ExxonMobil Not Very Concerned that Climate Change Regulations May Affect Business

New York, NY -- On the same day the world's scientists issued their latest report on climate change and the risks it poses to society, the nation's biggest oil and gas company said the world's climate policies are "highly unlikely" to stop it from selling fossil fuels far into the future.

Exxon Mobil issued a report Monday on the risks that climate change policies could pose to the value of its assets and future profitability, by coincidence on the same day as the latest paper by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a Nobel Prize-winning United Nations group assembled to assess the science and risks of climate change.

Both Exxon and its critics used IPCC research to bolster their cases.

Exxon's report was in response to the contentions of some shareholders and environmental activists that the assets underpinning the value of Exxon and other fossil fuel companies will be worth less as society restricts consumption of fossil fuels to fight climate change.

The report, the first detailed response to these concerns by a major oil company, acknowledges the need to adopt policies to address climate change. But it concludes that because oil and gas are so critical to global development and economic growth, governments are "highly unlikely" to adopt policies that cut emissions so sharply that fossil fuel consumption would be severely restricted.

"We know enough based on the research and science that the risk (of climate change) is real and appropriate steps should be taken to address that risk," Ken Cohen, Exxon's government affairs chief, said in an interview Monday. "But given the essential role that energy plays in everyone's lives, those steps need to be taken in context with other realities we face, including lifting much of the world's population out of poverty."

Natasha Lamb, director of equity research at Arjuna Capital, a sustainable wealth management group that filed the shareholder resolution with Exxon, called Exxon's report a "milestone."

"It's a huge first step in the right direction and it shows a lot of leadership," she said. Arjuna and As You Sow, a nonprofit that promotes environmental corporate responsibility, agreed to withdraw their resolution after Exxon agreed to issue a report on climate risks.

But Lamb said she was disappointed that Exxon declined to explain what would happen if society did in fact adopt policies that would lead to sharply lower emissions, something known broadly as a low-carbon standard.

"The question is not whether or not we'll face the low carbon standard, but whether they are prepared to address it. We need to know what's at stake," she said. "But at least now investors know that Exxon is not addressing the low carbon scenario and (is) placing investor capital at risk."

Exxon and the environmental groups agree that climate change is a risk and that society will take steps to reduce emissions from fossil fuels to slow the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They differ, however, on how drastic society's response could be, and what would cost more — severely restricting fossil fuel consumption or not doing so and allowing more carbon dioxide to build in the atmosphere.

Exxon, along with other private and government energy researchers, believes that demand for fossil fuels will continue to grow around the world as more people demand access to electricity, heat, and transportation. Exxon predicts that carbon dioxide emissions from energy sources will peak by about 2030 and then begin to decline as society becomes more efficient and switches to lower-carbon fuels.

The Irving, Texas-based company's report notes that its emissions predictions track closely with the IPCC's "intermediate" scenario considered in its last report.

Exxon says that renewable energy sources are not now cheap enough nor technologically advanced enough to meet growing demand for energy, let alone also replace oil and gas. Governments therefore face a choice between restricting access to energy or raising the cost of energy significantly. In Exxon's view, governments will chose to raise the cost of fossil fuels to encourage alternatives somewhat, but stop well short of enacting policies that will sharply curtail consumption, especially in developing countries, because populations would resist and social upheaval would result.

Arjuna Capital's Lamb disagrees. "There's greater risk of social upheaval from climate change itself," Arjuna Capital's Lamb says. "(Exxon's report) ignores the cost of inaction."

Lamb points to some of the conclusions in the latest IPCC report, which says climate change will worsen problems that society already has, such as poverty, sickness, violence and displacement.

The report also says climate change will slow down the benefits of a modernizing society, such as regular economic growth and more efficient crop production — exactly the types of things that Exxon argues are delivered now only by relatively cheap and available fossil fuels.

View the original article here

Energy efficiency Act helps in the fight against climate change

To maneuver, after months of behind the scenes, it seems that the Senate will debate soon on critically important laws that could save American consumers, businesses and the Federal Government hundreds of millions of dollars annually using less energy. And with less energy, a large leg gives us in the fight against climate change.

Simply put, a "win-win" for all would this bi-partisan legislation.

Improving energy efficiency should be a national priority - no mercy. Today, there are an infinite list low-cost, commercially available technologies, the improvement of energy efficiency and can pay for itself over a short period of time.

Our country's energy law helps to reduce the energy savings and competitiveness Act, also known as Shaheen Portman, create our economic competitiveness, new American jobs and improve U.S. energy security. It was through a coalition of more than 200 companies, associations and interest groups, including the confirmed solar energy industries Association (SEIA).

Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) deserve great credit for this sensible legislation forward move and that the question of energy efficiency on the front burner in Congress.

As the second largest consumer of energy in the world second only to China - it is of vital importance to the United States energy efficiency to improve. Take for example the use of computers. By some estimates, typical computer between 65 to 250 Watts used one while a monitor burn an other 35 to 80 watts. Multiply, distributed by 310 million computers across the United States, and you look around an enormous amount of electricity used every day - only makes our computers!

Among other things, Shaheen Portman requires the Federal Government to come up with new power-saving features of your computer as the largest energy consumer in the United States. This saves not only energy, but also the taxpayers.

According to the energy information administration, residential and commercial buildings are currently almost 3/4ths all power consumption in the United States. Reducing the amount of wasted energy will help our economy as well as the environment.

Senator Shaheen said it best: "The cheapest energy is the energy we don't use."

Wasted energy, Shaheen Portman also shorten:

Strengthens national model building codes to make efficient new homes and commercial buildings more energy.Efficiency Upgrades.Hilft provides incentives for private sector investment in commercial, industrial and municipal buildings manufacturers reduce energy consumption and more competitive through efficiency upgrades. federal authorities to use existing resources to plans for new federal buildings, with the most current update can Baunormen.Legt efficiency a new DOE program - SupplySTAR - help companies to make that their supply chains more efficient.
America's solar industry is doing its part. Today, more than 30 utility-scale clean energy projects under construction, are thousands of electricians, Steelworkers and workers to work and contribute, the CO2 emissions to bring. These facilities together with roof solar will help on real estate, businesses and schools, to generate clean, abundant energy for future generations.

Innovative solar heating and cooling systems offer low-cost, efficient options American consumers, businesses, and schools to meet their energy needs while reducing their energy consumption.

As an industry, we are very concerned about climate change. It is a real and growing threat to America and the rest of the world.

Shaheen Portman is a smart, sensible approach to combating climate change, by reducing the amount of energy we use and waste.

Improved building efficiency, R & D, cost-saving programs, Shaheen Portman should one increased get balanced and pragmatic approach to the biggest bang for our money, when it comes to energy. Will it be this year? Hopefully. Should it pass this year? Absolute. This is an opportunity that we simply cannot afford to lose.

Rhone Resch, President and CEO of the solar energy industries Association

View the original article here

Inside Obama climate change plan

New Hampshire, USA-Today President Obama spoke at Georgetown University about his plans, and large addressing climate change. Before his actual speech the key published in the White House what he would suggest.
The EPO, the cooperation with the Member States, industry and other stakeholders, sets new standards in CO2 pollution. "Strict new rules" are similarly rebuilt, for toxins such as mercury and arsenic present. These new regulations are expected existing power plants, as well as new target. The Federal Government will provide up to $8 billion in loan guarantees for "Advanced fossil energy" and energy efficiency projects – and large define upgrades, improving energy efficiency system, CO2 capture and system availability; Examples are enhanced "clean coal" synthesis gas, better high-temperature materials and designs of the turbine. The Department of the Interior (DOI) will be pressed to allow enough renewable energy projects (such as wind and solar) makes up to 2020 to 6 million homes on public land. The DOI also renames the first hydroelectric project for priority in Nice and create a new target of 100 MW of renewable energy at the State-funded apartments until 2020 (while maintaining a commitment to renewable energy on military installations provide).

The DOI has already became the front of renewable energy on public land ahead. Last summer it largely set 285,000 hectares of public land for solar development in six States, potentially houses more than development - makes enough to 7 million American households 23 GW. And three weeks ago, it approved three projects with renewable energy in the southwest of the United States: the 350-megawatt Midland-solar energy project and New York Canyon Geothermie 70-MW project in Nevada and the 100-MW Quartzsite of concentrated solar power (CSP) project in Arizona, collective, up to 520 MW enough makes nearly 200,000 homes.

(Note, however, that this budget delivery figures are not easily interpreted--it is unclear whether it supply the generation of Summit by represents solar and/or wind combined (or both), or whether and how the combination what other generation is required with the, to connect them.) Pre-release versions of the Obama statement not clarify when or how other energy sources be included in the directive.)

Other guidelines on Obama's German agenda include apartment buildings, today up to at least 20 percent by 2020 to make more efficient commercial and industrial buildings; and the reduction of CO2 pollution by at least 3 billion tons cumulatively up to 2030 — more than half of the annual carbon burden from the US energy - efficiency standards for appliances & Federal dwellings.

That is one-third of the Obama climate action plan. Another part relates more to the infrastructure as energy and deals with climate change instead of prevention: directing agencies to better support investments strengthen local climate-resilient communities against future extreme weather and climate affect (with Hurricane Sandy impact as a touchstone), create sustainable and resilient hospitals better educate to minimize partnership to the hazard of catastrophic farmers, ranchers and landowners "agricultural productivity" and a national drought resistance.

Sees yet another portion of Obama's plan beyond our borders: write to extend new and existing international initiatives, including the bilateral initiatives with China, India and other major emitting countries; a call for an end of US Government support for public financing of new powers coal-fired plants overseas (with a few exceptions for efficiency in poor countries and facilities with CO2 capture and sequestration); and capacity expand Government and local community planning and response capabilities.

We will be updating this story throughout the day (and days in advance) with analysis the President plan and in particular what next happens - how will it eventually translate into action and legislation, and what could put this trip.

View the original article here

EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth

Members of the European Parliament’s environment committee meet today for a second time to revive a plan the full assembly rejected that would have boosted the cost of greenhouse-gas emissions. The rebuff left the cost of pollution near a record low, leaving companies with less incentive to reduce emissions.

The situation “reflects a sea-change against climate policy,” said European Green Party Co-Chair Reinhard Buetikofer, who supported the plan. The effort to limit carbon gases “is not being perceived as an opportunity by industry but rather a burden,” he said, adding that the decision “destroyed the foundation of common European climate policy.”

With a recession in the countries sharing the euro in its second year, efforts to clean up the environment and spur renewables are taking a back seat to programs that bail out the most indebted countries and put people back to work. They herald a wider struggle to set new climate protection and renewable energy policies, and threaten to keep prices near historic lows in the Emissions Trading System, or ETS.

The region’s recession crimped manufacturing output, reducing pollution in the process. The EU’s failure to mop up surplus permits sent prices lower.

Company Impact

Lower carbon prices help power generators that use a greater share of coal, since burning coal emits about twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas. Utilities such as RWE AG in Essen, Germany, and Warsaw-based PGE SA benefit over those that derive energy mostly from wind, natural gas and uranium, including Germany’s EON SE, France’s GDF Suez SA and CEZ AS in Prague. All have been hurt by a drop in power prices stemming from the economic slump.

“With a carbon price of nil, coal is by far the most attractive option,” said Chris Davies, a U.K. member of the assembly’s environment committee. “One of the purposes of the ETS was to give long-term direction to investors. With climate policy seen to be in disarray, there is no such direction.”

Companies need a stable carbon price on which to base investment decisions, said GDF Suez Chief Executive Officer Gerard Mestrallet. “We have to re-establish a carbon signal,” he told reporters on May 2. “Coal is being chosen ahead of gas, so gas plants are being stopped. It’s an enormous problem.”

EON CEO Johannes Teyssen said at the company’s annual meeting in Essen on May 3 that lawmakers have made the emissions system “shrivel” and that the vote was “a black day for efficient climate protection.” A company spokesman said it would hurt margins for generating power from gas.

Price Slump

The cost of carbon dioxide credits on the European Union emissions trading system fell from an all-time high of 31 euros a metric ton in April 2006 to 3.81 euros on the ICE Future Europe exchange as of 12:05 p.m. in London today. Utilities that have a stock of carbon credits, such as Spain’s Endesa SA, may have to write down their value, said Jose Martin-Vivas, a utilities analyst for Mirabaud Securities in Madrid.

The proposal to temporarily cut the oversupply of allowances divided EU governments, Parliament and industry. While nations led by France, Denmark and the U.K. backed the fix, Poland, Greece and Cyprus were among those opposing it, saying it would raise energy prices and might amount to market manipulation.

Lawmakers sent the plan, known as backloading because it delays auctions for new credits, back to the committee for more talks. Legislators on the panel are scheduled to meet today and tomorrow. They have until mid-June to recommend a solution on the market fix to the full assembly. Climate experts from the EU’s 27 governments convene on May 27 to discuss a solution.

German Position

Buetikofer said the measure was weighed down by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s failure to speak in favor of it. On May 3, the chancellor said she supported backloading while indicating the coalition government doesn’t have a unified position on the matter yet. They were her first comments on the subject. Speaking at a climate conference in Berlin today, Merkel said carbon permits prices are lower than assumed because of the economic slump.

“I personally say that if you develop a system for which projected growth rates are a key element, and the growth rates are totally different from what you projected, then the question whether one has to revise that can’t be a taboo,” she said.

Mired in sovereign-debt crises that’s forced five nations to take bailouts, the EU is trying to balance climate policies that raise electricity costs high enough to encourage renewables against the need to keep manufacturers competitive.

The bloc’s regulatory arm, the commission, says Europe needs new targets to cut greenhouse gases after current ones expire in 2020, and a renewable energy framework through 2030 to give investors clarity and prepare for a global climate deal.

‘Reality’

“Backloading shows how difficult the reality is,” said Matthias Groote, chairman of the environment committee, who oversees the proposal in the assembly. “It’s 100 percent certain that it all makes the debate on 2030 targets more difficult.”

Parliamentarians on April 16 voted 334 to 315 for blocking the carbon market rescue.

“This is the first time I can remember when parliament has put economic survival and jobs ahead of green orthodoxy,” said Roger Helmer, a member of the U.K. Independence Party who has been in the parliament for 14 years and opposes emissions trading. “It marks an absolute watershed.”

Lobbyists including the BusinessEurope alliance of 41 industrial groups and Eurofer, which represents steelmakers, welcomed the vote, with Eurofer Director General Gordon Moffat saying “high carbon prices result in the deindustrialization of Europe.”

System’s Roots

The ETS was founded in 2005 and is the cornerstone of EU climate policy, capping emissions from more than 11,000 power plants and factories owned by companies from RWE, the bloc’s biggest emitter, to brewer Carlsberg A/S and steelmaker ArcelorMittal. Polluters are issued permits representing a ton of carbon. If their pollution exceeds their cap, they must buy permits from companies which undershoot.

With the EU system accounting for 89 percent of the $61 billion market worldwide, Australia, China, South Korea and California are among countries and regions planning or starting up their own emissions trading programs.

“At the very time that we’re failing to make our emissions trading policy work, other countries are going in that direction,” said Caroline Lucas, a U.K. lawmaker and former member of the European assembly who said while she’s “not a fan” of carbon markets, “it’s the only game in town.”

“They’ve scuppered a chance of making the emissions trading system an effective tool in the battle to reduce climate emissions,” she said.

Market Glut

Following the vote carbon permits for December plummeted as much as 45 percent, a record, and extended losses the next day to an all-time low of 2.46 euros a metric ton. They have lost as much 85 percent in the past four years as the economic slump cut demand for pollution rights and aggravated a glut of allowances.

The limits on greenhouse gas discharges were set before the euro area entered two recessions in four years which lowered industrial production and emissions, cutting demand for the allowances in the system, which has no price floor.

“This makes the ETS irrelevant in Europe’s bid to reduce the use of fossil fuels,” Remi Gruet, senior climate adviser at the European Wind Energy Association said in a statement after the vote. “The carbon price will continue having no impact on investment decisions in the power sector.”

Without shoring up the carbon market, member states are instead likely to pursue their own policies, according to Buetikofer. “What industry will get will be a very scattered patchwork kind of regulatory framework which will make their life much more miserable and bureaucratic impediments will be much more burdensome,” he said.

EU’s Ambition

The commission aims to propose by the end of this year a new set of goals to reduce greenhouse gases and boost the share of clean technologies in its energy consumption by 2030.

“It’s clear that now the 2030 discussion is more acute,” Finnish Environment Minister Ville Niinistoe said in an interview. Next year is going to be crucial for Europe as it needs to have a clear position to ensure predictability for investors and to lead international climate talks ahead of a planned 2015 global deal to cut greenhouse gases, he said.

A failure to tackle the glut of carbon permits may discourage utilities from switching to natural gas and other less-polluting energy sources from coal, the commission said in November. That may curb the spending needed in non-fossil fuel generation, estimated by Bloomberg New Energy Finance at about 400 billion euros, to meet the EU’s 2020 goals. The bloc aims to cut greenhouse gases by 20 percent from 1990 levels and derive a fifth of all energy from renewables by then.

“Green policies, if well designed, do not mean loss of competitiveness,” said Jos Delbeke, the commissions’ director general for climate. “The future of the EU lies in green growth, high-tech and innovation.”

The failed proposal raises a question of whether the EU can “ever be significantly improved,” said Chris Rogers, an analyst at Bloomberg Industries in London. “If something as minor as backloading can’t be agreed, then what hope is there for more ambitious carbon reduction targets for 2030, which are vital for both power and carbon prices?”

Copyright 2013 Bloomberg

View the original article here

Changing perspectives on climate change

For most of his career, my art teacher had written the letters "POV" on the ceiling of the classroom middle school. From time to time would be confused eleven-year lasting about the meaning behind the acronym overhead to inquire. Yes, "he would answer," that depends on your point of view.

So it is with climate change. Numerical evidence we listen every day with our growing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) apart should compel us. We have long enough studied the problem to announce with confidence: blame the oil companies. China's growth will kill the planet; Coal is the enemy. The data are clear, and the answers are in front of us, so why waste time on what we already know?

Because while the oil companies, China and our perspectives of the problem of coal, which all contribute to a warming climate are often rather limited. That has, committed by us, climate change tends to be solidified in what we believe are the solutions. We are so passionate about ensuring that wind turbines remain economically competitive or end construction of coal fired power plants, for example, we tend the to forget these efforts are only a means to an end. A look at some popular statistics about helps US emissions, show how the change our view of the problem which can transform the possibilities, what we think solutions.

In 2010, the United States to spend 6822 million tonnes CO2 equivalent (CO2-e), a standard were metric used to quantify greenhouse gases responsible. One of the most common ways to present a breakdown of the emissions is responsible according to the sectors of the economy, for it: on the basis of the above pie chart, we see that the electrical power engineering 34% of our total emissions in 2010, followed by the transportation sector in 27% contributed. Put together these two more than 60% of total emissions, numbers that would have us believe, that we have not received, in dealing with climate change, if we double our commitments to the solar panels and electric cars. These technologies are, although important however reject the chart the effects of emissions from residential, commercial and other sectors. Present the same data from a different angle, shows the following diagram of additional lever for change.

While an important source of greenhouse gas emissions is electricity generation, its emissions are from our homes and businesses due to demand. Another way to consider our emissions is through the inclusion of emissions from power generation in areas where electricity is used. Seen from this perspective, we can see that the residential and commercial sectors contribute serving 40% - the largest single, we've seen so far. Sure, renewable energy our emissions would be represented no matter how the data, but this perspective emphasizes the importance of energy efficiency at home and in the workplace. Suddenly, stricter building codes and energy-saving devices like no brainers, a conclusion seem absent from the first chart. And the importance of remaining consciously the boundaries of our point of view not to the end throw a look at the next picture and check how it provides yet a different approach.

This chart clearly stresses the need, oil rise, but provide insight, as we type, could do while the other two are forcing us some ways we consider these fuels use. And if you take the three charts together, you can draw many of the same conclusions, an indication of its robustness. For example, the reality can avoid no reasonable dataset that our dependence on oil and coal is the main reason for our growing emissions.

As a last example how the same numbers can be interpreted as different consult the EPA GHG reporting program that collects data on all facilities emitting greenhouse gases in the United States, such as power plants and refineries. In 2010, only 5% of facilities for 60% of total emissions were responsible. This program only accounts for stationary sources such as power plants and refineries, but the massive skew distribution suggests that the most effective strategy in fact rather policy could develop the few major emitters as a target to reduce emissions as a wider ceiling. In the absence of federal legislation, the EPA seems (deferred) plans to limit emissions from the largest plants agree.

We must be vigilant in our own assumptions. Is the core of the problem of our dependence on oil? Inefficient homes? Coal fired power plants? The answer to each is of course "Yes;" therefore our challenge lies not in to determine which approach is right, but rather, as we the lessons from different perspectives more effectively can combine advocates for change.

The Verdict: some realities about greenhouse gases are inevitable. Offers a range of technologies and guidelines serious potential to reduce our emissions, and we need to pull it all into consideration. But we are their full benefit only reap, if we can avoid anchoring, when you realize that different vantage points offer varied yet valid insight into the complex challenge of the fight against climate change. Taking care not to be limited by the close of a single perspective we guarantee a real chance at a meaningful changes.

Jordan Garfinkle is the founder of CleanTechVerdict.com, a resource for anyone, the fact-based assessments of technological and political solutions to environmental problems.

View the original article here

A material change: lithium production back to the United States to bring

From 1980 to 2009, global demand has tripled to lithium. This metal is a key material in a number of growing industries, including advanced automotive batteries and electronics. But more specifically, lithium-ion batteries are an essential part of electric cars and other batteries for consumer electronics and used the plug-in electric vehicles on the market today to produce. These batteries have also help a great impact on energy storage infrastructure in the integration of renewable energy sources into the power grid.

After production of the lithium in the early 1990s years world leader, America imported most of its lithium materials and mixtures from South America now.

The Energy Department hopes to bring million federal investment in the communities of Silver Peak, Nevada and Kings mountain (North Carolina) back to the United States with $28,40 on lithium-production lead. Read the complete story in the power blog.

View the original article here

Change of the energy game with the "force one '"

Who of us has not diligently described smart meters to a non-energy-person welcomes only rigid, or worse be through an empty the retort: "Why I want to track my electricity costs for the whole day?"

You try to explain the profound applications: smart device, to the electricity grid to the talk, consumer associations, that energy savings sale, your car as a power plant. But then will talk about fascinating toys, no change in the world.

A new study by Joseph Stanislaw, independent senior energy consultant at Deloitte, gets eloquently on the true meaning of the smart grid. Beyond the gadget talk, he describes the larger image, like new energy efficiency and smart technologies will power to democratize.

Energy efficiency would have "a greater impact on the global energy picture than any other development," according to the paper titled energy of the next limits: how technology redesign is radical supply, demand and the energy of geopolitics.

"The breakthroughs have been breathtaking and elegant in its simplicity." The least estimated technologies include those that businesses and individuals to understand and manage - and thus significantly reducing - their energy consumption. Last year $275 million venture capitalists - invested, up 75 percent from 2010 - start-ups, which make the use of energy, management software and other technologies "tells the paper."

Stanislav explains how intelligent technologies bring about the "power of one" in the energy game. No longer passive recipients, consumers and businesses actively be choosers; Therefore they influence the type of power plants, we are building - or if we you at all to build - simply by the way they use electricity. Our market signals, not centrally plan, designing the infrastructure we build.

The power of one idea is often lost in the political discourse of the power. Debate leans on wind energy tax incentives, solar trade wars, the pre-and disadvantages of hydraulic Division and access to public land to drill oil.

But when it comes to power, it is the power of one, that the playing field the most changes by it the way which gave individual control of energy on the Internet us control over information. Thus even if Governments cannot effectively act, companies and individuals now have the opportunity, "make a radical difference in the own consumption - and thus much broader energy affect game" the paper says.

More specifically, Stanislav explains: "the new energy-related software and hardware on the market and in development - smart demand meters, intelligent device management programs and so on - individual players not at the mercy of the broader forces liberate." This exemption or postponement of control over energy decisions by Nations to individuals, transformed, what has been known as the "Great game" - the wrangling of the Nations on energy supply.

While the big game previously concentrated on oil, the technology is the new price.

"The big game of the 21st century is development of 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 technology continuum - with each release the trip along the curve faster than that before coming." The future is a continuous research and development, investments to create jobs and greater security of energy supply - without it the environment, "says the paper."

Rapid of technological change that planning of companies increases, adds need for sustainability, he added. And to collect the ability and understanding data about energy is becoming increasingly important. Whether the company makes shoes or semiconductor, energy is part of the business. All companies are energy companies in a smart-grid world.

Stanislaw describes a "positive energy cycle", the appearance for households and businesses to track the efficiency: they save money and protect the environment. In addition "the consumption of energy is not only an economic act - this is always a conscious act and an act of conscience." "This will likely increase to over the coming years."

Stanislaw paper is good to read. Find it here.

ELISA is a long-time energy writer is displayed their work in many publications in the industry. Find their articles under RealEnergyWriters.com

Image: Bobkeenan photography about Shutterstock

View the original article here

A Cleantech VC not convinced of human-induced climate change

Approach you moving - call me a hypocrite. My contention is that Cleantech Venture capitalists still I you say here and now, that I was not convinced of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change (aka global warming am). And I'll tell you bold, my beliefs on the climate in any way to run contrary to my strong belief in the need for a Cleantech revolution changes.

Many supporters of clean technologies make it seem as if anthropogenic climate change is an absolute fact. Some of them man-made climate change is almost like a religion where is no debate or doubt not tolerated. Some of them a heretic can call me just for the writing of this post.

At the same time, they are equally religious fervor and assurance that anthropogenic global warming is a scam at the other end of the spectrum. Are you sure that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" never our climate could affect. And they can turn this post to make than an another data point against claims of global warming and extra logic nothing other than fossil fuel increase exploration.

In both groups, little about the subject other than the popular press is my perception that most read. And I find it equally sad in their short-sighted positions both groups. If both these camps would open their eyes, I suspect, would make it much more agreement on the need for action on clean technology, rather than the disagreement that create their polarized views.

There are sound scientific theories and extensive data on climate change report, anchored Panel, indicating the possibility of the United Nations intergovernmental that could over time human-induced greenhouse gas emissions impact on the global climate and may have already begun to do so. Released them from the hand, than some reasonable doubt there is irrational.

Also is to speak to anthropogenic climate change as a certainty or to claim that it no dispute among scientists simply wrong. There are many renowned climate scientists remain unconvinced. The reality is that all predictions of global warming are based on very complex climate models. We can weather forecast of a few days with sufficient accuracy but try if you predictions temperature quickly apart fall in the summer of next year - let alone long term global climatic conditions - things. Long-term climate models, which are anything but correct.

We know the climate changes with security, which have caused significant changes in the atmosphere over to natural occurrences. So, there is little doubt about whether changes in the atmosphere can cause climate change. The question is rather whether man-made emissions are important enough to cause a change on your own and to overcome the great natural powers on our climate, which include sunspots, variations in the orbit of the Earth and volcanoes have included not in the global warming forecasts.

Often there is a focus in the media about the recent differences in climate as a source of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Variations in climate over short periods of time are very suspicious as evidence. While most scholars seem to agree that there have been increased temperatures and other in the last century climate change or so, what can not with safety be said, that caused the more CO2 this natural climate change events held, which have and continue to regularly happen with our planet. Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on climate change report, which is the backbone of support for anthropogenic climate change, found that the confidence in which could be as low as 50 percent for most of the events and 66 percent for the other (pages 23 and 52 of the technical summary) human contribution to the fair weather events (such as temperature, storms, sea, etc.).

Climate change is measured over very long periods of time - tens of thousands of years or a few years. Some of the best long-term data on historical CO2 concentrations and temperatures comes from the glacial ice core data that spans back 400,000 years. These data show that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere measured in the past are remarkably more than 20% higher than any level 400,000 years (see Figure 1). The recent rapid increase in is also the industrial age and temperature fluctuations are in high correlation with CO2 concentrations. This is "hard" data or simply depreciation to ignore.

But the amount of CO2 now far below the estimated levels while many times in history (Figure 2) increase the possibility that other natural have contributed the current collection is interesting over longer periods of time. And the correlation between temperature and CO2, which seems so obvious in the core data of 400,000 years ice is clearly much less if you're looking over many millions of years.

While most scientists seem to think that, isolated, increased CO2 levels create a reinforced "" greenhouse effect while CO2 acts as a ceiling above the heat radiated from Earth go back into the room, to prevent concentration and which period remains a point of uncertainty and debate on what level. In addition, the warming is, as other factors that can occur with warming like increased moisture and clouds, as well as changes in absorption of CO2 in the ocean at different temperatures is dynamic and is much more effective other climate change uncertain.

The bottom line is that we don't really know if man caused climate change has, after it has already occurred for a very long time.

And that is the rabbit in the pepper. The theoretical cost of humanity of global warming are high: sank by rising ocean levels, polar ice, storm and significant changes in the precipitation patterns increases. If it has occurred to a significant degree, could any significant economic and health impact. But there is no certainty that we pay ever so a price. More compelling is what we know with near the town of security:

Fossil fuels are a finite resource and they pollute. Reduction of environmental pollution is always a good thing. And with energy boom in demand in China and India, fossil fuels are a resource that will be scarcer and more expensive. You can argue about the pace, but few argue that it will happen. Also oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia started to accept this fact.
Increased sources of low-cost energy and more energy-efficient consumption have and continue to increase the standard of living.

Nations with greater diversity of energy sources need more economic and national security. The US Department of Defense believes that our national security climate change will affect. If anthropogenic global warming is first pays the price for the damage that we have made real, at the time it will be too late to reverse things quickly.

Surely that man caused climate change to demand or to claim that there is no risk of anthropogenic climate change are just as wrong and as well polarisierenden.

While it is not certain, there is evidence that suggests that human emissions of greenhouse gases can, change our climate in ways that could have dramatic consequences. We can do nothing and rolls the dice, which all OK can be you. Or we can steps to diversify our sources of energy from fossil fuels and increase our energy efficiency, not only reduce the risk of man-made climate change, but increase the robustness of our economy and our national defense.

Although debate about it should should the ultimate bipartisan issue without the divisive talk features how to best availability and use of the application of clean technologies for cleantech innovation support created by anthropogenic climate change, as if it is a fact or fiction.

Turkey sends mixed messages on climate change position

Heavy rains brought to a halt due to excessive flooding various provinces such as Erzurum, Gaziantep, Siirt, Malatya and Antalya. But Turkey remains hazy attitude to climate change.

A signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, but a bad renewable energy producer, Turkey currently seeks the answer to the optimization of energy production. At the same time tried to ensure that the greenhouse gases released not increase power generation Turkey. Turkey has one of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per capita in Europe.

Dr. Mikdat Kad?oglu, the Director of disaster management research and Application Center on Istanbul Technical University (ITU), suggested that Turkey didn't feel the adverse effects of climate change still has. He argued that climate change drastic impact on the weather, would suggesting that it would be "City floods" and droughts, add, that the State Waterworks Authority (DSI) does not have the capacity to deal with "City floods."

Kad?oglu Turkey also criticized attitude to climate change, that no organization in Turkey has the ability to deal with climate change, argue, that there no future-oriented perspective in dealing with the future environmental consequences of climate change.

Yunus Muluk, a political representative of the Green Party in Istanbul explains that "climate change a problem with that is the whole world." Climate change will have a course, Turkey. Weather inconsistencies are an example of how climate change has affected Turkey. Previously, witness the Akdeniz region never weather inconsistencies. Prior to recent weather inconsistencies common in the region become. In Istanbul have similar inconsistencies were experienced. In addition were typhoons and storms never really in Turkey. "But seem they are now much more often."

The Government currently trying alternative energy procedure set, to reduce the level of greenhouse gases and to minimize the Turkey international energy dependency. As a result continue to hydroelectric power plants at a rapid pace to open. Three new nuclear power plants will be built by 2023 set.

Nuclear energy, effective preventive action for climate change?

In order to counter the adverse effects of climate change, Turkey recently has the decision, nuclear power plants, create, which are to a viable option for the fight against climate change. Much controversy surrounds this latest decision. Muluk argues: "Scientists in Turkey believe nuclear energy will solve the problem of climate change." This is true but not completely. First of all, the construction of a nuclear power plant is a large amount of time. Secondly, as soon as the power station works, it can affect his environment. "Therefore climate change will continue with or without nuclear power plants."

International criticism followed Turkey's decision to go nuclear. More recently, the newspaper the guardian outlines the potential risks of Turkey building a nuclear power plant so near a fault line. "Turkey planning three nuclear power plants in Akkuyu on the Aegean Sea." The website is only a few kilometres from the active Ecemis error and is in an area where large earthquakes in the past occurred. "A 1999 earthquake in Turkey killed nearly 20,000 people."

Germany, once a strong supporter of nuclear power plants, has confirmed that they all will end their nuclear power plants by 2022. This decision re-sparked debate in Turkey's nuclear decision.

Electricity generated from hydropower more profitable?

Turkey has also the capacity for the development of hydroelectricity. Necdet Pamir, an energy expert who taught at the Bilkent and Istanbul Kultur earlier told universities, Zaman Sunday, that Turkey energy easily be could met by alternative and renewable energy sources, that Turkey is not yet detected.

According to the Pamir, the potential hydroelectric power in Turkey is the area large. He added that hydropower is one of the most important energy sources for conservation as its technical and economic potential is around 140 billion kilowatts, beats arguments that claim Turkey lacks sufficient alternative energy sources are not entirely true, hours (kWh) and 170 billion kWh with the right technology has been increased. Such potential will be realized only 35 percent of the hydroelectric energy and 65 per cent is waiting to develop energy needs for Turkey says Pamir.

There are currently 172 operational hydroelectric power stations in the country, while 148, which are more built at this time. However, a large number of environmental non-governmental organisations in Turkey are strong against the existence of the hydroelectric power plants. Hydroelectric power plants have significant ecological disadvantages, including eco-system damage, loss of land and methane emissions.

Turkey, which imports 70 percent of the energy, as is currently the dilemma of trying, minimize its impact on climate change by you produce home-made, safe and sustainable long-term options for energy.

"Improved the capacity of the Turkey to adapt to climate change"

A project entitled "improving the capacity of the Turkey to adjust, climate change," the together by the Ministry of environment and forestry and development programme of the United Nations (UNDP) run was, was to develop a "capacity to manage climate risks change, rural and coastal development in Turkey".

"This was achieved by mainstreaming climate change adaptation in the national development framework, capacity-building in national and regional institutions, to integrate piloting community based adaptation projects in the river basin of the Seyhan and climate change adaptation into all United Nations agencies in Turkey." The project had a 7 million US-dollar-budget, and just completed, running from June 2008 - June 2011.

The project however not attracted a large amount of criticism for the handling of questions of climate change. The Ankara Photographers Association (AFSAD) and Middle Eastern Technical University Alumni Association (Turkey MD) proposed that plan to combat climate change is not yet clear to Turkey. Argued that the plan will not plan to change climate, such as with the hydro power plants, which will destroy a large amount of Turkey ecosystem reality with Turkey. Also beat Dr. Gunay can, regularly writes for the Yesil Gazete (green newspaper), that the plan not to questions of climate change significant, such as for example Turkey energy dilemma.

View the original article here

Carbon capture: A flimsy plaster or the response to climate change?

{"s": "SOT."}""HM", k:" a00, a50, b00, b60, c10, g00, h00, l10, p20, t10, v00 ","o":" "," j ":" "} Rowena Mason, 7: 10, Friday 11 February 2011"

Clean coal sounds like a misnomer. The fossil fuel tends to conjure up images of Chinese power plants puffing thick clouds of smoke and grimy-faced Victorian miners.

But when the world will reduce its CO2 emissions, coal sanitising looks like the only answer.

For starters, it is unlikely that developing countries such as China and India go from their dependence on fuel anytime soon deposed to.

Although it think only an early-stage technology, scientists, burning coal, suck carbon dioxide and pump it underground possible.

Estimates would only 10pc of emissions of a traditional coal-fired power station to publish.

It could also be that a money spinner for the UK Treasury, which licenses exhausted oil and where the carbon dioxide ultimately keep gas fields.

With most UK's creaky old coal stations over the technology in European law offers withdrawn are, as you also pollutive, new hope for maintaining the security of energy supply of the country.

Britain is ready, up to four pilot projects costs ? 1bn Fund in the hope that UK world leader to be and might license its technology to other countries.

It can quickly add ? 17 annual energy costs, but given the coal relatively cheap compared to the fossil fuels peers it could end end up without subsidies to be economically viable.

There are even more experimental technologies, financing, underground like the burning of coal and win trapping carbon dioxide down there.

But at the moment the greatest support for "Carbon Capture and Storage" is equipment that could be fitted to existing coal plants.

The technology was not without its problems. The first competition by the British Government saw a raft of applicants to put the proposals.

One by one, broke you, realize that it would be too expensive and risky. E.on, was while uncertain about the future of energy demand to take more coal plants such as not ready on the load of the building.

Dr. Paul Golby, Chief Executive of E.on UK, has insisted a "key technology", but increased doubt coal is clean about his current viability.

"" There are two elephant in the room: markets and money, "he said.""If they are not fixed, nothing is progress expected to long-term carbon capture and storage beyond the blueprint phase".

The only plant, the links in the current competition the first ? 1 billion for a Demonstrationg to Scottish Power's Longannet that you set plant get.

However, the fact is that it encouraging nine bidders for the next round of money.

Big names such as Scottish and southern (Hamburg: SOT.)HM - News) and DRAX are ready their hopes on this experimental technology in the hope that it will save this coal dependent company and a coal UK - reliant from future without this critical fuel.

View the original article here