mandag den 13. december 2010

The forgotten summit


Climate summit? When? Where? Now? Yes, the COP 16 UN climate summit just ended this weekend and if it hadn’t been for my interest in climate changes and solutions I would not have known that high profiled politicians from all over the world had gathered in Cancún to come up with an agreement to save the environment. Actually it was quite difficult to find news and updates on the summit and most news organization didn’t even mention it.

Compared to the coverage of COP 15 in Copenhagen last year the poor coverage of this summit really surprises me. I wonder if it’s because journalists and people in general have stopped to care about future agreements in relation to the environment or it’s because something completely different.

COP 15 was surrounded by not only high media coverage, but also really high expectations. The high expectations were not met and the horde of journalists that went to Copenhagen to cover the summit could report about only disagreements and the prospects of a warmer climate. Maybe the press actually played a role in the disappointing outcome last year and maybe more sparse media coverage this time around would leave the politicians not to worry about journalists, but to worry about getting signatures on a climate agreement. A much needed agreement as the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

It actually seems as if the absent media coverage had a great impact on the negotiations for a greener future. Last Saturday, a day after the summit was scheduled to end, COP 16 President Patricia Espinosa could announce that the United Nation countries almost had reached an agreement. Only Bolivia voted against the agreement, but eventually Espinosa gaveled down its objections. Just reaching an agreement, even if it’s a compromise, makes this summit more successful than the Copenhagen summit last year.

In general the outcome falls short in emphasizing how dangerous climate change can be in the future and the decisions agreed upon will have to be adopted and confirmed at a future summit. But with that said, the points agreed upon are still overly important.

First of all, the countries worked out a plan to extend the Kyoto Protocol that is more wide ranging that the original protocol and calls for deep cuts in emissions. Furthermore, the UN agreed upon for the first time that temperatures should be prevented from rising more than two degrees Celsius.

Second of all, the summit agreed to establish a Green Climate Fund to channel money into poor countries to improve their climate defense, help them tackle global warming and compensate countries that desist from felling their forests. That solution is actually in accordance what with what the Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg pointed out in his latest bookSmart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits”. Lomborg suggests that $50 billion should be put into adaption to the effects of climate change and $99 billion spend on clean drinking water, healthcare, education etc. in poor countries to help them improve their climate defense.

So even though no one knows about the agreements that were made in Cancún the COP 16 has turned out not to be the disaster that you could have feared.  Agreements were made and the countries have set their minds on trying to fix the climate challenges. They’re taking the right path, but there is still a long way to go. We’ll wait in excitement for COP 17 in South Africa in December 2011.


onsdag den 1. december 2010

Can the price of a green revolution get too high?


I was doing some research for an article about a relatively new green energy phenomenon the other day and talking to various sources I started to think about the price of a greener world.

The technology I was writing about is called Bloom Energy and converts fuel cells “into electricity through a clean electro-chemical process rather than dirty combustion”. A lot of industry spectators have announced Bloom Energy as a revolution in green energy and major companies such as Coca-Cola, Google, Adobe and FedEx have already installed the so-called Bloom Boxed that works as the energy servers.

Bloom Boxes are independent of natural phenomenon like sun and wind and that makes a huge competitive advantage in comparison to wind power and solar plants. Furthermore, it is an on-site energy server so it is more reliable and can be used 24 hours a day.

It all sounds really good and maybe it is too good to be true as well. Not that the technology behind the Bloom Boxes isn’t efficient, but the costs for this new green tech revolution seems to be an exorbitant price.

Electricity cost with a Bloom Box is $0.13/kWh to $0.14/kWh according to strategic advisor Lux Research, which is a high price to pay for energy when then average electricity costs in the U.S. are approximately $0.11/kWh.

Furthermore, the price of a Bloom Box of 100 kW is $750.000 whereas a diesel engine that produces the same power costs $50.000. Of course there’s an environmental advantage in Bloom Energy, but there has got to be just a tiny economic incitement as well. Or just a more competitive price.

All but one of the Bloom Boxes are installed in California where the price is subsidized both on a state and federal level and that makes the energy type more affordable. The founder KR Sridhar estimated according to Gigaom.com that customers get payback on their investments in three to five years in energy saving costs, but that the payback is calculated based on both subsidies.

So in order to spread the boxes to other states with fewer incentives Bloom Energy needs to be able to drive the prices down. The company has announced that it will be able to significantly reduce the costs over the next five years and maybe that can help the revolution move along. Otherwise the revolution will be too expensive.