2009年11月25日星期三

New Energy Systems To Invest $20 Mln In Quantum Solar In Exchange For 34% Ownership Interest - Quick Facts

Quantum Fuel Systems Technologies Worldwide Inc. (QTWW: News ) announced that the company and its subsidiary, Quantum Solar Energy Inc., has entered into a non-binding letter of intent with New Energy Systems LLC, which sets forth the terms by which New Energy Systems would invest $20 million in Quantum Solar in exchange for a 34% ownership interest in Quantum Solar. The transaction is expected to close within ninety days.

Upon closing of the transaction, Quantum Solar would be owned 51% by Quantum, 34% by New Energy Systems on a fully converted basis, and 15% by Asola. Quantum and New Energy Systems shall each have the right to appoint two members to serve on Quantum Solar's board of directors.

New Energy Systems would invest $20 million in exchange for Series A convertible preferred stock, which would be convertible into shares of Quantum Solar common stock on a one-for-one basis. New Energy Systems would receive a cumulative preferred dividend equal to 2.5% of the investment amount, or $500 thousand annually, for the lesser of seven years or until such time that New Energy Systems has received a total return on its investment equal to $6 million.

UPDATE 1-Abengoa secures E.ON as partner for solar plants

* E.ON to pay for half of 550 mln euro investment

* Both companies to operate the two plants

* Building of the plants in Ecija has started already

* Abengoa, E.ON plan to further develop Solar power

(Adds quotes, joint dateline)

FRANKFURT/MADRID, Nov 25 (Reuters) - Spanish renewable energy company Abengoa (ABG.MC) will team up with German utility E.ON (EONGn.DE) to build two solar mirror plants in southern Spain, benefiting from E.ON's cash and large grid expertise.

E.ON will pay half of the overall investment of 550 million euros ($828 million) for the two plants, which have a capacity of 50 megawatts each, giving Seville-based Abengoa access to the finance power of the world's largest utility by sales, the companies said in a statement.

Spain has not yet released a list of solar mirror plants included in its new renewables register, which grants subsidies on normal electricity prices of about 27 eurocents per kilowatt hour, but the companies are confident the plants will be included.

"It is highly probable that they will be included in the register; I cannot say more at the moment," the head of Abengoa's solar division Santiago Seage said at a press conference in Madrid following the announcement.

Abengoa, which has already started building the two plants in Ecija, close to Seville and plans to start producing power in 2011 and 2012, respectively, with the power stations, said E.ON was not just a financial partner in the joint venture.

"E.ON will learn from us in the field of solar thermal energy, but we will learn from E.ON about large energy grids and plants," Seage said.

Both companies plan to extend the partnership to further develop solar power in Spain and will study future projects on a case-by-case basis.

The plants use the sun to generate steam that powers turbines, a technology called solar-thermal as opposed to solar cells. (Reporting by Peter Dinkloh and Tom Kaeckenhoff in Frankfurt and Jonathan Gleave in Madrid; writing by Peter Dinkloh and Jonathan Gleave, editing by Will Waterman) ($1=.6643 Euro) ((peter.dinkloh@reuters.com; +4969 7565 1345; Reuters Messaging peter.dinkloh.reuters.com@reuters.net))

CCS: A Pathway To Cleaner Coal And Enhanced Energy Security?

UPDATE: This post, contributed by one of TreeHugger's guest authors, has generated some significant controversy among our readers, and we want to address that.

We run several guest posts each week, representing a variety of news topics and points of view that we think our readers should be aware of. Regarding this post, we want to be perfectly clear: The views expressed in this post are those of the author, Business Roundtable, and not those of the TreeHugger editorial staff.

We value the input of all -- readers, writers, and guest authors alike -- who are interested in helping create a green future. Thanks for reading.

Take a second to list the top green energy sources.

I bet coal didn't make your list. It should. New technologies being developed - including carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - have the potential to make coal not just our most abundant and affordable energy source, but a green one too.

Today coal provides approximately half of our nation's electricity and employs thousands of Americans. Contrast that with renewable sources of energy, which supply only a tiny portion of our current energy mix, about 7 percent. In the near - and even distant - future, technologies like solar and wind will not be able to meet our country's energy needs alone. Renewable and alternative fuels and technologies are vital tools in our quest to improve our nation's carbon footprint and energy security, and Business Roundtable is strongly supportive of their development. However - as we recently outlined in our Unfinished Business report - in order to develop a cost-effective and realistic path to sustainability, we also need to leverage the domestic resources that currently provide power to millions of Americans in the cleanest, most efficient way possible.

Enter CCS.
Achieving cuts in greenhouse gases while maintaining economic competitiveness is going to require significant investments in the development and deployment of new technologies, and CCS is one of the most promising.

With CCS, a variety of techniques are employed to capture CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants and store them away from the atmosphere. The technology can drastically reduce carbon emissions from coal plants and, as we outlined in a previous Treehugger post, can effectively "green" our nation's energy workhorse.

Coal currently represents approximately one-third of our nation's carbon emissions, so even small improvements in coal technology present us with the opportunity to make significant cuts over the years. In fact, CCS technology has the potential to eventually capture and store more than 90 percent of GHG emissions from stationary sources. This is more than just a drawing-board concept - it's reality. Over the past two decades alone, the public and private sectors have invested more than $6 billion in clean coal technologies, creating a sustainable future for our country's vast coal reserves and delivering increased energy security to communities across the country. And recently, the first coal-fired power plant in the U.S. with advanced CCS technology began operations at American Electric Power 's West Virginia-based Mountaineer Power Station.

As we look ahead to the COP 15 summit, it's also important to remember that coal has become an ever-more-important resource for developing nations like China and India as they march into the industrial age. For instance, coal-fired energy is projected to account for some 70 percent of China's energy needs for the foreseeable future. It's an important resource in the developed world as well, with the European Union recently pledging support for CCS projects in Britain, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands.

Additionally, an October 13 meeting in London of energy ministers from 15 countries - including those from China, Europe and the U.S. - called on COP15 delegates, "to recognize the importance of CCS in mitigating climate change." We agree.
Clearly, coal will be with us for decades to come, so it's important that we work both domestically and internationally - especially with emerging economies - to make this energy as safe, clean and economical as it can be. With a broad, balanced program of financial incentives, investments in research and development, cost-sharing and regulatory reform, CCS technology has the potential to advance our nation's - and the world's - economic, environmental and security objectives simultaneously.

Wind Works Power Corp A Bet on Wind Industry Growth

Tom Konrad, CFA

Wind Works Power Corporation (WWPW.OB) presents investors in publicly traded wind power stocks a new type of opportunity with the potential for high reward, and a complementary risk profile to existing plays.  

In the past, I've lamented the dearth of choice in publicly traded wind power stocks on North American markets, but both the number and types of opportunities are growing, allowing investors to diversify risk or to make more narrowly focused bets on how they expect the sector to evolve.

I classify wind stocks into three types:

  1. Wind turbine manufacturers
  2. Wind industry suppliers
  3. Wind farm developers and owners

Each type comes with its own risks and rewards.  

Turbine Manufacturers

Turbine manufacturers are either large, established firms or feisty startups.  The large firms (Vestas (VWSYF.PK), Gamesa (GCTAF.PK), GE Wind (GE)) are capable of producing steady profits, but unlikely to see large multiple returns because of their large size and increasing competition.  They are also well known and followed by industry analysts, so a small investor has little chance of gaining an informational edge.  Small turbine manufacturers AAER, Inc. (AAERF.PK) and A-Power (APWR) hold the promise of large potential rewards if they manage to break in and get their products accepted.  However, breaking in to an established industry, even with superior technology is always extremely risky, and has become more so since the industry swung from turbine undersupply to glut between early 2008 and now.

Suppliers

Wind industry suppliers were a good bet when the industry could not build enough turbines.  A good rule of thumb is that the companies most likely to benefit when supply is tight are the suppliers of critical components and services very high up the value chain.  Since these suppliers do not often account for a large percentage of the cost of a turbine, they can earn extremely high margins without destroying the industry's overall economics.  In contrast, when the industry is in oversupply, these same companies often feel the squeeze much more than turbine manufactures who use their increased bargaining power and ability to switch suppliers to squeeze prices.

Wind Farm Developers and Owners

In the current state of oversupply for wind turbines, wind farm developers are in the best position.  If they have financing and all the permits and agreements in place needed to build a wind farm, the most expensive part of wind farm development, wind turbines are readily available at reduced prices.  To date, the vast majority of wind farm developers are also wind farm owners: they develop and build their own farms, and plan to profit from the sale of power and associated tax incentives.  Such companies range from Babcock and Brown Wind Partners (BBWF.PK) and the Algonquin Power and Utilities (AQUNF.PK, until recently known as the Algonquin Power Income Fund) at the established end, to Western Wind Energy (WNDEF.PK) in the middle to Sky Harvest Windpower (SKYH.OB) and NaiKun Wind Energy (NKWFF.PK), each with a single project in the early development stage at the startup end of the spectrum.

The more established developers have the most stable business model, because the revenues from existing farms allow them to fund new investments (At least in part) from the revenues of their established farms.  Once built, a wind farm is a stable business, with some fluctuation in revenues dues to changes in weather conditions from one year to the next, and some risk of maintenance problems, but very little market risk for the power sells, since nearly all wind energy is sold under a pre-negotiated Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to a local utility.  The flip side of this stability is slower growth, and less opportunity for outsized gains, since the expected revenues from the farm are will known far into the future.

Startup developers with only early projects are much more risky bets, since they have no ongoing source of income and must return to the capital markets periodically for funds.  Their advantage lies in the fact that the amount of capital needed in these early stages is much less than what is actually needed to build a wind farm.  If they are able to negotiate the hurdles of assembling a land package, navigating through the permitting process, signing an advantageous PPA, and establishing a grid connection, the returns can outsized returns on their relatively small capital investment as successive levels of risk are removed from the process.  They can then go about the more certain and capital intensive business of actually erecting their wind turbines and collecting the revenue from the electricity generated, graduating into the ranks of wind farm owners.

Wind Works Power

Wind Works Power Corporation (WWPW.OB) focuses solely on the early, low capital, high risk, high reward stages of wind farm development.  Their strategy is to work on shepherding  several early stage projects through the hurdles of land package assembly, permitting, PPA negotiation, and site preparation with the intent of selling the projects to later stage developers who actually build and operate the wind farms. By working on several projects at once, Wind Works is able to diversify much of the project-related risk away, giving them a somewhat less risky profile than single-project companies such as Sky Harvest and NaiKun.

Rather than being capital-intensive, the early stages of wind farm development are very people-intensive.  Wind Works' key employee is CEO Dr. Ingo Stuckmann.  Dr Stuckmann has decades of experience developing wind farms around the world.  Surrounding him are people with strong connections to the power industry of Ontario, where Wind Works' first farms are located, and a former general manager at Nordex, a leading turbine manufacturer.  In other words, the team has the experience and connections necessary to manage wind farm development from start to finish.

Risks

While the potential gains of Wind Works' model are enticing, there are also substantial risks.  The source of the foremost risk is the same as the source of the potential reward: Investors are staking their money on a very people-intensive process that relies on just a few key people.  Wind Works does not have any proprietary technology, patents, or manufacturing capacity that might give them an edge in the market place.  Investors need to believe that this team will  be able to bring project development forward at a reasonable pace while dealing with unpredictable changes in regulations, environmental permitting, and managing the sometimes capricious sentiment of local residents and landowners.  While this is a process that Dr. Stuckmann in particular understands and has managed many times before, his experience is in no way unique in the industry, and better capitalized players with more resources could out-compete Wind Works for the best development locations, spots in the interconnection queue, and PPAs with utilities.

Even if the development process goes smoothly, investors are taking a bet on the market conditions for wind farm development at unknown points in the future.   For the last year, there has been very little demand for ready-to-build wind farms because development companies have had trouble getting the necessary financing due to the financial crisis.   That is beginning to change, and is being helped by regulatory encouragement.   Ontario has passed North America's first Feed-in Tariff, a generous incentive structure for encouraging renewable energy development that was pioneered in Dr. Stuckmann's native Germany.  The United States has given wind developers the option of receiving an up-front cash payment for up to 30% of a wind farm's cost in lieu of the former Production Tax Credit, which tied payments to electricity production.  Assuming continuing support, these and other such incentives should make ready-to-build wind sites more valuable than they have been in the past.

The Payoff

In essence, Wind Works is positioning itself high up in the Wind Farm value chain.  When wind turbines were in short supply, the companies to own were suppliers of wind turbine components.  The credit crisis lead to a near halt in wind farm development, which is just starting to ease, but government policies such as Ontario's Feed In Tariff, Renewable Electricity Standards in many US States, and possible regulation of carbon emissions are all driving demand for completed wind farm, even while supply is constrained by lack of credit.  North America is building up unmet demand for wind farms.  If the credit situation improves, or governments step in to fill the gap, we may see ourselves in a situation where wind farm developers have all the turbines and credit they need, but not enough approved sites to build on.  Wind Works' business plan is ideally suited to take advantage of just that situation.

DISCLOSURE: This article is paid research.  The author was paid a flat fee by Resultz Media Group for researching, writing and publishing this article.  The opinions expressed here are the author's own, and neither payment nor publication could be withheld based on those opinions.

DISCLAIMER: The information and trades provided here and in the comments are for informational purposes only and are not a solicitation to buy or sell any of these securities. Investing involves substantial risk and you should evaluate your own risk levels before you make any investment. Past results are not an indication of future performance. Please take the time to read the full disclaimer here.

Clemson Gets Money for Study of Wind Energy

Clemson University is getting nearly $100 million in federal stimulus money to study wind energy.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the university had been chosen for a facility that will test new wind-turbine technology. The Energy Department gave Clemson $45 million in federal financing under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Officials say state and private sources provided $53 million in matching money, for a total of $98 million.

Several other states have received stimulus money to study wind energy, but in amounts far smaller than the award to Clemson.

Landscapes of Energy’

In 1859, the first commercial oil well was drilled near Titusville, Pa. The modern oil industry that followed quickly changed landscapes around the world.

By the 20th century, a burgeoning world of derricks, tanks, pipelines, and refineries required more roads, railways, and ship lines for distribution. Cities changed with the arrival of big oil, becoming denser and busier. With the advent of cheap cars, highways widened, clover-leafed, and spread into far suburbs.

Despite all of this change, architectural historians have not often studied the effect of oil infrastructure on landscapes. Nor have they much studied the social implications of the spaces changed by the oil energy business, from abandoned oil fields to busted boomtowns — or even the destination of oil money.

Most of it goes global as profits or sometimes philanthropy, ignoring localities and their blighted extractive landscapes, the holes in the ground that yield four-fifths of the world's energy.

Enter New Geographies 02, "Landscapes of Energy," a booklike journal of 17 essays distributed by Harvard University Press. It addresses the fact that energy takes up space, and that in turn such space deserves scholarly inquiry.

Contributors to the journal include the late Ivan Illich, a philosopher and critic of the technological world. His essay "The Social Construction of Energy" is published here for the first time. ("Energy" as an economic measure is a modern construct, he argues, and has suppressed social freedoms.)

Other essays look at oil violence in Amazonia, pipelines and social justice, an energy history of Houston, the ambiguities of hydropower, humanity's "enslavement" to energy, and architecture-certification programs that sidestep the fact that "architecture and urbanism (are) responsible for 75 percent of energy consumption." (In that same essay, "(Against) the Greenwashing of Architecture," Canadian architect Mirko Zardini concludes, "We can arrive to the point of questioning the necessity to build.")

"Landscapes of Energy" is the third in a "New Geographies" series launched in 2008 at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design (GSD). The journals, intended to bring geographical scale to modern urban design, appear every six months. (The next, out in the spring, will examine the "urbanisms of color," how colors give meaning to cities.)

The journals are conceived and edited by doctor of design students at the GSD, under the direction of A. Hashim Sarkis, a professor in the Department of Urban Planning and Design.

Energy landscapes could become a new "subcategory" of inquiry for designers and architects, said Sarkis, by introducing "new conditions of visibility" for the energy systems that support cities.

He moderated a Nov. 20 journal-launch panel at the GSD's Piper Auditorium, a mixed-discipline collection of designers and scholars who vetted "Landscapes of Energy" ahead of time. (Sarkis, a practicing architect in both Cambridge and Lebanon, is also the Aga Khan Professor of Landscape Architecture and Urbanism in Muslim Societies.)

The other panelists were architect Martin Felsen, co-founder of the Chicago firm UrbanLab; Mark Jarzombek, associate dean of the School of Architecture and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; lawyer and linguist Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School; and student of geographic space Ajantha Subramanian, a Harvard associate professor of anthropology and social studies.

Systems involving oil-based energy exist on a large geographic scale, "yet they remain invisible" to scholars and often to energy consumers, said journal editor-in-chief Rania Ghosn, a GSD doctor of design candidate who introduced the panel. Making this unacknowledged infrastructure an object of study, she said, makes possible "appropriate scales of intervention."

And intervention — new policies, new laws — is often appropriate, said Subramanian. The energy infrastructure, when studied fully, often illuminates issues of social justice and reveals "a dialectic of space and power."

A post-colonial scholar who teaches a course on the "politics of nature," Subramanian is studying workers at lead and cadmium mines in Oklahoma, people whom she said feel both intimate with the business of extraction and repulsed by it.

In the oil business, there is a similar social unevenness, she said, pointing to the new journal's essay by Gavin Bridge, "The Hole World: Scales and Spaces of Extraction," which looks at "the oil hole" and the "disenfranchised habitations" around it.

Landscapes of extraction are expressions of capitalism, wrote Bridge, but they are also "strategic sites for challenging the social relations of capitalism," frictional borders where the status quo is questioned.

That status quo shifts too. Just after World War II, the Western world was "celebrating landscapes of oil," the smokestack industries, bustling highways, and blooming suburbs that were the outward signs of progress, said Ghosn. These landscapes no longer have a "romantic resonance," she said, but the landscapes of renewable power do.

Still, the wind farms, light rail systems, and treed rooftops of our imagined green future is a "romantic notion," more affect than reality, said Jarzombek.

He took aim at one of the journal essays, "Conduit Urbanism," which imagines a future "post-carbon highway" in which old spaces — off-ramp interchanges, for instance — are converted to use in a "renewable-energy conduit." Colorful illustrations show neat highways lined with magnetic-levitation rail lines and spinning wind turbines.

This "piles on the clichés," said Jarzombek, the idea of "a happy machine in the garden" that turns energy realities into a kind of Potemkin village.

"All urbanism today is Potemkin," he said, referring to the false villages lined up in the Crimea during the 18th century to impress the visiting Empress Catherine II. "Green landscaping," he went on, in the panel's sharpest digression, "is Potemkin ecology."

In the face of these well-meaning attempts to obscure "the reality of this messed-up world," said Jarzombek, why not do what most of the journal suggests: Show the realities of how the energy machine and the building machine work. "Invisibilities need to be exposed," he said.

That exposure is what Sarkis called "elevating to visibility the performative function of architecture," and then "celebrating it."

"Restoring visibility is not just trivial," said Jasanoff, and should not stop with architects and urban designers. A "parallel piece of work" could come out of government and law schools, she said, in a study of the legal structures and institutions that make energy landscapes possible, and that in turn make related injustices possible.

Design is a "tool for policy," and "the rules and those who set them are increasingly important," said Felsen. So society needs national urban priorities that meld technology and policy.

One example, he said, is the issue of fuel-efficiency standards, which relates to auto design and engine technology. Why look at these standards in isolation? They need to be paired with a policy that, say, doubles public transit ridership.

The new journal and its neglected topic "tries to get to the heart of some of the big social equity problems" rising out of the oil energy landscape, said Felsen — and that's good. But the idea of relying instead on a world of alternative energy is problematic, he added. For one thing, less than 1 percent of the world's energy comes from renewable sources, while the use of coal continues to increase.

So instead of fighting existing energy systems, he said, why not institutionalize the best practices within them?

Subramanian agreed, to a point. "Best practices are always partial experiments, with hidden underbellies which will arise after the fact," she said. "That should keep us vigilant."

CORRECT: Husky Energy: Lima, Ohio, Refinery Isocracker Damaged In Fire

("Husky Energy: Lima, Ohio, Refinery Isocracker Damaged In Fire," published at 11:53 a.m. EST, incorrectly included a U.S. stock price for the company. The correct version follows.)

OTTAWA (Dow Jones)--Husky Energy Inc. (HUSKF, HSE.T) said Tuesday an isocracker at its refinery in Lima, Ohio, was damaged by a minor fire over the weekend.

The fire was quickly extinguished after it started on Sunday afternoon and there were no injuries, a Husky spokesman said. The company is assessing the damage to the isocracker.

The fire occurred as Calgary-based Husky is conducting a maintenance turnaround at the refinery, which has a maximum capacity of 160,000 barrels of oil per day. Husky shut down the refinery for maintenance on Oct. 1, and Husky spokesman Graham White said the turnaround is nearly complete.

In a separate incident at the Lima refinery Sunday, an oil storage tank was damaged and released a fine oil mist into the air that traveled two and a half miles and dirtied some vehicles, White said. Husky offered to wash any cars dirtied by the spray and has cleaned at least 200 vehicles so far, White said.

White said the company had communicated with regulators about the discharge and that there were no health risks. The company is assessing the damage to the tank and investigating the cause of the discharge.