Pacific Gas and Electric on Monday announced that it signed a 177-megawatt solar thermal power purchasing agreement with Ausra.
According to John O'Donnell, Ausra's executive vice president, the twenty-year agreement will generate over $1 billion in revenue for the Palo Alto, California-based start-up.
The plant will be located in San Luis Obispo County, California, and is expected to begin generating power in 2010. Ausra has filed its application for certification for this plant with the California Energy Commission, which must grant approval before construction begins.
PG&E supplies 12 percent of its energy from renewable sources, said Keely Wachs, PG&E’s environmental communications manager.
“PG&E continues to aggressively add renewable electric power resources” to its supply and the company is confident that it will meet or exceed its 20 percent renewable energy goal by 2010, he said.
Proving that bigger isn’t always better, the plant will use only one square mile of land and will burn no fuel, use minimal water, and have no air or water emissions.
[Click here to read the original article...]
Showing posts with label Clean Energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clean Energy. Show all posts
Friday, November 23
Wednesday, November 7
BP, Arizona State look to bacteria, not algae, for a biofuel
Algae's not the only organism that can be used as a feedstock for biofuel.
BP will collaborate with Arizona State University to try to figure out a way of using cyanobacteria, a photosynthetic form of bacteria, as a feedstock for diesel or synthetic petroleum. Ideally, the bacteria could be cultivated in large, contained plots of land baked by the sun--Arizona has a lot of that. The bacteria also consume carbon dioxide to grow. Thus, carbon dioxide could be pumped in from a power plant into the contained bacteria farm. The company could thus make money from selling carbon credits and selling fuel feedstock...[Click here to read the full article]
BP will collaborate with Arizona State University to try to figure out a way of using cyanobacteria, a photosynthetic form of bacteria, as a feedstock for diesel or synthetic petroleum. Ideally, the bacteria could be cultivated in large, contained plots of land baked by the sun--Arizona has a lot of that. The bacteria also consume carbon dioxide to grow. Thus, carbon dioxide could be pumped in from a power plant into the contained bacteria farm. The company could thus make money from selling carbon credits and selling fuel feedstock...[Click here to read the full article]
Wednesday, September 5
Clean Energy Investment Tops $18.1 Billion in 2006
New Energy Finance Ltd., a London-based research firm that specializes in alternative-energy investments, released a report today stating that private-equity funds and venture capitalists invested $18.1 billion in the clean energy sector last year. Two billion dollars still reside in such funds and have yet to be invested. Still, the $18.1 billion figure represents a 67% increase over 2005, when venture capital and private equity investment totaled $10.8 billion. NEF estimates that private equity and venture capital invested in clean energy will grow at a compound annual rate of approximately 17% through to 2013.
Source: Energy Roundup blog, WSJ.com
Source: Energy Roundup blog, WSJ.com
Sunday, August 19
Is Clean Tech Immune From Market Woes?
August 8, 2007, 11:18 am
Deal makers in the so-called clean-technology business are mostly brushing aside recent market weakness and forecast a healthy flow of venture capital and other transactions in the solar, biofuel and wind energy sectors for the remainder of the year.
“Every area has momentum right now,” said Dan Pullman, vice president at investment bank McNamee Lawrence & Co. “You see it solar, you see it wind, alternative transportation, fuels, and plug-in vehicles.”
“We have a need to more efficiently use energy, and get more energy from renewable sources,” said Michael Carboy, clean energy analyst at Signal Hill. “Those don’t change based on market valuation. Corrections are an opportunity to look at names thought of as too expensive in the past.”
Carboy sees continued investment by venture capitalists in the sector, especially in energy storage and electric grid efficiency specialists, as well as new solar energy technology. However, he’s bearish on the ethanol stocks because they’re subject to swings both in corn prices and gasoline prices.
Jeffrey Saut, market strategist with Raymond James, sounded a word of caution on solar and other alternative energy shares, however. “If you bet the farm, you better have two farms,” Saut said. “Despite what the clean-tech people will tell you, if crude oil goes down, the price of anything related to alternative energy comes down with it. Most don’t stand on their own feet without high energy prices, or without government tax benefits.”
Saut also said he likes solar energy long-term, is bearish on ethanol, and wonders why free energy from geothermal heat isn’t more widely used.
Pullman of McNamee Lawrence said obstacles to clean tech include the Bush administration, which plans to veto the recently-passed House Energy Bill, as well as the high cost of silicon for solar energy panel makers. Players in the clean tech space expect more action from Washington — such as carbon trading legislation — after the presidential elections in 2008.
Pullman of McNamee Lawrence said obstacles to clean tech include the Bush administration, which plans to veto the recently-passed House Energy Bill, as well as the high cost of silicon for solar energy panel makers. Players in the clean tech space expect more action from Washington — such as carbon trading legislation — after the presidential elections in 2008.
Jeff Lipton, managing director of the Clean Tech Group at Jefferies, expects to see more IPOs and secondary offerings this year. First Solar, for example, just set plans to raise a whopping $1 billion in a stock offering. On the IPO front, GT Solar International Inc. has filed a $200 million IPO to boost its business as a maker of manufacturing equipment for the solar power industry.
Venture deals on the clean-tech radar screen include a $78 million round for Energy Photovoltaics, a $70 million round for GreenVolts and a $60 million infusion for BullMoose.
[Click here for the original article...]
Sunday, August 5
684 MW of euro-wind capacity goes for 2.5 billion
International Power buys Trinergy's wind portfolio. [Link]
Friday, August 3
It's safe, just trust us...
Along with solar, wind and other renewables, another power source is growing in popularity as a possible solution to the looming problem of climate change: nukes. Check out the front page of Fortune magazine this month. It's all about nuclear power. Safe, clean, abundant nuclear power. The accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are ancient history and couldn't happen again. After all, there hasn't been another major reactor incident since Chernobyl melted down in 1986. Or has there? This Wall Street Journal report indicates that all is not well with the nuclear industry's incident reporting system. [Link]
Tuesday, July 3
U.S. to Host Major Renewable Energy Event
Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
The American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) and the leading U.S. renewable energy trade associations announced that they will host The Trade Show at WIREC 2008, to be co-located with the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC) which occurs March 4-6, 2008 in the Washington DC Convention Center.
WIREC 2008 is the third global ministerial level event on renewable energy, following on the Bonn Renewables 2004 and the Beijing 2005 global meetings. In an earlier on announcement in May about the event, Secretary Rice noted that, "diversifying our energy supplies is a key foreign policy objective of this Administration," and that, "renewable energy sources can go a long way toward breaking the 'addiction to oil' that President Bush cited in his 2006 State of the Union Address." [To read the full article, click here...]
The American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) and the leading U.S. renewable energy trade associations announced that they will host The Trade Show at WIREC 2008, to be co-located with the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference (WIREC) which occurs March 4-6, 2008 in the Washington DC Convention Center.
WIREC 2008 is the third global ministerial level event on renewable energy, following on the Bonn Renewables 2004 and the Beijing 2005 global meetings. In an earlier on announcement in May about the event, Secretary Rice noted that, "diversifying our energy supplies is a key foreign policy objective of this Administration," and that, "renewable energy sources can go a long way toward breaking the 'addiction to oil' that President Bush cited in his 2006 State of the Union Address." [To read the full article, click here...]
Sunday, June 10
Corn ethanol unprofitable by 2008, says Iowa State
June 8, 2007 - Exclusive
By Dana Childs, inside greentech
Profits could disappear from the corn ethanol industry by the end of this year, said researchers at Iowa State University, in the latest of a string of doomsday predictions for the industry.
"We think the expected returns to an ethanol plant are zero or negative in 2008," said Bruce Babcock, economist and director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State, in Ames, Iowa [Click here to read full article...]
By Dana Childs, inside greentech
Profits could disappear from the corn ethanol industry by the end of this year, said researchers at Iowa State University, in the latest of a string of doomsday predictions for the industry.
"We think the expected returns to an ethanol plant are zero or negative in 2008," said Bruce Babcock, economist and director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State, in Ames, Iowa [Click here to read full article...]
Monday, May 21
Applied Materials equipping solar factory start-ups
(Posted by Cyrus)
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com -->
Published: May 16, 2007, 8:36 AM PDT
AUSTIN, Texas--Applied Materials has said for the past year that it will build turnkey equipment for start-up solar-panel factories, and it appears that the company has begun doing just that.
TekSun PV Manufacturing is building a plant for manufacturing 120 megawatts worth of amorphous solar panels a year in Taylor, Texas, CEO Dan Vogler said at the Clean Energy Venture Summit taking place here this week. The production lines for the panels will indeed be turnkey lines provided by another company, he noted. (The 120-megawatt designation refers to the amount of power that, under optimal conditions, could be harvested from all of the panels produced by the factory in one year.)
[To read the original article, please click here]
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com -->
Published: May 16, 2007, 8:36 AM PDT
AUSTIN, Texas--Applied Materials has said for the past year that it will build turnkey equipment for start-up solar-panel factories, and it appears that the company has begun doing just that.
TekSun PV Manufacturing is building a plant for manufacturing 120 megawatts worth of amorphous solar panels a year in Taylor, Texas, CEO Dan Vogler said at the Clean Energy Venture Summit taking place here this week. The production lines for the panels will indeed be turnkey lines provided by another company, he noted. (The 120-megawatt designation refers to the amount of power that, under optimal conditions, could be harvested from all of the panels produced by the factory in one year.)
[To read the original article, please click here]
Wednesday, April 18
TXU Sheds Coal Plan, Charts Nuclear Pat
Wall Street Journal (Posted by Cyrus)
Expansion Efforts IncludeLarge Plants in Texas;Rivals Likely to Follow
By REBECCA SMITHApril 10, 2007; Page A2
(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)
TXU Corp. has scrapped plans to build a large fleet of coal-fired power plants in Texas but hasn't altogether abandoned its expansion efforts. Instead, it hopes to build the biggest nuclear-power plants in the U.S.
TXU has shifted its focus to nuclear power at a time when three other organizations -- NRG Energy Inc., Exelon Corp. and Amarillo Power -- have said they, too, may build nuclear plants in Texas. If all the plans materialize, Texas could have more reactors than any other state in a decade's time, built in a deregulated market where missteps would be borne by shareholders or the federal government, not residents and consumers. Before deregulation, ratepayers would have been on the hook for any blunders by the power companies and might have had to pay higher electric bills as a result.
Texas could provide a proving ground for the expected nuclear renaissance because developers will proceed only if the economics appear bulletproof. That is because utilities in Texas no longer have monopoly territories. If customers don't like one supplier's price, they can pick another.
Nuclear power has gained favor because it doesn't rely on fuels that emit global-warming gases, like coal, or have volatile pricing. But cost overruns and accidents in decades past put development on the back burner until recently. Nuclear energy provides roughly 19% of the nation's power; coal provides about half.
At 1,700 megawatts apiece, the reactors selected by TXU, designed and manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., of Japan, would be half as big in terms of capacity as the Westinghouse Electric Co. reactors at TXU's Comanche Peak nuclear plant, 80 miles southwest of Dallas. Company officials hope economies of scale will render the reactors capable of making electricity more cheaply than other reactors.
Executives for Mitsubishi said they believe their plants can be built in the U.S. for $1,500 per kilowatt of capacity, about 40% less than some other industry estimates, giving customers a shorter period of time before their investment is in the black. "It's at the low end of what everyone has been talking about," said Craig Nesbit, spokesman for Exelon's nuclear unit. "I'd say a lot of ears would perk up, if that happened."
TXU wants two to five new reactors, but that is subject to change. TXU's directors accepted a $32 billion buyout offer in February from a private-equity group led by Kolhberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG, formerly Texas Pacific Group. If TXU is taken private, the new owners might alter TXU's investment plan. As part of that agreement, TXU agreed to cut back on its planned construction of coal-fired plants, unpopular with local residents and environmentalists.
NRG, of Princeton, N.J., wants to add two 1,350-megawatt reactors to its South Texas Project, which has two units currently, at an estimated cost of $3.5 billion apiece. Exelon, of Chicago, is hunting for a site able to meet tough criteria for safety, water and transmission access. It expects to have narrowed possibilities to two sites by summer. Because Texas is poorly interconnected with other states and electricity demand is rising briskly, the state will need much more generation in coming years unless it embraces conservation measures.
TXU's pact with Mitsubishi, announced last month or after the buyout, could face bumps. Mitsubishi's reactor design -- the U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor -- hasn't been certified for U.S. use, unlike reactors from General Electric Co. and from Westinghouse, controlled by a consortium led by Japan's Toshiba Corp.
Nor does TXU have permission to build yet. Both Mitsubishi and TXU say they are working on the necessary applications to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007 and 2008, respectively. TXU wants a new reactor in operation in 2015.
NRG is the furthest along. Executives say they will have an application for a construction and operating license ready to submit to the NRC this autumn -- one of the first nationally -- that will rely on GE's advanced boiling-water reactor approved by the NRC a decade ago and now being updated. NRG hopes for an in-service date of 2014.
NRG Chief Executive David Crane says he isn't worried about overbuilding in Texas because he thinks a shortage of skilled laborers will slow construction projects to a pace that will let the market absorb additions. His firm is moving to capture federal incentives estimated at $250 million to $400 million annually.
TXU says its goal is to build reactors at a 30% discount, per unit of capacity, to what rivals spend. That is the same goal it espoused last year when it announced plans to build 11 coal-fired plants. The TXU claim has led to some skepticism by rivals, who view it as a publicity stunt. TXU says it will achieve savings through "lean manufacturing" techniques, but other firms are expected to do likewise. In the past, some nuclear plants cost 10 times as much as initially projected. Nobody wants to go through that pain again.
The fact that Mitsubishi was the vendor selected by TXU came as something of a surprise. Previously, TXU Chief Executive C. John Wilder had said TXU would tap a Westinghouse design, the AP1000 pressurized water reactor, which received final design certification from the NRC in early 2006. That is the reactor selected for about a dozen of the 20 nuclear projects announced so far in the U.S. Exelon is considering it for Texas but hasn't decided.
One TXU manager said TXU picked the Mitsubishi reactor because "the size made it a better value." TXU expects longer stretches between refueling shutdowns, giving it more power to sell.
It is too early to tell how the public will react, but many environmental groups are rethinking their position on nuclear power. Jim Marston, an attorney for Environmental Defense in Austin, says his group has reservations, "but we think global warming is so severe and the time for action is so short that we're willing to take another look at it."
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com1
Corrections & Amplifications:
Nuclear reactors designed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are one and one-half times as big as existing reactors at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas. This article incorrectly says the Mitsubishi US-APWR units are half as big as the Comanche Peak reactors. In addition, a chart with the article showing the states that generate the most power with nuclear energy should have used the unit of billions of kilowatt-hours instead of the incorrect unit of quadrillions of kilowatt hours.
URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117616353164164500.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:(1) mailto:rebecca.smith@wsj.com
Expansion Efforts IncludeLarge Plants in Texas;Rivals Likely to Follow
By REBECCA SMITHApril 10, 2007; Page A2
(See Corrections & Amplifications item below.)
TXU Corp. has scrapped plans to build a large fleet of coal-fired power plants in Texas but hasn't altogether abandoned its expansion efforts. Instead, it hopes to build the biggest nuclear-power plants in the U.S.
TXU has shifted its focus to nuclear power at a time when three other organizations -- NRG Energy Inc., Exelon Corp. and Amarillo Power -- have said they, too, may build nuclear plants in Texas. If all the plans materialize, Texas could have more reactors than any other state in a decade's time, built in a deregulated market where missteps would be borne by shareholders or the federal government, not residents and consumers. Before deregulation, ratepayers would have been on the hook for any blunders by the power companies and might have had to pay higher electric bills as a result.
Texas could provide a proving ground for the expected nuclear renaissance because developers will proceed only if the economics appear bulletproof. That is because utilities in Texas no longer have monopoly territories. If customers don't like one supplier's price, they can pick another.
Nuclear power has gained favor because it doesn't rely on fuels that emit global-warming gases, like coal, or have volatile pricing. But cost overruns and accidents in decades past put development on the back burner until recently. Nuclear energy provides roughly 19% of the nation's power; coal provides about half.
At 1,700 megawatts apiece, the reactors selected by TXU, designed and manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., of Japan, would be half as big in terms of capacity as the Westinghouse Electric Co. reactors at TXU's Comanche Peak nuclear plant, 80 miles southwest of Dallas. Company officials hope economies of scale will render the reactors capable of making electricity more cheaply than other reactors.
Executives for Mitsubishi said they believe their plants can be built in the U.S. for $1,500 per kilowatt of capacity, about 40% less than some other industry estimates, giving customers a shorter period of time before their investment is in the black. "It's at the low end of what everyone has been talking about," said Craig Nesbit, spokesman for Exelon's nuclear unit. "I'd say a lot of ears would perk up, if that happened."
TXU wants two to five new reactors, but that is subject to change. TXU's directors accepted a $32 billion buyout offer in February from a private-equity group led by Kolhberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG, formerly Texas Pacific Group. If TXU is taken private, the new owners might alter TXU's investment plan. As part of that agreement, TXU agreed to cut back on its planned construction of coal-fired plants, unpopular with local residents and environmentalists.
NRG, of Princeton, N.J., wants to add two 1,350-megawatt reactors to its South Texas Project, which has two units currently, at an estimated cost of $3.5 billion apiece. Exelon, of Chicago, is hunting for a site able to meet tough criteria for safety, water and transmission access. It expects to have narrowed possibilities to two sites by summer. Because Texas is poorly interconnected with other states and electricity demand is rising briskly, the state will need much more generation in coming years unless it embraces conservation measures.
TXU's pact with Mitsubishi, announced last month or after the buyout, could face bumps. Mitsubishi's reactor design -- the U.S. Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor -- hasn't been certified for U.S. use, unlike reactors from General Electric Co. and from Westinghouse, controlled by a consortium led by Japan's Toshiba Corp.
Nor does TXU have permission to build yet. Both Mitsubishi and TXU say they are working on the necessary applications to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2007 and 2008, respectively. TXU wants a new reactor in operation in 2015.
NRG is the furthest along. Executives say they will have an application for a construction and operating license ready to submit to the NRC this autumn -- one of the first nationally -- that will rely on GE's advanced boiling-water reactor approved by the NRC a decade ago and now being updated. NRG hopes for an in-service date of 2014.
NRG Chief Executive David Crane says he isn't worried about overbuilding in Texas because he thinks a shortage of skilled laborers will slow construction projects to a pace that will let the market absorb additions. His firm is moving to capture federal incentives estimated at $250 million to $400 million annually.
TXU says its goal is to build reactors at a 30% discount, per unit of capacity, to what rivals spend. That is the same goal it espoused last year when it announced plans to build 11 coal-fired plants. The TXU claim has led to some skepticism by rivals, who view it as a publicity stunt. TXU says it will achieve savings through "lean manufacturing" techniques, but other firms are expected to do likewise. In the past, some nuclear plants cost 10 times as much as initially projected. Nobody wants to go through that pain again.
The fact that Mitsubishi was the vendor selected by TXU came as something of a surprise. Previously, TXU Chief Executive C. John Wilder had said TXU would tap a Westinghouse design, the AP1000 pressurized water reactor, which received final design certification from the NRC in early 2006. That is the reactor selected for about a dozen of the 20 nuclear projects announced so far in the U.S. Exelon is considering it for Texas but hasn't decided.
One TXU manager said TXU picked the Mitsubishi reactor because "the size made it a better value." TXU expects longer stretches between refueling shutdowns, giving it more power to sell.
It is too early to tell how the public will react, but many environmental groups are rethinking their position on nuclear power. Jim Marston, an attorney for Environmental Defense in Austin, says his group has reservations, "but we think global warming is so severe and the time for action is so short that we're willing to take another look at it."
Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com1
Corrections & Amplifications:
Nuclear reactors designed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries are one and one-half times as big as existing reactors at the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas. This article incorrectly says the Mitsubishi US-APWR units are half as big as the Comanche Peak reactors. In addition, a chart with the article showing the states that generate the most power with nuclear energy should have used the unit of billions of kilowatt-hours instead of the incorrect unit of quadrillions of kilowatt hours.
URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117616353164164500.html
Hyperlinks in this Article:(1) mailto:rebecca.smith@wsj.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)