beyond its oxymoronic wordplay and into the real world? Designers and architects are beginning to say yes.

In Chicago, Greenway Self-Park [1] uses urban wind power and sleek architectural design to spruce up the dull city garage. Greenway Self-Park, which opened at the end of 2009, has 12 turbines--which started moving this summer--attached to its side and is topped with a rain collection system. For HOK, the firm behind the project, green design was an opportunity for good design, something rarely seen in parking garages. That means a screen instead of a wall, giving the 11-story structure both an open look--that admits its automotive contents--and efficient ventilation, which helps lower energy costs.

“With the design, we took away the traditions of parking garages,” says Todd Halamka, director of design at the Chicago office of HOK. He wants to celebrate the building’s function, not hide it.



Greenway’s turbines were made by Helix Wind, though the initial plan was to use Aerotecture, a Chicago-based solar and wind energy company. But after studying the wind patterns near the garage, the company decided the site was too “low power,” says Bil Becker, Aerotecture CEO. To avoid making himself--and the burgeoning wind-power industry--look bad, they withdrew from the project. “They’ll try to [force] you into building a sculpture, he says, “but we don’t make sculptures.”

Instead, the company makes turbines and solar panels, often used in combination so “the high sun in the summer is compensating for the low wind” and vice versa in the winter, Becker says. So far, the five-year old company has more than 30 turbines in Chicago and its suburbs.

Meanwhile, across the country in Reno, the city government is behind the push for reducing the carbon footprint. There are two turbines atop City Hall, one at a wastewater plant, one at a park, and two more in downtown Reno. Four more are in the works.

The City Hall turbine won’t start spinning till at least September, but nearby residents have already praised the look of the blades, which are enshrined in a hoop to cut down noise. They’re rated at less than 35 decibels, says Jason Greddes, Reno’s environmental services administrator, which is quieter than a refrigerator’s hum.

The wind is blowing across the pond too. The three turbines atop London’s Strata skyscraper stand out because they fit in. It’s the first building to have the machines integrated in its structure. In a review in the Guardian, Jonathan Glancey writes [2] that the building has “the feel of an airship holding aloft the passenger cabins (or flats) below.” Others have chosen a simpler description: the Electric Razor.

Will urban wind power catch up? There are certainly enough customers, says Aerotecture’s Becker, but he worries wind power is misunderstood and too often associated with images of endless plains interrupted by swarms of looming towers. “We’re so different,” he says, “that we’re not well understood.”

---

Links:
[1] http://www.greenwayselfpark.com/
[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2010/jul/18/strata-tower-london-green-architecture

August 19, 2010

China to Invest Billions in Electric and Hybrid Cars

By DAVID BARBOZA

SHANGHAI — The Chinese government, determined to become a world leader in green technology, says it plans to invest billions of dollars over the next few years to develop electric and hybrid vehicles.

The government said a group of 16 big state-owned companies had already agreed to form an alliance to do research and development, and create standards for electric and hybrid vehicles.

The plan aims to put more than a million electric and hybrid vehicles on the road over the next few years in what is already the world’s biggest and fastest growing auto market.

The announcement, analysts say, is another example of how China seeks to marshal resources and tackle industries and new markets. The plan also underlines what China describes as its growing commitment to combating pollution and reducing carbon emissions.

According to some reports by state-run media, Beijing intends to invest nearly $15 billion in the venture, which if true would make it one of the world’s most ambitious attempts to develop more energy-efficient vehicles.

The bold plan was announced late Wednesday by one of China’s most powerful bodies: the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission. Sasac, as it is known, operates under China’s cabinet, or State Council. From Beijing, it oversees about 125 of China’s biggest state-owned companies.

State-owned companies “have an overall advantage in developing the electric vehicle industry,” Li Rongrong, Sasac’s chairman, said in a statement.

Analysts say the government plan bears watching.

“This is the kind of plan the government would like to happen, and they certainly have the resources to put behind it,” said Oded Shenkar, a professor of management at Ohio State University and the author of “The Chinese Century.”

“The government could easily underwrite or subsidize the development costs,” Professor Shenkar said, “and do it at a time when the global car industry is still reeling.”

Few details of the plan were released. But Beijing said that over the next three years, 500,000 energy-efficient vehicles would reach the market each year and that more-efficient vehicles would soon account for 5 percent of passenger car sales in China. This year, analysts expect vehicle sales in China to reach about 17 million.

Sasac’s announcement said the alliance had been formed with about $200 million. But other reports said the investment was tied to the government’s plan to revamp the auto industry and promote energy-efficient vehicles with an investment of nearly $15 billion.

There is some opposition to the plan. The English edition of The Global Times, another state newspaper, said on Thursday that some groups had criticized the alliance, saying it favored big state-owned companies and had not made clear who would own the intellectual property.

“Such an association should include all firms strong in the area, rather than only S.O.E.’s,” Zhong Shi, editor in chief of China Automotive Review, told The Global Times, referring to state-owned enterprises. “Though lots of foreign firms launched technology agreements, there is no precedent of successful technology exchange in China’s auto industry.”

The government said the country’s top state-owned oil producers, power companies, several military and aviation companies, and two of the nation’s biggest car companies, the China FAW Group and Dongfeng Auto, would be involved in the effort.

The announcement came shortly after General Motors and S.A.I.C., which is based in Shanghai and is one of China’s other big state-controlled automakers, said they planned to form an alliance to develop more fuel-efficient engines and transmissions for global markets.

Another Chinese company, BYD, which has an investment from Warren E. Buffett, is developing battery-powered vehicles.

Whether China can successfully develop electric and hybrid vehicles at world-class standards is still unclear. China has lots of automakers. But the country’s engine and car technology lag far behind that in Japan and the West, and many Chinese carmakers have for years been accused of stealing designs and technology.

But big companies like G.M. and Volkswagen have been in long-term joint ventures with Chinese automakers. And experts say that some of the technology being developed here by Chinese engineers has advanced.

“What you have here is the confluence of two important things,” Professor Shenkar said. “The car industry was long ago designated as a pillar industry for China. And the second thing is green technology or high tech; this is where the action is going to be, and China wants to be there.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/business/energy-environment/20car.html

China launches low-carbon pilot in 

select cities, provinces

 

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) launched a national low-carbon province and low-carbon city experimental project in Beijing on Aug. 18. The project will be implemented in five provinces, namely Guangdong, Liaoning, Hubei, Shaanxi and Yunnan, and in eight cities, namely Tianjin, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Xiamen, Hangzhou, Nanchang, Guiyang and Baoding.

Relevant government officials of those provinces and cities have promised to research and develop a low-carbon development plan, accelerate the establishment of an industry structure featuring low carbon emissions and actively promote low-carbon lifestyles and consumption patterns in order to help tackle global climate change.

Xie Zhenhua, deputy director of the NDRC, said the low-carbon experimental project is a significant measure China has taken to deal with climate change. 

"For the long-term interests of the Chinese nation as well as all human beings, the Party Central Committee and the State Council regard addressing climate change as one of the important strategies of China's economic and social development, and has set goals to control the emissions of greenhouse gasses until 2020. China will include the goal into the medium and long-term plan of the national economic and social development."

According to the NDRC, the experimental areas will include the work on climate change into the local "12th Five-Year Plans" and formulate the low-carbon development plan. The government of these experimental provinces and cities will clearly establish operational goals, major tasks and specific measures of controlling the local emissions of greenhouse gases. 

In addition, they will also establish the statistics and management system of greenhouse gas emissions and actively promote the low carbon lifestyle and consumption pattern in order to reduce the carbon emissions.

The NDRC also required the experimental areas to explore a mechanism to promote energy conservation and emissions reduction as well as the development of the low-carbon industry and implement the target-related responsibility system in controlling greenhouse gas emissions. 

The experimental areas are also required to explore effective government guidance and economic incentive policies, study and apply the market mechanism to achieve the emissions goal as well as closely follow the latest technological advancements in the low carbon field and actively promote the introduction, absorption and re-innovation of technologies or conduct joint research and development on new technologies with overseas companies.
By People's Daily Online

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90862/7110049.html

August 19, 2010

A New EPRI Computer Model Makes the Case for Regional Climate Solutions

By PETER BEHR of ClimateWire

The utility industry's top research group is making the case that regional solutions to the nation's climate policy challenges offer the best deal for consumers.

A new economic analysis being developed by the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., indicates that the ideal responses to future federal limits on carbon emissions -- from economic and technical standpoints -- would vary greatly across major regions of the country, as utilities replace conventional coal-fired power plants with different mixes of generation and efficiency programs.

"The one-size-fits-all response ... from a technical perspective, doesn't make a lot of sense," said Bryan Hannegan, EPRI vice president for environment and renewable energy. "We want to open a dialogue on how different regions can respond differently and yet produce the results that we need," he said.

According to initial returns from the EPRI analysis, wind power would dominate new generation in the Great Plains and Midwest. New nuclear power would grow fastest in the South, after 2020. The East and South would import large amounts of surplus wind power from the nation's central wind belt beginning about the same time. Geothermal energy would become an important new source in the West. And carbon capture and storage would emerge as a viable replacement for conventional coal and natural gas plants around 2030.

EPRI's new regional economic project was outlined to industry officials and regulators by institute President Steve Specker at EPRI's 2010 Summer Seminar in Chicago Aug. 3. A completed version of the analysis is expected to be finished by the end of the year, so that EPRI can run detailed regional scenarios in 2011.

The analysis is generated by EPRI's Prism computer model that calculates the economic effects of changing prices for different kinds of energy as demand increases over the next four decades.

Simulating response to an 'aggressive' federal carbon cap

It assumes congressional enactment of an "aggressive" federal greenhouse gas limitation equivalent to $30 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions, with the price rising by 5 percent per year through 2050. That scenario would achieve an 80 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from current levels, EPRI said.

Then EPRI's model calculates which choices of new generation, transmission and storage projects, and demand response programs would meet the carbon emission restrictions at the least cost to consumers in each of the regions. The model is based on EPRI's assumptions of the future costs of generation and efficiency options and its judgment on how fast new technologies such as power storage and new reactors can enter the market.

If they carry weight in the political debate in Congress, EPRI's findings could work against the case for a national renewable energy standard that would create the same mandates for the wind-rich Great Plains region and the Southeast and New England, where onshore wind resources are rated as poor. Supporters of a national renewable standard say there are 60 Senate votes for the approach. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) disagrees and says he will not bring the renewable standard to the Senate floor this year.

Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association, warned recently that new installations of wind power turbines are plummeting in the United States, and that shelving proposals for a national standard is "beyond comprehension."

Under EPRI's analysis, the high price for carbon emissions creates price pressures that will drive new generation options and efficiency investments, rendering mandates like a national renewable standard unnecessary, Hannegan said. "If you trust the market, why do you need additional mandates on top of that?" he said. But given the implacable political and regional opposition to carbon taxes or pricing, EPRI's market case may look like a theoretical moon shot at present.

Modeling the market response, not mandates

But Hannegan says the shifts in energy development coming from the EPRI model coincide with what is happening around the country even without a carbon price. "Because renewable resources are regionally disparate and, because energy markets are different around the country, you start to see diverse responses" by region, Hannegan said. The model generates four very different regional pictures of future generation. "That's actually how the different regions of the country are responding now. You start to see in our model the behaviors that are out there in the real world."

The most far-reaching changes in generation resources occur after around 2025, according to the model. At that point, bringing on new nuclear power and carbon capture and storage becomes less expensive than relying solely on energy efficiency and wind power, Hannegan said. The cost of continuing a wind power buildout after around 2025 rises sharply because urban centers won't be able to continue tapping economical Great Plains wind resources without tens of thousands of miles of new high-voltage transmission lines, or major investments in offshore wind power, or in large-scale storage of power generation, EPRI says.

The model's assumptions are likely to spark debate on various sides of the energy and climate policy divides.

By projecting large imports of wind power into the East and South, the analysis also butts into the strong preferences among governors and utilities in those regions against the transfer of Great Plains wind to the East Coast.

EPRI projects that carbon capture and storage will become economically viable, and that advances in materials science will allow existing nuclear power plants to be retrofitted to last another 20 years, or 80 years in all. New nuclear reactors will double the current nuclear generating capacity in the South, and nearly equal current output in the East, according to the analysis.

Skeptics about the future of nuclear power will question EPRI's assumptions about the costs of bringing new reactors online. Advocates of demand response programs and distributed energy are likely to ask why those options don't play a bigger role in EPRI's analysis.

Hannegan said the model is "illustrative," not "predictive," indicating general directions and trends rather than precise outcomes.

The model projects a relatively slow growth in electricity demand overall, after allowing for demand response and energy efficiency programs. Demand for power grows fastest in the South, based on EPRI's conclusions about the pace of economic growth there.

State regulators like the results

Hannegan said EPRI's model also takes into account regional differences in energy markets that affect generation strategies and energy efficiency programs.

There are a number of states that have taken steps to promote energy efficiency through mandates or performance requirements. Some have decoupled electricity rates from power consumption. "These responses are uneven" from state to state, he said.

"The circumstances in each of the regions differ -- the industry mix, how much energy efficiency they've already engaged in, what are the technology opportunities, [and] how much energy efficiency is available to be harvested," he said.

For example, efficiency gains are likely to be much greater in the Sun Belt, where air conditioning loads are particularly high, versus the upper Midwest or New England, where summers are cooler. Plug-in hybrid vehicles are far more likely to be adopted early in densely populated urban areas than in the sparsely settled Western areas, he said.

Ron Binz, chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, heard Specker's presentation and liked it. Binz, who also chairs a climate policy task force for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said states need to be given flexibility in meeting national climate policy requirements and goals. "We know how to regulate. We know how to get compliance with regulations on a least-cost basis. We would universally advise Congress not to get into the details in what happens within the states," he said in an interview.

The collapse of comprehensive federal climate legislation in the Senate this summer tipped the policymaking balance toward the states and regions. The anticipated regulation by U.S. EPA of greenhouse gas emissions and traditional air pollutants from power plants could shift the initiative back to Washington, leaving EPRI's model with more work to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/08/19/19climatewire-a-new-epri-computer-model-makes-the-case-for-93010.html?pagewanted=print