CarbonSignal

We’ve just rediscovered a gem from a few years ago.  In March 2007 Stanford University hosted a 5-part lecture series on Advanced Energy Efficiency, presented by Amory Lovins.  Each lecture is loaded with useful insights, ideas, anecdotes and a bit of humour.  At 1.5 hours per lecture the series takes considerable time to watch and digest.

The lectures cover buildings, industry, transportation, implementation and implications.

The videos can be viewed on Google Video and transcripts can be downloaded from the RMI website.

The Australian Company Microbiogen has developed a non-genetically modified yeast that can produce ethanol from both pure corn or sugar feed stocks and from biomass waste.  This effectively doubles the ethanol production per hectare of sugar cane.  Side benefits or the improved process are less polluting waste streams and the production of large volumes of high protein stock feed.

Microbiogen is collaborating with the US renewable technology company PureVision to build a pilot scale plant in Colorado that is expected to begin operating sometime this year (www.rechargenews.com).  They have also received support from the Australian Government in the form of a $2.5M grant from the Second Generation Biofuels Research and development Program.

According to the ABC’s Catalyst program, there is 150 to 200 billion tonnes of plant material made per annum in agriculture and forestry processes.  This amount is enough to enable a total replacement of petrol (www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1763365.htm).

Preparation of Annual Reports for the 2008/09 financial year has commenced. Climate change and carbon management reporting can no longer be considered an optional inclusion in Annual Reports, or sub-set of Sustainability Reporting, because the Corporations Act 2001 (s299) requires the inclusion in the annual directors’ report of information that shareholders would reasonably require to make an informed assessment of the financial position of the company and the company’s business strategies and prospects for future financial years. NGERS compliance will also need to be reported under s299(f).

Information that shareholders may reasonably require regarding climate change and carbon risk includes the anticipated or actual impact of:
- Regulatory compliance costs;
- Carbon cost imposts (through direct emissions trading liability or cost pass-through down the supply chain);
- Subsequent implications for asset value and revenue streams;
- Flow-on changes on access to debt and equity; and
- Consequences of climate change impacts for assets and operations.

Firms may also identify significant market opportunities arising from climate change and carbon management that they want to communicate to their shareholders and stakeholders.

While disclosure under the Corporations Act is mandatory, a surprising number of ASX200, excluding the ASX100 (ASX200 (ex100)) either declined to participate, or did not respond to requests to participate, in the high-profile voluntary Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) in 2008. While 72% of ASX100 companies completed the annual survey in 2008 only 23% the ASX200 (ex100) did so. The Carbon Disclosure Project Report 2008: Australia & New Zealand (2008; p 35) speculates that this

may be partly due to the fact that it was the first year they had received the CDP information request and partly due to the companies that comprise the ASX200 (ex100) being of a significantly smaller market capitalisation than companies in the ASX100.

The results from CDP7 (2009) are due in September 2009; it will be interesting to see which ASX200 (ex 100) companies responded to a second request.

While the deadline for reporting to CDP7 was the 31 May 2009 firms may still submit questionnaires and have responses included on the CDP website. Gathering and submitting the required CDP data now will not only provide the basis of your Annual Report requirements, but will position your company more favourably with climate-change savvy institutional investor groups such as the Australia-New Zealand Investor Group on Climate Change, individual investors and shareholder activists.

In July the rubber hits the road for the world’s cheapest car - the Tata Nano.  The car will sell for less than $3,000 AUD and demand is so strong they have decided that the first 100,000 customers will be chosen by lottery.

The Nano represents a massive change in personal transport.  Chairman Ratan Tata says,

“We are at the gates offering a new form of transportation to the people of India, and later I hope other markets as well.”

Tata is planning to deploy the Nano to North American and European markets.  Current production capacity is 60,000 units per year, but by the end of 2009 a new production facility will bring capacity up to 250,000 units per year.

Tata is not the only game in town.  According to Reuters, “Volkswagen, Toyota, Honda and Fiat are eyeing the segment, and the venture of Renault/Nissan with Bajaj is on track to launch a $2,500 car in 2011.”

Providing the developing world with access to the level of personal transportation freedom that the wealthier nations have enjoyed for decades seems like an inherently good thing.  But does this utlimately serve the greater good?

The developing world leapfrogged the wealthy nations in telecommunications by putting up cell phone towers instead of laying copper landlines.  Some say they should aim to leapfrog the wealthy nations on transport as well, by finding a way to skip over the inefficient vehicles and infrastructure that have become essential in car-dependent industrialised economies.

Could the emergence of low-cost cars undermine any potential leapfrogging that might otherwise occur?

The US will provide $2.4 billion for the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.  The objective is to put a million clean vehicles on the road by 2015.  Obama says he wants the US to regain its position as a global technology leader.

“The nation that leads on energy will be the nation that leads the world in the 21st century.”

The funds will be distributed through several channels:

• $1.5 billion will be offered to battery manufacturers
• $0.5 billion will go to companies that produce other components
• $0.4 billion will be spent on evaluation of plug in hybrids, and building the supporting infrastructure

The funding comes at a time when hybrid sales are suffering.  Before the economic downturn, people buying the Toyota Prius used to have to wait weeks or months for delivery.  At that time there was only a 2-day national supply of the Prius in the US.  Now, with petrol prices down and consumer confidence in the toilet, there is an 80 day supply of the Prius.

Will Obama’s cash injection be enough to spur the development of expensive hybrid technology in an ailing industry?

Through various press conferences and press releases at the Geneva Auto Show, many of the major car manufacturers have updated their strategies and short-term deployment plans of alternative energy technology.

European car makers are world-leaders in clean diesel technology and will continue to develop this as one of the most economical ways to improve efficiency and reduce transport emissions, and the Japanese car makers continue to lead on the hybrid front.

Reuters provides  a good summary of some near-term plans for electric vehicles:

“Mitsubishi Motors, about the only carmaker with a working prototype for a relatively affordable electric car, said this week it would supply electric cars under the Peugeot brand from next year. Mitsubishi itself will also start exporting its “i MiEV” electric car from Japan in 2010.

Nissan Motor said on the same day it had agreed with the Portuguese government to consider the establishment of a lithium-ion battery plant in Portugal as it aims to mass-market electric vehicles in Europe and globally by 2012.

Nissan’s partner Renault  is looking to launch four electric cars between early 2011 and early 2012.

Even India’s Tata Motors, which has no extensive sales network in Europe yet, showcased the electric Indica Vista EV under development.”