Even without a strong, legally binding agreement in Copenhagen, investors have faith in clean tech and say that a couple of other things are more important than the international agreement for 2010 clean tech investment.
A new comprehensive study of the PV market in each US state and the US as a whole comes to some interesting and hopeful conclusions. One finding is that the US might surpass Germany as the leading PV market in the world within the next few years.
The report finds that, over the next four years, the US PV market will see growth in demand increase more than any other nation. The research company, Greentech Media (GTM) Research, expects an annual growth of about 48% (on average) in the base case scenario, totalling 1,515 MW in 2012.
In an “upside” economic scenario, the US will reach 2,022 MW in 2012 and pass up Spain and possibly Germany to become the leading PV market in the world.
New research by leading alternative energy research firm New Energy Finance finds that solar power will cost less by about 50% at the end of 2009 compared to the end of 2008.
The costs are pre-subsidy, so they could be much lower if you take better government subsidies into account.
But it isn’t only solar that’s down in cost. It’s other renewable energy sources, too.
As part of its National Action Plan on Climate Change, India plans to give out $100 billion as subsidies to speed up solar energy production over the next 20 years.
While campaigning in Iowa this week, John McCain offered a glimmer of new support for the ethanol industry that he has long been opposed to.
To start with, researchers at Iowa State University have found that, even though $1.3 billion was given to the corn ethanol farming industry in the form of subsidies in 2007, the government saved $3.45 billion on what are called loan deficiency payments as a direct result of these ethanol subsidies.
Loan deficiency payments were established in 1985 as a way to ensure farmers’ incomes remained steady even when prices for commodities such as corn were abnormally low. Since 1998 the loan deficiency payment program has cost taxpayers more than $29 billion.
This is a guest post by Puspa Sharma, MA Candidate in Global Finance, Trade and Economic Integration at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver.
Exponential increases in food prices in recent times have created enormous challenges to governments, national and international organizations, and aid agencies everywhere in the world. The World Bank has estimated that the rising food prices could push an additional 100 million people into poverty, thereby undermining the current efforts geared towards poverty reduction.
Increasing demand, decreasing supply, and the rising oil prices, which are in turn affected by numerous other factors, have been some reasons for the rise in food prices. Demand for cereal grains has been rising not only as a result of population growth, but also because of the growing middle class population in countries like China and India. Growing incomes have resulted in more demand for cereal grains directly and also more meat and dairy, which in turn has raised the demand for more grains as feed for the livestock. Another more important reason for the rise in demand for food crops is the development of bio-fuels, which have attracted a great deal of attention in recent times.
On the supply front, according to a publication by the International Center for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), droughts in Australia and Turkey and bad weather in Ukraine and parts of North America have resulted in less agricultural production which has caused food prices to rise. A more important, but often overlooked reason for the decrease in the supply of farm commodities against rising demand is that the subsidies that the developed countries have been providing to their agriculture sector have dampened world prices of those products and made the products of developing countries uncompetitive. This has had a tremendous impact in agricultural production in developing countries. In the absence of competitiveness and any other gains to be derived from agriculture, the developing countries have had less incentive to invest in agricultural infrastructure, agricultural research and development, and the like. As a result, agriculture production in these countries continually declined disrupting supply.
Then, who should take the blame of rising food prices? If we look at the demand side, we see that the demand has been rising in one part because of rising incomes in few developing countries, and on the other, because of the development of bio-fuels by the developed countries. On the supply side, drought and bad weather conditions are not something which are under human control, but less supply resulting from less production in developing countries owing to the agricultural policies of the developed countries definitely deserves attention.
An economic analysis released February 25th shows major gains for the U.S. job market and GDP from 2007’s ethanol industry boom (emphasis added):
The analysis, conducted by John Urbanchuk of LECG, LLC, determined that the increase in economic activity resulting from ongoing production and construction of new capacity supported the creation of 238,541 jobs in all sectors of the economy during 2007. These include more than 46,000 jobs in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The goods and services required to produce the estimated 6.5 billion gallons in 2007 added $47.6 billion to the Gross Domestic Product and raised household incomes by $12.3 billion.
While the gains themselves aren’t all that surprising, they may turn the conventional wisdom that “ethanol subsidies are bad” on its head since increased tax revenue actually paid them off:
Timothy Hurst recently wrote an article about U.S. Investors and renewable energy. This post is designed as a complement to that news story.
Renewable energy has attracted a lot of attention lately as the world looks for cleaner ways to power our world. Wind and solar stand as the most recognizable clean, green dynamos, but they still struggle to compete with traditional and entrenched power producers. True to conventional economic values, competition is everything. Yet, in the U.S.A. these technologies have survived in the dog-eat-dog industry for decades mostly without the aid of government subsidies (unlike coal and oil), and many claim that renewables could take off with just a little help from Uncle Sam. What are the obstacles? Are government subsidies the only saving grace for renewables? This post hopes to shed some light on the topic and burn through the conflicting noise that surrounds this fundamental and controversial industry.
It seems like I’m always reading articles about improvements, investments, and the promise of renewable energy. For a more practical perspective, I recently asked a successful businessman, who sometimes works with solar panels, for his opinion. Did he think that solar was going to boom in the next few years? His opinion was that the industry would need more government subsidies to really take off. Even with high oil prices, it was still simply too expensive to invest on a small scale. You might regain your initial investment in 15+ years in ideal conditions. Even in states with incentives to support renewable energy, it’s expensive. His view echoed my cousin’s frustration. Yet despite the initial cost, renewables are still an attractive option. As expensive as it may be to buy and install solar panels, it’s also very expensive ($1.8-billion and rising) to build a new coal-fired power plant with “clean coal” technologies. Hidden costs also plague coal power plants: the cost to clean up mercury emissions, the water required to operate, and in some places, the cost of carbon credits. Finally, the bottom line: how much does it cost to generate each kilowatt hour? Compare two graphs, one for coal and one for solar, and you may be surprised.
It looks like ethanol subsidies may impede efforts to reduce the size of the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico. A draft report from the EPA Science Advisory Board says that ethanol subsidies could lead to a dramatic increase in nutrient loading in the Mississippi river basin, due to diverting cropland to corn production.
Recent energy policies, combined with pre-existing crop subsidies, tax policies, global market conditions and trade barriers all provide economic
[...]
Editor's note: In today's Red, Green and Blue, our political commentators Jimmy Hogan and Shirley Siluk Gregory take a look at the costs and benefits of public transportation.
Jimmy: Public transportation is a blessing to metropolitan areas where well designed mass transit systems help reduce traffic congestion and related pollution. It's also nice to sip a hot cup of coffee and read the paper while leaving the business of driving to someone
[...]
Subscribe to our RSS feed or newsletter
Some Rights Reserved • Green Options Media • San Francisco, California • Legal
