Field
Reports

News: ‘Field Notes’ Archive

Video: Google’s Green Energy Czar Bill Weihl Calls for Investment in Innovation to Address Climate Change

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Berkeley, March 3, 2010

Bill Weihl, Google’s Green Energy Czar, was the keynote speaker at the BERC’s (Berkeley Energy and Research Collaborative) Innovation Expo kicking off the Energy Symposium at the University of California Berkeley. The evening event featured some 80 poster presentations by energy researchers, students, and policy makers, and the local start-up community.


Partial excerpts from Bill Weihl’s talk:

“We see the climate problem as one of the most pressing problems facing humanity.”

“And I’m sure all of you know the scale of the problem we face, we need to transform our energy infrastructure virtually completely. It’s perhaps the most daunting problem that modern civilization has ever faced on many fronts, technology, leadership, global cooperation, and on and on. The good news is that … it is a solvable problem.”

“We need really serious breakthroughs in technology and we need them soon, to provide the… clean energy technologies required to transform our energy infrastructure at scale in the time frame needed to really avert what could be catastrophic climate change.”

Bill also commented on Google’s RECC Intiative (Renewable Electricity Cheaper than Coal)
“Our belief is that getting the price of renewables below the price of the polluting alternatives is essential to get them adopted by scale. To really transform our energy infrastructure and get to zero carbon by 2050 we need cheap clean sources of energy. We do believe we need to put a price on carbon and we need to begin to internalize all those externalities. That will send a price signal, hopefully that will begin to spur innovation, it’ll spur deployment for zero carbon technologies… but that alone I believe is almost certainly not enough..and maybe a different way of putting it, it’s the same argument I heard Bernie ? of MIT make a years ago, about actually trying to take action around climate change. It’s really an application of the precautionary principle. If we fail to take action because we think maybe climate change isn’t real and we’re wrong, the consequences are enormous. In the same way, if we rely solely on a price signal on carbon, that in particular for a number of years is unlikely to be a very strong signal, and assume that will spur the innovation that we need, and in twenty years discover that we’re wrong, it’s far too late to fix this. So I believe we need to deploy many policy mechanisms, and one of the most important is investment in technology innovation, directly investing in the innovation to develop the technologies we need, not relying on a price signal and hoping the market will stir the right innovation.”

Part 2

Report by James George

Video: A.G. Kawamura, California Secretary of Food & Ag at Climate One’s “After Copenhagen, What Happened? What Now?”

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

San Francisco, Feb. 2, 2010

Panelist A.G. Kawamura, California Secretary of Food and Agriculture spoke at Climate One at the Commonwealth Club’s “After Copenhagen, What Happened? What Now?”. There were so many panelists reporting on their experiences at the COP 15 that each was only allotted two minutes for their statement.

Partial excerpts:
“..for us, Copenhagen was a groundbreaking opportunity to really introduce the very realistic and very sobering proposition that if you have unpredictable weather that means unpredictable harvest”

“…when you recognize that in the underdeveloped world that almost half the products that are grown never make it on the plate, when you recognize that in the developed world, that almost thirty to forty percent of the products that are on the plate get thrown away, these are some huge issues that we have to deal with.”

Report by James George

Field Notes : SolarCon in Hyderabad, India

Saturday, November 14th, 2009

Nov 9 – 11, Hyderabad, India

Beyond spicier, more delicious lunches, there were other notable differences between India’s first SolarCon India2009 solar conference, held in association with InterSolar India/SEMI, and the recent InterSolar/SEMI San Francisco conference. Whereas in San Francisco three full solar exhibit floors were crowded with large photovoltaic panels from an bewildering number of manufacturers, in Hyderabad the sparser and smaller PV displays from just a few companies didn’t really stand out even on the single floor of exhibitors – perhaps just approaching the smaller number of solar thermal displays in SF. And as for solar thermal in Hyderabad, only a few images on exhibitor display panels were to be seen.

Photon

Photon of Hyderabad makes Solar Thermal Systems

HHVBut there were to be found technologies appropriate to the conditions of the region, such as the Diya Solar PV Lantern by HHV Solar, a solar charged alternative to kerosene lighting for rural homes off the grid. In a Climate Change and PV session, panelist Vishnu Reddy presented a statistic making it clear just how necessary such solar powered alternatives are: 100 million homes in India rely on kerosene for lighting, a public health concern.

PV on display

Why lug around heavy panels to trade shows?

Scale miniature rural electrification PV model at SolarCon

Tuesday’s PV & Climate Change panel featured speakers making the case for photovoltaic solar power as a climate change mitigation solution.

InterSolar West

Shankar Venkateswaran of SustainAbility made several points, including:

The 2 degrees C threshold is non-negotiable – the results will otherwise be catastrophic.

GHG concentrations of 400ppm or below give the best chance of avoiding a 2 degree C rise.

 


Video:
Fielding an audience question, Shankar Venkateswaran makes an insightful point about the lack of existing infrastructures with the long scale time horizon needed to respond appropriately to climate change.


Shirish Sinha of WWF presented an analysis based on the concept of a carbon budget – the maximum total amount of CO2 which can be released into the atmosphere between 1990 and 2050 if global temperatures are to remains within the 2 degree ‘safety’ limit which scientists say is necessary to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming. Since Northern industrialized nations have already used up a good percentage of this budget, the argument is made that, to be fair, it is the developed nations that must cut back dramatically while allowing developing nations to use a higher share of the remaining budget.

At a time when budget constraints are being cited as an argument against climate mitigation commitments, Sinha reminded the audience that “the cost of inaction will be much higher than the cost of action”.

ShrishSinha

Another subtle difference here between the flavor of the GHG discussion in Hyderabad vs. San Francisco involves the consideration of those populations expected to acquire access to energy with development in the near future. In SF, many generally frame the goal as to quickly reduce GHG emissions of existing consumers, with the help of solar power, towards achieving dramatic emission reductions by 2020 or 2050. The concern about billions of new ‘consumers’ in developing nations getting access to energy is often presented with an overtone of ‘necessary, fair, but nonetheless somewhat threatening’. In Hyderabad, a different tone was consistently heard across several speakers: getting poorer and more vulnerable people access to electricity was simply good, right, and just – another social problem to be addressed as part of solving climate change and equity issues – with PV solar as one solution to provide that rural electricity to those areas off the grid.


Shirish Garud

Shirish Garud of the Energy and Resources Institute

Video: Shirish Garud frames the need to provide electricity to 450 million people as an adaptation issue, electricity being necessary to enable people to respond to climate change or any other calamity.


Aaron Zude

Aaron Zude of SEMI adds a damper to the ‘how green thou art’ PV revelry, describing in some detail the many chemicals used in manufacturing solar panels which have GHG equivalents far exceeding CO2.

FGHGs

In practical terms, the climate change issue may help secure governmental financial incentives, still in both Hyderabad and San Francisco conferences one gets the sense of hundreds of businessmen pursuing opportunities in a promising market rather than dwelling on the potential catastrophic effects of climate change. Yet as evidenced by the scale of vendor investment, the Indian market is clearly not as compelling as that in the United States. However, an expected mid-November major announcement by the Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh is expected to greatly buoy the status of solar in India.

\Tea time

Tea time between panel discussions

Puneet Rustagi

Panelist Puneet Rustagi of the World Bank

As important as climate change may be, it’s worth noting that the panels on economic and policy aspects of promoting solar power drew a larger audience than the climate change panel.

Audience

A strong turnout for Puneet Rustagi on the financing of PV.

 

CC audience

The sparser yet still respectable audience for the afternoon PV and Climate Change panel.

SolarCon has already announced plans for a bigger and better SolarCon India2010.

Article by James George

Senior Advisor Matt Rogers Keynote Address on Energy Stimulus Money at Launch of Hass Energy Institute at UC Berkeley

Saturday, October 31st, 2009

Oct 30, 2009 University of California, Berkeley, Haas School of Business

Matt Rogers, Senior Advisor to US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, gave the keynote address today to celebrate the launch of the Energy Institute at Haas. He spoke on the disbursement of energy-related stimulus money. The video below features the concluding three minutes of his talk, where he highlights how federal stimulus money encourages private capital investment in the energy sector.

Matt Rogers

"Charting America’s energy and environmental future represents one of the defining issues of our time … and we need the kind of innovative interdisciplinary thinking like the Institute here in order to find the practical solutions to the problems we face as the markets begin to take shape."

Video Text: "This is going to be a journey, this is a journey that we are just starting with the recovery act. The center for American progress estimates it’s going to take a hundred billion to two hundred billion dollars year over the next twenty years to achieve the nations energy and environmental goal. That’s a pretty significant investment. So what were doing through the recovery act is we’re making a down payment. It’s a down payment because we can get a set of projects started that demonstrate that these project work, that they’re technologically feasible, but also they demonstrate that these projects are economically attractive projects for the market to take on. And that’s where our collaboration with CEA is so important, is to make sure that the market comes to the end of the next year and says, ‘hey you know, those projects the government funded – boy I wish I had invested in that project for that is a really terrific funding opportunity.’"

Westergaard"And we have to bring private capital off the sidelines. If you take a look at, for example at smart grid awards. We put 3.3 Billion dollars in this week, private sector put 4.7 Billion dollars in, so we got 8.1 Billion dollars of funding done. We made a conditional loan guarantee to Solyndra for $535 million dollars. As a result of the that, the company was able to go out and raise $320 million dollars more, and all of a sudden now we have the basis for a factory …"

"We gave a grant of $290 million dollars to A123, which interestingly got started out of MIT with a small business incentive research grant of $250,00 in 2001.
Started with 5 guys, and now it went public after we made our $290 million battery award, to go public for $480 million dollars, and are actually going to have more than a billion dollars in market capitalization, between 2001 -$250,000- and now, and this is a story about if the federal government does its part, then the private sector can do it’s part, and all of a sudden we have a real market flowing here that can actually go on for an extended period of time.
But we can’t fund all the positive … projects, and the market actually needs to pick those up, and long term we have to create the right kind of market incentives in order to make sure that kind of capital formation continues for a long period of time."

"The secretary frames this as the next industrial revolution, that we have the opportunity to transform the way we use energy, the way we deal with our environment by using science and technology and innovation to change the game. And I think he’s right. "

"Today we have energy policy, environmental policy aligned in a way that they’ve never been before, and we have the resources behind them in order to really make a material difference. Now our opportunity is really to deliver the kind of innovation, the kind of productivity improvements, and the kind of market structures and capital formation that are necessary to sustain this for the long period of time, and if we do that, the United States will be a leader both in terms of policy formation. but also in terms of the fundamental economics here. We’ll be a leader in the energy sector, we’ll be a leader in the environmental section, not only in the United States, but rather as a manufacturer for the world. That’s our hope and where we’re headed and hopefully this down payment has moved us in the right direction. And with that I’ll stop and I’ll be happy to take some questions."

Field Notes: International Day of Climate Action

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Oct 24, 2009 San Francisco, CA.

Climate Demo

Demonstrations were held around the world Saturday to focus attention on the atmospheric CO2 target of 350 parts per million. This is the amount considered safe by many climate scientists, including NASA climatologist James Hansen, and promoted globally on this ‘International Day of Climate Action’, by 350.org. The current atmospheric quantity of CO2 is 386 ppm, and according to many projections it will be extremely challenging to prevent levels from reaching 450 ppm in coming decades.

The gathering in San Francisco comprised a diverse inter generational crowd who came together to hear speeches, poetry, music, and to form a human image of the number 350, similar to so many images of the number 350 from around the world. The amplified sound for the event was powered by volunteers pedaling bicycle electricity generators.

The five o’clock chimes began ringing in at Justin Herman Plaza as SF City Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi began to speak:

“I want to thank everyone who made the commitment to be here. I want to thank Greenpeace, I want to thank climatechange.org, I want to thank all the environmentalists and all those advocates who saw fit to draw a line in the sand to tell our national leaders, and to tell our allies, and to tell all those who will be congregating at Copenhagen that we absolutely insist on having an effective and accountable climate change plan that takes care of the decades of degradation.”

“We are mobilizing to broadcast and to amplify our message across the sea, across all continents. It is absolutely inspiring that there are hundreds and hundreds of cities who are having concurrent actions like this – that there are veterans of this movement, and newcomers of this movement, generations of this movement to save our environment, to save endangered habitats, to save humanity, to save our mother earth, because they realize that the clock ticks for us.”

Expressing the growing frustration among environmentalists over the pace and direction of climate legislation, Mirkarimi said:

“We’re determined and we’re resolved – we understand where lines in the sand must be drawn. In Washington – even those who we gleefully elected and enthusiastically elected into Congress or the White House – liberal or not, we have no time for them to get with it.”


Farm Sanctuary’s Walk for Farm Animals contingent marched down Market Street to join the larger demonstration, drawing attention to both the disastrous effects of factory farming on climate change as well as to cruelty to farm animals. Many of the people in this group are vegan or vegetarian.

GopalGopal of Movement Generation addressed the crowd about climate change within the context of environmental justice.

“We are not on the brink of an ecological crisis, we are in one. We absolutely have to get off that system”

Gopal stressed equity issues and community based struggle to defend people’s rights – including environmental rights such as clean air and water.

“Getting to 350 is only one piece of this puzzle. What really matters is how we get to 350. Are we going to believe the lies and false solutions of the system that got us here? Are we going to allow the corporations who created the problem – are we going to allow the empire that built its privilege on the backs of people all over the planet to craft the solutions or are we going to take control and craft those solutions ourselves?”

“There’s another lie that they want us to believe – that we are all in the same boat. We are not all in the same boat. We are all part of the same fleet, floating on the same ocean, heading to the same iceberg. But the big ship has put all the little ships up front, and are figuring that that’s going to buffer the impact of hitting that iceberg.”

“Poor people all over this planet are the least responsible for creating this problem. They are the first hit, they are the hardest hit,and they also hold the key to our survival. Indigenous peoples, Land based peoples, traditional knowledge, that is what we need to survive. We need to honor it, we need to cultivate it in ourselves, we need to rebirth it in our communities.”

“The solutions will not come from the corporate haven that is Copenhagen, they will come from the actions of everyday people, organizing together, in together in our communities building power from the bottom up.”

“The story of the solution to our problems to our problems begins with the communities on the ground on the front lines of the root causes of this problem. The communities in Richmond who are fighting Chevron, the communities in Appalachia who are fighting coal, the communities in Alberta who are fighting tar sands. Indigenous peoples all over this planet fighting to protect their forests and their livelihoods. Fisher folk all over this planet fighting industrial trolling. Those communities on the front line of this struggle are the source of our solutions. They will band together with us in a multisectoral people’s movement all over this planet and here in the United States, and we will exercise our people power in the streets to drive those rights based policies that protect people all over this planet, that protect people all over this planet, that protect the rights of women, that protect the rights of workers.That protects the rights of indigenous peoples, and that protect my right and your right to clean air, to fresh water to healthy food, and to safe places to live and breath every day.”

“That is the solution we need. We will not convince the policy makers, the corporate controls or the government of the United States to do it for us. We will make them do it, we will make them do it every day all the time.”

Gopal went on to recall the demonstrations of December 1999 in Seattle against the World Trade Organization which took many by surprise:

“Now imagine waking up on Dec 1 1999 and learning about the WTO for the first time by watching it collapse on TV. Well that moment is upon us again exactly 10 years later. In December 2009 the same people, the same forces, are going to amass again in Copenhagen, and it is not just about carbon in the atmosphere, it is about global finance, it is about forests it is about rights, it is about healthcare, it is about everything about our lives. And if we do not organize together to make sure that people are put first, the rights of profit will rule.”

I interviewed Gopal as the demonstration was ending. He said did not expect an agreement to be reached in Copenhagen, and was critical of the proposed legislation in the United States:

“The idea that any bill is better than no bill is a lie. The climate legislation that came through the Congress and the climate legislation that will likely to come through the senate is worse than nothing. It’s not that it doesn’t go far enough -it’s that it goes down the wrong road.”

Q: Why are you opposed to cap & trade?

“First of all there’s actually no real need for complicated, sophisticated, speculative financial instruments for trading in pollution and what is essentially the commodification of atmospheric space – which is turning it into a commodity which can be bought and sold on a market – when solutions are much simpler and much easier to make accountable much more transparent and much easier to verify. For example, an immediate moratorium on all new exploration for any fossil fuels. We know that fossil fuels cause the problem, so today, we could take every penny that the fossil fuels industry spend in looking for new fossil fuels and just say “you can’t do that anymore” and all that has to go into clean technology, into green jobs, into worker transition, into working training programs, into a just transition program. We know that oil is there, but we know that is drilling for it an using that oil is catastrophic to life on this planet and so we’re going to make a ban on that.”

“We could institute a cap and tax. We could set a limit. If you stay within it you get charged a certain amount, if you go over by a certain percent you get charged at one rate, if you go over by another percent you get changed at a higher rate. We set that, the cap goes down every year. We set maybe a five year limit, if after five years you can’t get your corporation you business you industry your industrial activity within the cap then we’re going to revoke your corporate charter.”

Q: One benefit that has been attributed of cap & trade is that it allows for transfer of wealth from Northern countries to Southern nations. Can cap and tax solutions allow for transfer of wealth to developing nations?

“Yes. In Copenhagen one of the sticking points that’s going to get fought over between the “industrial Northern countries” and the “global South” is whether were going to have a “market based mechanism” for financing which cap & trade is, or whether were going to have a funds based mechanism. Now, everybody’s familiar with the debt, that poor countries owe to the Northern countries through the World Bank or the IMF, that industrial countries give out loans to do really bad things and then make you pay them back over hundreds of years.”

“Well there’s another kind of debt called an ecological debt. It’s the debt that the industrial North, that we owe to people all over the planet, to the countries of the Global South for five hundred years of resource colonization and exploitation. We’ve built our civilization off of the backs of other peoples resources and over exploiting common resources like atmospheric space, which nobody should get to own, or fresh water, which nobody should get to own. And so if we start looking at ecological debt as a framework for looking at how we’re going to finance technology transfer, and how we’re going to finance solutions in the global South and equity, then there’s a whole new set of options on the table, a funds based mechanism, where the industrial North, the taxation of carbon from polluting activity goes into a fund and that fund is distributed on the basis of equity to countries in the Global South. It’s a verifiable system, it can be a transparent system. It can be a democratic system.”

“The United States is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gases historically. What’s fair is that we do more than anyone else to deal with the problem. We have built our society on the backs of other people. What’s fair is that we give back a little bit now.”

Article by James George

Field Notes: "Wind Energy Technology, Innovations and Challenges"

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Oct 23, 2009 Berkeley, CA.

WestergaardCarten Hein Westergaard, of Vestas Technology R& D Americas, Inc., spoke at the Univeristy of California Berkeley today on wind power – or more accurately, Vestas and wind power.

Vestas is a longstanding major player in the wind energy business, boasting 20% of the global market, some 4000 employees, $595 million in investments, and 39,000 wind turbines installed to date. One Vestas V90-3MW turbine was said to be capable of producing an equivalent energy to 7,582 barrels of oil annually. Denmark, global home to Vestas, is now producing 20% of their energy with wind turbines. With the green revolution in full swing, Vestas is installing an average of one new turbine every four hours.

The pace of that production schedule is impression just given the sheer magnitude of these machines. The rotor alone weighs 41 tonnes, the nazelle, 70 tonnes, and the tower a whopping 285 tonnnes. A slide of a train with a long string of cars fully loaded with enourmous turbine components clearly made the point of just how substantial an undertaking it is to transport and assemble these massive structures.

WestergaardWind turbines look relatively simple from a distance, but Westergaard pointed out there are real engineering challenges to assembling, installing and maintaining wind turbines with a twenty year lifespan. In real world conditions, they face multiple and ongoing stresses, including such things as lightning and gale winds which can reach 32 meters/sec. To service the turbines, Carsten showed an image of an interesting craneless device somewhat akin to the way people climb coconut trees.

Nevertheless, Westergaard said the main impediment to rapid growth in wind power is not turbine engineering, but rather limits in the existing transmission line infrastructure. These limits will need to be addressed as the United States and Europe struggle to achieve increasingly ambitious clean energy goals. By 2007, Europe had installed 56 gigawatts of wind power capacity, including 1gigawatts offshore. Their annual investment is on the order of $156 million. Westergaard said in the United States the DOE is plannning to reach 300 gigawatts by 2030, including 54 gigawatts of offshore wind energy.

While interesting and informative, there are inherent limits to presentations like this by corporate representatives, since they serve the two goals of educating the public on pressing societal problems while simultaneously promoting the approach and image of the company being represented – and all the while remaining cautious not to compromise trade secrets.

For example, even though a video of the entire talk and slideshow will soon be publically available online, as press I was not even allowed to take photos of the rather generic and non-revealing slideshow. This sort of propriatory restrictiveness is out of place in a public lecture at Berkeley, a publically funded university which also happens to be famous as the birthplace of the free speech movement. In Berkeley, concerns about corporate influence in the public sphere came to the fore in recent years over BP’s $500 million funding for biofuels research.

Many in the green circles many would choose to emphasize the distinction between clean wind and dirty GHG emitting fossil fuels, yet Vestas takes an entirely different approach with their “Wind, Oil and Gas” slogan. From Vestas’ website:
“The Wind, Oil and Gas vision expresses Vestas’ ambition of assuming leadership in the efforts to make wind an energy source on a par with fossil fuels.” The goal is to make wind power mainstream.

Vestas and wind energy are by no means without controversy. Many familiar issues such as workers rights, plant closings, and globalization come into play as big companies struggle to compete in turbulent markets. Recently there were demonstrations over a Vestas blade manufacturing plant closure in England.

Article by James George

Solar Thermal at InterSolar / Semicom West

Friday, July 24th, 2009

July 14-16, San Francisco

InterSolar played a very prominent role this year as part of Semicom West, with three complete floors of the Moscone West Hall dedicated to solar energy displays. There were countless variations of photovoltaic solar panels from manufacturers around the world, with a strong showing of manufacturers from Germany and China. The growing photovoltaic field appears increasingly crowded, with many companies struggling to stay afloat amidst a depressed global economy and a sudden halt to PV demand from Spain due to abrupt policy corrections, closing a market which had previously been booming. Solar PV has been on a bit of a roller coaster ride with the market crash, installation slump, and drop in PV prices, so we may expect a shakeout of the weaker companies. Optisolar recently went bust and was acquired by EPOD Solar (Allora).

InterSolar West

Also worth noting were the far sparser group of companies promoting solar thermal products, including both the well established flat panel solar thermal collectors as well as the more recent evacuated tubes. The solar thermal market may prove to have tremendous growth potential both for product sales as well as for those installation companies servicing homes and businesses.

ezincAt Intersolar, there were a variety of talks and panel discussions on all things solar, but the focus of this article were the presentations and panel discussions on solar thermal energy which provided interesting overviews of the current state of solar thermal development as well as future projections and opportunities. Some notes from these talks follow:

Germany clearly has a strong experiential and technological lead over the United States in small scale solar thermal, while China, the world’s largest consumer of solar thermal energy (primary roof top hot water heaters), produces flat panel collectors and evacuated tubes at considerably lower cost. Paradoxically, despite producing large quantities of photovoltaic solar panels, Chinese internal use of PV to date remains very low.

One panel discussed the counter-intuitive notion of solar thermal cooling which uses heat to drive an evaporative chiller. Solar thermal cooling has one tremendous benefit over solar thermal heating – the seasonal demand for cooling coincides perfectly with the seasonal availability of sunlight. There is plenty of sunlight on hot summer days. Evaporative chiller refrigeration been around for decades utilizing other heat sources, but solar collector technological improvements – such as evacuated solar thermal tubes – have now made large scale solar thermal cooling devices possible. Still, retrofitting existing buildings involves solving unique case by case engineering challenges – so expect some ramp up time before solar thermal cooling can be implemented to scale. While SunRainSolar cooling could alternatively be accomplished using the electrical energy created by photovoltaics to drive air conditioners, the higher cost of the PV panels vs. solar thermal collectors, in addition to the inefficiencies of multiple energy conversions, clearly point to the advantages of solar thermal. In addition there is the energy payback time. For photovoltaics, it can take years to recapture the energy used to create the panels – purifying silicon consumes a good deal of energy. Evacuated tubes made of simple materials like glass and copper require a much smaller up front energy investment. While excess electricity from PV panels can be saved in batteries or returned to the grid, excess heat from solar thermal is harder to save. Bulky solutions akin to enormous water heaters were mentioned, heat pumps to store the summer heat into the ground for later use, and the elusive state change chemical storage were all discussed.

Copper, a metal with excellent heat transfer characteristics, poses a limit to full global scale deployment for most solar thermal designs – there will simply not be enough copper available on the Earth. However, ideas were presented by John Rekstad of Oslo University for solar thermal flat panels made primarily of special polymers so expect other solutions looking forward.

Gerhard Stryi-Hipp, the chairman of the European Solar Thermal Technology Platform (ESTTP) posed the question: “How can fossil and nuclear power be replaced by renewable sources?’. He reports that approximately 50% of the energy used in Europe and a similar percentage in the United States is used for heating and cooling structures. To address this need, he says “solar thermal has the biggest potential under all the renewable energy sources”. The vision of the European Solar Energy Platform for Heating and Cooling is that by the year 2030:

  • 100% solar heated buildings will be the building standard, and many existing buildings can be refurbished to 50% solar heating and cooling.
  • 40% reduction in demand due to efficiency improvements, with solar thermal addressing much of the remaining need.

Meeting these goals will require a dramatic increase from the 13GWth currently installed up to 2400 GWth by 2030. By 2020 the goal is 80 GWth, requiring a 34% annual market grown, with a target of one square meter of solar thermal collectors for each inhabitant in Europe.

ReflecTec – thin flexible lightweight reflective foil boasting 94% reflectivity.
Reflective surfaces can be used on parabolic dish and trough concentrators.

In the United States, there are still several limitation to expanding small scale solar thermal deployment – lack of trained installation technicians, low public awareness, and inconsistent availability geographically of collectors. Photovoltaics are already well known and increasingly accepted, and in most cases they integrate easily into existing infrastructure. Solar thermal collectors, while cheaper than PV panels, require plumbing know-how to install. The two technologies are in fact complimentary, many structures in Europe already have both working simultaneously.

Article by James George

Professor Dan Kammen speaking about Obama climate and energy policy

Friday, April 24th, 2009

UC Berkeley Professor Dan Kammen, coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and an advisor to Obama during the 2008 campaign, describes recent changes in Climate Change policy since Obama has been in office. In particular Kammen focuses on policy reversals announced by EPA’s Lisa P. Jackson which allow California to set higher air quality standards than national, and the pivotal decision to consider CO2 as a harmful greenhouse gas.


Dan Kammen speaking at UC Berkeley on Obama’s climate change approach