Areva said today that the acquisition marks its entry into the solar thermal power market, where it intends to be the leader. The market itself is expected to grow 20 per cent annually over the next decade. This is just the latest in a string of acquisitions and deals aimed at broadening Areva’s portfolio of renewable energy products and services. The company has been pushing heavily into biomass power and has been building biomass/biogas plants in the U.S., Brazil, India, Thailand and other countries. It is dabbling in hydrogen production and fuel cell systems, and through its acquisition of Germany’s Multibrid is trying to establish itself as a future leader in offshore wind.

It’s going to take big, deep-pocketed companies like Areva to really push deployment of solar thermal and other promising renewables, so this acquisition of Ausra is a good sign of where the market is heading. Given that the nuclear renaissance simply isn’t materializing as expected, it’s wise for Areva and other big energy conglomerates to hedge their bets.

After three and a half years of extensive study, which included exhaustive consultation with industry experts and review of peer-reviewed literature, the policy think tank released a report yesterday that says the nuclear industry will have a hard enough time just replacing older reactors in the existing global fleet. Fact is, nuclear’s contribution to the global power mix since 2000 has fallen, as has the number of reactors in the fleet. Meanwhile, 2008 was the first year since the mid-1950s that no new nuclear reactor was connected to the grid. There have been refurbishments and life extensions, and there has been a lot of talk about building new reactors, but so far the massive, fast-paced expansion the industry has touted simply isn’t materializing. There will be some modest growth, but CIGI doesn’t expect nuclear will play a major role in combatting climate change before 2030. Between now and then, it also says alternatives — solar, wind, energy efficiency, conservation, smart grid technologies — will gain momentum and may ultimately prevent nuclear projects from getting a foothold. “Research and development is proceeding at such a pace for most of these alternatives that improvements in performance and cost will likely arrive faster than for nuclear technology,” the study concluded.

Think about it: by 2030 it’s quite possible we’ll have energy storage breakthroughs that give intermittant renewables baseload characteristics, but instead of deploying them in massive multibillion-dollar chunks, they could be part of a distributed energy system that locates power closer to consumers, and deploys it quickly and when needed.

CIGI lists a number of issues that have held back expansion of the nuclear power market:

• High upfront cost — reactors that can cost up to $10 billion a piece.
• Labour shortages resulting from boomer retirements and lack of investment in training and education.
• Long construction lead time.
• High risk of cost overruns and delay.
• High reliance on government subsidies and public backstopping.
• Ongoing concerns with waste management.
• Alternatives becoming increasingly more competitive.

Now, the nuclear industry isn’t oblivious to these issues, and indeed, there is a move underway to build smaller reactors that can be built more quickly, on time, and at a more manageable cost and pace. Also, these mini reactors would fit better into a distributed generation model, and attempts at developing small thorium-fuelled reactors would address waste management and nuclear proliferation concerns. CIGI acknowledged these developments, but said we’re not likely to see thorium reactors or mini-reactors being adopted in any significant way before 2030 — again, too late to be relied on for climate-change mitigation.

All this said, there will be growth — in China, in India, and a handful of other countries — and there will be refurbishments. This should keep the industry busy for the next couple of decades. No jobs are likely at risk here. Over the long term, however, the future of the nuclear industry would appear more uncertain.

I have an update on Ontario Power Generation’s biomass strategy in today’s Clean Break column. OPG will likely convert Atikokan to 100 per cent biomass by 2012, with some units at Nanticoke likely to follow a year later. Lambton and Thunder Bay plants are also being considered. The OPG executive heading up the transition, Chris Young, says the company is seriously investigating a fuel pellet mixture with both wood and agricultural residues (or dedicated crops, like switchgrass). OPG figures that coal plants converted to burning biomass will likely operate for another 10 years before decommissioning, at which point the pellet supply chain will be firmly established and the move to build a distributed fleet of newer biomass-burning plants can begin.

And what is U of T’s estimated cost of supplying electricity from an existing coal plant converted to burning 100 per cent biomass? Roughly 12 cents per kilowatt-hour, which excludes the impact of carbon prices. Given that natural gas won’t stay low forever and will eventually be subject to carbon pricing, this makes the biomass option competitive (also with wind and nuclear) and at the same time is a winner when it comes to local green-collar job creation.

If OPG can pull this off, it would be another Ontario first — and something other jurisdictions can learn from.

The problem with this conclusion? Clarens based the life-cycle analysis on data that was mostly 10 years old. For example, some current algae cultivation practices, particularly those based on wastewater or sea water, tackle the fertilizer issue head on. So the age of the data is an important bit of information that should have been made very clear in the study — even the abstract. Ten years in the world of technology, particular cleantech, is a long time. I mean, the big R&D push around algae-based fuels only began three or four years ago, and 10 years ago the “cleantech” sector didn’t exist in name. Ten years ago the world was still wrapping its head around Y2K, George W. Bush was just getting into office, Google was still a start-up years from going public, and the TV show CSI (the original one) had its world premiere. In other words, you can expect data about algae cultivation to be, well, rather useless as a reflection of current practices.

This isn’t to blame Clarens. As he told the New York Times’ Green Inc., the most current data out there is simply unavailable to academia. It’s proprietary. “I’d be happy to model it if somebody produces it,” he said. This, of course, is a general problem with a lot of studies looking into lifecycle analyses. Researchers can only go with the data they can get, and perhaps this explains a lot of the earlier controversy around ethanol from corn. It’s still something we want to move away from, but certainly not as bad as guys like David Pimental of Cornell University like to paint it. I’d argue these studies should do two things: make a greater effort of emphasizing data limitations; and make a clear distinction between technologies/processes already deployed and those in pre-commercial phase.

Look at it this way: Can you imagine a study coming out in 2010 comparing different Internet search engines, but basing it on data available in 2000? Now, the Internet isn’t cleantech, but in certain areas there’s no reason to believe that the pace of innovation is any different.

Life-cycle analysis is hugely important work, but if it can’t keep up with innovation then it can become dated before it’s even published.

The Toronto Atmospheric Fund has so far signed up several public-sector partners, including Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation, Toronto Hydro, Hydro One  and the Ontario Power Authority, and smaller electric utilities and municipalities that surrounding the city are also being invited to participate. Next month, efforts will begin to start attracting private companies that would like to purchase at least one electric vehicle for their fleet as part of the program. The hope is that the buyer’s club will be set up and committed to a bulk purchase by July 1, which is when provincial incentives (up to $10,000) for purchasing electric cars are supposed to kick in.

So, if you’re in a company with its own vehicle fleet, spread the word. The more who take part in this program the merrier.

BTW: Wonder what Better Place is up to? After a big splash last January in Ontario its interest in the market seems to have faded.  Where’s the electric-vehicle demonstration and education centre it promised?  Where’s the network rollout plan and the investment timeline it was going to put together for Ontario? At least it’s making progress in Denmark, Tokyo and other parts of Europe and Asia, having just raised another $350 million.

Most media coverage has highlighted the growth in laptops, mobile devices, servers and routers, but more eye-opening is the coming wave of “smart” grid devices that will need to have their own IP addresses. Thermostats, smart meters, dish washers, laundry machines/dryers, intelligent lighting (in homes and buildings), electric cars — really any appliances or devices or machine that will be controlled remotely through the Internet. Here’s a question I honestly have no answer to: Are energy management and smart grid/appliance companies — General Electric, for example — aware of this coming shortage of IP addresses, and have they taken the necessary measures to avoid the crisis?

Network World had an informative article on this issue in October.

Apparently it’s not difficult to migrate from IPv4 to IPv6, but it does require a lot of investment in software and hardware upgrades. Will the energy sector be caught off guard by this? I’d love to open this up for discussion from some more knowledgeable people… please enlighten us.

I have a column in today’s Toronto Star that’s bound to upset a number of solar and wind developers, and the investors behind them. I argue that the $7 billion Samsung deal announced last week in Ontario isn’t a bad deal at all, and that Ontario was right to jump on the opportunity when it presented itself. The deal is controversial because the government gave Samsung an “economic adder” that amounts to a 4 per cent premium (on a price per kilowatt-hour basis) to existing feed-in-tariffs available to other solar and wind developers. The government also set aside 500 megawatts of transmission capacity for Samsung, which in addition to building four manufacturing plants (wind blades, wind towers, solar inverters and solar modules) also wants to deploy 2,000 megawatts of wind and 500 megawatts of solar in Ontario.

Samsung has said publicly that it plans to become the largest maker of solar panels by 2015, and wants to become a major player in wind. The fact that it chose Ontario as the launchpad is significant. This is a huge deal, and while not perfect, it has the potential to bring tremendous long-term benefits to Ontario. Sure, other developers would love the special treatment Samsung got, but have those developers been willing to step up, develop a comprehensive supply chain, and sign a deal that commits them to X amount of renewables and create X thousand amounts of jobs? My only big criticism of this deal is that the government may be overlooking some amazing Ontario-made opportunities — local consortia who have big plans but can’t seem to get the attention and support of the Ontario government. This apparent lack of confidence in local entrepreneurs and investors doesn’t send a good signal. Premier Dalton McGuinty needs to do a much better job of nurturing and having confidence in local ventures, even if they lack the deep pockets and brand appeal of an anchor tenant like Samsung.

Were smaller developers in Ontario betrayed? I can see why they think so, but I don’t recall anyone in the current government ever saying the feed-in-tariff program is the only way they will sign up renewables (or any source of power generation) in the future. What the feed-in tariff program and Green Energy Act does is let these developers access the program, equally, without having to go through an expensive RFP process. The fact is the FIT program, as it is, is more than generous to these developers. And while transmission is scarce, there’s a solid commitment to build more. So there is a bigger picture here, one that needs to be put into perspective.

Okay, let’s open this one up to some civil debated…

South Korean industrial giant Samsung Group signed a deal today with the Ontario government that will see 2,500 megawatts of solar and wind developments and construction of four manufacturing plants between 2013 and 2015. This $7 billion investment from Samsung is expected to create 16,000 jobs — a combination of permanent manufacturing jobs and temporary construction and development jobs. I first broke this story back in late September, but the deal is now official.

The first two plants — one to manufacture wind towers and one to manufacture solar inverters — must be in full operation by March 31, 2013. A solar module assembly facility must be in place by Dec. 31, 2013. Finally, a wind blade manufacturing plant must be in place by Dec. 31, 2015. Samsung, apparently, has long-term plans in the Ontario market, from which it hopes to export its products to the booming U.S. renewable-energy market. As for development projects, Samsung will get the same feed-in-tariff rate as any other company. But to the dismay of those other companies, the Korean consortium that Samsung is part of will get a $437 million economic “adder” — i.e. an incentive to make sure those manufacturing jobs do get created — and will have scarce transmission capacity set aside so the company doesn’t have to wait long in the grid-connection queue.

In addition to Samsung C&T, the consortium includes Korea Electric Power Corporation. Partners with the consortium include Satcon, Pattern Energy Group, and Dongkuk Steel.

See Toronto Star story here for initial details and comment about today’s announcement. See government announcement here and backgrounder here. Certainly more info to come…

Sadly, the environmental reporter has become an endangered species. I heard yesterday that the Oregonian just disbanded its environmental reporting team and made them all into general assignment reporters. Also yesterday Keith Johnson announced that his Wall Street Journal blog Environmental Capital was “closing its virtual doors.” In October, the prestigious Columbia School of Journalism announced it had stopped accepting applications for its Earth and Environmental Science Journalism program because of “the current weakness in the job market for environmental journalists.” In a letter to its faculty, the school wrote “media organizations across the country are in dire financial straits and thousands of journalists’ jobs have been eliminated. Science and environment beats have been particularly vulnerable.”

Again, this is all happening at a time when we need this kind of experienced coverage most, and when governments and the business community both are giving environmental issues more attention than ever. My own newspaper, the Toronto Star, used to have two environmental reporters a year ago. Through newsroom attrition both positions are vacant, but given plans to downsize the newsroom there appears no desire to fill those spots. It’s discouraging to say the least.

But, hell, we can all take comfort that Sarah Palin is joining Fox News.

Would love to see a trial of this size announced in Ontario, though I’m guessing something is in the works. BTW: Just to get it on the record, Tesla Motors said today it has built its 1,000th vehicle, an impressive milestone. The company, meanwhile, has its new Model S on display at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Tesla will start producing the lower cost Model S (roughly $50,000 after government rebates) in 2012.