IRENA, the European response to IEA

On January 29th 2009, in Bonn, a year-long marathon of conferences, diplomatic acquiescence and keen negotiation was finally closed. Germany, Spain and Denmark as Europe three most Environment frantic countries kicked-off the Renewable Energy advocacy IRENA. It should not surprise that the three countries have a lion share in Renewable Energy, leading in research, industrial output and being major markets for Photovoltaic and Wind farms. However, the initial benefit of a few would become a successful business-formula for many, and in times of economical stalemate, IRENA is handing down a committing and job-generating discourse, for every member eager to replicate the German formula in distant south sea locations. It ensures Energy Security (although I prefer the definition “Safe Energy”, meaning you know where it stems and what it takes to produce it, and that it won´t be politicised due to its ubiquity) and generates growth, as is now the case for Brasil, that after having adopted to a great extent Hydropower, is exporting to Japan brasilian Biofuel through a join venture. The foundation, welcomed by 75 signatory states, experienced the cold shoulder of USA, China, India, Russia and UK; apparently, China needs no EU lobbying for chinese PV panels nor Russia is concerned by a technology that is out of her business. Strikingly, at the other end are once Green Paladins like USA and UK and energy hungry India, all sitting on the fence. They are waiting for June to come, as the location of the next appointment in El Cairo to elect the first Director General signifies the will of Asia to be present and decide in what was initially an EU club. The quest will then be Greenie Technology Vs Greedy Technology, as Revenues are always to be made through sustainability, specially with bubble sensitive Renewable energy.

More on the Brazilian Energy Mix

A quick glance at the national strategy paper made me wonder if Brazilian Government does realize it sits in the tropics, where the sun share is at his upmost. No other country possesses so much land at these latitudes and still the preference seems to be Hydroelectric and Nuclear. These are both good decisions that alas fail to address environmental concerns of waste hazard (Nuclear) and waterfauna-intrusive technology (Hydropower). Moreover, those options are perforce owned by strong Companies that pursue a merely profit policy, colliding with the economic independence needs of the populace.

It does, but appears shy to place its weight in the Renewables. In the face of a fair Feed-in-Tariff of 21 Eurocents per kWh, the total installed photovoltaic power capacity in Brazil is estimated to be between 12 and 15 MWp, of which 50% is for telecommunications systems and 50% for rural energy systems.

Last Wednesday Brazil’s Energy Research Corporation (EPE) released the National Energy Plan 2030, the government’s blueprint for energy development for the next 24 years. The EPE is a subsidiary of the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), charged with energy planning.

The principal theme of the plan can be found in its subtitle: “Strategy for Expanding Supply.” The government proposes a huge increase in supply, arguing that its scenarios forecast a tripling of current consumption by 2030. EPE bases the projection on the assumption that Brazil’s population will increase 53 million by 2030 (more than the entire population of Spain, and equivalent to the current population of Brazil’s entire Northeast region!), the economy will have an annual growth rate of 4.1% and energy demand will grow at an annual average rate of 3.5%.

EPE predicts that only 10% of this new demand will be met through energy savings measures, and another 10% through self-generation (off-grid generation). In order to meet the rest of the projected demand, EPE calls for

• doubling nuclear power’s contribution by adding five 1000 MW plants — the long-debated Angra III plus two new ones in the Southeast and two in the Northeast;
• more than doubling (adding about 88,000 MW) capacity from large hydroelectric projects — adding about 3,100 MW per year until 2015, 3,400 MW per year 2016-2020, 4,300 MW/yr 2021-2025, and 3,800 MW/yr in the final five years of the Plan;
• a dramatic increase in production from small hydroelectric (pequenas centrais hidrelétricas - PCH) projects (tenfold to about 7,800 MW in 2030) and waste-to-energy (WTE) projects (from 0 MW in 2005 to 1,300 MW in 2030);
• a huge expansion in natural gas (counting on “undiscovered” national reserves and increases in imported gas (a reliable assumption given Brazil’s recent dispute with Bolivia over natural gas and uncertainties about the proposed Venezuelan Pipeline?);
• major expansion in biodiesel (up to 28 mil. l/d by 2030), diesel made with vegetable oils (H-Bio) (up to 244 mil. l/d by 2030), and “sugarcane products” (i.e., bioethanol and combusting bagasse for power generation);
• steady growth in the use of wind energy linked to the grid — from 29 MW in 2005 to about 4,700 MW in 2030 (this is a bit odd, considering that MME itself in the past has estimated Brazil’s wind power potential at 14,300 MW);
• a substantial cut in the use of wood and vegetable-based charcoal.

Strangely enough, the EPE plan does not see much of a role for solar, even though a report released earlier this year by the European Photovoltaics Industry Association (EPIA) and Greenpeace suggests that photovoltaic production in Brazil can produce as much as 2,000 MW by 2025.

Brazil PV future: where is Statal endorsement?

Brazil: New climate plan on shaky ground

15 Oct 2008 | Author: Oliver Balch |

Brazil’s long-awaited national strategy on climate change falls short on targets and deadlines. We examine the debate now surrounding its key proposals

It took one year, endless consultations and 13 government ministries to put together, yet Brazil’s national climate-change plan is short on specific targets and looks very much like a work in progress.

The publication of the draft strategy in late September, now up for public consultation until the end of October, was briefly delayed, prompting speculation that government advisers judged its initiatives unsatisfactory. The 157-page plan, which contains more than 100 recommendations and also received input from the non-governmental Brazilian Climate Change Forum, covers mitigation, adaptation, deforestation, and research and development.

Most noticeably, the proposals lack specific carbon-emission targets, deadlines and policies.

Environmentalists are blaming industry leaders for lobbying against mandatory targets. In response, business leaders argue that such a step would render Brazil’s energy-intensive companies uncompetitive.

According to the latest figures provided to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Brazil creates an estimated 1.47 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year – making the country the world’s fifth highest GHG emitter. Figures from the UN Development Programme show the ratio of Brazil’s gross domestic product to its carbon emissions growing by almost 10% between 1990 and 2004.


The destruction of the Amazon and Brazil’s other biodiverse-rich forests is estimated to cause around 75% of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions


However, as a developing economy, it has no obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to establish targets to reduce this figure. As a halfway measure, the national strategy proposes to set a reduction target for emissions per unit of production, although there is no indication of what that target should be.

In fact, a general lack of timelines and policy instruments pervades the plan. Cogeneration is a case in point. At present, only 0.5% of Brazil’s domestic energy derives from capturing heat given off during industrial processes. Through a programme of “integration and permanent management”, the government believes this could increase to one-fifth of all domestic energy, although it does not specify incentives or deadlines.

State-run oil company Petrobras will reduce its CO₂ emissions by 21.3 million tonnes by 2012 , according to the strategy document. But again, no specific policies for achieving the reductions are given.

[...]

Promoting renewables


In terms of renewable energy, hydropower emerges as one of the government’s preferred solutions. The draft plan seeks to enlarge Brazil’s 334.1 billion kilowatt-hours hydropower network, which already accounts for around 35% of the country’s total energy consumption and 84% of its electricity generation.

The plan anticipates increasing Brazil’s biofuel production from its present rate of around 25.6 billion litres per year to 53.2 billion litres in 2017

Scheduled hydroelectric projects such as the proposed Madeira and Belo Monte hydro plants promise to cut a further 183 million tCO₂e (tons of equivalent CO₂) in emissions from thermal power stations. Both dams are expected to be operational by 2012.

Hydro projects are controversial in Brazil. Kanindé Ethno-Environmental Association, an environmental pressure group, is currently fighting a case before the Latin American Water Court to have the construction licence for the Madeira dam revoked.

Far more controversial, however, is the document’s positive endorsement of nuclear energy projects, including a much-delayed extension to the Angra nuclear plant in Rio de Janeiro. If passed, the proposals will see up to 8,000MW extra in nuclear power added to the national grid by 2030.

The plan also anticipates increasing Brazil’s biofuel production from its present rate of around 25.6 billion litres per year to 53.2 billion litres in 2017. Public auctions for suppliers to provide wind-powered electricity are also timetabled for next year, as is the construction of an industrial hub for solar technology in the near future.


Source: Greenpeace

US Environmental package - Picking up a Green Dream Team

The names of newly appointed officers for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Lisa Jackson), White House Council on Environmental Quality (Nancy Sutley) and Chief Energy and Environmental issues (Carol Browner) were voiced in mid December, to a considerable bolster of the overall Green-Policy credibility. The names have a strong scientific pedigree. Steve Chu, head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as new energy secretary, Harvard professor John Holdren as presidential science adviser and Oregon State marine biologist Jane Lubchenco as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration complete the picture.

Ms. Browner would be particularly meaningful as it would assist Pres. Obama and “coordinate environmental, energy, climate and related matters for the federal government”. Source Wikipedia. The position is therefore above those federal agencies, a sort of Primum-inter-partes of the different interests at stake, hence the nickname “Climate Czar”.

The technical connotation of these officers does matter if the US wants to revive its ailing economy. A bold and responsible environmental policy, green-job incentives, Energy efficiency incentives seem to be part of a new “Project of a new American Century”, to be achieved this time via Power rationalization, Burden-sharing and Energy Independence (a campaign pamphlet reads “Barack Obama’s Plan to Make America a Global Energy Leader”). The issue had already been tried by a half-hearted Bush presidency in 2006, along with other measures as the “FreedomCar”, a hybrid vehicle program, in times when US and Australia were the odd-ones out in not ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

The present-day determination is alas not matched by economical figures. The numbers read, within a economic stimulus package of US $500 Blln, an estimated US $150 billion to green energy initiatives, modest when compared to the US $700 Blln Infrastructure package. The benefit of Obama´s America is also a golden opportunity for the World, as the economic crisis (the plunge of the oil-price has made solar and wind investments less interesting) has temporary hindered Economic incentives in traditional green economies as Germany and Spain. If Solar, Wind, Hydro are to be rescued as viable business new countries must start incentive programs. France already hypened its feed-in tariffs while India is afoot. Yet a US enter would be the enter of a heavyweight in terms of spending potential and would definitively help a snow-ball effect.