Alternative energy simply means energy that is produced from sources other than our primary energy supply: fossil fuels. Coal, oil and natural gas are the three kinds of fossil fuels that we have mostly depended on for our energy needs, from home heating and electricity to fuel for our automobiles and mass transportation. The problem is, fossil fuels are non-renewable .

The importance of renewable energy is indisputable. Developed countries and even oil & gas based economies are focusing and evidencing its importance. An example of this was the commitment reached by the G-20 leaders in 2009 (Pittsburgh Meeting) to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption (these subsidies totalized US$ 312 billion in 2009) . Well known is also the commitment declared by the European Union to reach a 100 percent renewable energy supply by 2050.

In Latin America, renewable energy use raises to an impressive 30 percent of the total primary energy supply in comparison with the 6 percent share of renewables in the OECD countries (and the less than 1 percent in Middle East). But the numbers are not as good as they seem as generation is mostly dominated by large hydro generation plants and bio-fuel: the first heavily depending on the changing water levels (and particularly affected by droughts due to climate changes) and the second highly criticized due to its failure in reducing greenhouse gases.

Latin America is in a state of continuing progress in the investment and use of renewable energy. From a very timid start we can now see various renewable projects which would soon provide more sources of energy to our countries. The technology and know-how has also been imported to Latin America and we can now see agreements with more advanced countries (in this particular field) like the one entered into between Portugal and Venezuela and the United Kingdom with Cuba.

However, the market of alternative energies is far from perfection. There are a number of barriers and difficulties to overcome and therefore there is still work to be done. In this context, we will analyze other realities and some examples and cases in Latin American countries. We will finally, examine the coexistence between renewable projects, mining and hydrocarbons where their relationship is sometimes pacific and collaborative and -in some occasions- hostile and conflicting.

Italians voted in a 1987 referendum to prevent new nuclear power plants. Subsequently, the government decided in 1988 to phase out existing reactors.

Berlusconi conceded defeat saying “addio” to nuclear and noting that the country must now develop its renewable energy resources.

The Italian referendum follows Germany’s proposal to close all its reactors by 2022 and Switzerland’s decision to phase out its nuclear plants as well.

As Craig Morris points out at Renewables International, Italy is the world’s largest industrial economy to not use nuclear power for the past 14 years.

Italy sets 23 GW solar PV target

Meanwhile, the Italian Government has adopted detailed new tariffs for solar photovoltaic systems (PV) targeting 23 GW by 2017.

The new target supersedes the previous 8 GW target that was likely to be surpassed this year.

At the end of 2010, Italy officially had installed a total solar PV capacity of 3 GW. There may have been as much as 4 GW of additional capacity that was installed in 2010, but the paperwork has not yet been processed. Consequently, there could be 7 GW of solar PV now operating in Italy.

For comparison, Germany has a current installed capacity of 17 GW. There is about 2.2 GW of solar PV installed in the USA.

Italy is currently the world’s second largest market for solar PV, following Germany. The new policy ensures that Italy will likely maintain this position for the foreseeable future.

Solar potentially 10% of supply

Under Italian conditions, the new solar PV target of 23 GW could generate more than 30 TWh annually by 2017.

Italy consumed 319 TWh of electricity in 2010.

If the Italian solar industry reaches the capacity target of 23 GW, it alone will be meeting nearly 10% of the nation’s electricity supply.

Wind energy currently provides nearly 5% of supply.

New solar PV tariffs remain attractive

While the trade press has emphasised that the new policy ‘cuts’ the existing tariffs dramatically, Italian solar PV tariffs will remain among the highest in Europe relative to its more intense insolation.

Though the programme in Italy differs markedly from that in Germany, some of the new tariffs introduced can be compared to those now used in Germany.

?

Germany receives approximately three-fourths the insolation of Italy. Thus, current German tariffs would be reduced by an equivalent amount in Italy to provide the same return on investment as in Germany, everything else being equal.

There is a further complication. Quarto Conto Energia, or the fourth energy policy, includes payment of the wholesale rate on top of the feed-in tariff for the remainder of 2011 and for all of 2012. Recently this amounted to an additional 0.07/kWh that’s not shown in the tariffs.

Italy’s new tariffs remain at least 50% greater than the current tariffs in Germany.

Source: www.renewableenergyfocus.com

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have renewable electricity mandates. President Obama and several members of Congress have supported one at the federal level. Polls routinely show strong support among voters for renewable energy projects — as long as they don’t cost too much.

But there’s the rub: while energy sources like sunlight and wind are free and naturally replenished, converting them into large quantities of electricity requires vast amounts of natural resources — most notably, land. Even a cursory look at these costs exposes the deep contradictions in the renewable energy movement.

Consider California’s new mandate. The state’s peak electricity demand is about 52,000 megawatts. Meeting the one-third target will require (if you oversimplify a bit) about 17,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity. Let’s assume that California will get half of that capacity from solar and half from wind. Most of its large-scale solar electricity production will presumably come from projects like the $2 billion Ivanpah solar plant, which is now under construction in the Mojave Desert in southern California. When completed, Ivanpah, which aims to provide 370 megawatts of solar generation capacity, will cover 3,600 acres — about five and a half square miles.

The math is simple: to have 8,500 megawatts of solar capacity, California would need at least 23 projects the size of Ivanpah, covering about 129 square miles, an area more than five times as large as Manhattan. While there’s plenty of land in the Mojave, projects as big as Ivanpah raise environmental concerns. In April, the federal Bureau of Land Management ordered a halt to construction on part of the facility out of concern for the desert tortoise, which is protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Wind energy projects require even more land. The Roscoe wind farm in Texas, which has a capacity of 781.5 megawatts, covers about 154 square miles. Again, the math is straightforward: to have 8,500 megawatts of wind generation capacity, California would likely need to set aside an area equivalent to more than 70 Manhattans. Apart from the impact on the environment itself, few if any people could live on the land because of the noise (and the infrasound, which is inaudible to most humans but potentially harmful) produced by the turbines.

Industrial solar and wind projects also require long swaths of land for power lines. Last year, despite opposition from environmental groups, San Diego Gas & Electric started construction on the 117-mile Sunrise Powerlink, which will carry electricity from solar, wind and geothermal projects located in Imperial County, Calif., to customers in and around San Diego. In January, environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the $1.9 billion line from cutting through a nearby national forest.

Not all environmentalists ignore renewable energy’s land requirements. The Nature Conservancy has coined the term “energy sprawl” to describe it. Unfortunately, energy sprawl is only one of the ways that renewable energy makes heavy demands on natural resources.

Consider the massive quantities of steel required for wind projects. The production and transportation of steel are both expensive and energy-intensive, and installing a single wind turbine requires about 200 tons of it. Many turbines have capacities of 3 or 4 megawatts, so you can assume that each megawatt of wind capacity requires roughly 50 tons of steel. By contrast, a typical natural gas turbine can produce nearly 43 megawatts while weighing only 9 tons. Thus, each megawatt of capacity requires less than a quarter of a ton of steel.

Obviously these are ballpark figures, but however you crunch the numbers, the takeaway is the same: the amount of steel needed to generate a given amount of electricity from a wind turbine is greater by several orders of magnitude.

Such profligate use of resources is the antithesis of the environmental ideal. Nearly four decades ago, the economist E. F. Schumacher distilled the essence of environmental protection down to three words: “Small is beautiful.” In the rush to do something — anything — to deal with the intractable problem of greenhouse gas emissions, environmental groups and policy makers have determined that renewable energy is the answer. But in doing so they’ve tossed Schumacher’s dictum into the ditch.

All energy and power systems exact a toll. If we are to take Schumacher’s phrase to heart while also reducing the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions, we must exploit the low-carbon energy sources — natural gas and, yes, nuclear — that have smaller footprints.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Offshore wind park owners will see their guaranteed above- market rates decrease starting in 2018, three years later than the government had planned, the Environment Ministry said in a draft law published today on its website. Onshore turbine operators will see the aid they receive slide by an additional 1.5 percent in 2012, according to the document.

Germany plans to exit nuclear over the course of the next decade after the disaster at reactors in Japan stoked safety concerns and helped lose Chancellor Angela Merkel’s party votes. The government is balancing aid for energy from solar panels and wind turbines with the cost for citizens and industrial users, who will finance the roll-out through power bills.

Subsidies for onshore and solar power fed into the grid are currently adjusted at yearly or bi-yearly intervals to reflect the cost of generating electricity with the technology.

Germany has 27.2 gigawatts of onshore turbines, according to the BWE German Wind Energy Association. EnBW Energie Baden- Wuerttemberg AG’s 48.3-megawatt Baltic 1, the first commercial offshore wind park, started in May, according to the company.

‘Window Dressing’

“The changes in the degression are nothing but window dressing and cosmetic to pacify the opposition and state governments,” the BWE said today on its website. “If the law goes through the upper and lower houses of parliament in this form, it will slow onshore wind energy development.”

The German government has said utilities could build 20 gigawatts to 25 gigawatts of offshore wind turbines by 2030. In comparison, the country’s 17 nuclear reactors have a combined capacity of 20.7 gigawatts.

An Environment Ministry plan to keep a 2 euro cent per kilowatt-hour “sprinter” bonus for utilities with offshore wind parks up and running by 2015 “strengthens” investment security, said Windenergie-Agentur Bremerhaven/Bremen.

The group, which represents northern German companies in the wind energy industry, said it also supports the option for turbine operators to receive more aid up front, according to an e-mailed statement today.

The Environment Ministry’s draft reiterates a call it made last month for aid to the renewable energy sector not to exceed 3.5 euro-cents a kilowatt-hour in consumer power bills. The government wants to boost renewable energy output to 35 percent in 2020 from 17 percent last year.

The draft, and nine other energy bills approved by Cabinet today, will go to the lower house of parliament for a first reading on June 9. The upper house, or Bundesrat, will vote on the energy plans on July 8, the last day it meets before the summer recess.

Source: www.bloomberg.com

Most renewable sources are abundant, practically inexhaustible and far more climate friendly than fossil fuels. Some companies making equipment to harness these energies are growing rapidly.

Last month, experts advising the United Nations said renewable sources could deliver nearly 80 percent of world’s total energy demand by the middle of the century. That report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the most authoritative body of experts, scientists and engineers specialized in climate change — was a welcome signal for an industry that has faltered in previous decades after government subsidies dried up and lower-cost fossil fuels made their technologies uncompetitive.

The report “is a big thumbs up for an industry that’s making huge advances in lowering costs and improving efficiency,” said Maja Wessels, global head of government affairs for First Solar, one of the largest makers of solar panels. “The experts have said that reaching high renewables targets will become very achievable.”

She said that the report should serve as basis for governments and lenders like the World Bank to plan investment in energy systems and infrastructure.

Governments staking out a low-carbon future also welcomed the findings.

Charles Hendry, the British minister for energy and climate change, said the report “makes it completely clear that this is a massively growing area” that could deliver “a turnaround moment for many parts of the economy.”

Even so, some financiers and environmental groups said the report underplayed the potential for renewable energy. The panel “wasn’t aggressive enough and the data were two years old,” said Gerard Reid, an analyst at Jefferies, an investment bank. “For solar panels, and offshore wind and concentrating solar power, we can get the costs down even quicker.”

WWF, an environmental group, emphasized that it had developed plans for generating 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.

Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chairman of the climate panel that wrote the report, said the findings were realistic. “Under no circumstances can we afford to omit or neglect renewables,” Mr. Edenhofer said by telephone. “But we must remember that there is more than one way to achieve a low greenhouse gas economy.” He was referring to alternatives to renewable sources like nuclear power and technologies under development to limit the damage of fossil fuel use by capturing and storing carbon dioxide before it reaches the atmosphere.

Some of the renewable sources with the greatest potential to deliver large amounts of energy, like certain kinds of solar power, remain expensive compared with burning fossil fuels, he said. And integrating a wide variety of renewable sources into existing power grids would be a huge technical and financial challenge, he added.

That caution was echoed by separate report released on May 24 by the International Energy Agency. While the agency found that biomass, geothermal and hydropower provide a steady stream of power and pose no greater challenge than conventional power to integrate into grids, other renewable sources — wind, solar, wave and tidal energy — fluctuate with the weather and are often in places that lack grids.

“When shares of variable renewables amount to just a few percent, a philosophy of ‘connect and manage’ will usually suffice,” said Nobua Tanaka, executive director of the I.E.A. Greater use of renewable sources means that “this will need to change,” he said.

A summary of the climate panel’s report was published on May 9, after 194 governments agreed to the text. The report was based on a comparison of 164 evaluations of the technology and provided the most comprehensive analysis to date of trends and perspectives for renewable energy. The panel was expected to publish a full report of more than 900 pages by mid-June, once scientists have completed final checks.

The report found that six sources — bioenergy, wind, solar, geothermal energy, hydropower and ocean energy — currently accounted for 13 percent of global energy supply. In one of the least optimistic outlooks for the sector examined by the panel, the world would generate 15 percent of its energy needs from those same six sources by 2050. But in one of the most optimistic projections, the world could generate 43 percent of its energy needs from those six sources by 2030 and 77 percent by 2050.

Renewable energy also would create jobs and help accelerate access to energy for 1.4 billion people without electricity.

The panel expected costs for many of the technologies to fall, though they still would be formidable. Reaching a point where renewable sources would contribute significantly more low-carbon energy than nuclear power and fossil fuels by midcentury will require investments by governments and the private sector of up to $5.1 trillion through 2020, and up to $7.2 trillion from 2021 to 2030.

Solar still represented just 0.1 percent of total global energy supply. Ocean energy projects are at demonstration or pilot phases and unlikely to become significant contributors before 2020.

Geothermal stands at 0.1 percent of global energy supply. Tests are still under way to determine if so-called enhanced techniques to raise output can be viable. Hydropower already accounts for 2.3 percent of global energy supplies, but its expansion is partly limited by the effects that dams and reservoirs can have on local ecology and water systems.

Biomass, including biofuels and traditional cooking and heating, is the most widely used renewable source, accounting for 10.2 percent of global energy supply. But using trees and crops for fuel creates more emissions when new land is cleared to make room for displaced crops. “Biomass may be a major source of renewable energy, but it also has quickly become one of the most contentious sources,” Mr. Edenhofer said.

The outlook for wind was probably the clearest. It could supply up to 8.4 percent of global energy in 2050 from current levels of about 0.2 percent, according to the report. Yet the report noted that “public acceptance” of unsightly windmills was still a problem.

Over all, renewable energy still needs to grow by a factor of about 20 before it can contribute substantially to efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Since the evidence used in the report was compiled, additional factors that could dampen interest in renewable energy have emerged, including the rapid development of shale gas in the United States. The boom in shale gas extraction has lowered energy prices and could make relatively expensive renewable technologies less appealing.

In Europe, the shale gas industry is far less developed. But the more immediate challenge is how governments have shrunk or delayed plans for renewable energy after a sovereign debt crisis led to cutbacks and continues to cast a shadow over the prospects for growth.

“A lot of policy enthusiasm in the developed West has been tempered by austerity,” said Nick Robins, chief analyst for climate change at HSBC. “On the other hand, China and India still are growing quickly and they have the imperative to invest in renewable energy to meet new demand.”

That more promising assessment of China and India is borne out by the panel’s report, which found that developing countries already host 53 percent of the world’s electrical generating capacity from renewable sources.

The Chinese “now look at renewables as part of the energy mix, while we in the West still look at them as expensive and a nice to have, rather than a necessity,” said Mr. Reid of Jefferies.

www.nytimes.com