Category Archives: Wind power

O2 Arena to install mini wind turbines that can harness even a breeze

Vertical turbine by developer Alpha 311 can spin from gentle air movement

The O2 Arena will soon use a new breed of “vertical wind turbine” to generate its own clean electricity, after signing a deal with a startup firm that says its turbines will generate power even when the wind is not blowing.

The London landmark once known as the Millennium Dome will begin by installing 10 of the 68cm (27in) vertical turbines. The breezy conditions at the site on the River Thames will help generate enough clean electricity to power 23 homes.

Continue reading…

Global wind industry reached nearly 100 GW of new installed capacity in 2020

According to recent analysis by BloombergNEF, in last year’s record-setting year, the wind market commissioned nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new build in 2020. Undeterred by COVID-19, installations grew 59% year-on-year.

Developers commissioned 96.3 GW of wind turbines globally in 2020, compared with 60.7 GW the previous year, said BNEF. Most of these were on land (94%), as the addition of new turbines at sea fell to 6.1 gigawatts – a 19% drop compared to 2019.

Just four manufacturers accounted for more than half (51%) of the machines deployed. General Electric (GE), Vestas, Goldwind and Envision all commissioned over 10 GW last year.

The latest data from BNEF shows that GE and Goldwind were the top two turbine suppliers in 2020, following a surge in installations in the U.S. and China. Vestas, which placed first for the past four years, fell to third place in the 2020 ranking. The figures draw on BNEF’s global database of wind projects and extensive information from the industry.

“GE and Goldwind claimed the top two spots in this year’s ranking by concentrating on the largest markets. This strategy may not be as fruitful in 2021 as subsidies lapse in those areas,” said Isabelle Edwards, wind associate at BloombergNEF and lead author of the 2020 Global Wind Turbine Market Shares report. “Vestas takes on less market risk, with turbines commissioned in 34 countries last year.”

GE earned its spot at the top of the ranking by increasing its onshore installations by 6.6 GW year-on-year, with installations in the U.S. accounting for some 70% of its 13.5 GW global portfolio. China, meanwhile, accounted for 98% of the capacity commissioned by Chinese turbine makers.

BNEF identified 57.8 GW of new wind capacity commissioned in China last year. In the onshore market, this was more than was commissioned by the entire world in 2019. This increased demand for turbines in China allowed smaller domestic turbine makers to fully utilize their idling manufacturing capacity, and gain ground on their foreign competitors in the global ranking.

“Over twenty turbine makers supplied wind turbines to China and many of them were able to double or triple their year-on year installed capacity,” said Leo Wang, Beijing-based wind associate at BNEF. “The expiring onshore and offshore subsidies fuelled the uptick in installations. Following the lapse of onshore feed-in premiums, the market is likely to see demand drop this year.”

The U.S. commissioned 16.5 GW of new wind capacity last year, as developers prepared for a phase-out of the production tax credit. This was 77% more than in 2019 and 2.6 GW higher than the country’s previous record in 2012. GE supplied 57% (9.4 GW) of this new capacity and Vestas’ market share sank to 31% in 2020, even though the Danish turbine maker commissioned a company record of 5.1 GW across 14 U.S. states.

Total onshore wind additions in 2020 were 19.4 GW in the Americas, 12.6 GW in Europe and 863 MW in Africa and the Middle East, while Asia Pacific accounted for 57.3 GW. BNEF’s database registered new wind farms starting full commercial operations in 44 countries.

Siemens Gamesa retained its position as the leader in the offshore wind market. Last year, Siemens Gamesa commissioned 1.91 GW at sea, with 752 MW at the Borssele wind farm in the Netherlands, and a further 539 MW at the East Anglia One project in the U.K., among other sites.

In a bid to reposition itself as a leading turbine supplier to the offshore wind industry, Vestas acquired MHI Vestas Offshore Wind in late 2020. Nevertheless, Siemens Gamesa already tops the offshore wind order books out to 2025. Five turbine makers from China – Shanghai Electric, Mingyang, Envision, Goldwind and CSSC – overtook Vestas, which slipped to seventh place in the offshore wind market.

Figure 1: Top 10 global wind turbine makers, 2020

Source: BloombergNEF.

Figure 2: Top 10 global onshore wind turbine makers, 2020

Source: BloombergNEF.

The post Global wind industry reached nearly 100 GW of new installed capacity in 2020 appeared first on Renewable Energy World.

Global wind industry reached nearly 100 GW of new installed capacity in 2020

According to recent analysis by BloombergNEF, in last year’s record-setting year, the wind market commissioned nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of new build in 2020. Undeterred by COVID-19, installations grew 59% year-on-year.

Developers commissioned 96.3 GW of wind turbines globally in 2020, compared with 60.7 GW the previous year, said BNEF. Most of these were on land (94%), as the addition of new turbines at sea fell to 6.1 gigawatts – a 19% drop compared to 2019.

Just four manufacturers accounted for more than half (51%) of the machines deployed. General Electric (GE), Vestas, Goldwind and Envision all commissioned over 10 GW last year.

The latest data from BNEF shows that GE and Goldwind were the top two turbine suppliers in 2020, following a surge in installations in the U.S. and China. Vestas, which placed first for the past four years, fell to third place in the 2020 ranking. The figures draw on BNEF’s global database of wind projects and extensive information from the industry.

“GE and Goldwind claimed the top two spots in this year’s ranking by concentrating on the largest markets. This strategy may not be as fruitful in 2021 as subsidies lapse in those areas,” said Isabelle Edwards, wind associate at BloombergNEF and lead author of the 2020 Global Wind Turbine Market Shares report. “Vestas takes on less market risk, with turbines commissioned in 34 countries last year.”

GE earned its spot at the top of the ranking by increasing its onshore installations by 6.6 GW year-on-year, with installations in the U.S. accounting for some 70% of its 13.5 GW global portfolio. China, meanwhile, accounted for 98% of the capacity commissioned by Chinese turbine makers.

BNEF identified 57.8 GW of new wind capacity commissioned in China last year. In the onshore market, this was more than was commissioned by the entire world in 2019. This increased demand for turbines in China allowed smaller domestic turbine makers to fully utilize their idling manufacturing capacity, and gain ground on their foreign competitors in the global ranking.

“Over twenty turbine makers supplied wind turbines to China and many of them were able to double or triple their year-on year installed capacity,” said Leo Wang, Beijing-based wind associate at BNEF. “The expiring onshore and offshore subsidies fuelled the uptick in installations. Following the lapse of onshore feed-in premiums, the market is likely to see demand drop this year.”

The U.S. commissioned 16.5 GW of new wind capacity last year, as developers prepared for a phase-out of the production tax credit. This was 77% more than in 2019 and 2.6 GW higher than the country’s previous record in 2012. GE supplied 57% (9.4 GW) of this new capacity and Vestas’ market share sank to 31% in 2020, even though the Danish turbine maker commissioned a company record of 5.1 GW across 14 U.S. states.

Total onshore wind additions in 2020 were 19.4 GW in the Americas, 12.6 GW in Europe and 863 MW in Africa and the Middle East, while Asia Pacific accounted for 57.3 GW. BNEF’s database registered new wind farms starting full commercial operations in 44 countries.

Siemens Gamesa retained its position as the leader in the offshore wind market. Last year, Siemens Gamesa commissioned 1.91 GW at sea, with 752 MW at the Borssele wind farm in the Netherlands, and a further 539 MW at the East Anglia One project in the U.K., among other sites.

In a bid to reposition itself as a leading turbine supplier to the offshore wind industry, Vestas acquired MHI Vestas Offshore Wind in late 2020. Nevertheless, Siemens Gamesa already tops the offshore wind order books out to 2025. Five turbine makers from China – Shanghai Electric, Mingyang, Envision, Goldwind and CSSC – overtook Vestas, which slipped to seventh place in the offshore wind market.

Figure 1: Top 10 global wind turbine makers, 2020

Source: BloombergNEF.

Figure 2: Top 10 global onshore wind turbine makers, 2020

Source: BloombergNEF.

The post Global wind industry reached nearly 100 GW of new installed capacity in 2020 appeared first on Renewable Energy World.

China leads world’s biggest increase in wind power capacity

Developers built windfarms with a total capacity of almost 100GW in 2020, a rise of nearly 60% on previous year

China built more new windfarm capacity in 2020 than the whole world combined in the year before, leading to an annual record for windfarm installations despite the Covid-19 pandemic.

A study has revealed that China led the world’s biggest ever increase in wind power capacity as developers built almost 100GW worth of windfarms last year – enough to power almost three times the number of homes in the UK and a rise of nearly 60% on the previous year.

Continue reading…

Tips for utilities making the transition to renewables

By Allen Austin, ABB

Renewable energy has arrived, and it makes up the majority of new generating capacity being added in the United States. The US Energy Information Administration projects renewables’ share of the national generation mix will rise from 21 percent in 2020 to 42 percent in 2050, even as the federal tax credits for both wind and solar close out over the next few years.

Wind power had a banner year in 2020 with a single-year record of 12GW of new capacity additions and, on December 23, 2021 a new daily record of 1.76 million MWh or around 17 percent of total generation. Solar added slightly more new capacity, 15.4GW, accounting for 39 percent of the total, the largest contribution of any generation type.

Most of the growth in renewable generation is in utility-scale projects and by now America’s utilities have gained a good deal of experience in bringing wind and solar projects online. Still, there are a few things to keep in mind.

Look for modular, integrated solutions

Solar PV equipment manufacturers already package modules, inverters, and tracking systems — the same can be found with balance-of-plant (BoP) equipment like transformers, breakers, and collection systems. Even if the utility is working with an EPC, they can still exert some influence over equipment selection. If the utility is managing its own project, consider single sourcing as an alternative to managing a patchwork of low-cost suppliers. Plug-and-play compatibility at the beginning and a long-term relationship for support after the sale can add considerable value over the life of the plant (20 years in some cases).

Budget for O&M

This may seem obvious, but small line items can be essential to preserving uptime and project economics. Today, there are a number of inspection technologies that can spot potential problems before they can cause a failure. Infra-red (IR) and x-ray devices can see into switchgear and transformers while they are still energized. Oil sampling is also highly recommended to identify dissolved gases in transformers that can cause catastrophic failure, and to take remedial action before that happens. Inspection services using these capabilities are readily available from OEMs and third party providers.

Mind the data

Set the plant up for performance and condition monitoring from the beginning. The cost of capturing the requisite data continues to fall with the cost of sensors and related systems. Smart relays and breakers, for example, can flag potential problems as well as providing operational data in real time. Meanwhile, the same data flows feed condition-based maintenance that allows asset owners to direct O&M spending toward only those devices that actually need it. Data-driven O&M can make the difference between a project that is profitable/bankable and one that is not.

As coal retirements continue and renewables—often in remote locations—fill the capacity void, best practices will take on more and more importance, particularly as tax incentives begin to phase out. The knowledge and experience utilities are gaining now will serve them well in a future dominated by renewable generation.

About the Author

Allen Austin is the Senior Renewable Energy Market Development Manager at ABB Electrification USA. He began is work with the Renewable Energy market in 2008 with ABB Inc Low Voltage, where he developed and launched the local USA Low Voltage Products division strategy for the solar market. Within two years, he achieved more than 8X growth in solar. Since then, his responsibilities have expanded to all renewables including wind, energy storage and power generation for the Electrification Division-Americas with focus on the USA. Interests include all aspects of renewables, such as OEM’s utilities, developers, EPC’s, contractors, specifiers, distributors and industry associations.  

The post Tips for utilities making the transition to renewables appeared first on Renewable Energy World.

Tips for utilities making the transition to renewables

By Allen Austin, ABB

Renewable energy has arrived, and it makes up the majority of new generating capacity being added in the United States. The US Energy Information Administration projects renewables’ share of the national generation mix will rise from 21 percent in 2020 to 42 percent in 2050, even as the federal tax credits for both wind and solar close out over the next few years.

Wind power had a banner year in 2020 with a single-year record of 12GW of new capacity additions and, on December 23, 2021 a new daily record of 1.76 million MWh or around 17 percent of total generation. Solar added slightly more new capacity, 15.4GW, accounting for 39 percent of the total, the largest contribution of any generation type.

Most of the growth in renewable generation is in utility-scale projects and by now America’s utilities have gained a good deal of experience in bringing wind and solar projects online. Still, there are a few things to keep in mind.

Look for modular, integrated solutions

Solar PV equipment manufacturers already package modules, inverters, and tracking systems — the same can be found with balance-of-plant (BoP) equipment like transformers, breakers, and collection systems. Even if the utility is working with an EPC, they can still exert some influence over equipment selection. If the utility is managing its own project, consider single sourcing as an alternative to managing a patchwork of low-cost suppliers. Plug-and-play compatibility at the beginning and a long-term relationship for support after the sale can add considerable value over the life of the plant (20 years in some cases).

Budget for O&M

This may seem obvious, but small line items can be essential to preserving uptime and project economics. Today, there are a number of inspection technologies that can spot potential problems before they can cause a failure. Infra-red (IR) and x-ray devices can see into switchgear and transformers while they are still energized. Oil sampling is also highly recommended to identify dissolved gases in transformers that can cause catastrophic failure, and to take remedial action before that happens. Inspection services using these capabilities are readily available from OEMs and third party providers.

Mind the data

Set the plant up for performance and condition monitoring from the beginning. The cost of capturing the requisite data continues to fall with the cost of sensors and related systems. Smart relays and breakers, for example, can flag potential problems as well as providing operational data in real time. Meanwhile, the same data flows feed condition-based maintenance that allows asset owners to direct O&M spending toward only those devices that actually need it. Data-driven O&M can make the difference between a project that is profitable/bankable and one that is not.

As coal retirements continue and renewables—often in remote locations—fill the capacity void, best practices will take on more and more importance, particularly as tax incentives begin to phase out. The knowledge and experience utilities are gaining now will serve them well in a future dominated by renewable generation.

About the Author

Allen Austin is the Senior Renewable Energy Market Development Manager at ABB Electrification USA. He began is work with the Renewable Energy market in 2008 with ABB Inc Low Voltage, where he developed and launched the local USA Low Voltage Products division strategy for the solar market. Within two years, he achieved more than 8X growth in solar. Since then, his responsibilities have expanded to all renewables including wind, energy storage and power generation for the Electrification Division-Americas with focus on the USA. Interests include all aspects of renewables, such as OEM’s utilities, developers, EPC’s, contractors, specifiers, distributors and industry associations.  

The post Tips for utilities making the transition to renewables appeared first on Renewable Energy World.

The oil industry says it might support a carbon tax – here’s why that could be good for producers and the public alike

by Richard Schmalensee, Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management and Davide Schoenbrod, Professor, New York Law School

The oil industry’s lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, suggested in a new draft statement that it might support Congress putting a price on carbon emissions to combat climate change, even though oil and gas are major sources of those greenhouse gas emissions.

An industry calling for a tax on the use of its products sounds as bizarre as “man bites dog.” Yet, there’s a reason for the oil industry to consider that shift.

With the election of President Joe Biden and rising public concern about climate change, Washington seems increasingly likely to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The industry and many economists and regulatory experts, ourselves included, believe it would be better for the oil industry – and for consumers – if that action were taxation rather than regulation.

The American Petroleum Institute emphasized that trade-off in its draft statement, first reported in the Wall Street Journal on March 1. The statement says “API supports economy-wide carbon pricing as the primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions while helping keep energy affordable, instead of mandates or prescriptive regulatory action.”

Regulations versus taxation

There are a few ways to set a price on carbon. The most straightforward is a carbon tax. The price is designed to reflect all the harm done by greenhouse gas emissions, such as the impact of heat waves on public health.

A tax on carbon emissions would likely be imposed on firms that produce oil, gas, coal and anything else whose use results in carbon emissions. While companies would be taxed, they would pass those costs on to consumers.

The tax gives everyone incentives to reduce their contributions to carbon emissions by, for instance, fixing leaky windows, buying an electric vehicle or making a factory more efficient. In addition, the revenue from the carbon tax could be rebated to consumers in a variety of ways. Thus, if the tax is high enough, everyone from the biggest corporation to the most modest homeowner would have a strong incentive to search out the most cost-effective ways to cut carbon emissions.

In contrast, regulations put federal agencies in charge of deciding how best to reduce emissions. Regulators in Washington often know far less than individual factory owners, homeowners and others how to cut those factories’ and homes’ emissions most cost-effectively and thus reduce the cost of the tax for those people. Regulation comes with procedural requirements that impose paperwork expenses and delays on businesses, too.

Regulators can also be subject to pressure from members of Congress and lobbyists to do favors for campaign contributors such as, for example, not regulating emissions of favored industries stringently or regulating in ways that protect favored industries from competition. In the 1970s, one of us, David Schoenbrod, was a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney who sued under the Clean Air Act to get the EPA to stop the oil industry from adding lead to gasoline. That experience laid bare the accountability problem: The statute allowed Congress to take credit for protecting health, but lawmakers from both parties lobbied the agency to leave the lead in, and then Congress blamed the agency for failing to protect health.

The upshot, in our view, is that regulation could produce less environmental protection bang for the buck than a carbon tax.

As then-presidential candidate Barack Obama stated in 2008, with regulation, agencies dictate “every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.”

What will Congress do?

On March 2, a new major climate bill was introduced in Congress. It reflects many of Biden’s climate strategies, but it sticks to regulation rather than considering a carbon price.

The CLEAN Future Act, introduced by the ranking Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, directs regulators to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. The centerpiece of the bill is a national clean electricity standard, which focuses narrowly on electricity generation and, we believe, misdefines the climate problem as too little clean electricity rather than too much carbon being emitted from all sources.

The bill’s 981 pages are jam-packed with regulatory mandates and leave plenty of opportunity for legislators to blame regulators for both the failure to achieve the act’s goal and the burdens of trying to do so. Besides, most of the legislators who would vote for such a bill will be out of office long before 2050.

A carbon tax could be passed decades before 2050. Whether it will be set high enough to do the job remains to be seen, but we will know exactly which elected officials to blame or applaud for their attempt to tackle climate change. Government will be transparent, as it and a clean atmosphere should be.

What’s at stake in the choice between taxing carbon and regulating it is not how much we will cut emissions – Congress can set the tax, and thus the reduction in emissions, as high as it wishes. What is at stake is whether the choice of how to cut carbon will be made by the businesses and people who emit it or by regulators, legislators, and lawyers and lobbyists working for business and advocacy organizations.


Disclosure Statement

David Schoenbrod is a senior fellow of the Niskanen Center and has written extensively about the regulatory process. Richard Schmalensee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.


About the Authors:

Richard Schmalensee served as the John C Head III Dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management from 1998 through 2007. He was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1989 through 1991 and served for 12 years as Director of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Professor Schmalensee is the author or coauthor of 11 books and more than 120 published articles, and he is co-editor of volumes 1 and 2 of the Handbook of Industrial Organization. His research has centered on industrial organization economics and its application to managerial and public policy issues, with particular emphasis on antitrust, regulatory, energy, and environmental policies. He has served as a consultant to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and numerous private corporations. (Read his full bio at this link)

David Schoenbrod was at the forefront of environmental justice, taking on big business. Now, his concern has turned to Congress evading accountability to voters. Professor Schoenbrod’s most recent book, DC Confidential: Inside the Five Tricks of Washington, shows how politicians from both parties take credit for popular promises, but avoid blame for unpopular consequences and points the way to stopping the trickery. He also frequently contributes to the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other newspapers and periodicals. (Read his full bio at this link)


This article was first published by The Conversation and was reprinted with permission.

The post The oil industry says it might support a carbon tax – here’s why that could be good for producers and the public alike appeared first on Renewable Energy World.

The oil industry says it might support a carbon tax – here’s why that could be good for producers and the public alike

by Richard Schmalensee, Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management and Davide Schoenbrod, Professor, New York Law School

The oil industry’s lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, suggested in a new draft statement that it might support Congress putting a price on carbon emissions to combat climate change, even though oil and gas are major sources of those greenhouse gas emissions.

An industry calling for a tax on the use of its products sounds as bizarre as “man bites dog.” Yet, there’s a reason for the oil industry to consider that shift.

With the election of President Joe Biden and rising public concern about climate change, Washington seems increasingly likely to act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The industry and many economists and regulatory experts, ourselves included, believe it would be better for the oil industry – and for consumers – if that action were taxation rather than regulation.

The American Petroleum Institute emphasized that trade-off in its draft statement, first reported in the Wall Street Journal on March 1. The statement says “API supports economy-wide carbon pricing as the primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions while helping keep energy affordable, instead of mandates or prescriptive regulatory action.”

Regulations versus taxation

There are a few ways to set a price on carbon. The most straightforward is a carbon tax. The price is designed to reflect all the harm done by greenhouse gas emissions, such as the impact of heat waves on public health.

A tax on carbon emissions would likely be imposed on firms that produce oil, gas, coal and anything else whose use results in carbon emissions. While companies would be taxed, they would pass those costs on to consumers.

The tax gives everyone incentives to reduce their contributions to carbon emissions by, for instance, fixing leaky windows, buying an electric vehicle or making a factory more efficient. In addition, the revenue from the carbon tax could be rebated to consumers in a variety of ways. Thus, if the tax is high enough, everyone from the biggest corporation to the most modest homeowner would have a strong incentive to search out the most cost-effective ways to cut carbon emissions.

In contrast, regulations put federal agencies in charge of deciding how best to reduce emissions. Regulators in Washington often know far less than individual factory owners, homeowners and others how to cut those factories’ and homes’ emissions most cost-effectively and thus reduce the cost of the tax for those people. Regulation comes with procedural requirements that impose paperwork expenses and delays on businesses, too.

Regulators can also be subject to pressure from members of Congress and lobbyists to do favors for campaign contributors such as, for example, not regulating emissions of favored industries stringently or regulating in ways that protect favored industries from competition. In the 1970s, one of us, David Schoenbrod, was a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney who sued under the Clean Air Act to get the EPA to stop the oil industry from adding lead to gasoline. That experience laid bare the accountability problem: The statute allowed Congress to take credit for protecting health, but lawmakers from both parties lobbied the agency to leave the lead in, and then Congress blamed the agency for failing to protect health.

The upshot, in our view, is that regulation could produce less environmental protection bang for the buck than a carbon tax.

As then-presidential candidate Barack Obama stated in 2008, with regulation, agencies dictate “every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.”

What will Congress do?

On March 2, a new major climate bill was introduced in Congress. It reflects many of Biden’s climate strategies, but it sticks to regulation rather than considering a carbon price.

The CLEAN Future Act, introduced by the ranking Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, directs regulators to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. The centerpiece of the bill is a national clean electricity standard, which focuses narrowly on electricity generation and, we believe, misdefines the climate problem as too little clean electricity rather than too much carbon being emitted from all sources.

The bill’s 981 pages are jam-packed with regulatory mandates and leave plenty of opportunity for legislators to blame regulators for both the failure to achieve the act’s goal and the burdens of trying to do so. Besides, most of the legislators who would vote for such a bill will be out of office long before 2050.

A carbon tax could be passed decades before 2050. Whether it will be set high enough to do the job remains to be seen, but we will know exactly which elected officials to blame or applaud for their attempt to tackle climate change. Government will be transparent, as it and a clean atmosphere should be.

What’s at stake in the choice between taxing carbon and regulating it is not how much we will cut emissions – Congress can set the tax, and thus the reduction in emissions, as high as it wishes. What is at stake is whether the choice of how to cut carbon will be made by the businesses and people who emit it or by regulators, legislators, and lawyers and lobbyists working for business and advocacy organizations.


Disclosure Statement

David Schoenbrod is a senior fellow of the Niskanen Center and has written extensively about the regulatory process. Richard Schmalensee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.


About the Authors:

Richard Schmalensee served as the John C Head III Dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management from 1998 through 2007. He was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1989 through 1991 and served for 12 years as Director of the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research. Professor Schmalensee is the author or coauthor of 11 books and more than 120 published articles, and he is co-editor of volumes 1 and 2 of the Handbook of Industrial Organization. His research has centered on industrial organization economics and its application to managerial and public policy issues, with particular emphasis on antitrust, regulatory, energy, and environmental policies. He has served as a consultant to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice, and numerous private corporations. (Read his full bio at this link)

David Schoenbrod was at the forefront of environmental justice, taking on big business. Now, his concern has turned to Congress evading accountability to voters. Professor Schoenbrod’s most recent book, DC Confidential: Inside the Five Tricks of Washington, shows how politicians from both parties take credit for popular promises, but avoid blame for unpopular consequences and points the way to stopping the trickery. He also frequently contributes to the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and other newspapers and periodicals. (Read his full bio at this link)


This article was first published by The Conversation and was reprinted with permission.

The post The oil industry says it might support a carbon tax – here’s why that could be good for producers and the public alike appeared first on Renewable Energy World.

Wind power company vows to help save critically endangered California condor

The condor, a vulture threatened by giant wind turbines, may be helped by energy company’s breeding project

An energy company in California is teaming up with federal wildlife officials and the Oregon Zoo in an innovative project to ease the plight of the mighty, soaring condor, a critically endangered species of vulture threatened by giant wind turbines in the Tehachapi mountains north-east of Los Angeles.

Avangrid Renewables, which operates 126 turbines as part of its Manzana wind power project, will finance the breeding of birds in captivity to replace any that might be killed by the 252ft diameter turbine blades.

Continue reading…

Denmark’s climate policies ‘insufficient’ to meet 2030 target

Report says country set to cut carbon emissions by 54% compared with 1990 levels, not 70% as planned

The Danish government’s efforts towards meeting the country’s ambitious target of reducing emissions by 70% by 2030 have been judged “insufficient” by the body tasked with monitoring its progress, with measures so far announced only likely to take it a third of the way.

In its first annual status report, the Danish Council on Climate Change said new laws, inter-party agreements and initiatives announced since the country’s climate law came into effect last June would reduce emissions by the equivalent of 7.2m tonnes of CO2 by 2030, which is only enough to reduce Denmark’s emissions by 54% compared with 1990 levels.

Related: The Danish climate minister closing down the oil industry for good

Continue reading…