Archive for the ‘Rédacteurs invités’ Category

European investment in solar energy : the key to success

Samedi, décembre 1st, 2012

Panneaux solaires

According to the European Energy Markets Observator, the economic crisis made utilities in Europe invest less in renewables, including solar energy. The figures show that the investment decreased by 14% in the second half of 2008 compared to the same period in 2007. But as the total electricity demand will increase by an annual growth rate of 2.4%, and fossil energy prices will still increase. We can wonder whether a European utility should invest in solar energy production.

To me, it is a strategic asset, and as the competitiveness of various renewables-based electricity generating technologies (including solar energy) is higlhly dependent of policy support, that is why my answer is yes.

Solar : the future of energies

First of all, according to European Energy Markets Observator (EEMO), in 2030, renewables would account for 55,7% of electricity generation, and solar and wind would account for 20.1% of electricity generation in 2030. Furthermore, the EEMO explains that fossil and nuclear energies would lose market shares .

This means there is a great opportunity for a European utility to develop solar production. it is also important to mention the demand, since according to the IEA, solar and wind energies will enjoy the largest proportional increase in demand in 2030.

Furthermore, Europe committed to develop the biggest market of electricity, connecting 500 million consumers. This means, developping solar production is a startegy on the mid and long term, allowing Europe to face such demand.

A matter of european energy security

Moreover, according to the International Energy Agency, From 2009 to 2035, 44% of the growth in electricity generation comes from renewables and is mainly possible thanks to government policies, showing that European utilities have a role to play. In this 44% growth, solar PV would account for one-tenth . According to the IEA renewables represent 60% of investments in new power plants, including solar energy.

Developing solar production will allow Europe to play a significant part in the energy business, and make her less dependent on fossil energies (Europe is dependent at 83% on crude imports).

Moreover, as we are facing a era of uncertainty in prices, because of prices volatility, it will help Europe ensure its energy security.

Second of all, in the mid-term, Europe has established a EU legislation on climate change. Indeed, its goal is to source 20% of its total energy from renewables by 2020. Utilities must adapt to this legislation and develop CO2-free generation through renewable energies, including solar energy.

According to the EEMO, Solar energy also offers a huge potential especially for water heating, in the short/medium term and solar photovoltaic in the longer term. Such potential is reaffirmed by the IEA which say that 70% of the growth in solar PV capacity occurs in many regions of the world, including the European Union.

As a conclusion, we can say developping solar production is strategic on the mid and long terms. It will help to decrease Europe’s dependence on fossil energies, its energetic bill, and allow her to achieve its three objectives : competitiveness, sustainability and security of supply.

At the same time, it can make Europe a leader in solar energy production like China and India. But the European Union has to be very careful, because other utilities like the chinese ones which produce solar plants at a loss and are doing what we can call « solar dumping ».

Raul Shimabuku

Kyoto protocol’s impact on the world energy scene

Samedi, mai 26th, 2012

Ratified in 1997, the Kyoto protocol is an international environmental treaty conducted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It applied a principle of “common differentiated responsibilities” and recognized the responsibility of industrialized countries in current levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. It aimed at reducing six of the main greenhouse gases (Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride), to stabilize« greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system » . But, what were the impacts of the Kyoto protocol on the world energy scene have been, more than a decade after its ratification ?

2007, Shawinigan, Québec, Canada @Flickr

Changing the way we see energy

First of all, it established a mechanism of trading emission reduction credits, creating an international quota market,(the international market of emission rights), on which signatory countries can exchange their quotas. Countries received quotas of GHG emissions, according to their target to reduce. This carbon trading and other Kyoto mechanisms influenced the energy market because it changed the way we perceive energy (in its form, its use and the way we use it).

« Governance by carbon »

Second of all, the first ten years of the Kyoto Protocol have seen many countries introduce environmental policies to fight against climate change and which form a new form of “governance by carbon” . As a consequence, the energy scene saw the emergence of cleaner energies. For instance, natural gas and LNG had and still have a growing importance, favored by environmental considerations, and also thanks to the liberalisation of electricity markets (which drove to regulation, restructuring, privatization and competition to organize the gas market ). Moreover, renewables increased and represent 16% of global final energy consumption comes from renewable energies.

Jonah Natural Gas Field, upper Green River valley, Wyoming, 2003. Source : Flickr/SkyTruth

Nuclear power

In addition, nuclear energy plays an important part. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), concluded that, based on a number of country case studies, nuclear power plants would lead to “long-term certifiable GHG reductions relative to fossil fuel projects”. In its latest publication “Energy Policy for Europe” published in January 2007, the European Commission stressed that nuclear power production must be considered as an option to reduce CO2 emissions and to meet the targets of the Kyoto protocol. The IEA’s figures show that nuclear grew a lot over the past 40 years, from 0,9% of total primary energy in 1973, to 5,8% in 2009.

nuclear plant, Source : Flickr / Arno Volkers

Global dependence on oil

But we can also mention that there is still a global dependence on fossil energies, which are great emitters of GHG. For instance, the use of coal (the most polluting source of energy) increased from 24,6% of total primary energy supply in 1973, to 27,6% in 2009 . It is due to its cheap cost. In addition, oil still have the highest share in total primary energy supply : 32% in 2009. It shows the Kyoto protocol didn’t change he global energy mix in favour of clean or renewable energies, since fossil energies still are predominant. Moreover, the USA didn’t ratify Kyoto Protocol and was at the time the biggest polluter (now replaced by China).

Oil refinery in North Pole Alaska. Source : Flickr/Erica Joy

International discussions

On an international scale, it allowed a global discussion and agreement on reducing CO2 emissions and global warming. This was an historic agreement and it is now difficult to sign another (Cop15 in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban failures). As the protocol was ratified, the IEA started discussing the issue of energetic security with other actors and countries, but on a technical scale, it didn’t compensate the obstacle to the global discussion which is countries don’t trust each other and still are in relations of confrontation .

COP15 UNFCCC Climate Change - Opening Ceremony. Source : Flickr/UN climate change

As a conclusion we can say that the Kyoto Protocol was the first binding international treaty and in this sense was a big step towards the fight against global warming. It allowed a global discussion and agreement on CO2 emissions cuts and permitted to implement environmental measures that changed a little bit the global energy mix. But as shown by the IAE’s figures, fossil energies still have a great importance in the global energy mix and dependence on fossil fuels is not likely to change on the mid-term view. Moreover, there is still no continuation after the end of the agreement in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol ratification had a limited impact on the global energy scene and energy markets as it changed a minima the global energy mix.

Raul Shimabuku

Japan : the price to close all nuclear plants

Vendredi, mars 23rd, 2012

The Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant, a 3-unit BWR site typical of Japan's nuclear plants.

In Japan, there are 53 nuclear plants and its energetic consumption is based on 12% on nuclear plants , 53% on oil, and 13% on natural gas. But, because of the Fukushima nuclear accident and others that happened before (1999, Accident at the Tokai Mura fuel facility), people rise the possibility to close all nuclear plants. Public opinion is in favour of such view since « between 41 and 54 percent of Japanese support scrapping, or reducing the numbers of, nuclear power plants » . But to close all its facilities, Japan will have to pay a very high price.

Increasing public investment

First of all, in terms of public investment, it will cost a lot of money to close all Japanese nuclear plants and switch to other energies since nuclear energy has been a national strategic priority (what we call New Policy) since 1973 and accounts for almost 30% of the Japan’s total electricity production. According to the International Energy Agency, in the New Policies Scenario, Japan’s spending on imports of gas will “double to $66 billion between 2009 and 2035”, but would reach “$80 billion in the Low Nuclear Case”. In addition, we can mention the fact Japan was severly hit by the economic crisis and can’t put so much money on the table, at least in the current context.

A threat to Japan’s energy security

Second of all, Japan will lose the little energy independence that he has acquired over the past decades. Indeed, Japan have almost no indigenous hydro-carbon resources. Including nuclear power, Japan’s energy self-efficiency represents 16%, and this figure falls to 4% if we exclude nuclear power . According to the IEA, it intensifies concerns about Japan’s energy security .

Importing more fossil energies

Moreover, closing all its nuclear plants means importing other energies, which will be more costly than in any other country. Because, unlike countries in Europe or in North/South America, Japan has no cross-border oil and gas pipelines nor power-transmission lines, and importing other energies have an additional cost. A little historical fact can underline the price Japan will have to pay since its economic recovery after the oil shocks of 1970s is due its successful energy policies and attempt to become more and more energy-independent. According to the International Energy Agency, it is a concern since “spending on oil imports is near record highs” .

Environmental cost

Another cost will be the environmental cost. In september 2009, former Prime Minister Hatoyama committed to a 25% reduction of GHG emissions by 2020, at the UN Climate Change Summit. According to the IEA in the Low Nuclear Case, Japan’s CO2 emissions are “50 Mt higher in 2035 than in the New Policies Scenario”.

As a conclusion, the low nuclear scenario will negatively impact Japan in terms of economic cost, energy security and increase of CO2 emissions, and rises important concerns.

Raul Shimabuku

Transportation : Why electricity won’t replace oil

Mardi, mars 13th, 2012

Nissan Leaf recharching in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

In 2050, the world will count about 9 billion inhabitants. The potential for increased vehicle ownership in emerging markets, in particular China and India, is huge (accounting for 50% of the projected growth). But as the transport sector depends more than 98% on oil , and it produces large emissions of CO2 which accelerate global warming, which let us wonder : Will electricity replace oil in transportation ? My answer would be : I don’t think so.

Electric vehicles : a costly alternative

First of all, oil has a technical advantage over electricity : it can easily be built, is cheaper, whereas electricity would require more investment carrying more risk. In addition, it requires less technological developments. Indeed, to use electricity in the transportation, it requires to develop infrastructures to charge the vehicles, and it is costly.

Furthermore, the switch from oil to electricity will be costly and will take years to be achieved. Indeed, according to a report made by the General Commission for Sustainable Development, « the cost of the battery remains a major challenge in the short to medium term competitiveness of the electric vehicle » since it is still very expensive. People will prefer buying a car working with oil rather than an electric vehicle since the price will be less expensive and cars working with oil exist since 1901.

the problem of short battery autonomy

Moreover, there is another drawback since all-electric vehicle (that runs only from a rechargeable battery), have a short autonomy : from 100 to 150 kilometers . We are far from achieving the construction of electric vehicles with ultra-high efficiency battery. At the moment, all electric vehicles are not competitive on the market and will require public support. This is why oil will still be predominant concerning the transportation sector.

Cost-benefit calculation

Finally, we can mention the fact oil is a sector supported by a powerful lobby that ensure its interests. And as the date of the oil peak is still under debate, the cost-benefit calculation shows transportation working thanks to oil is more interesting in terms of economic costs. So, in the next decades to come, electricity won’t replace oil in transportation, at least not with the current context.

Raul Shimabuku

Comment le développement durable change nos business models?

Dimanche, février 27th, 2011

Le développement durable a trop souvent été vu comme un coût supplémentaire pour l’entreprise, qui le voit donc comme un fardeau ou un frein à la compétitivité. Or il existe de plus en plus d’exemples de « success stories » qui prouvent que voir à long terme, prendre en compte toutes les parties prenantes, penser aux effets de l’activité sur la société et l’environnement, etc. peuvent améliorer les performances de l’entreprise de manière globale et durable. Voici l’exemple d’InterfaceFlor

InterfaceFlor devient leader grâce au Natural Step

Connaissez-vous l’entreprise industrielle de tapis InterfaceFlor ? C’est une des rares entreprises à avoir adopté le développement durable non pas comme moyen mais comme une véritable mission d’entreprise. Elle a changé non pas ses produits, mais tout son business model. Elle illustre bien le changement de business model pour passer d’une entreprise sur-polluante à une entreprise durable et soutenable.
Voici le site de ce que fait cette entreprise en matière de développement durable :
http://www.interfaceflor.eu/internet/web.nsf/webpages/52_FR.html

InterfaceFlor a ainsi réussi à réduire son impact environnemental et à devenir réellement plus écologique en passant d’une des industries les plus polluantes de la planète – la fabrication de tapis- à un des champions du développement durable mondiaux ; son objectif étant de devenir une entreprise neutre en termes de coût environnemental d’ici 2020. Au lieu de vendre les tapis, elle les loue, ce qui lui permet d’avoir un contrôle total sur le cycle de vie de ses produits. Ses tapis sont recyclés et réintroduits dans le système de location.
Résultats ? +17% de croissance des recettes, baisse de l’impact environnemental et hausse de bien-être et de la motivation de tous les collaborateurs. Et surtout, elle est la seule entreprise du secteur à connaitre une croissance malgré la crise.
Tout ceci a été rendu possible grâce à une prise de décision radicale de son dirigeant, Ray Anderson. Il a réussi à motiver et inspirer tous les employés de sa firme multinationale à cette nouvelle vision, en leur faisant adopter ce nouveau paradigme « développement durable ». Du vrai leadership, en somme.

Voici également plusieurs vidéo très intéressantes :

Tout d’abord, celle de son fondateur Ray Anderson :
Ray Anderson on the business logic of sustainability

Ensuite une conférence au Québec du numéro deux d’InterfaceFlor :
http://www5.fsa.ulaval.ca/sgc/faculte/lafsa/ecoresponsable

Mais qu’est ce que le Natural Step ?

Le Natural Step est une technique développée par Dr. Karl-Henrik Robèrt dans les années 80 pour aider les entreprises à les faire évoluer en profondeur pour qu’elles deviennent définitivement durables. Cette méthode implique, comme son nom l’indique, plusieurs étapes précises pour arriver à un but ultime : la vision de l’entreprise idéale (et donc durable et soutenable bien entendu).

Afin d’avoir une meilleure vision des étapes du Natural Step, voici quelques vidéos explicatives :

Voici ci-dessous un petit récapitulatif des étapes du Natural Step :

1- Prise de conscience que nous vivons dans un monde aux ressources limitées, et que l’entreprise doit tenir compte de ce fait pour sa propre durabilité (Awareness), en impliquant toutes les parties-prenantes dès cette étape.
2- Analyser la situation actuelle (Baseline), en mettant en évidence les forces, faiblesses, opportunités et menaces de l’entreprise et de son environnement.
3- Avoir une vision de l’entreprise durable du futur (Visioning)
4- Etablir les étapes progressives pour passer de l’état actuel à l’état futur souhaité (backcasting)
5- Prioriser les actions choisies dans l’étape précédente, en gardant à l’esprit que les économies faites lors de l’étape « n » permettra de financer l’étape « n+1 »

InterfaceFlor a appliqué cette technique et avance à grands pas vers son idéal d’entreprise durable. D’autres entreprises suivent ce mouvement pour augmenter leur durabilité et leurs chances de succès à long terme.
Mais est-ce que toutes les entreprises parviendront à temps à adopter cette vision de durabilité ? Et auront-elles toutes le courage de changer leur business model ?

Jerome Hoarau
http://www.pourquoi-entreprendre.fr