THINK BIG – GIVE Muhammad Yunus GREEN ENERGY BUSINESS IDEAS 300 Words or Less for YouthinYunus

THINK REALLY BIG Current & Future green entrepreneurs-
Submit as many BIG IDEAS as possible – Student Ideas Welcome!:

In 300 words or less:

Tell Muhammad Yunus your biggest – push the limits – IDEA or GOAL on a green energy business concept with real teeth that you want to see go forward. That’s all. If the idea creates jobs and fits the social business model. That’s even better!
Please provide your name, email and a little information about yourself (include school/year graduated- if appropriate)

Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Solutions are asking and we’re helping.
Your ideas may be published at YouthinYunus and reviewed by Grameen Solutions.

Send these ideas to Halima Aquino- halima@boltonhillconsulting.com ASAP

Video & Press Briefing: Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, United States Department of State DOS

This article contains two presentations by Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change at the U.S. Department of State. The first is a video presentation that he made at the Center for American Progress. The second is a Press Briefing that he gave February 16, 2010 at the State Department. He discusses the road forward despite some obvious setbacks at Copenhagen. He is optimistic about the possibilities and continues to work for positive changes that will protect the global environment.

Video

Todd Stern, US State Department’s Special Envoy on Climate Change at the Center for American Progress

In February 2010, Todd Stern, U.S. special envoy for climate change, spoke about the lessons of the COP-15 summit in Copenhagen last December, the significance of the Copenhagen Accord that was negotiated there, and the path forward over the coming year and beyond. This was Stern’s first public speech since the January 31 deadline for inscribing mitigation targets and actions in the Copenhagen Accord. An expert discussion panel follows the address.

Introductory Remarks: John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for American Progress

Featured Speaker: Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, United States Department of State

Featured Panelists:

1. Jennifer Haverkamp, Managing Director for International Policy and Negotiations, Environmental Defense Fund
2. Andrew Light, Senior Fellow and Coordinator for International Climate Policy, Center for American Progress

Location: Center for American Progress, 1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005

Transcript: Press Briefing by the Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern

Todd Stern
Special Envoy for Climate Change

Washington, DC

February 16, 2010

Briefing by the Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern
MR. TONER: Good afternoon. We’re very pleased to have Special Envoy Todd Stern here today to give us the lay of the land on international climate negotiations post-Copenhagen. As you know, in late January, the U.S. announced that it submitted its pledge to limit or reduce greenhouse emissions under the Copenhagen Accord, as did all of the world’s major economies. These countries represent more than 80 percent of global emissions and this constitutes an unprecedented step forward in the global effort to combat climate change.
With that impressive statistic in mind, I’ll hand the podium over to Todd Stern, who has about 20 minutes to answer your questions.
MR. STERN: Hello, everybody. Pleased to be here today. I’m just going to be very brief at the top and open it up for questions for you all.
Where we stand right now is – as you all know that Copenhagen meeting produced, in the end, a short document which is known as the Copenhagen Accord, we think a very important – short but important document that was produced very importantly through the intervention of leaders, a great number of leaders from countries there. It was, at the end of the day, not formally adopted as a decision of the – decision being a term of art – of the Conference of the Parties, but was supported by the overwhelming number of them.
The fact that it wasn’t formally adopted has led to a process since Copenhagen where countries essentially conveyed to the secretariat of the UN convention their interest in being part of it; the UN term is to associate itself with the accord. And in addition, the major countries, major economies have submitted their targets or actions that they plan to take to reduce emissions. So this is the developed countries and the major developing countries. That was supposed to happen by January 31^st and it did.
We now have slightly less than a hundred countries that have indicated they want to be part of the accord, and my guess is there will be still some additional ones who indicate that. The accord itself, I think, is an important document for a number of reasons. It includes – it quantifies the objective of this whole exercise of the Framework Convention. The objective, as stated in the convention, is to – essentially to avoid dangerous climate change and the Copenhagen Accord quantifies that by talking about limiting the increase in temperature to 2 degrees Centigrade. It includes a pledge by the major economies to submit their targets and actions. It includes important stuff on – important language on transparency, important provisions on financing, and on technology. So in – all in all, I think a very important step forward.
The – going forward this year, I think will be a combination of both of making elements of the accord operational as well as further discussions under the umbrella of the UN Framework Convention toward additional agreements in Mexico. So that’s kind of where things stand right now. I’m happy to take questions.
QUESTION: Sean Tannen with AFP. You alluded to this a little bit in your talk at the Center for American Progress —
MR. STERN: Yeah.
QUESTION: — the other week. The commitments by countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa aren’t necessarily unambiguous. How do you see that going forward, unless there’s a clear commitment by those emerging economies?
MR. STERN: Well, I think that that’s going to get clarified. I think that, first of all, they have all submitted their proposed actions and there’s nothing ambiguous about that. They have submitted the actions that they intend to take to reduce emissions. I think that’s a good thing. So far, I believe Brazil and South Africa have stated to the – have conveyed to the secretariat that they wish to be associated with the accord. And China and India have conveyed something which is not entirely clear. I think that’ll get clarified, though, is my guess over the course of the next few days.
There will be – the way this thing works is that the secretariat publishes a report on the COP, the Conference of the Parties. They do this every year when there’s a Conference of the Parties. After a couple of months, they publish a report, essentially, on the proceedings, what happened. And the report includes all of the decisions that were taken. One of those decisions was a decision to take note of this Copenhagen Accord. And so as part of that decision, the accord itself will be published. And on the front page of the accord, there will be a list of all the parties who have said we want to be part of this.
And so I think that that’s something that will presumably happen reasonably soon, and I would expect that all of the major countries will be part of it at that point.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly? But would there be a risk to the accord itself unless there is more clarity from these emerging economies?
MR. STERN: I think it’s important that the major countries be part of it, but I – again, I think that we have close to a hundred countries now. So I think that the accord is already kind of gathering steam.
Yes.
QUESTION: If India and China, turn out – don’t associate themselves with it, is there any possibility that the U.S. would pull out, essentially?
MR. STERN: No.
QUESTION: Not at all?
MR. STERN: No. I mean, I think that the U.S. is – we have put forward our own submission. It’s consistent with what President Obama announced back in November. So I don’t think it’s a question of the U.S. saying “Never mind.” I don’t think – that’s not the plan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Lalit Jha from Press Trust of India. Just a follow-up question. What you said is not clear about China’s and India’s proposals?
MR. STERN: The proposals are clear. This is a little bit confusing. I don’t want anybody to be confused. The proposals that they’ve all made with respect to “Here’s what we’re going to do,” perfectly clear. There is a second piece of this which is do you, quote “associate yourself with the accord,” and in effect, will you be one of those hundred-plus countries that are listed on the front page of the accord as having said “Yes, we want to be part of it.” That’s the piece that I’m talking about right now, and that’s – as I say, there’s just slightly less than a hundred countries that have said that. India and China have said something close to that, and I think the UN is just trying to make sure that they understand what the intention is.
QUESTION: Now my question about – India has distinctly announced that they will set up their own IPCC because they believe that the UN’s IPCC is not that realistic, that they are a bit confusing and it’s – they’re not reliable. What’s your opinion on that?
MR. STERN: Well, look. I think it’s a good thing for countries to have an active scientific effort. I don’t know what the details are. I don’t know what Minister Ramesh or others in India have in mind. But I think, obviously, the United States has all sorts of scientific work that we do through our various agencies of the U.S. Government. So I think that’s all a good thing.
I think the IPCC as an institution has made a very large contribution and I think it’s an important body that will continue and that is very representative of countries all over the world. So I don’t know what – I’m not familiar with the specifics of what India —
QUESTION: He was talking about – Minister Ramesh was talking about recent controversies about Himalayan glaciers.
MR. STERN: About what?
QUESTION: About Himalayan glaciers and the – some of the facts and figures in the IPCC report which has raised a lot of doubts.
MR. STERN: Right. Well, look, as I said, I think the IPCC is a very important body. I think it’s made a very important contribution. To the extent that there were any – that any errors appear in their lengthy report, I think that’s regrettable. But again, I’m not – I don’t have any – I’m not a scientist and I don’t have any considered view on the specifics. But I think the IPCC as an institution has been quite important and will continue to be important.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, actually? How much more difficult has your job been since the errors in the IPCC report came to light, both globally and –
MR. STERN: It was difficult already. (Laughter.) No, look, I think that the scientific underpinning for action on climate change, the fundamental science of climate change and the observed data, is quite overwhelming. I think that to the extent – and again, I make no comment one way or another about whether they’re mistakes – I just don’t know. But to the extent that there were any mistakes in the IPCC report, reports, assessments, or anywhere else, that’s regrettable. You don’t want there to be mistakes.
But what should not happen is that any individual mistakes, typos, whatever they might be, be taken to undermine the very fundamental record that exists from scientists all over the world and from observed data from all over the world that this is a quite serious and growing problem. So I think that that’s really the kind of underlying important point.
And nor should – and I think what you do see sometimes is that people who have an agenda that is directed toward undermining action on climate change grab whatever tidbit they can find and say, look, there’s no climate change, it snowed last week in Washington, there’s no climate change. That kind of stuff is nonsense. And the exploiting of this or that mistake that might have occurred in some part of long reports that pull together a lot of scientific data, again, I think is – I think it needs to be seen for what it is, which is a deliberate attempt to undermine. The fundamentals haven’t changed.
QUESTION: Andy Quinn from Reuters. I was hoping you could talk a little bit after Copenhagen how you see the UN’s role in further negotiations about climate change and that of the Major Economies Forum. And do you have any word on when and where the next meeting of the MEF might be?
MR. STERN: Well, two things. I think the UN absolutely has an important role going forward. I think that there are obviously – anybody who was at or closely following Copenhagen can see that there are challenges with respect to managing a big process like that, particularly one with – where a small group of countries can block actions. That is certainly difficult, but it is – the UN has a special level of credibility and history in this and we support the UN process.
The Major Economies Forum, I think, was a very useful exercise last year, a useful forum, a useful body that we really picked up from the previous administration and then kind of remodeled. So we have every intention of continuing that this year. I am quite sure that we will have a meeting this spring. We haven’t set the exact date or the place yet, but I would anticipate that we will be working with our Major Economies Forum partners to set up a meeting in the relatively near term.
And I might say that in the fall we began a practice of inviting a few additional countries to participate who were important countries but not necessarily majors in terms of their economies. And I think that that was a useful process that we began in – I can’t remember if it was September or October, but we started it in the fall. And I would guess we’ll probably continue something like that as well.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) broaden the guest list even further?
MR. STERN: A little bit. A little bit, but not to a large extent.
Yes.
QUESTION: Sort of related to his question, is there any coordination between your office and the Trade Representative’s office, folks at Commerce, folks at Treasury, in trying to deal with some of the economic concerns that some countries might have about trying to limit their economic output that might have an impact on the rise in temperatures globally?
MR. STERN: Well, two things. We coordinate with everybody. I mean, this is not just a State Department exercise. It’s a government exercise. We – for starters, we coordinate very closely with the White House, obviously with the President but also with people in the NSC and the climate and energy office over there. And we coordinate a lot with Treasury and EPA and Energy and Commerce and other places. So this is a broad government effort where, of course, on the diplomatic side, State’s in the lead, but there’s a lot of coordination just in general.
With respect to the question of countries who need to play a role and who have concerns about that, we interact, we discuss those issues with the countries – with countries in that kind of a position a lot. I think that USTR is also an agency that we certainly do work with. Look, there’s kind of a basic underlying reality here, which is that countries in the sort of emerging market category of countries, which is really what you’re talking about, they have to be part of the solution in dealing with this problem.
If you only look at developed countries, you’re at about 40, maybe – somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of total emissions and shrinking. And if you’re trying to deal with the 80 or 85 percent of emissions and growing, you’ve got to bring in China and India and Brazil, other countries like that. You have to do it in a way that is mindful of their own needs for development, but those things can be reconciled and they have to be reconciled or else there’s no way to deal with the problem.
MR. TONER: Okay, just a couple more questions.
QUESTION: On the difference between associating with the accord and commitments for the accord –
MR. STERN: Yeah.
QUESTION: — Yvo de Boer earlier, a few weeks ago, said that there – that the January 31 was a soft deadline. Are – do you know what the number of countries is that have made commitments for the accord?
MR. STERN: Yeah. Well, I mean, I know that Yvo said that, but the reality is that the countries who were expected to make those commitments did so by January 31^st. I think somebody might have been February 1^st, but basically it was done by January 31^st. And those countries are the developed – all developed countries, so U.S., Europe, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, et cetera; and the major developing countries, so that’s China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia. Korea and Mexico are kind of in a halfway house, but they’re still traditionally considered developing. And there are some additional countries. I don’t have them at the – at my fingertips. There’re some additional countries that would not necessarily be considered majors but who nonetheless did step forward and make their own commitments with respect to actions.
So that piece of it is basically, in terms of meeting the deadline, that got done. That’s done.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. STERN: So now we’re just in the world of what countries are going to be reflected as part of the Copenhagen Accord.
QUESTION: Okay. And in relation to that, what are the next steps in the accord process?
MR. STERN: Well, there’s —
QUESTION: — leading on to COP (inaudible)?
MR. STERN: Yes. So there were these two steps we’ve already just talked about, the making your commitments and the associating, which is – that part – not quite over yet. Beyond that, there are a number of elements in the accord that, by their terms, need further elaboration. So it calls for a global fund. All right, well, then you need to set up – set the fund up. You need to – there’s a structure, there’s mechanics, how the fund will work. It calls for technology mechanism. All right, what does it look like? Does it look this way or this way or how – what is it – what are the elements of the mechanism?
A very important provision about transparency, including with respect to developing countries, including with respect to actions they take on their own as opposed to just actions they take when they’re funded. Very important stuff there. And in paragraph five of the accord, it talks about further guidelines to spell out those transparency provisions. Okay, that needs to get done. So there are probably four or five elements of the accord that need further work, and I think that that – that those things need to be carried forward. The first piece of that that got announced was a high-level panel or group, advisory group, I think it’s called, on financing that Ban Ki-moon announced just Friday.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. STERN: That’s under – I think it’s paragraph nine of the accord that talks about setting up a high-level panel to do a study on potential sources of income toward realizing that goal of $100 billion by 2020. All right. So they’ve now announced that panel. I think there’s a couple of members from different countries, including ours, that haven’t been announced yet. But that’s underway and there’ll be other elements of that that I think as time goes on will get – will be – will get underway as well.
MR. TONER: Any more questions? Go ahead.
QUESTION: We’ve heard that several companies – BP, Conoco, and Caterpillar – dropped out of the Climate Action Partnership. I’m wondering if you can talk specifically about that, if you know about it. Is it a blow to that side of the equation? And more specifically, how do you feel that business is – I mean, do you think that there is some concern that business interest in this whole process is waning?
MR. STERN: I don’t know anything about that – about the specifics, so I’m not going to comment on that. I think – it’s interesting. I think that overall business interest and focus on this issue is growing gradually and that that will continue, because whatever the ups and downs of this process at any particular moment, there is only one direction that this process can go, which is in the direction of action to reduce emissions. I hope we get there – I very much hope we get there sooner rather than later and we will be doing everything we possibly can to advance that goal. But whether it’s sooner or later, it’s coming. Businesses get that. Businesses need to plan for not just – businesses don’t drive by looking right over the head of the car, they look down the road, and this is coming. So I think that that will grow.
Thank you.

2010 Goldman Sachs Making Up To $1B Investment in Renewable Energy

Goldman Sachs Environmental Policy Framework

In mid- January (see Bloomberg) Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said that shortages will reappear in the crude oil market as supply fails to keep pace with a recovery in demand. Global oil consumption will return to levels seen before the financial crisis by the third quarter of this year, Goldman analyst Jeffrey Currie said in a presentation in London.  At the same time, projects to bring new oil to consumers are still lagging as a result of the credit crunch, he said. By 2011, the market is back to capacity constraints…The financial crisis created a collapse in company returns which has significantly interrupted the investment phase.”

Goldman Sachs is aggressively seeking market making opportunities in environmental markets. The policy framework that they have laid out explains both their investment strategy and an underlying commitment to protect the environment and indigenous populations. Their specific interests in wind, water, solar, alternative biofuels and sustainable forestry related products are detailed below along with references to existing partnerships and hints of future commitments.

Goldman Sachs “seeks to make a significant positive contribution to climate change, sustainable forestry and ecosystem services through market-based solutions.”

In their own words-  Goldman Sachs’ core competencies include

• Identifying market opportunities,
• Creating efficient market structures,
• Providing liquidity
• Investing capital.

Goldman Sachs will aggressively seek market making and investment opportunities in the environmental markets described below.

• Emissions trading (CO2, SO2),
• Weather derivatives,
• Renewable energy credits, and
• Other climate related commodities

These are Goldman Sachs’ stated objectives:

1. They intend to be  a leading U.S. wind energy developer and generator through their recently acquired subsidiary, Horizon Wind Energy (f.k.a. Zilkha Renewable Energy).
2. They will make available up to $1 billion to invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
3. They will evaluate opportunities and, where appropriate, encourage the development of and participate in markets for water, biodiversity, forest management, forest-based ecosystems, and other ecosystem features and services.
4. They will continue to devise investment structures for renewable energy and invest alongside our energy clients, such as our wind energy partnership with Shell Wind Energy and our solar energy fund with BP Solar.
5. They will explore investment opportunities in renewable and/or cleaner burning alternative fuels such as renewable diesel (such as our investment in Changing World Technologies), ethanol and biomass.
6. They will seek to make investments in, and create financing structures to assist in the development and commercialization of, other environmentally friendly technologies.

Equator Principles

The Equator Principles serve as a framework for determining, assessing, and managing environmental and social risk in project financing, based on the policies of the World Bank and its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation. Goldman Sachs will seek to apply the general guidelines to debt and equity underwriting transactions, to the initiation of loans and to investment banking advisory assignments where the use of proceeds is specified to be used for potentially

Goldman Sachs says that they will not knowingly finance

• Any project or initiate loans where the specified use of proceeds would significantly convert or degrade a critical natural habitat.
• Extractive projects or commercial logging in World Heritage sites.ii
• Companies or projects that collude with or are knowingly engaged in illegal logging
• Projects that contravene any relevant international environmental agreement which has been enacted into the law of, or otherwise has the force of law in, the country in which the project is located.

Goldman Sachs prefers to

• Only finance preservation and light, nonextractive use of forest resources for projects in forests whose high conservation values are endangered.iii
• Develop due diligence procedures around key environmental issues for use in evaluating potential financings.
• Protect the highest conservation values in forests with respect to its execution of financings in the logging and forest products industries.
• Use a Forest Stewardship Council or a comparable certification when they finance forestry projects that impact high conservation value forests.
• Examine whether clients process, purchase, or trade wood products from high risk countries and will encourage such clients to have certifiable systems in place to ensure that the wood they process, purchase or trade comes from legal sources.
• Provide training, as appropriate, to our employees on environmental issues and practices.
• Develop training sessions and provide the tools necessary to make informed decisions.
• Finance projects in indigenous areas where free, prior informed consultation results in support of the project by the affected indigenous peoples.

China’s Power Sources & Clean Energy Technologies Are Expanding: Some Companies to Know About

China, the world’s largest polluting nation, is working with international organizations and private industry to develop cleaner energy models to combat climate change and meet demand for power in an economy that expanded 10.7 percent in the fourth quarter 2009.

By 2020, China aims to use 10 million tons of bioethanol and 2 million tons of biodiesel, replacing 10 million tons a year of petroleum-based fuel, Chen Deming, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, told a news conference.

The companies described here are not meant to be a complete list of Chinese companies engaged in clean energy nor is Bolton Hill Consulting, Ltd. making any specific recommendations with respect to these companies. The descriptions are provided here for information purposes only to help companies unfamiliar with China’s clean energy interests to better understand the rapidly changing landscape and some of the pivotal players in China.

The companies described below are powerful in China or have shown rapid growth. They may be working with American and European companies or they are likely to do so in the near future. These companies are acquiring foreign companies, setting up subsidiaries, developing new technologies and making innovative use of existing technologies.

A Large Scale Demonstration Project: China Renewable Energy Scale-up Program (CRESP)

The CRESP program was developed by the Government of China (GOC) in cooperation with the World Bank (WB) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Together, these entities have been implementing the Renewable Energy Scale-up program for China which aims to create a legal, regulatory, and institutional environment conducive to large-scale, renewable-based electricity generation in two Chinese provinces. The Institutional Development and Capacity Building component includes: Mandated Market Policy MMP research and implementation support; technology improvement for wind and biomass; and long-term capacity building.

• In Fujian, a 100 MW wind farm at Changjiang’ao, Pingtan Island. The Pingtan wind farm will consist of wind turbines, associated civil and electrical works, an extension to an existing control room, a switchyard, and a 15 km, 110 kV transmission line from the wind farm to the Beicuo substation, which will be upgraded to meet the evacuation needs of the wind farm. In Jiangsu, a 25 MW straw-fired biomass power plant at Mabei Village, Rudong County.

• The Rudong power plant will consist of one 110 ton per hour, high-temperature, high-pressure strawfired boiler, one 25 MW steam turbine, and associated mechanical, electrical, and civil works.

Get to Know These Companies:

1. China Huaneng Group Corp, China’s Largest Power Producer

• The company may be planning to take its wind power unit public in a Hong Kong share sale this year worth at least $1 billion, said people familiar with the plan.

• The company is rumored to have hired China International Capital Corp, Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Macquarie Group Ltd and Morgan Stanley to arrange the initial public offering.

2. China Power Engineering Consulting Group Corporation or “The Group”

• “The Group” is active in developing new clean technologies and leads the country not only in design of conventional thermal power plants, transmission and substations.

• The Group Corporation has also carried out widespread international exchange and cooperation with many foreign enterprises groups and engineering companies.

• The Group Corporation plays leading role in scientific research, standardization and technical information for power survey and design, undertakes new technological research and development, introduces, assimilates and innovates new technologies.

3. China Southern Power Grid Corporation Ltd.: Managing China’s Grid

China Southern Power Gird Corporation is administered by the central government,with independent budgetary status.The total assets of the new power gird operator surpass 203.8 billion yuan(US$24.10billion) and its registered capital is 60 billion yuan (US$7.23billion).Its main responsibilities are:to operate and manage power gird according to the law,ensure reliable power supply,plan the development of regional power gird,foster regional power market,manage power dispatching and trading center,and carry out power dispatching according to power gird operation laws and the market regulations.

4. China SDIC Power: Received Largest Capital Injection of Power Assets ever

China SDIC Power’ takeover of power assets from its controlling shareholder, State Development and Investment Company, for a consideration of RMB 7.69 Bn. After the transaction, SDIC power assets achieved a whole listing. This deal was the largest capital injection to a listed company by its controlling shareholder in 2009, and the largest capital injection of power assets ever. Along with the commission of a number of key power projects, such as cascade hydropower stations in the Yalong River Valley and Tianjin million-kilowatt extra supercritical thermal power station-a pilot project of circular economy, the total installed capacity of SDIC will reach 50000 MW by 2012, with total assets of SDIC’s power business exceeding RMB 140 billion.

Wind Power in China

• Chinese wind power capacity doubled for the fifth time by end of 2009, to 25.1 gW by the end of 2009, a third of the global additions in the previous 12 months, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.

• The government may lift its 2020 target for wind power capacity by 50 percent to 150 gigawatts, representing a 20 percent annual growth rate from 2009, Goldman Sachs said in a research note dated Feb. 3. “I’m optimistic about the long-term development of China’s wind power industry,” said Martin Wang, a power analyst with Guotai Junan Securities in Hong Kong. “The government seems to be increasing support to the sector.”

5. China Longyuan Power Group Corp, China’s Biggest Wind-Power Producer in December raised HK$20.1 billion in the world’s second-largest alternative energy initial public offering (IPO) since at least 1999, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

6. Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co 002202.SZ,: Growing Chinese Wind Generator Manufacturer- The Group’s principal activities are manufacturing, marketing and selling large-sized wind generator sets. Other activities include introducing and applying wind generating technology; manufacturing and selling parts of wind generating sets; providing consulting services in building and operating wind generating plants; building and operating middle-sized wind generating plants. This company is already listed in Shenzhen, aims to raise $1.5 billion from a Hong Kong IPO in the first half of this year, sources told Reuters earlier.

Biofuel in China:

By 2020, China aims to use 10 million tons of bioethanol and 2 million tons of biodiesel, replacing 10 million tons a year of petroleum-based fuel, Chen Deming, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, told a news conference. “In the future, all the biofuel production will use non-grain crops,” Chen said.

7. China Clean Energy (OTCBB:CCGY) : develops and manufactures biodiesel and environmentally-friendly specialty chemical products made from renewable resources through its subsidiaries, Fujian Zhongde Technology and Fujian Zhongde Energy. It’s new plant (Oct. 2009)  has been designed to produce up to 100,000 tons of biodiesel annually or a combination of as much as 40,000 tons of biodiesel and 30,000 tons of specialty chemicals.

8. Novozymes in China: laboratory and research facilities have now doubled in size Novozymes has a total of around 200 employees in Beijing, including 100 or so working in research and development. Lykke Friis, the Danish Minister for Climate and Energy:“The idea behind the extension is to strengthen our research into biomass for advanced biofuels, made from waste materials such as straw. Here in China we’ve entered into partnerships with two important players in the field, namely COFCO and Sinopec.” Novozymes to Announce Details on Cellulosic Ethanol Technology February 16, 2010 at NEC Conference

9. China Biodiesel Holding Corporation: leading product is Biodiesel, while the sideline-products are oleic acid methyl ester,C16C18 fatty acid methyl ester, coconut oil methyl ester. The main market is located in mainland China, but abroad channels are maturing, including Europe, East Asia, and North America.  They report that their current total capacity is now 100,000 tons per annum (Feb 2010)

SDIC’s Hydropower Projects

Along with the commission of a number of key power projects, such as cascade hydropower stations in the Yalong River Valley and Tianjin million-kilowatt extra supercritical thermal power station-a pilot project of circular economy, the total installed capacity of SDIC will reach 50000 MW by 2012, with total assets of SDIC’s power business exceeding RMB 140 billion.

Investment Projects：

10. SDIC HUAJING POWER HOLDINGS CO.,LTD.

11. ERTAN HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LTD.

12. SDIC YUNNAN DACHAOSHAN HYDROPOWER CO,LTD.

13. SDIC QINZHOU ELECTRIC POWER CO.,LTD.

14. JINGYUAN SECOND POWER CO.,LTD.

15. GANSU XIAOSANXIA HYDROPOWER DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD.

Video: Pentagon commits to use biofuels- Secretaries Vilsack and Mabus Onboard

The Secretaries of Agriculture and the Navy were at the Pentagon in January 2010, showing their commitment to going green. Secretaries Vilsack and Mabus signed a Memorandum of Understanding committing the two departments to work together to develop biofuels.

In November of 2009- Rear Admiral Phil Cullom spoke plainly at the MIT Innovations Journal event co-organized by Bolton Hill Consulting at the National Academies of Science. The message was clear. The U.S. Navy has a long-standing commitment to the use of biofuels because it makes economic sense. The Navy is the largest consumer of biofuel in the United States. Rear Admiral Cullom controls a 21 Billion dollar budget. He attests that the Navy has used cutting edge clean technology for a long time to save money, increase access to domestic fuel sources and promote American innovation. The talk he gave at this event was riveting because not only is he interested in the topic- he is extremely well-educated (nuclear engineer & Harvard business graduate among other things), well spoken and highly committed to the use of biofuels in multiple contexts. Listen to him in his own words below.

Video provided by Allan Tone at ProVDN

JBEI and LS9 Biotechnology of SF converting Biomass to fuel with microbes: huge money saving potential

The secret to cheap, sustainable fuel from waste is near and natural. We have microbes that can get the job done without expensive chemical conversions.

Read about it in Science Daily.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 31, 2010) — A collaboration led by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) has developed a microbe that can produce an advanced biofuel directly from biomass. Deploying the tools of synthetic biology, the JBEI researchers engineered a strain of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria to produce biodiesel fuel and other important chemicals derived from fatty acids.
See Also:
Plants & Animals
Food
Bacteria
Matter & Energy
Fossil Fuels
Energy Policy
Earth & Climate
Energy and the Environment
Renewable Energy
Reference
Biomass
Biomass (ecology)
Biodiesel
Distributed generation
“The fact that our microbes can produce a diesel fuel directly from biomass with no additional chemical modifications is exciting and important,” says Jay Keasling, the Chief Executive Officer for JBEI, and a leading scientific authority on synthetic biology. “Given that the costs of recovering biodiesel are nowhere near the costs required to distill ethanol, we believe our results can significantly contribute to the ultimate goal of producing scalable and cost effective advanced biofuels and renewable chemicals.”
Keasling led the collaboration, which was was made up of a team from JBEI’s Fuels Synthesis Division that included Eric Steen, Yisheng Kang and Gregory Bokinsky, and a team from LS9, a privately-held industrial biotechnology firm based in South San Francisco. The LS9 team was headed by Stephen del Cardayre and included Zhihao Hu, Andreas Schirmer and Amy McClure. The collaboration has published the results of their research in the January 28, 2010 edition of the journal Nature. The paper is titled, “Microbial Production of Fatty Acid-Derived Fuels and Chemicals from Plant Biomass.”
A combination of ever-increasing energy costs and global warming concerns has created an international imperative for new transportation fuels that are renewable and can be produced in a sustainable fashion. Scientific studies have consistently shown that liquid fuels derived from plant biomass are one of the best alternatives if a cost-effective means of commercial production can be found. Major research efforts to this end are focused on fatty acids — the energy-rich molecules in living cells that have been dubbed nature’s petroleum.
Fuels and chemicals have been produced from the fatty acids in plant and animal oils for more than a century. These oils now serve as the raw materials not only for biodiesel fuel, but also for a wide range of important chemical products including surfactants, solvents and lubricants.
“The increased demand and limited supply of these oils has resulted in competition with food, higher prices, questionable land-use practices and environmental concerns associated with their production,” Keasling says. “A more scalable, controllable, and economic alternative route to these fuels and chemicals would be through the microbial conversion of renewable feedstocks, such as biomass-derived carbohydrates.”
E. coli isa well-studied microorganism whose natural ability to synthesize fatty acids and exceptional amenability to genetic manipulation make it an ideal target for biofuels research. The combination of E. coli with new biochemical reactions realized through synthetic biology, enabled Keasling, Steen and their colleagues to produce structurally tailored fatty esters (biodiesel), alcohols and waxes directly from simple sugars.
“Biosynthesis of microbial fatty acids produces fatty acids bound to a carrier protein, the accumulation of which inhibits the making of additional fatty acids,” Steen says. “Normally E. coli doesn’t waste energy making excess fat, but by cleaving fatty acids from their carrier proteins, we’re able to unlock the natural regulation and make an abundance of fatty acids that can be converted into a number of valuable products. Further, we engineered our E. coli to no longer eat fatty acids or use them for energy.”
After successfully diverting fatty acid metabolism toward the production of fuels and other chemicals from glucose, the JBEI researchers engineered their new strain of E. coli to produce hemicellulases — enzymes that are able to ferment hemicellulose, the complex sugars that are a major constituent of cellulosic biomass and a prime repository for the energy locked within plant cell walls.
“Engineering E. coli to produce hemicellulases enables the microbes to produce fuels directly from the biomass of plants that are not used as food for humans or feed for animals,” Steen says. “Currently, biochemical processing of cellulosic biomass requires costly enzymes for sugar liberation. By giving the E. coli the capacity to ferment both cellulose and hemicellulose without the addition of expensive enzymes, we can improve the economics of cellulosic biofuels.”
The JBEI team is now working on maximizing the efficiency and the speed by which their engineered strain of E. coli can directly convert biomass into biodiesel. They are also looking into ways of maximizing the total amount of biodiesel that can be produced from a single fermentation.
“Productivity, titer and efficient conversion of feedstock into fuelare the three most important factors for engineering microbes that can produce biofuels on an industrial scale,” Steen says. “There is still much more research to do before this process becomes commercially feasible.”
This research was supported by funds from LS9, Inc., and the UC Discovery Grant program. LS9 is using synthetic biology techniques to develop patent-pending UltraClean™ fuels and sustainable chemicals. The UC Discovery Grant program is a three-way partnership between the University of California, private industry and the state of California that is aimed at strengthening and expanding California’s economy through targeted fields of research.

Clean tech gets big piece of venture-capital funding – USATODAY.com

Clean tech gets big piece of venture-capital funding – USATODAY.com.

VENTURE FUNDING

Clean-tech venture-capital investment dropped last year, but the volume of deals remained strong.1 Investment (in billions) Deals 2002 $0.9 164 2003 $1.3 301 2004 $1.3 333 2005 $2.0 381 2006 $4.5 409 2007 $6.1 488 2008 $8.5 567 20092 $5.6 557 1 = North America, Europe, Israel, China and India; 2 = preliminary. Source: Cleantech Group

By Julie Schmit, USA TODAY

Venture-capital funding for clean-technology firms fell 33% in 2009 from the year before, but the sector fared better than others amid a dismal economy, data released Wednesday indicate.

More than $5.6 billion in venture-capital investment went to clean-tech firms — including solar, wind, energy efficiency, transportation and biofuels — last year, say preliminary data from market researcher Cleantech Group and finance firm Deloitte.

GREEN HOUSE: Check out what’s going on in our community blog

Total venture-capital investment has retreated to 2003 levels, but clean tech has reset only to 2007 levels, the Cleantech Group says. “It was a difficult year, but I see clean tech … as the best of the worst,” says Shawn Lesser, founder of finance firm Sustainable World Capital.

The money flow underscores that:

•Clean tech has muscle. In 2004, the sector accounted for about 3% of venture-capital investment. That expanded to about 25% in 2009. The sector last year, for the first time, received more private venture capital than any other sector, including software, Cleantech Group says.

•Efficiency and transportation are in. The top clean-tech recipient in 2009 was solar, which got 21% of it. But solar investment was down 64% from the previous year, while the transportation and energy-efficiency sectors had record years.

The drop for solar stems from several factors, including the big amounts of money needed to commercialize technologies, says Dallas Kachan, managing director of the Cleantech Group. Meanwhile, energy-efficiency firms — those concentrating on everything from lighting to green building materials — often need less money to bring products or services to market, may rely on more proven technologies and may pose less risk to investors. “They’re not reinventing the wheel,” Kachan says.

Last year, venture capital for transportation — for such things as electric cars and new battery technology — rose 47% to $1.1 billion. Investment in energy efficiency rose 39% to $1 billion.

•North America may be slipping. The region is still dominant for clean-tech venture capital, but it’s getting a smaller share than it used to. Last year, North America received 62% of clean-tech venture-capital dollars, down from 72% in 2008, the Cleantech Group says. Europe and Israel took in 29% of 2009 dollars, up from 22% in 2008. That Europe and Israel increased their share of venture-capital funding may reflect the desire for investors to pursue less risky deals in markets where clean tech is already more widely deployed, Lesser says.

U.S. pledges billions; China says climate pact is doubtful – washingtonpost.com

By Juliet Eilperin and Anthony Faiola Washington Post Staff WriterThursday, December 17, 2009; 7:01 AMCOPENHAGEN — The United States on Thursday announced it would help build a $100 billion annual fund by 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change, but said its commitment depended on whether the nations gathered here could reach a substantive pact that includes “transparency” on tracking emissions cuts.

In the absence of a comprehensive pact, Clinton said, the United States would take its long-term financial pledge off the table. She did not specify how much the U.S. would contribute to the fund if a substantive agreement was reached. The European Union has also committed to building a longterm, $100 billion fund, while Japan has committed $15 billion in short-term funding to poor countries over the next three years if an agreement is reached.

Clinton’s announcement could help break a logjam that has stymied the talks for days, since developing countries have insisted they need to know how the industrialized world will help them adapt to climate change and curb their own emissions before signing off on a deal.

The $100 billion annual fund endorsed by Clinton would help poorer countries switch to less environmentally harmful forms of energy production and prepare for the impacts of rising seas and warmer global temperatures. Clinton did not detail how much the U.S. would contribute to that fund. She said there were a number of financing options under consideration, but would not provide details.

“$100 billion is a lot,” Clinton said. “It can have tangible effects.”

Clinton, however, warned that a failure to reach agreement in Copenhagen — a deal has been anticipated Friday when leaders including President Obama enter the final stage of talks — would put that pledge in jeopardy. Officials from the United States and other developed countries have consistently said they cannot accept an agreement that does not include pledged emission reductions from major developing countries, as well as a method of verifying those cuts. Such language is essential to U.S. senators, who have yet to pass climate legislation and would have to ratify any future climate treaty.

via U.S. pledges billions; China says climate pact is doubtful – washingtonpost.com.

MIT Press Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate

MIT Press Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate.

If you have any trouble playing the video here- then press HERE

Bolton Hill Consulting assisted MIT Innovations editors to organize this educational event at the National Academy of Sciences. (Live Streaming & Video production provided by Alan Tone at Fimmaker etc).

Time For Change Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate A discussion on the occasion of the release of the Innovations journal special issue on energy & climate. November 24, 2009 The National Academy of Sciences Washington, D.C. The solutions to our climate challenge aren’t just “out there,” they are right here-before your eyes, in your hands. —John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to the President of the United States, Introduction to Innovations 4:4 Energy for Change: Creating Climate Solutions EVENT DESCRIPTION The goal of this meeting was to contribute to reframing the conversation on energy and climate by illuminating opportunities inherent in the transition away from carbon intensity. The meeting focused on how technologies already in use can be combined with common-sense policies and 21st century modes of organization to create jobs, advance innovation, and enhance international cooperation. Led by the Science Adviser to the President of the United States, John Holdren, and informed by a year-long project on energy & climate at the National Academy of Sciences, the meeting was be organized into a set of forward-looking conversations respectively emphasizing opportunities for business, for the United States, and for the global community of nations. Selected video highlights from Time for Change: Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate. AGENDA Panel #1: Building Change: The built environment and electric power service delivery video Moderator:Ellen Vaughan, Environmental and Energy Study Institute .pdf Panelist:Ralph Cavanagh, Natural Resources Defense Council .pdf Panelist: James Turner, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities .pdf Panelist: Henry Green, National Institute of Building Sciences .pdf Panel #2: Driving Change: Transport and reduced oil consumption video Moderator:Philip Auerswald, George Mason University Panelist:Judi Greenwald, Pew Center on Global Climate Change Panelist: L. Jerry Hansen, United States Army Panelist:William Drayton, Ashoka and Get America Working! .pdf Panel #3: Legislating Change: U.S. policy options and directions video Moderator:Edward Maibach, George Mason University Panelist:Richard Meserve, The Carnegie Institution Panelist:Jason Grumet, Bipartisan Policy Center Panelist:Bracken Hendricks, Center for American Progress Introduction of Keynote Speaker Philip Auerswald, George Mason University Keynote Address video John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to the President of the United States .pdf Panel #4: Negotiating Change: International agreements and new institutional arrangements at a global scale video Moderator:William Bonvillian, MIT .pdf Panelist:Thomas Schelling, University of Maryland .pdf Panelist: Frank Alix, Powerspan Corp. .pdf Panelist:Iqbal Quadir, MIT Closing Address video Rear Admiral Philip Hart Cullom, United States Navy Concluding Remarks video William Bonvillian, MIT .pdf Read William B. Bonvillian and Charles Weiss’s MIT Press Book: Structuring an Energy Technology Revolution Subscribe to Innovations

Time For Change: Reframing the Conversation on Energy & Climate

Time 4 Change Reframing the Conversation on Energy & Climate.

Bolton Hill Consulting is helping plan “Time for Change: Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate” At the release of MIT’s Innovations journal special issue on energy & climate

Event Details:

Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Time: 1:00 – 6:45PM (Event: 1-5:40PM; Reception: 5:45-6:45PM)
Place: The National Academy of Sciences, 2100 C Street, NW (21st and Constitution Avenue), Washington, DC 20001(Foggy Bottom Metro)
Cost: Free of charge – Register here

Event Description
The goal of this meeting is to contribute to reframing the conversation on energy and climate by illuminating opportunities inherent in the transition away from carbon intensity. The meeting will focus on how technologies already in use can be combined with common-sense policies and 21st century modes of organization to create jobs, advance innovation, and enhance international cooperation. The meeting will take place at the National Academy of Sciences and will engage leaders from business, government, and academia in a discussion of the societal possibilities inherent in the in the creation of climate solutions. The event is timed to take place two weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, and coincides with the release of the Innovations journal special issue on energy & climate titled “Energy for Change.” Led by the Science Adviser to the President of the United States, John Holdren, and informed by a year-long project on energy & climate at the National Academy of Sciences, the meeting will be organized into a set of forward-looking conversations respectively emphasizing opportunities for business, for the United States, and for the global community of nations.

Featured speakers include:

• John Holdren, Science Adviser to the President of the United States and former Director of the Belfer Center’s Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program
• Thomas Schelling, 2005 recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics
• Bill Drayton, Founder and CEO of Ashoka, Innovators for the Public
• Richard Meserve, President of the Carnegie Institution
• Iqbal Quadir, Founder and Director of MIT’s Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship