Virtual power plants (VPPs) rely upon software systems to remotely and automatically dispatch and optimize generation or demand-side or storage resources in a single, secure web-connected system. In the U.S., VPPs not only deal with the supply side, but also help manage demand and ensure reliability of grid functions through demand response (DR) and other load shifting approaches, in real time.

In short, VPPs represent an “Internet of Energy,” tapping existing grid networks to tailor electricity supply and demand services for a customer, maximizing value for both end-user and distribution utility through software innovations.

Without any large-scale fundamental infrastructure upgrades, VPPs can stretch supplies from existing generators and utility demand reduction programs, delivering greater value to the customer (lower costs, new revenue streams) while also creating benefits to the host distribution utility (avoidance of capital investments in grid infrastructure or low-capacity peak power plants) as well as the transmission grid operator (regulation services such as spinning reserves). When compared to the fossil central station power plants that dominate electricity markets worldwide, one of the primary advantages of VPPs is they can react quickly to changing customer load conditions, are dynamic and deliver value in real time.

Three heavyweight companies to watch out for in the VPP space are Siemens, Schneider Electric, and Cisco.

Siemens was one of the first firms to explore the concept of VPPs, playing a key role in providing the management system for one of Germany’s pioneering efforts. A VPP project that has been operating since October 2008 aggregates the capacity of nine different hydroelectric plants ranging in size from 150 kilowatts (kW) up to 1.1 megawatts (MW), with a total VPP capacity of 8.6 MW. The VPP framework opened up new power marketing channels for these facilities that would not have been viable if these distributed energy resources (DER) were still operating as stand-alone systems.

The key technology Siemens is offering to the VPP market is its Decentralized Energy Management System (DEMS), which is designed to enhance both wholesale and distributed generation operations according to pre-defined economic, environmental or energy-related priorities. The company is now engaged in a variety of smart grid projects in the U.S. that could be considered VPPs (or at least stepping stones to future VPPs) in Kansas, Texas and Hawaii.

The Schneider Electric version of a VPP is focused on capturing and aggregating DR resources from large commercial clients. With new managers quite familiar with the evolution of DR markets, they appear to have a very focused and unique strategy, targeting various advanced wholesale/retail markets, such as the PJM control area. With an emphasis on dashboard presentations, they seem to have a well-tuned business entry strategy.

In 2010, the company has launched a new venture whose prime goal is to serve as a broker between utilities and large customers – especially those that own large amounts of commercial buildings. Worth over $27 billion, this French company has a market presence in over 100 countries, with its largest portion of business (44 percent) in Europe, followed by North America (27 percent) and Asia-Pacific (19 percent).

Last, but not least, is Cisco. Top managers for its VPP business segment come from Southern California Edison (SCE), a utility whose large-scale efforts in DR – representing over 1,000 MW of DR capacity – and development of up to 500 MW of utility-owned distributed solar PV distributed throughout its service territory in 1 to 2 MW distinct systems – represent the perfect utility partner to launch such a new business enterprise. With its “Building Mediator,” Cisco is also targeting this network device on energy-intensive corporate buildings, a venture with downside risk.

Cisco sees its function as playing a role in the coordinating aspect of bringing DR and distributed renewables together, and is therefore involved with a pilot project involving SCE, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and the City of Irvine in southern California. In Cisco’s view of the world, the VPP is a much better platform to aggregate and boost value from the full capability of grid networks than the microgrid.

At present, the focus of Cisco’s VPP business strategy is DR, but in the long-run, Cisco sees its role as “developing a communications fabric that connects prices to devices, and helps create a level playing field for all of the key elements of a distributed energy network – DR, distributed generation and storage.”

Peter Asmus is a senior renewable-energy analyst at Pike Research.

Four U.S. states generated more than 10 percent of their in-state power production from wind energy in 2009, according to a new report by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. New wind power plants were built in 28 states, led by Texas, which added 2,292 megawatts of new power capacity, according to the annual Wind Technologies Market Report. In Iowa, 20 percent of all power generated within state borders was generated by wind power, according to the report. The next highest percentages occurred in South Dakota (13 percent), North Dakota (12 percent), and Minnesota (11 percent). Overall, the U.S. set a new record with the installation of 10 gigawatts of new wind energy capacity in 2009, accounting for 39 percent of all new electric generating capacity in the U.S. and 26 percent of all new wind capacity worldwide. That growth, however, was outpaced significantly by China, which installed 36 percent of the global market share in 2009 and surpassed the U.S. as the fastest growing market for wind energy.

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

The investment in greener data centers will experience rapid growth over the next five years, increasing from $7.5 billion in global revenue to $41.4 billion by 2015, representing 28 percent of the total data center market, according to a new report from Pike Research.

The IT industry is responsible for around 2 percent of the world’s carbon emissions and data centers are the fastest growing part of that footprint. While energy efficiency has not traditionally been a major emphasis for IT organizations, the industry is now highly focused on implementing solutions that will reduce energy expenses and carbon emissions associated with data center operations.

“Cost of energy has seldom been a concern for IT departments in the past,” says industry analyst Eric Woods, “and there was little incentive to invest in energy efficiency improvements. But as data center energy costs become more visible, the financial benefits of moving to a greener mode of operation are being recognized by CEOs, CFOs, and CIOs.”

Woods adds that the green data center has evolved in response to concern over energy use, but it is also connected to the broader transformation that data centers are undergoing. This transformation encompasses technical innovation, operational improvement, new design principles, and changes to the relationship between IT and business.

The data center of the future will be energy efficient; it will also be virtualized, to ensure optimal use of IT resources, space and energy, and it will be more dynamic in its operation, adaptable to new business needs and new technology opportunities.

Pike Research’s analysis indicates that power and cooling infrastructure solutions will be the largest portion of the green data center market opportunity, representing 46 percent of revenue over the next five years. Energy efficient IT equipment will be the second largest category with 41 percent of the market, and monitoring and management will follow with 14 percent of total revenue.

Last week, GE (NYSE: GE) invested in SynapSense, a company specializing in optimized cooling for data centers. The company's technology will become a part of GE's so-called Intelligent Platforms for data centers.

IBM's (NYSE: IBM) cutting-edge data center technology has been on display at Disney's Epcot Center since the first of the year. Visitors can get a rundown of the company's Cloudburst environment, which is said to reduce energy costs by up to 25 percent.

Over the next two years, New York State will provide over $100 million through its Industrial and Process Efficiency program to help data centers control their energy costs and improve their competitiveness.

In June, the EPA launched Energy Star certification for data centers.

The report, “Green Data Centers”, examines green data center trends, and forecasts the size and growth of the market opportunity by region and technology through 2015. The report analyzes new developments in power and cooling infrastructure, server, storage and network technology, and software management systems that are underpinning green data centers.

An Executive Summary of the report is available for free at the link below.

Website: www.pikeresearch.com

Photo by Divergence/flickr/Creative Commons

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Business

by Christopher DeMorro

Racing is not very green, and yet it continues to amaze me how many in the racing world are taking clean energy seriously. A great example is the American Le Mans Series, which continues to promote hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles at its races. Even the greenest cars can’t green a whole race track though, which often covers hundreds of acres and on race day can accumulate epic mounds of garbage.

Pocono Raceway in Pennsylvania is taking a pro-active step in greening their facility. This past weekend they threw the switch on the largest solar array in Pennsylvania, which not only provides power to the massive race track, but 1,000 nearby homes as well.

The 3 megawatt solar array is placed right next to the race track, which is perhaps better known as the “Tricky Triangle”. Since Pennsylvania decided to deregulate its power industry, costs started going up by as much as 40 percent, so the race track’s owner, Doc Mattioli, looked into alternatives. He settled on building a $16 million, 25 acre solar facility nearby. It provides plenty of power and then some for the track and outbuildings. By pumping power back into the electrical grid, the race track is also earning itself green credits, which it can later sell to less-clean industries.

The system is expected to pay for itself in just four or five years. You can’t put a price tag on energy independence though, and hopefully other race tracks will start paying attention and incorporate more solar systems. I love to see racing go green; I am still eagerly awaiting a petrol vs. electric car race though. THAT would be fun… but I guess I’ll settle for solar panels for now.

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

by Tate Dwinnell

Tesla Motors (TSLA) reported earnings for the first time since going public today and it didn’t get off to good start. While the company posted revenues that were about inline with what they reported in the same quarter a year ago and about 40 percent higher than last quarter, the losses continue to pile up. The EPS non GAAP loss of -.28/share is the worst in the past two years and may be the worst in company history (need to locate data source that gives quarterly data past two years!) On the bright side, gross margins improved to 22 percent from 19 percent in the previous quarter, but that was offset by higher R&D and expansion costs.

“We are very pleased to report higher gross margins and steady top-line growth, driven by our best quarter for new Roadster orders since the third quarter of 2008 and our growing powertrain activities,” said Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors. “The Roadster is showing the world that it is possible to drive a beautifully designed, high-performance electric vehicle, underscoring Tesla’s technology leadership position.”

The company announced that the 2012 launch of the Model S remains on track with achievements in design, engineering and manufacturing made during the quarter. CAD data has been released to external suppliers and testing of powertrain prototypes is underway. Also announced was the purchase of a factory in Fremont, CA for $42 million which will be home to Model S manufacturing.

Elon Musk went on to comment on the Daimler and Toyota relationships: “We were especially pleased to have deepened our relationship with Daimler and established a new strategic relationship with Toyota during the quarter. We signed agreements with Daimler to develop battery packs and chargers for a pilot fleet of its A-class electric vehicles and with Toyota in July to initiate the development of an electric powertrain for Toyota RAV4 vehicles. In addition, Toyota joined Daimler as a significant investor in Tesla Motors with a purchase of $50 million of our common stock that closed concurrently with our recently completed initial public offering. We believe these relationships are strong endorsements of our industry-leading technology and electric powertrain systems.”

Shares of TSLA are down about 3 percent in after hours trading.

Reprinted with permission from Green Stocks Central

by Nino Marchetti

Computers are generally only as green as the parts in them. Samsung knows this and has unveiled a hard drive it says is currently the world’s highest-density, environmentally friendly model for the desktop market. It is known as the EcoGreen F4 (F4EG), and it will price for around $120 when it becomes available in September.

Samsung said the EcoGreen F4 will feature a maximum 2 TB density, which should be enough to store up to 880 hours of DVD video or 500,000 songs in MP3 format. The drive lacks halogen compound and brominated flame retardant, being composed instead of more eco-friendly materials. It is said as well to have 23 percent lower power consumption in standby mode compared to a previous eco hard drive model.

The drive is said to be 9 percent better in standby time performance. It also reportedly is quiet to operate and incorporates a 3.0Gbps SATA interface, Native Command Queuing and a 32MB buffer memory. A slightly smaller 1.5 TB model will also be made available around the same time this one is.

“Storage-hungry multimedia professionals, gamers and home PC users continue to increase the amount of video, music, photo and other personal data they store and back-up,” said I.C. Park, vice president, Storage Sales, Semiconductor Business, Samsung Electronics, in a statement. “The F4EG delivers all the benefits of a low-power drive yet features top performance quality and is environmentally friendly.”

Reprinted with permission from EarthTechling

If you’re planning a trip to Copenhagen, Denmark and wish to make your stay an eco-friendly experience, the city offers a handful of green lodging options. From a luxury hotel that puts your fitness to good use to a chain of hotels honored with the city’s sustainable seal of approval, you can easily book a stay in Copenhagen that accommodates your green lifestyle.

Crowne Plaza Copenhagen Towers

The Crowne Plaza Copenhagen Towers embraces an innovative concept that benefits both the hotel and their guests. Usually, when you visit a hotel fitness center, you’re working off extra calories from sampling local cuisine and staying fit while on vacation. However, at this specific Crowne Plaza, your bike pedaling not only generates electricity, but will also earn you a free meal.

Two pedaling bikes connected to generators provide an answer to the energy demands of the luxury hotel, which guests are free to use. Any person that generates 100 watt hours using the bike will receive in return – a meal worth approximately $36. The bikes have convenient screens that allow riders to track their progress and see how much electricity they have generated. It takes someone in relatively good shape to produce up to 100 watt hours in 60 minutes.

Aside from this ingenious concept, the hotel is known as the first in Denmark to receive all of its energy through renewable and sustainable sources. Solar panels and a groundwater-based cooling and heating system helps the Crowne Plaza conserve precious resources.

The Crowne Plaza Hotel is located in the center of the city, where more than 300 rooms await your arrival and are spread across 26 floors.

Radisson SAS Chain of Hotels

The Nordic Eco-label called “the Swan” is the seal of approval given to esteemed eco-friendly products and services. It’s a highly regarded honor and three SAS Radisson Hotel chains in Copenhagen have received it.

The Royal Hotel is considered one of the most prestigious out of all the 5-star hotels in Copenhagen, and was the first out of all the local Radisson establishments to receive green recognition. The second to receive the label was the Radisson SAS Scandinavia, which offers more than 500 rooms located in the center of the city. With a glorious concert hall, the Radisson SAS Falconer claimed their label third.

As for the remaining Radisson SAS chains, the company has a goal to transform the hotels into lodging worthy of getting their own Swan label.

Scandic Copenhagen

After undergoing a renovation, the Scandic Copenhagen has received a makeover that involves sustainable, natural and recyclable materials when possible. For example, low VOC paints and finishes were selected as part of their green initiatives. A stay at the hotel places you in the midst of Tivoli Gardens, the old port of Nyhavn, and the Little Mermaid statue. Other features include a sauna, relaxation center, and onsite gym.

The Scandic Copenhagen also embraces environmental cleaning, energy conservation, and water conservation. Guestrooms are outfitted with recycling bins. Through their PR and education programs, the hotel promotes green initiatives, and educates their guests and staff on greener ways to live.

Reprinted with permission from The Green Connoisseur

by Eric Pooley

Ample blame exists for the demise of climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, from President Obama’s lack of political courage, to the environmental community’s overly ambitious strategy, to Republican intransigence. A way forward exists, however, to build on the rubble of the Senate’s failure to cap carbon emissions.

Following the rocky path of climate legislation in the U.S. Congress these past years brought me back to the 1980s, and my time as a crime reporter in New York City. After a shooting in those days, a homicide detective named Marty Davin would go to the hospital and intercept the gunshot victim on a gurney outside the emergency room. If the victim was conscious, Davin would lean over and ask, “Who killed you?”

That usually got the victim’s attention, along with an I’m-not-dead-yet protest. Davin would reply, “You are going to die. You might as well tell me who did it.”

As I interviewed the sponsor of whichever emissions-reduction bill had just been gunned down, I often thought of Davin. The politicians and climate campaigners would assure me that they were still alive — passage of a carbon cap was inevitable, they’d say — and I’d remind myself that they had survived countless near-death experiences.

But what happened last week, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would not even try to bring a compromise climate bill to the Senate floor, was not just another setback. Sometimes dead really is dead — and for this Congress, barring a miracle, climate action is finished. With an ugly election looming in November, it may be years before we get another chance to debate a bill that prices carbon. And the consensus approach to federal climate action — the idea that cap-and-trade was the most politically viable policy — may well be dead, too.

This is a time to take stock. The first question is whether this was a failure of policy; a failure of politics, message, and messenger; or both? Second, is there a Plan B around which the climate campaign should now unify? And third, what needs to be done to allow a better outcome when the next opportunity finally does appear?

No one who follows climate politics could have been very surprised by Reid’s move. The bigger shock was his decision to remove from the bill a mandate that utilities must generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. (Proponents hope to offer it as a floor amendment.) It was if the Senate was saying: Anything remotely effective, we’re not going to do.

When Reid pulled the plug, I thought back to a snowy afternoon in Copenhagen last December. Sitting with Al Gore in an empty hotel cafe, I asked him to contemplate this very moment. “If the United States doesn’t act,” he replied, “if the Senate defeats the legislation or waters it down to a point where it is not even worth having a bill, that is an event horizon beyond which it is difficult to see.”

He parsed the same issues then that climate campaigners are parsing now: “It may mean there is a fundamental flaw in the international political approach, but I’m not sure there is a good alternative. The reality is so dire that a new plan would have to emerge — but just now I can’t imagine what it would be.”

Gore had a point. When the goal is emissions reduction, there aren’t many alternatives: You’ve got to reduce emissions. The Plan B options now being offered by various advocates should be vigorously debated, but all of them seem vulnerable to the same polluted politics that killed the cap. Advocates of the carbon tax are ready to take a run at their goal, and Godspeed — but it is hard to see how politicians who were terrified to support a cap (because opponents labeled it a tax) will suddenly become bold enough to support a carbon tax. Policy groups such as the Breakthrough Institute argue that instead of making dirty fuels more expensive, it’s time for intensive energy research and development to make clean fuels cheaper. That sounds reasonable, but without the revenue stream that a cap or tax would provide — and in an era of budget cutbacks — it is hard to see government supplying the massive, long-term funding their plan requires.

Is the cap so fundamentally flawed that it should be abandoned forever? I don’t think so. I believe it needs to be liberated from legislative bloat and rehabilitated as a modest first step: a tool for regulating power sector emissions, the job it performed so successfully in the 1990s, when America tamed acid rain. It’s worth remembering that while climate politics were bogging down, climate policy mechanisms were being improved. Clever wonks found ways to cushion consumers and high-carbon industries from the price impact of the cap, while preserving a price signal for generators. Trading restrictions were added to keep speculators out of the carbon game. Though the term cap-and-trade has been demonized, the cap itself isn’t broken.

Some will argue that this latest setback is proof that the U.S. will never cap carbon. I reject that view. All we can say for sure is that the U.S. will never cap or price carbon until the politics of the issue change — so the first order of business must be to begin improving the political atmosphere. During the three years I worked on The Climate War, a narrative of the campaign to pass a carbon cap, I came to realize I was writing a political thriller, a whodunit with multiple culprits. Let’s look for lessons by considering some of the culprits, starting with the most obvious.

1. The Professional Deniers. Gore and environmental leaders made a tactical error several years ago when they declared the science “settled” and refused to engage the forces of denial and delay. The basic science was indeed settled, but the resulting message vacuum was the perfect medium for those who sow doubt and confusion about global climate change. It shouldn’t be surprising that so many Americans remain skeptical about global warming. For 20 years, this loose network of PR pros, working for industry associations and anti-tax think tanks, has spread doubt about climate science and fear about climate economics, claiming that any attempt to cap CO2 would wreck the American economy. Their disinformation, amplified via the Internet, helped poison the debate. To counter the deniers’ campaign, President Obama needs to speak out forcefully, and champions of the clean energy economy must point to the new jobs that are already being created by the renewable energy economy and show Americans precisely where they fit into it.

2. Senate Republicans. Most climate campaigners understand the folly of trying to remake the American energy system without bipartisan support. But it’s hard to forge centrist solutions when an entire party is denying there’s a problem and vilifying the solutions. A scaled-back approach, one that can be sold as a modest, incremental step and not a new industrial revolution, might fare better.

There was a time — 2007 and 2008, to be precise — when some Republicans were moving away from deny-and-delay tactics. (In 2007, briefly, Newt Gingrich supported the carbon cap.) More recently, opposition to climate action has become a litmus test in the GOP. Arizona Republican John McCain, who sponsored the Senate’s first serious climate bills but now faces a primary challenge from the right, recently called a successor bill “a farce.” His mantle of Republican climate courage passed to Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who took so much heat from his own party that he withdrew from the climate bill he helped write. Graham’s position has been incoherent since then, but he has signaled support for a cap on the power sector. That could be something to build on.

3. Senate Democrats. After Reid pulled the plug, Democrats were quick to blame Republicans for obstruction. But what about the obstructionists within the Democratic ranks? Harry Reid didn’t have the clout to force action on this issue because a dozen or more centrist Democrats — from states that either mine coal or produce much of their electricity from it — were dug in against it. It is impossible to tell if the senators were truly concerned about what the cap would do to their state economies — nonpartisan studies suggest its impact would be minimal — or just worried about what attack ads would do to them. Again, a more modest first step could change the dynamic. The crucial thing is to get started.

4. The Green Group. At a meeting in February 2007, the Green Group, an unofficial association of the leaders of the big U.S. environmental non-profits, told Harry Reid they supported a single legislative goal: An economy-wide cap. Their strategy was to assemble the broadest possible coalition to push the broadest possible bill. Given the magnitude of the crisis and the need to reduce emissions quickly, this made sense. Politically, though, it proved disastrous, because it led to bills of such cost, scope, and complexity that they scared the pants off timid legislators.

The Green Group held out for an economy-wide bill even after it became clear, in late 2009, that it was unachievable in the Senate. Only recently did environmental leaders try to negotiate a compromise cap on electric power plants, which account for 40 percent of U.S. emissions. Passing a utility cap would have been a great first step, but the talks got started too late. The Green Group wanted too much and ended up with nothing.

5. The Power Barons. When the eleventh-hour search for a compromise began, the utilities got too greedy. If they had to go it alone, they argued, they deserved virtually all of the carbon allowances in the program for free. This left too few for other crucial purposes, such as cushioning manufacturers from higher electricity prices. Worse, in exchange for supporting a carbon cap, some utilities demanded relief from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations governing conventional pollutants such as mercury. Like the greens, they asked for too much and got nothing. (The greens, however, were overreaching on behalf of the planet, not their own coffers.) Some utility bosses were relieved to see the bill die. Those feelings may prove short-lived as the battle to reduce emissions moves to the EPA and the courts.

Some advocates, such as Lee Wasserman of the Rockefeller Family Fund, regard the decision to negotiate with the power barons as the height of folly. Washington, they argue, should simply dictate the terms of surrender to the polluters. Such a stance ignores an important fact: It isn’t possible to remake the U.S. energy system without negotiating with the power barons. Punishing generators means punishing households that pay electricity bills. That doesn’t mean, however, that the politicians should give the barons everything they want. But there was only one player with the clout to cut a fair deal with them, and he was missing in action.

6. The President. Barack Obama chose not to lead on this issue. His decision to address health care reform before energy and climate change doomed the latter. With advisors Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod whispering that climate was a losing proposition (a self-fulfilling prophesy, to be sure), Obama never threw himself behind a particular climate bill. He left it to the Senate, the Green Group, and the power bosses — all of whom were sorely in need of adult supervision.

The real grownups in this tale were Rep. Henry Waxman and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who last year surprised the Obama Administration by taking a comprehensive climate bill to the House floor. The White House had no choice but to help whip the vote, and it passed. Then Obama stopped trying, and the Senate refused to take up the legislation. It was a colossal failure of nerve, and a decision that likely destroyed any chance of achieving climate action in Obama’s first term.

Since the president and his political advisers thought an economy-wide cap was too heavy a lift, Obama should have led a tactical retreat to what, in the past several months, became the last-ditch compromise position: the cap on the electric power sector. Had negotiations focused on this months ago instead of weeks ago, and had the president thrown his weight behind it then, we might today be celebrating a step forward instead of mourning another failure. Only Obama had the authority to call this audible early. The environmental NGOs and their allies were too invested in the economy-wide approach; they needed Obama to lead them.

He refused. To the bitter end, the White House pursued what his aides called a “stealth strategy” that deployed the president only sparingly. As a result, he failed to take advantage of the BP oil spill. When its terrible scope became apparent, in June, Obama began talking about the need to cap carbon and accelerate the transition to clean energy. But it was a fleeting moment. Many climate campaigners knew the climate bill was dead on June 15, when Obama gave his long-awaited Oval Office address on the oil spill. Instead of making an explicit connection to the climate bill — and explaining that by capping carbon the U.S. could speed its transition to clean energy and help break its addiction to fossil fuels — Obama whiffed. He had a road map but didn’t try to share it with the people. “We don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there,” he said. Today, with that map in shreds, we surely don’t.

As climate campaigners wait however long it takes to get another shot at legislation, there is important work to be done. Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. have been dropping — and not just because of the recession. The task is to build on this trend during the economic recovery. Changes in our energy infrastructure are making this possible. In Texas, our highest-emitting state and a bastion of climate skepticism, carbon emissions have been declining since 2004 thanks in part to a renewable energy standard — signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush — that accelerated the installation of wind power and created thousands of jobs along the way.

The Department of Energy now has 7,000 clean energy projects across the country — projects that save money, create jobs, and reduce emissions. According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute, by leveraging existing authority over the next ten years the U.S. could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent to 12 percent below 2005 levels. This is far short of the 17 percent reduction Obama promised in Copenhagen and nothing close to what needs to be done. But if we continue cutting emissions before asking voters to embrace a cap, we prove that cuts are both technologically feasible and economically sustainable. And we’ll be in a better position when the next legislative opportunity comes.

Until then, the climate war will be waged by cities, states, regional cap-and-trade programs, and, above all, the EPA, which early next year is set to begin regulating stationary sources of CO2 — power plants and large factories.

Welcome to the “glorious mess” — Michigan Rep. John Dingell’s phrase for the tangle of regulation and litigation that will follow when Congress fails to act. We are about to experience precisely the sort of costly, protracted, plant-by-plant trench warfare the cap was intended to avoid. Since the utilities and the manufacturers weren’t willing to cut a deal, this is what they get. The fragile period of compromise and cooperation between environmentalists and big business may now be coming to an end. Green groups that have invested time and money into the legislative process are now putting on their war paint and returning to the courts, with a renewed focus on stopping new coal-fired power plants and shutting down the oldest and dirtiest ones.

Tough new EPA rules for conventional pollutants will help, and so will new EPA carbon regulations. Perhaps these strict new regulations will refresh the power bosses’ appetite for a cap. But they have plenty of lawyers, and the long, ugly battles over implementation of EPA regulations could extend the current period of uncertainty by many years. Republicans (and some Democrats) will try to strip EPA of its authority over carbon, or at least delay implementation of its new rules.

In effect, the Senate will be saying that Congress alone should have the power to act — so that it can then not exercise that power. Obama’s aides say the president will be fully engaged in the battle to save EPA authority over carbon. It is a fight that he can’t possibly duck, because it is our last line of defense. As Gore reminded me in Copenhagen, “The fact that this is extremely hard doesn’t mean we should quit.”

Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360

by Larry E. Hall

In the early morning hours across America, five days a week, an army of big-dog garbage trucks sets out to pick up our trash. They pull up, stop, idle, load and take off for the next stop, often only 100 feet or less away. This happens 300 to 1,200 times per day, per vehicle.

On a good day, a diesel garbage hauler will eke out 4 to 5 mpg. Then there are all those icky, nasty pollutants pouring out of the exhaust pipe.

But thanks to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), yes, those government folks who monitor environmental laws and fuel mileage testing, a system called “hydraulic hybrid” increases fuel economy up to 30 percent and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent or more in heavy-duty truck applications.

Developed at EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the government agency partnered with Cleveland, Ohio-based Eaton Corporation, a global diversified power management company. The technology, called the Hydraulic Launch Assist (HLA) system essentially operates in the same manner as a gasoline-electric hybrid. Like gasoline-electric hybrid versions, HLA works by recovering a portion of the energy normally lost as heat by the vehicle’s brakes. But instead of a battery pack, a hydraulic system uses pistons to capture the wasted energy by compressing nitrogen gas stored in a tank, called an accumulator. When the driver lets off the accelerator pedal, the wheels drive a hydraulic pump that pumps hydraulic fluid to compress the nitrogen gas and slows the truck down. When the driver accelerates, the nitrogen is allowed to expand and pushes a piston in a cylinder filled with hydraulic fluid. This action assists the diesel engine in turning the rear wheels.

An added advantage to the HLA system is reduced brake wear because Eaton’s technology hydraulically stops the truck. Typically, refuse haulers require several brake replacements each year, costing around $2,000 each time. The hydraulic regenerative braking system cuts this to less than once a year.

Several cities are testing the HLA equipped garbage trucks. The latest is, appropriately, Ann Arbor with four Peterbilt equipped trucks. The city is one of the first to obtain funding for them through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Cities Program. The $156,000 grant offsets the nearly $40,000 cost difference over a conventional diesel hauler. UPS hydraulic hybrid

UPS has been testing Navistar delivery trucks with an Eaton hydraulic system that does not use the diesel engine to power the wheels.

An aggressive variation of the HLA design is being tested in UPS Navistar parcel delivery trucks. Using an Eaton series-type hybrid design, the V6 diesel engines do not power the vehicles, but serve solely to actuate the hydraulic systems’ pumps. It’s estimated that these vehicles could see fuel economy improvements of as much as 60 percent and a reduction of greenhouse emissions of 40 percent.

Using hydraulic technology to increase fuel economy and lower emission isn’t an exclusive for the United States. Hydraulic hybrid buses are being tested on the streets of Beijing, China with the hope of introducing them to other parts of the country.

The hydraulic hybrid appears to offer huge benefits when applied to heavy vehicles that operate in stop-and-go driving conditions, but what about passenger cars and trucks? The engineers at the EPA’s Michigan laboratory have built and tested many prototypes over the years, including a diesel-hydraulic Ford Taurus that chalked up more than 80 miles per gallon. In 2004, the EPA displayed a hydraulic hybrid Ford Expedition SUV with a small diesel engine replacing the large displacement gasoline V8. It delivered an 82 percent improvement in combined city and highway gas mileage. Ford was an early partner with the EPA in developing the system, but later dropped out.

Reprinted with permission from Hybrid Cars

by Mridul Chadha

India's largest wind turbine manufacturer Suzlon Energy is in talks with British officials to invest $1.57 billion to build a wind turbine manufacturing facility.

While the details about the talks are still sketchy, such an investment makes perfect sense for the company. Sulzon Energy (NSE:SUZLON) bought European wind energy major RePower in December 2009 to expand its presence in developed countries. The acquisition helped Suzlon grab almost 10 percent of the global market share and made it the third largest wind turbine manufacturer.

Suzlon is already the market leader in Asia. Founded in 1995, Suzlon has pioneered in manufacturing low-cost turbines and has expanded operations in North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia. Over the years, the company has made several acquisitions in order to build an integrated supply chain to provide complete wind energy solutions.

Suzlon has made the most from the consistent growth of wind energy infrastructure development in India and the company continues to hold a strong order book. However, the company did face problems as it ventured into new markets like the United States. In 2008, the company suffered a major setback when several instances of blade failures were reported in the turbines it had exported to the US. Consequently, the company saw many orders cancelled or truncated and its stock took a steep plunge. Suzlon invested more than $100 million to retrofit these blades.

The company has been facing fierce competition from the Chinese manufacturers which have sprouted during the last few years. Chinese companies now look to buy domestic wind turbines which cost then a fraction of what Suzlon offers. Since Europe is the hub of cutting-edge wind energy technology, the move to invest in a manufacturing hub in UK seems to be a wise move. The company would have access to the latest testing facilities and expertise in Europe.

Wind tunnel testing of wind turbine blades is a crucial aspect in the wind turbine development. Suzlon has no wind tunnel testing facility of its own in India and rents such facilities from government institutions which are not readily available, leading to delays. Europe has several wind testing facilities which can come handy for research and development of new designs.

The company would also look to grab a share in the rapidly-growing British wind energy market. Wind energy market grew by a whooping 31 percent as compared to 20 percent growth in the overall renewable energy sector. The British and Scottish governments have ambitious renewable energy targets and look to increase the wind energy's share in their energy mix.

The move to build a manufacturing facility in UK is another step in a series of strategic deals around the world. Such moves would help the company grap crucial share in the new and developing markets and help it develop high quality products using better R & D facilities.

Reprinted with permission from Earth & Industry

by Tom Schueneman

The best way to slow the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice is to reduce soot emissions from burning fossil fuels, wood, and dung. This is the conclusion of a Stanford University study published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).

The paper, authored by Mark Z. Jacobson, director of Stanford’s Atmosphere/Energy Program, says that soot is second only to carbon dioxide as a contributor to global warming.

"Controlling soot may be the only method of significantly slowing Arctic warming within the next two decades,” says Jacobson. “We have to start taking its effects into account in planning our mitigation efforts and the sooner we start making changes, the better.”

Because soot has been “mischaracterized” in previous climate models, it has been “ignored completely” in international and national climate policy.

Jacobson’s work has focused on developing a model that uses weather, global climate, and air pollution data over the past 20 years to analyze how soot heats clouds, snow, and ice. He stresses the importance of mitigating the rapid increase of Arctic sea ice melt.

"There is a big concern that if the Arctic melts, it will be a tipping point for the Earth’s climate because the reflective sea ice will be replaced by a much darker, heat absorbing, ocean below,” he said. “Once the sea ice is gone, it is really hard to regenerate because there is not an efficient mechanism to cool the ocean down in the short term.”

Reprinted with permission from Cleantechies

by Nino Marchetti

Ocean Power Technologies (OPT), a New Jersey wave power company developing a wave energy park off of Reedsport, Oregon, announced today a settlement agreement with 11 federal and state agencies and three non-governmental stakeholders around this project. This agreement marks what is said to be a major step towards the grant of the first license ever issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a commercial-scale wave power project in the US.

OPT said this settlement, which was reached after extensive technical, policy, and legal discussions regarding appropriate prevention, mitigation and enhancement measures, and study requirements, moves forward somewhat its development of a 10-PowerBuoy, 1.5 megawatt capacity wave energy station in a manner that “protects ocean resources and stakeholder interests.” A FERC license has yet to be issued, however, and additional funding will also need to be secured by the company before it can bring its 10-buoy farm online to supply clean energy to around 1,000 homes.

OPT added that this agreement covers a broad array of resource areas including aquatic resources, water quality, recreation, public safety, crabbing and fishing, terrestrial resources, and cultural resources. Concerns in particular have been raised about projects like this in the past around potential issues of altered aquatic living patterns and such, and the company believes it can develop this wave park in a sustainable manner which address any potential concerns.

“This agreement demonstrates OPT’s commitment to develop wave power in a way that respects the environment and the needs of all who rely on ocean resources for many different uses, said Dr. George W. Taylor, Executive Chairman of OPT, in a statement. “It shows how the private sector can work together effectively with federal, state, municipal and local groups to attain important common goals of sustainable development. Wave energy has the potential to create manufacturing jobs in America, while providing low-cost clean, environmentally benign electricity to help replace the use of fossil fuels.”

Reprinted with permission from EarthTechling

New players, more shapes and sizes, and ever changing business models – the market for EV charging supply equipment (EVSE) is remarkably complex for an industry that is still in its infancy.

At last week's Plug-in 2010 conference in San Jose, 10 companies were displaying EV charging equipment of various shapes and sizes. The announcements made during the four-day event included new partnerships, new products aimed at consumers, and the arrival of new players.

Each EVSE manufacturer has a slightly different spin on their revenue mix, including what percentage of money will come from consumer subscriptions, single transaction sales, marketing services, or services aimed at charging equipment operators and utilities. Some companies' business models have changed several times during their brief histories, a theme familiar in the post-Internet era of fluid product strategy.

Coulomb Technologies, an early EVSE player, is now de-emphasizing hardware manufacturing and has opened up its ChargePoint Network to competitors Siemens, Leviton, and Aker Wade. The company is focusing on deriving revenue from managing charging equipment through its network. Eaton Corporation, an $11.9 billion company that manufactures stationary and transportation power equipment, recently entered the EVSE market and is focusing on providing equipment and software tools that enable fleets and other companies to customize EV charging based on their individual applications or communications equipment needs. Eaton has teamed with grid infrastructure services company GridPoint so that data from its EVSEs can be aggregated.

Ecotality, which is managing $115 million in DOE funds to set up charging networks in 16 cities, finally unveiled its residential and commercial charging equipment. By looking at the design of the "Blink" charging stations, you can see that the company is going after the consumer market aggressively, as contrasted with some competitors that are going with a more industrial look. President Don Karner made it clear that the company believes it can derive revenue from consumer services beyond EV charging when he boldly told me that the "Blink will be to EV charging what the iPhone is to mobile phones" – a platform for delivering applications and services.

Better Place, a Palo Alto company that has been contracted to provide EV charging and battery swap services in Israel and Denmark, doesn't manufacturer hardware and is the only company in this market that is not backing fast DC charging of EVs. Better Place is expanding beyond consumer services and developing services for predicting and managing energy loads for utilities.

Also presenting EVSE at Plug-In 2010 were Leviton, BTCPower, Aerovironment (which has partnered with Nissan to provide charging equipment for the upcoming Leaf), Liberty PlugIns, and startup Plugless Power, which as its name implies is developing inductive charging equipment.

There are a few dozen other companies developing EVSE, and while Pike Research expects the market to grow to a $372 million market in the U.S. in 2015, not all of these companies will be around as independent entities at that time. Revenue from consumer and utility services will slowly ramp up relative to the cost of the equipment being installed. New successful business models will emerge, but the next few years will be "sausage making time" when the market gets very messy before something useful comes out the other end.

John Gartner is an automotive industry analyst for Pike Research.

Getting dozens of different plug-in vehicles to seamlessly connect and talk to dozens of various chargers is no easy feat. For several years now, a handful of national and global standards organizations, led by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), have been developing standards for plugs and vehicle charging equipment. Despite the herculean efforts of those involved, confusion exists about how to refer to the fastest rates for charging vehicles.

The agreed upon (as anointed by the SAE) standard charging rates are known as Level 1 and Level 2 and refer to alternating current (AC) charging equipment. (Equipment on the vehicle itself converts the AC to the DC used to actually charge the batteries). These slow- and medium-speed charge rates will be offered by nearly every piece of home or commercial charging equipment, from companies including Coulomb Technologies, Ecotality, Eaton, Better Place, AeroVironment, and others. These specific charge rates (1.44 kW and 6.7 kW respectively) will get most vehicles fully charged in as little as 2 to 5 hours.

But many of these companies anticipate demand for charging in under an hour for vehicles that are either being used for longer trips, don't have a convenient place to charge at home, or for people who just don't like to wait. Enter direct current (DC) charging, which can cut charge times by more than half. To input DC power into your vehicle, the car will have to be fitted with a special cable and connector. DC charging equipment is generally not permitted at most homes because of its huge consumption of power, as well as safety issues.

Since there has been no specific global standard passed for this type of charging, EV charging equipment companies have been developing products at a number of charging speeds and have been referring to it in multiple ways. These include rapid charging, fast charging, Level 3 (or Level II!) charging, or simply "DC charging." In Japan, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has created a version of DC charging equipment that has gotten support internationally by a group that wants to base a "ChadeMo" standard on it. Here in the U.S., TEPCO is also gaining some support, while other SAE members are holding back on any endorsement and could develop an alternate Level 3 standard.

The use of the term "Level 3" is contentious because Levels 1 and 2 are SAE standards and refer to AC charging equipment, and the SAE hasn't weighed in on a Level 3 standard for AC charging, while Level 3 DC charging has only been loosely described by industry folks as fitting within a range of voltage and amperage combinations. For example, AeroVironment has DC charging equipment products for three different rates (30, 50 and 60 kW), and compatibility with the CHAdeMO protocol is an option.

No Level 1 or 2 standards have been drafted by the SAE for DC chargers.

Some engineers (many of who participate in standards groups) have been waging a battle lately to get charging equipment companies and the media to stop using the Level 3 terminology because there is no existing standard, and because companies that purchase equipment advertised as such today might believe that what they buy today would be compatible with other current or future DC charging equipment. I've had several conversations lately where this point was made loud and clear to me, yet at the PlugIn 2010 conference, several vendors continued to use Level 3 in their marketing materials and presentations.

I was hoping that by asking a panel of experts at a session on EV charging I'd get clarity, but got none. Mark Duvall of the Electric Power Research Institute said that work was still being done on a standard and would likely be done within a year. Gerry Kissel of GM, who had stated in his presentation that there was no Level 3 standard (see slide here, retreated when confronted on the subject, and said that it was nonetheless okay for industry folks to continue using Level 3. To make matters even more confusing, there's debate going on whether a single plug can be developed for both AC and DC or charging, or if they should remain separate. So the "Level 3" label seen today means proprietary DC charging hardware, and some kind of faster than medium speed, but gives no guarantee that it will make it possible to plug-in anywhere else.

And if you use those words together in conversation or online, you may get a strong rebuke, or no reaction at all.

John Gartner is an analyst covering the automobile industry for Pike Research.

by Thomas Miner

General Mills announced the completion of a major solar energy initiative yesterday as its Methuen, Massachusetts facility became the first in the company to produce its own electricity via solar power. The installation is expected to provide 80 percent of the facilities energy needs in the summer and 40 percent during winter months.

While the Methuen facility is the first in the U.S. to produce its own energy using photovoltaics, other global facilities have instituted renewable energy projects and innovative energy reclamation initiatives. The company’s San Adrian, Spain, facility receives 100 percent of its electricity and one third of its overall energy from renewable energy sources such as wind power. The company is also constructing a biomass burner at its oat-milling facility in Fridley, Minn., that will burn leftover oat hulls from the milling process to produce about 90 percent of the steam needed to heat the plant and make oat flour.

The solar installation in Methuen will produce the following benefits for the General Mills:

- The panels provide a year-round average of 55 percent of the annual electricity consumed by the warehouse building. (80 percent in summer months, 40 percent in winter months)

- The panels generate enough electricity (110.7 kilowatts) to power approximately 12 average Massachusetts homes every year

- Solar power will offset more than 112,000 lbs of carbon dioxide annually – this is the equivalent of taking 10 cars off the road.

Reprinted with permission from Sustainable Life Media

There are signs that 2010 could be the coming out party for Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES). With the onslaught of large wind and solar deployments that will be added to the grid to meet state renewable portfolio standards requirements, there is a lot of buzz about the need for energy storage systems, particularly bulk energy storage. Bulk systems can store megawatt-scale amounts of energy produced during off peak times. They then discharge that energy during peak times, when prices are higher, and over many hours. With so much attention and investment paid to lithium ion batteries, it is easy to forget that advanced batteries are not true bulk storage technologies. However, CAES is.

Historically, CAES projects have faced an uphill climb in terms of site selection and permitting. However, there is now tangible evidence of market momentum and validation. CAES Development Company recently sold to FirstEnergy Generation the rights to the Norton (Ohio) Energy Storage Project, a site that will exceed 2 GW if all phases are complete. Pacific Gas and Electric is in the process of validating the design and performance of a 300 MW CAES project near Bakersfield, CA. New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) will be demonstrating a 150 MW CAES technology plant using an existing salt cavern in Watkins Glen, NY. There are also other small demonstrations from CAES technology providers that do not require natural gas to heat the compressed air and generate electricity.

For bulk energy storage there are three key dimensions to consider: capacity or rated power (measured in the hundreds of megawatts), discharge duration (measured in hours), and cost of energy (measured in $/kWh). CAES scores high on these dimensions and can cost as little as $60/kWh for larger systems, less than any other energy storage technology. A significant portion of U.S. geology has the bedded salt/salt dome geology that is most suitable for CAES and that geology’s overlap with large wind is significant. Also, CAES is a very flexible resource that can also provide shorter duration regulation services. The project finance nature of CAES makes the technology scalable.

Accordingly, Pike Research estimates that the CAES market will grow from 453 MW in 2010 to nearly 7 GW by 2020, which will cement the technology’s role in helping integrate renewables on the grid.

David Link is a smart-energy analyst for Pike Research.

Image Credit: PicsDigger.com

by Christopher DeMorro

Unlike many of my fellow gearheads, I’ve come to realize just how much potential for performance is locked away within electric vehicles. Major manufacturers have made the mistake of assuming only the eco-conscious care about electric cars. But if the Tesla Roadster proves anything, it is that there is a market for electric performance cars.

Looking for proof? Well last week Kleenspeed, an electric car startup based in Moffet Field, California, took to the famous Laguna Seca raceway where he set a new track record of 94 mph, beating its own previous record of 93 mph.

Kleenspeed is a venture between West Race Cars, Kleenspeed, and NASA. Led by Tim Collins, an investment banker who has owned mining companies and hockey teams, Kleenspeed took a purpose-built race car body (designed for series like American Le Mans) and removed the motorcycle engine, putting in its place 1,600 lithium-ion batteries and a 200 horsepower electric motor. Weighing in at just 1,400 pounds, it weighs more than its petrol-powered cousins, by as the time trial proved, it is also a helluva lot faster.

An average of 94 mph might not seem like a lot for a racecar. Consider however that the all-time record holder Viper ACR managed an average of just 138 mph. True, after just 17 laps the Kleenspeed car was outta juice, and it takes 5 hours to recharge. But when they figure out how to get some more endurance out of those batteries, electric race cars won’t be far behind. Right now though, limited range and a 5-hour recharging time mean this electric race car has a way to go before it’s ready for prime time.

If NASCAR started accepting electric race car entrants to compete against their petrol powered stock cars, would you watch it?

Reprinted with permission from Gas 2.0

by Zachary Shahan

With a much smaller carbon footprint and much more economic bang for its buck, mixed-use downtown development seems like a win-win development option for cities and counties. Localities across the country, due to the economic problems of the past few years, are struggling to provide the services citizens are used to, but if they are smart about the development projects they support, they can have a lot more money in the future than if they aren't.

It is common to think that big box stores (e.g. Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Target) and shopping malls will bring your city or county some good tax revenue, but in a recent analysis of different types of urban development in Sarasota, FL (my hometown), leading urban planner Peter Katz, Director of Smart Growth/Urban Planning for Sarasota County and founding executive director of the Congress for the New Urbanism, found that this is not the case.

"Big box stores such as WalMart and Sam’s Club, when analyzed for county property tax revenue per acre, produce barely more than a single family house; maybe $150 to $200 more a year," his analysis found. "That hardly seems worth all the heat that elected officials take when they approve such development," Katz said.

A high-end shopping mall, Southgate Mall, with shops like Macy’s, Dillards, and Saks Fifth Avenue, brought in the most per-acre property tax revenue (nearly $22,000 per acre) of any purely retail development. But far more than that, a high-rise mixed-use project in downtown Sarasota generated the most property tax revenue -- $800,000 per acre if you only count county property taxes and $1.2 million per acre if you include city property taxes.

“It takes a lot of WalMarts to equal the contribution of that one mixed-use building,” Katz noted.

The 3/4-acre, 16- to 18-story, mixed-use development is actually worth more property tax revenue than the county's 21-acre Wal-Mart Supercenter and 32-acre Southgate Mall combined.

"Even a mid rise (up to about seven stories) mixed use building brings in $560,000, and the low rise (up to three stories with residential over retail) brings in over $70,000 per acre — more than three times the return of Southgate Mall," Mary Newsom of Citywire.net reports.

What About Sales Taxes?

You might be inclined to bring the topic of sales tax into this discussion. Sure, it is a source of revenue as well, but it's nothing compared to property taxes for localities. “Generally speaking, there isn’t a heck of a lot of return to the municipality with sales tax — at least compared to the return from property tax,” Joe Minicozzi of Public Interest Projects says.

Katz says it makes a lot more sense to focus on building "smart growth districts" than trying to steal commercial development from neighboring counties with "fiscal zoning." “With a receptive mindset among citizens and elected officials, such places should be infinitely replicable; doing so may actually be easier than trying to squeeze a little more spending out of our citizens’ mostly fixed disposable income.”

Reprinted with permission from Ecopolitology