Feb 26, 2011

Silver Lake and George Soros partner in new clean energy fund


By Oliver M. Bayani

Green News, Lake Kraftwerk, Soros funds clean energy, Soros Silver Lake partnership, venture capital investment 2011, venture capital investment US, soros clean energy, clean energy fund
The United States attracted $3.98 billion in venture capital last year.

Private equity firm Silver Lake is teaming up with George Soros' Soros Fund Management to form Lake Kraftwerk, a fund that will provide capital for growth stage companies in the energy and resource sectors.

Kraftwerk is Silver Lake’s first investment in the clean energy industry. The company has primarily focused on three investment areas in the technology sector since 1998.

Silver Lake said the new fund will focus on companies involved in energy efficiency, waste and emissions reduction, renewable energy and better use of natural resources.

“There are many parallels between the development of the technology sector and the innovation that is occurring in the energy and resource sectors today,” said Greg Mondre, Silver Lake managing director.

The size of the fund was not disclosed, but it is backed up by some financial and professional heavyweights right off the bat.

Adam Grosser, who served for a decade as a general partner at Foundation Capital and has 28 years of experience in technology sector, will lead Kraftwerk.

Cathy Zoi, United States President Barack Obama’s former acting undersecretary for energy and assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, will join the fund as well by April.

“Developing alternative sources of energy and achieving greater energy efficiency is both a significant global investment opportunity and an environmental imperative,” said George Soros, who heads his Soros Fund Management L.L.C.

The billionaire has been a staunch supporter of green projects, having promised he will invest more than $1 billion of his own money into clean energy technology.

Ernst & Young said the United States attracted 3.98 billion in venture capital last year, just 7.5 percent above 2009.


E.U. industry carbon dioxide emissions edge up in 2010: analysts

By Reuters

Green News, emissions trading scheme, industrial emissions, E.U. greenhouse gas emissions, carbon credits, renewable energy, global clean technology race, European Commission
European Union industrial carbon emissions rose by up to 4 percent last year, analysts estimate.

LONDON, February 25 (Reuters) - European Union industrial carbon emissions rose by up to 4 percent last year, analysts estimate, still far below 2008 levels and leaving the bloc on course to beat its 2020 climate target.

The European Union emissions trading scheme caps the emissions of about 12,600 installations, including power plants, factories and oil refiners, and the European Commission publishes emissions data in April of each year.

Analysts already estimate, based on industrial output data, that emissions rose last year by 2-4 percent, compared with a drop of nearly 12 percent in 2009.

"It was a mixed year with some industrial output going up, others down, and not a huge improvement in power demand across the bloc as a whole," said Barclays Capital analyst Trevor Sikorski, who estimated carbon emissions were up 4 percent.

Carbon analyst Matteo Mazzoni at Italy's Nomisma Energia estimated the rise at 2.7 percent. IdeaCarbon analyst Alessandro Vitelli estimated a rise of 2-4 percent.

The scheme accounts for about 40 percent of total European Union greenhouse gas emissions.

The European Commission, which oversees the scheme, is under pressure to trim a glut of emissions permits, and has already limited how far polluters can offset their emissions by buying carbon credits from outside the European Union from 2013.

The European Union as a whole is split on whether to adopt a tougher target to cut total greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Some governments want a 30 percent cut, more than the present 20 percent goal, fearing the bloc is slipping behind in a global clean technology race.

Total European Union greenhouse gas emissions were about 4.6 billion metric tons in 2009, says the European Environment Agency. If these rose in line with industry carbon last year that would imply the bloc was about 300 million metric tons above its target of 4.5 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2020.

The European Union will undercut that target, say European Union climate officials, if the bloc meets renewable energy and efficiency goals.

CO2

E.U. E.T.S. emissions rose last year, as power demand and broad industrial output rose, meaning businesses burned more fossil fuels to generate electricity and heat, said Mr. Sikorski.

In addition, higher gas prices encouraged power plants to burn more coal, which emits more carbon dioxide, he added.

Within that big picture there were some falls: cement production was down in the first 11 months of the year, and so was oil refining.

Outside the emissions trading scheme, a slowdown in oil refining suggested that carbon emissions from transport may have fell, while two successive cold winters would have led homeowners to burn more gas and other fuel.

Company results this week have supported the notion of stronger power demand last year, especially from coal.

Drax, operator of Britain's biggest coal plant and largest source of carbon emissions, said that its carbon dioxide emissions rose 13 percent, and Europe's biggest emitter German utility RWE reported carbon dioxide up 11 percent.

In 2009, European Union E.T.S. emissions were 1.873 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, down 11.6 percent as a result of the financial crisis.

Feb 24, 2011

US Plans for Green Exports



By Elisa Wood, Contributor
For the first time the US is attempting to build an export market for renewable energy. Will it succeed?
Washington, D.C., United States – When it comes to exporting green energy, talk tends to centre on whether or not the US can compete with China. But that has little bearing on the international business activity of California-based Greenhouse Holdings, which builds eco-friendly infrastructure.

With employees that are military and security experts, the company brings solar and other forms of sustainable energy to denied areas, places where little or no energy infrastructure now exists. 'We've found a niche,' said John Galt, the company's executive chairman and founder. 'For us it is not China, but more like Africa, where they need rapidly deployable energy alternatives.'

It is such niches, both large and small, that the Obama administration hopes to ferret out as part of a new strategy to increase U.S. exports of renewable energy. Released in December, the plan includes 23 commitments from eight government agencies to help U.S. companies find opportunities and overcome trade barriers. It is part of a broader Obama goal to double U.S. exports in five years.

'I love it. I think it was just the thing that was needed,' said Galt. 'This policy is going to help companies like ours that have a different segment of the market.'

The Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC), an interagency group chaired by the US Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, pegs U.S. renewable energy product exports at US$2 billion in 2009, up from $1.3 billion two years earlier. These are conservative estimates based only on scant data now available on U.S. clean energy exports. Still, the numbers indicate US renewable energy exports account for only a tiny fraction of the $6 trillion global energy market, of which clean energy is the fastest growing segment.

Many U.S. clean energy companies do not export, according to the report by TPCC's working group on renewable energy and energy efficiency (RE&EE). Those companies that do tend to focus on only one or two markets. The report blames the low export levels on several factors: a lack available market research, a shortage of manufacturing capacity, unfamiliarity with export logistics, risk aversion to foreign markets, lack of links to foreign partners or buyers, currency fluctuations, and financing snags abroad.

Still, export opportunities appear to be considerable. Together with efficiency, renewable energy received $162 billion in private sector investment globally in 2009, a figure that U..S officials expect to climb as economic conditions improve. Stimulus bills accounted for another $183 billion investment worldwide in the same year.

To help U.S. companies capture rich green energy markets, the government plans to offer new trade missions, financing products, market research and other services. (See sidebar, below) 'We will identify markets that need to be developed, where demand needs to be created for the technologies that U.S. companies can provide,' said Adam O'Malley, the director of the Office of Energy and Environment in the International Trade Administration (ITA).

The export initiative creates no new programmes or policies, but instead coordinates and ramps up existing agencies that offer assistance. Therefore, the programme does not require action by Congress, a definite plus given the legislative body's typically slow pace on energy policy.

Solar development expertise is one key area on which the US could capitalise (Source: Greenhouse Holdings)

As a first order of business, the export initiative intends to make sense of the vast amounts of information available about renewable energy development worldwide and to identify countries that offer a high potential return for U.S. technologies. The research will move beyond pinpointing hot markets, and instead try to define exactly where U.S. products can succeed. In some cases, the countries have no market yet for renewable energy, but offer great potential, if they receive help in developing policy and regulation.

The ITA also points out that hot markets — nations that are expanding renewable energy rapidly — are not necessarily good export targets. There may be burdensome regulation or strict protectionist policies, such as high tariffs or 'content requirements' mandating a large percentage of goods be produced within their borders. Transporting the product from the US might prove too costly or too difficult. Or the nation may offer little protection of intellectual property rights, a problem for all companies but especially smaller enterprises that may have their entire business plan secured against a patent.

Where's the Money?

Another major barrier is lack of easily accessed financing, a problem Greenhouse Holdings' Galt says stymies him abroad. 'You've got this great project, and you've got a company or country ready to sign on the dotted line, but financing is the question,' he said. 'There needs to be assistance in how to obtain financing.'

The ITA says that government recognises this problem. U.S. companies find themselves delayed by the inexperience of foreign banks and regulators in assessing renewable energy technologies, especially if they are new and unfamiliar. Further, U.S. companies must compete against firms that arrive with greater financial support from home.

As a result, the new export strategy will place a high priority on finding ways to increase financing and to streamline the application process. These new commitments will build on financing already available through the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), and the US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA).

The USTDA already has increased its funding for renewables and energy efficiency from 23% of programme funds in 2009 to 50% in 2010, a commitment it intends to continue. Money is being channelled towards developing and middle-income countries.

In addition, both Ex-Im Bank and OPIC will unveil new financing products and streamlined procedures to obtain funds. OPIC is focusing on private equity funding to make risk capital available to green energy companies, and creating opportunities to lease US-made equipment to remove upfront costs to purchasers. Ex-Im already has created what ITA describes as a highly effective programme called Solar Express, which fast-tracks the approvals of solar transactions valued at $3 - 10 million. Ex-Im says that it can process a Solar Express application in 60 days. The programme offers both direct loans and guarantees with terms that can extend out to 18 years.

Indeed, while the U.S. exports many clean energy technologies, it is solar energy that has proven its mettle so far in the international marketplace. The Solar Energy Industries Association and GTM Research took a close look at solar exports in 2009 and found the US to be a significant net exporter with PV-related imports of $1.6 billion and exports of $2.3 billion, creating total net exports of $723 million.

Polysilicon, the primary raw material of crystalline silicon PV modules, was the largest solar product exported, accounting for $1.1 billion in sales. In fact, the US was the single largest source of polysilicon with 40% of market share internationally. The report, 'US Solar Energy Trade 2010,' says that US trade in the solar industry had proved to be more 'balanced' than in the overall economy, which had a trade deficit of $374 billion in 2009.

Beyond solar, it may be services, rather than products, that offer the greatest opportunity for US companies, given that the service sector now accounts for 70% of US GDP. 'It would be a mistake to overlook opportunities to strengthen service exports such as architectural design of green buildings, energy audits and licensing of U.S. wind turbines,' said the TPCC report. The government is uncertain about the current quantity of service exports.

What about China?

The trade report echoes what several renewable energy companies say: the nation needs to stabilise its domestic energy policies before it can build a strong export industry. Short-term tax credits leave manufacturers and developers wary of deep investment in the U.S. 'Firms from countries that have provided long-term incentives and have removed barriers to commercialising and installing RE&EE technologies are challenging US companies,' the TPCC report said.

China offers tax holidays for certain clean technology companies located in economic development zones and Malaysia gives solar manufactures a 100% tax holiday for up to 15 years.

In the U.S., when federal policy fails, state policy sometimes fills in the gap, providing stability and spurring renewable energy growth. The report says 29 states plus the District of Colombia now have renewable portfolio standards, and 18 states have public benefit funds, surcharges on utility bills specifically for clean energy.

But state policy is not always enough when U.S. companies are competing internationally. The U.S. was dealt a blow in early 2011 when solar wafer manufacturer Evergreen Solar announced it was closing its facility in Devens, Massachusetts, although it had received some $32.25 million in state grant and tax incentives. The closure cost the local area a reported 800 jobs.

'Solar manufacturers in China have received considerable government and financial support and, together with their low manufacturing costs, have become price leaders within the industry. While the U.S. and other Western industrial economies are beneficiaries of rapidly declining installation costs of solar, we expect the U.S. will continue to be at a disadvantage from a manufacturing standpoint,' said Evergreen Solar president and CEO Michael El-Hillow.

Production costs at the facility had steadily decreased, beating company targets and even many western manufacturers, but they still remained much higher than Chinese production costs, says El-Hillow. China dominated the wafer manufacturing market in 2009, according to the SEIA/GTM Research report. Its market share was 48%, compared with the U.S.' 3%. 'During the month of December [2010], we experienced a 10% decrease in average selling prices from the beginning of the fourth quarter. As industry selling prices continue their rapid declines into 2011, panel manufacturing in Devens, either fully or partially, is no longer economically feasible,' said El-Hillow.

Despite the U.S.' problem competing with China's low manufacturing costs, it remains a strong market for U.S. green energy products and services. 'China certainly presents tremendous opportunity and a variety of challenges,' said ITA's O'Malley.

Through the US-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, the two nations have made significant strides in removing trade barriers for clean energy, he said. For example, China agreed to remove local content requirements for wind turbines and their components as a result of commission efforts.

In addition, the China/US business relationship seemed to improve in January with a spate of energy deals announced as China's President Hu Jintao visited the U.S. and met with Obama. They include Duke Energy and China-based ENN Group collaborating to help build greener cities in China and the U.S. The companies created the Future Energy Technology Demonstration Platform to exchange knowledge in a deal expected to help ENN construct China's first smart energy city in Langfang, near Beijing.

American Electric Power also signed energy deals with two giant Chinese energy companies: China Huaneng and State Grid Corporation of China. The deal encompasses a variety of technologies, including distributed generation and smart grid energy storage. Meanwhile, Florida-based wind power developer UPC Management negotiated a deal with the China Guo Dian Corporation. The two will form ventures to develop new wind facilities up to a value of $1.5 billion.

Whether it is the vast market of China tapped by Duke and AEP, or the smaller markets found in under-developed countries that are pursued by Greenhouse Holdings, export appears to offer new opportunities for U.S. renewable energy companies. But competition is stiff, and success of the export initiative rests on the U.S. government's ability to overcome significant trade and financing hurdles. 'These are really the first steps being taken by the U.S. government to coordinate our efforts in this space, and there is a lot to be done,' said ITA's O'Malley.


Sidebar: A New Export Strategy for Renewables

Released in December 2010, the export strategy was developed through the US Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee Working Group on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, which includes representatives from the departments of Commerce, Energy, State, and Agriculture, as well as the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the US Trade and Development Agency, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

'Spurring domestic clean energy innovation to meet America's needs is only half of the picture. Empowering US business to create and deliver those new technologies to energy-hungry foreign markets is the other,' said US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, writing in the White House blog in late December.

The strategy includes several new services to help US clean energy companies export products and services:

• The federal government launched a new online portal to provide clean energy companies with easy access to government export resources.

• The Department of Commerce committed to an increase in the number of clean energy trade and trade-policy missions.

• Government will create new foreign buyers' guides for US RE&EE technologies.

• OPIC will invest an additional $300 million in clean energy financing in emerging markets and new financial products for subordinated debt financing and equipment leasing.

• OPIC and Ex-Im will streamline financing applications.

• The Office of the US Trade Representative will address market access barriers through a new subcommittee.

• The USDA's Market Access Program will expand to include biomass wood pellets.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/policy-and-markets-exporting-us-renewables

Copyright © 1999-2011 RenewableEnergyWorld.com

Feb 16, 2011

Energy and the New Reality 1: Energy Efficiency and the Demand for Energy Services


Filed under: magbooks.org
Energy and the New Reality 1: Energy Efficiency and the Demand for Energy Services

Energy and the New Reality 1
Energy Efficiency and the Demand for Energy Services
by L. Danny Harvey
Earthscan Publications Ltd
2010 | ISBN: 1844079120

Reducing and managing humanity s demand for energy is a fundamental part of the effort to mitigate climate change. In this, the most comprehensive textbook ever written on the subject, L. Danny Harvey lays out the theory and practice of how things must change if we are to meet our energy needs sustainably. The book begins with a succinct summary of the scientific basis for concern over global warming, then outlines energy basics and current patterns and trends in energy use. This is followed by a discussion of current and advanced technologies for the generation of electricity from fossil fuels. The book then considers in detail how energy is used, and how this use can be dramatically reduced, in the following end-use sectors:
- buildings
- transportation
- industry
- food and agriculture
- municipal services

The findings from these sector-by-sector assessments are then applied to generate scenarios of how global energy demand could evolve over the coming decades with full implementation of the identified and economically-feasible energy-saving potential. The books ends with a brief discussion of policies that can be used to reduce energy demand, but also addresses the limits of technologically-based improvements in efficiency in moderating demand and of the need to re-think some of our underlying assumptions concerning what we really need. Along with its companion volume on C-free energy supply, and accompanied by extensive supplementary online material, this is an essential resource for students and practitioners in engineering, architecture, environment and energy related fields.

Online material includes: Excel-based computational exercises, teaching slides for each chapterand links to free software tools.


600 pages | PDF | 16 MB

download Energy and the New Reality 1: Energy Efficiency and the Demand for Energy Services via :
hotfile
other download

Energy Storage: A New Approach


Energy Storage: A New Approach

Energy Storage
A New Approach
by Ralph Zito

Wiley / Scrivener Publishing LLC | ISBN: 0470625910

This book presents practical solutions to the problem of energy storage on a massive scale. This problem is especially difficult for renewable energy technologies, such as wind and solar power, that, currently, can only be utilized while the wind is blowing or while the sun is shining.
If energy storage on a large scale were possible, this would solve many of our society’s problems. For example, power grids would not go down during peak usage. Power plants that run on natural gas, for example, would no longer burn natural gas during the off-hours, as what happens now. These are just two of society’s huge problems that could be solved with this new technology.

This is a potentially revolutionary book, insofar as technical books can be “revolutionary.” The technologies that are described have their roots in basic chemistry that engineers have been practicing for years, but this is all new material that could revolutionize the energy industry. Whether the power is generated from oil, natural gas, coal, solar, wind, or any of the other emerging sources, energy storage is something that the industry MUST learn and practice. With the world energy demand increasing, mostly due to the industrial growth in China and India, and with the West becoming increasingly more interested in fuel efficiency and “green” endeavors, energy storage is potentially a key technology in our energy future.


313 pages | PDF | 12 MB

download Energy Storage: A New Approach via :
depositfiles
hotfile
other download

Feb 11, 2011

World’s First Genetically Engineered Biofuels Corn Threatens Contamination Of Food-Grade Corn

Impacts on Human Health, Environment, and Farmers Not Fully Assessed

DESPITE RISING GLOBAL FOOD PRICES, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES MISGUIDED BIOFUELS AGENDA

The Center for Food Safety criticized an announcement today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that it will approve the world’s first genetically engineered (GE) crop designed specifically for biofuel production. The Center maintains that this GE “biofuels corn” will contaminate food-grade corn, and has not been properly assessed for potential adverse effects on human health, the environment, or farmers’ livelihoods.

“The USDA has once again put the special interests of the biotechnology and biofuels industries above the clear risks to our nation’s food system,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “The Obama Administration is well aware of the costly effects that Starlink corn contamination had on farmers and the food industry, and now it is poised to repeat the same mistake.”

The GE corn – known as Event 3272 – is genetically engineered to contain high levels of a heat-resistant and acid-tolerant enzyme derived from exotic, marine microorganisms. The enzyme breaks down starches into sugars, the first step in conversion of corn to ethanol, and has not been adequately assessed for its potential to cause allergies, a key concern with new biotech crops. In fact, leading food allergists consulted by CFS indicated that Syngenta’s assessment of the potential allergenicity of this enzyme was inadequate, and called for more careful evaluation. Agronomists suggest that unharvested corn will deposit large quantities of this enzyme in the soil, which could adversely affect soil carbon cycling. At present, ethanol plants add a different and familiar version of this enzyme to accomplish the same purpose. The corn was developed by Syngenta, the Swiss agrichemical and biotechnology firm.

“Syngenta’s biofuels corn will inevitably contaminate food-grade corn, and could well trigger substantial rejection in our corn export markets, hurting farmers” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety

Though this industrial corn is supposed to be used only for domestic ethanol plants, Syngenta has sought import approvals in nations to which the U.S. exports corn. These approvals are being sought because Syngenta knows that food-grade corn shipments will inevitably be contaminated with Event 3272, and hopes to thereby avoid liability for such episodes. While some markets have granted import approvals, South Africa denied import clearance on health grounds in 2006. Whatever the import policies of governments, corn traders might well test and reject U.S. corn supplies contaminated with industrial corn that contains a potentially allergenic enzyme.

USDA acknowledges that serious concerns about food system contamination remain, yet deregulated the GE corn anyway, citing a Syngenta-led “advisory council” and so-called “closed-loop” system for amylase corn. That Syngenta “invited USDA to participate” in this Council is not consoling to farmers, consumers or food companies who remember the Starlink corn debacle. In addition, Syngenta’s capacity for and commitment to stewardship are called into question by past mishaps. From 2001 to 2004, the company accidentally sold seed of an unapproved GE corn variety (Bt10) to American farmers, a variety which contained an antibiotic-resistance marker gene for resistance to ampicillin, an important human antibiotic, presenting the risk of exacerbating the serious medical problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

“The resemblance to StarLink is uncanny,” continued Freese. “Much like StarLink, Syngenta’s biofuels corn poses allergy concerns and is not meant for human food use. It’s hard to believe that USDA has forgotten the substantial harm StarLink caused to farmers and the US food industry, but apparently it has.”

StarLink was a GE corn variety approved only for animal feed and industrial use because leading food allergists thought it might cause food allergies if used in human foods. Despite measures to keep StarLink separate from food-grade corn, it contaminated the human food supply in 2000-2001. Hundreds reported allergic reactions they believe were linked to StarLink. Food companies recalled over 300 corn-based products, export markets sent back StarLink-contaminated corn shipments, and farmers suffered substantial economic losses as a result. Seventeen state Attorneys General sued StarLink’s developer, Aventis CropScience, to partially recover damages.

The Center also believes it is irresponsible to engineer corn for fuel use at a time when massive diversion of corn to ethanol has played a significant role in raising food prices and thus exacerbating world hunger. Leading food experts have blamed excessive conversion of corn to ethanol for exacerbating the world food crisis by driving up prices of corn and other staples. The World Bank reported an 83% rise in food prices from 2005 to 2008, and estimates that 100 million additional people have been pushed into hunger and poverty as a result. USDA data show that 23% of US corn (3 billion bushels) was converted to ethanol in 2007, jumping to over 30% (3.7 billion bushels) in 2008, with further increases expected as more ethanol refineries are constructed.

The Center is currently reviewing all materials related to today’s decision and is planning litigation.

# # #

The Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS currently represents over 175,000 members across the nation.

Feb 6, 2011

The last thing our hungry world needs is more food

By Fred Pearce

Fred Pearce

'Every time there is a famine, it turns out later that someone, usually just down the road, was hoarding food for sale,' said Fred Pearce

Government chief scientist Sir John Beddington calls it 'the perfect storm'. Soaring world population, coupled with climate change, is set to create a world food crisis and leave billions starving.

'We are at a unique moment in history,' he said recently, while launching a report from his Government think-tank, Foresight.

The Foresight project, Global Food And Farming Futures, says only a revolution in the way the world grows its food can save us. Clearly, David Cameron's top boffin wants to kick-start that revolution.

The world's population will reach seven billion this year and may peak at nine billion by mid-century. There are plenty of things wrong with the world's food system. But the amount of food it produces isn't one of them.

We already grow enough food to nourish nine billion people, probably 15billion people, in fact, for we eat only about one third of those crops.

Much of the global harvest feeds livestock - an inefficient route for delivering our nutrition, since it takes eight calories of grain to produce one calorie of meat.

Plenty more is diverted to make biofuels. An African could live for a year on the corn needed to fill one gas-guzzling SUV fuel tank with ethanol.

That's not all. In the developing world, an estimated 30 per cent of the harvest is eaten by rats and insects, or rots in grain silos. We in the First World are better at preventing losses, but then we throw about 25 per cent our food away, uneaten.

The truth is that the world's farmers could probably double the amount of food they grow - using GM crops and other technologies - and still people would go hungry. This is ultimately not about production or about human numbers, it is about poverty.

Every time there is a famine, it turns out later that someone, usually just down the road, was hoarding food for sale. The problem is that the hungry families didn't have the cash to buy it.

Every few years we get news reports that there are only so many days' supply of grain in the world's warehouses. If the warehouses are full, prices fall and farmers stop producing. When they start to empty, prices rise, farmers start planting and soon the warehouses are full again.

Beddington's 'perfect storm' is the operation of a perfect market. Does this mis-diagnosis matter? Even if we grow enough food, surely growing more can't hurt.

Well, yes, it does matter. Because Beddington's planned revolution stands a good chance of making the poor poorer. It could mean we have both more food and more famines. This is because most of the methods he suggests to increase food production are about big farms and big investment.

Hungry world

Government chief scientist Sir John Beddington's planned revolution could mean we have both more food and more famines

Beddington wants to plough up vast tracts of African cattle pastures and amalgamate the smallholdings of millions of peasant farmers to create giant, high-tech farms. His blueprint will take land away from the rural poor.

Last month, I watched this scenario playing out on the edge of the Sahara desert in Mali. The government there has recruited foreign experts to help it invest in agriculture. Western aid agencies are building irrigation projects to boost production of rice.

Libya's Colonel Gaddafi, Mali's biggest sugar daddy, has just dug a 25-mile canal to irrigate an area of dry scrub three times the size of the Isle of Wight.

The trouble is that these projects will take water out of the River Niger. They will empty fertile wet pastures just downstream, where one million of Mali's poorest people currently live by catching fish and grazing their cattle. They fear the plans will create desert.

Most of the rice from the new fields will go to feed Libyans. Meanwhile, the poor of the Niger wetlands are likely to join the Al Qaeda groups already penetrating the country's desert borders.

Beddington is right that farming needs investment. But it has to be the right investment. Perhaps he should have a word with another of the Government's scientific advisers, Professor Robert Watson, the real Whitehall food expert.

He is currently chief scientist at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Three years ago he chaired an international report on the future of the world's farming.

Wheat being held by a farmer

In the developing world, an estimated 30 per cent of the harvest is eaten by rats and insects, or rots in grain silos

Watson reached rather different conclusions from Beddington. He said African smallholder farmers should be backed, not stripped of their land; that local knowledge of crops would often work better than high-tech methods; and that fighting poverty was the key to feeding the world.

Watson told me: 'It's not a technical challenge; it's a rural development challenge. Small farmers will remain the predominant producers. The question is how to help them.'

Beddington sees the spread of Western farming methods and giant food and seed companies as the solution to the food problem.

Watson sees it as part of the problem. Beddington's report says: 'We need to make agriculture more efficient.'

But more efficient for whom? For agribusiness and its bottom line? Or for farmers and consumers? In an age where the smart investment banks are putting their cash into biofuels rather than bread, and where large corporations are buying farms across the developing world to grow cotton for cash rather than food for people, the two are not the same thing.

Beddington's report chastises countries such as India, which imposed bans on food exports during the food price crisis in early 2008 in an effort to keep their people fed.

He blames them for 'undoubtedly exacerbating' the crisis, and says such protectionist actions should be banned. He has no such strictures for the speculators who caused the soaring prices.

Surely if we've learned anything over the past couple of years, it is that unbridled markets can bring chaos, and speculators are a menace. It was bad enough letting the financial markets run riot. But if the food markets run riot we will have empty bellies as well as empty pockets.

Peoplequake by Fred Pearce, is published by Eden Project Books at £8.99.

To order your copy at £8.49 with free p&p, call The Review Bookstore on 0845 155 0713 or visit www.MailLife. co.uk/Books.

Off into the wild, green yonder



SPOOKED by the spike in oil prices in 2008 and warily eyeing the latest spurt in fuel charges, airlines have noted that the costs of not going green are growing. In particular, they fret about the painful levies on carbon-spouting planes to be imposed under the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). From 2012 all airlines operating in the EU will be expected to cut emissions to 3% below the average annual figure for the period between 2004 and 2006, and by a further 2 percentage points in 2013. Although most emissions allowances up to the cap will be allocated to airlines for free, 15% will have to be acquired in auctions. Any further emissions will require trading in additional permits.

Little wonder, then, that the queue of carriers hopping on the biofuel bandwagon is growing. Lufthansa, Ryanair and Easyjet are only the latest reported to be seeking a deal with Solena, an American producer of aviation biofuels. At the start of January it emerged that Qantas, the Australian flag carrier, will work with the same company to build a commercial-scale aviation biofuel plant on the outskirts of Sydney. Solena is already building a similar plant in London, which is scheduled to produce around 70m litres (16m gallons) of biofuel a year from 2014. Burning this instead of the equivalent amount of kerosene would reduce BA's carbon emissions by about 2% a year, as much as is produced annually by all flights going in and out of London's (admittedly small) City Airport.

The reason for Solena's sudden popularity is that by making biofuels from waste, the company has dodged some of the problems that have bedevilled production of crop-based varieties. These include inadequate supplies of biomass to meet even today's demand, and the related worries about how the push for more such crops may encourage land-clearance and lead to rising food prices. To illustrate the point, Greenpeace, an environmental lobby group, calculated that a test flight by Virgin Atlantic in 2008 that powered one engine of a Boeing 747-400 with a 20% biofuel mix of babassu oil and coconut oil used the equivalent of 150,000 coconuts. If all four engines were powered by biofuels alone, 3m coconuts would have been required, leading the group to dismiss the exercise as a “high altitude greenwash”.

Then there is the long list of exacting technical and commercial specifications aviation biofuels will need to meet. They must pack a lot of energy into a small volume, remain liquid at -50°C, come in chemically identical form all over the world, mix well with existing fuels, and improve, or at least match, those fuels' efficiency. All that without requiring any serious tweaks to existing aircraft.

One-off tests of “drop-in” biofuels, ie, ones that can be mixed with standard kerosene, have been conducted successfully by airlines, including Qatar Airways, Continental, United, Air New Zealand and Japan Airlines. Lufthansa has gone further. In November 2010 it announced plans to carry out a six-month trial of the longer-term effects of biofuels on aircraft engines. Beginning in April, one engine on an Airbus A321 plying the route between Hamburg and Frankfurt route will run on a 50-50 mix of biofuel and kerosene.

Until more such tests have been carried out successfully, the 50-50 mix is all that certifying agencies will permit, so a wholly plant-derived aviation fuel remains a distant prospect. However, now that the ETS and other considerations have registered on the International Air Transport Association's (IATA's) radar, that industrial lobby group reckons biofuels could account for 6% of all aircraft fuel by 2020, reducing carbon emissions by over 4%, or more than 20m tonnes, from current levels.

The technology does not come cheap. IATA predicts that an investment of $10 billion-15 billion will be needed to reach the 2020 target. The plants in London and Sydney are expected to cost $300m apiece. However, for an industry that is coming to see biofuels as a hedge against tighter environmental regulation, rising fuel costs and damage to reputation, it may be a price worth paying.

Source: www.economist.com

Main Sponsor

Main Media Partner

Media Partners

Canadian Biomass Tidningen Bioenergi

Fuels & Lubes Asia

Envirotech & Clean Energy Investor

Bio&Sugar