There are an increasing number of global climate funds available to invest in climate change mitigation projects and kick-start a green economy, but accessing these funds is not as simple as it might seem, according to speakers at a Cambridge Resilience Forum event in Cape Town this week.
 
The funds range from the $30 billion committed to climate friendly development at the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Copenhagen conference last year to private equity funds. But, according to Smita Nakhooda of the World Resources Institute based in Washington DC, many tensions exist as to how these funds should be sourced, committed and managed.
 
“At the heart of the debate is how to maintain high standards of financing, while ensuring that funding institutions are nimble enough to ensure that things get done,” she said. “And how do you ensure that the finance reaches the kind of projects that will have traction and bring about major change?”
 
Nakhooda said one of the major tensions was that developing nations wanted to have direct access to funding and many donors felt safest working through the tested international bodies such as the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Advances in meeting this challenge of ‘top-down versus bottom-up’ had been made with the introduction of the Adaptation Fund and the growth of national low carbon development funds, but it was too early to judge how these would fare.
 
Richard Sherman of One World Sustainable Investments and a member of the South African delegation to the UNFCCC said that the Copenhagen Accord included an agreement to set up a new fund that was currently being negotiated. Debated issues were over global technology intellectual property rights, insurance mechanisms, whether to make grants or loans, and what the sources of funding should be.
 
A possible source for this new fund could be using 1% of GDP from developed countries, but then the question would be how the UN Secretary General would decide to mobilize these funds, he said.
 
Funds could also possibly be sourced from the private sector via climate transactions taxation, leveraging emissions of the transport industry, and implementing George Soros’s proposal of an IMF rights issue.
 
However, the good news, he said, was that the $30 billion committed at Copenhagen would flow through existing channels, and would therefore not be hampered by this process of negotiation.
 
The important thing for South Africa to remember was that it needed to ensure that it had established the right channels to receive these funds so that it would be ready to receive them, he said. Work still had to be done in this area.
 
Carl Wesselink of the South African Export Development Fund called for a pragmatic approach to accessing climate-related funds and putting them to good social and economic use. The point was not to focus on becoming ‘carbon neutral’ (which usually had “zero social impact” and had a “negative impact on the country’s Balance of Payments”) but rather to focus on “how we get energy and how we use it”.
 
“Our decisions need to be practical and socially responsible,” he said.
 
Best known for the role he played in implementing South Africa’s acclaimed flagship Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) housing retrofit project at Kuyasa in Khayelitsha, Cape Town, he said it would cost R1500 per unit over five years to retrofit an RDP house with a ceiling and a solar water geyser.
 
“This might not sound like a lot to us, but we need to understand the social and economic benefits from these simple interventions for the people who live in RDP houses. It means the inhabitants regain about 10% of their income in energy saving, get access to hot water for the first time, and avoid having to endure about 3 litres of condensation a night dampening their beds and affecting their health,” he said.
 
While the CDM was a useful mechanism, it was laden with bureaucratic processes that used up about 75% of the funds available, he said. Accessing funds from local funding institutions, such as the National Sustainable Settlements Facility, should not be ruled out as an interim measure to get things going.
 
Graham Sinclair, principal at Sinclair & Company, a boutique investment advisory firm specializing in sustainable investment in emerging markets, said private investment offered a possible source of climate finance.
 
“Investors are geared up to make investment decisions along ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) principles if people insist on them. The more investors ask for this kind of investment, the more the market will work in this direction,” he said.
 
But the bottom line for private funding, all agreed, was that the market required a reasonable degree of certainty that investment will be profitable.
 
As Nakhooda pointed out in her opening remarks, it is cheaper to mitigate the effects of climate change through climate friendly investments than to deal with post-event adaptation. Mitigation offers an opportunity for profiting from the development of a green economy. Adaptation is more likely to be expensive damage control.
 
Dirk Visser of the Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership, who chaired the session, noted that, according to the World Bank, $50 billion was needed annually for Africa to cope with climate change. According to some, this figure is severely underestimated.
 
Monica Graaff is a freelance journalist who works on projects with the University of Cambridge’s Programme for Sustainability Leadership.

Over the past few years, a number of companies have been racing to put wireless energy on the market. In 2007, researchers at MIT revealed a project that powered a light bulb remotely. The physicist and project leader Marin Soljacic (winner of a MacArthur “genius grant” Fellowship) went on to found the start-up WiTricity.

In the 2007 expeiment they powered a 60W light bulb across a room. At the Nikkei electronics conference in Tokyo in October 2009, they were able to power a 1,000-watt klieg light from across the room. WiTricity’s record so far is 3,000 watts – enough to fully charge an electric car, so long as it’s in the same room (or garage).

The basic underlying principle for transmitting power wirelessly goes back more than a century to the work of Nikola Tesla and other pioneers of electricity, but the MIT team invented a way of making the process far more efficient and practical.

The system works by creating a strong electromagnetic resonance between the sending and receiving coils – similar to the way a tuning fork can start vibrating when exposed to a sound of exactly the right frequency, or the way a radio antenna can be tuned to just the frequency of a single station out of the hundreds that are simultaneously broadcasting their signals. In this case, the magnetic resonance between the two coils is unaffected by objects in between the coils, and by the same token objects between the coils – including people – are not affected by the magnetic fields.

Several concerns, even initially from WiTricity CEO Eric Giller, have been raised about the potential health risks as magnetism from MRI machines can disable pacemakers. But, MRI magnetism is about 10,000 stronger than that in WiTricity and the Institute of Physics in London has found WiTricity’s magnetic field “has no detrimental effects on the human body.”

Already, companies focused on a special application of wireless electricity have broken into the retail market with force. Powermat, and soon WiPower, provide “wireless charging” stations for home electronics. Instead of plugging in your mobile phone or handheld video game, you just strap a receiver on it, and place it on a charging mat. This “drop and charge” innovation is set to make a big impact in retail sales (Powermat sold more than 750,000 products in just two months) and could be the first step to the wireless electricity revolution that changes the way we power our lives.

Gieler of WiTricity mentioned at the TED 2009 conference that the technology can conceivably still get a lot better. We could use a similar method of coupling to power objects from a meter away or farther. At that distance, we could power electric cars while they were still on the road, or create homes without plugs.

 For more information read here… or here….

A further feature is that the cars are capable of 360° steering, making parking a dream.

Because the cars are part of a single, computerized network, their placement can be coordinated to reduce traffic congestion or make transportation options available at peak times and places. Rental charges could fluctuate to encourage alternate routes. Commuters could keep track of where and when cars and parking spaces are available in real time, using cellphones or other hand-held devices to track the cheapest or the most convenient car, spot, or route.

Ryan Chin, one of team working on this project, said: “When you think of this, you shouldn’t think of a car. You should think of it as a new personal and sustainable mobility system and service. This is a clean and green machine.”

MIT has submitted a proposal to a government in Asia that is interested in building a network of these cars in one of their cities. The CityCar was part of the plan submitted by MIT that also recently won the 2009 Buckminster Fuller Challenge.

Using Applied Levitation’s no-contact Stabilized Permanent Magnet (“SPM”) levitation system it will permit incremental upgrade of current rail and subway systems. By installing SPM guideways on the same ties as existing tracks, with one maglev rail outside each of the existing steel rails and a motor rail down the center, SPM maglev vehicles can operate simultaneously with standard rail and subway vehicles. As a result, existing rail and subway cars can remain in operation while being gradually replaced with new maglev vehicles that cost less and perform far better. This capability avoids the need to completely overhaul current infrastructure at tremendous cost.

The FASTRANSIT system is a packet-switching transportation network that uses permanent magnetic levitation and linear motors for instant switching and direct routing on an ultra-high capacity network. The system can be used for mass transit, freight transport or personal rapid transit.
Some of the proposed benefits of this system are:

• Low capital cost–SPM maglev guideways can be built, mile for mile, for about the same cost as one lane of freeway with twenty times the carrying capacity.
• Easily integrated–Existing rail and subway systems can be easily retrofitted with SPM maglev capabilities, enabling incremental upgrades of an aging infrastructure.
• Fast switching–SPM maglev technology uses instant magnetic switching with no moving parts which enables more efficient routing of computer-controlled maglev vehicles.
• Network capability (Mag-Net^TM)–With SPM maglev technology and instant magnetic switching, transportation networks can be developed to route traffic in much the same way as information is routed over the internet.
• Highly scalable–SPM maglev technology can be used with smaller, lighter vehicles for more efficient passenger transportation, or with bigger, heavier vehicles for the transport of freight.

 The firms have already tested the system on a scale and a short indoor track, and is now planning a quarter mile outdoor track.

Maglev rails have been built and tested since about 1980 and a few high speed maglev railways are in operation, most famously the one between downtown Shanghai and Pudong International Airport. The California University of Pennsylvania is currently investigating an urban maglev system (not with SPM technology) for its campus.

At night, when demand on the grid is low, the Ice Bear goes in to “ice charging” mode, freezes 450 gallons of water and stores it. During the day when the grid reaches peak demand levels, typically between noon and 6 p.m., the Ice Bear goes into “ice cooling” mode. It takes over from the air conditioner’s energy-intensive compressor and cools the hot refrigerant using the ice made the night before. The cooling cycle lasts at least six hours until the ice completely melts, at which point the AC compressor goes back on the job and the ice making and cooling cycles begin again.

Installation for SCPPA will begin in the first half of the year and rolling deployment will take about two years. About 1,500 government, commercial and industrial buildings — retrofits and some new construction — will be involved.

The power authority and the company say that the project will permanently reduce demand peak electricity demand and, when complete, can shift as much as 64 gigawatt hours of on-peak consumption to off-peak times annually. The power authority estimates that the shift can offset enough peak demand to serve the equivalent of 10,000 homes.

The system costs about $2000 per kilowatt of capacity

For utilities, energy storage systems are considered key Smart Grid components because of their capacity to store energy efficiently and dispatch it when and where needed. Ice Energy said they have tested the technology with 20 utilities in the United States and Canada and they are looking forward to other major projects.

Original article: GreenerBuilding staff. 27 January 2010. Read more…

SunCatcher has a number of advantages including the highest solar-to-grid electric efficiency, zero water use for power production, a modular and scalable design, low capital cost, and minimal land disturbance. SunCatcher was designed and developed in America, through a public-private partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy. The SunCatchers unveiled at Maricopa Solar were manufactured and assembled in North America, mostly in Michigan by automotive suppliers.

Now that the plant is up, Stirling will be able to compare the results its gets from its Stirling engines from heliostat prototype power plants erected by eSolar in Southern California and BrightSource Energy in Israel as well as parabolic trough systems that have already been commercially deployed. Parabolic companies, BrightSource and eSolar collect solar heat on mirrors and use it to heat fluid. The warmth causes the fluid to expand, which creates pressure that gets exploited to crank a turbine.

The Company has publicly quoted a fully-installed cost for grid-scale plants of $2.8 million per megawatt.

Read more here… or here…

“Actually the way we frame it is we are talking about the sustainabilty of the human project.”

Click here to download Part 1 of the interview (audio or video). Part 2, download here.

The UN recently announced that fifty five countries, responsible for almost 80% of world greenhouse gas emissions have pledged various goals to combat climate change.

Most countries, including China and the US, mostly reiterated commitments unveiled prior to the COP 15 in Denmark. These include:

• President Obama’s plans for a 17% cut in US emissions from 2005 levels or 4% cut from 1990 levels.
• The European Union’s goal of a 20% cut from 1990 levels or 30% if other nations step up.
• China’s “endeavour” to cut carbon intensity (carbon produced per unit of economic output) by 40%-45% from 2005 levels
• South Africa’s commitment to a 34% reduction below business as usual

Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute commented: “Following a month of uncertainty, it is now clear that the Copenhagen Accord will support the world in moving forward to meaningful global action on climate change.”

According to Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, “greater ambition is required to meet the scale of the challenge. But I see these pledges as clear signals of willingness to move negotiations towards a successful conclusion.”

South Africa announced its pledge of  34% emission reduction below business as usual by 2020 and 42% by 2025 in early December.  This would enable South Africa’s emissions to peak between 2020 and 2025, stabilize for 10 years and then decline in absolute terms. The business as usual ‘baseline’ is as per the government’s Long Term Mitigation Scenarios.

Original article: Mail & Guardian. 3 February 2009. Read here…