Coming from energy financing background, Gene's opinion is not well informed to the perspectives of fund managers, lenders and investors who strike for cautious investments and lending. As the recession drags on, all the technology based things and novelty products are off the radar and the investments and lending are now redirected towards conservative industries and technologies.
One of the ways suggested is the quantitative easing to raise funds in technology projects and renewables. At the moment UK government is analysed as follows: GOVERNMENT FINDS ITSELF ALL AT SEA ON WIND POWER "Minister's strategy - Vision of a vibrant industry looks plausible but may be little more than an aspiration, says Ed Crooks." "As ministers have sounded the fanfare for hundreds of thousands of "green jobs" the demise of the Vestas wind turbine plant on the Isle of Wight has provided a mocking counterpoint. The closure of one factory with the loss of 600 jobs does not in itself say much about the success or failure of the government strategy. However, the decision by Vestas is an uncomfortable reminder that the vision of a vibrant industry growing up to meet the challenge of curring carbon dioxide emissions for Britain and the world is little more than an aspiration." ... "The government's definition of "green jobs" is drawn very wide to catch as many occupations as possible, from dustmen to clean-tech venture capitalists. Manufacturing jobs such as the ones at Vestas are among the ones that are likely to strengthen the economy." ... "Britain's emphasis on off-shore wind power - forced on the nation by the difficulty of securing planning permission for wind farms on land - may also be a handicap." The Financial Times, Thursday, 30. July 2009, p. 3. >From the investor's point of view the most important point for a successful >wind farm is the location, location, location... A good wind farm must have the following positive characteristics: (1.) sufficient strong winds, (2.) proximity of electric grid, (3.) relatively close to consumers (4.) easy servicing and maintenance access - rapid to access turbines and in all weather conditions, especially in winter and storms when electricity demand surges up (5.) low supportive infrastructure required, (6.) high voltage aerial cables, not underground or subsea cables. These are vital for the wind farms to produce the cheap green electricity that public expects and requires at affordable cost. They are not built for specification of engineers' complex toys. Thus, electricity is produced close to the point of consumption, not off-shore as to provide cheap and internationally competitive and affordable electricity for industry and consumers which does not require large infrastructure beside turbine, transmission losses, or other capital and maintenance requirement beside wind turbines. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NONE OF THIS CRITERIA IS MET BY OFF-SHORE TURBINES LOCATED FAR AWAY FROM COASTS. SUCH ELECTRICITY CAN NEVER BECOME THE CHOICE OF CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENT EITHER SUBSIDISES UNNECESSARILY EXPENSIVE ELECTRICITY FROM OFF-SHORE INSTALLATIONS OR PROVIDES THE REQUIRED FUNDING AND BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT FOR THE WIND FARMS TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY NEAR COMMUNITIES WHERE ELECTRICITY IS USED. FOR THIS REASON, PRIVATE SECTOR IS UNABLE TO PROVIDE SOLUTION WITHOUT DEPLOYMENT MONIES HERE IN THE UK, AS WELL AS IN THE US AS CITED. I AM NOT SAYING ALL IS DONE BY GOVERNMENTS, BUT LIKE IN CASE OF VESTAS, IF PRIVATE SECTOR LACKS FUNDS, THE GOVERNMENT MUST STEP IN IF WE EVER WISH TO KEEP UP WITH THE TARGETS TO PRODUCE RENEWABLE ENERGY HERE AND ALSO SET UP A PROVEN AND VALID EXAMPLE FOR THE DEVELOPING WORLD WHICH HAS TO DECIDE BETWEEN EITHER COAL (i.e. INDIA, CHINA, INDONESIA) OR NUCLEAR (i.e. BRAZIL, IRAN, PAKISTAN). "The sales pitch for the "low carbon industrial strategy" is plausible, The transition to an economy with much lower carbon dioxide emissions - the official commitment is a 34 percent reduction by 2020 and an 80 per cent cut by 2050 - will demand structural change. Many old jobs will disappear, and new ones will be created." Ibid. The Financial Times, Thursday, 30. July 2009, p. 3. As per above the Vesta's climate campaign is probably one of the best all-time climate campaigns highlighting misleading conceptual proclamations by the UK government and actual ground work taking us to achieve that goal by 2020. I believe the government goal should be 60% private / 40% public investment in renewable energy to keep both sectors growing their size at optimum rate given the current financial market conditions. At no time goverment proportion should fall below 1/3 as then the cyclical variations kick in and these start constraining the necessary growth of wind energy industry. Any argument? OK. Thus the deployment at certain war economy gearing is inevitable and of utmost necessity for goal attainment and keeping on the agreed track. Kind regards, Albert > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [geo] Re: more on Arpa-E rejection letters > Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 10:43:07 -0400 > > > Fiber may have been partly funded by the government but industry did it on > its own; Corning and AT&T most of it. Times have changed along with the N Y > Times. The tough part now is getting up front funding to establish > feasibility. That is a good role for government. It pays for my R&D in > medicine; for example. The government should not be in the deployment > business at all. Indeed, a lot of the people who take govt R&D grants have > no intention to deploy. They live off the govt. grants hoping they can get a > patent and then license it. > > The entire issue needs a solid look including using tax incentives to > encourage on shore R&D and then huge tax incentives for deployment. The > govt. R&D managers, to a person, have no skill in the business end and the > business end is the key to successful R&D choices. > > Research is virtually senseless. The payoff is too far out to interest most > companies other than those simply hoping to live off govt. grants. > > Gene G. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Revkin > Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 9:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [geo] more on Arpa-E rejection letters > > > The tail end of this post discusses the Arpa-E rejection letters. > I'll be posting an example on Monday. > http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/how-many-ds-in-obamas-energy-pl > edge/ > -- > Andrew C. Revkin > The New York Times / Environment > 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 > Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 > Fax: 509-357-0965 > http://www.nytimes.com/revkin > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and emoticons. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
