Archive for the ‘Renewable Energy’ Category

Wind turbine manufacturers in trouble

January 7, 2011
Suzlon wind energy project

Suzlon wind energy project: Image via Wikipedia

http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/consolidation-likelyrenewable-energy-sector-ey_510295.html

Beleaguered wind power major Suzlon, may be on the block. Sources indicate that Spain’s Gamesa is looking to pick up a majority stake in the company. Suzlon added in its statement to the stock exchanges that the news was both speculative in nature and inaccurate. Market rumours also have it that Suzlon’s founders the Tanti family may sell its entire 55% stake to Gamesa’s UK unit.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/stocks-in-news/suzlon-investors-wonder-over-the-companys-accurate-picture-/articleshow/7219558.cms

Suzlon is the most leveraged wind company with net debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation ratio of 4.2, say JPMorgan analysts. That compares with less than 1 for global peers.
There are two ways out when saddled with Himalayan debt – either sell assets to pay off the debts, or declare bankruptcy. Suzlon is selling off stakes in assets such as gearbox-maker Hansen. But the question is what could be going on in the mind of promoter Tulsi Tanti, who was the nation’s eighth-richest man in 2006. After all, Mr Tanti had picked ‘Suz’ in Suzlon from the word, soojh-boojh, which means intelligence, and ‘lon’ from the word, loan. One part of it, ‘lon’, seems to have run longer than desired. So, will the other inspiration, intelligence, come into play?
If investors bet that intelligence would play a more dominant role than passion, then they may not be wrong in speculating that a possible stake sale could happen. Of course, at what valuation is anyone’s guess.
Mr Tanti, who once delivered fortunes for private funds such as Chryscapital and Citigroup, now heads a company whose shares are down more than 85% from their peak. The company may have created a record in going for seven share sales in five years, but there may be no one to buy in the next issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/06/wind-turbine-maker-skykon-in-administration

Britain’s nascent wind manufacturing industry has suffered a blow after the owner of Scotland’s only large turbine plant went into administration. The plant near Campbeltown, owned by Danish firm Skykon, has been closed and more than 120 staff sent home without pay after Ernst & Young was appointed as administrators this week.

A spokesman for the administrators said several expressions of interest had been received for the business and that staff would be updated next week. The future of the plant has been uncertain for several years. The Scottish government last year agreed to provide a £9m rescue loan to persuade Skykon to buy it from Danish rival Vestas. But Skykon has been in insolvency proceedings for months in Denmark after a slowdown in wind turbine orders across Europe. Only about £2m of the loan has already been paid. Ernst & Young declined to comment on whether the Scottish government would get that money back.

The prospects of production resuming at the plant are bleak. The number of new wind farms being planned in Europe is falling because governments are withdrawing subsidies to cut budget deficits while energy companies’ balance sheets are becoming increasingly strained.

Now it’s green vs. green: Sierra Club files suit against Calico solar plant

January 5, 2011

It had to come.

The unholy alliance between the extremists of conservation and environmentalism and global warming is not sustainable. Faith is set against faith. Now conservationists are beginning to find the vast tracts of undeveloped land needed by solar projects objectionable.

Reuters reports:

(Reuters) – A leading environmental advocacy group is suing the state of California’s Energy Commission over its approval of a giant solar plant, underscoring the growing challenge to the nation’s renewable-energy goals from within the environmental community.

The lawsuit, filed December 30 in California’s Supreme Court by the Sierra Club, alleges that state regulators improperly approved the plant, known as the Calico Solar Project.

The suit, obtained by Reuters, charges that regulators failed to fully mitigate the project’s impact on rare plant and animal species, and asks the court to void approval and permits for the plant………. Conflicts between solar proponents and foes are taking on growing importance as the industry experiences a boom, particularly for California. The lawsuit is the latest in a string of suits targeting planned solar plants, potentially setting back the development of solar energy and derailing state and federal commitments to lessening dependence on fossil fuels.

Last week, a group called La Cuna de Aztlan, which represents Native American groups such as the Chemehuevi and the Apache, filed a challenge in federal court to the federal government’s approval of six big solar plants.

In December, the Quechan Indian tribe won an injunction blocking construction of the Imperial Valley solar project, under development near California’s border with Mexico by NTR’s Tessera Solar. The Calico plant was also under development by Tessera until the company sold the plant last month to K Road Sun, a subsidiary of New York investment firm K Road Power. Tessera has been struggling to find funding for its plants, which cost about $2 billion.

Now conservationists come out against wind power

January 3, 2011
Whooping Crane

Whooping crane: Image via Wikipedia

Officials with American Bird Conservancy on Wednesday cited data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that estimates 400,000 birds of various species are killed by turbine blades annually reports the Omaha World Herald.

One of the nation’s largest bird conservation groups says rapid construction of wind energy projects will endanger several avian species……That includes the whooping crane, a famous migratory bird and annual visitor to central Nebraska.

“Golden eagles, whooping cranes and greater sage-grouse are likely to be among the birds most affected by poorly planned and sited wind projects,” said Kelly Fuller, a spokeswoman for the conservancy.

“Unless the government acts now to require that the wind industry respect basic wildlife safeguards, these three species will be at ever greater risk.”

Officials with Nebraska Public Power District and MidAmerican Energy Co. said potential wind farm developments are carefully examined by experts and conservationists to determine their ecological impact.

“We monitor for bird kills but haven’t seen anything of significance,” said Mark Becker, an NPPD spokesman. “But we have not heard of any endangered species or any endangered birds being killed in Nebraska.”


Al Gore does a U-turn and admits the obvious

November 22, 2010

From Wattsupwiththat:

Former Vice President Al Gore has admitted that his “support for corn-based ethanol in the United States was “not a good policy”, weeks before tax credits are up for renewal.”

Gore was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate mandating the use of ethanol in 1994.

From Reuters:

“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.

“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

“It’s hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”

He continues (admitting more of the obvious):

“One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”

He never did get a Nobel prize for his vote in 1994, so

………..  don’t make the mistake that he has had an epiphany on climate change:

Read the whole post at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/22/gore-admits-the-obvious-us-corn-ethanol-was-not-a-good-policy/

Misguided solar subsidies favoured the wealthy

November 11, 2010

Further confirmation that subsidies in general are counter productive and in the case of solar panels in Australia were misguided:

From ABC News:

A new report has found the Federal Government’s billion-dollar subsidies for solar energy favoured the wealthy and barely reduced Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past decade, successive federal governments have provided generous subsidies to households installing solar roof-top panels.

But the cost effectiveness and fairness of the solar voltaic rebate program is being questioned. Andrew Macintosh, the associate director of the Australian National University’s Centre for Climate Law and Policy, has reviewed the program. He says it has barely reduced Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, and it has favoured the rich. “What we found was that the cost of the program was very high,” he said. “It cost the government about $1.1 billion. For that we got about a six-fold increase in solar generation, but still solar constituted only 0.1 per cent of total generation, so a relatively small technology in the overall grid,” he said.

“We’ve been handing out a lot of subsidies for solar systems, but the most people who pick up these subsidies tend to be from wealthier households … and as a result we’re basically providing middle and upper class welfare.”

In June last year the Federal Government cancelled the program at short notice.

 

Reality check: Orders for wind turbines to fall by 93%

November 8, 2010

Reality and common sense are returning to dampen the mad rush to wind power. The fact that connecting intermittent power sources to the grid is a source of dangerous instabilities and that intermittent power sources do not actually contribute to any secure generating capacity are bringing a “cap” into play. Following the drop of orders in the US, the UK is also expecting sharp reductions in installations.

From The Guardian:

Britain recently overtook Denmark to become the world’s largest offshore windfarm player, implying the tripling of capacity in the next two years. But new projects will dry up in 2013. Only 90 megawatts (MW) of newly installed capacity, which is enough to supply 30,000 homes when the wind blows, is being forecast compared with 1,368Mw the year before. Analysts are forecasting a 93% drop in the installation of new offshore windfarms in 2013 compared with the previous year. As orders for cables, foundations and other equipment are typically made two to three years ahead of the project being completed, the slowdown will start to bite among UK suppliers next year.

There are other extra projects on the drawing board which are supposed to fill this gap. But planning problems, difficulties securing finance and cost overruns on existing projects mean that these plans could be scaled back. Swedish firm Vattenfall said last month that it would not take up the option of expanding its Thanet windfarm – the largest offshore project in the world – blaming problems securing access to the grid.

The availability of bank finance for offshore projects – at least twice as costly as onshore windfarms – has still not returned to pre-credit crunch levels. Now there are only 10-14 banks actively lending, compared with almost 40 before 2008, each lending about half what they were lending before.

Just a few days ago Reuters reported:

The wind energy industry continues to struggle and Vestas Wind is confirming what General Electric is seeing… weak demand. GE went so far as to say the US wind energy market has collapsed. Vestas hasn’t made similar claims, but their actions speak much louder than words.

The company is cutting 3000 jobs and shutting plants due to shrinking power demand, rising component costs and uncertain US policy. While the company posted a smaller than expected loss in 3rd quarter profits, they indicated that the European wind energy market won’t live up to expectations either. Shares of Vestas were down nearly 10 percent Tuesday despite beating analyst earnings estimates and trading very close to the 2008 lows.


“Renewable energy keeps oil price high”- Saudi Oil Minister

November 5, 2010

It would seem that the current oil price is determined by the level at which renewable energy costs are politically acceptable. The conclusion then must be that if the “renewables” go out of fashion and become less politically correct then the oil price could be significantly lower than it is!

The Financial Times carries the story:

Ali Naimi, the oil minister of Saudi Arabia, was in mischievous mood on Monday night, positing an oil price of $70 to $90 for the foreseeable future, and suggesting that oil consumers should be happy with such a settlement – because a price of more than $70 was needed to justify investments in renewable energy.

His remarks, which came in response to questions from the Financial Times at a dinner hosted by the Singapore International Energy Week, did not go down well with all sections of the audience – some were unhappy that the world’s biggest oil producer should suggest they be content with an oil price they felt was unnecessarily high.

Mr Naimi justified his $70 to $90 prediction, which he called a “comfortable zone” that should be welcomed by oil producers and consumers alike, by reference to renewable energy, which he suggested gave oil an “anchor” price. If the oil price were to fall below $70, then renewable energy would not be competitive, he said.

In other words, he seemed to be implying, governments and companies that have invested in renewable energy are at least partly responsible for setting a de facto minimum price for oil of $70 per barrel.

Nothing to do with those oil-producing countries wanting a price more than $70 and “less than $90”, and tailoring their production accordingly, then.

In fact, Mr Naimi said, the world’s oil market was already “a little bit oversupplied”, which he suggested proved that it was renewable energy that was keeping prices up.

By the way, that $90 – an upper limit of the range that he carefully dropped into the conversation – was $10 a barrel more than Mr Naimi had previously suggested was the range of the “comfort zone”. Oil markets took note, and prices nudged up: Nymex December West Texas Intermediate, a US benchmark, rose $1.88 to $83.31 a barrel just after the remarks.