Renewable Energy Blog

The world needed a strong global strategy and concrete working plans, with more cohesion and fewer arguments if an agreeable solution to climate change was to be reached, a Chinese official told diplomats in Johannesburg on Wednesday.

China’s National Development and Reform Commission’s Institute for International Economic Research senior fellow and director Dr Haifeng Wang reiterated that for developing nations, the issue of climate change was one of the biggest developmental challenges facing countries, thus more cohesion on the matter was “urgently” needed.

Actions taken should be according to each country’s capacity and ability, and this would likely require a new ideology of global consensus, which was fair and balanced, based on morals and respect, and propelled the universal interest.

In determining different country responsibilities, he said it was important to look at a number of issues, namely: taking a historic perspective on accumulated emissions; taking congnisance of per capita emissions to get a fair perspective; making agreements binding for the rich, and voluntary for the poor; making technology transfer unconditional; and ensuring financial assistance in line with ability to do so.

Wang further explained that China’s domestic policy response on climate change was closely linked to the country’s five-year plans. The economic and social development plans set specific targets on pollutant emission and energy saving. The country aims to cut pollutant emissions by 10% per unit of GDP, and energy consumption by 20% per unit of GDP.

China had clear targets and projects related to climate change at the national, provincial and county level, and also compiled progress reports after mid-term assessments were conducted.

The South African Institute of International Affairs’ China in Africa project head Dr Chris Alden commended China on the institutionalisation of climate change policy at all levels, as well as the fact that the issue has been taken out of the purely environmental domain, and integrated into politics in a “serious way”.

With regard to international negotiations, China put forward a proposal under the Copenhagen Accord stating that it would cut between 40% and 45% of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 2020.

Similarly, the government had set a 2020 target for non-fossil fuel in primary energy – including nuclear and renewable energy – whereby the country would aim for 30 GW of installed capacity, which equates to about 15% of the country’s primary energy consumption.

Wang stated that China was still in the very early stages of the development of its economy, and faced many significant constraints in terms of capacity, financially, and environmentally.

“I don’t pretend to say that China wont emit – we need to [in order to] develop, and we have the right to develop. We need advanced economies to act more responsibly, otherwise it is very difficult for poor nations,” Wang said.

Wang also voiced concern over China being labelled a “very strong emerging power”, and said that country’s role was over estimated in certain instances.

“China is not a major player like the US or the European Union. It still plays a role with developing countries.”

He added that while the Basic countries (Brasil, South Africa, India, China) were playing an increasingly important role, that role was still limited, and the Basic forum was largely to facilitate dialogue and communication between the countries and share experiences and lessons learned.

“Basic can play some roles, such as encouraging developing countries to address climate change, and to ensure that the countries understand each others strategies,” Wang noted.

Further, when questioned on the impact of climate change denialism and the Email scandal which erupted before the global climate change conference in Copenhagen, on Chinese climate change policy, Wang said that he felt that China would continue to implement domestic policy.

“China will do it no matter what happens, but we hope for collective actions,” he concluded.

April 19 (Bloomberg) — Iberdrola SA won approval to build the world’s largest onshore wind-energy project in Romania, requiring at least $2 billion in investment through 2017.

The Spanish utility said today it acquired rights from the Romanian government to build 1,500 megawatts of capacity. That’s almost five times the power coming from Europe’s largest wind complex and triple what’s proposed offshore Massachusetts in a project opposed by the late U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy.

Iberdrola, which became the world’s biggest wind-farm owner by using government incentives and charging above-market electricity rates for clean energy, now operates in 10 markets including the U.S. and U.K. The Romanian mega-park, near its operations in neighboring Hungary, may extend the Spanish company’s lead over second-ranked wind producer FPL Group Inc. of Florida.

Romania generates much of its electricity by burning oil and gas, which can be easily scaled back during a windy day to allow for surges of power from windmills, said Will Young, a wind energy analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London.

“That makes Romania an attractive market,” Young said today in an interview. “Romania has relatively high power prices and flexible energy generation that allows power producers to feed in electricity easily.”

Additionally, the government may approve a law later this year to double the number of “green certificates” eligible for wind power and boost the total price per megawatt-hour by 25 percent, Young said.

The company’s Iberdrola Renovables SA renewable-energy unit plans 50 Romanian wind parks that would supply the equivalent of almost 1 million homes, it said in astatement. The project amounts to a third of the new wind power

Iberdrola plans for Eastern Europe, after investing 100 million euros there in 2009.

Black Sea

The average cost to buy and install wind turbines around the world is about 1.3 million euros ($1.75 million) a megawatt, according to New Energy Finance. Using those figures, Iberdrola’s Dobrogea project in southeastern Romania on the Black Sea would cost more than $2 billion.

A spokesman for Iberdrola Renovables in Spain, who declined to be identified in line with company policy, wouldn´t comment on the investment needed.

Iberdrola’s total net investment last year was 2.06 billion euros, the company said in a February presentation to investors. Iberdrola has a “flexible approach to investment” and has only committed to spend 9.6 billion euros of the estimated 16 billion-euro net investment planned through 2012, the company said at the time.

T

urbine Prices

Prices for turbines fell about 18 percent last year and wind farm operators like Iberdrola are benefiting from the lower costs, said New Energy Finance’s Young. European Union policies to help reduce dependence on fossil fuel-based power generation a

re also an incentive for the project, he said.

Iberdrola reported installed capacity at the end of last year of about 44,000 megawatts, of which natural gas-fired plants account for 30 percent, renewable energy 25 percent and hydropower stations 23 percent. Iberdrola Renovables plans to increase its installed capacity to 16,000 megawatts by 2012 from 11,294 megawatts at the end of March.

Like FPL, Iberdrola has grown to be one of the world’s largest investor-owned utilities partly because of rapid expansion in wind energy. Wind and biomass are typically the cheapest sources of renewable energy and plants using them can be built faster than large-scale solar or geothermal installations.

FPL, China

The company, ranked by megawatts of wind-energy in operation, is followed by Juno Beach, Florida-based FPL and China Guodian Corp. of Beijing, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Iberdrola’s American depositary receipts in the U.S. fell 11 cents to $34.70 as of 5:10 p.m. New York time.

The Dobrogea complex will dwarf Whitelee, Europe’s current record-holder, a 322-megawatt wind installation near Glasgow that is owned by Iberdrola’s Scottish Power unit. Whitelee is scheduled to be expanded to about 600 megawatts in a few years.

The Cape Wind offshore wind project in Nantucket Sound would have capacity of 420 megawatts. The project, proposed by Energy Management Inc., has been fought by Kennedy, whose family owns a compound on the shores of Cape Cod.

Iberdrola’s Romanian partner is Eolica Dobrogea. That company, part-owned by Swiss engineering firm NEK Umwelttechnik AG and C-Tech Srl. and Rokura Srl., both Romanian, will secure building permits, Iberdrola said.

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
• At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.
• Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.
• Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the [Third Assessment Report's 2001] conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns.

Let us take a look at some of the evidence:

This post is by guest Blogger Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences at Suffolk County Community College, Long Island, NY.  Mandia holds an M.S. Meteorology from Penn State University and a B.S. Meteorology from University of Lowell (now called UMass – Lowell). Mandia has been teaching introductory meteorology and paleoclimatology courses for 23 years.

Temperature Trends

20 of the warmest years on record have occurred in the past 25 years. The warmest year globally was 2005 with the years 2009, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2002, and 1998 all tied for 2^nd within statistical certainty. (Hansen et al., 2010) The warmest decade has been the 2000s, and each of the past three decades has been warmer than the decade before and each set records at their end.The odds of this being a natural occurrence are estimated to be one in a billion!(Schmidt and Wolfe, 2009)

According to NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt (Romm, 2009):

The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record. Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.

Figure 7.1 (IPCC, 2007) shows the global mean temperature anomalies (compared to 1961-1990) from the years 1850 to 2005. Figure 7.1a (NCDC, 2008) shows the global mean temperature anomalies with error bars from the years 1880 to 2007.

Figure 7.1: Global mean temperature anomalies (compared to 1961-1990) from the years 1850 to 2005

Figure 7.1a: Global mean temperature anomalies from the years 1880 to 2008

Figure 7.2 (Tamino, 2009) clearly shows that surface temperatures north of latitude 60^o are warming at an accelerated rate in the past few decades. Tamino retrieved 113 station records at latitude 60^oN or higher with at least 30 years of data.

Figure 7.2: Arctic surface temperatures since 1948.

Tamino (2009) explains here and here. The analyses show:

1. The Arctic has experienced a sudden, recent warming.
2. In the last decade extreme northern temperature has risen to unprecedented heights.
3. Over the last 3 decades, every individual station north of 70^o indicates warming, 13 of 17 are significant at 95% confidence, all estimated trend rates are faster than the global average, some are more than five times as fast.
4. Oft-repeated claims that “it was warmer in the 1930s” or “it was warmer in the 1940s” are wrong.
5. The idea that present arctic temperatures are about equal to their 1958 values is wrong.

Kauffman et al. (2009) also shows that the Arctic was experiencing long-term cooling in the past 2000 years according to Milankovitch cycles until very recently. Figure 7.3 (ibid) reveals this trend shift:

A Hockey Stick in Melting Ice

Figure 7.3: Recent warming reverses long-term arctic cooling

Kaufmann et al. summarizes their study:

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60 ^oN covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

Arctic Ice & Glacial Trends:

Further signs of this warming trend can be seen in the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Figure 7.4 shows sea ice extent since 1953. For January 1953 through December 1979, data have been obtained from the UK Hadley Centre and are based on operational ice charts and other sources. For January 1979 through July 2009, data are derived from satellite. Figure 7.4a shows the most current sea ice extent from satellite measurements. Sea ice extent has been dramatically reduced since 1953.

Figure 7.4: Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent since 1953

Figure 7.4a: Current Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from satellite measurements

Sea ice extent is just part of the picture. Sea ice thickness has also been measured by submarine and ICESat satellite measurement.

Figure 7.5 (Rothrock, et al., 1999) shows sea ice thickness has substantially declined. Using data from submarine cruises, Rothrock and collaborators determined that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season in the Arctic has decreased by about 1.3 meters between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Figure 7.5: Mean sea ice draft: Decrease in Arctic sea ice draft for 1958 to 1997.

Since 2004 and there has been a dramatic decrease in thickness according to NASA’s press release, NASA Satellite Reveals Dramatic Arctic Ice Thinning dated July, 2009. Some excerpts:

Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older “multi-year” ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent. In recent years, the amount of ice replaced in the winter has not been sufficient to offset summer ice losses. The result is more open water in summer, which then absorbs more heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice. Between 2004 and 2008, multi-year ice cover shrank 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) — nearly the size of Alaska’s land area. During the study period, the relative contributions of the two ice types to the total volume of the Arctic’s ice cover were reversed. In 2003, 62 percent of the Arctic’s total ice volume was stored in multi-year ice, with 38 percent stored in first-year seasonal ice. By 2008, 68 percent of the total ice volume was first-year ice, with 32 percent multi-year ice.

Figure 7.5a (NASA, 2009) shows that overall ice thickness and multi-year ice (MY) thickness are decreasing.

Figure 7.5a: Northern Hemisphere sea ice thickness

Figure 7.5b: Northern Hemisphere sea ice thickness submarine & ICESAT combined

Figure 7.5b (Kwock & Rothrock, 2009) shows the mean thicknesses of six Arctic regions for the three periods (1958– 1976, 1993–1997, 2003–2007). Thicknesses have been seasonally adjusted to September 15. According to the authors:

“The overall mean winter thickness of 3.64 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.89 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record—an astonishing decrease of 1.75 m in thickness. Between 1975 and 2000, the steepest rate of decrease is 0.08 m/yr in 1990 compared to a slightly higher winter/summer rate of 0.10/0.20 m/yr in the five-year ICESat record (2003–2008). Prior to 1997, ice extent in the DRA was >90% during the summer minimum. This can be contrasted to the gradual decrease in the early 2000s followed by an abrupt drop to <55% during the record setting minimum in 2007. This combined analysis shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span five decades.“

	Peter Sinclair’s Climate Crock of the Week: 2009 Sea Ice Update Watch this video to learn about the 2009 Arctic sea ice measurements.
	Peter Sinclair’s Climate Crock of the Week: Ice Area vs. Volume Watch this video to learn about the difference between ice area and ice volume and why volume is more critical.

Velicogna (2009) used measurements from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during the period between April 2002 and February 2009. During this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets were accelerating with time implying that the ice sheets contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In Greenland (Fig. 7.6), the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009. In Antarctica (Fig. 7.7) the mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009.

Figure 7.6: Greenland Ice Mass Loss

Figure 7.7: Antarctic Ice Mass Loss

John Cook at Skeptical Science has several very good summaries of this research. See: An overview of Antarctic ice trends, An overview of Greenland ice trends, and Why is Greenland’s ice loss accelerating?.

Glaciers also are used as a signature for climate change. Summer melting, called ablation, controls the mass and extent of glaciers. According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service (2009), preliminary mass balance values for the observation periods 2005/06 and 2006/07 have been reported from more than 100 and 80 glaciers worldwide, respectively. The mass balance data are calculated based on all reported values as well as on the data from the 30 reference glaciers in nine mountain ranges in North America and Europe with continuous observation series back to 1980.

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 1.3 and 0.7 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological years 2006 and 2007, respectively. The new data continues the global trend in accelerated ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at almost 11.3 m w.e. (see Figures 7.8 and 7.9).

Figure 7.8: Mean annual specific mass balance of reference glaciers

Figure 7.9: Mean cumulative specific mass balance of all reported glaciers (black line) and the reference glaciers (red line)

Glacial extent is also being monitored. Figure 7.10 (ibid) shows worldwide glacial extent measurements with red being a decrease and blue being an increase in the length of the glacier.

Figure 7.10: Glacial extent – retreating (red) and advancing (blue)

In 2005 there were 442 glaciers examined, 26 advancing, 18 stationary and 398 retreating. 90% of worldwide glaciers are retreating. In 2005, for the first time ever, no observed Swiss glaciers advanced. Of the 26 advancing glaciers, 15 were in New Zealand. Overall there has been a substantial volume loss of 11% of New Zealand glaciers from 1975-2005, but the number of advancing glacier is still significant. (ibid)

Ocean Heat Content:

Much of the heat that is delivered by the sun is stored in the Earth’s oceans while only a fraction of this heat is stored in the atmosphere. Therefore, a change in the heat stored in the ocean is a better indicator of climate change than changes in atmospheric heat. Figures 7.11 and 7.12 (Richardson et al., 2009) and 7.13 (NODC, 2009) clearly show that the oceans have warmed significantly in recent years and the trend is 50% greater than that reported by the IPCC in 2007.

Figure 7.11: Change in energy content in different components of the earth system for two periods: 1961-2003 (blue bars) and 1993-2003 (pink bars).

Figure 7.12: Change in ocean heat content since 1951.

Figure 7.13: Change in ocean heat content since 1955.

There have been a few published articles by Loehle (2009), Pielke (2008), and Willis (2008) that suggest ocean heat content trend since 2003 has either been flat or slightly negative. Of course, a few years does not a trend make but these results appear to be in conflict with the current upward trend. von Shuckmann, Gaillard, and Le Traon (2009) address this apparent conflict in their article Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008. Their data extends to 2000 m of ocean depth in contrast to Loehle (2009), Pielke (2008), and Willis (2008) data that only extends to 700 m. von Shuckmann, Gaillard, and Le Traon (2009) show that the heat content of the upper 500 m of ocean are subject to strong seasonal and interannual variations primarily due to salinity changes. However, when considering the heat content of the upper 2000 m of ocean, global mean heat content and height changes are clearly associated with a positive trend during the 6 years of measurements. Figure 7.14 below shows this trend.

Figure 7.14: Change in global heat content for the uppermost 2000 m of ocean between 2003 and 2008

Murphy et al. (2009) examined the Earth’s energy balance since 1950 including ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. They considered the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite data and show that the heat gained since 1950 is already quite significant. Their findings are illustrated below. (Cook, 2009)

Figure 7.15: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (ibid)

The oceans are taking in almost all of the excess heat since the 1970s which underscores the point that ocean heat content is a better indicator of global warming than atmospheric temperatures. Much of this ocean heat will be vented to the atmosphere in the future thus accelerating global warming.

A superb discussion on this topic can be found at Skeptical Science’s How we know global warming is still happening.

Precipitation Trends:

Figure 7.16 (IPCC, 2007) shows the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). The PDSI is a prominent index of drought. Red and orange areas are drier (-PDSI) than average and blue and green areas are wetter (+PDSI) than average. The smooth black curve shows decadal variations. The PDSI curve reveals widespread increasing African drought, especially in the Sahel. Note also the wetter areas, especially in eastern North and South America and northern Eurasia.

Figure 7.16: Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI)

Zhang et al. (2007), IPCC (2007), and Held and Soden (2006) conclude that global warming due to human activities is increasing the severity of drought in areas that already have drought and causing more rainfall in areas that are already wet.

Zhang et al. (2007) considered three groups of global climate model simulations and compared those simulations to the observed precipitation between 70^o north and 40^o south as shown in Figure 7.17 below.

• ANT denoted simulations included estimates of historical ANThropogenic (human) forcing only which included greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols.
• NAT4 denoted simulations included just NATural external forcings only.
• ALL denoted simulations include BOTH of the above – natural and human forcing.

Figure 7.17: Observed precipitation vs. various simulations

This clearly shows that the ALL simulations (a and d) do a much better job of matching observed precipitation trends than either ANT (b and e) or NAT (c and f) alone. In fact, the correlations: ALL = 0.83, ANT = 0.69 and NAT4 = 0.02. It is for this reason that Zhang et al. (2007) conclude that changes in precipitation trends cannot be explained by natural forcing only and it certainly parallels what the IPCC WGI and WGII reports suggest.

Figure 7.18: Changes in observed vs. simulated precipitation anomalies (ibid)

Figure 7.18 shows that the models do not predict the mid-latitude trends at all. Regional precipitation pattern predictions are NOT a strong suit of the models which modelers have stated. What this image does show however, is that areas of green and yellow show where the model trends match those of the observed trends and the models do a decent job of forecasting the correct trends in most regions.

U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI):

The U.S. CEI is the arithmetic average of the following five or six# indicators of the percentage of the conterminous U.S. area:

1. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with maximum temperatures much above normal.
2. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much below normal and (b) percentage of the United States with minimum temperatures much above normal.
3. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States in severe drought (equivalent to the lowest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI and (b) percentage of the United States with severe moisture surplus (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) based on the PDSI.
4. Twice the value of the percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal proportion of precipitation derived from extreme (equivalent to the highest tenth percentile) 1-day precipitation events.
5. The sum of (a) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days with precipitation and (b) percentage of the United States with a much greater than normal number of days without precipitation.
6. * The sum of squares of U.S. landfalling tropical storm and hurricane wind velocities scaled to the mean of the first five indicators.

# The sixth indicator is experimental and is included in the experimental version of the CEI.
* The sixth indicator is only utilized when the period of interest includes months with significant tropical activity. For practical purposes, the CEI does not include the sixth indicator for the cold season (Oct-Mar), winter (Dec-Feb) or spring (Mar-May). It also cannot be calculated independent of the first five indicators. (Gleason, 2009)

Figure 7.19 (ibid) shows that in the United States, extremes in climate are on the increase since 1970.

Figure 7.19: United States Climate Extremes Index

Are These Trends Unusual?:

They are unprecedented in the modern record!

• The concentration of CO₂ has reached a record high relative to the past 15 million years and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate.
• Most of the warming in the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.
• CO₂ concentrations are known accurately for the past 650,000 years. During that time, they varied between 180 ppm and 300 ppm. As of March 2009 CO₂ is 385 ppm which took about 100 years to increase. For comparison, it took over 5,000 years for an 80 ppm rise after the last ice age.
• Higher values than today have only occurred over many millions of years.
• The last time CO₂ levels were this high, sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than present day.
• Although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that they took place at a faster rate than the present warming.
• If projections of a 5 ^oC warming in this century are realized, Earth will have experienced the same amount of global warming as it did at the end of the last glacial maximum.
• There is no evidence that this rate is matched to a comparable global temperature increase over the last 50 million years!

Sea-Level Rise:

Sea-level rise due to global warming is a serious threat, especially to coastal communities in developing countries. Sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is predicted to rise at an even greater rate in this century, with 20th century estimates of 1.7 mm per year (IPCC, 2007). When climate warms, ice on land melts and flows back into the oceans raising sea levels. Also, when the oceans warm, the water expands (thermal expansion) which raises sea levels. Figure 7.20 (IPCC, 2007) shows the projected sea-level rise through AD 2100.

Figure 7.20: Projected sea-level rise through AD 2100

Figure 7.21 (Richardson et al., 2009) shows that IPCC 1990 projected sea level increases were too conservative. The latest observations show that sea levels have risen faster than previous projections.

Figure 7.21: Observed sea-level rise between 1970 and 2008 compared to IPCC projections

Figure 7.21a (Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research) shows the current sea level change data using seasonally adjusted values from TOPEX and Jason.

Figure 7.21a: Current measured sea level change

Mazria & Kirshner (2005) in Nation Under Siege: Sea Level Rise at Our Doorstep, a coastal impact study, show that beginning with just one meter of sea level rise, US cities would be physically under siege, with calamitous and destabilizing consequences. One can view the impact of sea level rise of various US cities at their interactive Website.

Lemonick (2010) writes in the article The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly by Region:

As the world warms, sea levels could easily rise three to six feet this century. But increases will vary widely by region, with prevailing winds, powerful ocean currents, and even the gravitational pull of the polar ice sheets determining whether some coastal areas will be inundated while others stay dry.

Climate Change and Hurricanes:

A recent paper published by some of the top hurricane researchers in the field (Knutson, et al. 2010) concludes:

…future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2–11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre.

According to a review of the most recent literature, Vechi, Swanson, and Soden (2008) conclude that predicting the future of hurricane activity is at a crossroads. Vechi et al. compared the observed relation of the power dissipation index (PDI) vs. sea-surface temperatures (SST) in the main development region of Atlantic hurricanes. (PDI is the cube of the instantaneous tropical cyclone wind speed integrated over the life of all storms in a given season; more intense and frequent basinwide hurricane activity lead to higher PDI values.) There are two very different futures depending on whether absolute SST or relative SST controls PDI.

Figure 7.22 (ibid) shows PDI anomalies based on absolute SST.

Figure 7.22: PDI anomalies based on absolute SST

By 2100, the lower end of the model projections shows a PDI comparable to that of 2005, when four major hurricanes (sustained winds of over 100 knots) struck the continental United States, causing more than $100 billion in damage. The upper end of the projections exceeds 2005 levels by more than a factor of two. Combined with rising sea levels, coastal communities face a bleak future if absolute SST determines hurricane activity and strength.

Figure 7.23 (ibid) shows PDI anomalies based on “relative SST” which is the SST in the tropical Atlantic main development region relative to the tropical mean SST.

Figure 7.23: PDI anomalies based on relative SST

A future where relative SST controls Atlantic hurricane activity is a future similar to the recent past, with periods of higher and lower hurricane activity relative to present-day conditions due to natural climate variability, but with little long-term trend. Even in this scenario, rising sea levels will still allow hurricanes to do more damage in the future than in present day.

Because the correlation of PDI vs. absolute SST and PDI vs. relative SST are equivalent, Vechi et al. conclude that more research is needed in this area.

IGBP Climate-Change Index:

Figure 7.24: IGBP Climate-Change Index (Click for larger image)

The IGBP Climate-Change Index brings together key indicators of global change: atmospheric carbon dioxide, temperature, sea level and sea ice. It will be released annually. The index gives an annual snapshot of how the planet’s complex systems – the ice, the oceans, the land surface and the atmosphere – are responding to the changing climate. The index rises steadily from 1980 – the earliest date the index has been calculated. The change is unequivocal, it is global, and it is in one direction – up!

Each parameter is normalized between -100 and +100. Zero is no annual change. One hundred is the maximum-recorded annual change since 1980. The normalised parameters are averaged. This gives the index for the year. The value for each year is added to that of the previous year to show the cumulative effect of annual change. (IGBP Climate-Change Index, 2010)

With all of this evidence for global warming, it is quite difficult to understand why some people still don’t “believe”.

We are by far the highest carbon emitter per capita in Africa, in fact companies like SASOL are the most polluting operation to be found in the world, but paradoxically it is these companies (ESKOM) that are subsidising the implementation of Green Tech, like the solar geyser rebate system.

The installation of flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) technology at the Medupi coal-fired power station, the construction of which will be part funded by a $3,75-billion loan from the World Bank, has been confirmed as a loan-package condition.

The technology, which will reduce sulphur-dioxide emissions, would have to be retrofitted, owing to the fact that it had not been included in the plant’s original design. This would add to the project’s capital cost, and its water consumption.

The bank published its ‘Project Appraisal’ document for the controversial loan on Tuesday, which shows that Eskom will need to develop, adopt and thereafter implement a FGD programme across each of the plant’s six power generation units by no later than June 30, 2013.

It is also stipulated that FGD equipment for the first generation unit must commence on the later of either the sixth anniversary of the commissioning date, or by March 31, 2018. The FGD equipment for all six generation units would need to be installed and be fully operational by no later than December 31, 2021.

The FGD installation between 2018 and 2021 will be aligned to the scheduled operational maintenance programme of the Medupi units, which would be taken off-line for routine maintenance after six years of operation.

The bank notes that the sulphur content of the coal to be used at Medupi, which is calculated at 1,4% by weight, together with the large scale of the plant, some 4 800 MW, meant that sulphur-dioxide emissions could have a “significant adverse environmental impact”.

Therefore, sulphur-dioxide emissions would have to be removed using a “wet FGD” solution, or a gypsum process, using limestone located at Kraalhoek and Dwaalboom, some 180 km from the Lephalale site.

The process would increase the plant’s water consumption and the World Bank has, thus, flagged for possible concern the fact that sufficient water might not be available in time for the commissioning of the last three units or the FGD equipment.

“Progress on the project to supply the required amount of water is on schedule. Nevertheless, the Bank has requested evidence from the Department of Water Affairs to Eskom, committing to timely water supply,” the document states.

The water allocation is dependent on the availability of water from the Mokolo and Crocodile Water Augmentation project, which is not expected to become available until 2014 at the earliest.

The FGD system is expected to add at least $150/kW to the final capital cost, while yearly water consumption, including FGD, will rise to 12-million m³.

The total cost of Medupi is estimated at about $12,1-billion.

Uncertainty over a global treaty to cut carbon emissions has slowed investment in clean energy in South Africa, where only a handful of such projects have started compared to other emerging markets.

A senior official from South Africa’s agency for assessing domestic clean-energy projects told an African conference on biofuels on Monday the country, the continent’s worst emitter, has lagged global trends in launching such projects.

Under the Kyoto protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), countries are required to cut carbon emissions by 5,2% by 2012.

“One of the barriers to CDM projects in South Africa is the uncertainty around the post-2012 regime, on whether the accord will continue or not,” Ndiafhi Tuwani, the official at South Africa’s Designated National Authority (DNA) said.

“Some of the potential project developers are reluctant because of that …there is need for a new protocol or a new accord. The previous Copenhagen accord did not come up with a new protocol (beyond) 2012.”

According to Tuwani, South Africa has 17 CDM projects registered to date, of which only four have been issued with CERs. The top two nations in the scheme, according to UN figures, are China with 787 projects and India with 498.

The CDM is part of the Kyoto protocol climate pact whose first phase ends in 2012 and there is no decision yet to extend it or agree on a separate climate treaty.

Under the agreement, rich nations that invest in clean-energy projects in developing countries earn certified emissions reductions (CERs) that can in return be sold for profit or used by polluting firms to meet their mandatory emissions targets.

A UN meeting in Bonn, Germany on Sunday agreed to revive talks on a new deal to slow global warming after December’s Copenhagen summit fell short of a binding deal.

CDM Africa Technical Manager Marco Lotz was optimistic projects aimed at cutting emissions would continue beyond 2012.

“Protocols come and go but it is not the end of the world if the Kyoto (protocol) expires. There is a whole industry that has evolved,” said Lotz.

Reuters

With headlines proclaiming “water is the new oil,” the race to make desalination a viable solution to worldwide water shortages is on.

In recent years, a number of big-name companies have gotten into the desalination game, including Dow and General Electric, both of which have worked on advanced material membranes for desalination. Today, IBM joined the group with its announcement of a pilot desalination project in Saudi Arabia.

Conducted in partnership with a team of researchers from the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, the IBM pilot will test two new technologies from IBM’s research team: a nanomaterial membrane that will help to chemically separate water from salt and other elements found in ocean or brackish water, and a concentrated solar system with an innovative cooling mechanism that will allow it to take better advantage of the desert heat and fuel the desalination process with renewable energy.

As is the case with most projects that grow out of Big Blue’s research team, these technologies will be tested by IBM but commercialized by someone else.

“We are not about to get into the solar business or the membrane business, we’re in IT,” explains Sharon Nunes, vice president of IBM’s Big Green Innovations.

The project gets at one of the primary reasons many environmentalists have long opposed desalination: It’s energy intensive.

Shifting to Solar

The vast majority of desalination plants in the world employ a process called reverse osmosis. Either ocean water or brackish water is pushed through a series of membranes at very high pressure, effectively separating water from other elements.

Most companies looking to get into the desalination space, which is all but guaranteed to grow over the next several years, concentrate on the membrane, researching advanced materials that can help to chemically strip water from other elements and thus reduce the pressure requirements for the water coming through the membranes, which in turn reduces the energy requirements of the process.

According to the Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources, the theoretical minimum amount of energy required to desalinate a cubic meter of water is .86 kWh, but the actual energy required in plants throughout the world is five to 26 times that. The theoretical minimum calculates only the energy required to separate water from other elements, not the power required to keep a plant running in general.

That’s where the solar power comes in.

Desalination plants and solar energy are a natural fit: More often than not, areas with water shortages also tend to be areas where there’s quite a bit of sun. At the IBM/KAST Saudi Arabia plant, a solar concentrator system will capture energy equivalent to 1,500 suns, according to IBM, powering a plant that will produce 30,000 cubic meters per day of fresh water for a city of 100,000 people.

So why haven’t solar-powered desal plants been popping up all over the world?

“Solar is still not at grid parity, and if you’re going to build a solar system into a desalination plant, you also need a back-up system in case of cloudy days or dust storms, and all of that is a large additional cost to building a plant,” explains Nunes.

Part of what reduces the cost of solar in this case, according to Nunes, is a proprietary cooling technology that cuts down on system outages and maintenance issues. The liquid metal interface of the system, a technology that grew out of IBM’s experience with mainframe computers and chip manufacturing, enables very high cooling rates, according to Nunes, and thus more intense energy capture.

“Usually, the more energy capture, the hotter your solar cell gets, and we’re talking about really extreme temperatures, which means you end up with unreliable chips or you burn out your chips entirely, so cooling these systems is very important,” she said.

High-Tech Membranes Increase Efficiency

According to Nunes, the membranes employed at the Saudi desalination plant will help reduce the plant’s energy requirements.

The membrane includes fluorine, which is naturally hydrophobic, but at an adjusted pH that makes it hydrophilic. In layman’s terms, through the magic of chemistry, a material that usually repels water now attracts it, which makes it a very effective membrane with which to desalinate water. The material also is resistant to chlorine, which is often used to pre-treat water in purification systems but typically degrades membranes.

The membrane is also more resistant to fouling than other membranes on the market, according to Nunes. The sand, shells, weeds and small sea creatures that can get stuck on membranes means they need to be cleaned fairly often, and when the membranes are at their dirtiest, more energy is required to push water through them at a higher pressure.

Which gets to the other aspects of desalination that environmentalists don’t particularly like, aspects that IBM’s technology isn’t yet focused on: loss of biodiversity in some marine areas and the effect of the briny effluent produced by the desalination process, which is generally dumped back into the original water source.

Concerns for Biodiversity

The brine (a highly salty water that’s 10 times saltier than average ocean water) produced by desalination plants has been tested in labs and shown to have little effect on marine life, but the argument from some marine biologists is that in a lab test, fish and other sea life can’t get away; while the brine may not kill them, in a real-world scenario they may opt to just leave an area that is suddenly 10 times saltier than it used to be.

The loss of biodiversity is an issue that has largely been pooh-poohed by desalination proponents. There are currently more than 12,000 desalination plants in the world, and as that number grows, it could have a drastic effect on marine ecosystems as the smallest organisms are routinely sucked into a pump and crushed against membranes.

The current focus on improving energy and water efficiency in desalination plants is a positive one, and replacing coal-powered desalination with solar-powered desalination is imperative, otherwise the “solution” to the water problem is helping to exacerbate one of the causes: climate change.

But the idea of efficiency needs to be more broadly applied to the water problem as a whole. One of the reasons that fresh water is at a premium is that much of it has been polluted. In some cases, that renders the water completely undrinkable; in others, in order to drink it, the fresh water needs to be purified in much the same way that saltwater needs to be desalinated, and that process is also energy intensive.

Purification processes need to become more efficient, fresh water stores need to be better protected and technologies that help people use less water and use it more efficiently are still desperately needed. As is the case with energy, solutions to the water shortage need to look at efficiency first and then filling in with “new” water where nothing more can be done on the efficiency front.

As a researcher at the Pacific Institute studying the pros and cons of desalination once put it to me, if you’ve got a leaky bucket, what’s the more logical solution, to just add more water or to plug the holes?

In Hawaii, a power developer will soon find out if earth and sky mix.

Pacific Light & Power will build a 10-megawatt solar thermal plant that will combine a trough solar collector from Spain’s Albiasa with a turbine traditionally used in geothermal systems.

Why? Ten megawatts is unusually small for a solar thermal field. BrightSource Energy, by contrast, wants to build one in California that will produce 396 megawatts of power. Most solar thermal systems, however, collect heat from the sun to turn water into steam and then feed the steam into gigantic turbines. The heat requirements and the size of the solar thermal fields mean that solar thermal parks can only be built economically in places like North Africa or Arizona where the sun shines almost every day of the year, lots of empty land exists, and humidity remains almost nonexistent. Even the presence of a few clouds can depress the power output.

Geothermal turbines swap water and steam for organic fluids like butane, which turn to vapor at lower temperatures. Thus, geothermal turbines require less heat, which in turn allows for smaller solar fields in a wider range of climates and geographies. Like traditional solar thermal systems, excess heat can be stored and run through the system in the evening or when cloud cover descends.

Jesse Tippett, the managing director of Albiasa, likens it to thin-film solar panels. The underlying technology may not be as efficient but it can generate energy in a wider variety of circumstances.

When completed in 2011, the plant — located on the island of Kauai — will provide close to seven percent of the power needed on the island.

Alibasa and PLP describe it as a hybrid plant, but it’s more of an unusual concatenation. Generally, hybrid plants are power plants that combine renewable energy generation — like solar thermal systems or biogas burners — with gas turbines to provide more baseline-like power. Florida Power and Light and Abengoa are currently building hybrid plants.

Power from the plant will be “close to Hawaiian (grid) parity,” he said, which means expensive. Electric power in Hawaii costs around 25.78 cents a kilowatt hour, the highest rate in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration. Hawaii generates most of its power from diesel generators. But Albiasa will study ways to bring the cost down to make these systems feasible elsewhere.

Algae biofuels are often considered one of those technologies — like hydrogen fuel cells — that are always “ten years away.”  Well, one company says it might have just cracked the code and could be supplying lots of algae jet fuel and diesel in the coming years.

In the race for algae biofuel commercialization, people usually compare open ponds with photobioreactors.  Solazyme, however, bypasses photosynthesis (and conventional wisdom) by growing algae in dark fermentation tanks.

Grow algae in dark tanks?!  Isn’t that like putting solar panels on the dark side of the moon?!

Not really.

Most algae strains are photosynthetic and utilize the sun to transform C02 into useable energy.  Among the most productive and fastest growing organisms on the planet, algae can double in size daily and account for approximately 60% of the oxygen production on Earth.  Some strains comprise up to 50% of their body weight as a lipid (oil).

Excitement for algae in recent years has largely been driven by their superior yields.  For example, corn ethanol — the dominant feedstock for ethanol in the United States — yields the equivalence of 270 gallons of gasoline per acre per year.  Algae’s yields are somewhere between 1500-8000 gallons per acre per year — depending upon the strain’s genetics, growth method, access to key nutrients, and location.

In addition to superior yields, interest in algae has been driven by the fact that algae can thrive in wastewater, greywater, or salt water, can grow on marginal or desert land, consumes C02 as a feedstock, and could possible be used for wastewater remediation.

Algae also completely bypasses the “food vs. fuel” issues, Indirect Land Use Changes (seeInconvenient Truth: Biofuels Have a Carbon Footprint), downstream petroleum infrastructure incompatabilities, fresh water limitations, questionable energy and GHG emission balances, and all the other reasons why corn ethanol and most other First Generation biofuels are unsuitable candidates to ever wean us off our crack-like addiction to petroleum.

Although many of us believe in algae’s long-term prospects, its short-term viability has been limited by unfavorable economics — calling many to conclude that algae biofuels are all sizzle and little steak.

Although open ponds and photo-bioreactors (PBRs) have very different cap-ex and op-ex cost structures, both systems are defined by an algae lifecycle that goes something like this:

An algae strain must identified and/or optimized for maximum growth and potential to ward of invasive species.  The correct location must be found and as the algae grow, they need a constant supply of nutrients, C02, heat, and light which requires the consistent movement of water.  Once the algae grows to a sufficient mass, it must be harvested, dewatered, and dried before extraction of the oil can commence.  These steps are energy and capital intensive.

Once the oil is extracted, it is relatively simple to upgrade the fuel into jet fuel or diesel using traditional refinery techniques but still costs an additional $0.25-$0.40/gal.  Taken together, algae grown via open ponds and PBRs are estimated to currently cost $8-$30/gal. (see Biofuels 2010: Spotting the Next Wave).

While some companies like Synthetic Genomics are attempting to genetically modify algae strains to secrete the lipids as they grow (known as “wet extraction”) and others like OriginOil have developed a technology platform that reduces the aforementioned steps using fancy centrifuges and electromagnetic pulses, there are significant questions about the ability of these systems to scale.

Which brings us to Solazyme.

By growing their algae in dark vessels, the company does not incur the energy costs of providing the algae artificial light.  Heterotrophic fermentation requires a fraction of the amount of water as a PBR or open pond.  These strains of algae do not require C02 — which is widely accepted among algae experts as the one of the two largest logistical obstacle for photosynthetic algae commercialization. The other is removing the water, which isn’t an issue when growing it in dark vessels.

Solazyme will basically feed their algae sugar until they are large, round, and ready to explode with oil — kind of like Violet Beauregarde in Charlie in the Chocolate Factory.  The company has not disclosed its extraction method but claims that it will only cost several cents per gallon.

While Solazyme will need copious amounts of sugar to feed the algae which could catapult the company into the “food vs. fuel” debate — Solazyme has a supply agreement with second generation pioneer BlueFire Energy to obtain sugars derived from cellulosic (i.e. non-food) sources.

Given that the company is using fermentation — a well established technology used to make beer and ethanol—  creating and scaling facilities will not be as big of an impediment as the 150 or so other approaches that vacilliate from flooding the Arizona desert with seawater to extracting algae oil from live fish (see Live Fuels).

Still skeptical?

Solazyme has a few other tricks up its sleeve.

It is among the most well capitalized advanced biofuel companies raking in more than $100M since inception.  It recently received an additional $22M in DOE financing for its demonstration-scale facility to prove it is ready to scale to a commercial plant.

In the coming months, Solazyme will deliver 20,000 gallons of algae jet fuel to the U.S. Navy.  While 20,000 gallons will hardly scare the Saudis into turning Ghawar into an algae R&D lab, this number needs to be placed in the context of the fact that few — if any — other algae company has ever produced more than a few hundred gallons in their entire company’s operating history.

Additionally, Solazyme is already selling nutraceuticals, powered oils, and oleochemicals for $3-$10/lb.  The company anticipates that its total levelized costs will come down to $1.50-$2.00/gal by 2012.

We have even heard grumblings that the company is in the early stages of engineering on a 100 MGY commercial facility that would open in 2013.

Maybe algae isn’t ten years away afterall…

In just days, the World Bank will vote on a proposed R29 billion loan to Eskom to build the fourth-largest coal plant in the world — a climate disaster. At the same time, Eskom plans to effectively double electricity rates over the next three years. Big polluters are getting cut-rate electricity while ratepayers would be left to pay back this disastrous loan.

But the loan is not a done deal. Some creditors are having second thoughts, with the US expected to abstain and several European delegates reportedly on the fence. And we can tip the balance — we just need one “no” vote to table the proposal since the Bank rarely proceeds with divisive votes!

While Eskom trumpets the plan, we can tell World Bank directors how we feel about coal. Let the Word Bank know that we don’t want its dirty loan – click below to sign the petition today:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_eskom_coal_loan/?vl

The Bank is right to recognize South Africa’s energy needs, but this loan would be putting money in the wrong place. Instead of dirty coal, South Africa needs energy efficiency and clean, renewable sources of power that people who most need it can actually afford. If this loan is approved, South Africans will pay for it several-fold — in meteoric electricity rates, missed clean energy investments, polluted air, destroyed land, and the warming earth on which we live.

Dozens of South African environmental, community, church, labour, academic and women’s organizations, representing a diverse, unified voice have mobilized to stop the loan. But every voice counts in these last days before the World Bank vote. Act now – sign the petition opposing the loan:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/no_eskom_coal_loan/?vl

With hope,

Ben, Paul, Graziela, David, Alice, Ricken, and the whole Avaaz team

More information –

NGO Response to the World Bank panel report and Fact Sheet
http://www.groundwork.org.za/Publications/EskomFinalDocs/ResponsetotheWorldBankpanelreportandFactSheet.pdf

Original World Bank Fact Sheet
http://www.groundwork.org.za/Publications/EskomFinalDocs/WBEskomloanfactsheet.pdf

Eskom Tariff Hikes Slammed
http://allafrica.com/stories/201002250561.html

World Bank to Consider $4 Billion Loan Application From Eskom
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=aGkhG0hBKlrE

SAfrica grants Eskom 24.8 pct price rise for 2010/11
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEB199720100224?type=marketsNews

Support the Avaaz community! We’re entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way – donate here.

We at Greencon would like to point out that we have done extensive research on our suppliers, and this is part of the reason we use suppliers with a audited track records.

“Green” solar panels can have their dirty side in terms of disposal and manufacturing.  And what happens to the millions of solar panels planted in solar farms and installed on roofs once they’ve reached the end of their useful life in 20 or 25 years?

You might recall the outcry in 2008 when theWashington Post reported on the alleged dumping of silicon tetrachloride, a toxic byproduct of polysilicon production on farmland in China.  Lax environmental enforcement and the drive to save money on expensive recycling and treatment drove the polysilicon supplier to this irresponsible act.

The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) has called on the solar industry to adopt environmentally friendly measures for manufacturing and disposing of solar panels. Sheila Davis, executive director of the non-profit SVTC, believes that solar companies should start investing in recycling efforts now rather than waiting for their products to clog up landfills before taking action.

“It’s an excellent time to do this considering that solar is an emerging industry,” said Davis. “It will be an environmental advantage if you have panels that not only contribute to sustainability and reduce carbon emissions, but also use renewable and sustainable materials.”

To encourage solar manufacturers to do the right thing, SVTC just released its 2010 Solar Company Scorecard, which ranks manufacturers of PV modules according to environmental health and safety, sustainability, workers’ rights, and social justice. The responding companies self-reported on these areas and the results can serve as a resource for institutional purchasers, investors and consumers.   SVTC is funded by individuals and foundations. The scorecard was partially funded by Henderson Global and Boston Common.

“Solar power is key to helping solve the world’s climate crisis,” offered Davis. “But the industry still faces serious issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered truly ‘clean and green’ and socially just.”

Fourteen companies representing 24 percent of the 2008 module market share and 31 percent of the cumulative market share responded to the inquiry. The top three scores were earned by German manufacturers Calyxo, SolarWorld and Sovello, which scored 90, 88 and 73 respectively. (Calyxo and Sovello, both funded by Q-Cells, likely have larger problems to worry about).

Two U.S.-based cadmium telluride manufacturers responded and scored in the mid-range: First Solar in Arizona received a score of 67 and Colorado-based startup Abound received a 63.

What really needs to occur to drive a recycling culture is the adoption of a takeback program by every solar module manufacturer.  Firms can go it alone like First Solar or they can get together, as in the PV Cycle Association, which is developing a voluntary solar panel recycling program in Europe.

SVTC is calling for mandatory takeback and responsible recycling by solar companies as a step toward reducing the solar industry’s environmental footprint.  Larger institutional customers and city or school districts can drive this process by insisting that there be takeback programs as well.

In Davis’ words, “That’s why we created the scorecard — to see which makers are taking the panels back.”

First Solar (FSLR), the largest maker of cadmium telluride solar panels, runs a recycling program and explains what it does with unwanted panels here.  There is a toxicity risk associated with cadmium telluride that First Solar has confronted with a 100 percent takeback program bonded by Swiss Re in the event that First Solar is not around in 20 to 30 years.

The SVTC got started more than 25 years ago in response to water contamination caused by the semiconductor industry.  Their focus has been on electronics, but the rapid growth of the solar PV industry has spurred them into getting an early start on working with the solar panel manufacturers, and to avoid the late start that the semiconductor industry had. “We don’t want that to happen in the solar industry,” said Davis.

She added, “The waste stream is going to diversify and manufacturers need to be prepared.”