Siemens dash forward while U.S. wind market step back

I looked at some of the major news in the green energy sector through the last couple of days and I stumbled upon several interesting points. What got my attention and curiosity the most was that the latest announcements in the wind energy segment seem quite contradictory.

Yesterday, the Energy Sector at Siemens, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of wind turbines, announced that it expects significant growth in orders in the Renewable Energy Divisions and that “new orders in the fourth quarter will probably be considerably above the comparable prior-year level”.

Now, what does tell us? It either tells us that Siemens is doing an incredible job of putting up wind turbines and far exceeds its competitors, or it tells us that there is an increased demand for wind energy. I really like to believe the latter and with the world’s largest offshore wind farm opening in the UK last Thursday, it is definitely heading in the right direction.

Looking at those two events it seemed like a good week for wind power.

However, the good news contradicts one of the latest statements on the U.S. market for wind energy. Last Friday the third-biggest American wind power developer Horizon Wind owned by Portuguese EDP Renovaveis, said it will cut investment in the industry because there is no clear national energy policy.

According to Dow Jones Newswires Horizon Wind will cut spending by more than half to less than $300 million in 2011. One of the reasons for the announced reductions on spending is that there is no long-term visibility in the energy policy.

So why isn’t there more visibility in the policies? The unclearness already made the largest American wind company NextEra Energy Inc. cut back on development in the U.S. and if more companies take the same road it does not look like a near future solely based on renewable energy.

The administration needs to give clear guidelines ASAP so the American wind companies can make the same announcements as Siemens: increased demand and growth.

Goodbye to the checkbook

A lot of things have happened to me since I moved to New York from Copenhagen a month ago. I got a new apartment, new friends, a slightly different look, a better American accent and a checkbook.  Yes, a checkbook. I kind of expected the first four things but I never in my life anticipated to be the happy owner of a light blue checkbook with different motives on each page (one with Winnie the Pooh, Bugs Bunny and even one with Mount Rushmore).

This is the first time in my 24 years lifespan that I’ve been acquainted with such a thing and for all that I knew no one really used that prehistoric find anymore (In Denmark we haven’t used checkbooks for years). However, a lot of things are different in the States and at first I didn’t really think more about it.

Then, a couple a days ago I actually had to write out a check and that’s when I started to think about the checkbook in a broader sense. First of all it is easier, faster and more modern just to transfer the money electronically and not jot down all those number and letters on a small piece of paper.

And second of all (and the whole purpose of this issue of my green blog, which I assume you all been waiting for) it is a whole lot better for the environment to abolish the checkbook and start transferring money online. Think about it – every time you write out a check or get a new checkbook from your bank it is good paper totally wasted on something that belonged in the 90es.

If we assume that just a quarter of the American population, 77 million people, uses a checkbook every year and a checkbook is 20 pages thick, then 1.6 billion pieces of paper is wasted on simple money transfers each year. Transfers that, for all that I know, could have been executed online.

So, in terms of saving the environment – or at least trying to – I’d say that we get rid of the checkbooks and start transferring money online. It is the little things that count, right?

One step closer to sustainability

Supporters of smart grid, the new way to transport electricity over longer distances, were up for some good news today. Seven national smart grid organizations announced that they have launched the Global Smart Grid Federation to help get smart grid spread out over the world.

From an environmental point of the view I think that the launching is a really interesting step towards a greener future and using sustainable energy sources. First of all, the organizations in the new federation are spread all over the world, the U.S., India, Japan, Korean, Australia, Ireland and Canada, which illustrates a global willingness to cooperate.

Secondly, the Global Smart Grid Federation can turn out to be an important player in replacing coal and oil with renewable energy sources. With an effective smart grid the electricity can travel larger distances and integrate renewable energy such as solar and wind power.

Let me give you an example: The energy generated in a really windy area can easily be transported to a calmer region where it can be used to heating, lightning etc.

And that is an interesting thought. At the moment wind energy cannot be used as a 100 percent electricity source, because the wind is not always blowing. However, the wind is always blowing somewhere and if we were able to transport the energy generated from the wind somewhere to a calmer elsewhere, then we would always have electricity from wind.

The same goes for solar energy and in that sense the Global Smart Grid Federation is of major importance. It was announced last year that the Desertec Industrial Initiative group plans to build a network of solar plants in Sahara. The plant is hoped to provide 15 percent of Europe’s electricity by 2050 and will be the biggest in the world.

With today’s launch the hope has definitely increased, as a smart grid will make it a whole lot easier to transport all the electricity produced from the sun back to Europe. Or elsewhere. Because the solar energy should not only be limited to Sahara and servicing Europeans. How about Death Valley in Southern California? Or the Thar desert in India and Gobi desert in China? It is said that if as little as one percent of the world’s desert is covered with solar panels it is possible to meet the energy demands of the world. And with the smart grid and the new Global Smart Grid Federation we might be a step closer to relying 100 percent on sustainable energy sources.

Good news for the electric car industry

With more and more electric car manufactures preparing to spit out electric cars in United States, we might be heading for an oil-free future. Today, when browsing around Treehugger.com I realized that a new competitor is ready to enter the electric car market and it actually made me kind of happy. Not because I’m looking to buy an electric car, but because it proves there is a demand or an expected demand for the green vehicles. 

The new car on the market is the 2011 Coda Sedan from Coda Automotive, a new company only building electric cars. And I think that is kind of nice. A whole company dedicated to only building oil-free cars and making the Earth a better place. That definitely tells me that people behind Coda Automotive believes in the electric car industry and that we will see more and more people choosing an electric driven car over a oil-sucking beaming Hummer. Or Alfa Romeo. Or Mercedes. Or pretty much any car that pollutes the environment with smelly gas.

When first checking out the 2011 Coda Sedan I didn’t really think that it would go the distance. It can drive 120 miles on a single battery charge, the charge is six hours and the top speed is 80 mph, which cannot compete with Nissan Leaf’s 90 mph and Tesla’s 125 mph. Over all the Coda Sedan has no special features from the outside and with a price tag set to $45,000, Nissan just lowered the cost of the Leaf to under $30,000, it seems like their up for hard competition in the electric car market.

However, when taking a closer look at this eco friendly vehicle it shows it full potential. The luxurious interior sets it apart from its competitors  - with an 8.4 inch touch screen monitor, DVD player, an iPod dock and a satellite radio this car might be the choice of the elite.

Green cars are already the number one choice in private transportation in Hollywood and all the stars are currently driving around in Prius, Toyota’s popular hybrid car, after Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced his Hummer with a Prius in 2005. Exactly because the trendsetting part of the population started to adapt the Prius as their primary means of transportation, the Japanese hybrid car rapidly became popular.

With more and more electric cars on the market it might therefore not be such a bad idea for Coda Automotive to launch a car that is targeted the rich, famous and luxurious segment. If the trendsetting prior Prius people go for the more luxurious Coda Sedan, the new electric car will probably soon become popular with the rest of the consumers. And that is not only good news for the particular company, but for the whole industry, as electric cars in general will gain popularity.

Who will take the lead?

Yesterday I raised a question on how we get everyone to stick to the same solution to save the environment, thus our planet and ourselves. So far different countries seem to approach the climate situation differently, which the climate summit COP15 in Copenhagen was a clear indication of.  At the end of the summit I got a feeling that not all UN countries came to Copenhagen with the same agenda and therefore not the same willingness to put their signatures on an agreement.

And why was that? I had a feeling that after getting overexposed to climate facts – and in some situations propaganda – that every citizen of the planet understood that we had to find a way to deal with the issue.

But then after thinking about it for a while I realized that maybe not every citizen shared the same knowledge and/or concern about the climate change. In order to get everyone to support the same solution, the first part would evidently be to get everyone to understand the urgentness and severity of the problem. And how do we do that? If I had the answer to that question I probably wouldn’t be writing this blog in the first place, but trying to save the world from some hot spot office in a major city (or maybe from a flooded tent somewhere).

However, making a movie like Al Gore’s “An inconvenient truth” might not be such a bad idea. I know Bjørn Lomborg, who I discussed yesterday, is far from a fan of a campaign that scares people off, but Al Gore did get a lot of people to draw attention to the problem. If, at some point, citizens and governments realized the impact of the climate crisis, people would probably be less reluctant to have one governing institution trying to figure out a solution. And probably support the solution down the line.

United Nations tries to take the leadership of the war on climate warming, but has no real governing power. Who will then take the leadership as the problem becomes more urgent? A country? Another organization? Or maybe a completely new institution assembled for the very cause? Someone has to take the lead and it is a very interesting question who that will be.

Can we all walk down the same road?

In a very coincidental way I got to see the new movie “Cool it” by the Danish scientist and formerly announced climate skeptic Bjørn Lomborg the other day. The movie is a documentary with points from his latest book “Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits”, where the skeptic Lomborg turns out to be all about the environment as long as the money are spend in the right way. I have to admit that I was the one that was skeptic when I comfortably sat down to watch the movie. As a Dane myself I am constantly exposed to Lomborgs newest say in the climate debate and sometimes find him – lets say  - controversial.

However, by the end of the movie I was actually with him of some of his points. Maybe if was propaganda, maybe I’m naïve, but in some ways his arguments made sense. He pointed out that right now the only real climate policy we have is the European Union 2020 policy, which costs 250 billion dollars a year according to Bjørn Lomborg.

“If the EU continues to spend 250 billion dollars for the rest of the century, they will reduce temperatures by 0,1 degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Wow! I’m really sure our descendants are going to be really really happy,” he said to the magazine Foreing Policy.

Furthermore, he argued that the little everyday actions people are encouraged to do to cut down carbon emission merely scares people more of, than it actually helps the climate. So instead of trying to cut down carbon emission the slow EU way, he suggested that the 250 billion dollars should be spend differently and at the same time give the climate a way better future:

Invest 100 billion dollar in clean energy research and development, spend one billion dollars on geo-engineering solutions, put 50 billion dollars into adaption to the effects of climate change, and spend the rest 99 billion dollars on clean drinking water, healthcare, education etc. in poor countries.

And a long way down the road I actually had to agree. It does make more sense to do the necessary R&D on renewable energy sources such as wind, sun and water before going out and spending a lot of money on incomplete solutions right now.

So, Bjørn Lomborg got me convinced, but when I went home after watching the movie I couldn’t help but wonder if that was enough. And of course it’s not. Lomborg is a scientist and economy professor and, as far as I’m concerned, an idealist. The numbers he made out are evidently true and if his plan is carried out correctly able to save the earth for future climate agony. But he forgets one very important thing. Politics. Even if all the scientists in the world supported Lomborgs economic layout, they still needed politicians to carry out their plan. And that would probably cost a whole lot more that counted for in the report as politics do draw some dollars. Plus, it takes a master political strategist to get the different government and international organization to take the same road on the climate solution. But how do you do that? How do you get everyone convinced to choose the same solution and stick to it? That’s the next interesting question in the climate debate that didn’t seemed to be answered in Copenhagen and maybe will not be answered in Cancun.