Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Copenhagen's Clean-Tech Dividend

Climate deal could deliver incentives to grow nascent energy technologies.

By Peter Fairley

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

The 11th hour is, as often happens in negotiations, proving fruitful for the United Nations Climate Change Conference that opens Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. The last-minute actors are President Barack Obama, who last week said he will personally deliver a pledge to reduce U.S. emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who unveiled an ambitious energy-efficiency target one day later. Those moves have economists, analysts, and technology developers increasingly hopeful that the 11-day talks will secure a deal to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases, thus extending the market for energy-efficient technologies.

Hot air: A wind turbine and several national flags welcome visitors to the Bella Center in Copenhagen--the venue for the U.N.’s Climate Change Conference.
Credit: Claus Starup

The impact could be both immediate and far-reaching, according to Ethan Zindler, who directs U.S. research for the London-based consulting firm New Energy Finance. "It sends an important long-term signal to the marketplace about commitment from multiple nations. That's something that, particularly in the U.S., there's been a desire to see for some time," says Zindler. At the same time, he says, Obama may have made his pledge in the hopes that Copenhagen will help secure the passage of U.S. energy and climate legislation. The climate bill offers incentives for renewable energy installations and large-scale demonstrations of carbon sequestration.

Columbia University economist Graciela Chichilnisky, who crafted the Kyoto Protocol's carbon trading provisions, predicts that Copenhagen will produce a deal mandating emissions reductions by 2020 equal to or greater than those pledged by Obama. "That is the minimum that will happen," says Chichilnisky.

Chichilnisky says the U.S. pledge equates to just a 3 percent cut from the Kyoto Protocol's 1990 baseline. The Obama pledge is dwarfed by the EU's pledged 20 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2020 and the 25 percent cut pledged by Japan. Climatologists are calling for cuts of 80 to 90 percent by 2050. As Chichilnisky says of the U.S. pledge: "It's absurd, but it's a beginning."

Story continues below


Finn Strom Madsen, the executive in charge of R&D for Danish wind-turbine company Vestas, agrees that a deal at Copenhagen is critical for renewable-energy developers, regardless of the scale of the mandate. Madsen says real value in Copenhagen is having world leaders reach "the political consensus that we need to bring alternatives into the conventional energy mix, and that we need to do it faster than we're doing it today."

Vestas, in fact, already announced plans this fall to boost its R&D staff of 1,375 people by almost half in order to push ahead with several large R&D efforts simultaneously. These include: a six-megawatt turbine for offshore use that is twice as powerful as Vestas's biggest turbine; floating foundations for deep offshore waters; and stealth turbines to minimize disruption of air traffic radar. "If it turns out that we don't get anything [at Copenhagen] and people are throwing rocks at each other, we might reconsider some of the things we're doing," says Madsen. "But we certainly expect that we will have a political agreement."

Comments

  • Hope.. Change.. Commitment
    Hope.. Change.. Commitment !

    C'mon guys, instead of throwing stones at each other concentrate on how we can do it better, more and faster than the other.
    "The failure is not an option" but it depends of course what do you mean by failure. Failure to dictate protocols on already starving nations, or failure to get going all those taxes (on evil things of the past such as oil, gas, arms, you name it).
    I want Obama (or ours Van Rompuy) declare to China, India, Brazil or others : "No problem, do whatever you think it's reasonable, just reduce it! I will do it better, I will do more!" And go tax the evil, abolish the dictatorship of oil, rally the wall street to go green, create green jobs, and green science/technology,…
    By the way, we will all be surprised how fast that these things spread once it's unleashed (dare I to say virus-like) take for example, zero emission electric cars, with the right decisions/incentives taken, an ill fated auto industry can once again roar without the shame of destroying our planet. How? By commodifying the car 2.0 (standardizing charging/swapping of the batteries), by pouring clean electrons (solar, wind, or whatever). We will all be surprised what ingenious ways we will come up to produce energy without destroying the nature. That sounds CHANGE to me. A vision. Instead of trying to impose on others, just say "I will do better" and go do it! Needless to say who he has an edge on doing it, will also be selling it, instead of buying. And, by the way, one couldn't imagine a better place than Denmark to declare it! Test bed is concluding, now it's more than time to go deploy it!

    S.Akay
    Brussels
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mimarsinan
    12/02/2009
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Caught Green Handed
    I am for efficient alternative energy that makes sense, but there should be a special Copenhagen panel on how to start over to include skeptic SCIENTISTS' data. Perhaps they can get some help from MIT on rewriting the falsified programs with recovered real data.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html
    Christopher Monckton - Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
        The whistleblower deep in the basement of one of the ugly, modern tower-blocks of the dismal, windswept University of East Anglia could scarcely have timed it better.  [PDF]

    My only hope for Penn State's investigation of Mann is that PSU appears to have more conservatives to watch the foxes at the hen house than the rotten ivy-league schools, and others from CA etc. There is not one iota of doubt that the great majority of USA universities are extreme left of center. The left-leaning trend plot could likely replace the hockey stick PROVEN to be in error. That was shown by many including the late www.john-daly.com  whose death was cheered by the lying idiots - see:
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_637290.html
    Sixty prominent German scientists have sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel formally dissenting from the view of man-made global warming. They say global warming has become a "pseudo religion" and argue that rising levels of C02 have "had no measurable effect" on temperatures. Among the scientists are several who once signed on to now discredited climate studies sponsored by the United Nations.

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_655289.html
    Apple Inc. and three other members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quit over its opposition to climate-change legislation.

    Hmmmm - maybe they will change their views after Climategate:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


    August 2009
    Sixty prominent German scientists have sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel formally dissenting from the view of man-made global warming. Among the scientists are several who once signed on to now discredited climate studies sponsored by the United Nations.

    Read the letter in:
    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200908075853/energy-and-environment/more-than-60-german-scientists-dissent-over-global-warming-claims.html

    Video Not Evil Just Wrong
    http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev101809a.cfm

    http://ifiles.info/

    Rate this comment: 12345

    FRANKOK
    12/02/2009
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: Caught Green Handed
      Whether global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels or not is somewhat of a moot issue since there are strong economic, environmental and national security reasons to displace fossil fuels. If the reduction of CO2 emissions gives extra incentive to move away from fossil fuels, then that's great.

      Just the ultimate savings in energy costs alone suggest that we move away from fossil fuels in an expeditious manner. Then the climate change clamor can be viewed in the same light as an unnecessarily divisive religious debate, such as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
      Rate this comment: 12345

      NorthernPike...
      12/02/2009
      Posts:13
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Caught Green Handed
        Exactly, whether or not climate change is man made is moot. We should still be good stewards of the only world we have.

        However, using the threat of global warming to badger nations into doing what you think they should do is completely the wrong way to go about this.

        In reality, completely stomping all scientific skepticism in relation to global warming was probably the worst thing that proponents of being "green" could do, and look like it will probably come back to bite them. But hey this is what happens when you get politics involved in science.

        Politics = completely shutting your opponents down, ignoring their points, using other things to invalidate their points. (Peer Beat down)

        Science = using hard evidence to prove your points, and using hard evidence to answer any questions that skeptics might have. (Peer Review)

        However when it has come to climate change, the science has been treated more like politics, muddying the facts, ignoring pivotal questions, ect.

        Hopefully we can all learn from this incident, and keep it from repeating in the future.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        spad12
        12/02/2009
        Posts:44
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
      • Re: Caught Green Handed
        I believe your assertion is limited only to imported crude oil.  If as you suggest fossil fuels do not cause global warming or their impact is minimal, then it makes good sense to take advantage of the 60 years of natural gas, 200 years of coal and domestic sources of oil in Alaska.  As such, it is critical that we arrive at a valid conclusion regarding the use of fossil fuels.  The information disclosed in the hacked emails shows that in fact much of the hype over global warming is just that - hype.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        kstauff
        12/02/2009
        Posts:120
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
  • To Real Enviromentalists
    I think it is time to take the environmental movement back by focusing on real pollutants. I've been warning the Rocky Mountain Institute for years about this. I am now afraid that the resource (not just energy) efficiency revolution that they have done such great work on will be sacrificed at the alter of AWG. People will throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Given the CRU event and the damage it has done please consider the following.

    1) Just plainly state that there should be an investigation into data manipulation and that all scientists should be forced to release all data and source code like REAL SCIENTISTS DO. Stop defending criminals by talking about peer review when they were reviewing each other's papers. You didn't rig data, collude to prevent others from being published, sabotage other scientists careers. You have to distance yourself immediately from the MBH et al ilk!

    2) No longer talk about CO2. It's dead, proven to be rigged data and continuing to talk about it will only discredit the whole environmental movement.

    3) Talk about mercury pollution. 40 tons a year from coal, 35 tons a year from garbage incineration and that is just from North America (and we are not that bad compared to Asia and Africa, scary but true!). Talk about the watershed destruction in coal mining.

    4) Offer up a straight forward alternative. Shale gas for the short term renewables for short, medium and long term. The best thing for the environment in the last 50 years is the shale gas technology! Not pretty or renewable but it gives us 50 to 60 years if we decommission all coal & nuke plants and double that if we just phase them out.

    So bring the shale gas online as fast as possible and convert/shutdown the coal plants first. With a lot less than 50 years of research and development renewables will be working and cost competitive.

    If we allow stupid LIES and pseudo science like that practiced by the AWG crowd (MBH et al) to be used to tax us then yes we will all be a lot poorer. If we just push the resource efficiency like rmi.org then we will save money.

    If we actually force scientists like Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Jones and the rest of the AWG crowd to make all the data and code publicly available LIKE REAL SCIENTISTS do then we will progress.


    From: A real environmentalist!
    Cheers
    Rate this comment: 12345

    tmcmurph
    12/02/2009
    Posts:10
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: To Real Enviromentalists
      I wouldn't count nuclear out.  It's one of the cleanest, most energy dense sources we have, and new technology can make it orders of magnitude more efficient and cleaner.  There's enough uranium world wide to last 1000 years.  So deploy it where it makes sense alongside other energy sources.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      kstauff
      12/02/2009
      Posts:120
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: To Real Enviromentalists
      I agree that there are other pollutants out there to focus on, some of the double standards out there on hazardous waste are insane.

      For instance, the nuclear has extremely strict guidelines on public radiation exposure. Coal (which contains all sorts of radioactive goodies) on the other hand does not. Did you know that more radioactive material has been released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal than the worlds entire nuclear industry? I'm not saying it is a bad thing that the nuclear industry has these guidelines, but that is the biggest factor that makes it uneconomical versus coal and natural gas.

      When most people refer to "renewables" they seem to have a very limited view. In reality nothing is truly renewable, just some things have a longer sustainability than others, in the grand sceme of things the ones with the longest future are nuclear fusion and fission. When you factor in the land that wind and solar require to operate, then they are anything but renewable, as the earth has a finite surface area, and eventually you will run out of space trying to meet the worlds energy demand.

      Fission using the resources found only on earth can last a long time, millions of years if done right. Even the waste from fission is a potential energy source. If you utilize the full decay chain the energy density of Uranium is insane, about 90,000,000 MJ/Kg vs Coal at about 56 MJ/Kg. Fusion is even higher at about 300,000,000 MJ/Kg.

      The easiest solution to an environmentally friendly electrical system is a Nuclear fission base, with natural gas to offset peak loads. Use small scale solar heating solutions for home and business heating and hot water. Use geothermal to reduces building thermal management energy demand.

      The most environmentally friendly solution: Nuclear fission base, with wind/solar with storage to offset peak loads. Use small scale solar heating solutions for home and business heating and hot water. Use geothermal to reduces building thermal management energy demand.

      Once Fusion is commercially viable, fission plants nearing the end of their life can be replaced with fusion plants.


      Rate this comment: 12345

      spad12
      12/02/2009
      Posts:44
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Ratification
    I always chuckle when I see articles like this that explain how the President can swoop in and sign off on a treaty pledging whatever from America.  They always fail to report on the process of ratification in the US where the Senate most vote on such treaties in order to make them law.  This is exactly what happened with Kyoto when the Clinton administration went along with it and the Senate then rejected it by a 95–0 vote in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98).  You can expect the same to occur with anything coming out of Copenhagen.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    kstauff
    12/02/2009
    Posts:120
    Avg Rating:
    4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Ultra-Efficient Gas Engine Passes Test
Technology Review March/April 2010

Current Issue

TR50
TR presents the 50 most innovative public and private companies of the year.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.