Tracey12 <
tracey1...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Xns9FF3DA...@94.75.214.39:
> (Always trust ignorant right wing regressive luddites to fall behind.
> You can always keep them content by giving them a gun. It's like a
> pacifier for a baby. They would rather believe propaganda from Muslim
> owned Fox News than scientists)
>
> Is clean tech China's moon shot?
> Gerard Wynn
> DAVOS, Switzerland
> Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:21pm EST
>
>
> DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - So far, wind turbines are not Sputnik.
> But one day they could be.
>
> Davos: China | Davos
>
> The global race to develop clean technology is not just about who can
> build the best solar parks or wind farms. It is also shaping up as a
> contest between Chinese-style capitalism and the more market-oriented
> approach fancied by the United States and Europe.
>
> The question comes down to this: will China's highly capitalized
> command-and-control economy trump laissez-faire in a low-carbon shift
> that is widely portrayed as the next industrial revolution?
>
> The failure in Copenhagen to agree to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a
> new global climate treaty when it expires in 2012 has thrown the focus
> on national measures. And by almost all accounts, the Chinese are coming
> on strong.
>
> Beijing's top leaders have made clear their intention to have their
> nation dominate this new industry, up and down the value ladder. And in
> their quest for the prize, they are not burdened by concerns facing
> their Western counterparts -- such as the impact of wind turbines on
> landscapes, higher energy prices for consumers, or investor returns.
>
> "Developed markets need to be aware that China is gaining in this
> space," said David Russell, co-head of responsible investment at the 28
> billion pound ($45 billion) British universities pension fund, the
> Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS).
>
> The recession has made it tougher for Europe and America to effect
> meaningful climate policy change. And with most major nations piling on
> debt to stimulate flagging economies, politicians likely will find it
> harder to earmark additional voter money for clean technology.
>
> Instead, recession-hit Western economies are hoping the private sector
> can plug an estimated worldwide $150 billion annual funding gap to avoid
> more extreme droughts and floods.
>
> But investors almost always follow the returns, and if the performance
> is not there, they are not likely to risk their capital. For example,
> Britain's USS allocates about half a percent of its assets to low-carbon
> and renewable energy funds, not including its investment in conventional
> energy companies, which themselves will have some green tinges.
>
> It's hard to imagine the West filling the clean tech funding gap if
> pension funds -- which are as influential as they are big -- don't pony
> up more.
>
> Russell says he would like to do more, but like other fund managers he
> has an obligation to pension holders. He and other fund managers say
> they won't allocate more to green because their first duty is to
> guarantee payouts for their members, and while clean tech stocks can
> yield decent returns, they are often small and risky.
>
> Since a trough in global equities last March, energy efficiency stocks
> have risen 126 percent and clean energy and technology by 88 percent,
> compared with wider global stocks' 70 percent, a Deutsche report found
> this month.
>
> But there are limited opportunities for investors. Oil majors, for
> example, dwarf the asset value of green companies, and cleantech funds
> can't move the dial for the big funds whose participation is necessary
> to close the funding gap.
>
> Advantage, China?
>
> Fortunately for the West, it's not so simple.
>
> WINDY PLAYING FIELD
>
> The global wind industry highlights diverging tactics between China and
> the West in developing important new markets.
>
> China is leapfrogging global wind power rankings with a combination of
> aggressive growth targets and domestic support. It has doubled its
> entire installed capacity each year since 2005, according to the Global
> Wind Energy Council (GWEC).
>
> This month, the British government announced plans for 32 gigawatts of
> offshore wind by 2020 -- more than a third of its entire present
> electricity generating capacity now.
>
> The plan also depends on 100 billion pounds of increasingly finicky
> private capital. And this is an election year.
>
> "I think it will happen," said Benjamin Sykes, head of renewables
> technology at the UK government-funded Carbon Trust, which advises
> British companies on how to reduce their carbon footprint. "It's
> do-able."
>
> Others are less sure. "I don't think it's achievable without a big
> redirection of investment focus," said investor Tom Murley, at private
> equity firm HgCapital.
>
> Murley runs a 300-million euro infrastructure fund focused on renewable
> energy projects in western Europe, in wind power, biogas and solar. The
> fund has combined debt and equity assets worth over 1 billion euros.
>
> "Will the capital flow to this sector? That's the big question mark.
> Offshore wind is still relatively new, as yet we don't really know how
> that equipment is going to perform in the long-run, whether that's
> really going to be a good investment," said Murley.
>
> As he and other investors see it, British policymakers have to make a
> choice: either create bigger incentives for investors to underwrite
> offshore wind power or impose additional taxes on fossil fuels, which
> would make carbon-based energy less profitable.
>
> CHINA INC.
>
> Europe has the world's clearest, most ambitious renewable energy law,
> most analysts agree. A European Union directive requires that the
> 27-nation bloc get a fifth of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.
>
> Germany is leading the charge there. It has the world's biggest solar
> power market because of aggressive market incentives that even Beijing
> has sought to mimic.
>
> But China has its own distinct advantages. First and foremost is a "cozy
> relationship" between state-owned utilities, grid companies and banks,
> said Steve Sawyer, secretary-general of the Global Wind Energy Council.
>
> China is expected to announce a target soon for about 150 gigawatts of
> wind power by 2020, which it would hit if it simply maintained present
> annual capacity growth, said Sawyer. The country also has two turbine
> makers, Sinovel and Goldwind, in the world top 10, according to the
> International Energy Agency.
>
> Tao Wang, a climate policy expert with WWF China, said the country would
> this year develop its next five-year development plan to run from the
> start of 2011: this is likely to contain new steps to boost alternative
> energy.
>
> "The Chinese government is essentially using the state banks and state
> power companies to support and foster a turbine industry," said
> Jefferies Bank analyst Michael McNamara.
>
> It's not as if Western governments aren't involved in promoting wind
> turbines. The United States and Germany are the top two countries by
> installed power, and China edged out Spain into third place last year,
> according to GWEC.
>
> How fast wind power develops in the United States depends on a climate
> and energy bill. If the United States passed a bill with an ambitious
> renewable energy target then "all bets are off" on the pace of growth,
> said Jefferies' McNamara.
>
> But China has been on a tear -- last year it installed more wind
> turbines than any other country, says GWEC.
>
> Furthermore, Western businesses are worried China is freezing them out
> of this lucrative market, preferring to nurture its own nascent
> industries without subjecting them to competition.
>
> "The state-owned energy company sets up its development arm and they
> then go to a state-owned bank to get the funding, and they go to a
> state-owned grid company to make sure they can get a grid connection,
> and then lo and behold! If there's a bidding process, the state-owned
> turbine manufacturers happen to win the contracts," said McNamara.
>
> That process has annoyed some Western manufacturers. They say that
> despite being forced to build local factories in China, because of a
> "local content" rule for installed turbines, they were still passed over
> on major contracts.
>
> CAN THE MARKETS PREVAIL?
>
> Some Western analysts still believe a markets-oriented approach works
> best and will ultimately prevail.
>
> They argue that subsidized inputs will result in a less efficient
> industry, more focused on volume than cost and quality. "The best
> solutions come out of a competitive environment," said the Carbon
> Trust's Sykes.
>
> The focus on adding new capacity has also run ahead of grid connections,
> meaning many Chinese turbines may never actually produce electricity.
>
> "They will look like wind farms, and they may spin like wind farms, but
> there's no guarantee that they will actually work like wind farms," said
> Michael Liebreich, chief executive of the research firm Bloomberg New
> Energy Finance.
>
> Moreover, some in the West believe the United States still has an
> advantage in innovation. The owner of patents, not factories, will
> likely earn the biggest profits and win the technology race.
>
> In a Reuters poll of 41 U.S. venture capital investors, more than
> three-quarters of respondents said the United States would be the best
> market for cleantech over the next five years, and 88 percent believed
> America was the best place to base this business in the same time
> period. China ranked as the second best market (with 16 percent of the
> total).
>
> "The world has absolutely no hope of making any substantial impact on
> global warming without major scientific breakthroughs, almost all which
> will come from United States' innovation," said Robert Nelsen,
> co-founder and managing director of Arch Venture Partners.
>
> An undeniable edge for China is its huge pile of foreign exchange
> reserves. The nation's clean energy industry has recently benefited from
> Beijing's aggressive economic stimulus, which included funds for
> energy-efficient buildings.
>
> Signs of an overheating Chinese economy may turn that tap down for a
> spell. By contrast, Western economies are expected to spend much of
> their green recovery cash this year and next.
>
> FUNDING GAP
>
> In recession-battered Western nations, and in China, the prime motives
> for promoting clean technology are jobs, profits and energy security --
> not climate change. That leaves no guarantee that there will be enough
> investment to fight global warming.
>
> An estimated $150 billion invested globally last year was only about
> half what is required annually by 2015 to avoid dangerous climate
> change, the International Energy Agency estimates.
>
> "There is a big funding gap. I would say we need at least a doubling by
> 2015," said Cecilia Tam, citing draft estimates the IEA published in
> June.
>
> If over the next 20 years the world is to boost renewable power, build
> greener buildings and roll out more fuel-scrimping cars including hybrid
> and electric models, it must invest more than an additional $500 billion
> annually, according to Tam.
>
> Many forms of renewable power are expected to be more expensive than
> their fossil fuel counterparts for at least another decade.
>
> Given the incompatibility of communist-style targets with western
> democracies, how can free markets mobilize more green technology cash?
>
> CHINESE LESSONS
>
> Western nations could boost clean investor returns with a tax on fossil
> fuels or guaranteed higher prices for renewable power. And aside from
> market levers, governments could adopt standards to make clean tech more
> attractive -- requiring homes to install smart meters, for example --
> but rapid deployment doesn't seem politically palatable at the moment.
>
> "It's worthwhile learning from the Chinese that these big
> transformations do require some exercise of public power," said James
> Cameron, vice-chairman of green investors and advisers Climate Change
> Capital.
>
> Dutch pension asset manager APG has about 2 billion euros allocated to
> green investments, by the "broadest definition", said Rob Lake, head of
> sustainability. That compares with total assets of 206 billion euros.
>
> "The reality at the moment is that investment in oil and gas is still
> attractive," said Lake.
>
> But pension funds and other institutional investors can do more. Even if
> they don't put more of their own money into clean tech, they can use
> their clout to encourage more conventional energy companies to clean up,
> said Marcel Jeucken, head of responsible investment at the
> Netherlands-based, 86 billion euro PGGM pension asset manager.
>
> Jeucken said his fund is "in constant dialogue" with Royal Dutch Shell,
> the oil major with a major investment in Canadian oil sands -- where oil
> production entails more carbon emissions than conventional oil fields.
>
> "We used our shareholder rights wherever possible," he added. "Climate
> is one of our focus areas, and within that we are working on oil sands.
> We initiated a trip to the oil and fields last year."
>
> TRY URANIUM?
>
> A discouraging sign for investors who were hoping environmental markets
> would soon take off is the cloudy future of cap-and-trade plans. Such
> schemes force coal plants and other polluters to buy carbon emissions
> permits. They add to the cost of electricity, and are proving a hard
> sell in the United States.
>
> Opposition to cap-and-trade among U.S. Republicans and some Democrats
> could block the roll-out of a federal trading scheme which would limit
> the further growth of global carbon markets, valued at around $125
> billion last year.
>
> Furthermore, last month's U.N. summit in Copenhagen was expected to
> unveil an expansion of global trade in carbon offsets between rich and
> developing nations, but in the end they won no explicit mention in a
> weak, final declaration.
>
> What all that means for traders is clear: "To tell you the truth I'm
> starting to look toward other commodities -- uranium," said Laurent
> Segalen, head of emissions trading at Nomura.
>
> Does all this suggest China is destined to win the clean tech race?
> Hardly, though it does seem to have a little more forward momentum than
> do its rivals these days.
>
> But it's still very early goings, and there's more at stake than
> business success.
>
> (Additional reporting by Chris Buckley in Beijing and Larry Aragon and
> Peter Henderson in San Francisco; Editing by Jim Impoco and Sara
> Ledwith)
>
>
>
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R02520100128
>
Does the fact that they have the blood of 10s of millions on thier hands of
any consequence to you or is that just acceptable losses?
--
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure.
What I like about this attitude is it works equally well for Iran and the
Democrat National Covention.
http://nukeitfromorbit.com/