3. This is the energy produced using sand, which I mentioned in class. I'm not much of a science person, so I don't quite understand how this works, but it seems like now there's finally an alternative! Kanellos is skeptical of the success, and he argues that even if it succeeds, big companies like GE would take over the market. I think it will be interesting to keep watch of how "bloom box" turns out in the future. I personally hope it'll succeed, soon!
---
The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?
CBS News February 18, 2010
In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.
You'll generate your own electricity with the box and it'll be wireless. The idea is to one day replace the big power plants and transmission line grid, the way the laptop moved in on the desktop and cell phones supplanted landlines.
It has a lot of smart people believing and buzzing, even though the company has been unusually secretive - until now.
...
Looking at one of the boxes, Sridhar told Stahl it could power an average U.S. home.
...
He says he knows it works because he originally invented a similar device for NASA. He really is a rocket scientist.
"This invention, working on Mars, would have allowed the NASA administrator to pick up a phone and say, 'Mr. President, we know how to produce oxygen on Mars,'" Sridhar told Stahl.
"So this was going to produce oxygen so people could actually live on Mars?" she asked.
"Absolutely," Sridhar replied.
When NASA scrapped that Mars mission, Sridhar had an idea: he reversed his Mars machine. Instead of it making oxygen, he pumped oxygen in.
He invented a new kind of fuel cell, which is like a very skinny battery that always runs. Sridhar feeds oxygen to it on one side, and fuel on the other. The two combine within the cell to create a chemical reaction that produces electricity. There's no need for burning or combustion, and no need for power lines from an outside source.
In October 2001 he managed to get a meeting with John Doerr from the big Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.
...
Doerr has certainly changed our world: he's the one who discovered and funded Netscape, Amazon and Google. When he listened to Sridhar, the idea seemed just as transformative: efficient, inexpensive, clean energy out of a box.
"But Google: $25 million. This man said, 'How much money?'" Stahl asked.
"At the time he said over a hundred million dollars," Doerr replied.
But according to Doerr that was okay.
...
But there was a selling point: clean energy was an emerging market, worth gazillions.
"I like to say that the new energy technologies could be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century," Doerr explained.
Many followed, and the clean tech revolution in Silicon Valley was off and running with start-ups that produce thin flexible solar panels, harness wind with giant balloons, or develop new fuels from algae.
But Bloom is among the most expensive. "I heard actually so far, not just from Kleiner Perkins, but total $400 million," Stahl remarked.
...
Kanellos admitted he is skeptical. "I'm hopeful but I'm skeptical. 'Cause people have tried fuel cells since the 1830s," he explained. "And they're great ideas, right? You just need producing energy at an instant. But they're not easy. They're like the divas of industrial equipment. You have to put platinum inside there. You've got zirconium. The little plates inside have to work not just for an hour or a day, but they have to work for 30 years, nonstop. And then the box has to be cheap to make."
One thing stoking his skepticism: Sridhar has been hyper-secretive - there's no sign on his building, a cryptic Web site, and no public progress reports.
...
He said he bakes sand and cuts it into little squares that are turned into a ceramic. Then he coats it with green and black "inks" that he developed.
Sridhar told Stahl there is a secret formula. "And you take that and you apply that. You paint that on either side of this white ceramic to get a green layer and a black layer. And?that's it."
Sridhar told Stahl the finished product, a skinny fuel cell, would generate power.
One disk powers one light bulb; the taller the stack of disks, the more power it generates. In between each disk there's a metal plate, but instead of platinum, Sridhar uses a cheap metal alloy.
The stacks are the heart of the Bloom box: put 64 of them together and you get something big enough to power a Starbucks.
...
Asked if Bloom box is intended to get rid of the grid, John Doerr told Stahl, "The Bloom box is intended to replace the grid?for its customers. It's cheaper than the grid, it's cleaner than the grid."
"Now, won't the utility companies see this as a threat and try to crush Bloom?" Stahl asked.
"No, I think the utility companies will see this as a solution," Doerr said. "All they need to do is buy Bloom boxes, put them in the substation for the neighborhood and sell that electricity and operate."
"They'll buy these boxes?" Stahl asked.
"They buy nuclear power plants. They buy gas turbines from General Electric," he pointed out.
To make power, you'd still need fuel. Many past fuel cells failed because they needed expensive pure hydrogen. Not this box.
"Our system can use fossil fuels like natural gas. Our system can use renewable fuels like landfill gas, bio-gas," Sridhar told Stahl. "We can use solar."
...
Yes, he already has customers. Twenty large, well-known companies have quietly bought and are testing Bloom boxes in California.
Like FedEx. We were at their hub in Oakland, the day Bloom installed their boxes, each one costing $700-800,000.
One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology. In other words: the price is cut in half.
...
He told Stahl the first customer was Google.
Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant.
Sridhar told Stahl that three weeks in at Google, suddenly one of the boxes just stopped.
Asked if he panicked, he told Stahl, "For a short while? yes."
He fixed that; then there was another incident. "The air filters clog up and air is not coming into the system because the highway is kicking dirt. You just flip the system around, and the problem is gone," he explained.
Another company that has bought and is testing the Bloom box so Sridhar can work out the kinks is eBay. Its boxes are on the lawn in the middle of its campus in San Jose.
John Donahoe, eBay's CEO, says its five boxes were installed nine months ago and have already saved the company more than $100,000 in electricity costs.
"It's been very successful thus far. They've done what they said they would do," he told Stahl.
eBay's boxes run on bio-gas made from landfill waste, so they're carbon neutral. Donahoe took us up to the roof to show off the company's more than 3,000 solar panels. But they generate a lot less electricity than the boxes on the lawn.
"So this, on five buildings, acres and acres and acres," Stahl remarked.
"Yes. The footprint for Bloom is much more efficient," Donahoe said. "When you average it over seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the Bloom box puts out five times as much power that we can actually use."
But not everyone is convinced that even if the technology works, Bloom - that now makes one box a day - will ever be able to be as big as its backers say.
"Going from a few to mass-manufacturing's going to be tough. And then making them so people won't run away at the price tag. It needs to be cheaper than solar. It needs to be cheaper than wind," GreenTech Media's Michael Kanellos told Stahl.
"What if he can get the price way down? He claims he can," she asked.
"And if he can, the problem is then G.E. and Siemens and other conglomerates probably can do the same thing. They have fuel cell patents; they have research teams that have looked at this," Kanellos replied.
"What do you think the chances are that in ten-plus years you and I will each have a Bloom box in our basements?" Stahl asked.
"Twenty percent," Kanellos replied. "But it?s going to say 'G.E.'"
...
Doerr is praying that Bloom is not the next Segway, as he and Sridhar get ready for the company's official launch this Wednesday. They're pulling out all the stops, including high profile endorsements.
"I have seen the technology and it works," former Secretary of State Colin Powell said.
He joined Bloom's board of directors last year.
Asked if this is the answer to our energy problems, Powell told Stahl, "I think that's too big a claim to make. I think it is part of the transformation of the energy system. But I think the Bloom boxes will make a significant contribution."
...
"In five to ten years, we would like to be in every home," he told Stahl.
He said a unit should cost an average person less than $3,000.
3. The government wants to appeal capital in order to provide job opportunity for the public and earn tax from companies. For these reasons, it approves tacitly capitals to destroy environment if corporations make economic profit. Schnaiberg pointed out this coalition in his explanation. Of course, sometimes, the government regulates these companies.
In contemporary society, when the government restricts capital’s operation, the reason comes from people’s demand (which is we saw on “Who killed the electronic cars?”) as well as economic interests. As the following article shows, efforts for protecting environment are based on economic issue. Mr. Oh, who is the mayor of Seoul, believe that an environmentally friendly city would earn more profit than other cities. Therefore, he has tried to make Seoul much better by carrying out environmental friendly policies.
The tendencies of government officials are important in that they design and carry out policies. They will set guideline and goals as their inclinations, and will support positively some companies for obtaining their goals. From this point of view, I think the government is not passive actor which just accepts demands from companies and people. The government does what it wants. It provides stage and establishes rules of stage. Therefore, when we try to understand the alliance among company, government, and citizen, it is important to comprehend the active role of government.
continued ------------------------- 4. On a recent morning, the mayor of Seoul stopped by a local amusement park to inaugurate an electric tram system to ferry tourists around the grounds, replacing an old noisy one that belched exhaust. Music blared. A phalanx of TV crews trailed him.
…“We are the first in the world to use the technology this way,” he said, admiring the way the tram sucks electricity from power strips buried beneath the road. “What we are doing is changing history.”
Mr. Oh is among a new breed of South Korean politicians who increasingly stake their political fortunes on so-called green growth. For Mr. Oh, that means creating jobs based on environmentally friendly technologies and figuring out how to make this city, home to one-fifth of the country’s 49 million people, a healthier, more pleasant place to live.
Since taking office in 2006, Mr. Oh has tried to make the city look nicer and greener. Under his Design City slogan, the municipal authorities carted away urban eyesores like leaky shacks for shoe shiners and replaced them with artfully designed, government-subsidized kiosks. They revamped the old city center, turning part of its Kwanghwamun Boulevard into a plaza where children can skate in winter.
“My goal in the changing of the face of Seoul is all related to enhancing its attractiveness,” said Mr. Oh, who is seeking re-election as his four-year term winds down. “If the city is attractive, people, information and capital flow in. This in turn creates economic re-vitality and it also creates a lot of jobs.”
Perhaps the issue Mr. Oh has pursued most successfully is air pollution. The amount of pollutants in Seoul’s air has dropped 20 percent in the last four years, according to city data.
His administration began by hosing down the streets at night to cut down on dust and started replacing conventional buses with vehicles that use natural gas.
Then Seoul joined 13 other major world cities in December in a vow to become more hospitable to electric vehicles. Although cities are home to only half the world’s population, they generate about 80 percent of all carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
Seoul began experimenting with hybrid taxis and plans to introduce its first electric buses in April. Within 10 years, the city will replace all 9,000 buses and 72,000 taxis with electric or hybrid vehicles, Mr. Oh said. It will spend 178 billion won ($156 million) on the effort in the next five years.
To encourage the shift, Seoul is buying electric cars for public use and offering subsidies for transport companies switching to green vehicles. It also promised motorists who drive electric cars discounts on parking fees and congestion charges.
“Our political and administrative needs to improve air quality make Seoul an early adopter of green cars,” said Kim Hwang-rae, head of the city government’s green car team. “South Korea started late in the green car revolution, but the public sector is leading the way, giving the industries an impetus to come along.”
The electric tram project at the amusement park is such an example. The vehicle was developed by Kaist, the country’s top government-financed university of science and technology, without involvement from major carmakers.
Mr. Oh recognized the potential of the new technology and his city financed its application at the amusement park.
…Like other electric vehicles, it has a battery. But it does not need to be plugged in, and it does not need overhead cables. The power source embedded in the road allows the vehicle to have a battery one-fifth the size needed by other current electric models; when it is driving along a stretch of pavement without a power strip, it runs on battery power.
…Mr. Oh’s green vehicle campaign comes at a critical juncture for South Korean carmakers.
South Korean firms invested for decades to catch up internationally in internal combustion engine technology. Hyundai and Kia ... face tough decisions on how quickly to move into the new field of electric vehicles.
Hyundai...considered participating in Kaist’s in-ground electricity program but did not jump in because it thought the technology was still a long way from being usable in an affordable car...
...If these obstacles are overcome, “there is no reason for us to hesitate,” Lee Ki-sang, a senior vice president for Hyundai in charge of developing hybrid vehicles, said, “but for now, we are watching.”
“In some way, I fully understand why they are so reluctant,” said Suh Nam-pyo, president of Kaist. Yet he urged South Korean automakers not to repeat the mistake of Eastman Kodak, the American photographic film manufacturer that was late to embrace digital cameras.
But Mr. Suh himself is still working to persuade Seoul to allow his electric vehicles into the city’s bus lanes. Although the mayor has likened his meeting with Mr. Suh to an “encounter with a wise man,” he said he would wait until Kaist did further safety and efficiency testing before giving his full support.
Mr. Suh says that after decades of copying and improving technologies developed abroad, it is time for South Korea to try a new technology that no one has used before.
“The greatest challenge is not developing technology but getting approval from the Seoul city and the government,” he said. “I dare say this is one of the most significant technical gains in the 21st century.”
If you want to see the photo of the new electric tram system, please visit this website: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/03/10/2010031000033.html
3. As seen in this article Obama has always been regarded as an advocate for saving the environment and addressing climate change issues. Therefore the move he is making to allow American oceans to be drilled is just as shocking to me as the media is. It somehow reminded me of the movie ”Who killed the Electric car” of how politics shape the consumer’s choices, encouraging us to pick gasoline and petrol instead of electronics. I do not understand Obama’s intention to this policy. It seems to me that if he focuses his budget on developing other alternative energy resources like the electric car, it would be more beneficial in the long run. Digging up America’s soil for national oil is only switching sources to another location, but does nothing to decrease the consumer’s dependence on oil which goes against his policy of developing renewable energy. It is quite sad to see that such an environmentally sided politician would make such an irrational decision. In his defense he states that it is a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and find cleaner energies. I guess the question here would be would all the drilling and coastal damage be worth it for the unknown and allegedly small amount of resources in the seas of America. ---------------------------------------------
4. WASHINGTON —President Obama’s proposal to open vast expanses of American coastlines to oil and natural gas drilling drew criticism from both sides in the drilling debate.
... “Drilling our coasts will do nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life, and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit.” ... While Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision took some of his supporters aback.
“We’re appalled that the president is unleashing a wholesale assault on the oceans,” Jacqueline Savitz of the environmental group Oceana said on Wednesday. “Expanding offshore drilling is the wrong move if the Obama administration is serious about improving energy security, creating lasting jobs and averting climate change.”
...To critics who branded the decision both unnecessary and a threat to the environment, Mr. Obama said in his remarks: “There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling, But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.” ... But even as Mr. Obama curries favors with pro-drilling interests, he risks a backlash from some coastal governors, senators and environmental advocates, who say that the relatively small amounts of oil to be gained in the offshore areas are not worth the environmental risks. ------------------------------------------ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/science/earth/01energy.html?pagewanted=2
1.Dingyuan Hou 2.Carbon Trading and the Great Recession 3.Since Kyoto Protocol was ratified in 1997, companies are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who are willing to sell. Now, as recession bites, industries like steel, cement and glass may be polluting less, but only because they're producing less. So companies are desperately selling off the carbon credits they no longer need to improve their faltering balance sheets. That has led to a big drop in the market value of carbon permits, and as the right to pollute becomes cheaper, it’s less encouraging for companies to stop polluting.
The good news, though, is that carbon markets have been proven to be one of the most cost-effective measures for reducing carbon emissions in industry. The clean development mechanism (CDM) allows industrialized countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries - as an alternative to accomplish the emission reduction programs in their own country. However, the great recession may give the carbon trading a hard time to develop. For example, Lehman Brothers shut down its carbon emissions trading desk after the bank filed for bankruptcy protection in 2008. Then what about the projects they bought from other countries before the bankruptcy? Fortunately, the issue was solved in the end. To me, it seems like the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than needed. Does that mean that industrialized countries are taking bigger risks during the whole carbon trading process?
------------------------------------
4.March 30, 2010, 8:05 am The recession brought with it a slowdown in industrial production, and that has translated into far fewer greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 than in previous years. The scale of that reduction should become clear on Thursday at about midday Central European Summer Time, when the European Commission in Brussels is expected to issue preliminary figures for the amount emissions from factories and power plants covered by its Emissions Trading System. Mark C. Lewis, a research analyst at Deutsche Bank in London, forecast this week a decline in emissions of 10.4 percent compared with 2008 among industries covered by the system. Kjersti Ulset, the head of European carbon analysis for Point Carbon in Norway, estimated this week a decline of 11 percent. Behind the numbers are critical questions. How should policymakers measure the effectiveness of the system in reducing emissions when so much of the decline last year was attributable to economic factors, rather to any changes in the way people generate or consume energy? A more immediate question is how the downturn will affect the price of permits representing tons of carbon dioxide traded on markets like the European Climate Exchange in London and BlueNext in Paris. A decline in emissions greater than forecast could mean even more surplus permits trading on those markets, driving the price of permits even lower than is already the case. (European permits have been trading around 13 euros for the past few months). A decline in emissions lower than forecast would still mean large numbers of surplus permits on the market, but that could lift prices somewhat. Two sectors to watch closely on Thursday are steel and cement. Companies in both of these sectors already have huge amounts of surplus permits they did not need to use because of the downturn.
Steelmakers like ArcelorMittal and cement manufacturers like Lafarge can sell their surplus or bank them for use in coming years. That opportunity potentially represents a huge windfall for those companies. But analysts and traders are also eager to see how many more permits are available in order to gauge opportunities for buying and selling in coming days. Analysts warned against taking firm positions ahead of the announcement by the commission because of difficulties in estimating emissions during such a severe downturn. The decline in 2009 was “uncharted territory” for carbon traders, warned Ms. Ulset. In particular, it was “unclear whether the relationship between production and emissions is the same in a growing industry sector as it is in a massively decreasing, in some cases even collapsing, one,” she said. “So from this perspective the verified data will provide a unique insight into the relationship between downturns and emissions.”
1.Cho, Hyo Jin 2.Green companies to be in mainstream! 3. Looking at the triangle of treadmill of production professor drew on the board I thought whose role is most crucial. I thought the ‘monopoly capital’ part is most important. It seemed even the government which should be representative of citizens combine with monopoly capital, money. The ethics of company must stand right. The idea that companies’ role is important made me search for companies those are moral, eco-friendly. On the internet, there are lots of content dealing ‘green companies’, ‘green businesses’, ‘green entrepreneur’ and ‘green technology’. It is great news that there are increasing number of green attitude of both companies and consumers. However, at the same time, it makes me think of limitation that cannot solve monopoly capital’s immorally wielding power. Unless green companies or green business stay in fringe groups, ‘green’ challenges cannot but always be overwhelmed by monopoly capital. In the case of Electric cars, if electric car business could have grown enough to win oil industry, gaining lots of profits, great support from people, electric cars might not lose to oil industry. I think what is crucial is to make green companies, green businesses to be mainstream in the market and people’s daily lives. I saw an article that IBK(Industrial Bank of Korea) is going to fund small and eco-friendly companies to grow. Government should give many incentives to open roads for companies which challenge green policies and ideas. Most of the green companies are being made in local effort. For this locally promoted challenges should be recognized by consumers, governments can use market such as department store by giving incentives if they put efforts to advertise green companies’ product. -------------------------------------- 4. Water recycling, alternative fuels and better landfill practises are all creeping into everyday use to reduce the carbon footprint of both business and residents locally and across British Columbia. A study by the Globe Foundation, a Vancouver-based, not-for-profit organization dedicated to finding practical environmental business solutions, indicates B.C.’s six green sectors contributed $18 billion in revenue to the provincial economy. That number is expected to rise to $27 billion by 2020. “There is great potential for B.C. to be at the forefront of the emerging green economy by taking advantage of our existing assets such as our renewable energy resources and our diverse work force,” said John Wiebe, president and CEO of Globe Foundation.(...) -- The Industrial Bank of Korea (IBK), as a policy lender, has stepped up its efforts to foster green growth industries in a move to support the government's ``low carbon, green growth'' strategy.(...) The bank plans to donate a maximum of 100 million won for the development of green businesses depending on sales of the two products. ------------------------- http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/news/89736777.html
1. Franziska Mittelstädt 2. Reversing Germany's Atomic Phase-Out 3. Several times we spoke in the course about the usage of atomaric power planes. In Germany the public is aware of the problems linked with atomic energy for several decades. When the first Green party was founded ("The Greens" in the 1970's "opposition to pollution, use of nuclear power, NATO military action, and certain aspects of life in a highly industrialized society were principal campaign issues.[...] The idea came from Heinrich Boell, when he realized that the Left wing needed a new face and packageing, after he read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, which revealed the cruelty of Socialism, behind the Iron Curtain. He took the Communist Manifesto and replaced the working class with the environment, the red flag with a green one and changed the name to the Green Movement." (wikipedia).
As long I can remember there was always a high demand in public (even besides the Green Movement) to close nuclear power plants. Especially after the catastrophe of Chernobyl. 2001 the government tried to form a bill out of the nations will. I can remember that this action was really popular and highly discussed in the mass media. (There are also many people in Germany wanting first to close all the coal power plants and to stop coal mining - which has huge environmental impact in Germany.)
For me it seems a little bit that the German government uses the shadow of the world's financial crisis and the public environmental discussion focused on CO2 issues nowadays. As you can read in the following article the lobby of energy in Germany is taking part in the decision-making process very actively. This whole story about setting the first law 2001 and now maybe changing it again so the energy companies will get big profits reminds very much to the video "Who killed the Electric Car?". So we can use the model of Schnaiberg again: The government cannot just working with the wills and demands of the society because of too big interest group with too much economical and therfore also political power.
The intentions of the energy companies seemed to be hidden behind arguments as:"Germany has the most safest power plants in the world. Why should we shut them down and supporting French and Tschech (lass safe) power plants with buying their power?" (I have to admit that I am following this point, too. Instead of Germany making this big shut down alone, whole Europe should do this. Otherwise the effect is not as wished by society.) "If we shut down all power plants the price for power will increased so much - this is not adding value for the nation."
I am really not able to predict somehow where this both national and global discussions will lead to. Actually I am very curious what my grandchildren will learn in school about atomic energy. Maybe it is the standart of producing energy then. Hopefully not.
---------------- 4. Negotiations Begin for Extending Nuclear Plant Lifespans
Members of the German government and leading utility providers are set to begin negotiations in Berlin on Thursday over a possible extension of the lifespans of the country's nuclear power plants. The government says it would funnel profits from the reactors towards promoting renewable energies.
One of the biggest poker games in recent German history was set to begin on Thursday in Berlin as the government begins to negotiate a partial retreat from the country's 2001 move to abandon nuclear energy.
***continued*** Ronald Pofalla, Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief of staff, invited the executives responsible for nuclear power at Germany's top four energy utility companies as well as senior officials from the Economics and Environment ministries for top-level meetings about the future of atomic energy in the country. The government is playing down the importance of the meeting, with the Economics Ministry describing it as "routine." Participants belong to the so-called Monitoring Group, a panel formed by the former government of Gerhard Schröder's center-left Social Democrats and the Green Party to monitor Germany's atomic energy phase-out at regular intervals. But Thursday's meeting is actually far more spectacular because the exact opposite of the Schröder government's policy will be at issue: reversing the phase-out, an issue that divides Germany like few others. The meeting isn't scheduled until Thursday evening, but anti-nuclear organizations planned protests in front of the Chancellery in the capital throughout the day.
For energy companies, the move could present a tremendous business opportunity. Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (LBBW), a state-owned bank, estimates that if the lifespans of existing German nuclear power plants are extended by 25 years, at a price of €80 per megawatt hour, the four energy companies would stand to make €233 billion. Most of those profits would first start coming in around 2014 because the government is expected to stipulate that plants be upgraded with modern safety technology before their lifespans can be extended. The Bremen-based Energy Institute (BEI), a scientific institute that provides analysis of energy issues, estimates a similar raft of profits. Depending on how many years the plants are kept online and how high electricity prices remain, profits of up to €339 billion could be possible. [...] "The additional profits should be used to advance the expansion of renewable energies," said Joachim Pfeiffer, the economics issues coordinator for the CDU and CSU parliamentary group and the former CDU coordinator for energy issues. He said the conservatives would also take steps to ensure that if the lifespans of nuclear plants are extended, they will not create a competitive disadvantage for renewable energies.
The more money the government demands from the companies, the more credible its position will appear to the public. "Politicians want to position themselves as a tough negotiating party against the nuclear lobby," said Bernhard Jeggle, an energy analyst at LBBW. [...] Concerns about aging reactors are significant, and the government could ultimately shut some of the old ones down in order to make the extension of other plants more palatable to a German population that is already opposed to nuclear energy. "The CDU knows that the people don't like nuclear energy and could use the prospect of closing down older reactors," said Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, the head of the Bremen Energy Institute. "We currently have an excess supply of electricity. If some of these plants are shut down, the lights are not going to go out in Germany." [...] The minister has already issued one demand: He wants the nuclear waste currently being held at the country's Asse facility, a former salt mine in the state of Lower Saxony that is in danger of collapsing, to be removed quickly. It is conceivable that the utility companies would be forced to pay for the transfer. ----------------
A very down to earth* kind of guy. I'm an environmental sociologist interested in establishing material and organizational sustainability worldwide. I'm always looking for interesting materials/technologies, inspiring ideas, or institutional examples of sustainability to inspire others to recognize their choices now. To be fatalistic about an unsustainable world is a sign of a captive mind, given all our options.
*(If "earth" is defined in a planetary sense, concerning comparative historical knowledge and interest in the past 10,000 years or so anywhere...) See both blogs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Wonmi Nam
ReplyDelete2. New Alternative Energy, Finally?
3. This is the energy produced using sand, which I mentioned in class. I'm not much of a science person, so I don't quite understand how this works, but it seems like now there's finally an alternative!
Kanellos is skeptical of the success, and he argues that even if it succeeds, big companies like GE would take over the market. I think it will be interesting to keep watch of how "bloom box" turns out in the future.
I personally hope it'll succeed, soon!
---
The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?
CBS News
February 18, 2010
In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.
You'll generate your own electricity with the box and it'll be wireless. The idea is to one day replace the big power plants and transmission line grid, the way the laptop moved in on the desktop and cell phones supplanted landlines.
It has a lot of smart people believing and buzzing, even though the company has been unusually secretive - until now.
...
Looking at one of the boxes, Sridhar told Stahl it could power an average U.S. home.
...
He says he knows it works because he originally invented a similar device for NASA. He really is a rocket scientist.
"This invention, working on Mars, would have allowed the NASA administrator to pick up a phone and say, 'Mr. President, we know how to produce oxygen on Mars,'" Sridhar told Stahl.
"So this was going to produce oxygen so people could actually live on Mars?" she asked.
"Absolutely," Sridhar replied.
When NASA scrapped that Mars mission, Sridhar had an idea: he reversed his Mars machine. Instead of it making oxygen, he pumped oxygen in.
He invented a new kind of fuel cell, which is like a very skinny battery that always runs. Sridhar feeds oxygen to it on one side, and fuel on the other. The two combine within the cell to create a chemical reaction that produces electricity. There's no need for burning or combustion, and no need for power lines from an outside source.
In October 2001 he managed to get a meeting with John Doerr from the big Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.
...
Doerr has certainly changed our world: he's the one who discovered and funded Netscape, Amazon and Google. When he listened to Sridhar, the idea seemed just as transformative: efficient, inexpensive, clean energy out of a box.
"But Google: $25 million. This man said, 'How much money?'" Stahl asked.
"At the time he said over a hundred million dollars," Doerr replied.
But according to Doerr that was okay.
...
But there was a selling point: clean energy was an emerging market, worth gazillions.
"I like to say that the new energy technologies could be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century," Doerr explained.
**continued**
**continued**
ReplyDelete...
Many followed, and the clean tech revolution in Silicon Valley was off and running with start-ups that produce thin flexible solar panels, harness wind with giant balloons, or develop new fuels from algae.
But Bloom is among the most expensive. "I heard actually so far, not just from Kleiner Perkins, but total $400 million," Stahl remarked.
...
Kanellos admitted he is skeptical. "I'm hopeful but I'm skeptical. 'Cause people have tried fuel cells since the 1830s," he explained. "And they're great ideas, right? You just need producing energy at an instant. But they're not easy. They're like the divas of industrial equipment. You have to put platinum inside there. You've got zirconium. The little plates inside have to work not just for an hour or a day, but they have to work for 30 years, nonstop. And then the box has to be cheap to make."
One thing stoking his skepticism: Sridhar has been hyper-secretive - there's no sign on his building, a cryptic Web site, and no public progress reports.
...
He said he bakes sand and cuts it into little squares that are turned into a ceramic. Then he coats it with green and black "inks" that he developed.
Sridhar told Stahl there is a secret formula. "And you take that and you apply that. You paint that on either side of this white ceramic to get a green layer and a black layer. And?that's it."
Sridhar told Stahl the finished product, a skinny fuel cell, would generate power.
One disk powers one light bulb; the taller the stack of disks, the more power it generates. In between each disk there's a metal plate, but instead of platinum, Sridhar uses a cheap metal alloy.
The stacks are the heart of the Bloom box: put 64 of them together and you get something big enough to power a Starbucks.
...
Asked if Bloom box is intended to get rid of the grid, John Doerr told Stahl, "The Bloom box is intended to replace the grid?for its customers. It's cheaper than the grid, it's cleaner than the grid."
"Now, won't the utility companies see this as a threat and try to crush Bloom?" Stahl asked.
"No, I think the utility companies will see this as a solution," Doerr said. "All they need to do is buy Bloom boxes, put them in the substation for the neighborhood and sell that electricity and operate."
"They'll buy these boxes?" Stahl asked.
"They buy nuclear power plants. They buy gas turbines from General Electric," he pointed out.
To make power, you'd still need fuel. Many past fuel cells failed because they needed expensive pure hydrogen. Not this box.
"Our system can use fossil fuels like natural gas. Our system can use renewable fuels like landfill gas, bio-gas," Sridhar told Stahl. "We can use solar."
...
Yes, he already has customers. Twenty large, well-known companies have quietly bought and are testing Bloom boxes in California.
Like FedEx. We were at their hub in Oakland, the day Bloom installed their boxes, each one costing $700-800,000.
One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there's a 30 percent federal tax break because it's a "green" technology. In other words: the price is cut in half.
...
He told Stahl the first customer was Google.
Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant.
**continued**
**continued**
ReplyDeleteSridhar told Stahl that three weeks in at Google, suddenly one of the boxes just stopped.
Asked if he panicked, he told Stahl, "For a short while? yes."
He fixed that; then there was another incident. "The air filters clog up and air is not coming into the system because the highway is kicking dirt. You just flip the system around, and the problem is gone," he explained.
Another company that has bought and is testing the Bloom box so Sridhar can work out the kinks is eBay. Its boxes are on the lawn in the middle of its campus in San Jose.
John Donahoe, eBay's CEO, says its five boxes were installed nine months ago and have already saved the company more than $100,000 in electricity costs.
"It's been very successful thus far. They've done what they said they would do," he told Stahl.
eBay's boxes run on bio-gas made from landfill waste, so they're carbon neutral. Donahoe took us up to the roof to show off the company's more than 3,000 solar panels. But they generate a lot less electricity than the boxes on the lawn.
"So this, on five buildings, acres and acres and acres," Stahl remarked.
"Yes. The footprint for Bloom is much more efficient," Donahoe said. "When you average it over seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the Bloom box puts out five times as much power that we can actually use."
But not everyone is convinced that even if the technology works, Bloom - that now makes one box a day - will ever be able to be as big as its backers say.
"Going from a few to mass-manufacturing's going to be tough. And then making them so people won't run away at the price tag. It needs to be cheaper than solar. It needs to be cheaper than wind," GreenTech Media's Michael Kanellos told Stahl.
"What if he can get the price way down? He claims he can," she asked.
"And if he can, the problem is then G.E. and Siemens and other conglomerates probably can do the same thing. They have fuel cell patents; they have research teams that have looked at this," Kanellos replied.
"What do you think the chances are that in ten-plus years you and I will each have a Bloom box in our basements?" Stahl asked.
"Twenty percent," Kanellos replied. "But it?s going to say 'G.E.'"
...
Doerr is praying that Bloom is not the next Segway, as he and Sridhar get ready for the company's official launch this Wednesday. They're pulling out all the stops, including high profile endorsements.
"I have seen the technology and it works," former Secretary of State Colin Powell said.
He joined Bloom's board of directors last year.
Asked if this is the answer to our energy problems, Powell told Stahl, "I think that's too big a claim to make. I think it is part of the transformation of the energy system. But I think the Bloom boxes will make a significant contribution."
...
"In five to ten years, we would like to be in every home," he told Stahl.
He said a unit should cost an average person less than $3,000.
...
...
---
video: [http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n]
script: [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody]
1. Hye Jung, Choi
ReplyDelete2. In Seoul, Green Transit Is Mayor’s Pet Project
3.
The government wants to appeal capital in order to provide job opportunity for the public and earn tax from companies. For these reasons, it approves tacitly capitals to destroy environment if corporations make economic profit. Schnaiberg pointed out this coalition in his explanation. Of course, sometimes, the government regulates these companies.
In contemporary society, when the government restricts capital’s operation, the reason comes from people’s demand (which is we saw on “Who killed the electronic cars?”) as well as economic interests. As the following article shows, efforts for protecting environment are based on economic issue. Mr. Oh, who is the mayor of Seoul, believe that an environmentally friendly city would earn more profit than other cities. Therefore, he has tried to make Seoul much better by carrying out environmental friendly policies.
The tendencies of government officials are important in that they design and carry out policies. They will set guideline and goals as their inclinations, and will support positively some companies for obtaining their goals. From this point of view, I think the government is not passive actor which just accepts demands from companies and people. The government does what it wants. It provides stage and establishes rules of stage. Therefore, when we try to understand the alliance among company, government, and citizen, it is important to comprehend the active role of government.
-------------------------
continued
continued
ReplyDelete-------------------------
4.
On a recent morning, the mayor of Seoul stopped by a local amusement park to inaugurate an electric tram system to ferry tourists around the grounds, replacing an old noisy one that belched exhaust. Music blared. A phalanx of TV crews trailed him.
…“We are the first in the world to use the technology this way,” he said, admiring the way the tram sucks electricity from power strips buried beneath the road. “What we are doing is changing history.”
Mr. Oh is among a new breed of South Korean politicians who increasingly stake their political fortunes on so-called green growth. For Mr. Oh, that means creating jobs based on environmentally friendly technologies and figuring out how to make this city, home to one-fifth of the country’s 49 million people, a healthier, more pleasant place to live.
Since taking office in 2006, Mr. Oh has tried to make the city look nicer and greener. Under his Design City slogan, the municipal authorities carted away urban eyesores like leaky shacks for shoe shiners and replaced them with artfully designed, government-subsidized kiosks. They revamped the old city center, turning part of its Kwanghwamun Boulevard into a plaza where children can skate in winter.
“My goal in the changing of the face of Seoul is all related to enhancing its attractiveness,” said Mr. Oh, who is seeking re-election as his four-year term winds down. “If the city is attractive, people, information and capital flow in. This in turn creates economic re-vitality and it also creates a lot of jobs.”
Perhaps the issue Mr. Oh has pursued most successfully is air pollution. The amount of pollutants in Seoul’s air has dropped 20 percent in the last four years, according to city data.
His administration began by hosing down the streets at night to cut down on dust and started replacing conventional buses with vehicles that use natural gas.
Then Seoul joined 13 other major world cities in December in a vow to become more hospitable to electric vehicles. Although cities are home to only half the world’s population, they generate about 80 percent of all carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.
Seoul began experimenting with hybrid taxis and plans to introduce its first electric buses in April. Within 10 years, the city will replace all 9,000 buses and 72,000 taxis with electric or hybrid vehicles, Mr. Oh said. It will spend 178 billion won ($156 million) on the effort in the next five years.
To encourage the shift, Seoul is buying electric cars for public use and offering subsidies for transport companies switching to green vehicles. It also promised motorists who drive electric cars discounts on parking fees and congestion charges.
“Our political and administrative needs to improve air quality make Seoul an early adopter of green cars,” said Kim Hwang-rae, head of the city government’s green car team. “South Korea started late in the green car revolution, but the public sector is leading the way, giving the industries an impetus to come along.”
The electric tram project at the amusement park is such an example. The vehicle was developed by Kaist, the country’s top government-financed university of science and technology, without involvement from major carmakers.
Mr. Oh recognized the potential of the new technology and his city financed its application at the amusement park.
continued
continued
ReplyDelete…Like other electric vehicles, it has a battery. But it does not need to be plugged in, and it does not need overhead cables. The power source embedded in the road allows the vehicle to have a battery one-fifth the size needed by other current electric models; when it is driving along a stretch of pavement without a power strip, it runs on battery power.
…Mr. Oh’s green vehicle campaign comes at a critical juncture for South Korean carmakers.
South Korean firms invested for decades to catch up internationally in internal combustion engine technology. Hyundai and Kia ... face tough decisions on how quickly to move into the new field of electric vehicles.
Hyundai...considered participating in Kaist’s in-ground electricity program but did not jump in because it thought the technology was still a long way from being usable in an affordable car...
...If these obstacles are overcome, “there is no reason for us to hesitate,” Lee Ki-sang, a senior vice president for Hyundai in charge of developing hybrid vehicles, said, “but for now, we are watching.”
“In some way, I fully understand why they are so reluctant,” said Suh Nam-pyo, president of Kaist. Yet he urged South Korean automakers not to repeat the mistake of Eastman Kodak, the American photographic film manufacturer that was late to embrace digital cameras.
But Mr. Suh himself is still working to persuade Seoul to allow his electric vehicles into the city’s bus lanes. Although the mayor has likened his meeting with Mr. Suh to an “encounter with a wise man,” he said he would wait until Kaist did further safety and efficiency testing before giving his full support.
Mr. Suh says that after decades of copying and improving technologies developed abroad, it is time for South Korea to try a new technology that no one has used before.
“The greatest challenge is not developing technology but getting approval from the Seoul city and the government,” he said. “I dare say this is one of the most significant technical gains in the 21st century.”
By. Choe Sang-hun
-------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/business/energy-environment/27greencar.html?pagewanted=1
If you want to see the photo of the new electric tram system, please visit this website:
http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/03/10/2010031000033.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1.Sung Yeon Lee
ReplyDelete2. Dependence on oil
3. As seen in this article Obama has always been regarded as an advocate for saving the environment and addressing climate change issues. Therefore the move he is making to allow American oceans to be drilled is just as shocking to me as the media is. It somehow reminded me of the movie ”Who killed the Electric car” of how politics shape the consumer’s choices, encouraging us to pick gasoline and petrol instead of electronics. I do not understand Obama’s intention to this policy. It seems to me that if he focuses his budget on developing other alternative energy resources like the electric car, it would be more beneficial in the long run. Digging up America’s soil for national oil is only switching sources to another location, but does nothing to decrease the consumer’s dependence on oil which goes against his policy of developing renewable energy. It is quite sad to see that such an environmentally sided politician would make such an irrational decision. In his defense he states that it is a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil and find cleaner energies. I guess the question here would be would all the drilling and coastal damage be worth it for the unknown and allegedly small amount of resources in the seas of America.
---------------------------------------------
4.
WASHINGTON —President Obama’s proposal to open vast expanses of American coastlines to oil and natural gas drilling drew criticism from both sides in the drilling debate.
...
“Drilling our coasts will do nothing to lower gas prices or create energy independence,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement. It will only jeopardize beaches, marine life, and coastal tourist economies, all so the oil industry can make a short-term profit.”
...
While Mr. Obama has staked out middle ground on other environmental matters — supporting nuclear power, for example — the sheer breadth of the offshore drilling decision took some of his supporters aback.
“We’re appalled that the president is unleashing a wholesale assault on the oceans,” Jacqueline Savitz of the environmental group Oceana said on Wednesday. “Expanding offshore drilling is the wrong move if the Obama administration is serious about improving energy security, creating lasting jobs and averting climate change.”
...To critics who branded the decision both unnecessary and a threat to the environment, Mr. Obama said in his remarks: “There will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not open any new areas to drilling, But what I want to emphasize is that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”
...
But even as Mr. Obama curries favors with pro-drilling interests, he risks a backlash from some coastal governors, senators and environmental advocates, who say that the relatively small amounts of oil to be gained in the offshore areas are not worth the environmental risks.
------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/science/earth/01energy.html?pagewanted=2
1.Dingyuan Hou
ReplyDelete2.Carbon Trading and the Great Recession
3.Since Kyoto Protocol was ratified in 1997, companies are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who are willing to sell. Now, as recession bites, industries like steel, cement and glass may be polluting less, but only because they're producing less. So companies are desperately selling off the carbon credits they no longer need to improve their faltering balance sheets. That has led to a big drop in the market value of carbon permits, and as the right to pollute becomes cheaper, it’s less encouraging for companies to stop polluting.
The good news, though, is that carbon markets have been proven to be one of the most cost-effective measures for reducing carbon emissions in industry. The clean development mechanism (CDM) allows industrialized countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries - as an alternative to accomplish the emission reduction programs in their own country. However, the great recession may give the carbon trading a hard time to develop. For example, Lehman Brothers shut down its carbon emissions trading desk after the bank filed for bankruptcy protection in 2008. Then what about the projects they bought from other countries before the bankruptcy? Fortunately, the issue was solved in the end. To me, it seems like the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than needed. Does that mean that industrialized countries are taking bigger risks during the whole carbon trading process?
------------------------------------
4.March 30, 2010, 8:05 am
The recession brought with it a slowdown in industrial production, and that has translated into far fewer greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 than in previous years.
The scale of that reduction should become clear on Thursday at about midday Central European Summer Time, when the European Commission in Brussels is expected to issue preliminary figures for the amount emissions from factories and power plants covered by its Emissions Trading System.
Mark C. Lewis, a research analyst at Deutsche Bank in London, forecast this week a decline in emissions of 10.4 percent compared with 2008 among industries covered by the system. Kjersti Ulset, the head of European carbon analysis for Point Carbon in Norway, estimated this week a decline of 11 percent.
Behind the numbers are critical questions.
How should policymakers measure the effectiveness of the system in reducing emissions when so much of the decline last year was attributable to economic factors, rather to any changes in the way people generate or consume energy?
A more immediate question is how the downturn will affect the price of permits representing tons of carbon dioxide traded on markets like the European Climate Exchange in London and BlueNext in Paris.
A decline in emissions greater than forecast could mean even more surplus permits trading on those markets, driving the price of permits even lower than is already the case. (European permits have been trading around 13 euros for the past few months).
A decline in emissions lower than forecast would still mean large numbers of surplus permits on the market, but that could lift prices somewhat.
Two sectors to watch closely on Thursday are steel and cement. Companies in both of these sectors already have huge amounts of surplus permits they did not need to use because of the downturn.
**continued**
**continued**
ReplyDeleteSteelmakers like ArcelorMittal and cement manufacturers like Lafarge can sell their surplus or bank them for use in coming years. That opportunity potentially represents a huge windfall for those companies. But analysts and traders are also eager to see how many more permits are available in order to gauge opportunities for buying and selling in coming days.
Analysts warned against taking firm positions ahead of the announcement by the commission because of difficulties in estimating emissions during such a severe downturn.
The decline in 2009 was “uncharted territory” for carbon traders, warned Ms. Ulset.
In particular, it was “unclear whether the relationship between production and emissions is the same in a growing industry sector as it is in a massively decreasing, in some cases even collapsing, one,” she said. “So from this perspective the verified data will provide a unique insight into the relationship between downturns and emissions.”
--------------------
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/carbon-trading-and-the-great-recession/
1.Cho, Hyo Jin
ReplyDelete2.Green companies to be in mainstream!
3. Looking at the triangle of treadmill of production professor drew on the board I thought whose role is most crucial. I thought the ‘monopoly capital’ part is most important. It seemed even the government which should be representative of citizens combine with monopoly capital, money. The ethics of company must stand right. The idea that companies’ role is important made me search for companies those are moral, eco-friendly. On the internet, there are lots of content dealing ‘green companies’, ‘green businesses’, ‘green entrepreneur’ and ‘green technology’. It is great news that there are increasing number of green attitude of both companies and consumers. However, at the same time, it makes me think of limitation that cannot solve monopoly capital’s immorally wielding power.
Unless green companies or green business stay in fringe groups, ‘green’ challenges cannot but always be overwhelmed by monopoly capital. In the case of Electric cars, if electric car business could have grown enough to win oil industry, gaining lots of profits, great support from people, electric cars might not lose to oil industry. I think what is crucial is to make green companies, green businesses to be mainstream in the market and people’s daily lives. I saw an article that IBK(Industrial Bank of Korea) is going to fund small and eco-friendly companies to grow. Government should give many incentives to open roads for companies which challenge green policies and ideas. Most of the green companies are being made in local effort. For this locally promoted challenges should be recognized by consumers, governments can use market such as department store by giving incentives if they put efforts to advertise green companies’ product.
--------------------------------------
4. Water recycling, alternative fuels and better landfill practises are all creeping into everyday use to reduce the carbon footprint of both business and residents locally and across British Columbia.
A study by the Globe Foundation, a Vancouver-based, not-for-profit organization dedicated to finding practical environmental business solutions, indicates B.C.’s six green sectors contributed $18 billion in revenue to the provincial economy. That number is expected to rise to $27 billion by 2020.
“There is great potential for B.C. to be at the forefront of the emerging green economy by taking advantage of our existing assets such as our renewable energy resources and our diverse work force,” said John Wiebe, president and CEO of Globe Foundation.(...)
--
The Industrial Bank of Korea (IBK), as a policy lender, has stepped up its efforts to foster green growth industries in a move to support the government's ``low carbon, green growth'' strategy.(...)
The bank plans to donate a maximum of 100 million won for the development of green businesses depending on sales of the two products.
-------------------------
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/news/89736777.html
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2010/04/283_52835.html
1. Franziska Mittelstädt
ReplyDelete2. Reversing Germany's Atomic Phase-Out
3. Several times we spoke in the course about the usage of atomaric power planes.
In Germany the public is aware of the problems linked with atomic energy for several decades. When the first Green party was founded ("The Greens" in the 1970's "opposition to pollution, use of nuclear power, NATO military action, and certain aspects of life in a highly industrialized society were principal campaign issues.[...] The idea came from Heinrich Boell, when he realized that the Left wing needed a new face and packageing, after he read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago, which revealed the cruelty of Socialism, behind the Iron Curtain. He took the Communist Manifesto and replaced the working class with the environment, the red flag with a green one and changed the name to the Green Movement." (wikipedia).
As long I can remember there was always a high demand in public (even besides the Green Movement) to close nuclear power plants. Especially after the catastrophe of Chernobyl. 2001 the government tried to form a bill out of the nations will. I can remember that this action was really popular and highly discussed in the mass media. (There are also many people in Germany wanting first to close all the coal power plants and to stop coal mining - which has huge environmental impact in Germany.)
For me it seems a little bit that the German government uses the shadow of the world's financial crisis and the public environmental discussion focused on CO2 issues nowadays. As you can read in the following article the lobby of energy in Germany is taking part in the decision-making process very actively. This whole story about setting the first law 2001 and now maybe changing it again so the energy companies will get big profits reminds very much to the video "Who killed the Electric Car?". So we can use the model of Schnaiberg again: The government cannot just working with the wills and demands of the society because of too big interest group with too much economical and therfore also political power.
The intentions of the energy companies seemed to be hidden behind arguments as:"Germany has the most safest power plants in the world. Why should we shut them down and supporting French and Tschech (lass safe) power plants with buying their power?" (I have to admit that I am following this point, too. Instead of Germany making this big shut down alone, whole Europe should do this. Otherwise the effect is not as wished by society.)
"If we shut down all power plants the price for power will increased so much - this is not adding value for the nation."
I am really not able to predict somehow where this both national and global discussions will lead to. Actually I am very curious what my grandchildren will learn in school about atomic energy. Maybe it is the standart of producing energy then. Hopefully not.
----------------
4.
Negotiations Begin for Extending Nuclear Plant Lifespans
Members of the German government and leading utility providers are set to begin negotiations in Berlin on Thursday over a possible extension of the lifespans of the country's nuclear power plants. The government says it would funnel profits from the reactors towards promoting renewable energies.
One of the biggest poker games in recent German history was set to begin on Thursday in Berlin as the government begins to negotiate a partial retreat from the country's 2001 move to abandon nuclear energy.
***continued***
ReplyDeleteRonald Pofalla, Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief of staff, invited the executives responsible for nuclear power at Germany's top four energy utility companies as well as senior officials from the Economics and Environment ministries for top-level meetings about the future of atomic energy in the country. The government is playing down the importance of the meeting, with the Economics Ministry describing it as "routine." Participants belong to the so-called Monitoring Group, a panel formed by the former government of Gerhard Schröder's center-left Social Democrats and the Green Party to monitor Germany's atomic energy phase-out at regular intervals.
But Thursday's meeting is actually far more spectacular because the exact opposite of the Schröder government's policy will be at issue: reversing the phase-out, an issue that divides Germany like few others. The meeting isn't scheduled until Thursday evening, but anti-nuclear organizations planned protests in front of the Chancellery in the capital throughout the day.
For energy companies, the move could present a tremendous business opportunity. Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (LBBW), a state-owned bank, estimates that if the lifespans of existing German nuclear power plants are extended by 25 years, at a price of €80 per megawatt hour, the four energy companies would stand to make €233 billion. Most of those profits would first start coming in around 2014 because the government is expected to stipulate that plants be upgraded with modern safety technology before their lifespans can be extended. The Bremen-based Energy Institute (BEI), a scientific institute that provides analysis of energy issues, estimates a similar raft of profits. Depending on how many years the plants are kept online and how high electricity prices remain, profits of up to €339 billion could be possible.
[...]
"The additional profits should be used to advance the expansion of renewable energies," said Joachim Pfeiffer, the economics issues coordinator for the CDU and CSU parliamentary group and the former CDU coordinator for energy issues. He said the conservatives would also take steps to ensure that if the lifespans of nuclear plants are extended, they will not create a competitive disadvantage for renewable energies.
The more money the government demands from the companies, the more credible its position will appear to the public. "Politicians want to position themselves as a tough negotiating party against the nuclear lobby," said Bernhard Jeggle, an energy analyst at LBBW.
[...]
Concerns about aging reactors are significant, and the government could ultimately shut some of the old ones down in order to make the extension of other plants more palatable to a German population that is already opposed to nuclear energy. "The CDU knows that the people don't like nuclear energy and could use the prospect of closing down older reactors," said Wolfgang Pfaffenberger, the head of the Bremen Energy Institute. "We currently have an excess supply of electricity. If some of these plants are shut down, the lights are not going to go out in Germany."
[...]
The minister has already issued one demand: He wants the nuclear waste currently being held at the country's Asse facility, a former salt mine in the state of Lower Saxony that is in danger of collapsing, to be removed quickly. It is conceivable that the utility companies would be forced to pay for the transfer.
----------------
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,673223,00.html