UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article8

2010-11-30T10:34:10Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.enn.com/energy/article/41988 Italy Goes Solar With First Sun-Powered Road] ==

== Summary ==

Italy is considered to be the country that constructed the first motorway. Now, eighty-four years later, it may lay claim to another first: the construction of the world's only solar-powered motorway.
It is also the world's most advanced, complete with surveillance systems, tarmac quality sensors, and many other safety and control features. The power generated by the 80 thousand solar panels placed alongside the road will be used to illuminate signs and tunnel lights, power emergency telephones, tunnel fans, and all services installed along the road. All of the road's energy needs will be met by this system, which cost approximately 60 million Euros to develop. Twelve million kWh annual energy production is estimated to save around 31 thousand tons of oil and 10 thousand tons worth of CO2 emissions annually. It is one of the first developments of its kind that marries both infrastructure construction and renewable energy systems. The contractor of this project also plans to revitalize the surrounding areas by investing in massive landscaping projects, beautifying the adjacent hedges and tree lines, planting thousands of trees and plants, and expanding the local forests. Other similar projects have already been developed in Italy; where solar panels were used alongside a roadway to provide power to proximal buildings, and another where they were installed as a sound barrier to protect surrounding neighbourhoods.

== Analysis ==

The construction of the world's first solar-powered motorway touches upon the topic discussed in a previous article, where the city of Sacramento had planned to establish a solar farm on the site of a former landfill. It was interesting to note that this re-purposing of relatively unattractive land would make economical sense, being that it could generate benefits to the municipality in excess of what the land was worth if other development options were to proceed. The analysis of this article suggested that there could be many more sites upon which these types of projects may thrive, but only in terms of their inability to attract more lucrative or economically beneficial projects.
[[File:Green.JPG|300px|thumb|left|]] [[File:Oil.JPG|300px|thumb|left|]][[File:Co2.JPG|300px|thumb|left|]]
The most interesting part of Italy's solar-powered roadway project is that there is no need to search for abandoned or unused land; renewable energy systems can be embedded within the private or public sector's newest infrastructure projects. This opens the door to many options not previously considered as being part of a company's or country's agenda of sustainable growth. It seems impossible to curb development while simultaneously promoting economic growth, especially in terms of infrastructure. Businesses need to be supported by a backbone of infrastructure in order to develop and thrive in the economy. Roadways and other such means of transport comprise the distribution channels upon which materials and goods are allowed to flow. These are necessary, and there seems to be little progress involved with making paved roadways more sustainable. The immense amount of concrete and tarmac that is plastered upon the earth will not be reduced anytime soon, despite the increased use and development of other means of transportation.

The concept of integrating solar panels alongside these roadways, with the goal of powering all features of the roadway and surrounding structures, seems like the most sensible decision within the confines of necessary development. This type of project boasts many economic advantages over other tentative solar-power projects. Firstly, it eliminates the need for large tracts of undeveloped land upon which to erect the solar panels, which alleviates the demand for that scarce and precious resource and translates to immense savings related to start-up costs. Secondly, the major consumer of the power generated from this system is actually adjacent to the source, avoiding costly delivery charges if the power needed to be sent to a less proximal end user. Thridly, since the system is so readily accessible as opposed to a distant locale away from urban areas, any maintenance needed can be more easily performed. All of these serve to bring down the costs of implementing such a sustainable energy program, which translates to lowering the marginal abatement costs of energy production for the country as a whole. This has all the characteristics of switching to a green good. There are probably many more advantages, but none more important than the estimated savings of 10 thousand tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions and 31 thousand tons of oil every year.

This integration of infrastructure and power generation should serve a prime example of how an economy can grow while incorporating the concept of sustainability at the same time. Italy is no stranger to this sort of activity; a few months ago a similar project was successfully implemented alongside a Sicilian motorway, providing power to buildings in the vicinity. Another motorway in Northern Italy erected solar-panels which doubled as sound-proofing barriers for residential neighbourhoods. These types of projects are paving the way for other applications of sustainable energy procurement that can be incorporated into the very fabric of our infrastructure. Although they may not be the pillars of perfect sustainable development, they are definitely a step - or a short drive - in the right direction.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article8

2010-11-30T10:24:38Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.enn.com/energy/article/41988 Italy Goes Solar With First Sun-Powered Road] ==

== Summary ==

Italy is considered to be the country that constructed the first motorway. Now, eighty-four years later, it may lay claim to another first: the construction of the world's only solar-powered motorway.
It is also the world's most advanced, complete with surveillance systems, tarmac quality sensors, and many other safety and control features. The power generated by the 80 thousand solar panels placed alongside the road will be used to illuminate signs and tunnel lights, power emergency telephones, tunnel fans, and all services installed along the road. All of the road's energy needs will be met by this system, which cost approximately 60 million Euros to develop. Twelve million kWh annual energy production is estimated to save around 31 thousand tons of oil and 10 thousand tons worth of CO2 emissions annually. It is one of the first developments of its kind that marries both infrastructure construction and renewable energy systems. The contractor of this project also plans to revitalize the surrounding areas by investing in massive landscaping projects, beautifying the adjacent hedges and tree lines, planting thousands of trees and plants, and expanding the local forests. Other similar projects have already been developed in Italy; where solar panels were used alongside a roadway to provide power to proximal buildings, and another where they were installed as a sound barrier to protect surrounding neighbourhoods.

== Analysis ==

The construction of the world's first solar-powered motorway touches upon the topic discussed in a previous article, where the city of Sacramento had planned to establish a solar farm on the site of a former landfill. It was interesting to note that this re-purposing of relatively unattractive land would make economical sense, being that it could generate benefits to the municipality in excess of what the land was worth if other development options were to proceed. The analysis of this article suggested that there could be many more sites upon which these types of projects may thrive, but only in terms of their inability to attract more lucrative or economically beneficial projects.

The most interesting part of Italy's solar-powered roadway project is that there is no need to search for abandoned or unused land; renewable energy systems can be embedded within the private or public sector's newest infrastructure projects. This opens the door to many options not previously considered as being part of a company's or country's agenda of sustainable growth. It seems impossible to curb development while simultaneously promoting economic growth, especially in terms of infrastructure. Businesses need to be supported by a backbone of infrastructure in order to develop and thrive in the economy. Roadways and other such means of transport comprise the distribution channels upon which materials and goods are allowed to flow. These are necessary, and there seems to be little progress involved with making paved roadways more sustainable. The immense amount of concrete and tarmac that is plastered upon the earth will not be reduced anytime soon, despite the increased use and development of other means of transportation.

The concept of integrating solar panels alongside these roadways, with the goal of powering all features of the roadway and surrounding structures, seems like the most sensible decision within the confines of necessary development. This type of project boasts many economic advantages over other tentative solar-power projects. Firstly, it eliminates the need for large tracts of undeveloped land upon which to erect the solar panels, which alleviates the demand for that scarce and precious resource and translates to immense savings related to start-up costs. Secondly, the major consumer of the power generated from this system is actually adjacent to the source, avoiding costly delivery charges if the power needed to be sent to a less proximal end user. Thridly, since the system is so readily accessible as opposed to a distant locale away from urban areas, any maintenance needed can be more easily performed. All of these serve to bring down the costs of implementing such a sustainable energy program, which translates to lowering the marginal abatement costs of energy production for the country as a whole. This has all the characteristics of switching to a green good. There are probably many more advantages, but none more important than the estimated savings of 10 thousand tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions and 31 thousand tons of oil every year.
[[File:Green.JPG]] [[File:Oil.JPG]] [[File:Co2.JPG]]

This integration of infrastructure and power generation should serve a prime example of how an economy can grow while incorporating the concept of sustainability at the same time. Italy is no stranger to this sort of activity; a few months ago a similar project was successfully implemented alongside a Sicilian motorway, providing power to buildings in the vicinity. Another motorway in Northern Italy erected solar-panels which doubled as sound-proofing barriers for residential neighbourhoods. These types of projects are paving the way for other applications of sustainable energy procurement that can be incorporated into the very fabric of our infrastructure. Although they may not be the pillars of perfect sustainable development, they are definitely a step - or a short drive - in the right direction.

File:Co2.JPG

2010-11-30T10:20:47Z

JasonGales:

File:Oil.JPG

2010-11-30T10:20:23Z

JasonGales:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article8

2010-11-30T10:19:41Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.enn.com/energy/article/41988 Italy Goes Solar With First Sun-Powered Road] ==

== Summary ==

Italy is considered to be the country that constructed the first motorway. Now, eighty-four years later, it may lay claim to another first: the construction of the world's only solar-powered motorway.
It is also the world's most advanced, complete with surveillance systems, tarmac quality sensors, and many other safety and control features. The power generated by the 80 thousand solar panels placed alongside the road will be used to illuminate signs and tunnel lights, power emergency telephones, tunnel fans, and all services installed along the road. All of the road's energy needs will be met by this system, which cost approximately 60 million Euros to develop. Twelve million kWh annual energy production is estimated to save around 31 thousand tons of oil and 10 thousand tons worth of CO2 emissions annually. It is one of the first developments of its kind that marries both infrastructure construction and renewable energy systems. The contractor of this project also plans to revitalize the surrounding areas by investing in massive landscaping projects, beautifying the adjacent hedges and tree lines, planting thousands of trees and plants, and expanding the local forests. Other similar projects have already been developed in Italy; where solar panels were used alongside a roadway to provide power to proximal buildings, and another where they were installed as a sound barrier to protect surrounding neighbourhoods.

== Analysis ==

The construction of the world's first solar-powered motorway touches upon the topic discussed in a previous article, where the city of Sacramento had planned to establish a solar farm on the site of a former landfill. It was interesting to note that this re-purposing of relatively unattractive land would make economical sense, being that it could generate benefits to the municipality in excess of what the land was worth if other development options were to proceed. The analysis of this article suggested that there could be many more sites upon which these types of projects may thrive, but only in terms of their inability to attract more lucrative or economically beneficial projects.

The most interesting part of Italy's solar-powered roadway project is that there is no need to search for abandoned or unused land; renewable energy systems can be embedded within the private or public sector's newest infrastructure projects. This opens the door to many options not previously considered as being part of a company's or country's agenda of sustainable growth. It seems impossible to curb development while simultaneously promoting economic growth, especially in terms of infrastructure. Businesses need to be supported by a backbone of infrastructure in order to develop and thrive in the economy. Roadways and other such means of transport comprise the distribution channels upon which materials and goods are allowed to flow. These are necessary, and there seems to be little progress involved with making paved roadways more sustainable. The immense amount of concrete and tarmac that is plastered upon the earth will not be reduced anytime soon, despite the increased use and development of other means of transportation.

The concept of integrating solar panels alongside these roadways, with the goal of powering all features of the roadway and surrounding structures, seems like the most sensible decision within the confines of necessary development. This type of project boasts many economic advantages over other tentative solar-power projects. Firstly, it eliminates the need for large tracts of undeveloped land upon which to erect the solar panels, which alleviates the demand for that scarce and precious resource and translates to immense savings related to start-up costs. Secondly, the major consumer of the power generated from this system is actually adjacent to the source, avoiding costly delivery charges if the power needed to be sent to a less proximal end user. Thridly, since the system is so readily accessible as opposed to a distant locale away from urban areas, any maintenance needed can be more easily performed. All of these serve to bring down the costs of implementing such a sustainable energy program, which translates to lowering the marginal abatement costs of energy production for the country as a whole. There are probably many more advantages, but none more important than the estimated savings of 10 thousand tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions and 31 thousand tons of oil every year.

This integration of infrastructure and power generation should serve a prime example of how an economy can grow while incorporating the concept of sustainability at the same time. Italy is no stranger to this sort of activity; a few months ago a similar project was successfully implemented alongside a Sicilian motorway, providing power to buildings in the vicinity. Another motorway in Northern Italy erected solar-panels which doubled as sound-proofing barriers for residential neighbourhoods. These types of projects are paving the way for other applications of sustainable energy procurement that can be incorporated into the very fabric of our infrastructure. Although they may not be the pillars of perfect sustainable development, they are definitely a step - or a short drive - in the right direction.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article8

2010-11-30T06:29:06Z

JasonGales: Created page with 'Summary Italy is considered to be the country that constructed the first motorway. Now, eighty-four years later, it may lay claim to another first: the construction of the worl…'

Summary

Italy is considered to be the country that constructed the first motorway. Now, eighty-four years later, it may lay claim to another first: the construction of the world's only solar-powered motorway.
It is also the world's most advanced, complete with surveillance systems, tarmac quality sensors, and many other safety and control features. The power generated by the 80 thousand solar panels placed alongside the road will be used to illuminate signs and tunnel lights, power emergency telephones, tunnel fans, and all services installed along the road. All of the road's energy needs will be met by this system, which cost approximately 60 million Euros to develop. Twelve million kWh annual energy production is estimated to save around 31 thousand tons of oil and 10 thousand tons worth of CO2 emissions annually. It is one of the first developments of its kind that marries both infrastructure construction and renewable energy systems. The contractor of this project also plans to revitalize the surrounding areas by investing in massive landscaping projects, beautifying the adjacent hedges and tree lines, planting thousands of trees and plants, and expanding the local forests. Other similar projects have already been developed in Italy; where solar panels were used alongside a roadway to provide power to proximal buildings, and another where they were installed as a sound barrier to protect surrounding neighbourhoods.

Analysis

The construction of the world's first solar-powered motorway touches upon the topic discussed in a previous article, where the city of Sacramento had planned to establish a solar farm on the site of a former landfill. It was interesting to note that this re-purposing of relatively unattractive land would make economical sense, being that it could generate benefits to the municipality in excess of what the land was worth if other development options were to proceed. The analysis of this article suggested that there could be many more sites upon which these types of projects may thrive, but only in terms of their inability to attract more lucrative or economically beneficial projects.

The most interesting part of Italy's solar-powered roadway project is that there is no need to search for abandoned or unused land; renewable energy systems can be embedded within the private or public sector's newest infrastructure projects. This opens the door to many options not previously considered as being part of a company's or country's agenda of sustainable growth. It seems impossible to curb development while simultaneously promoting economic growth, especially in terms of infrastructure. Businesses need to be supported by a backbone of infrastructure in order to develop and thrive in the economy. Roadways and other such means of transport comprise the distribution channels upon which materials and goods are allowed to flow. These are necessary, and there seems to be little progress involved with making paved roadways more sustainable. The immense amount of concrete and tarmac that is plastered upon the earth will not be reduced anytime soon, despite the increased use and development of other means of transportation.

The concept of integrating solar panels alongside these roadways, with the goal of powering all features of the roadway and surrounding structures, seems like the most sensible decision within the confines of necessary development. This type of project boasts many economic advantages over other tentative solar-power projects. Firstly, it eliminates the need for large tracts of undeveloped land upon which to erect the solar panels, which alleviates the demand for that scarce and precious resource and translates to immense savings related to start-up costs. Secondly, the major consumer of the power generated from this system is actually adjacent to the source, avoiding costly delivery charges if the power needed to be sent to a less proximal end user. Thridly, since the system is so readily accessible as opposed to a distant locale away from urban areas, any maintenance needed can be more easily performed. All of these serve to bring down the costs of implementing such a sustainable energy program, which translates to lowering the marginal abatement costs of energy production for the country as a whole. There are probably many more advantages, but none more important than the estimated savings of 10 thousand tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions and 31 thousand tons of oil every year.

This integration of infrastructure and power generation should serve a prime example of how an economy can grow while incorporating the concept of sustainability at the same time. Italy is no stranger to this sort of activity; a few months ago a similar project was successfully implemented alongside a Sicilian motorway, providing power to buildings in the vicinity. Another motorway in Northern Italy erected solar-panels which doubled as sound-proofing barriers for residential neighbourhoods. These types of projects are paving the way for other applications of sustainable energy procurement that can be incorporated into the very fabric of our infrastructure. Although they may not be the pillars of perfect sustainable development, they are definitely a step - or a short drive - in the right direction.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article7

2010-11-22T02:25:05Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/energy-from-the-ocean-and-tides-starting-to-look-promising Energy from the Ocean and Tides Starting To Look Promising] ==

[[File:Tidal.jpg]]

== '''Summary''' ==

Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from only 12 projects in 2009. This indicates that the ocean power industry may become a significant player in the renewable energy sector. The UK currently leads the world in the ocean energy market, but Ireland, France, Portugal, South Korea, and Australia are developing similar projects as well. Tidal energy seems most promising in terms of feasibility as companies from the hydro power industry are starting to take interest in its potential. The three biggest turbine manufacturers in the world have entered the tidal sector, seeing it as an opportunity for growth. They are considered to be the catalysts to the development and subsequent commercialization of the industry; providing solutions in terms of technological requirements and bringing costs down. The offshore wind industry is also in the process of establishing itself in the tidal industry. The presence of large, established companies in combination with those employing emerging technologies provides the tidal energy sector with a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of others while navigating previously uncharted waters.

== '''Analysis''' ==

The newest technology and methods used for harnessing renewable energies remain underdeveloped. Although some are more mature than others, they are all still in their early years. They do the best with the technology that is currently available, and every new development pushes them further along the path to large-scale implementation. The process is slow, largely because the technology that supports these efforts is not exactly refined. The developers of these renewable energy extracting technologies are essentially learning as they go, without much precedence upon which to follow. For example, wind turbine technology may call upon the achievements in the field of aerospace, but the real challenge lies in translating these to meet their specific wind-harnessing needs.

The developers of technologies that harness tidal energy may be in a better position than most. Humans have been harnessing the energy of water displacement for many years, and the hydroelectric dams of modern times have benefitted from this profound cumulative experience. Better, more efficient turbine designs and various other structures or technologies in hydroelectric projects have been developed over time, and these come as a result of previous successes and failures. Although new findings and new developments are always emerging and re-shaping the technologies of the past, it is safe to say that hydroelectric systems are currently in a state of technological maturity. The newest methods of extracting renewable energy, by contrast, cannot call upon a lengthy history of development.

Tidal energy, however, is benefitting from the vast knowledge and experience of the hydroelectric sector, as large hydro companies are starting to enter the industry. The synergies that are present between these two industries will undoubtedly reveal themselves as essential in furthering the development of tidal energy extraction. Realizing the immense opportunity that lays before them, the three major hydro power turbine manufacturers are already currently involved in the tidal energy sector. Aside from their wealth of knowledge and capabilities, the economies of scale experienced by these companies basically negates any small-scale research and development projects by relatively minuscule companies hoping to gain a foothold in this sector. It is much more efficient to let the world's top turbine manufacturers explore how best to use existing technologies and develop new ones to harness this powerful resource.

[[File:MCtidal.JPG]]

The involvement of experienced companies who are familiar with the technology gives tidal energy the potential to become the leader in ocean energy extraction, and a serious contender in the renewable energy sector. Partnerships or joint ventures with the turbine manufacturers and these companies would be ideal. The less-experienced companies could refrain from investing in research and development of hydro technologies - an endeavour that is akin to "re-inventing the wheel" - and their costs would drop significantly. Assuming that smaller companies that have already made progress regarding the logistics of tidal energy production, these liberated funds could allow them to focus their resources on elements that are unfamiliar to the turbine manufacturers.

The involvement of the hydro power industry into tidal energy would even alleviate environmental damages in an indirect way. The shifting of resources from hydroelectric projects to tidal projects would accelerate what the free market would eventually do on its own. It is no secret that the environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams are massive: Flooding, the erosion of riverbanks, destruction of wildlife habitats, displacement of individuals, etc... In the long run, when tidal energy projects become feasible and economically beneficial, a higher proportion of resources would be dedicated to tidal energy instead of traditional hydroelectric projects. Less dams would need to be built to provide power, and the marginal damages function would shift downwards dramatically, as the provision of electricity is accompanied by much less environmental impacts. The difference between the E's in the graph below represents the electricity produced by the hugely less-damaging tidal energy project. The generation of electricity up to the point where the new MD function intersects the horizontal axis produces no (or very little) damages to the environment. The involvement of the hydro power industry would speed up development of tidal power, while simultaneously diminishing investment into the further development of damaging hydroelectric projects. Clearly, this present itself as another added benefit arising from "shifting tides".

[[File:MDdown.JPG]]

File:Tidal.jpg

2010-11-22T02:24:37Z

JasonGales:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article7

2010-11-22T02:22:30Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/energy-from-the-ocean-and-tides-starting-to-look-promising Energy from the Ocean and Tides Starting To Look Promising] ==

== '''Summary''' ==

Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from only 12 projects in 2009. This indicates that the ocean power industry may become a significant player in the renewable energy sector. The UK currently leads the world in the ocean energy market, but Ireland, France, Portugal, South Korea, and Australia are developing similar projects as well. Tidal energy seems most promising in terms of feasibility as companies from the hydro power industry are starting to take interest in its potential. The three biggest turbine manufacturers in the world have entered the tidal sector, seeing it as an opportunity for growth. They are considered to be the catalysts to the development and subsequent commercialization of the industry; providing solutions in terms of technological requirements and bringing costs down. The offshore wind industry is also in the process of establishing itself in the tidal industry. The presence of large, established companies in combination with those employing emerging technologies provides the tidal energy sector with a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of others while navigating previously uncharted waters.

== '''Analysis''' ==

The newest technology and methods used for harnessing renewable energies remain underdeveloped. Although some are more mature than others, they are all still in their early years. They do the best with the technology that is currently available, and every new development pushes them further along the path to large-scale implementation. The process is slow, largely because the technology that supports these efforts is not exactly refined. The developers of these renewable energy extracting technologies are essentially learning as they go, without much precedence upon which to follow. For example, wind turbine technology may call upon the achievements in the field of aerospace, but the real challenge lies in translating these to meet their specific wind-harnessing needs.

The developers of technologies that harness tidal energy may be in a better position than most. Humans have been harnessing the energy of water displacement for many years, and the hydroelectric dams of modern times have benefitted from this profound cumulative experience. Better, more efficient turbine designs and various other structures or technologies in hydroelectric projects have been developed over time, and these come as a result of previous successes and failures. Although new findings and new developments are always emerging and re-shaping the technologies of the past, it is safe to say that hydroelectric systems are currently in a state of technological maturity. The newest methods of extracting renewable energy, by contrast, cannot call upon a lengthy history of development.

Tidal energy, however, is benefitting from the vast knowledge and experience of the hydroelectric sector, as large hydro companies are starting to enter the industry. The synergies that are present between these two industries will undoubtedly reveal themselves as essential in furthering the development of tidal energy extraction. Realizing the immense opportunity that lays before them, the three major hydro power turbine manufacturers are already currently involved in the tidal energy sector. Aside from their wealth of knowledge and capabilities, the economies of scale experienced by these companies basically negates any small-scale research and development projects by relatively minuscule companies hoping to gain a foothold in this sector. It is much more efficient to let the world's top turbine manufacturers explore how best to use existing technologies and develop new ones to harness this powerful resource.

[[File:MCtidal.JPG]]

The involvement of experienced companies who are familiar with the technology gives tidal energy the potential to become the leader in ocean energy extraction, and a serious contender in the renewable energy sector. Partnerships or joint ventures with the turbine manufacturers and these companies would be ideal. The less-experienced companies could refrain from investing in research and development of hydro technologies - an endeavour that is akin to "re-inventing the wheel" - and their costs would drop significantly. Assuming that smaller companies that have already made progress regarding the logistics of tidal energy production, these liberated funds could allow them to focus their resources on elements that are unfamiliar to the turbine manufacturers.

The involvement of the hydro power industry into tidal energy would even alleviate environmental damages in an indirect way. The shifting of resources from hydroelectric projects to tidal projects would accelerate what the free market would eventually do on its own. It is no secret that the environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams are massive: Flooding, the erosion of riverbanks, destruction of wildlife habitats, displacement of individuals, etc... In the long run, when tidal energy projects become feasible and economically beneficial, a higher proportion of resources would be dedicated to tidal energy instead of traditional hydroelectric projects. Less dams would need to be built to provide power, and the marginal damages function would shift downwards dramatically, as the provision of electricity is accompanied by much less environmental impacts. The difference between the E's in the graph below represents the electricity produced by the hugely less-damaging tidal energy project. The generation of electricity up to the point where the new MD function intersects the horizontal axis produces no (or very little) damages to the environment. The involvement of the hydro power industry would speed up development of tidal power, while simultaneously diminishing investment into the further development of damaging hydroelectric projects. Clearly, this present itself as another added benefit arising from "shifting tides".

[[File:MDdown.JPG]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article7

2010-11-22T02:14:35Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/energy-from-the-ocean-and-tides-starting-to-look-promising Energy from the Ocean and Tides Starting To Look Promising] ==

== '''Summary''' ==

Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from only 12 projects in 2009. This indicates that the ocean power industry may become a significant player in the renewable energy sector. The UK currently leads the world in the ocean energy market, but Ireland, France, Portugal, South Korea, and Australia are developing similar projects as well. Tidal energy seems most promising in terms of feasibility as companies from the hydro power industry are starting to take interest in its potential. The three biggest turbine manufacturers in the world have entered the tidal sector, seeing it as an opportunity for growth. They are considered to be the catalysts to the development and subsequent commercialization of the industry; providing solutions in terms of technological requirements and bringing costs down. The offshore wind industry is also in the process of establishing itself in the tidal industry. The presence of large, established companies in combination with those employing emerging technologies provides the tidal energy sector with a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of others while navigating previously uncharted waters.

== '''Analysis''' ==

The newest technology and methods used for harnessing renewable energies remain underdeveloped. Although some are more mature than others, they are all still in their early years. They do the best with the technology that is currently available, and every new development pushes them further along the path to large-scale implementation. The process is slow, largely because the technology that supports these efforts is not exactly refined. The developers of these renewable energy extracting technologies are essentially learning as they go, without much precedence upon which to follow. For example, wind turbine technology may call upon the achievements in the field of aerospace, but the real challenge lies in translating these to meet their specific wind-harnessing needs.

The developers of technologies that harness tidal energy may be in a better position than most. Humans have been harnessing the energy of water displacement for many years, and the hydroelectric dams of modern times have benefitted from this profound cumulative experience. Better, more efficient turbine designs and various other structures or technologies in hydroelectric projects have been developed over time, and these come as a result of previous successes and failures. Although new findings and new developments are always emerging and re-shaping the technologies of the past, it is safe to say that hydroelectric systems are currently in a state of technological maturity. The newest methods of extracting renewable energy, by contrast, cannot call upon a lengthy history of development.

Tidal energy, however, is benefitting from the vast knowledge and experience of the hydroelectric sector, as large hydro companies are starting to enter the industry. The synergies that are present between these two industries will undoubtedly reveal themselves as essential in furthering the development of tidal energy extraction. Realizing the immense opportunity that lays before them, the three major hydro power turbine manufacturers are already currently involved in the tidal energy sector. Aside from their wealth of knowledge and capabilities, the economies of scale experienced by these companies basically negates any small-scale research and development projects by relatively minuscule companies hoping to gain a foothold in this sector. It is much more efficient to let the world's top turbine manufacturers explore how best to use existing technologies and develop new ones to harness this powerful resource.

[[File:MCtidal.JPG]]

The involvement of experienced companies who are familiar with the technology gives tidal energy the potential to become the leader in ocean energy extraction, and a serious contender in the renewable energy sector. Partnerships or joint ventures with the turbine manufacturers and these companies would be ideal. The less-experienced companies could refrain from investing in research and development of hydro technologies - an endeavour that is akin to "re-inventing the wheel" - and their costs would drop significantly. Assuming that smaller companies that have already made progress regarding the logistics of tidal energy production, these liberated funds could allow them to focus their resources on elements that are unfamiliar to the turbine manufacturers.

The involvement of the hydro power industry into tidal energy would even alleviate environmental damages in an indirect way. The shifting of resources from hydroelectric projects to tidal projects would accelerate what the free market would eventually do on its own. It is no secret that the environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams are massive: Flooding, the erosion of riverbanks, destruction of wildlife habitats, displacement of individuals, etc... In the long run, when tidal energy projects become feasible and economically beneficial, a higher proportion of resources would be dedicated to tidal energy instead of traditional hydroelectric projects. Less dams would need to be built to provide power, and the marginal damages function would shift downwards dramatically, as the provision of electricity is accompanied by much less environmental impacts. The involvement of the hydro power industry would speed up development of tidal power, while simultaneously diminishing investment into the further development of damaging hydroelectric projects. Clearly, this could be another benefit arising from shifting tides.

[[File:MDdown.JPG]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article7

2010-11-22T02:14:21Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/energy-from-the-ocean-and-tides-starting-to-look-promising Energy from the Ocean and Tides Starting To Look Promising] ==

== '''Summary''' ==

Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from only 12 projects in 2009. This indicates that the ocean power industry may become a significant player in the renewable energy sector. The UK currently leads the world in the ocean energy market, but Ireland, France, Portugal, South Korea, and Australia are developing similar projects as well. Tidal energy seems most promising in terms of feasibility as companies from the hydro power industry are starting to take interest in its potential. The three biggest turbine manufacturers in the world have entered the tidal sector, seeing it as an opportunity for growth. They are considered to be the catalysts to the development and subsequent commercialization of the industry; providing solutions in terms of technological requirements and bringing costs down. The offshore wind industry is also in the process of establishing itself in the tidal industry. The presence of large, established companies in combination with those employing emerging technologies provides the tidal energy sector with a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of others while navigating previously uncharted waters.

== '''Analysis''' ==

The newest technology and methods used for harnessing renewable energies remain underdeveloped. Although some are more mature than others, they are all still in their early years. They do the best with the technology that is currently available, and every new development pushes them further along the path to large-scale implementation. The process is slow, largely because the technology that supports these efforts is not exactly refined. The developers of these renewable energy extracting technologies are essentially learning as they go, without much precedence upon which to follow. For example, wind turbine technology may call upon the achievements in the field of aerospace, but the real challenge lies in translating these to meet their specific wind-harnessing needs.

The developers of technologies that harness tidal energy may be in a better position than most. Humans have been harnessing the energy of water displacement for many years, and the hydroelectric dams of modern times have benefitted from this profound cumulative experience. Better, more efficient turbine designs and various other structures or technologies in hydroelectric projects have been developed over time, and these come as a result of previous successes and failures. Although new findings and new developments are always emerging and re-shaping the technologies of the past, it is safe to say that hydroelectric systems are currently in a state of technological maturity. The newest methods of extracting renewable energy, by contrast, cannot call upon a lengthy history of development.

Tidal energy, however, is benefitting from the vast knowledge and experience of the hydroelectric sector, as large hydro companies are starting to enter the industry. The synergies that are present between these two industries will undoubtedly reveal themselves as essential in furthering the development of tidal energy extraction. Realizing the immense opportunity that lays before them, the three major hydro power turbine manufacturers are already currently involved in the tidal energy sector. Aside from their wealth of knowledge and capabilities, the economies of scale experienced by these companies basically negates any small-scale research and development projects by relatively minuscule companies hoping to gain a foothold in this sector. It is much more efficient to let the world's top turbine manufacturers explore how best to use existing technologies and develop new ones to harness this powerful resource.

[[File:MCtidal.JPG]]

The involvement of experienced companies who are familiar with the technology gives tidal energy the potential to become the leader in ocean energy extraction, and a serious contender in the renewable energy sector. Partnerships or joint ventures with the turbine manufacturers and these companies would be ideal. The less-experienced companies could refrain from investing in research and development of hydro technologies - an endeavour that is akin to "re-inventing the wheel" - and their costs would drop significantly. Assuming that smaller companies that have already made progress regarding the logistics of tidal energy production, these liberated funds could allow them to focus their resources on elements that are unfamiliar to the turbine manufacturers.

The involvement of the hydro power industry into tidal energy would even alleviate environmental damages in an indirect way. The shifting of resources from hydroelectric projects to tidal projects would accelerate what the free market would eventually do on its own. It is no secret that the environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams are massive: Flooding, the erosion of riverbanks, destruction of wildlife habitats, displacement of individuals, etc... In the long run, when tidal energy projects become feasible and economically beneficial, a higher proportion of resources would be dedicated to tidal energy instead of traditional hydroelectric projects. Less dams would need to be built to provide power, and the marginal damages function would shift downwards dramatically, as the provision of electricity is accompanied by much less environmental impacts. The involvement of the hydro power industry would speed up development of tidal power, while simultaneously diminishing investment into the further development of damaging hydroelectric projects. Clearly, this could be another benefit arising from shifting tides.
[[File:MDdown.JPG]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article7

2010-11-22T02:13:40Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/energy-from-the-ocean-and-tides-starting-to-look-promising Energy from the Ocean and Tides Starting To Look Promising] ==

== '''Summary''' ==

Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from only 12 projects in 2009. This indicates that the ocean power industry may become a significant player in the renewable energy sector. The UK currently leads the world in the ocean energy market, but Ireland, France, Portugal, South Korea, and Australia are developing similar projects as well. Tidal energy seems most promising in terms of feasibility as companies from the hydro power industry are starting to take interest in its potential. The three biggest turbine manufacturers in the world have entered the tidal sector, seeing it as an opportunity for growth. They are considered to be the catalysts to the development and subsequent commercialization of the industry; providing solutions in terms of technological requirements and bringing costs down. The offshore wind industry is also in the process of establishing itself in the tidal industry. The presence of large, established companies in combination with those employing emerging technologies provides the tidal energy sector with a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of others while navigating previously uncharted waters.

== '''Analysis''' ==

The newest technology and methods used for harnessing renewable energies remain underdeveloped. Although some are more mature than others, they are all still in their early years. They do the best with the technology that is currently available, and every new development pushes them further along the path to large-scale implementation. The process is slow, largely because the technology that supports these efforts is not exactly refined. The developers of these renewable energy extracting technologies are essentially learning as they go, without much precedence upon which to follow. For example, wind turbine technology may call upon the achievements in the field of aerospace, but the real challenge lies in translating these to meet their specific wind-harnessing needs.

The developers of technologies that harness tidal energy may be in a better position than most. Humans have been harnessing the energy of water displacement for many years, and the hydroelectric dams of modern times have benefitted from this profound cumulative experience. Better, more efficient turbine designs and various other structures or technologies in hydroelectric projects have been developed over time, and these come as a result of previous successes and failures. Although new findings and new developments are always emerging and re-shaping the technologies of the past, it is safe to say that hydroelectric systems are currently in a state of technological maturity. The newest methods of extracting renewable energy, by contrast, cannot call upon a lengthy history of development.

Tidal energy, however, is benefitting from the vast knowledge and experience of the hydroelectric sector, as large hydro companies are starting to enter the industry. The synergies that are present between these two industries will undoubtedly reveal themselves as essential in furthering the development of tidal energy extraction. Realizing the immense opportunity that lays before them, the three major hydro power turbine manufacturers are already currently involved in the tidal energy sector. Aside from their wealth of knowledge and capabilities, the economies of scale experienced by these companies basically negates any small-scale research and development projects by relatively minuscule companies hoping to gain a foothold in this sector. It is much more efficient to let the world's top turbine manufacturers explore how best to use existing technologies and develop new ones to harness this powerful resource.

[[File:MCtidal.JPG]]

The involvement of experienced companies who are familiar with the technology gives tidal energy the potential to become the leader in ocean energy extraction, and a serious contender in the renewable energy sector. Partnerships or joint ventures with the turbine manufacturers and these companies would be ideal. The less-experienced companies could refrain from investing in research and development of hydro technologies - an endeavour that is akin to "re-inventing the wheel" - and their costs would drop significantly. Assuming that smaller companies that have already made progress regarding the logistics of tidal energy production, these liberated funds could allow them to focus their resources on elements that are unfamiliar to the turbine manufacturers.

[[File:MDdown.JPG]]

The involvement of the hydro power industry into tidal energy would even alleviate environmental damages in an indirect way. The shifting of resources from hydroelectric projects to tidal projects would accelerate what the free market would eventually do on its own. It is no secret that the environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams are massive: Flooding, the erosion of riverbanks, destruction of wildlife habitats, displacement of individuals, etc... In the long run, when tidal energy projects become feasible and economically beneficial, a higher proportion of resources would be dedicated to tidal energy instead of traditional hydroelectric projects. Less dams would need to be built to provide power, and the marginal damages function would shift downwards dramatically, as the provision of electricity is accompanied by much less environmental impacts. The involvement of the hydro power industry would speed up development of tidal power, while simultaneously diminishing investment into the further development of damaging hydroelectric projects. Clearly, this could be another benefit arising from shifting tides.

File:MDdown.JPG

2010-11-22T02:11:52Z

JasonGales:

File:MCtidal.JPG

2010-11-22T02:11:37Z

JasonGales:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article7

2010-11-21T15:10:38Z

JasonGales: /* 'Analysis */

== [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/energy-from-the-ocean-and-tides-starting-to-look-promising Energy from the Ocean and Tides Starting To Look Promising] ==

== '''Summary''' ==

Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from only 12 projects in 2009. This indicates that the ocean power industry may become a significant player in the renewable energy sector. The UK currently leads the world in the ocean energy market, but Ireland, France, Portugal, South Korea, and Australia are developing similar projects as well. Tidal energy seems most promising in terms of feasibility as companies from the hydro power industry are starting to take interest in its potential. The three biggest turbine manufacturers in the world have entered the tidal sector, seeing it as an opportunity for growth. They are considered to be the catalysts to the development and subsequent commercialization of the industry; providing solutions in terms of technological requirements and bringing costs down. The offshore wind industry is also in the process of establishing itself in the tidal industry. The presence of large, established companies in combination with those employing emerging technologies provides the tidal energy sector with a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of others while navigating previously uncharted waters.

== '''Analysis''' ==

The newest technology and methods used for harnessing renewable energies remain underdeveloped. Although some are more mature than others, they are all still in their early years. They do the best with the technology that is currently available, and every new development pushes them further along the path to large-scale implementation. The process is slow, largely because the technology that supports these efforts is not exactly refined. The developers of these renewable energy extracting technologies are essentially learning as they go, without much precedence upon which to follow. For example, wind turbine technology may call upon the achievements in the field of aerospace, but the real challenge lies in translating these to meet their specific wind-harnessing needs.

The developers of technologies that harness tidal energy may be in a better position than most. Humans have been harnessing the energy of water displacement for many years, and the hydroelectric dams of modern times have benefitted from this profound cumulative experience. Better, more efficient turbine designs and various other structures or technologies in hydroelectric projects have been developed over time, and these come as a result of previous successes and failures. Although new findings and new developments are always emerging and re-shaping the technologies of the past, it is safe to say that hydroelectric systems are currently in a state of technological maturity. The newest methods of extracting renewable energy, by contrast, cannot call upon a lengthy history of development.

Tidal energy, however, is benefitting from the vast knowledge and experience of the hydroelectric sector, as large hydro companies are starting to enter the industry. The synergies that are present between these two industries will undoubtedly reveal themselves as essential in furthering the development of tidal energy extraction. Realizing the immense opportunity that lays before them, the three major hydro power turbine manufacturers are already currently involved in the tidal energy sector. Aside from their wealth of knowledge and capabilities, the economies of scale experienced by these companies basically negates any small-scale research and development projects by relatively minuscule companies hoping to gain a foothold in this sector. It is much more efficient to let the world's top turbine manufacturers explore how best to use existing technologies and develop new ones to harness this powerful resource.

The involvement of experienced companies who are familiar with the technology gives tidal energy the potential to become the leader in ocean energy extraction, and a serious contender in the renewable energy sector. Partnerships or joint ventures with the turbine manufacturers and these companies would be ideal. The less-experienced companies could refrain from investing in research and development of hydro technologies - an endeavour that is akin to "re-inventing the wheel" - and their costs would drop significantly. Assuming that smaller companies that have already made progress regarding the logistics of tidal energy production, these liberated funds could allow them to focus their resources on elements that are unfamiliar to the turbine manufacturers.

The involvement of the hydro power industry into tidal energy would even alleviate environmental damages in an indirect way. The shifting of resources from hydroelectric projects to tidal projects would accelerate what the free market would eventually do on its own. It is no secret that the environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams are massive: Flooding, the erosion of riverbanks, destruction of wildlife habitats, displacement of individuals, etc... In the long run, when tidal energy projects become feasible and economically beneficial, a higher proportion of resources would be dedicated to tidal energy instead of traditional hydroelectric projects. Less dams would need to be built to provide power, and the marginal damages function would shift downwards dramatically, as the provision of electricity is accompanied by much less environmental impacts. The involvement of the hydro power industry would speed up development of tidal power, while simultaneously diminishing investment into the further development of damaging hydroelectric projects. Clearly, this could be another benefit arising from shifting tides.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article7

2010-11-21T15:09:30Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/11/energy-from-the-ocean-and-tides-starting-to-look-promising Energy from the Ocean and Tides Starting To Look Promising] ==

== '''Summary''' ==

Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from only 12 projects in 2009. This indicates that the ocean power industry may become a significant player in the renewable energy sector. The UK currently leads the world in the ocean energy market, but Ireland, France, Portugal, South Korea, and Australia are developing similar projects as well. Tidal energy seems most promising in terms of feasibility as companies from the hydro power industry are starting to take interest in its potential. The three biggest turbine manufacturers in the world have entered the tidal sector, seeing it as an opportunity for growth. They are considered to be the catalysts to the development and subsequent commercialization of the industry; providing solutions in terms of technological requirements and bringing costs down. The offshore wind industry is also in the process of establishing itself in the tidal industry. The presence of large, established companies in combination with those employing emerging technologies provides the tidal energy sector with a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of others while navigating previously uncharted waters.

== '''Analysis'' ==

The newest technology and methods used for harnessing renewable energies remain underdeveloped. Although some are more mature than others, they are all still in their early years. They do the best with the technology that is currently available, and every new development pushes them further along the path to large-scale implementation. The process is slow, largely because the technology that supports these efforts is not exactly refined. The developers of these renewable energy extracting technologies are essentially learning as they go, without much precedence upon which to follow. For example, wind turbine technology may call upon the achievements in the field of aerospace, but the real challenge lies in translating these to meet their specific wind-harnessing needs.

The developers of technologies that harness tidal energy may be in a better position than most. Humans have been harnessing the energy of water displacement for many years, and the hydroelectric dams of modern times have benefitted from this profound cumulative experience. Better, more efficient turbine designs and various other structures or technologies in hydroelectric projects have been developed over time, and these come as a result of previous successes and failures. Although new findings and new developments are always emerging and re-shaping the technologies of the past, it is safe to say that hydroelectric systems are currently in a state of technological maturity. The newest methods of extracting renewable energy, by contrast, cannot call upon a lengthy history of development.

Tidal energy, however, is benefitting from the vast knowledge and experience of the hydroelectric sector, as large hydro companies are starting to enter the industry. The synergies that are present between these two industries will undoubtedly reveal themselves as essential in furthering the development of tidal energy extraction. Realizing the immense opportunity that lays before them, the three major hydro power turbine manufacturers are already currently involved in the tidal energy sector. Aside from their wealth of knowledge and capabilities, the economies of scale experienced by these companies basically negates any small-scale research and development projects by relatively minuscule companies hoping to gain a foothold in this sector. It is much more efficient to let the world's top turbine manufacturers explore how best to use existing technologies and develop new ones to harness this powerful resource.

The involvement of experienced companies who are familiar with the technology gives tidal energy the potential to become the leader in ocean energy extraction, and a serious contender in the renewable energy sector. Partnerships or joint ventures with the turbine manufacturers and these companies would be ideal. The less-experienced companies could refrain from investing in research and development of hydro technologies - an endeavour that is akin to "re-inventing the wheel" - and their costs would drop significantly. Assuming that smaller companies that have already made progress regarding the logistics of tidal energy production, these liberated funds could allow them to focus their resources on elements that are unfamiliar to the turbine manufacturers.

The involvement of the hydro power industry into tidal energy would even alleviate environmental damages in an indirect way. The shifting of resources from hydroelectric projects to tidal projects would accelerate what the free market would eventually do on its own. It is no secret that the environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams are massive: Flooding, the erosion of riverbanks, destruction of wildlife habitats, displacement of individuals, etc... In the long run, when tidal energy projects become feasible and economically beneficial, a higher proportion of resources would be dedicated to tidal energy instead of traditional hydroelectric projects. Less dams would need to be built to provide power, and the marginal damages function would shift downwards dramatically, as the provision of electricity is accompanied by much less environmental impacts. The involvement of the hydro power industry would speed up development of tidal power, while simultaneously diminishing investment into the further development of damaging hydroelectric projects. Clearly, this could be another benefit arising from shifting tides.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article7

2010-11-21T15:05:46Z

JasonGales: Created page with 'Summary Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from o…'

Summary

Over 45 new projects involving the extraction of wave and tidal energy are in the process of, or will soon be, tested in 2010 and 2011. This is a remarkable jump from only 12 projects in 2009. This indicates that the ocean power industry may become a significant player in the renewable energy sector. The UK currently leads the world in the ocean energy market, but Ireland, France, Portugal, South Korea, and Australia are developing similar projects as well. Tidal energy seems most promising in terms of feasibility as companies from the hydro power industry are starting to take interest in its potential. The three biggest turbine manufacturers in the world have entered the tidal sector, seeing it as an opportunity for growth. They are considered to be the catalysts to the development and subsequent commercialization of the industry; providing solutions in terms of technological requirements and bringing costs down. The offshore wind industry is also in the process of establishing itself in the tidal industry. The presence of large, established companies in combination with those employing emerging technologies provides the tidal energy sector with a unique opportunity to benefit from the experience of others while navigating previously uncharted waters.

Analysis

The newest technology and methods used for harnessing renewable energies remain underdeveloped. Although some are more mature than others, they are all still in their early years. They do the best with the technology that is currently available, and every new development pushes them further along the path to large-scale implementation. The process is slow, largely because the technology that supports these efforts is not exactly refined. The developers of these renewable energy extracting technologies are essentially learning as they go, without much precedence upon which to follow. For example, wind turbine technology may call upon the achievements in the field of aerospace, but the real challenge lies in translating these to meet their specific wind-harnessing needs.

The developers of technologies that harness tidal energy may be in a better position than most. Humans have been harnessing the energy of water displacement for many years, and the hydroelectric dams of modern times have benefitted from this profound cumulative experience. Better, more efficient turbine designs and various other structures or technologies in hydroelectric projects have been developed over time, and these come as a result of previous successes and failures. Although new findings and new developments are always emerging and re-shaping the technologies of the past, it is safe to say that hydroelectric systems are currently in a state of technological maturity. The newest methods of extracting renewable energy, by contrast, cannot call upon a lengthy history of development.

Tidal energy, however, is benefitting from the vast knowledge and experience of the hydroelectric sector, as large hydro companies are starting to enter the industry. The synergies that are present between these two industries will undoubtedly reveal themselves as essential in furthering the development of tidal energy extraction. Realizing the immense opportunity that lays before them, the three major hydro power turbine manufacturers are already currently involved in the tidal energy sector. Aside from their wealth of knowledge and capabilities, the economies of scale experienced by these companies basically negates any small-scale research and development projects by relatively minuscule companies hoping to gain a foothold in this sector. It is much more efficient to let the world's top turbine manufacturers explore how best to use existing technologies and develop new ones to harness this powerful resource.

The involvement of experienced companies who are familiar with the technology gives tidal energy the potential to become the leader in ocean energy extraction, and a serious contender in the renewable energy sector. Partnerships or joint ventures with the turbine manufacturers and these companies would be ideal. The less-experienced companies could refrain from investing in r+d of hydro technologies - an endeavour that is akin to "re-inventing the wheel" - and their costs would drop significantly. Assuming that smaller companies that have already made progress regarding the logistics of tidal energy production, these liberated funds could allow them to focus their resources on elements that are unfamiliar to the turbine manufacturers.

The involvement of the hydro power industry into tidal energy would even alleviate environmental damages in an indirect way. The shifting of resources from hydroelectric projects to tidal projects would accelerate what the free market would eventually do on its own. It is no secret that the environmental impacts of hydroelectric dams are massive: Flooding, the erosion of riverbanks, destruction of wildlife habitats, displacement of individuals, etc... In the long run, when tidal energy projects become feasible and economically beneficial, a higher proportion of resources would be dedicated to tidal energy instead of traditional hydroelectric projects. Less dams would need to be built to provide power, and the marginal damages function would shift downwards dramatically, as the provision of electricity is accompanied by much less environmental impacts. The involvement of the hydro power industry would speed up development of tidal power, while simultaneously diminishing investment into the further development of damaging hydroelectric projects. Clearly, this could be another benefit arising from shifting tides.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article6

2010-11-17T09:40:52Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/13/3181388/sacramento-wants-solar-farm-at.html Sacramento wants solar farm at site of former landfill] ==

'''Summary'''

Sacramento's city council has approved an interesting project involving the establishment of a solar farm on a former landfill. An exclusive lease would be granted to a German company, Conenergy Projects Inc. Along with other revitalization projects slated for development on the site, including dog parks, nature trails, and a skate park, the solar farm would be part of a long-term plan for the currently unoccupied property. The project would provide revenues for the city as well as a viable source of green energy.

The project is expected to provide enough power to supply 16,000 homes, but development would be incremental. Demand for renewable energy is still affected by the high costs of its provision. Although state law requires utility companies to procure 20% of their energy from renewable resources, companies that already meet those targets have no incentive to purchase more. Therefore, the demand for the energy that this farm produces may not be sufficient to cover its costs, as Conenergy has yet to reach an agreement with one of three local utility companies.

Dedicated to this initiative, city officials are planning to help Conenergy get funding from the federal government, as well as developing financial plans that may involve revenue-sharing and other alternative lease payments.

'''Analysis'''

The downside to most renewable energy projects is that they often require a significant allocation of undeveloped and unused land. If we were to measure the ratio of production of kilowatt-hours per square foot for a typical coal or nuclear power plant versus those for the typical - or hypothetical - solar or wind farm, it would be clear that the renewable energy sector places a higher strain on land use. In a world where development encroaches further and further into previously undeveloped areas, coupled with the fact that these developments already encounter much social resistance, it is difficult to imagine that the acquisition of land - even for renewable energy generation - will be easy.
[[File:InitialCosts.JPG|500px|thumb|right|]]
As explored in the second Wiki project of this section, which discussed an article that reported United States Department of the Interior's decision to dedicate public land to renewable energy projects, the issue of procuring land is a major obstacle in the way of realizing such projects. This was a ground-breaking decision by the government, as it remains prohibitively expensive for private firms to purchase of large tracts of land needed to establish economically viable renewable energy production facilities. The purchase of land, and its accompanying abatement costs to alleviate the environmental impact on its surroundings, make up a huge portion of the necessary initial investment to get these projects off the ground. Many more projects could become feasible as a result of eliminating, or significantly reducing, these initial investments. Returns would be speedier and risk would be reduced, making these projects more attractive to potential investors.

However, the use of public land for the purposes of extracting renewable energy is not an ideal solution. This land has been protected for many reasons, and to promote development upon it seems counter-productive. Additionally, public land itself is a finite resource that many people feel needs to be conserved. What was not mentioned in the article is that there are other properties that may be considered before moving into undeveloped portions. The city of Sacramento's plan to develop a solar farm on the site of a former landfill introduces us to a world of possibilities for repurposing land that has declined in value or is otherwise difficult to re-use. There are many examples of properties that have been used for industrial purposes and now remain vacant as a result of extremely high clean-up costs involved in returning the land to a state where successive development can occur. Landfills and other polluted or otherwise unattractive lands could instead be used for purposes that do not rely on the aesthetics of the surrounding environment. Toxic sites, such as the tar ponds of Sydney, Nova Scotia, would require immense investment before any reclamation of this land can occur. Abandoned open-pit mines are a blemish on the landscape, and development of any other industry upon this land seems very unlikely. Since these are virtually unusable by other industries, their cost to acquire would most certainly be relatively minimal. There are many more examples of such sites that may not necessarily be ideal locations for the renewable sector, but would alleviate much of the initial costs of land procurement. It would also reduce economic inefficiencies and losses to governments that do not collect taxes as a result of the non-use of the land. The additional benefits of providing a "green source of energy", essentially describing the provision of a type of green good, which lowers aggregate abatement costs for the region. Furthermore, abatement costs related to clean-up and revitalization of these lands would undoubtedly be reduced.

[[File:Green.JPG|500px|thumb|left|]]

The city of Sacramento's long-term plan for the landfill includes the construction of trails, dog parks, and a skate park along with the proposed solar farm. These other amenities are valuable to society in their own right, and as explained in the article, the demand for solar energy from the utility companies is limited. State law requires utility companies to procure a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewable resources. This could be considered a performance standard, where the utilities companies are free to choose how to achieve this goal. The compliance costs associated with this law would be considered as marginal abatement costs of each company. Since renewable energy procurement still incurs high costs, utility companies have no incentive to purchase any more than the required 20%. This is the reason why the solar farm would only be built in small increments, and expand only if demand increases. It is reasonably foreseeable that demand must eventually increase, whether through more stringent government policies or other developmental factors. Thus, would the investment of resources into the development of trails and parks be a sensible decision for the long-term if the land could be needed for expansion of the solar farm?

Surprisingly, there was no mention of the option to sell the power to neighbouring municipalities who face the same law of acquiring 20% of their energy from renewable resources. Sacramento is situated in a densely populated area in the most populous state in the country. There is reason to believe that there exists many proximal communities that could benefit from the energy surpluses of the solar farm, and that their delivery would not be burdened by excessive costs; at least, not so much as to negate the benefits of avoiding the establishment of their own renewable energy projects. The benefit of this undertaking could reduce the constraint faced by other municipalities in developing their own local renewable energy programs. Surely, there must be inefficiencies involved with establishing multiple smaller renewable energy projects - which may use potentially more expensive or desirable land - as opposed to using the excess power supplied by a single producer on cheap land. For any level of demand, acquiring energy from the producer with lower initial costs must be more efficient. Considering stakeholders outside the immediate boundaries of the city of Sacramento, instead of beautifying these lands with intensive landscaping and transformation - of which no revenue is gained after the fact - greater social benefits could come from the economies of scale of establishing a larger solar farm and selling the excess to neighbouring municipalities. Although this may prove false, it is definitely worth considering.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article6

2010-11-16T10:07:22Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/13/3181388/sacramento-wants-solar-farm-at.html Sacramento wants solar farm at site of former landfill] ==

'''Summary'''

Sacramento's city council has approved an interesting project involving the establishment of a solar farm on a former landfill. An exclusive lease would be granted to a German company, Conenergy Projects Inc. Along with other revitalization projects slated for development on the site, including dog parks, nature trails, and a skate park, the solar farm would be part of a long-term plan for the currently unoccupied property. The project would provide revenues for the city as well as a viable source of green energy.

The project is expected to provide enough power to supply 16,000 homes, but development would be incremental. Demand for renewable energy is still affected by the high costs of its provision. Although state law requires utility companies to procure 20% of their energy from renewable resources, companies that already meet those targets have no incentive to purchase more. Therefore, the demand for the energy that this farm produces may not be sufficient to cover its costs, as Conenergy has yet to reach an agreement with one of three local utility companies.

Dedicated to this initiative, city officials are planning to help Conenergy get funding from the federal government, as well as developing financial plans that may involve revenue-sharing and other alternative lease payments.

'''Analysis'''

The downside to most renewable energy projects is that they often require a significant allocation of undeveloped and unused land. If we were to measure the ratio of production of kilowatt-hours per square foot for a typical coal or nuclear power plant versus those for the typical - or hypothetical - solar or wind farm, it would be clear that the renewable energy sector places a higher strain on land use. In a world where development encroaches further and further into previously undeveloped areas, coupled with the fact that these developments already encounter much social resistance, it is difficult to imagine that the acquisition of land - even for renewable energy generation - will be easy.
[[File:InitialCosts.JPG|500px|thumb|right|]]
As explored in the second Wiki project of this section, which discussed an article that reported United States Department of the Interior's decision to dedicate public land to renewable energy projects, the issue of procuring land is a major obstacle in the way of realizing such projects. This was a ground-breaking decision by the government, as it remains prohibitively expensive for private firms to purchase of large tracts of land needed to establish economically viable renewable energy production facilities. The purchase of land, and its accompanying abatement costs to alleviate the environmental impact on its surroundings, make up a huge portion of the necessary initial investment to get these projects off the ground. Many more projects could become feasible as a result of eliminating, or significantly reducing, these initial investments. Returns would be speedier and risk would be reduced, making these projects more attractive to potential investors.

However, the use of public land for the purposes of extracting renewable energy is not an ideal solution. This land has been protected for many reasons, and to promote development upon it seems counter-productive. Additionally, public land itself is a finite resource that many people feel needs to be conserved. What was not mentioned in the article is that there are other properties that may be considered before moving into undeveloped portions. The city of Sacramento's plan to develop a solar farm on the site of a former landfill introduces us to a world of possibilities for repurposing land that has declined in value or is otherwise difficult to re-use. There are many examples of properties that have been used for industrial purposes and now remain vacant as a result of extremely high clean-up costs involved in returning the land to a state where successive development can occur. Landfills and other polluted or otherwise unattractive lands could instead be used for purposes that do not rely on the aesthetics of the surrounding environment. Toxic sites, such as the tar ponds of Sydney, Nova Scotia, would require immense investment before any reclamation of this land can occur. Abandoned open-pit mines are a blemish on the landscape, and development of any other industry upon this land seems very unlikely. Since these are virtually unusable by other industries, their cost to acquire would most certainly be relatively minimal. There are many more examples of such sites that may not necessarily be ideal locations for the renewable sector, but would alleviate much of the initial costs of land procurement. It would also reduce economic inefficiencies and losses to governments that do not collect taxes as a result of the non-use of the land. The additional benefits of providing a "green source of energy", essentially describing the provision of a type of green good, which lowers aggregate abatement costs for the region. Furthermore, abatement costs related to clean-up and revitalization of these lands would undoubtedly be reduced.

[[File:Green.JPG|500px|thumb|left|]]
[[File:Loser.jpg|500px|thumb|right|]]

The city of Sacramento's long-term plan for the landfill includes the construction of trails, dog parks, and a skate park along with the proposed solar farm. These other amenities are valuable to society in their own right, and as explained in the article, the demand for solar energy from the utility companies is limited. State law requires utility companies to procure a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewable resources. This could be considered a performance standard, where the utilities companies are free to choose how to achieve this goal. The compliance costs associated with this law would be considered as marginal abatement costs of each company. Since renewable energy procurement still incurs high costs, utility companies have no incentive to purchase any more than the required 20%. This is the reason why the solar farm would only be built in small increments, and expand only if demand increases. It is reasonably foreseeable that demand must eventually increase, whether through more stringent government policies or other developmental factors. Thus, would the investment of resources into the development of trails and parks be a sensible decision for the long-term if the land could be needed for expansion of the solar farm?

Surprisingly, there was no mention of the option to sell the power to neighbouring municipalities who face the same law of acquiring 20% of their energy from renewable resources. Sacramento is situated in a densely populated area in the most populous state in the country. There is reason to believe that there exists many proximal communities that could benefit from the energy surpluses of the solar farm, and that their delivery would not be burdened by excessive costs; at least, not so much as to negate the benefits of avoiding the establishment of their own renewable energy projects. The benefit of this undertaking could reduce the constraint faced by other municipalities in developing their own local renewable energy programs. Surely, there must be inefficiencies involved with establishing multiple smaller renewable energy projects - which may use potentially more expensive or desirable land - as opposed to using the excess power supplied by a single producer on cheap land. For any level of demand, acquiring energy from the producer with lower initial costs must be more efficient. Considering stakeholders outside the immediate boundaries of the city of Sacramento, instead of beautifying these lands with intensive landscaping and transformation - of which no revenue is gained after the fact - greater social benefits could come from the economies of scale of establishing a larger solar farm and selling the excess to neighbouring municipalities. Although this may prove false, it is definitely worth considering.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article6

2010-11-16T10:05:19Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/13/3181388/sacramento-wants-solar-farm-at.html Sacramento wants solar farm at site of former landfill] ==

'''Summary'''

Sacramento's city council has approved an interesting project involving the establishment of a solar farm on a former landfill. An exclusive lease would be granted to a German company, Conenergy Projects Inc. Along with other revitalization projects slated for development on the site, including dog parks, nature trails, and a skate park, the solar farm would be part of a long-term plan for the currently unoccupied property. The project would provide revenues for the city as well as a viable source of green energy.

The project is expected to provide enough power to supply 16,000 homes, but development would be incremental. Demand for renewable energy is still affected by the high costs of its provision. Although state law requires utility companies to procure 20% of their energy from renewable resources, companies that already meet those targets have no incentive to purchase more. Therefore, the demand for the energy that this farm produces may not be sufficient to cover its costs, as Conenergy has yet to reach an agreement with one of three local utility companies.

Dedicated to this initiative, city officials are planning to help Conenergy get funding from the federal government, as well as developing financial plans that may involve revenue-sharing and other alternative lease payments.

'''Analysis'''

The downside to most renewable energy projects is that they often require a significant allocation of undeveloped and unused land. If we were to measure the ratio of production of kilowatt-hours per square foot for a typical coal or nuclear power plant versus those for the typical - or hypothetical - solar or wind farm, it would be clear that the renewable energy sector places a higher strain on land use. In a world where development encroaches further and further into previously undeveloped areas, coupled with the fact that these developments already encounter much social resistance, it is difficult to imagine that the acquisition of land - even for renewable energy generation - will be easy.
[[File:InitialCosts.JPG|500px|thumb|right|]]
As explored in the second Wiki project of this section, which discussed an article that reported United States Department of the Interior's decision to dedicate public land to renewable energy projects, the issue of procuring land is a major obstacle in the way of realizing such projects. This was a ground-breaking decision by the government, as it remains prohibitively expensive for private firms to purchase of large tracts of land needed to establish economically viable renewable energy production facilities. The purchase of land, and its accompanying abatement costs to alleviate the environmental impact on its surroundings, make up a huge portion of the necessary initial investment to get these projects off the ground. Many more projects could become feasible as a result of eliminating, or significantly reducing, these initial investments. Returns would be speedier and risk would be reduced, making these projects more attractive to potential investors.

However, the use of public land for the purposes of extracting renewable energy is not an ideal solution. This land has been protected for many reasons, and to promote development upon it seems counter-productive. Additionally, public land itself is a finite resource that many people feel needs to be conserved. What was not mentioned in the article is that there are other properties that may be considered before moving into undeveloped portions. The city of Sacramento's plan to develop a solar farm on the site of a former landfill introduces us to a world of possibilities for repurposing land that has declined in value or is otherwise difficult to re-use. There are many examples of properties that have been used for industrial purposes and now remain vacant as a result of extremely high clean-up costs involved in returning the land to a state where successive development can occur. Landfills and other polluted or otherwise unattractive lands could instead be used for purposes that do not rely on the aesthetics of the surrounding environment. Toxic sites, such as the tar ponds of Sydney, Nova Scotia, would require immense investment before any reclamation of this land can occur. Abandoned open-pit mines are a blemish on the landscape, and development of any other industry upon this land seems very unlikely. Since these are virtually unusable by other industries, their cost to acquire would most certainly be relatively minimal. There are many more examples of such sites that may not necessarily be ideal locations for the renewable sector, but would alleviate much of the initial costs of land procurement. It would also reduce economic inefficiencies and losses to governments that do not collect taxes as a result of the non-use of the land. The additional benefits of providing a "green source of energy", essentially describing the provision of a type of green good, which lowers aggregate abatement costs for the region. Furthermore, abatement costs related to clean-up and revitalization of these lands would undoubtedly be reduced.

[[File:Green.JPG|400px|thumb|left|]]
[[File:Loser.jpg|500px|thumb|right|]]
The city of Sacramento's long-term plan for the landfill includes the construction of trails, dog parks, and a skate park along with the proposed solar farm. These other amenities are valuable to society in their own right, and as explained in the article, the demand for solar energy from the utility companies is limited. State law requires utility companies to procure a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewable resources. This could be considered a performance standard, where the utilities companies are free to choose how to achieve this goal. The compliance costs associated with this law would be considered as marginal abatement costs of each company. Since renewable energy procurement still incurs high costs, utility companies have no incentive to purchase any more than the required 20%. This is the reason why the solar farm would only be built in small increments, and expand only if demand increases. It is reasonably foreseeable that demand must eventually increase, whether through more stringent government policies or other developmental factors. Thus, would the investment of resources into the development of trails and parks be a sensible decision for the long-term if the land could be needed for expansion of the solar farm?

Surprisingly, there was no mention of the option to sell the power to neighbouring municipalities who face the same law of acquiring 20% of their energy from renewable resources. Sacramento is situated in a densely populated area in the most populous state in the country. There is reason to believe that there exists many proximal communities that could benefit from the energy surpluses of the solar farm, and that their delivery would not be burdened by excessive costs; at least, not so much as to negate the benefits of avoiding the establishment of their own renewable energy projects. The benefit of this undertaking could reduce the constraint faced by other municipalities in developing their own local renewable energy programs. Surely, there must be inefficiencies involved with establishing multiple smaller renewable energy projects - which may use potentially more expensive or desirable land - as opposed to using the excess power supplied by a single producer on cheap land. For any level of demand, acquiring energy from the producer with lower initial costs must be more efficient. Considering stakeholders outside the immediate boundaries of the city of Sacramento, instead of beautifying these lands with intensive landscaping and transformation - of which no revenue is gained after the fact - greater social benefits could come from the economies of scale of establishing a larger solar farm and selling the excess to neighbouring municipalities. Although this may prove false, it is definitely worth considering.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article6

2010-11-16T10:01:21Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/13/3181388/sacramento-wants-solar-farm-at.html Sacramento wants solar farm at site of former landfill] ==

'''Summary'''

Sacramento's city council has approved an interesting project involving the establishment of a solar farm on a former landfill. An exclusive lease would be granted to a German company, Conenergy Projects Inc. Along with other revitalization projects slated for development on the site, including dog parks, nature trails, and a skate park, the solar farm would be part of a long-term plan for the currently unoccupied property. The project would provide revenues for the city as well as a viable source of green energy.

The project is expected to provide enough power to supply 16,000 homes, but development would be incremental. Demand for renewable energy is still affected by the high costs of its provision. Although state law requires utility companies to procure 20% of their energy from renewable resources, companies that already meet those targets have no incentive to purchase more. Therefore, the demand for the energy that this farm produces may not be sufficient to cover its costs, as Conenergy has yet to reach an agreement with one of three local utility companies.

Dedicated to this initiative, city officials are planning to help Conenergy get funding from the federal government, as well as developing financial plans that may involve revenue-sharing and other alternative lease payments.

'''Analysis'''

The downside to most renewable energy projects is that they often require a significant allocation of undeveloped and unused land. If we were to measure the ratio of production of kilowatt-hours per square foot for a typical coal or nuclear power plant versus those for the typical - or hypothetical - solar or wind farm, it would be clear that the renewable energy sector places a higher strain on land use. In a world where development encroaches further and further into previously undeveloped areas, coupled with the fact that these developments already encounter much social resistance, it is difficult to imagine that the acquisition of land - even for renewable energy generation - will be easy.

As explored in the second Wiki project of this section, which discussed an article that reported United States Department of the Interior's decision to dedicate public land to renewable energy projects, the issue of procuring land is a major obstacle in the way of realizing such projects. This was a ground-breaking decision by the government, as it remains prohibitively expensive for private firms to purchase of large tracts of land needed to establish economically viable renewable energy production facilities. The purchase of land, and its accompanying abatement costs to alleviate the environmental impact on its surroundings, make up a huge portion of the necessary initial investment to get these projects off the ground. Many more projects could become feasible as a result of eliminating, or significantly reducing, these initial investments. Returns would be speedier and risk would be reduced, making these projects more attractive to potential investors.

However, the use of public land for the purposes of extracting renewable energy is not an ideal solution. This land has been protected for many reasons, and to promote development upon it seems counter-productive. Additionally, public land itself is a finite resource that many people feel needs to be conserved. What was not mentioned in the article is that there are other properties that may be considered before moving into undeveloped portions. The city of Sacramento's plan to develop a solar farm on the site of a former landfill introduces us to a world of possibilities for repurposing land that has declined in value or is otherwise difficult to re-use. There are many examples of properties that have been used for industrial purposes and now remain vacant as a result of extremely high clean-up costs involved in returning the land to a state where successive development can occur. Landfills and other polluted or otherwise unattractive lands could instead be used for purposes that do not rely on the aesthetics of the surrounding environment. Toxic sites, such as the tar ponds of Sydney, Nova Scotia, would require immense investment before any reclamation of this land can occur. Abandoned open-pit mines are a blemish on the landscape, and development of any other industry upon this land seems very unlikely. Since these are virtually unusable by other industries, their cost to acquire would most certainly be relatively minimal. There are many more examples of such sites that may not necessarily be ideal locations for the renewable sector, but would alleviate much of the initial costs of land procurement. It would also reduce economic inefficiencies and losses to governments that do not collect taxes as a result of the non-use of the land. The additional benefits of providing a "green source of energy", essentially describing the provision of a type of green good, which lowers aggregate abatement costs for the region. Furthermore, abatement costs related to clean-up and revitalization of these lands would undoubtedly be reduced.
[[File:Loser.jpg|500px|thumb|right|]]
[[File:Green.JPG|500px|thumb|left|]]

The city of Sacramento's long-term plan for the landfill includes the construction of trails, dog parks, and a skate park along with the proposed solar farm. These other amenities are valuable to society in their own right, and as explained in the article, the demand for solar energy from the utility companies is limited. State law requires utility companies to procure a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewable resources. This could be considered a performance standard, where the utilities companies are free to choose how to achieve this goal. The compliance costs associated with this law would be considered as marginal abatement costs of each company. Since renewable energy procurement still incurs high costs, utility companies have no incentive to purchase any more than the required 20%. This is the reason why the solar farm would only be built in small increments, and expand only if demand increases. It is reasonably foreseeable that demand must eventually increase, whether through more stringent government policies or other developmental factors. Thus, would the investment of resources into the development of trails and parks be a sensible decision for the long-term if the land could be needed for expansion of the solar farm?

Surprisingly, there was no mention of the option to sell the power to neighbouring municipalities who face the same law of acquiring 20% of their energy from renewable resources. Sacramento is situated in a densely populated area in the most populous state in the country. There is reason to believe that there exists many proximal communities that could benefit from the energy surpluses of the solar farm, and that their delivery would not be burdened by excessive costs; at least, not so much as to negate the benefits of avoiding the establishment of their own renewable energy projects. The benefit of this undertaking could reduce the constraint faced by other municipalities in developing their own local renewable energy programs. Surely, there must be inefficiencies involved with establishing multiple smaller renewable energy projects - which may use potentially more expensive or desirable land - as opposed to using the excess power supplied by a single producer on cheap land. For any level of demand, acquiring energy from the producer with lower initial costs must be more efficient. Considering stakeholders outside the immediate boundaries of the city of Sacramento, instead of beautifying these lands with intensive landscaping and transformation - of which no revenue is gained after the fact - greater social benefits could come from the economies of scale of establishing a larger solar farm and selling the excess to neighbouring municipalities. Although this may prove false, it is definitely worth considering.

[[File:InitialCosts.JPG|500px|thumb|right|]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article6

2010-11-16T09:56:38Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/13/3181388/sacramento-wants-solar-farm-at.html Sacramento wants solar farm at site of former landfill] ==

'''Summary'''

Sacramento's city council has approved an interesting project involving the establishment of a solar farm on a former landfill. An exclusive lease would be granted to a German company, Conenergy Projects Inc. Along with other revitalization projects slated for development on the site, including dog parks, nature trails, and a skate park, the solar farm would be part of a long-term plan for the currently unoccupied property. The project would provide revenues for the city as well as a viable source of green energy.

The project is expected to provide enough power to supply 16,000 homes, but development would be incremental. Demand for renewable energy is still affected by the high costs of its provision. Although state law requires utility companies to procure 20% of their energy from renewable resources, companies that already meet those targets have no incentive to purchase more. Therefore, the demand for the energy that this farm produces may not be sufficient to cover its costs, as Conenergy has yet to reach an agreement with one of three local utility companies.

Dedicated to this initiative, city officials are planning to help Conenergy get funding from the federal government, as well as developing financial plans that may involve revenue-sharing and other alternative lease payments.

'''Analysis'''

The downside to most renewable energy projects is that they often require a significant allocation of undeveloped and unused land. If we were to measure the ratio of production of kilowatt-hours per square foot for a typical coal or nuclear power plant versus those for the typical - or hypothetical - solar or wind farm, it would be clear that the renewable energy sector places a higher strain on land use. In a world where development encroaches further and further into previously undeveloped areas, coupled with the fact that these developments already encounter much social resistance, it is difficult to imagine that the acquisition of land - even for renewable energy generation - will be easy.

As explored in the second Wiki project of this section, which discussed an article that reported United States Department of the Interior's decision to dedicate public land to renewable energy projects, the issue of procuring land is a major obstacle in the way of realizing such projects. This was a ground-breaking decision by the government, as it remains prohibitively expensive for private firms to purchase of large tracts of land needed to establish economically viable renewable energy production facilities. The purchase of land, and its accompanying abatement costs to alleviate the environmental impact on its surroundings, make up a huge portion of the necessary initial investment to get these projects off the ground. Many more projects could become feasible as a result of eliminating, or significantly reducing, these initial investments. Returns would be speedier and risk would be reduced, making these projects more attractive to potential investors.

[[File:InitialCosts.JPG|500px|thumb|right|]]

However, the use of public land for the purposes of extracting renewable energy is not an ideal solution. This land has been protected for many reasons, and to promote development upon it seems counter-productive. Additionally, public land itself is a finite resource that many people feel needs to be conserved. What was not mentioned in the article is that there are other properties that may be considered before moving into undeveloped portions. The city of Sacramento's plan to develop a solar farm on the site of a former landfill introduces us to a world of possibilities for repurposing land that has declined in value or is otherwise difficult to re-use. There are many examples of properties that have been used for industrial purposes and now remain vacant as a result of extremely high clean-up costs involved in returning the land to a state where successive development can occur. Landfills and other polluted or otherwise unattractive lands could instead be used for purposes that do not rely on the aesthetics of the surrounding environment. Toxic sites, such as the tar ponds of Sydney, Nova Scotia, would require immense investment before any reclamation of this land can occur. Abandoned open-pit mines are a blemish on the landscape, and development of any other industry upon this land seems very unlikely. Since these are virtually unusable by other industries, their cost to acquire would most certainly be relatively minimal. There are many more examples of such sites that may not necessarily be ideal locations for the renewable sector, but would alleviate much of the initial costs of land procurement. It would also reduce economic inefficiencies and losses to governments that do not collect taxes as a result of the non-use of the land. The additional benefits of providing a "green source of energy", essentially describing the provision of a type of green good, which lowers aggregate abatement costs for the region. Furthermore, abatement costs related to clean-up and revitalization of these lands would undoubtedly be reduced.

[[File:Green.JPG|500px|thumb|left|]]

The city of Sacramento's long-term plan for the landfill includes the construction of trails, dog parks, and a skate park along with the proposed solar farm. These other amenities are valuable to society in their own right, and as explained in the article, the demand for solar energy from the utility companies is limited. State law requires utility companies to procure a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewable resources. This could be considered a performance standard, where the utilities companies are free to choose how to achieve this goal. The compliance costs associated with this law would be considered as marginal abatement costs of each company. Since renewable energy procurement still incurs high costs, utility companies have no incentive to purchase any more than the required 20%. This is the reason why the solar farm would only be built in small increments, and expand only if demand increases. It is reasonably foreseeable that demand must eventually increase, whether through more stringent government policies or other developmental factors. Thus, would the investment of resources into the development of trails and parks be a sensible decision for the long-term if the land could be needed for expansion of the solar farm?

[[File:Loser.jpg|500px|thumb|left|]]

Surprisingly, there was no mention of the option to sell the power to neighbouring municipalities who face the same law of acquiring 20% of their energy from renewable resources. Sacramento is situated in a densely populated area in the most populous state in the country. There is reason to believe that there exists many proximal communities that could benefit from the energy surpluses of the solar farm, and that their delivery would not be burdened by excessive costs; at least, not so much as to negate the benefits of avoiding the establishment of their own renewable energy projects. The benefit of this undertaking could reduce the constraint faced by other municipalities in developing their own local renewable energy programs. Surely, there must be inefficiencies involved with establishing multiple smaller renewable energy projects - which may use potentially more expensive or desirable land - as opposed to using the excess power supplied by a single producer on cheap land. For any level of demand, acquiring energy from the producer with lower initial costs must be more efficient. Considering stakeholders outside the immediate boundaries of the city of Sacramento, instead of beautifying these lands with intensive landscaping and transformation - of which no revenue is gained after the fact - greater social benefits could come from the economies of scale of establishing a larger solar farm and selling the excess to neighbouring municipalities. Although this may prove false, it is definitely worth considering.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article6

2010-11-16T09:52:50Z

JasonGales:

== [http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/13/3181388/sacramento-wants-solar-farm-at.html Sacramento wants solar farm at site of former landfill] ==

'''Summary'''

Sacramento's city council has approved an interesting project involving the establishment of a solar farm on a former landfill. An exclusive lease would be granted to a German company, Conenergy Projects Inc. Along with other revitalization projects slated for development on the site, including dog parks, nature trails, and a skate park, the solar farm would be part of a long-term plan for the currently unoccupied property. The project would provide revenues for the city as well as a viable source of green energy.

The project is expected to provide enough power to supply 16,000 homes, but development would be incremental. Demand for renewable energy is still affected by the high costs of its provision. Although state law requires utility companies to procure 20% of their energy from renewable resources, companies that already meet those targets have no incentive to purchase more. Therefore, the demand for the energy that this farm produces may not be sufficient to cover its costs, as Conenergy has yet to reach an agreement with one of three local utility companies.

Dedicated to this initiative, city officials are planning to help Conenergy get funding from the federal government, as well as developing financial plans that may involve revenue-sharing and other alternative lease payments.

'''Analysis'''

The downside to most renewable energy projects is that they often require a significant allocation of undeveloped and unused land. If we were to measure the ratio of production of kilowatt-hours per square foot for a typical coal or nuclear power plant versus those for the typical - or hypothetical - solar or wind farm, it would be clear that the renewable energy sector places a higher strain on land use. In a world where development encroaches further and further into previously undeveloped areas, coupled with the fact that these developments already encounter much social resistance, it is difficult to imagine that the acquisition of land - even for renewable energy generation - will be easy.

As explored in the second Wiki project of this section, which discussed an article that reported United States Department of the Interior's decision to dedicate public land to renewable energy projects, the issue of procuring land is a major obstacle in the way of realizing such projects. This was a ground-breaking decision by the government, as it remains prohibitively expensive for private firms to purchase of large tracts of land needed to establish economically viable renewable energy production facilities. The purchase of land, and its accompanying abatement costs to alleviate the environmental impact on its surroundings, make up a huge portion of the necessary initial investment to get these projects off the ground. Many more projects could become feasible as a result of eliminating, or significantly reducing, these initial investments. Returns would be speedier and risk would be reduced, making these projects more attractive to potential investors.

However, the use of public land for the purposes of extracting renewable energy is not an ideal solution. This land has been protected for many reasons, and to promote development upon it seems counter-productive. Additionally, public land itself is a finite resource that many people feel needs to be conserved. What was not mentioned in the article is that there are other properties that may be considered before moving into undeveloped portions. The city of Sacramento's plan to develop a solar farm on the site of a former landfill introduces us to a world of possibilities for repurposing land that has declined in value or is otherwise difficult to re-use. There are many examples of properties that have been used for industrial purposes and now remain vacant as a result of extremely high clean-up costs involved in returning the land to a state where successive development can occur. Landfills and other polluted or otherwise unattractive lands could instead be used for purposes that do not rely on the aesthetics of the surrounding environment. Toxic sites, such as the tar ponds of Sydney, Nova Scotia, would require immense investment before any reclamation of this land can occur. Abandoned open-pit mines are a blemish on the landscape, and development of any other industry upon this land seems very unlikely. Since these are virtually unusable by other industries, their cost to acquire would most certainly be relatively minimal. There are many more examples of such sites that may not necessarily be ideal locations for the renewable sector, but would alleviate much of the initial costs of land procurement. It would also reduce economic inefficiencies and losses to governments that do not collect taxes as a result of the non-use of the land. The additional benefits of providing a "green source of energy", essentially describing the provision of a type of green good, which lowers aggregate abatement costs for the region. Furthermore, abatement costs related to clean-up and revitalization of these lands would undoubtedly be reduced.

[[File:Green.jpg|300px|thumb|left|]]
[[File:InitialCosts.jpg|300px|thumb|right|]]

The city of Sacramento's long-term plan for the landfill includes the construction of trails, dog parks, and a skate park along with the proposed solar farm. These other amenities are valuable to society in their own right, and as explained in the article, the demand for solar energy from the utility companies is limited. State law requires utility companies to procure a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewable resources. This could be considered a performance standard, where the utilities companies are free to choose how to achieve this goal. The compliance costs associated with this law would be considered as marginal abatement costs of each company. Since renewable energy procurement still incurs high costs, utility companies have no incentive to purchase any more than the required 20%. This is the reason why the solar farm would only be built in small increments, and expand only if demand increases. It is reasonably foreseeable that demand must eventually increase, whether through more stringent government policies or other developmental factors. Thus, would the investment of resources into the development of trails and parks be a sensible decision for the long-term if the land could be needed for expansion of the solar farm?

Surprisingly, there was no mention of the option to sell the power to neighbouring municipalities who face the same law of acquiring 20% of their energy from renewable resources. Sacramento is situated in a densely populated area in the most populous state in the country. There is reason to believe that there exists many proximal communities that could benefit from the energy surpluses of the solar farm, and that their delivery would not be burdened by excessive costs; at least, not so much as to negate the benefits of avoiding the establishment of their own renewable energy projects. The benefit of this undertaking could reduce the constraint faced by other municipalities in developing their own local renewable energy programs. Surely, there must be inefficiencies involved with establishing multiple smaller renewable energy projects - which may use potentially more expensive or desirable land - as opposed to using the excess power supplied by a single producer on cheap land. For any level of demand, acquiring energy from the producer with lower initial costs must be more efficient. Considering stakeholders outside the immediate boundaries of the city of Sacramento, instead of beautifying these lands with intensive landscaping and transformation - of which no revenue is gained after the fact - greater social benefits could come from the economies of scale of establishing a larger solar farm and selling the excess to neighbouring municipalities. Although this may prove false, it is definitely worth considering.

[[File:Loser.jpg|400px|thumb|left|]]

File:Loser.jpg

2010-11-16T09:44:12Z

JasonGales:

File:Green.JPG

2010-11-16T09:43:50Z

JasonGales:

File:InitialCosts.JPG

2010-11-16T09:40:36Z

JasonGales:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article6

2010-11-16T09:38:50Z

JasonGales: Created page with ' == [http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/13/3181388/sacramento-wants-solar-farm-at.html Sacramento wants solar farm at site of former landfill] == '''Summary''' Sacramento's city …'

== [http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/13/3181388/sacramento-wants-solar-farm-at.html Sacramento wants solar farm at site of former landfill] ==

'''Summary'''

Sacramento's city council has approved an interesting project involving the establishment of a solar farm on a former landfill. An exclusive lease would be granted to a German company, Conenergy Projects Inc. Along with other revitalization projects slated for development on the site, including dog parks, nature trails, and a skate park, the solar farm would be part of a long-term plan for the currently unoccupied property. The project would provide revenues for the city as well as a viable source of green energy.

The project is expected to provide enough power to supply 16,000 homes, but development would be incremental. Demand for renewable energy is still affected by the high costs of its provision. Although state law requires utility companies to procure 20% of their energy from renewable resources, companies that already meet those targets have no incentive to purchase more. Therefore, the demand for the energy that this farm produces may not be sufficient to cover its costs, as Conenergy has yet to reach an agreement with one of three local utility companies.

Dedicated to this initiative, city officials are planning to help Conenergy get funding from the federal government, as well as developing financial plans that may involve revenue-sharing and other alternative lease payments.

'''Analysis'''

The downside to most renewable energy projects is that they often require a significant allocation of undeveloped and unused land. If we were to measure the ratio of production of kilowatt-hours per square foot for a typical coal or nuclear power plant versus those for the typical - or hypothetical - solar or wind farm, it would be clear that the renewable energy sector places a higher strain on land use. In a world where development encroaches further and further into previously undeveloped areas, coupled with the fact that these developments already encounter much social resistance, it is difficult to imagine that the acquisition of land - even for renewable energy generation - will be easy.

As explored in the second Wiki project of this section, which discussed an article that reported United States Department of the Interior's decision to dedicate public land to renewable energy projects, the issue of procuring land is a major obstacle in the way of realizing such projects. This was a ground-breaking decision by the government, as it remains prohibitively expensive for private firms to purchase of large tracts of land needed to establish economically viable renewable energy production facilities. The purchase of land, and its accompanying abatement costs to alleviate the environmental impact on its surroundings, make up a huge portion of the necessary initial investment to get these projects off the ground. Many more projects could become feasible as a result of eliminating, or significantly reducing, these initial investments. Returns would be speedier and risk would be reduced, making these projects more attractive to potential investors.

However, the use of public land for the purposes of extracting renewable energy is not an ideal solution. This land has been protected for many reasons, and to promote development upon it seems counter-productive. Additionally, public land itself is a finite resource that many people feel needs to be conserved. What was not mentioned in the article is that there are other properties that may be considered before moving into undeveloped portions. The city of Sacramento's plan to develop a solar farm on the site of a former landfill introduces us to a world of possibilities for repurposing land that has declined in value or is otherwise difficult to re-use. There are many examples of properties that have been used for industrial purposes and now remain vacant as a result of extremely high clean-up costs involved in returning the land to a state where successive development can occur. Landfills and other polluted or otherwise unattractive lands could instead be used for purposes that do not rely on the aesthetics of the surrounding environment. Toxic sites, such as the tar ponds of Sydney, Nova Scotia, would require immense investment before any reclamation of this land can occur. Abandoned open-pit mines are a blemish on the landscape, and development of any other industry upon this land seems very unlikely. Since these are virtually unusable by other industries, their cost to acquire would most certainly be relatively minimal. There are many more examples of such sites that may not necessarily be ideal locations for the renewable sector, but would alleviate much of the initial costs of land procurement. It would also reduce economic inefficiencies and losses to governments that do not collect taxes as a result of the non-use of the land. The additional benefits of providing a "green source of energy", essentially describing the provision of a type of green good, which lowers aggregate abatement costs for the region. Furthermore, abatement costs related to clean-up and revitalization of these lands would undoubtedly be reduced.

The city of Sacramento's long-term plan for the landfill includes the construction of trails, dog parks, and a skate park along with the proposed solar farm. These other amenities are valuable to society in their own right, and as explained in the article, the demand for solar energy from the utility companies is limited. State law requires utility companies to procure a minimum of 20% of their energy from renewable resources. This could be considered a performance standard, where the utilities companies are free to choose how to achieve this goal. The compliance costs associated with this law would be considered as marginal abatement costs of each company. Since renewable energy procurement still incurs high costs, utility companies have no incentive to purchase any more than the required 20%. This is the reason why the solar farm would only be built in small increments, and expand only if demand increases. It is reasonably foreseeable that demand must eventually increase, whether through more stringent government policies or other developmental factors. Thus, would the investment of resources into the development of trails and parks be a sensible decision for the long-term if the land could be needed for expansion of the solar farm?

Surprisingly, there was no mention of the option to sell the power to neighbouring municipalities who face the same law of acquiring 20% of their energy from renewable resources. Sacramento is situated in a densely populated area in the most populous state in the country. There is reason to believe that there exists many proximal communities that could benefit from the energy surpluses of the solar farm, and that their delivery would not be burdened by excessive costs; at least, not so much as to negate the benefits of avoiding the establishment of their own renewable energy projects. The benefit of this undertaking could reduce the constraint faced by other municipalities in developing their own local renewable energy programs. Surely, there must be inefficiencies involved with establishing multiple smaller renewable energy projects - which may use potentially more expensive or desirable land - as opposed to using the excess power supplied by a single producer on cheap land. For any level of demand, acquiring energy from the producer with lower initial costs must be more efficient. Considering stakeholders outside the immediate boundaries of the city of Sacramento, instead of beautifying these lands with intensive landscaping and transformation - of which no revenue is gained after the fact - greater social benefits could come from the economies of scale of establishing a larger solar farm and selling the excess to neighbouring municipalities. Although this may prove false, it is definitely worth considering.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:50:45Z

JasonGales:

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

== '''Inefficient use of unsustainable energy sources may lead to increased use of renewable energy''' ==

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/4/43/Base.JPG

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. But if demand were to shift, there would be a greater effect on the amount of electric cars sold than if consumers waited until the price of the technology came down through the usual means of developments. (Difference in Qs between both graphs.) In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/5/57/Base1.JPG

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/d/df/PositiveFeedback.gif

File:PositiveFeedback.gif

2010-11-04T20:50:07Z

JasonGales:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:37:44Z

JasonGales:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:33:56Z

JasonGales:

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/5/57/Base.JPG

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. But if demand were to shift, there would be a greater effect on the amount of electric cars sold than if consumers waited until the price of the technology came down through the usual means of developments. (Difference in Qs between both graphs.) In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/5/57/Base1.JPG

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:31:53Z

JasonGales:

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

[[File:Base.jpg]]

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. But if demand were to shift, there would be a greater effect on the amount of electric cars sold than if consumers waited until the price of the technology came down through the usual means of developments. (Difference in Qs between both graphs.) In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

[[File:Base1.jpg]]

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:16:34Z

JasonGales:

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

[[File:base.jpg]]

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. But if demand were to shift, there would be a greater effect on the amount of electric cars sold than if consumers waited until the price of the technology came down through the usual means of developments. (Difference in Qs between both graphs.) In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

[[File:base1.jpg]]

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:16:06Z

JasonGales:

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

[[File:base.jpg]]

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. But if demand were to shift, there would be a greater effect on the amount of electric cars sold than if consumers waited until the price of the technology came down through the usual means of developments. (Difference in Qs between both graphs.) In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

[[File:base1.jpg]]

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:10:08Z

JasonGales:

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

[[File:Base.jpg|300px|thumb|left|]]

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. But if demand were to shift, there would be a greater effect on the amount of electric cars sold than if consumers waited until the price of the technology came down through the usual means of developments. (Difference in Qs between both graphs.) In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

[[File:Base1.jpg|300px|thumb|left|]]

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:04:36Z

JasonGales:

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

[[File:Base.JPG|300px|thumb|left|]

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. But if demand were to shift, there would be a greater effect on the amount of electric cars sold than if consumers waited until the price of the technology came down through the usual means of developments. (Difference in Qs between both graphs.) In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

[[File:Base1.JPG|300px|thumb|left|]

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T20:03:17Z

JasonGales:

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

[[File:Base.jpg|300px|thumb|left|]

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. But if demand were to shift, there would be a greater effect on the amount of electric cars sold than if consumers waited until the price of the technology came down through the usual means of developments. (Difference in Qs between both graphs.) In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

[[File:Base1.jpg|300px|thumb|left|]

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

File:Base1.JPG

2010-11-04T19:55:53Z

JasonGales:

File:Base.JPG

2010-11-04T19:55:02Z

JasonGales:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article5

2010-11-04T19:53:58Z

JasonGales: Created page with 'Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609] '''Summary''' Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem…'

Article 5 [http://www.enn.com/business/article/41609]

'''Summary'''

Alongside the newest generation of electric cars comes a technology that helps solve one major problem in the way of satisfactorily replacing our internal combustion-based vehicles. Unfortunately, this technology may not be considered environmentally-friendly, or even efficient. Since the problem of charging an electric vehicle is a massive responsibility on the part of the user, Evatran is trying to reduce the magnitude of this influence upon the demand for electric vehicles. With induction charging, an electric vehicle need only be parked over a base unit that is built into the floor. The system inside the vehicle will request the charge that is delivered through an electromagnetic field from the unit and convert it back to the form of an electronic current that the vehicle may store in its batteries. The downside of induction charging lies in the energy it wastes; about ten percent of the energy transferred will be lost.
The representatives of this technology are convinced that this loss in energy is fair in exchange for the comforting feeling that the vehicle will always be charged. The company is helping to remove the barriers that currently stand in the way of electric vehicles. But others point to the fact that this energy waste nullifies the benefits of employing such vehicles. If the energy needed comes from unsustainable sources such as coal, electric vehicles may be no better, or maybe worse, than diesel-powered vehicles.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, this less-efficient technology may actually help drive the development of renewable resources. The technology could spur increased sales in electric vehicles, which then would entice people to look at where they get their energy, which would then drive demand for cheaper, renewable energies.

'''Analysis'''

The article begins with a lofty and questionably sincere proclamation that the latest technological successes regarding electric cars will "...help end the world's dependence on fossil fuels and clean the air." There is always talk of the newest and refined generation of electric vehicles that are always "...set to hit the market...", but somehow fail to make it to our local dealership. It is almost like the proverbial chicken and the egg: Which comes first? People would like to drive electric vehicles, but the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place, and this infrastructure will not be put in place unless there is a demand for electric vehicles.

The supply side of the electric vehicle market is characterized by high costs. As the supply curve demonstrates, there are significant costs involved at low levels of production, which come as a result of establishing very expensive supporting infrastructure. The demand for electric vehicles at this stage is very inelastic. Even as the technology improves and becomes slightly more affordable with every new development, the change in the amount of vehicles purchased does not change much. The demand market for electric vehicles has not been a force powerful enough to negate the problems surrounding supply.

This can be attributed to the reluctance of consumers to want to adopt a system they don't yet fully understand. People are still not willing to give up the certain comforts they enjoy with their current transportation. A recurring concern for potential electric vehicle owners revolves around the immense topic of charging. The frustrating experiences with other battery-operated technologies leaves consumers feeling apprehensive. But forgetting to charge a cell phone is not as serious as forgetting to charge your car. Switching to an electric vehicle comes with a whole new list of responsibilities, and these may be significant enough to stifle the demand for these at a consumer level. It may be considered as an potentially high abatement cost; for example, the cost of missing work or an important meeting as a result of an uncharged vehicle. It could be the inconvenience of waiting for the batteries to charge, or it could be the fear of a lack of availability of charging stations. There are many reasons why consumers are not entirely convinced that they, themselves, really want these cars. People haven't even begun using the charging stations, and they can already sense their inconvenience.

These issues are not having a positive effect on demand. In an attempt to create more demand, some companies are looking towards solving the problems that are anticipated by consumers. Evatran has developed the technology that permits wireless charging for full-size electric vehicles by parking over a base unit. This would help alleviate the concerns and reduce the responsibilities of the user with respect to charging the vehicle. But this does come with its own cost; in the form of energy waste. About ten percent of the energy used to recharge the batteries will be lost during the process, bringing down the environmentally-friendliness that electric vehicles were supposed to promote.

It seems like a step backward on the road to efficiency, but the article provides some insight on why this could be a step in the right direction after all. If this technology would serve to alleviate concerns and to increase demand for electric vehicles, then maybe this increased demand for power would stimulate an increased demand for renewable energies. After all, there would be no point to switching to electric vehicles if they weren't powered by sustainable resources. If renewable resources are then employed on a massive scale, energy now is abundant and cheap and the demand for electric vehicles skyrockets. This positive feedback loop could revolutionize the world. In effect, the ends would justify the means.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article4

2010-10-21T10:56:28Z

JasonGales:

Article 4 [http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29248&section=36&topic=23]

'''Summary'''

The article describes the European Union's promise that in ten years, renewable resources will power 10% of their transportation sector. Undoubtedly, there will be an increased focus on biofuels in order to achieve this goal. This will cause food prices to rise, as many biofuels come from such staples as maize and wheat. Food comprises around 80% of poor people's expenses, and any increase in price can have devastating effects. It is estimated that 16 million additional people go hungry for every one percent increase in food prices. Furthermore, farmers are being pushed off their land and not being able to feed their family. Europe's consumption is expected to raise the number of 'chronically hungry' people by 100 million, but the worldwide effect could drive that number up to 600 million. The article goes on to say that biofuels aren't an answer to climate change, as most of their emissions are even three times more damaging than carbon dioxide. To reach their goal of 10%, if using only biofuels, approximately 17.5 million hectares will need to be acquired, presumably from developing countries. ActionAid is urging member countries to avoid investment into biofuel development and turn their attention to more sustainable renewable energy sources.

'''Analysis'''

The theory that biofuels are a sustainable source of renewable energy appears fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the very fact that over a billion people are currently starving should be reason enough to dismiss any consideration for fueling the world's economy by using a resource that is already scarce. The biggest concern is what effect such projects would have on world food prices. These would jump dramatically if there was an increased demand, and this would destroy many people's livelihoods. If the developed world therefore makes itself dependent upon such biofuels, we can only imagine who would be most affected in the event of a massive worldwide shortage.

Secondly, the article spoke of impoverished farmers losing their land and being pushed to areas that have not been affected by agricultural activities. This, in turn, will undoubtedly lead these farmers to tear up that land to support themselves, feeding a terrible, vicious cycle. The agricultural sector is already being blamed for many environmental problems we currently face. The use of farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizers, clearcutting, slash-and-burn and countless other unsustainable farming practices lead to even worse conditions for the environment. These factors all contribute to releasing - and preventing the absorption of - greenhouse gases.

Thirdly, if we were to observe the effects of increased implementation of biofuel programs in terms of CO2 emissions, we would only be hearing half the story. It is true that there would be a downward shift of the marginal abatement cost curve and a total reduction in CO2 emissions. This is because if output is measured in terms of energy, then we will see a reduction in CO2 for every unit of output. Here, we are classifying the production and consumption of biofuels as a green good, and when consumers switch to using green goods, the marginal abatement cost curve shifts down.

[[File:Mac.jpg|400px|thumb|left|]]

At first, this seems like an advantageous and favourable policy to adopt. However, if we were to measure the effect of biofuel production and consumption upon the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we would see a different picture. Carbon dioxide may be the most prominent greenhouse gas, but it isn't the worse. ActionAid states that most biofuel emissions are even three times more damaging than CO2. This would have the effect of shifting the marginal damage curve upwards significantly and more than negate any advantage to a downward shift in marginal abatement costs. This is because each unit of emissions - thanks to increased nitrous oxide concentrations - is now more damaging to the environment. Additionally, such an increase in damages would invariably accompany an increase in total abatement costs.

[[File:Mac1.jpg|400px|thumb|right|]]

There may be many benefits to implementing large-scale biofuel projects, but are these enough to compensate for the devastating consequences that accompany them? Clearly, there is much debate surrounding this topic, and those answers aren't quite clear. To me, it seems offensive and distasteful to use staple foods such as maize and wheat - upon which billions of people depend on for survival - as a means for transporting a decidedly overweight Western populace. The consumption and further production of biofuels may prove beneficial - but to who?

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article4

2010-10-21T10:52:46Z

JasonGales:

Article 4 [http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29248&section=36&topic=23]

'''Summary'''

The article describes the European Union's promise that in ten years, renewable resources will power 10% of their transportation sector. Undoubtedly, there will be an increased focus on biofuels in order to achieve this goal. This will cause food prices to rise, as many biofuels come from such staples as maize and wheat. Food comprises around 80% of poor people's expenses, and any increase in price can have devastating effects. It is estimated that 16 million additional people go hungry for every one percent increase in food prices. Furthermore, farmers are being pushed off their land and not being able to feed their family. Europe's consumption is expected to raise the number of 'chronically hungry' people by 100 million, but the worldwide effect could drive that number up to 600 million. The article goes on to say that biofuels aren't an answer to climate change, as most of their emissions are even three times more damaging than carbon dioxide. To reach their goal of 10%, if using only biofuels, approximately 17.5 million hectares will need to be acquired, presumably from developing countries. ActionAid is urging member countries to avoid investment into biofuel development and turn their attention to more sustainable renewable energy sources.

'''Analysis'''

The theory that biofuels are a sustainable source of renewable energy appears fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the very fact that over a billion people are currently starving should be reason enough to dismiss any consideration for fueling the world's economy by using a resource that is already scarce. The biggest concern is what effect such projects would have on world food prices. These would jump dramatically if there was an increased demand, and this would destroy many people's livelihoods. If the developed world therefore makes itself dependent upon such biofuels, we can only imagine who would be most affected in the event of a massive worldwide shortage.

Secondly, the article spoke of impoverished farmers losing their land and being pushed to areas that have not been affected by agricultural activities. This, in turn, will undoubtedly lead these farmers to tear up that land to support themselves, feeding a terrible, vicious cycle. The agricultural sector is already being blamed for many environmental problems we currently face. The use of farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizers, clearcutting, slash-and-burn and countless other unsustainable farming practices lead to even worse conditions for the environment. These factors all contribute to releasing - and preventing the absorption of - greenhouse gases.

Thirdly, if we were to observe the effects of increased implementation of biofuel programs in terms of CO2 emissions, we would only be hearing half the story. It is true that there would be a downward shift of the marginal abatement cost curve and a total reduction in CO2 emissions. This is because if output is measured in terms of energy, then we will see a reduction in CO2 for every unit of output. Here, we are classifying the production and consumption of biofuels as a green good, and when consumers switch to using green goods, the marginal abatement cost curve shifts down.

[[File:Mac.jpg|400px|thumb|right|]]

At first, this seems like an advantageous and favourable policy to adopt. However, if we were to measure the effect of biofuel production and consumption upon the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we would see a different picture. Carbon dioxide may be the most prominent greenhouse gas, but it isn't the worse. ActionAid states that most biofuel emissions are even three times more damaging than CO2. This would have the effect of shifting the marginal damage curve upwards significantly and more than negate any advantage to a downward shift in marginal abatement costs. This is because each unit of emissions - thanks to increased nitrous oxide concentrations - is now more damaging to the environment. Additionally, such an increase in damages would invariably accompany an increase in total abatement costs.

[[File:Mac1.jpg|400px|thumb|right|]]

There may be many benefits to implementing large-scale biofuel projects, but are these enough to compensate for the devastating consequences that accompany them? Clearly, there is much debate surrounding this topic, and those answers aren't quite clear. To me, it seems offensive and distasteful to use staple foods such as maize and wheat - upon which billions of people depend on for survival - as a means for transporting a decidedly overweight Western populace. The consumption and further production of biofuels may prove beneficial - but to who?

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article4

2010-10-21T10:51:27Z

JasonGales:

Article 4 [http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29248&section=36&topic=23]

'''Summary'''

The article describes the European Union's promise that in ten years, renewable resources will power 10% of their transportation sector. Undoubtedly, there will be an increased focus on biofuels in order to achieve this goal. This will cause food prices to rise, as many biofuels come from such staples as maize and wheat. Food comprises around 80% of poor people's expenses, and any increase in price can have devastating effects. It is estimated that 16 million additional people go hungry for every one percent increase in food prices. Furthermore, farmers are being pushed off their land and not being able to feed their family. Europe's consumption is expected to raise the number of 'chronically hungry' people by 100 million, but the worldwide effect could drive that number up to 600 million. The article goes on to say that biofuels aren't an answer to climate change, as most of their emissions are even three times more damaging than carbon dioxide. To reach their goal of 10%, if using only biofuels, approximately 17.5 million hectares will need to be acquired, presumably from developing countries. ActionAid is urging member countries to avoid investment into biofuel development and turn their attention to more sustainable renewable energy sources.

'''Analysis'''

The theory that biofuels are a sustainable source of renewable energy appears fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the very fact that over a billion people are currently starving should be reason enough to dismiss any consideration for fueling the world's economy by using a resource that is already scarce. The biggest concern is what effect such projects would have on world food prices. These would jump dramatically if there was an increased demand, and this would destroy many people's livelihoods. If the developed world therefore makes itself dependent upon such biofuels, we can only imagine who would be most affected in the event of a massive worldwide shortage.

Secondly, the article spoke of impoverished farmers losing their land and being pushed to areas that have not been affected by agricultural activities. This, in turn, will undoubtedly lead these farmers to tear up that land to support themselves, feeding a terrible, vicious cycle. The agricultural sector is already being blamed for many environmental problems we currently face. The use of farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizers, clearcutting, slash-and-burn and countless other unsustainable farming practices lead to even worse conditions for the environment. These factors all contribute to releasing - and preventing the absorption of - greenhouse gases.

Thirdly, if we were to observe the effects of increased implementation of biofuel programs in terms of CO2 emissions, we would only be hearing half the story. It is true that there would be a downward shift of the marginal abatement cost curve and a total reduction in CO2 emissions. This is because if output is measured in terms of energy, then we will see a reduction in CO2 for every unit of output. Here, we are classifying the production and consumption of biofuels as a green good, and when consumers switch to using green goods, the marginal abatement cost curve shifts down.

[[File:mac.png|400px|thumb|right|]]

At first, this seems like an advantageous and favourable policy to adopt. However, if we were to measure the effect of biofuel production and consumption upon the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we would see a different picture. Carbon dioxide may be the most prominent greenhouse gas, but it isn't the worse. ActionAid states that most biofuel emissions are even three times more damaging than CO2. This would have the effect of shifting the marginal damage curve upwards significantly and more than negate any advantage to a downward shift in marginal abatement costs. This is because each unit of emissions - thanks to increased nitrous oxide concentrations - is now more damaging to the environment. Additionally, such an increase in damages would invariably accompany an increase in total abatement costs.

[[File:mac1.png|400px|thumb|right|]]

There may be many benefits to implementing large-scale biofuel projects, but are these enough to compensate for the devastating consequences that accompany them? Clearly, there is much debate surrounding this topic, and those answers aren't quite clear. To me, it seems offensive and distasteful to use staple foods such as maize and wheat - upon which billions of people depend on for survival - as a means for transporting a decidedly overweight Western populace. The consumption and further production of biofuels may prove beneficial - but to who?

File:Mac1.jpg

2010-10-21T10:48:56Z

JasonGales:

File:Mac.jpg

2010-10-21T10:48:35Z

JasonGales:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article4

2010-10-21T10:47:39Z

JasonGales:

Article 4 [http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=29248&section=36&topic=23]

'''Summary'''

The article describes the European Union's promise that in ten years, renewable resources will power 10% of their transportation sector. Undoubtedly, there will be an increased focus on biofuels in order to achieve this goal. This will cause food prices to rise, as many biofuels come from such staples as maize and wheat. Food comprises around 80% of poor people's expenses, and any increase in price can have devastating effects. It is estimated that 16 million additional people go hungry for every one percent increase in food prices. Furthermore, farmers are being pushed off their land and not being able to feed their family. Europe's consumption is expected to raise the number of 'chronically hungry' people by 100 million, but the worldwide effect could drive that number up to 600 million. The article goes on to say that biofuels aren't an answer to climate change, as most of their emissions are even three times more damaging than carbon dioxide. To reach their goal of 10%, if using only biofuels, approximately 17.5 million hectares will need to be acquired, presumably from developing countries. ActionAid is urging member countries to avoid investment into biofuel development and turn their attention to more sustainable renewable energy sources.

'''Analysis'''

The theory that biofuels are a sustainable source of renewable energy appears fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the very fact that over a billion people are currently starving should be reason enough to dismiss any consideration for fueling the world's economy by using a resource that is already scarce. The biggest concern is what effect such projects would have on world food prices. These would jump dramatically if there was an increased demand, and this would destroy many people's livelihoods. If the developed world therefore makes itself dependent upon such biofuels, we can only imagine who would be most affected in the event of a massive worldwide shortage.

Secondly, the article spoke of impoverished farmers losing their land and being pushed to areas that have not been affected by agricultural activities. This, in turn, will undoubtedly lead these farmers to tear up that land to support themselves, feeding a terrible, vicious cycle. The agricultural sector is already being blamed for many environmental problems we currently face. The use of farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizers, clearcutting, slash-and-burn and countless other unsustainable farming practices lead to even worse conditions for the environment. These factors all contribute to releasing - and preventing the absorption of - greenhouse gases.

Thirdly, if we were to observe the effects of increased implementation of biofuel programs in terms of CO2 emissions, we would only be hearing half the story. It is true that there would be a downward shift of the marginal abatement cost curve and a total reduction in CO2 emissions. This is because if output is measured in terms of energy, then we will see a reduction in CO2 for every unit of output. Here, we are classifying the production and consumption of biofuels as a green good, and when consumers switch to using green goods, the marginal abatement cost curve shifts down.
At first, this seems like an advantageous and favourable policy to adopt. However, if we were to measure the effect of biofuel production and consumption upon the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we would see a different picture. Carbon dioxide may be the most prominent greenhouse gas, but it isn't the worse. ActionAid states that most biofuel emissions are even three times more damaging than CO2. This would have the effect of shifting the marginal damage curve upwards significantly and more than negate any advantage to a downward shift in marginal abatement costs. This is because each unit of emissions - thanks to increased nitrous oxide concentrations - is now more damaging to the environment. Additionally, such an increase in damages would invariably accompany an increase in total abatement costs.

There may be many benefits to implementing large-scale biofuel projects, but are these enough to compensate for the devastating consequences that accompany them? Clearly, there is much debate surrounding this topic, and those answers aren't quite clear. To me, it seems offensive and distasteful to use staple foods such as maize and wheat - upon which billions of people depend on for survival - as a means for transporting a decidedly overweight Western populace. The consumption and further production of biofuels may prove beneficial - but to who?

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article4

2010-10-21T10:38:29Z

JasonGales:

'''Summary'''

The article describes the European Union's promise that in ten years, renewable resources will power 10% of their transportation sector. Undoubtedly, there will be an increased focus on biofuels in order to achieve this goal. This will cause food prices to rise, as many biofuels come from such staples as maize and wheat. Food comprises around 80% of poor people's expenses, and any increase in price can have devastating effects. It is estimated that 16 million additional people go hungry for every one percent increase in food prices. Furthermore, farmers are being pushed off their land and not being able to feed their family. Europe's consumption is expected to raise the number of 'chronically hungry' people by 100 million, but the worldwide effect could drive that number up to 600 million. The article goes on to say that biofuels aren't an answer to climate change, as most of their emissions are even three times more damaging than carbon dioxide. To reach their goal of 10%, if using only biofuels, approximately 17.5 million hectares will need to be acquired, presumably from developing countries. ActionAid is urging member countries to avoid investment into biofuel development and turn their attention to more sustainable renewable energy sources.

'''Analysis'''

The theory that biofuels are a sustainable source of renewable energy appears fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the very fact that over a billion people are currently starving should be reason enough to dismiss any consideration for fueling the world's economy by using a resource that is already scarce. The biggest concern is what effect such projects would have on world food prices. These would jump dramatically if there was an increased demand, and this would destroy many people's livelihoods. If the developed world therefore makes itself dependent upon such biofuels, we can only imagine who would be most affected in the event of a massive worldwide shortage.

Secondly, the article spoke of impoverished farmers losing their land and being pushed to areas that have not been affected by agricultural activities. This, in turn, will undoubtedly lead these farmers to tear up that land to support themselves, feeding a terrible, vicious cycle. The agricultural sector is already being blamed for many environmental problems we currently face. The use of farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizers, clearcutting, slash-and-burn and countless other unsustainable farming practices lead to even worse conditions for the environment. These factors all contribute to releasing - and preventing the absorption of - greenhouse gases.

Thirdly, if we were to observe the effects of increased implementation of biofuel programs in terms of CO2 emissions, we would only be hearing half the story. It is true that there would be a downward shift of the marginal abatement cost curve and a total reduction in CO2 emissions. This is because if output is measured in terms of energy, then we will see a reduction in CO2 for every unit of output. Here, we are classifying the production and consumption of biofuels as a green good, and when consumers switch to using green goods, the marginal abatement cost curve shifts down.
At first, this seems like an advantageous and favourable policy to adopt. However, if we were to measure the effect of biofuel production and consumption upon the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we would see a different picture. Carbon dioxide may be the most prominent greenhouse gas, but it isn't the worse. ActionAid states that most biofuel emissions are even three times more damaging than CO2. This would have the effect of shifting the marginal damage curve upwards significantly and more than negate any advantage to a downward shift in marginal abatement costs. This is because each unit of emissions - thanks to increased nitrous oxide concentrations - is now more damaging to the environment. Additionally, such an increase in damages would invariably accompany an increase in total abatement costs.

There may be many benefits to implementing large-scale biofuel projects, but are these enough to compensate for the devastating consequences that accompany them? Clearly, there is much debate surrounding this topic, and those answers aren't quite clear. To me, it seems offensive and distasteful to use staple foods such as maize and wheat - upon which billions of people depend on for survival - as a means for transporting a decidedly overweight Western populace. The consumption and further production of biofuels may prove beneficial - but to who?

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article4

2010-10-21T10:38:01Z

JasonGales: Created page with 'Summary The article describes the European Union's promise that in ten years, renewable resources will power 10% of their transportation sector. Undoubtedly, there will be an …'

Summary

The article describes the European Union's promise that in ten years, renewable resources will power 10% of their transportation sector. Undoubtedly, there will be an increased focus on biofuels in order to achieve this goal. This will cause food prices to rise, as many biofuels come from such staples as maize and wheat. Food comprises around 80% of poor people's expenses, and any increase in price can have devastating effects. It is estimated that 16 million additional people go hungry for every one percent increase in food prices. Furthermore, farmers are being pushed off their land and not being able to feed their family. Europe's consumption is expected to raise the number of 'chronically hungry' people by 100 million, but the worldwide effect could drive that number up to 600 million. The article goes on to say that biofuels aren't an answer to climate change, as most of their emissions are even three times more damaging than carbon dioxide. To reach their goal of 10%, if using only biofuels, approximately 17.5 million hectares will need to be acquired, presumably from developing countries. ActionAid is urging member countries to avoid investment into biofuel development and turn their attention to more sustainable renewable energy sources.

Analysis

The theory that biofuels are a sustainable source of renewable energy appears fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the very fact that over a billion people are currently starving should be reason enough to dismiss any consideration for fueling the world's economy by using a resource that is already scarce. The biggest concern is what effect such projects would have on world food prices. These would jump dramatically if there was an increased demand, and this would destroy many people's livelihoods. If the developed world therefore makes itself dependent upon such biofuels, we can only imagine who would be most affected in the event of a massive worldwide shortage.

Secondly, the article spoke of impoverished farmers losing their land and being pushed to areas that have not been affected by agricultural activities. This, in turn, will undoubtedly lead these farmers to tear up that land to support themselves, feeding a terrible, vicious cycle. The agricultural sector is already being blamed for many environmental problems we currently face. The use of farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizers, clearcutting, slash-and-burn and countless other unsustainable farming practices lead to even worse conditions for the environment. These factors all contribute to releasing - and preventing the absorption of - greenhouse gases.

Thirdly, if we were to observe the effects of increased implementation of biofuel programs in terms of CO2 emissions, we would only be hearing half the story. It is true that there would be a downward shift of the marginal abatement cost curve and a total reduction in CO2 emissions. This is because if output is measured in terms of energy, then we will see a reduction in CO2 for every unit of output. Here, we are classifying the production and consumption of biofuels as a green good, and when consumers switch to using green goods, the marginal abatement cost curve shifts down.
At first, this seems like an advantageous and favourable policy to adopt. However, if we were to measure the effect of biofuel production and consumption upon the levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we would see a different picture. Carbon dioxide may be the most prominent greenhouse gas, but it isn't the worse. ActionAid states that most biofuel emissions are even three times more damaging than CO2. This would have the effect of shifting the marginal damage curve upwards significantly and more than negate any advantage to a downward shift in marginal abatement costs. This is because each unit of emissions - thanks to increased nitrous oxide concentrations - is now more damaging to the environment. Additionally, such an increase in damages would invariably accompany an increase in total abatement costs.

There may be many benefits to implementing large-scale biofuel projects, but are these enough to compensate for the devastating consequences that accompany them? Clearly, there is much debate surrounding this topic, and those answers aren't quite clear. To me, it seems offensive and distasteful to use staple foods such as maize and wheat - upon which billions of people depend on for survival - as a means for transporting a decidedly overweight Western populace. The consumption and further production of biofuels may prove beneficial - but to who?

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article3

2010-10-14T13:56:15Z

JasonGales:

Article 3a [http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/41824]
Article 3b [http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/41875]

'''Summaries'''

[[File:Solar.jpg|300px|thumb|right|]]
The first article describes the development of a breakthrough in solar cell technology by scientists at Stanford University. The technology and materials employed succeeds in keeping light within the solar cell for a longer period of time than was previously possible. The metaphor of a mouse in a wheel was chosen to illustrate the benefit of the concept; such that the longer the mouse is on the wheel and running, the more power could be extracted from the process. The scientists have achieved this by using the thinner, organic-based polymer films and arranging them in specific layers. As opposed to traditional silicon-based cells, the use of very thin polymers allows sunlight to be absorbed up to 10 times more efficiently. This strategy, coupled with a process whereby these films are essentially “roughed-up” to reflect light in many different directions, has allowed the sunlight to ricochet within the solar cell. The technique, called “light trapping”, aims to squeeze as much energy from the light as possible, thereby increasing the efficiency of the cell. Obviously, the more efficient the materials are at absorbing the light, the more efficient the conversion of light to energy will be. Additionally, the use of thin organic polymer films means less of these are needed to fabricate the cells, which translates to cost savings. Better still, these are also less expensive to make than silicon, therefore material costs are less as well.

The second article introduces the latest advancements in photovoltaic materials - those used in the fabrication of solar cells. As compared to silicon-based semiconductors, these new organic types allow the energy carrying particles within the cell to travel a thousand times farther. If these are allowed to travel farther, the overall performance of the cell is improved. Costs associated with building solar cells may fall, as less materials may be used to move these energy carrying particles over the same distance. These organic semiconductors may be put to other uses as well, such as in video displays. One advantage is that they can be manufactured in large sheets of plastic. The use of inexpensive plastics will undoubtedly make solar cells much less expensive than their silicon-based ancestors. As opposed to silicon cells, which require high-temperature or vacuum processing, organic materials are fabricated much simpler with chemical reactions in a solution. However, the organic compounds have certain disadvantages. They are very sensitive to moisture and oxidization, and degrade from extended exposure to ultraviolet light. Although the technology is still developing, this new type of carbon-based polymer may one day propel the solar cell industry further ahead in becoming a significant alternate energy source.

'''Analysis'''

[[File:Solar2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|]]
Undeniably, both developments are very important milestones on the way to increasing the efficiency of solar cell technology. The reason I chose to analyze these two articles lies in my curiosity in questioning which one of these is more suited to the ultimate goal of making solar power an economically viable source of energy. Unfortunately, the articles do not provide enough detail to be able to accurately assess and answer such a question. But if we needed to choose between both programs, investing considerable amounts of time and resources into developing only one, which would it be?

Consider the position of a government agency that has a set budget and must make the difficult choice of funding only one of these programs. The agency would grant a one-time lump sum grant dedicated to solar power development. Rutgers' scientists have not yet fully developed their technology, and would need a substantial investment to get off the ground. However, they promise significant cost savings on future solar cell production as a result of their technology. Stanford's program requires less initial funding, but they guarantee continuous improvements in efficiency as a result of growing their technology.

This agency could conduct a benefit-cost analysis for each option and choose the program that exhibited the greatest net benefit. This poses a challenging problem, as benefits resulting from any of these developments are uncertain and notoriously difficult to measure. To account for benefits, they shall be determined as incremental advancements in their respective technologies that can be reported to the agency. It is reasonable to assume that solar power will play an important role in the country's renewable energy portfolio, if you will, and such advancements translate to benefits for the country. For the sake of a benefit-cost analysis, a time frame of five years is chosen for the assessment of both projects. Judging by what we read in the article, the Rutgers scientists would spend their first year furthering their research and development of their technology, during which no measurable benefits can be accrued. After they've discovered how to properly apply their technology, a steady growth in benefits occurs for each successive year. On the other hand, the scientists at Stanford can already apply their technology and are making advancements at a steady rate every year. Which program should the agency choose?

Assuming that the benefits could be valued against the initial investments, and that these could be discounted to find their present values, the agency would choose the option that exhibited the highest net benefits. But this analysis ignored the third option available to the agency: One in which both programs were given a portion of the available funds. The net benefits of such a program would then be compared against these results. In such a scenario, whenever governments are to choose between multiple programs, the most efficient allocation of resources is one where the net benefits produced by the total budget are maximized.
It is important to note that there is always a risk that one of these technologies becomes obsolete, or another technology - such as wind power - will become the dominant force in the future. These uncertainties are not beyond a measure of calculation, and probabilities of such events occurring can be factored into the equation. If the agency can gather data on the probability that another breakthrough in solar cell technology will negate these developments - which can be measured, for example, by considering the time it took for silicon-based cells to become obsolete - then an expected value of an investment can be considered.

Although this example illustrates how a government may make an economic decision to pursue one avenue or another, or both, it ignores the implication of this decision on the environment. The Stanford program strives for extracting more energy from the same amount of sunlight, a more intelligent and responsible use of the resource, and a more efficient way of using the materials it requires. They seem to project a focus on the goal of a less wasteful solar cell. Less materials need to be used in the fabrication of the cell and in the resulting panel that houses it. The thin films are not creating more bulk in the end product, but rather they are allowing the technology to grow as a better product. In contrast, the Rutgers' program seems to be focused on the bottom line; cheaper materials, cheaper plastics, and giant sheets of semiconductors for video displays. They romanticize this "bigger, faster, cheaper" point of view that promotes a mass-produced version of a product that boasts a deplorable lifespan. The degradation of the organic material when exposed to ultraviolet light - which seems comical when considering its very purpose is to be exposed to sunlight - indicates a penchant for being disposable and very cost-ineffective. Combine that with a high sensitivity to atmospheric moisture and the danger of oxidization, the idea of incorporating this technology into inexpensive non-recyclable plastics seems to promote consumption, not sustainability. Could the agency have determined the value of costs and benefits of a program's technology that hasn't even been developed yet? Although such an economic decision as was presented above may do its best to incorporate such factors into its decision-making process, we must remain wary of the indirect impacts to the environment that may have escaped valuation.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2010WT1/GROUP8/Article3

2010-10-14T13:51:14Z

JasonGales:

Article 3a [http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/41824]
Article 3b [http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/41875]

'''Summaries'''

[[File:Solar.jpg|300px|thumb|right|]]
The first article describes the development of a breakthrough in solar cell technology by scientists at Stanford University. The technology and materials employed succeeds in keeping light within the solar cell for a longer period of time than was previously possible. The metaphor of a mouse in a wheel was chosen to illustrate the benefit of the concept; such that the longer the mouse is on the wheel and running, the more power could be extracted from the process. The scientists have achieved this by using the thinner, organic-based polymer films and arranging them in specific layers. As opposed to traditional silicon-based cells, the use of very thin polymers allows sunlight to be absorbed up to 10 times more efficiently. This strategy, coupled with a process whereby these films are essentially “roughed-up” to reflect light in many different directions, has allowed the sunlight to ricochet within the solar cell. The technique, called “light trapping”, aims to squeeze as much energy from the light as possible, thereby increasing the efficiency of the cell. Obviously, the more efficient the materials are at absorbing the light, the more efficient the conversion of light to energy will be. Additionally, the use of thin organic polymer films means less of these are needed to fabricate the cells, which translates to cost savings. Better still, these are also less expensive to make than silicon, therefore material costs are less as well.

The second article introduces the latest advancements in photovoltaic materials - those used in the fabrication of solar cells. As compared to silicon-based semiconductors, these new organic types allow the energy carrying particles within the cell to travel a thousand times farther. If these are allowed to travel farther, the overall performance of the cell is improved. Costs associated with building solar cells may fall, as less materials may be used to move these energy carrying particles over the same distance. These organic semiconductors may be put to other uses as well, such as in video displays. One advantage is that they can be manufactured in large sheets of plastic. The use of inexpensive plastics will undoubtedly make solar cells much less expensive than their silicon-based ancestors. As opposed to silicon cells, which require high-temperature or vacuum processing, organic materials are fabricated much simpler with chemical reactions in a solution. However, the organic compounds have certain disadvantages. They are very sensitive to moisture and oxidization, and degrade from extended exposure to ultraviolet light. Although the technology is still developing, this new type of carbon-based polymer may one day propel the solar cell industry further ahead in becoming a significant alternate energy source.

'''Analysis'''

[[File:Solar2.jpg|300px|thumb|right|]]
Undeniably, both developments are very important milestones on the way to increasing the efficiency of solar cell technology. The reason I chose to analyze these two articles lies in my curiosity in questioning which one of these is more suited to the ultimate goal of making solar power an economically viable source of energy. Unfortunately, the articles do not provide enough detail to be able to accurately assess and answer such a question. But if we needed to choose between both programs, investing considerable amounts of time and resources into developing only one, which would it be?

Consider the position of a government agency that has a set budget and must make the difficult choice of funding only one of these programs. The agency would grant a one-time lump sum grant dedicated to solar power development. Rutgers' scientists have not yet fully developed their technology, and would need a substantial investment to get off the ground. However, they promise significant cost savings on future solar cell production as a result of their technology. Stanford's program requires less initial funding, but they guarantee continuous improvements in efficiency as a result of growing their technology.

This agency could conduct a benefit-cost analysis for each option and choose the program that exhibited the greatest net benefit. This poses a challenging problem, as benefits resulting from any of these developments are uncertain and notoriously difficult to measure. To account for benefits, they shall be determined as incremental advancements in their respective technologies that can be reported to the agency. It is reasonable to assume that solar power will play an important role in the country's renewable energy portfolio, if you will, and such advancements translate to benefits for the country. For the sake of a benefit-cost analysis, a time frame of five years is chosen for the assessment of both projects. Judging by what we read in the article, the Rutgers scientists would spend their first year furthering their research and development of their technology, during which no measurable benefits can be accrued. After they've discovered how to properly apply their technology, a steady growth in benefits occurs for each successive year. On the other hand, the scientists at Stanford can already apply their technology and are making advancements at a steady rate every year. Which program should the agency choose?

Assuming that the benefits could be valued against the initial investments, and that these could be discounted to find their present values, the agency would choose the option that exhibited the highest net benefits. But this analysis ignored the third option available to the agency: One in which both programs were given a portion of the available funds. The net benefits of such a program would then be compared against these results. In such a scenario, whenever governments are to choose between multiple programs, the most efficient allocation of resources is one where the net benefits produced by the total budget are maximized.
It is important to note that there is always a risk that one of these technologies becomes obsolete, or another technology - such as wind power - will become the dominant force in the future. These uncertainties are not beyond a measure of calculation, and probabilities of such events occurring can be factored into the equation. If the agency can gather data on the probability that another breakthrough in solar cell technology will negate these developments - which can be measured, for example, by considering the time it took for silicon-based cells to become obsolete - then an expected value of an investment can be considered.

Although this example illustrates how a government may make an economic decision to pursue one avenue or another, or both, it ignores the implication of this decision on the environment. The Stanford program strives for extracting more energy from the same amount of sunlight, a more intelligent and responsible use of the resource, and a more efficient way of using the materials it requires. They seem to project a focus on the goal of a less wasteful solar cell. Less materials need to be used in the fabrication of the cell and in the resulting panel that houses it. The thin films are not creating more bulk in the end product, but rather they are allowing the technology to grow as a better product. In contrast, the Rutgers' program seems to be focused on the bottom line; cheaper materials, cheaper plastics, and giant sheets of semiconductors for video displays. They romanticize this "bigger, faster, cheaper" point of view that promotes a mass-produced version of a product that boasts a deplorable lifespan. The degradation of the organic material when exposed to ultraviolet light - which seems comical when considering its very purpose is to be exposed to sunlight - indicates a penchant for being disposable and very cost-ineffective. Combine that with a high sensitivity to atmospheric moisture and the danger of oxidization, the idea of incorporating this technology into inexpensive non-recyclable plastics seems to promote consumption, not sustainability. Although such an economic decision as was presented above may do its best to incorporate such factors into its decision-making process, we must remain wary of the indirect impacts to the environment that may have escaped valuation.