COP15, Xmas and Boxing Day

Another month has passed with a blink of an eye.

Work has been good, but not spectacular. We are embarking on a exciting journey with this project. But still, something is missing. Maybe it's a combination of the lack of government push and also consumer demand.

I've read nearly all media reports and expert opinions of the outcomes of COP15. It reminded me of the XXXXX project I worked on when I was at XXXXX. The project was so difficult, the tasks required by the deadline were impossible. I had no idea what to write for my advice, 5 hours before the deadline. The boss caned me for it and demanded that I come up with something within an hour, and I wrote and wrote like mad. We met exactly an hour later and it was damage control. He agreed with mostly what I had written and we sent off the advice. But deep down we all knew we would never have been able to solve the underlying issues. It was beyond our control and domain. Same with COP15. The countries there were faced with an impossible task and the solutions were beyond their control. The rushed 3 page Accord looked and sounded a lot like my advice in that case.

A lot of China bashing has happened but in the end, it didn't matter whether a good deal was signed or not. An ambitious deal would just lead to default anyway.

The one big beef developing countries have with the West is that they started this endless desire for consumption and growth. They created and started it. And now they want to say "hey, of course you can have everything we have, just have it cleanly! It's possible! let's all work together and get there together!" In reality they still live twice as dirty and are not really serious with fitting the bill of cleaning up. This argument is almost like an innocent kid living in fantasy land, detached from reality. The ugly truth is there is no other way to live but dirtily. And Christmas is no better example. For big corporations, the Christmas period can amount to nearly 40% of their annual sales. It's a period of do or die.

I checked it out today, walking around on Boxing Day in Oxford Street and seeing the sea of people. This is the type of consumption that is NEEDED for the companies to stay profitable, to compete, to grow and to continue employing the growing number of people that are born in to this world.

I know it's probably impossible for all of this to be clean, by that all the energy and products to be co2 free. Therefore since climate change will continue, we will probably all die together. But I don't really care anymore about the human race. I think the Earth would probably be better off without us. Even those that purport to care about fate their grandchildren and great grandchildren can be argued as selfish for trying to preserve the rights of their future generations to continue polluting and destroying the world.

I myself am a hypocrit. I consume products, I travel, I produce waste, I live. I claim to be greener because I bought nothing for xmas and boxing day, and I refrain from meat. But the end how different am I to those that live normally, and enjoy themselves to the max before the end comes? Probably not too much.

My Masters Thesis now online!

My Masters thesis can now be viewed online at http://carboncdm.wordpress.com/

Content will be updated regularly, along with all graphs, tables, figures. Enjoy!

Graduation in Rainy Edinburgh!

Woke up, enjoyed some bread and coffee, and headed out to a Kiltmaker to hire a kilt for my graduation ceremony. Got it done, just.

I was happy during the entire graduation process. It was so different from my undergrad ceremony because I knew and liked everyone from my course. Whenever I chat with our classmates, I feel like we're on the same mission, with the same goals, same values for life. There isn't a single element of competition, animosity.

I also thought I looked like a stud in the kilt. I walked up on the stage confidently, back straight and smiling. How different from my undergrad days!! I've really found myself, I thought.

The rest of the day was spent at a wine reception in the majestic Playfair Library at Edinburgh University Old College. It was panicky as I had problems locating my belongings (kilt has no pockets for cameras, stuff, etc.). But even so, I was always at ease. Too much pity if these things can bother me.

Then over at Kushal's flat. Suddenly, in spurts, the culmination of everything hit me. I felt an urge to get my "stuff" out. I want people to know I love my chosen field, I want people to know my work on it, I want people to debate and criticise me, I want to know more and more people in the carbon world.

I knew once Kushal got the ball rolling through Linkedin, everything snowballed from there. He was now talking to everyone. I want the same.

From now on I will put my dissertation for public viewing and comment on wordpress - first thing when I go back to London.

But now, I've to collect my luggage from Stanley, visit my beloved Edinburgh uni kendo club and then graduation dinner.

Back to Edinburgh for Graduation!

Caught the train up to Edinburgh yesty, made a presention on my dissertion topic "Development of a CDM Strategy using PROMETHEE: a Case Study of Mongolia" at Edinburgh Business school. I really enjoyed talking about my work, and content after content just rolled off my tongue. I felt like a hotshot young professor from Stanford uni, and the way I answered questions was so confident even I found it hard to believe it was me.

After that met up with Kushal to have dinner at his place. Kushal is now a freelance consultant with Envirotrade on forestry carbon projects, and is in talks with South Pole Carbon on other forestry collaboration opportunities. But behind these industry leading organizations and companies, in reality life is unglamourous, I thought as we munched our way through some Indian-spiced leftover pasta.

After dinner we went to watch some Champions League football, which was bland as the main event - Barcelona v Inter Milan, was not being shown in favour of knocked out UK teams. But it was a blessing in disguise as we headed to a local pub "Royal Oak" famous for attracting Scotland's best folk singers.

It was one of the best moments I've spent in Scotland. A group of folk song/ poem loving ppl were there, each getting up in turns singing songs they wrote or reading poems that had wrote, often based on random whims of inspiration from ordinary incidents in their ordinary lives. But it felt soo...liberating. I closed my eyes as one of the girls sang, and thought for the first time I was really litening to a song. The most special part was that it was living proof that people don't need high tech gadgets, or even electricity, to entertain themselves thoroughly.

Upstairs, local folk singers sang and played the guitar unconscientiously, without a care in the world. They didn't give a crap who was there, what they thought of the music, or why they even came. The artists were simply in their natural habitat, and nothing was forced. Somehow this really appealed to me.

We then went to the Library bar to socialise with course mates, and ppl from other courses. I managed to squeeze in my favourite kebab from the only kebab shop I trust in UK, then went home to Kushal's place, chatted a bit, and slept.

Snapshots of my recent days

So easy to forget to update my blog....guess that's why Facebook is so popular, simply uploading a nice picture to tell a thousand words.

But...!! Some things do need recording so...

1. PROHIBITION ON STAYING FRIDAY & SATURDAY NIGHTS IN THE HOUSE

Yah, it's a house rule to specifically apply to me...by Nakai. "no es posible estar en la casa, esatamos en London! Come se peude voya con chicas si estas en la casa!" Flatmate Cici is also a party animal herself...we rarely see her, except for the odd days I'm off work and eating lunch...at home of course. She's usually cooking her healthy diet friendly dishes, but woks and woks of it....so seems like they are canceling each other out lol.

But going out has never been so pain-free because Nakai does all the research. I simply just go, or invite ppl to go....until he's able to makes new friends.

So far my favourite is definitely Cargo, located near Old Street tube.

http://www.cargo-london.com/

It's just a really really cool place to hang out with a big group of friends. Entry is free, there are indoor bar areas, a disco area, live band area, quite restaurant area for easy conversations or a coffee, sociable outdoor area, all in the one place!!! It's really a night out all in one, and free entry makes it the best...and the waiting lines long.







2. BREAKFAST AT WORK

Unbelievable as it sounds, I look forward to work. Because if I wake early and beat the traffic, I can enjoy a peaceful breakfast at the office, however I like it. Company has a kitchen and large storage area where I keep my breakfast...cereals, breads etc, and a cafe area to relax. The views overlooking the office are amazing too. It feels so good to be early...like you are in control of your day, and whatever happens you're already prepared for. I remember one time I came in right on time and already ppl were seated and working. I hated that feeling...





3. WEEKLY VISITS TO BOROUGH MARKETS

Yes I know I've never been a conosseur of quality food. I can't really taste the difference between a great wine and a good one, don't really know about cheese types and differences in how they're made, and don't really eat bread that's non-toast (although I heart polish and nan bread). I usually eat 'sophiticated' breads at special dinner outings or hotels in travels, and must say the differences in taste are huge.

This is not to say I hadn't cared about food. My limited food variety intake has mainly been for economic reasons - i.e. I was a poor student. But I have read Omnivore Dilemma and In Defence of Food by Michael Pollan so I'm well-versed in the evil agribusiness sector and 'factory churned' meats that have turned Americans into the most obese and cancer prone people on Earth. I do know the importance of quality food and the need to support organic, traditional, sustainable and small-scale agriculture.

So....since I'm in London, I've made it a habit to visit Borough every Saturday morning and buy some 'real' food. Every week has a theme, last week was bread and this week is cheese. I don't buy much, just a treat that I allow myself for a hard week's savings. I do learn a lot about different varieties, how different foods are made, and better understand the lives of people who devote their lives to promoting quality food. It's a good deal, for both my soul and wallet.





4. COOKING AT HOME

On the subject of food, I really really like the food culture in our flat. First thing to notice is that there are very few meats. For whatever reason non of us are big meat eaters. Cici prefers fish, Nakai doesn't eat any meats other than Italian hams/salamis, and Steven usually just eats out. So the fridge is basically full of fresh vegetables and fruit.

Me and Nakai simply don't eat out at all so we're always in the kitchen in the evenings. We don't cook anything spectacular but it's always something I look forward to in the day. Usually on the menu is a simple pasta (tomato, carbonara or pesto) or toasted breads with some olives, tomatoes, cheese and olive oil. I sometimes do a curry, or experiement with chilli con carne (vege) or Mexican. It's amazing to see the Meditterean culture so entrenched in him. He's 25, you'd think he'd love to eat the junk stuff but he's perfectly content to make the most healthy sandwiches that most Chinese or Americans would regard as not 'filling' or 'satisfying' enough. But he absolutely loves it...and to be honest so do I.

London London London!

What is my life like in London?

It is more than I could ever hope for. I work in a fulfilling job, finishing on time everyday working efficiently, have lovely flatmates to laugh with and eat dinner together, and also able to find balance playing kendo 3-4 times a week. It's almost too good to be true. All the boxes are ticked. I am at a point where I'm expecting there must be a catch to all this.

But that's not to say I'm complacent. I want to prove that I'm manager quality and able to lead others, as well as being an undisputed expert in my field of work.

But I'm really thankful to be flat-sharing. London is such a lonely place if you don't know anyone...I knew this already, and purposely chose to do roomsharing. After all these years living abroad by myself, I don't really need privacy anymore. In fact, having another person there can make you more disciplined and considerate, and that can't be a bad thing.

What's more, my flatmates are real characters : )

First is my Italian neighbour ---- Nakai Macri!!! AAAAAAAAAA!! A self-proclaimed 'typical Napoli boy' - loves women, futbol, cars, music and eating, in that order. Nakai is here in London to work and learn English (starting from hello, literally). Oh and did I mention he is a DJ!!

Downstairs is Murtaazaa, from Tanzania!! Of Indian descent, he is a nurse at a local hospital....and rarely see him at home. However he's got the biggest room in the house, with a combined living and bedroom. He is absolutely amazing because whenever the rubbish bin fills up, the next day it's gone!!! He is a real Gandhi in the house.

My roommate is Steven, who is a typical "Shanghai" Chinese...they say. Quiet, but helpful and nice. Seems like he's got a side-business going, there are shoes and bags all over the house and Nakai bought a pair of Pradas from him for 4 pounds....

Final member of the house is Cici, pint-sized girl from China. I am forbidden to speak Mandarin to her cuz she's practising English...

World of Product Carbon Footprinting

So here I find myself, after my Masters course and by some miracle or fluke, have a job!! I definitely think my investment into this blog has been worth it, and I owe it to it to continue writing : ).

From now on, I will live and breathe product carbon footprinting. I know it doesn't sound sexy, but yes, I've been convinced and now believe in the mission of consumption end carbon reduction. I'd like to even believe that I'm helping saving the world!! haha.

In a nutshell, the world of carbon is semi-regulated and from the production end. This means that carbon emissions 'leaks' to those countries where carbon is not regulated at point of production. In essence, emissions from regulated countries may decline but in fact rise overall because emissions are outsourced elsewhere, and imported back in through products.

Hence the need to reduce carbon from point of consumption. Because this will trace the emissions all the way to the unregulated countries. If companies see it in their interest to decarbonise their supply chains, then carbon reduction can be made in non-regulated countries.

It's such a huge, mind-blowing project. In order to make this all happen, we first have to measure the embedded carbon in all products that we consume, and then make a business (or marketing) case for reducing them. Just the measurement part requires a definitive encyclopaedia of all production processes, inputs, raw materials and emission factors that are universally applicable by all companies so that the end numbers are meaningful and can be compared.

Yep, this is what I will be doing. Mapping out the carbon flows of the entire world, from the engine of a Boeing 747-400 to dried manure kept indoors for 3 months.

But yes, with me, it will be done!

Failure of Kyoto and Possible Reforms

The Kyoto Protocol is a global framework to combat climate change that followed from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It divided the world into 2 groups. Annex I countries consisted of industrialised developed countries which committed to a 5.2% reduction of GHG emissions from 1990 baseline level. Non-Annex I countries (rest of the world) do not have emission targets but can engage in GHG reduction through the flexible mechanism – JI and CDM. The carbon credits created by JI and CDM projects can be used in carbon trading for compliance with Annex I countries’ Kyoto targets.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH KYOTO?

As argued by Kevin Anderson, David Victor of Stanford and Dieter Helm, the Kyoto Protocol as it stands is a flawed and insufficient mechanism for reaching climate goals of 450 ppm, consistent with limiting global temperature rises to 2 degrees Celcius. It is almost beyond debate that Kyoto will fail to meet those types of climate goals.

First, the Kyoto targets are not strong enough in view of worldwide increases in GHG emissions and population growth. According to the IEA, population is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050, world energy demand is projected to increase 50% by 2030, use of coal for electricity production is projected to rise by 25%, cars are expected to increase to 2.3 billion by 2050, and the rapid development of China and India may shoot these projection even up even further. World emissions are already rising faster than the worst IPCC projects due to massive development in the developing world. This is further complicated by the fact that these emerging developing countries are unlikely to cut emissions for ‘right to development’ reasons. Also, a significant proportion of emission rise in developing countries is attributable to carbon leakage, fuelled by consumption of carbon intensive goods in developed countries. For example, studies have shown that China was a net exporter of 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2006, which is 20% of the world’s total GHG.

It is apparent that Kyoto has even failed to meet its modest goals. The biggest developed country emitter the US has not ratified the protocol, Canada and Japan are not on track and GHG emissions from the developed world has actually increased by 2.3% since 2000. Even more worrying is that the reductions made in the EU have not been the result of clean energy policies, but due to factors that have nothing to do with climate change policy, such as dash for gas, high oil prices and offshoring.

Kyoto is also flawed because it’s methodology emphasizes the geography area of production of GHG, and not the geographic area of where the final goods are consumed. This leads to the paradoxical situation where a developed country can have decrease GHG emissions by producing all their goods in countries without GHG cap and importing the goods in. This has indeed occurred in Britain where although emissions have decreased 12% from 1990 levels, the embedded carbon of consumption in Britain has increased by 19% from 1990 levels. The real inconvenient truth is that consumption levels in developed countries need to be curbed and reduced.

Another major problem with the Kyoto framework concerns the effectiveness of the flexible mechanisms. Research work by Wara and Victor show that up to two thirds of CDM projects are not actually additional. For example, the CER revenues generated by HFC destruction projects was actually more profitable than producing the fridges, thus creating a perverse incentive to produce harmful gases, and then claim credit by destroying them. Further, in China where am ambitious renewable energy target of 20% by 2020 is being implemented, it can be questioned whether any renewable energy projects in China would have occurred anyway in the absence of CDM. There are also significant administrative problems with CDM such as inefficiencies caused by high transaction costs, corruption by DOEs due to influence of powerful project developers, and the insufficient resources available at the UNFCCC to administer all of the world’s CDM projects. Currently there are over 4000 projects in the pipeline, all to be reviewed by 10 member of the CDM executive board.

As argued by Kevin Anderson, much of the EU obligations under the Kyoto Protocol can be offset by purchases of such CER credits, which delays mitigation action in Europe and especially unhelpful if those CERs lack environmental integrity. Such delays as argued by Anderson could lead to lock-in, where the country fails to create the suitable infrastructure to build a low carbon economy.

Another major flaw with Kyoto is the omission of GHG from shipping and the aviation sector, which are the highest growing GHG emitting sectors. For example, GHG from aviation sector has grown at an average of 7% p.a. since 1990. Although aviation is said to be responsible for “only” 2% of global GHG emissions, it emits a host of non-CO2 particlues such as NOx, water, SO2 and soot at high altitudes for which the global warming potential is likely to be much higher although the extent is difficult to quantify. Some studies argue that taking account all the above, the impact of aviation is closer to 13-15% of all GHG.

It is clear that Kyoto Protocol is not, and will not deliver the results needed to stabilize the climate. The question is what alternative are there to Kyoto to could be more effectiveness in solving the problem? There are 2 basic schools of thought, one is that Kyoto should not be abandoned, simply tweaked and adjusted to address its weaknesses and problems (Stern and Hepburn). Another school of thought as advocated by Victor argues that Kyoto is inherently structurally flawed and that we should scrap it, replacing it with WTO-like agreements on joint efforts rather than targets. I argue that Victor’s view is preferable because it is efforts on the ground that have most potential to reduce GHG, and universal negotiations on targets are unlikely to produce the ambitious actions required to stabilize the climate at 2 degrees Celsius.

STERN AND HEPBURN – GLOBAL DEAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Stern argues that we need a global deal to reduce GHG globally by 50% from 1990 levels by 2050, and this must include both developed and developing countries. At current population growth rates, this means 2tCO2/year per capita by 2050. Currently, USA, AUS, CAN are at 20t per capita, EU, Japan at 10t per capita, China at 5t per capita and India at 2t per capita.

This means developed countries must agree to sharp aggressive short, medium and long term cuts to the tune of 80% reduction of 1990 levels by 2050. Fast middle income countries such as South Korea, India and China should adopt sectoral targets in the medium run and eventually in national targets.

Stern is indifferent between emissions trading and carbon tax as long as the permits from ETS are auctioned. Eventually, a global price on carbon and a world carbon market should be developed. In terms of reforming the CDM, Stern argues that operations must be scaled up while at the same time the environmental integrity of the credits must be improved. There should be sectoral benchmarks created for CDM projects to increase administrative efficiency, important technologies with potential to reduce GHG at large scale like CCS should be included, and standards enforced to reduce carbon leakage. To tackle deforestation, a framework of REDD should be introduced that also strengthens property rights of indigenous people and ensures financial flows to citizens and climate friendly policies. Finally, an adaptation fund should be initiated for people already suffering the effects of climate change. Stern’s global deal lacks detail on countering the perverse incentives already in existence in the system.

DAVID VICTOR – CLIMATE ACCESSION DEALS

Victor argues that Kyoto is destined to be a failure no matter how much it is tweaked, because the problem with Kyoto is structural. This is due to the conventional wisdom behind Kyoto, which is that an universially binding treaty should be negotiated with targets, and a global carbon market developed, engaging the developing world through market-based compensation. However, despite Kyoto having followed the all of the above, nothing much has changed in terms of behaviour and GHG reduction. This is because the problem is structural:

1. Binding nature of instruments makes governments risk averse. They won’t sign to ambitious targets unless they are absolutely sure that they can comply. This explains why the track record of compliance with legally binding treaties is almost 100%. Commitments get tuned so that compliance is guaranteed.
2. Targets and timeframes don’t do the heavy lifting. It doesn’t guarantee any efforts will be done.
3. Government are unsure of how to meet the targets. In cases where they can't, they will simply withdraw from treaty or negotiate a more realistic target.

Instead, Victor proposes that negotiations be based on clubs, with commitments that are not legally binding. This is likely to reduce GHG more effectively than Kyoto because:

1. Governments are more likely to make ambitious commitments to each other if outputs not binding, especially in situations where they don’t know to what extent they can comply with outputs.

2. Agreements on actions are more effective to reduce GHG than targets. Actions may include renewal portfolio standards, building standards, fuel efficiency standards, technology forcing commitments, pilot CCS plants. Those packages of real effort that governments have control over, while difficult to translate into targets and timetables.

Victor proposes that Climate Accession Deal (CAD) should replace the CDM to engage developing countries. The first premise is that CAD starts with the existing interests of reluctant countries, which is anchored in the country’s administration and development plans. For example in China, the government would welcome assistance to make their existing coal plants more efficient, build a natural gas infrastructure, increase nuclear capacity and upgrade its entire electric grid. An institution similar to the WTO would be set up to ensure the environmental integrity of the system, monitor efforts and enforce penalties for non-compliance. The basic process for a CAD deal is bidding, assessment and convergence.

Bidding start with the host government since it has the capability to instigate changes in the relevant sectors. To make these CADs feasible, outsiders—the enthusiastic nations—will be expected to offer incentives that combine with real efforts by governments in the reluctant nations to alter development trajectories.

The key task in accession is to entice a new member into the club (and thus create broader benefits for the club) while not over-paying (or under-charging) the new member. The WTO offers a model through its accession process. Potential new members assemble bids of promises that they will offer in exchange for external benefits.

Incentives for enthusiastic countries to participate and provide finance may include:

1. By integrating CADs into a broader “general agreement on climate change” the CAD system more readily gives donor countries credit for their efforts.
2. Part of the CAD negotiation, by contrast, would include the appropriate credit that the enthusiastic nation would earn—in some cases, that credit might be quantified and monetized, but in others it would simply be part of the explicit package of commitments that the enthusiastic nation makes to its peers.
3. Gain credit for recognized official commitments to address climate change.

The next step would involvement assessment and monitoring. Compliance can be enforced by:

1. the negotiation of commitments can help ensure that governments promise genuine efforts that they are likely to implement.
2. a new institution is needed to provide regular assessments of implementation.
3. an assessment institution that could look broadly at a country’s promised efforts (as in the WTO, OECD and IEA policy reviews) and then probe in detail where those efforts seem to be falling short.

I prefer Victor's view because CADs will at least ensure actions on the ground which have the potential to reduce GHG more effectively over the long run compared to politically strained unambitious targets with no guarantees that any action will be done to tackle climate change. If countries realise targets cannot be met, there are perverse incentives to change the targets, i.e. moving the goalposts. Instead, the CADS if managed well, can accelerate reluctant countries down the path of adhering to global norms on the need to control emissions.

Hydro, Wind and Solar PV

Some brief summary notes on hydro, wind and solar PV from various sources that I've read recently. I've prepared this to help me with my exams.

Low and zero carbon sources of energy generation accounts for approximately 15% of the global energy mix, with nuclear and hydropower around 6% each, and the rest of the renewables portfolio (biomass, wind, solar, wave etc.) making up the remaining 3%. While nuclear capacity has remained steady in the past 10 years, there has been steady growth in capacity of renewable energy, especially in hydro and wind.

In order to tackle climate change and to reach stabilisation levels of 550 ppm as advocated by policy makers, it is essential that low carbon technologies are ramped up to replace fossil fuels. For example in the UK, the UK Climate Change bill stipulates that GHG are to be reduced by 80% of 1990 levels by 2020, with 25-32% reduction goal by 2020. In order to reach this target, the government has mandated that by 2020, 20% of energy must come from renewable resources in line with its EU 20/20/20 obligations. This implies that the proportion of renewables generation in heating and cooling must increase from less than 1% to 10%, land transport from <1% to ~10%, and electricity production from <5% to ~40%. Similar targets are prevalent in other EU countries and in many states in America like California, who have mandatory renewable portfolios standards.

For the UK, this implies that by 2020, 57GW of renewable energy must be installed in order to reach the 20% target. Based on existing policies, it will be impossible to reach such levels due to the higher costs, political, social and logistical issues associated with renewables. The target can only be met with ambitious policies to promote same, backed up by finance and political and social support.

To reach the goals, there are a host of low carbon technologies at different levels of commercial development and potential. I will analyse 3 main technologies available today - hydro, wind, solar (both PV and concentrated).

HYDRO

Hydro is responsible for much of the growth in renewable energy generation globally in the next 10 years, especially in non-OECD countries in Asia and Central and South America. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam project is expected to deliver 18.2 GW of new capacity and in India, 14.5 GW of hydropower is currently being constructed. In Brazil, 90% of electricity is generated from hydro and 12GW are on the pipelines to be installed.

Hydro is a mature technology that can provide baseload electricity and for large hydro, it is also dispatchable to meet peak demands. It also produces electricity at cost comparable with fossil fuels. However, there are large environmental and social concerns associated with damming rivers, such as displacement people and destruction of ecosystems. There are less environmental concerns with small scale hydro, which produce electricity based on water flow. However, since the river is not dammed, energy storage is not an option for small scale hydro. For example in Germany, CERs from large hydro projects are not eligible for compliance because of concerns over the environmental integrity of the credits (as reviewed by the World Commission on Dams).

In most of the developed world, hydro is no longer an option since most of the suitable sites have already been developed. There is therefore not much scope to exploit hydro for low carbon energy at least in developed countries.

SOLAR PV

There are broadly 3 types of solar, solar water heating, solar PV and concentrating solar power. I will concentrate on solar PV and CSP. Solar PV works by having solar photovoltaic cells converting the sun’s energy into electricity. Solar cells produce direct current from sunlight, and an inverter converts DC into AC current. The energy can then be distributed or stored in a battery. At the end of 2008, global cumulative solar PV capacity reach 15GW.

Although the PV sector has grown, it has not made a breakthrough in the market and contributes less than 1% of world energy production. With the exception of Germany, solar PV is not a significant source of energy even in sunny countries. The main stumbling block is the higher cost of producing solar cells and solar panels. With current technology solar PV can generate electricity at approximately 18-25 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to fossil fuel options which range between 3-7 cents per kilowatt. The installed cost today is around $8 a watt, meaning that to provide basic household needs it costs approcimately $30000 for solar panels. Amazingly, only half of the cost is due to production of solar cells. The rest is made up of panels, glass, inverter, labour and distribution costs. So even if the costs of solar cells decrease, it still needs to rely on the other costs to go down. It is therefore unlikely that silicon PV can ever become a low cost option.

There have been some recent technological breakthroughs, in the name of thin film solar cells. This technology has been able to cut costs down to $1-3 a watt, using less material and taking up less space. The problem is that all the materials that go into thin film are really rare – tellurium, indium, gallium, selenium. Therefore the ability to ramp up production is difficult.

Even if solar PV is price competitive, there are production restrictions associated with solar PV due to competition for basic raw materials like silicon with other industries such as the semiconductor industry. For example, the current cumulative production capability of the world solar PV industry is only around 6.85GW per year. To put that into perspective, NY city on a hot summer day uses around 12GW a day. Solar cells are also inefficient at converting the sun’s energy at around 12-23% conversion ratio, and take up large amounts of space for relatively low electricity generation. Even if solar PV grows by 50% per year for 10 years, a study has found that it would only contribute to 2.6% of the market. Therefore it can be questioned whether this technology can actually contribute to solving the problem in a meaningful timeframe.

Despite the prohibitive costs, the case study of Germany shows that solar PV may play a meaningful role if promoted by government policies. In Germany, form the 1990’s the government actively promoted solar PV through rebates, loans and feed-in-tariffs for excess electricity fed back into the grid. The market took off and by 2008 solar PV accounted for 1% of total electricity generation. Germany companies now account for 46% of the global solar PV market, generating over 10,000 jobs for the German workforce.

WIND

Wind energy is one of the most mature and fastest growing of all renewable technologies, and is now basically a production driven industry due to high demand of materials. The technology is now close to cost parity with fossil fuels at around 6 cents per kilowatt/hour, and can be scaled up as evidenced by current standard 5MW wind turbines. Wind now accounts for 1.5% of global electricity use and by 2008, capacity had reached 121 GW.

Wind turbines produce electricity by:
1. The wind blows on the blades and makes them turn.
2. The blades turns a shaft inside the nacelle (the box at the top of the turbine)
3. The shaft goes into a gearbox which increases the rotation speed enough for...
4. The generator, which uses magnetic fields to convert the rotational energy into electrical energy. These are similar to those found in normal power stations.
5. The power output goes to a transformer, which converts the electricity coming out of the generator at around 700 Volts (V) to the right voltage for distribution system, typically 33,000 V.
6. The national grid transmits the power around the country.

In Denmark, wind already contributes to 19% of total electricity generation and countries like Germany, Spain and Portugal are moving in the same direction. There are however some mentionable drawbacks to wind energy:

1. Capacity factor of 20-40% is far inferior to fossil fuel plants that can operate at 85% capacity. Therefore close to 3 times the capacity needs to be built to generate the same amount of electricity
2. Wind is intermittent and there is no available technology for large-scale storage of wind energy. It is therefore not a feasible solution for baseload electricity needs
3. wind resources are often distant from city centres where electricity demand is the highest. Exploitation of wind energy requires building of expensive transmission lines.
4. wind turbines may have negative impacts on local ecosystems and bird migration routes.
5. offshore wind is still a developing technology, with many uncertainties and technical difficulties relating to stability from strong winds and storms, and technological challenges in dealing with deeper water or less favorable soil conditions. It is therefore at least twice as expensive to develop as onshore wind.

The most effective policy instruments for further promotion of wind energy include feed-in-tariffs, mandatory long term power purchase contract to guarantee investment certainty, and assistance with high up-front capital costs through public-private partnerships. In terms of grid transmission, potential policies measures include direct funding for grid reinforcements and legal guarantee of grid access for renewables. These policies have been highly successful in Denmark, Germany and Spain and should be applied in all countries seeking to exploit this resource. It is also important to recognize that some of the barriers to wind are non-economic, such as protests from locals, land permits and environmental groups. This can be countered by policies that streamline application and permit procedures, as well as public engagement and education.

However, given current technology and grid systems, it has been argued that wind can only contribute up to 20% of electricity mix due to its inherent flaws such as intermittency and lack of storage. Technological breakthrough is needed in this area and more funding for R&D should be put in place.

To solve this problem and to increase wind’s share in the energy mix, improvements to the grid infrastructure through a smart grid will need to be built. This would consist of high voltage HVDC lines transmitting energy from distant wind farms to city centres. Another strategy, though not mutually exclusive, would be to set up microgrids for more distributed generation. A microgrid is an isolated grid with local generation; storage can operate autonomously, only connected to main grid when absolutely required. In each microgrid area, energy distributed through peer to peer technology where energy is transferred between peer to peer to create an aggregate supply of energy.

Wind energy will be especially important in the UK, where the RES targets will depend primarily on wind. In order to meet the target, it is envisioned that 14GW of onshore and 14GW of offshore wind capacity need to be built by 2025. This will require major transmission circuits, which traditionally take 10 years to permit and construct. Also, the effect of such a target means that more capacity needs to be built. In order to meet Britain’s demand of 61GW of energy, it is envisioned that 99GW of capacity will need to be built because of renewable energy’s lower capacity factors.

In terms of transmission, new routes will be required for both onshore and offshore wind, perhaps using submarine HVDC powerlines, connecting both on-land and offshore wind farms.

Belated return and Spain's 2010-2020 carbon strategy

Since the last time I wrote, I've traveled to Ireland with the Edinburgh uni kendo team winning a bronze medal in the team's event, written an essay critiqing the Spanish Renewable Energy Plan 2010-20, did a presentation on the Spanish fashion company Zara for corporate strategy, and to finish off the Spanish flavour, just completed a presentation today on a carbon reduction strategy for Spain 2010-2020.

I'm really proud of our team for the Spanish presentation, I thought we did a fantastic job. It certaintly helped me understand the details and intricacies of the renewable energy sector, especially costs. Too often we are misled by overly optimistic, self-indulging articles espousing the potential of renewables. What I've discovered is that even if electricity generation costs were competitive with fossil fuels, renewables face other inefficiencies that make them a danger to energy security. Wind for example only has capacity factors of 0.2-0.3 and CSP only up to 56%, with heat storage unproven at commercial scale. Don't even think about Solar PVs...

I'm not saying I'm not in favour of renewables, but ppl who support them should also understand fully its drawbacks and why rational decision makers have not adopted them.

Here is a link to our presentation for those who are interested.

Putting my eggs in the CSP basket

For some reason, I'm very selective in the level of attention span I give to lecturers. If I don't find it interesting or helpful, I simply nod off in class. It's not very good manners I know...but this bitter cold UK winter makes me wanna sleep, all the time!

Today's class on innovation was one of those....I turned on my laptop to surf the net to stop myself nodding off. I read some articles related to my research dissertation, which I want to write on the potential of concentrating solar power under the CDM. The more I read, the more I realised that I need more contacts from industry and more knowledge and skills on economic and financial modelling, which the course has not given me at all. It began to dawn on me how naive I am, and how much is out there I don't know.

Came across this brilliant article called "A roadmap for selecting host countries of wind energy projects in the framework of the clean development mechanism" by P. Georgiou in the journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. It was so good that I simply wanted to replicate and apply the same methodology for CSP technology. Basically, Mr. Georgiou set out with the same aim as me (but for wind technology), only that he finished earlier than me and has had it published. And thankfully so because if I had gone ahead with my ideas, it would have been child's play compared to Mr. Georgiou.

I had imagined tackling my dissertation by doing a case study of the Abu Dhabi Shams 1 100 megawatt CSP project, and applying it to China. I envisioned assessing potential suitable geographic locations for CSP in China, estimating costs and infrastructure requirements, calculate the potential revenues from selling CERs in the carbon market, comparing cost competitiveness with wind and hydropower of similar scale under the CDM, and assessing other non-economic barriers and investment risks perceived by the market.

That sounded pretty good until I read Mr. Georgiou's paper, which went many steps further. Mr. Georgiou did not limit his analysis on one country (I plan to only assess CSP potential in China) but used various stage tests to assess many countries, filtering out countries that could not meet minimum standards. The stages he used were:

Stage 1: geographic suitability test
Stage 2: preliminary financial analysis (IRR modelling)
stage 3: CDM eligibility condition
stage 4: final financial analysis
Stage 5: multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA)

This approach seemed so logical, professional and innovative compared to my fragmented methodology. What really had me worried was that I had no idea how to calculate IRR (discount rate) or baseline emission factors for CDM projects, nor had I even heard of MCDA, which apparently has plenty of literature behind it and is a common tool for considering non-economic factors in investment decisions-making.

Further, after reading Mr. Georgiou's article and also "PV v Solar Thermal" by Dr. Jonathan A. Lesser of the economic consulting firm Bates White, LLC, I am more or less convinced that CSP is not commercially viable in China even if 'supported' by the CDM. It appears that I have been overly bullish on the prospects of CSP when it faces some critical problems in implementation and cost efficiency:

1. CSP (assume parabolic troughs) requires extensive amount of land, estimated to be around 1,900-acres for a 280 MW plant. This have may detrimental environmental impacts on local biodiversity and wildlife.
2. CSP also requires copious amounts of water for wet cooling towers, estimated to be around 600-700 million gallones per year for a 280 MW plant. Dry cooling is an option but it decreases efficiency of the plant by up to 25%, increasing the cost of producing electricity.
3. Some elements of CSP such as molten salt storage are yet to be tested on large commercial scale and more learning is required.
4. It appears that more than 4GW of installed capacity needs to be built before CSP can reach scale economies to produce at cost of 10¢/kWh, which would make it competitive with CCGT gas (but not yet dirty coal).

However, I think I will still press ahead with my dissertation proposal, simply because analysis needs to be done for this technology, which people like Vinod Khosla are touting as the long-term answer to displacement of fossil fuels. To be frank, only nuclear, large scale wind and CSP stand any chance of ever competing with coal or gas fired power plants for baseload electricity generation, which at least industry still needs. Whatever the outcome, it is close to the best we have in a carbon-constrained world.

Forestry Carbon Projects and Lord Adair Turner

Today we had Dr. Nicholas Berry from the Edinburgh based carbon management firm Ecometrica come in to give us a talk about forestry carbon projects. Was quite a tedious lecture since Dr. Berry had no idea our level of knowledge in this area and was very tentative in imparting information, afraid that we couldn't understand. So, again, we wasted almost 30 mins going through the bare basics of what is a carbon market, the compliance and voluntary market, the Kyoto Protocol and its flexible mechanisms and even about the science of climate change.

What was new (or interesting) was three things. The strategies attempted so far to overcome the issue of permanence in forestry carbon projects, the main standards used for forestry projects and a case-study of a "Plan-Vivo" forestry carbon project.

One of the main obstables confronting forestry carbon projects in permanence, i.e. to what extent is the carbon sequestered permanently locked up by the trees, and what happens if traded credits of carbon are subsequently re-released into the atmosphere intentionally (deliberate degradation or deforestation) or unintentionally (e.g. forest fires). The CDM solution was apparently to arbitrary issue forestry credits as 'temporary' cerdits since it could not guarantee its permanence. This effectived stifled demand since buyers could purchase 'permanent' CERs at the same price. The other strategy is that of 'risk buffering', used in the voluntary market. This is where only a portion of forestry credits is traded/sold, with the rest acting as insurance if and when the permanence of credits is called into question. This to me appears to be more reasonable as it facilitiates larger scaling up of projects and provides more certainty when credits are lost.

On standards, there are currently 3 main standards used by project developers of forestry projects. The Voluntary Carbon Standard, the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard and Plan Vivo, which was developed by the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management (from which Econometrica was sporne). These are standards by which an independent 3rd party have to verify before valid VERs (Voluntary Emission Reductions) are issued. Each standard emphasizes different aspects that may be desired in a carbon project. For example, Plan Vivo places particular emphasis on the local community, with proceeds of credits guaranteed to go to the local inhabitants and invested into local sustainable economic activities such as agroforestry.

Overall I would have loved a more focused discussion going through each of the standards in detail as well as in depth analysis of the technical work that went into Plan Vivo projects i.e. how was the carbon measured, how was the project monitored, and how and what obstacles did the project developers face when trying to sell carbon credits in the voluntary market. I guess this MSc is really the MSc of overviews and summaries, rather than equiping us with specific technical skills that industry needs. This has been the most disappointing aspect of this course. But, a certificate is a certificate and my future is what I make of it, I guess.

In the evening, my classmates and I attended the event "Building a Low Carbon Economy - A UK and International Perspective" hosted by Edinburgh University, Scottish Power, Friends of the Earth and the British Council. It featured keynote addresses by the head of the UK Climate Change Committee Lord Adair Turner and Jacqueline McGlade, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency. Just as background, the UK Climate Change Committee is an advisory body set up by the UK government to assist it meet its legally binding 80% GHG reduction target by 2050, and the mid-term 20% reduction target by 2020. The committee advises government on policy, acts as a watchdog on government progress in meeting reduction targets and basically acts as intermediary between lastest science and policy making.

Their talks were nothing we didn't know already, and their presentation slides can soon be downloaded on the FOE website. Basically, in order to stabilise at 450ppm at 2 degrees celcius warming, the UK should contribute to the global effort by reducing its GHG emissions by 80% by 2050. It should get there by decarbonising the electricity sector using renewables, CCS and nuclear. The transport and residential sectors should also move towards electrification, with energy from zero carbon sources of course. The other sectors are more difficult to reduce emissions, and we should promote R&D to figure out what to do there. As for how to decarbonise the electricity sector, speakers said that there is enough wind potential to realise all of UK's energy demand, etc etc....all very hypothetical stuff, with broad cost estimates that it will cost 1% of GDP annually.

Just a couple of interesting observations. Both talks were extremely Euro-centric, with the focus on what UK needs to do, how urgent and difficult the problem is for the UK, how UK's plans fit in with Europe's. Passing mention was made of Obama's new administration and China and India. The only comment was that "China is working hard on Climate Change issues, India less". To me, they've missed out on the fundamental issue. Even if the UK, or Europe for that matter, reduces 80% by 2050, the world will still reach tipping point and above 4 degrees warming because of emissions from China and India. These emissions are in fact mostly to serve the demand for cheap goods from consumers in western countries. Now you can't blame China and India for burning fossil fuels because that's the cheapest way to produce the goods that the West wants! The UK and the West needs to get serious about whether they are prepared the "real" prices of imported goods (i.e. including the embedded carbon and cost to the climate and environment). Or, they need to think seriously about helping reduce emissions from factories in countries like China, since those emissions are emitted because of the West's demand. To be self-obsessed about how UK was going to reach a 80% reduction target in a mostly services economy is missing the point. If anything, the UK should find it relatively easier than most economies to decarbonise since they have higher GDP, consumers have more disposable income to compensate higher electricity prices and they do not have a carbon intensive manufacturing sector.

Another interesting observation was a comment from Scottish Power, which reflects the political game being played. While the Climate Change Committee is advocating the potential of wind and saying everything is theoretically possible, they make no mention of the actual CASH that need to be splashed and where. Nothing will be done if no cash is actually on the table.

The head of renewables of Scottish Power said that whilst he recognizes the importance of climate change and the huge potential of wind, his company simply will not invest in large scale off-shore wind projects unless the transmission infrastructure is provided by the government to ensure the electricity generated offshore can be provided to consumers. Therefore, far from just creating a carbon price or making keynote speeches at universities, the govt needs to get serious and put cash on the table to create a new, renewables friendly infrastructure. With the UK's political ball-passing tendencies, I don't think the UK will reach any of its targets. You heard it here first.

Book Review - Sputnik Sweetheart

Murakami is a weirdo. He's illogical, irrational, incongruous, discortant, sometimes perverted. Simply said, have no preconceptions when reading Murakami. And don't ask why, because there usually is no answer. Murakami spends his time talking of the ordinary. Mundane, everyday activities such as eating, listening to music, reading a book. However, he's such a virtuoso at conveying those everyday feelings that readers feel connected and intrigued.

I read Murakami because I like the ordinary. And I like to be transported to another world which makes absolutely no sense. I've even stopped asking why. It's an escape from the real world where every statement needs to be backed up by evidence, every behaviour explained, every trip planned, every decision justified.

Sumire is an ordinary girl who dreams of being a novelist. She has chosen to leave the tracks that life had pre-planned, spending days writing and writing while depending on part-time jobs and her parents to keep afloat.

K is an uninspired school teacher who spends his days lulling about, reading books at home and occasionally having affairs with parents of his pupils. Miu is a Korean-Japanese who's married, a successful business-women with cultured tastes for fine wine.

Between them, a series of events begin to unfold. K realises he's in love with Sumire, Sumire falls deeply in love with Miu, and Miu hires Sumire as her personal assistant. Sumire and Miu abruptly set off on a trip to Europe and when K finally receives a call, he finds out that Sumire has vanished. When K heads to Greece to find Sumire, he finds that Miu has a similar story 14 years ago where she was split into two and part of her vanished, the only evidence was it left her with pure white hair.

At first, it was hard to accept that Sumire could simply vanish without a trace for no reason. Perhaps what Murakami was trying to convey is that people vanish at various stages of their lives, either physically and/or spiritually. Is there a difference between the two at all? For some people as they change, they are always throwing away the past and re-making themseves. I guess to some of my high-school friends, I've already vanished and even if they meet me again, the spirit that they knew is no longer there. To them, does it make a difference whether I physically existed or not? In any event my spirit has changed.

But maybe what Murakami shows is that while vanishing can lead to the creation of a "new" you, you lose part of yourself and those close relationships that you held dear to your heart. In the end, does Sumire come back to see K? You'll have to read it and make up your own mind.

Carbon Capture and Storage - reality or hoax?

Today's much anticipated lecture will be on CCS (carbon capture and storage) from Stuart Haszeldine, one of the world's foremost experts on CCS technology and implementation, right here from the University of Edinburgh. Stuart's been in the newspaper quite a few times, most recently for his comments regarding the 30 megawatt pilot CCS powerplant in Germany.

I'm not an engineer or scientist, so I'll do my best to explain the technology. My main interest is the economics and policy-making side of CCS, especially how feasible it is to make a real dent in the climate problem. CCS is a relatively unknown quantity AT SCALE, and requires billions of dollars for further pilot programs. The real question is whether CCS is cost effective at scale over other low carbon solutions i.e. renewables, some of which are already mature technologies and can be implemented immediately today.

So in a sentence, CCS is the capturing of CO2 from coal-fired powerplants through various methods, and then storing the CO2 underground for example in depleted oil fields so that the CO2 is not emitted into the atmosphere causing global warming. It is being heralded as a potential silver-bullet in the fight against climate change and politicians are pinning their hopes on it because it could kill 2 birds with one stone - keep the lucrative and powerful coal industry going and also tackle climate change at the same time. Are these hopes false?

First let's understand the technology. There are 3 main competing technologies for separating the CO2. Firstly there is oxyfuel, which "burns the lignite in air from which nitrogen has been removed. Combustion in the resulting oxygen-rich atmosphere produces a waste stream of carbon dioxide and water vapor, three-quarters of which is recycled back into the boiler. By repeating this process it is possible to greatly concentrate the carbon dioxide. After particles and sulfur have been removed, and water vapor has been condensed out, the waste gas can be 98 percent carbon dioxide". The CO2 is then cooled down to -28 degrees celcius and liquified and stored in suitable geogrpahic formations at least 3km underground.

The other two technologies. Another "uses a scrubbing process to try to capture carbon dioxide in the flue gases emitted after coal has been burned in a conventional power plant". Finally there is a third method which "involves gasifying the coal, creating hydrogen for generating electricity and carbon monoxide, from which carbon dioxide can be formed and separated".

There are up to a dozen pilot programs all around the world e.g. in the UK, Norway and the US testing these technologies, at varying degrees or progress. I'm sure Stuart will give an update on the status of these.

So contrary to many people's views that CCS technology is "unproven", this is simply false. The technology has been shown to work. The main stumbling blocks of CCS are NOT the science, but the logistics and the high costs of implementation. To summarize:

1) the extra cost of capturing and storing carbon has been estimated at USD50-90 per tonne according to various reports;
2) legal issues regarding ownership of the CO2 after it has been separated. Companies will not want to be liable for leakage of CO2 back into the atmosphere. Liquified CO2 may pass through countries or be stored in international waters and under the territory of another country;
3) extensive infrastucture of deep underground pipelines will need to be built to transport potentially billions of tonnes of liquidified CO2.
4) Who will pay if the CO2 accidently or eventually seeps back up and is released back into the atmosphere?

The retro-fitting of commercial power plants with CCS and the building of new gigawatt CCS power plants along with required complementary infrastructure will run into hundred of billions of dollars. Who is going to pay for all that? What's in it for them to pay for it? If economic incentives cannot be found for the market then government programs need to fit the bill. Are western governments likely to fund all of this, especially in developing countries such as China and India where it's most needed? Only the most extreme optimist would say yes. What is clear is that CCS is going nowhere without active and smart government support, as concluded by Stanford University in its comparion of CCS with the development of the US nuclear-power industry, the US SO2- scrubber industry, and the global LNG industry.

But, enough about the costs. Let's think about the potential benefits of CCS and how much it could contribute to tackling climate change ASSUMING CCS is performing at commercial scale. Will that makes us feel better? Not necessarily so.

The most illuminating work on the potential and economics of CCS I have seen is by David Victor, again of Stanford University. Based on this research, it is estimated that if the US is to stabilise emissions and to eventually decrease emissions from 1990 levels, commercial scale CCS plants will need to inject 350 million tonnes of CO2 per year underground by 2030. This is for the US only. Now, if ALL of the current CCS pilot projects, and future possible projects under plan and speculative future projects around the WORLD are all run and assumed to be capturing CO2 today at full capacity, by the year 2025 they will combine to capture 100 million tonnes of CO2 per year. This world effort will not even be enough to stablise US emissions. The point is that at current pace we are deluded if we think CCS is any silver-bullet, even if it works at commercial scale. Not only does CCS need to work at commercial scale, it needs to be widespread and become a "norm" of the coal industry around the world to have any chance of making serious inroads on climate change. You can decide whether CCS is worth it.

For those interested, Dr. Victor's informative presentation on coal, CCS and renewable energy can be seen below:

冬期休暇 － 日本語版 (1)

今日は、授業がないから家で愚図つくしている。　気候変化について記事を読んだけど、科目の読むべき本やレポートがどんどん重なってどこから始まるか分からなくて困っている状態。もう起きたから４時間経ったけど何もしてない・・・・感じが。罪悪感ですね。

何で日本語で書いているのかというと、今日は日本人の言語交換パートナーに会うんです。だから少しでも何か準備しようと思っててこの文章を始めました。　きっと彼女と冬の休暇について話し合うので、この前行った国や感想を揃って見ようかな・・・・

まあ、休暇が始まったから最初行った所はローンドンでしたよね。正直言うとそんなに気に入りませんでした。道が狭くて物が高くて駅が汚くて交通が悪くて、とても一流の都市に見えなかった。それにしても、ローンドンの歴史と建築は凄く魅力的だった。友達の家に泊まってて、自転車を借りてThames川沿いして都心まで約三時間かかりました。着くとローンドンの名所を一々訪れました。Big Ben、Buckingham Palace、St. Paul's Cathedral、Trafalgar Square、London Bridgeなど。まあー綺麗でしたよ。

多分空気が悪かったか温度が下がったため、すぐ風を引いた。だんだん寒くなっててやぱっりエディンバラに戻ることにした。その日こそバス切符を買って夜行バスで帰った。結局は二泊の短い旅行でした。エディンバラに着いた時、本当にエディンバラに住めて運がいいなと思いました。　ローンドンに比べるとエディンバラは本当に天国だな・・・と多としました。

続き・・・・・

Picking the Right Horses from the Stimulus Package

Woke up to my good friend Dr. Tan's Facebook status that he's considering alternative investment strategies. Hey, when a professor of finance expresses interest in the alternative energy sector, it's usually silly not to at least listen.

I must say I've never been a stock market player, 1) because I don't have the money 2) I didn't spend enough time researching companies and how they fared 3) didn't know enough about what strategies leading companies have that set them apart from the peers 4) pure laziness. I mean, back in 1998 I KNEW about Google. I knew it was gonna be huge too because it combined all the search results of all the other search engines available then and was just superior. But I didn't act....

Situation now is that I know Obama's stimulus package is gonna lead to winners. I know large-scale wind and solar will take off. I know the companies that win the contracts to implement a distributed grid will take off - especially the software companies (someone say Microsoft?). This time I will act, and not make the Google mistake.

This morning's article that the US Climate Change bill is coming sooner than expected, is therefore good news for me.

This is not to say that any investment in the alternatives sector is any less risky than other sectors. As the potential gains are unimaginable, the potential losses are huge too. Only the best survives and if you back the wrong horse, bad luck. For example, it's still not looking particularly rosy in the solar sector with projects being postponed or canceled due to the credit crunch. Even projects that appear to make perfect sense such as large scale concentrating solar power in the Californian deserts. Basically, banks are unwilling to lend to any high capital investment projects in these tight times, unless it's a sure bet and the project manager is warren buffet (you get my point). Wind is facing a similar problem but such is the growth of the market in the US, it recently took over from Germany as the world largest installer. As the stimulus package is passed and the market slowly recovers (dangerous assumption I know), it's a good bet that US wind capacity will increase at least 50% per year for the next 5 years.

A source of good information regarding cleantech stocks can be found here. Though my knowledge is still shallow, I do fancy the likes of Accione and Vestas....now it's about the timing ; p

Family time at Mussel Inn

Since moving to Australia, I've never had the chance to know my cousins well, let alone develop any sort of close friendships or bonds. Even when I went back to Taiwan, it was a pity to always feel a disconnection between the lives of my cousins and myself.

So when I found out that I had a cousin living in Scotland, I was a bit confused at first. I wasn't used to contacting relatives of my own initative and helping each other, but my past experiences gave me extra impetus to try to get to know her well.

Cousin Josie is the daughter of one of my mum's old sisters, and has been well settled in Scotland for more than 5 years with her French partner. Dr. Josie is also a computer engineer who obtained her PHD in Glasgow university and this year started work in Edinburgh University as a computer systems manager. We've already met 3 times, and she's been so wonderful and caring. Simple things like the weather, where to buy certain foods, and what medicines to get for the flu. On each occasion I waved goodbye carrying some food or gifts home. It's really great to know you have family in a faraway land.

Tonight, cousin Josie treated me to a dinner at Mussel Inn, one of most well known and popular restaurants in Edinburgh. It's famous for its "kilo-pot" mussels, steamed in range of appetizing sauces including Dijon mustard cream, Moroccan and Red Pepper, and coupled with unlimited bread. The food was simply amazing!

When I ate, I wondered if these delicious mussels were wild or farmed. After checking I was quite relieved to know that the mussels appear to be captured through sustainable farming.


Felt really guilty as the bill racked up to something like GBP38, though it included half bottle of white wine as well as starters. Reminded me of the time when mum and dad visited me during my working stint in Japan, and I treated them to lunches and dinners. I was never concerned about the money, just happy that I had the capacity and opportunity to treat my parents. Thanks again cousin Josie, next time will be my shout!

What is a "smart grid"?

Smard grids....it's one of those things that sound great....wanna have! It's supposed to allow the integration of renewable and intermitent energy sources into the grid, have "smart" features that incentivise efficiency in energy consumption, support decentralised and distibuted energy like solar PV and CHP, and lead to less blackouts and energy failures. Obama's been talking about it, Al Gore flagging it up as the primary "gateway" to a renewables based low carbon economy....so what exactly is it!!!!????

Did some readings on it for energy policy and here is a brief summary.

Well, first we need to understand the traditional, "dumb", centralised power grid. It's characterised by remote centralized generation e.g. coal fired power plants far from the city, hierarchical transmission and distribution networks, and little or no interactions with demand patterns. The inflexibilty of the grid makes it difficult to support intermittent renewable energy and decentralised local electricity generation.

Calls for a "smart" grid has come about due to both internal and external drivers including aging assets, increasing customer demands, technological advances, deregulated markets and increased awareness of climate change and the CO2 problem.

What can smart grids offer? Potentially, it can provide:

1. a distributed, efficient and reliable network for energy delivery
2. distributed generation sources through microturbines and energy storing devices located close to energy sources (e.g. wind and solar)
3. advanced, digitized, internet based automation systems for intelligent network monitoring and control

Another benefit of a smart grid is the "smart meter" for consumers, which will track energy consumption for customers and reveal different pricing at different times to incentivise efficient usage of energy at optimal times.

However, this does require an entire upgrade of infrastructure and capital, and is likely to cost 10s of billions on $$. New high tech upgrades required include sensors, IEDs, PMUs, and smart meters, fiber‐optics, microwave, power line carrier (PLC), wireless networks, information Banks, middle‐ware technologies, integration hubsm, the list goes on. Some technologies are unproven yet and companies will battle to provide the "standard" for supporting the grid.

Is it worth the $$? Apparently yes. The University of San Diego has already conducted an extensive Smart Grid study which included a cost benefit analysis on implementing a smart grid in San Diego. The study estimated the total installation cost to be in the region of USD490 million. However, this is more than compensated by an estimated $1.4 billion in utility system benefits and nearly $1.4 billion in societal benefits over 20 years. Sounds like a no brainer, for long-term policy making anyway.

The smart grid has the potential to take off, just like the Internet boom. With Obama, I'm definitely hopeful to see the beginning of the .energy revolution!

Biochar

Interesting expose on biochar today from 2 professors from the school of geoscience. Biochar is a process whereby energy crops, agricultural residue and other organic waste is converted into charcoal through a process called pyrolysis. The carbon contained in the biomass is stored in the biochar and if it's not combusted, can store carbon for 100's of years. The added bonus of biochar is that it can be returned to the soil and has properties that improve the productivity of crops, thus having the potential to replace fertilisers which cause nitrous oxide to be emitted (300 times global warming potential of CO2). Biochar therefore looks promising because it can store carbon, improve productivity of crops and substitute fossil fuels.

This potential is starting to be recognized, with the Australian Liberals making biochar somewhat of a centrepiece of its climate change policy response to Rudd's unambitious carbon reduction scheme.

More research needs to be done on biochar to assess its economic feasibility at commercial scale. Currently the biggest exponent of biochar is an Australian company called Best Energies. However, some incentive schemes are needed to promote biochar, since the economic gains of biochar is prima facie the same, or less than carbon intensive alternatives. For example, fossil fuel fertilisers can still be bought relatively cheaply and locking up carbon in soil does not of itself create value economically unless some sort of carbon credit is given for every tonne you lock up. In fact, more value can be created by burning the biomass to generate electricity.

It is also of paramount importance that biochar doesn't affect existing land-use the way biofuels did, and still does. I am much more in favour of biochar from agricultural waste and organic waste than biomass...

But this does look to have potential under the CDM or the voluntary market, where credits can be generated for every tonne that is avoided from release into the atmosphere from a BAU scenario. Again, some economic analysis is required to find out how lucrative it is to generate CERs or VERs using pyrolysis and selling it in the open market. The professors were definitely looking for dissertation students.

All star team talk Copenhagen

Kakarigeiko

Tonight's training Andrea senpai had us focus on how to practice kakarigeiko (かかり稽古）, which translates into something like 'continous hitting'. This practice has many benefits as it quickens your reflexes and ultimately helps you strike a target immediately as it opens, automatically without thinking.

It's one of those exercises where you dread it the second before the first strike, but once you're in the action it's quite an exhilarating feeling of release and freedom. I've never been too good at it myself but today I think I've made a breakthrough.

I've always strived to be faster (with good form) but today I realised that a mindful kakarigeiko is superior to one that is fast but ignorant. Though the hits may be continuous and at a thousand miles an hour, there is always a 'split' second where you can anticipate, adjust distance and think about which strike to use. By mindfully applying that 'split' second, your strikes become more meaningful, and communication between the kendoka is created. This is where good players develop their timing.

But yah, I still want to be as fast as these guys here!

Windy day

Quite a packed day, but nothing overly exciting.

Probably the highlight was a visiting talk by the Vice President Jakob Larsen of Vestas, the world's leader and largest manufactuer of wind turbines for wind power electricity generation. It's interesting the way Scandanavians operate, compared to Brits. Serious, staid, zero humour, ruthless efficiency. I imagined myself making a big mistake to have Jakob bashing me over my head shouting "jaaaaaaaa". Maybe that's going too far.

But it's amazing the record so far for Vestas. There turning over some 4 billion EUROs a year, have installed 35000 wind turbines worldwide currently with sales of 4000 megawatts (4 gigawatts) in 2007. They've increased the efficiency of their wind turbines 100 times in 15 years and are aiming to install HALF of what they've installed in their entire history every year for the next 10 years. This amibitious target is being brought about by EU's target of 20% renewables by 2020, strong potential in China and the positive signals of the Obama regime.

He pitched it so well that I even thought of buying some Vestas shares. Indeed, if the politicans follow up with their rhetoric and a global deal at Copenhagen is agreed, Vestas will be one of the biggest winners.

There are some difficult challenges that remain though, with the intermittency of the wind the major drawback. Firstly technologies will need to be developed to store electricity that is generated for times when the wind is not blowing. Secondly, an integrated grid infrastructure is needed to support and complement wind with other electricity generators. The example Jakob gave was that in Denmark, approximately 23% of electricity generation is from wind. However when wind speeds pick up, other power plants are shut and Denmark can be 100% wind. Any surplus can also be sold to Norway or Sweden through integrated grids. When wind speeds are low, Denmark purchases surplus hydro generated electricity from Norway. Such an arrangement sounds so logical and more importantly works.

The positive outlook for Vestas may be the reason why they've sent a delagation to the sombre World Economic Forum, where Russia and China are blaming and bashing the US for global economic woes. It's pretty scary when the IMF projects that globally 55 million jobs will be lost....am I gonna be one of them? But maybe there will be light at the end of the tunnel for cleantech, it seems.

Well I certaintly hope so.

The end of beef

Since I became passionate about climate change issues, which admittedly is still recent (from March, 2008), I've decreased my beef consumption to almost nothing. Ocassionally I have a hamburger at a pub or a steak but there's usually no meat in the house and when there is it's chicken. It helps when you live with 3 vegetarians.

I avoid beef because of the high global warming effect of producing beef (cows belch methane which is 25 times more lethal than CO2), the inhumane industrialisation and mechanization of cow slaughter through feedlots, and the chemical "enhancements" of beef into toy food with strange properties such as lasting forever and "nutritional" benefits.

However, after reading this article from Scientific America, I'm debating whether to quit beef. Forever. Turns out that the global warming effect of beef consumption is much scarier than I thought. For example, the carbon equivalent emissions of a beef hamburger patty is equivalent to driving a car for 10 miles. Also, in order to produce a kilo of beef, you basically need 10 kilos of crop which can be used to feed much more hungry people for longer time. Raising cows also require more land which contributes greatly to deforestation in developing countries, where meat demand is increasing the fastest. When forests are cut, the CO2 that trees lock up in the ground are released causing more global warming.

Why don't I just quit beef then? Well, as in everything in life there is always another side.

First of all there is locally produced and distributed, humanely treated, organic, grass fed beef at small quantities that are not mass produced, and sold at premium prices (well depicted in Omnivore's dilemma by Michael Pollan). At geogrpahic areas where forests can not be planted I can't see why it shouldn't exist. Secondly there are cultures where the preparation of a particular beef dish is a real art and part of their identity as people, and I respect that.

I guess my conclusion is that unless I face a situation with the above conditions, I quit beef. Forever.