AMSTERDAM, Netherlands
European light bulb makers are close to an agreement in principle to work together on phasing out energy-wasting incandescent bulbs for the consumer market, the chief executive of Royal Philips Electronics NV's lighting division said Monday.
[Click here for the full article]
Posted by Cyrus
Monday, February 26
Sunday, February 25
Lennar to install solar panels in all new Bay Area homes
East Bay Business Times - February 23, 2007
Lennar Corp. plans to install solar power systems in all its new homes built in the Bay Area.
The Miami-based home builder's Lennar Bay Area Homebuilding division made the pledge at the opening of its Milano community in San Ramon this week. The Milano homes are equipped with a roof-integrated solar electric system from PowerLight, a subsidiary of SunPower Corp.
Lennar and SunPower are part of the New Solar Homes Partnership, launched by the California Energy Commission, a 10-year, $350 million program that encourages the use of solar power in new residential home construction.
Under the partnership, the energy commission will work with developers and builders to create a self-sustaining market in which home buyers demand highly energy-efficient solar homes.
[Click here to read the full article]
Posted by Cyrus
Lennar Corp. plans to install solar power systems in all its new homes built in the Bay Area.
The Miami-based home builder's Lennar Bay Area Homebuilding division made the pledge at the opening of its Milano community in San Ramon this week. The Milano homes are equipped with a roof-integrated solar electric system from PowerLight, a subsidiary of SunPower Corp.
Lennar and SunPower are part of the New Solar Homes Partnership, launched by the California Energy Commission, a 10-year, $350 million program that encourages the use of solar power in new residential home construction.
Under the partnership, the energy commission will work with developers and builders to create a self-sustaining market in which home buyers demand highly energy-efficient solar homes.
[Click here to read the full article]
Posted by Cyrus
TXU buyout may scrap new coal plants
HOUSTON (Reuters) -- A proposed buyout of TXU Corp., Texas' largest electric company, may include an agreement with an environmental group for the Dallas-based firm to scrap plans to build eight of 11 coal plants in the state, the Natural Resources Defense Council said Saturday.
[for entire article click here]
Posted by Mike
[for entire article click here]
Posted by Mike
Thursday, February 22
Minnesota raises bar on renewable energy use
ST. PAUL, Minn. - Minnesota put its faith in a future fueled by renewable energy Thursday as the governor signed a law requiring utilities to generate a quarter of their power from renewable sources such as wind, water and sun by 2025. Considering where Minnesota stands now — about half the power produced in the state is from coal, and only 5 percent from renewable sources — the move is the most aggressive in the country, analysts say. [for original article click here]
Monday, February 12
The New Math of Alternative Energy
(Posted by Cyrus)
Does going green finally make economic sense?
By REBECCA SMITH
February 12, 2007; Page R1
Wall Street Journal
The numbers are starting to look promising. For years, the big criticism of alternative energy was cost: It was too expensive compared with energy based on traditional fuels like coal and natural gas.
Even though the fuel was often free -- such as wind or the sun's rays -- alternative-energy producers had to plow lots of money into finding the best way to capture that energy and convert it into electricity. Fossil-fuel producers, on the other hand, could draw on billions of dollars in infrastructure investments and decades of know-how.
Now the equation is showing significant signs of change. Costs are falling for some alternative-energy sources, driven by new technology and renewed development interest.
Alternative energy still can't compete with fossil fuels on price. But the margins are narrowing, particularly since oil and gas prices have been rising. The math looks even more favorable if you consider the environmental cost of fossil fuels -- which most purely economic calculations don't.
Alternative energy still faces obstacles to mainstream success. Many projects need government or utility subsidies and incentives to be viable. Generating costs have risen recently for some types of renewable resources, pushed by higher materials prices, labor costs and demand. Supply chains are prone to hiccups, and wind and solar-energy resources need backup sources of power to compensate on windless or cloudy days.
For all its promise, relatively little electricity currently comes from renewable sources, other than hydropower. According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable resources produced 2.3% of the U.S. electricity supply in 2005. Bio-mass was responsible for 1.5%, wind for 0.44%, geothermal for 0.36% and solar power for a scant 0.01%.
Ed Crane takes a look at how New York City is trying to merge affordable housing with environmental stewardship by sponsoring a green housing development. In contrast, coal-fired generation produced 49.7% of U.S. electricity supplies in 2005, followed by nuclear power at 19.3%, natural gas at 19.1%, hydropower at 6.5% and oil-fired generation at 3%.
But alternative energy stands to gain a larger share in years to come. Driven by concerns about global warming and energy security -- as well as the rising cost of electricity generated by fossil fuels -- regulators are forcing electric utilities to broaden their resource mix to include more "green" power.
At the same time, the federal government is requiring oil companies to blend more plant-based biofuels like ethanol with gasoline. Equipment makers are expanding their production lines, which should ease recent shortages of some materials -- like the polysilicon used in solar panels -- and take pressure off prices.
Here's a look at the economics of the various alternative-energy sources -- how much they cost now and what developments could make them more competitive.
[Click here for original article...]
Does going green finally make economic sense?
By REBECCA SMITH
February 12, 2007; Page R1
Wall Street Journal
The numbers are starting to look promising. For years, the big criticism of alternative energy was cost: It was too expensive compared with energy based on traditional fuels like coal and natural gas.
Even though the fuel was often free -- such as wind or the sun's rays -- alternative-energy producers had to plow lots of money into finding the best way to capture that energy and convert it into electricity. Fossil-fuel producers, on the other hand, could draw on billions of dollars in infrastructure investments and decades of know-how.
Now the equation is showing significant signs of change. Costs are falling for some alternative-energy sources, driven by new technology and renewed development interest.
Alternative energy still can't compete with fossil fuels on price. But the margins are narrowing, particularly since oil and gas prices have been rising. The math looks even more favorable if you consider the environmental cost of fossil fuels -- which most purely economic calculations don't.
Alternative energy still faces obstacles to mainstream success. Many projects need government or utility subsidies and incentives to be viable. Generating costs have risen recently for some types of renewable resources, pushed by higher materials prices, labor costs and demand. Supply chains are prone to hiccups, and wind and solar-energy resources need backup sources of power to compensate on windless or cloudy days.
For all its promise, relatively little electricity currently comes from renewable sources, other than hydropower. According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable resources produced 2.3% of the U.S. electricity supply in 2005. Bio-mass was responsible for 1.5%, wind for 0.44%, geothermal for 0.36% and solar power for a scant 0.01%.
Ed Crane takes a look at how New York City is trying to merge affordable housing with environmental stewardship by sponsoring a green housing development. In contrast, coal-fired generation produced 49.7% of U.S. electricity supplies in 2005, followed by nuclear power at 19.3%, natural gas at 19.1%, hydropower at 6.5% and oil-fired generation at 3%.
But alternative energy stands to gain a larger share in years to come. Driven by concerns about global warming and energy security -- as well as the rising cost of electricity generated by fossil fuels -- regulators are forcing electric utilities to broaden their resource mix to include more "green" power.
At the same time, the federal government is requiring oil companies to blend more plant-based biofuels like ethanol with gasoline. Equipment makers are expanding their production lines, which should ease recent shortages of some materials -- like the polysilicon used in solar panels -- and take pressure off prices.
Here's a look at the economics of the various alternative-energy sources -- how much they cost now and what developments could make them more competitive.
[Click here for original article...]
Solar Power Heats Up
(Posted By Cyrus)
State and Federal IncentivesHelp Lure Consumers
By STEPHANIE I. COHEN SPECIAL TO THE WALL STREET JOURNALFebruary 10, 2007; Page B2
The race is on to install solar-energy panels in American homes, thanks in part to generous government incentives such as California's $3.2 billion solar initiative, which was launched in January.
Only about 1/30th of 1% of all the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by solar power. But recent technological advances and a continued decline in the price of solar-power systems are prompting homeowners to ask if this renewable-energy source is worth the investment.
Other states with promising residential solar markets include New Jersey, New York, Arizona and Texas. Analysts say these states are becoming more attractive through generous state rebates, incentives offered by utilities willing to buy back solar power from residents in order to meet state renewable-energy requirements, and natural elements such as the days of available sunshine.
On the federal level, homeowners are eligible for a one-year tax credit for 30% of the cost of a residential solar-power system up to $2,000 through 2008.
But do residential solar-power systems, also called photovoltaic or PV systems, make economic sense? The answer hinges on how much and how fast solar energy can cut a homeowner's utility bills, and on how long it takes to pay off the initial investment to add solar panels to a home.
Consumers considering solar power tend to focus on the upfront costs. Solar-energy systems for homes begin around $25,000, but can go higher depending on the size of a house and the amount of power generated, says Rhone Resch, president of the Washington-based Solar Energy Industries Association, which represents manufacturers.
In New Jersey, a 10-kilowatt residential solar-power system is estimated to cost $77,500. After a state rebate of $38,000 and a $2,000 federal tax credit, the out-of-pocket cost to the homeowner is $37,500. That will provide an estimated annual savings of $1,500 on electricity bills.
[Click Here To Read Original Article...]
State and Federal IncentivesHelp Lure Consumers
By STEPHANIE I. COHEN SPECIAL TO THE WALL STREET JOURNALFebruary 10, 2007; Page B2
The race is on to install solar-energy panels in American homes, thanks in part to generous government incentives such as California's $3.2 billion solar initiative, which was launched in January.
Only about 1/30th of 1% of all the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by solar power. But recent technological advances and a continued decline in the price of solar-power systems are prompting homeowners to ask if this renewable-energy source is worth the investment.
Other states with promising residential solar markets include New Jersey, New York, Arizona and Texas. Analysts say these states are becoming more attractive through generous state rebates, incentives offered by utilities willing to buy back solar power from residents in order to meet state renewable-energy requirements, and natural elements such as the days of available sunshine.
On the federal level, homeowners are eligible for a one-year tax credit for 30% of the cost of a residential solar-power system up to $2,000 through 2008.
But do residential solar-power systems, also called photovoltaic or PV systems, make economic sense? The answer hinges on how much and how fast solar energy can cut a homeowner's utility bills, and on how long it takes to pay off the initial investment to add solar panels to a home.
Consumers considering solar power tend to focus on the upfront costs. Solar-energy systems for homes begin around $25,000, but can go higher depending on the size of a house and the amount of power generated, says Rhone Resch, president of the Washington-based Solar Energy Industries Association, which represents manufacturers.
In New Jersey, a 10-kilowatt residential solar-power system is estimated to cost $77,500. After a state rebate of $38,000 and a $2,000 federal tax credit, the out-of-pocket cost to the homeowner is $37,500. That will provide an estimated annual savings of $1,500 on electricity bills.
[Click Here To Read Original Article...]
Monday, February 5
Can Ethanol Get A Ticket To Ride?
As Its Popularity Increases, Railroads, Producers Strain To Get the Biofuel to Market.
By ILAN BRAT and DANIEL MACHALABAFebruary 1, 2007; Page B1
Like the corn it's made from, ethanol is largely a product of the small-town Midwest, distilled in places like Nevada, Iowa, and shipped to market by train.
Now, as ethanol producers ramp up production, they are straining railroads already taxed by burgeoning shipments of coal, containers and grain. And they worry that the transportation crunch could make it difficult for ethanol, despite its surge of support in Washington, to compete with energy rivals.
Rail and transportation logistics for the ethanol industry is "the mountain to climb...as we go forward," says Ken Eriksen, a senior vice president of Informa Economics Inc., an agricultural and renewable fuels consulting firm in Memphis, Tenn.
[Click here to read full article...]
By ILAN BRAT and DANIEL MACHALABAFebruary 1, 2007; Page B1
Like the corn it's made from, ethanol is largely a product of the small-town Midwest, distilled in places like Nevada, Iowa, and shipped to market by train.
Now, as ethanol producers ramp up production, they are straining railroads already taxed by burgeoning shipments of coal, containers and grain. And they worry that the transportation crunch could make it difficult for ethanol, despite its surge of support in Washington, to compete with energy rivals.
Rail and transportation logistics for the ethanol industry is "the mountain to climb...as we go forward," says Ken Eriksen, a senior vice president of Informa Economics Inc., an agricultural and renewable fuels consulting firm in Memphis, Tenn.
[Click here to read full article...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)