The world's worst recorded food disaster happened in 1943 in British-ruled India. Known as the Bengal Famine, an estimated four million people died of hunger that year alone in eastern India (that included today's Bangladesh). The initial theory put forward to 'explain' that catastrophe was that there as an acute shortfall in food production in the area. However, Indian economist Amartya Sen (recipient of the Nobel Prize for Economics, 1998) has established that while food shortage was a contributor to the problem, a more potent factor was the result of hysteria related to World War II which made food supply a low priority for the British rulers. The hysteria was further exploited by Indian traders who hoarded food in order to sell at higher prices.Nevertheless, when the British left India four years later in 1947, India continued to be haunted by memories of the Bengal Famine. It was therefore natural that food security was a paramount item on free India's agenda. This awareness led, on one hand, to the Green Revolution in India and, on the other, legislative measures to ensure that businessmen would never again be able to hoard food for reasons of profit.However, the term "Green Revolution" is applied to the period from 1967 to 1978. Between 1947 and 1967, efforts at achieving food self-sufficiency were not entirely successful. Efforts until 1967 largely concentrated on expanding the farming areas. But starvation deaths were still being reported in the newspapers. In a perfect case of Malthusian economics, population was growing at a much faster rate than food production. This called for drastic action to increase yield. The action came in the form of the Green Revolution.The term "Green Revolution" is a general one that is applied to successful agricultural experiments in many Third World countries. It is NOT specific to India. But it was most successful in India.
What was the Green Revolution in India?
There were three basic elements in the method of the Green Revolution:
(1) Continued expansion of farming areas;
(2) Double-cropping existing farmland;
(3) Using seeds with improved genetics.
Continued expansion of farming areas
As mentioned above, the area of land under cultivation was being increased right from 1947. But this was not enough in meeting with rising demand. Other methods were required. Yet, the expansion of cultivable land also had to continue. So, the Green Revolution continued with this quantitative expansion of farmlands. However, this is NOT the most striking feature of the Revolution.
Double-cropping existing farmland
Double-cropping was a primary feature of the Green Revolution. Instead of one crop season per year, the decision was made to have two crop seasons per year. The one-season-per-year practice was based on the fact that there is only natural monsoon per year. This was correct. So, there had to be two "monsoons" per year. One would be the natural monsoon and the other an artificial 'monsoon.'
The artificial monsoon came in the form of huge irrigation facilities. Dams were built to arrest large volumes of natural monsoon water which were earlier being wasted. Simple irrigation techniques were also adopted.
Using seeds with superior genetics
This was the scientific aspect of the Green Revolution. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (which was established by the British in 1929 but was not known to have done any significant research) was re-organized in 1965 and then again in 1973. It developed new strains of high yield value (HYV) seeds, mainly wheat and rice but also millet and corn. The most noteworthy HYV seed was the K68 variety for wheat. The credit for developing this strain goes to Dr. M.P. Singh who is also regarded as the hero of India's Green revolution.
Statistical Results of the Green Revolution
(1)
The Green Revolution resulted in a record grain output of 131 million tons in 1978-79. This established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers. No other country in the world which attempted the Green Revolution recorded such level of success. India also became an exporter of food grains around that time.
(2)
Yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947 (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods.
(3)
The crop area under HYV varieties grew from seven per cent to 22 per cent of the total cultivated area during the 10 years of the Green Revolution. More than 70 per cent of the wheat crop area, 35 per cent of the rice crop area and 20 per cent of the millet and corn crop area, used the HYV seeds.
Economic results of the Green Revolution
(1)
Crop areas under high-yield varieties needed more water, more fertilizer, more pesticides, fungicides and certain other chemicals. This spurred the growth of the local manufacturing sector. Such industrial growth created new jobs and contributed to the country's GDP.
(2)
The increase in irrigation created need for new dams to harness monsoon water. The water stored was used to create hydro-electric power. This in turn boosted industrial growth, created jobs and improved the quality of life of the people in villages.
(3)
India paid back all loans it had taken from the World Bank and its affiliates for the purpose of the Green Revolution. This improved India's creditworthiness in the eyes of the lending agencies.
(4)
Some developed countries, especially Canada, which were facing a shortage in agricultural labour, were so impressed by the results of India's Green Revolution that they asked the Indian government to supply them with farmers experienced in the methods of the Green Revolution. Many farmers from Punjab and Haryana states in northern India were thus sent to Canada where they settled (That's why Canada today has many Punjabi-speaking citizens of Indian origin). These people remitted part of their incomes to their relatives in India. This not only helped the relatives but also added, albeit modestly, to India's foreign exchange earnings.
Sociological results of the Green Revolution
The Green Revolution created plenty of jobs not only for agricultural workers but also industrial workers by the creation of lateral facilities such as factories and hydro-electric power stations as explained above.
Political results of the Green Revolution
(1)
India transformed itself from a starving nation to an exporter of food. This earned admiration for India in the comity of nations, especially in the Third World.
(2)
The Green Revolution was one factor that made Mrs. Indira Gandhi (1917-84) and her party, the Indian National Congress, a very powerful political force in India (it would however be wrong to say that it was the only reason).
Limitations of the Green Revolution
(1)
Even today, India's agricultural output sometimes falls short of demand. The Green Revolution, howsoever impressive, has thus NOT succeeded in making India totally and permanently self-sufficient in food. In 1979 and 1987, India faced severe drought conditions due to poor monsoon; this raised questions about the whether the Green Revolution was really a long-term achievement. In 1998, India had to import onions. Last year, India imported sugar.
However, in today's globalised economic scenario, 100 per cent self-sufficiency is not considered as vital a target as it was when the world political climate was more dangerous due to the Cold War.
(2)
India has failed to extend the concept of high-yield value seeds to all crops or all regions. In terms of crops, it remain largely confined to foodgrains only, not to all kinds of agricultural produce. In regional terms, only Punjab and Haryana states showed the best results of the Green Revolution. The eastern plains of the River Ganges in West Bengal state also showed reasonably good results. But results were less impressive in other parts of India.
(3)
Nothing like the Bengal Famine can happen in India again. But it is disturbing to note that even today, there are places like Kalahandi (in India's eastern state of Orissa) where famine-like conditions have been existing for many years and where some starvation deaths have also been reported. Of course, this is due to reasons other than availability of food in India, but the very fact that some people are still starving in India (whatever the reason may be), brings into question whether the Green Revolution has failed in its overall social objectives though it has been a resounding success in terms of agricultural production.
(4)
The Green Revolution cannot therefore be considered to be a 100 percent success
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Perceptions of Classroom Psychosocial Environment
Relationships between students’ affective and cognitive outcomes and their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment as measured by the Individualized Classroom Environment Questionnaire (ICEQ) and the Classroom Environment Scale (CES) were investigated for a sample of 1,083 junior high school students in 116 classrooms. Six different statistical analyses (simple correlation, multiple correlation, and canonical correlation analysis conducted separately for raw post-test scores and residual posttest scores adjusted for corresponding pretest and general ability) revealed sizable environment-outcome associations. Further analyses showed that the ICEQ and CES made appreciable, unique contributions to explaining outcome variance, and that the magnitudes of environment-outcome relationships were larger when the class was employed as the unit of analysis than when the student was used.
India’s new mineral policy will usher in gloom for adivasis
India’s new mineral policy is long on ways to maximise the benefits of mining for “the economy” but short on measures to alleviate the social and environmental destruction that mining activity inevitably brings in its wake
India is rich in mineral resources but most of these minerals are to be found in remote forested areas and the watersheds of major rivers, areas that are largely inhabited by tribal peoples or adivasis.
According to the union ministry of mines, the country ranks first in the world in the production of mica blocks and splitting, third in chromites, lignite, coal and barytes, fourth in iron ore and sixth in bauxite and manganese ore. This mineral wealth and its exploitation have substantially contributed to the growth of the national economy. The gross value of mineral production in India in 1995 was estimated to be approximately Rs 270,000 million, up from about Rs1,800 million in 1961. Mineral resources contributed 2% to the country’s GDP and constituted 20% of its exports in 2001.
Since 1991, when the economy was liberalised, private companies have begun to play an important role in the mining sector. The government thus felt the need for a new mineral policy, and in April 2008, the United Progressive Alliance government released the new National Mineral Policy (for non-coal and non-fuel minerals).
Salient features of the National Mineral Policy (NMP) 2008
The document emphasises at the outset the abundance of mineral resources in the country and the need for scientific prospecting, state-of the-art technology and economic utilisation (2.1).
Its focus is on improving the regulatory environment to “make it more conducive to investment and technology flows” (2.2).
The policymakers are also aware that mining has social and environmental impacts, so they suggest “a framework for sustainable development” and protection of the interests of the “host and indigenous (tribal) population …through comprehensive relief and rehabilitation packages” (2.3). However this has to be done in order to ensure the availability and proximity of the minerals to industry (2.4), the economic efficiency of the sector (2.5), new sources of revenue for the states (2.6), research and development of exploration techniques, technologies and economic efficiency through optimal use of minerals and training for this purpose (2.7).
Embracing capitalism
In January 2001, the late President KR Narayanan in his address to the nation on the eve of Republic Day referred to the “dilemmas of development” and asked the country to consider carefully how it chose to develop its mining industry. “While the nation must benefit from the exploitation of these mineral resources, we will have also to take into consideration questions of environmental protection and the rights of the tribals,” he said.
The National Mining Policy (NMP) 2008 addresses none of these concerns. Not only does the policy not address the social and environmental consequences of mining, it actually has the potential to aggravate the situation in terms of displacement, deforestation, environmental degradation, and water scarcity.
The emphasis of the NMP 2008 is on extracting minerals for the economic development of the country. The development of the people who live in the areas to be mined has been ignored. International mining companies are already jumping at the opportunity of getting at the impressive reserves of minerals. Firms like De Beers of South Africa and the Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto have acquired huge prospecting rights in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. The human rights record and environmental practices of these companies have been controversial.
Mineral-rich states such as Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have been critical of the policy. The chief minister of Orissa went to the extent of alleging that the policy was being influenced by the international mining lobby and that it is against the national interest. He alleged that the policy favours private international companies and undermines the role of the public sector.
However, these criticisms are restricted to the economic implications of the policy. Their main concern is that the state may lose out on royalties. They have not commented on the absence of any measures that would limit the negative social and environmental fallout of mining. In fact the Orissa government has in the past violated and manipulated various environmental and human rights guidelines for issuing mining rights to private companies as is well demonstrated in the case of the Vedanta Lanjigarh project and the POSCO projects.
Two other aspects of the NMP that bear questioning are its emphasis on more mechanised forms of mining, and its reliance on private equity and foreign direct investment.
The policy makes a strong push for more mechanised, less labour-intensive mining, where the industry will largely depend on “skilled” labour with a high level of technical competence. It also proposes to substantially increase the scale of privatisation. Risk investment in survey and prospecting, joint ventures and public-private partnerships are the clear mandates of the policy. Moreover, by making environmental regulations voluntary, in the form of the Sustainable Development Framework (SDF), the NMP proposes to privatise environmental and social regulations in mining. Environmental protection is further compromised by the fact that the policy prescribes no deterrents for non-compliance.
Impact on adivasis and the environment
While the emphasis of the NMP 2008 is on extracting minerals for economic development of the country, it pays scant attention to the impact this burgeoning mining activity will have on the environment and the livelihood of local people. Mining always has serious consequences for displacement of people, deforestation, environmental degradation, water scarcity, etc, and these should be seriously addressed in any mining policy. The situation will be further aggravated when the government amends the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act of 1957 to implement the policy directives of the NMP.
The NMP is ambiguous on the subject of rehabilitation and resettlement of the large numbers of adivasis who will be displaced from their lands. Most adivasis are marginal landowners or landless farmers, with no official records to prove their rights over the lands they have been living on and cultivating for centuries. They are thus unlikely to get any compensation or appropriate rehabilitation if a strictly legalistic approach is adopted.
Mining activity hitherto has neither brought any benefits to local populations nor has it shown any concern for the environment as these facts will show:
In India, there exists an inverse relationship between mineral production and economic growth. Sixty per cent of the top 50 mineral-producing districts are among the 150 most backward districts of the country even after decades of mining.
More and more forest land has been diverted for mining, violating the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. During 1998-2005, 216 mining projects were granted forest clearance annually, as against 19 per year during 1980-97.
Mining projects have displaced around 25.5 lakh people during 1950-1991, and 52% of the people displaced are adivasis.
Chhattisgarh, which has a large tribal population, is one of the richest states in India in terms of mineral wealth. The mineral-rich districts of Bastar, Surguja, Korba and Dantewada are also tribal dominated and heavily forested. New mining projects are coming up in these districts which are among the most backward districts of the state in terms of human and social indicators.
Mining impacts negatively on the ecosystems of the area. In Korba district of Chhattisgarh, mining activity has affected around 78% of the forest area. According to a 2006 study by the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, 6% of forest land has been completely converted for industrial purposes, 55% changed into barren and waste land, and around 17% became highly degraded forest.
West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand has abundant reserves of iron ore and forests, and 66% of its population is adivasi. Large-scale mining has not brought progress to the peoples here. Almost 50% of the population lives below the poverty line and a significant 19% of households are not food sufficient.
Forty per cent of the mineral-rich regions are affected by Naxalite insurgency – radicals who use force to overthrow or destabilise existing administrations that they see as corrupt and anti-poor. In Chhattisgarh, the government has pitted the adivasi population against the Naxals under the Salwa Judum, which it calls a peace campaign. This has divided the adivasis who were resisting industrial activity, including mining. This conflict has led to the displacement of about 80,000 people in the state.
Conclusion
As the global economy expands, the pressure on adivasi lands to yield minerals will intensify. Mining is a short-term activity with long-term effects. Though the NMP 2008 talks about scientific mining, it is an unsustainable activity and is based on the extraction of non-renewable resources. Millions of people lose their livelihoods because of mining and it has also become the main cause of social unrest, widespread human rights violation, health hazards for people and environmental degradation.
While it is true that the country needs minerals for infrastructure development, it is equally true that over-consumption by one section of society is destroying the livelihoods and environments of another section, which is at the receiving end of mining. Decades of mining have not contributed much to the economic betterment of local populations and this is particularly true of marginalised groups such as the adivasis. Poor development and marginalisation create conditions for social tensions. Mining is an activity that needs to be strictly controlled at all stages. Above all, people living in mining areas should have the capacity to take fully-informed decisions on allowing mining in their territories or decide on how to carry out the activity and ensure environmental conservation and social justice. The new NMP needs to examine these issues with a sense of urgency. The policy itself needs to be brought to centrestage and widely discussed.
India is rich in mineral resources but most of these minerals are to be found in remote forested areas and the watersheds of major rivers, areas that are largely inhabited by tribal peoples or adivasis.
According to the union ministry of mines, the country ranks first in the world in the production of mica blocks and splitting, third in chromites, lignite, coal and barytes, fourth in iron ore and sixth in bauxite and manganese ore. This mineral wealth and its exploitation have substantially contributed to the growth of the national economy. The gross value of mineral production in India in 1995 was estimated to be approximately Rs 270,000 million, up from about Rs1,800 million in 1961. Mineral resources contributed 2% to the country’s GDP and constituted 20% of its exports in 2001.
Since 1991, when the economy was liberalised, private companies have begun to play an important role in the mining sector. The government thus felt the need for a new mineral policy, and in April 2008, the United Progressive Alliance government released the new National Mineral Policy (for non-coal and non-fuel minerals).
Salient features of the National Mineral Policy (NMP) 2008
The document emphasises at the outset the abundance of mineral resources in the country and the need for scientific prospecting, state-of the-art technology and economic utilisation (2.1).
Its focus is on improving the regulatory environment to “make it more conducive to investment and technology flows” (2.2).
The policymakers are also aware that mining has social and environmental impacts, so they suggest “a framework for sustainable development” and protection of the interests of the “host and indigenous (tribal) population …through comprehensive relief and rehabilitation packages” (2.3). However this has to be done in order to ensure the availability and proximity of the minerals to industry (2.4), the economic efficiency of the sector (2.5), new sources of revenue for the states (2.6), research and development of exploration techniques, technologies and economic efficiency through optimal use of minerals and training for this purpose (2.7).
Embracing capitalism
In January 2001, the late President KR Narayanan in his address to the nation on the eve of Republic Day referred to the “dilemmas of development” and asked the country to consider carefully how it chose to develop its mining industry. “While the nation must benefit from the exploitation of these mineral resources, we will have also to take into consideration questions of environmental protection and the rights of the tribals,” he said.
The National Mining Policy (NMP) 2008 addresses none of these concerns. Not only does the policy not address the social and environmental consequences of mining, it actually has the potential to aggravate the situation in terms of displacement, deforestation, environmental degradation, and water scarcity.
The emphasis of the NMP 2008 is on extracting minerals for the economic development of the country. The development of the people who live in the areas to be mined has been ignored. International mining companies are already jumping at the opportunity of getting at the impressive reserves of minerals. Firms like De Beers of South Africa and the Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto have acquired huge prospecting rights in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. The human rights record and environmental practices of these companies have been controversial.
Mineral-rich states such as Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh have been critical of the policy. The chief minister of Orissa went to the extent of alleging that the policy was being influenced by the international mining lobby and that it is against the national interest. He alleged that the policy favours private international companies and undermines the role of the public sector.
However, these criticisms are restricted to the economic implications of the policy. Their main concern is that the state may lose out on royalties. They have not commented on the absence of any measures that would limit the negative social and environmental fallout of mining. In fact the Orissa government has in the past violated and manipulated various environmental and human rights guidelines for issuing mining rights to private companies as is well demonstrated in the case of the Vedanta Lanjigarh project and the POSCO projects.
Two other aspects of the NMP that bear questioning are its emphasis on more mechanised forms of mining, and its reliance on private equity and foreign direct investment.
The policy makes a strong push for more mechanised, less labour-intensive mining, where the industry will largely depend on “skilled” labour with a high level of technical competence. It also proposes to substantially increase the scale of privatisation. Risk investment in survey and prospecting, joint ventures and public-private partnerships are the clear mandates of the policy. Moreover, by making environmental regulations voluntary, in the form of the Sustainable Development Framework (SDF), the NMP proposes to privatise environmental and social regulations in mining. Environmental protection is further compromised by the fact that the policy prescribes no deterrents for non-compliance.
Impact on adivasis and the environment
While the emphasis of the NMP 2008 is on extracting minerals for economic development of the country, it pays scant attention to the impact this burgeoning mining activity will have on the environment and the livelihood of local people. Mining always has serious consequences for displacement of people, deforestation, environmental degradation, water scarcity, etc, and these should be seriously addressed in any mining policy. The situation will be further aggravated when the government amends the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act of 1957 to implement the policy directives of the NMP.
The NMP is ambiguous on the subject of rehabilitation and resettlement of the large numbers of adivasis who will be displaced from their lands. Most adivasis are marginal landowners or landless farmers, with no official records to prove their rights over the lands they have been living on and cultivating for centuries. They are thus unlikely to get any compensation or appropriate rehabilitation if a strictly legalistic approach is adopted.
Mining activity hitherto has neither brought any benefits to local populations nor has it shown any concern for the environment as these facts will show:
In India, there exists an inverse relationship between mineral production and economic growth. Sixty per cent of the top 50 mineral-producing districts are among the 150 most backward districts of the country even after decades of mining.
More and more forest land has been diverted for mining, violating the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. During 1998-2005, 216 mining projects were granted forest clearance annually, as against 19 per year during 1980-97.
Mining projects have displaced around 25.5 lakh people during 1950-1991, and 52% of the people displaced are adivasis.
Chhattisgarh, which has a large tribal population, is one of the richest states in India in terms of mineral wealth. The mineral-rich districts of Bastar, Surguja, Korba and Dantewada are also tribal dominated and heavily forested. New mining projects are coming up in these districts which are among the most backward districts of the state in terms of human and social indicators.
Mining impacts negatively on the ecosystems of the area. In Korba district of Chhattisgarh, mining activity has affected around 78% of the forest area. According to a 2006 study by the Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, 6% of forest land has been completely converted for industrial purposes, 55% changed into barren and waste land, and around 17% became highly degraded forest.
West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand has abundant reserves of iron ore and forests, and 66% of its population is adivasi. Large-scale mining has not brought progress to the peoples here. Almost 50% of the population lives below the poverty line and a significant 19% of households are not food sufficient.
Forty per cent of the mineral-rich regions are affected by Naxalite insurgency – radicals who use force to overthrow or destabilise existing administrations that they see as corrupt and anti-poor. In Chhattisgarh, the government has pitted the adivasi population against the Naxals under the Salwa Judum, which it calls a peace campaign. This has divided the adivasis who were resisting industrial activity, including mining. This conflict has led to the displacement of about 80,000 people in the state.
Conclusion
As the global economy expands, the pressure on adivasi lands to yield minerals will intensify. Mining is a short-term activity with long-term effects. Though the NMP 2008 talks about scientific mining, it is an unsustainable activity and is based on the extraction of non-renewable resources. Millions of people lose their livelihoods because of mining and it has also become the main cause of social unrest, widespread human rights violation, health hazards for people and environmental degradation.
While it is true that the country needs minerals for infrastructure development, it is equally true that over-consumption by one section of society is destroying the livelihoods and environments of another section, which is at the receiving end of mining. Decades of mining have not contributed much to the economic betterment of local populations and this is particularly true of marginalised groups such as the adivasis. Poor development and marginalisation create conditions for social tensions. Mining is an activity that needs to be strictly controlled at all stages. Above all, people living in mining areas should have the capacity to take fully-informed decisions on allowing mining in their territories or decide on how to carry out the activity and ensure environmental conservation and social justice. The new NMP needs to examine these issues with a sense of urgency. The policy itself needs to be brought to centrestage and widely discussed.
Handful of players seen ruling the solar roost
Solar panel makers from California to China are gearing up to capture a slice of the growing U.S. market for utility-scale solar power plants, but just a handful of players are expected to snap up most of the business in the coming years.
U.S. players First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp and China's Suntech Power Holdings are widely expected to be the primary winners of large photovoltaic solar projects in the United States in the next few years, with the first two already firmly entrenched in the market.
"I don't think the utility landscape is going to become as competitive as the commercial market, because the barriers to entry are much higher," said Barclays Capital analyst Vishal Shah. "It takes a long time to prove your technology to the utility so they can be comfortable. So from that standpoint it limits the competition only to a handful of players."
For much of the last two years, investors have been banking on an eventual boom in solar power plants in the United States due to increased concerns about climate change that have ushered in generous government incentives for clean energy. That optimism has only intensified in recent months despite a weak global economy and tight credit markets that have hampered development of green power projects this year.
Efforts by the Obama administration to speed development of renewable energy, state mandates for renewable power and a dramatic drop in the cost of solar panels mean "the U.S. market could potentially (and finally) become 'the promised land' that investors have been waiting for since late 2007," FBR Capital Markets analyst Mehdi Hosseini said in a June research note.
But cashing in, at least in terms of securing the biggest projects, may be a tough sell for all but a select few.
With power plant-sized solar projects costing roughly $1 billion to build, according to Shah, developers and utilities are not willing to take chances on emerging technologies and are even skittish about snapping up panels from the flood of new Chinese manufacturers, despite their rock-bottom prices.
"There is a perception of a quality difference" between U.S. and Chinese panels, said Bank of America/Merrill Lynch analyst Steve Milunovich, who added that the U.S. utility market is shaping up to be a race between First Solar, SunPower and Suntech.
"It will be a fairly oligopolistic market," he said.
SUPPORTING THE WARRANTY
The financial health of panel suppliers is more important than ever, one utility executive said, given the global recession that has made even solar companies struggle to stay profitable.
Utilities have to be sure about not just the quality of the panels and their track record, but "the ability of the manufacturer to support their product during the warranty period" of 10 to 20 years, said Southern California Edison's director of generation planning and strategy, Mark Nelson.
For that reason, First Solar and SunPower have snapped up a string of contracts over the last few years, mostly in California, and are by far the biggest photovoltaic players in the utility market today.
The Golden State's utilities, including PG&E Corp's Pacific Gas & Electric, Edison International's Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric, are required to obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, and 33 percent by 2020.
First Solar, whose low-cost panels are made from cadmium telluride, is widely considered the market leader. Milunovich estimates that the company enjoys half the solar backlog in the U.S. utility market
But with recent steep declines in the cost of polysilicon, the raw material in traditional solar panels, silicon-based panels -- including those made by Suntech and SunPower -- are now more competitive with First Solar's products.
Southern California Edison, which has contracted First Solar to build the first two megawatts of its 250-megawatt rooftop solar program, may seek more suppliers for the rest of the project, Nelson said, depending on the bidding process.
SunPower's panels, though not the cheapest, are much in demand because they are most efficient at transforming sunlight into energy. The San Jose, California, company also benefits from having recognized the market potential early on and proven its technology to potential utility customers over a number of years, Shah said.
No. 1 Chinese panel maker Suntech, however, is nipping at the heels of its U.S. rivals and does not face the same quality concerns as many of its Chinese peers.
"As Suntech moves up I don't think there is going to be any difference there," Milunovich said. "They are going to be competitive."
To establish itself in the U.S. utility market, Suntech last year formed a joint venture called Gemini Solar Development Company LLC with solar developer Renewable Ventures, which was acquired by privately held Spanish power producer Fotowatio in March.
So far the group has secured a 30-megawatt project for Texas municipal utility Austin Energy, and Suntech is seeking to build a U.S. manufacturing plant ahead of an anticipated boom in the utility market.
Chinese panel maker Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd is also expected to make some inroads into the U.S. market thanks to a new supply deal with solar developer AES Solar, a joint venture between power producer AES Corp and private equity firm Riverstone Holdings LLC.
U.S. players First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp and China's Suntech Power Holdings are widely expected to be the primary winners of large photovoltaic solar projects in the United States in the next few years, with the first two already firmly entrenched in the market.
"I don't think the utility landscape is going to become as competitive as the commercial market, because the barriers to entry are much higher," said Barclays Capital analyst Vishal Shah. "It takes a long time to prove your technology to the utility so they can be comfortable. So from that standpoint it limits the competition only to a handful of players."
For much of the last two years, investors have been banking on an eventual boom in solar power plants in the United States due to increased concerns about climate change that have ushered in generous government incentives for clean energy. That optimism has only intensified in recent months despite a weak global economy and tight credit markets that have hampered development of green power projects this year.
Efforts by the Obama administration to speed development of renewable energy, state mandates for renewable power and a dramatic drop in the cost of solar panels mean "the U.S. market could potentially (and finally) become 'the promised land' that investors have been waiting for since late 2007," FBR Capital Markets analyst Mehdi Hosseini said in a June research note.
But cashing in, at least in terms of securing the biggest projects, may be a tough sell for all but a select few.
With power plant-sized solar projects costing roughly $1 billion to build, according to Shah, developers and utilities are not willing to take chances on emerging technologies and are even skittish about snapping up panels from the flood of new Chinese manufacturers, despite their rock-bottom prices.
"There is a perception of a quality difference" between U.S. and Chinese panels, said Bank of America/Merrill Lynch analyst Steve Milunovich, who added that the U.S. utility market is shaping up to be a race between First Solar, SunPower and Suntech.
"It will be a fairly oligopolistic market," he said.
SUPPORTING THE WARRANTY
The financial health of panel suppliers is more important than ever, one utility executive said, given the global recession that has made even solar companies struggle to stay profitable.
Utilities have to be sure about not just the quality of the panels and their track record, but "the ability of the manufacturer to support their product during the warranty period" of 10 to 20 years, said Southern California Edison's director of generation planning and strategy, Mark Nelson.
For that reason, First Solar and SunPower have snapped up a string of contracts over the last few years, mostly in California, and are by far the biggest photovoltaic players in the utility market today.
The Golden State's utilities, including PG&E Corp's Pacific Gas & Electric, Edison International's Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy's San Diego Gas & Electric, are required to obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, and 33 percent by 2020.
First Solar, whose low-cost panels are made from cadmium telluride, is widely considered the market leader. Milunovich estimates that the company enjoys half the solar backlog in the U.S. utility market
But with recent steep declines in the cost of polysilicon, the raw material in traditional solar panels, silicon-based panels -- including those made by Suntech and SunPower -- are now more competitive with First Solar's products.
Southern California Edison, which has contracted First Solar to build the first two megawatts of its 250-megawatt rooftop solar program, may seek more suppliers for the rest of the project, Nelson said, depending on the bidding process.
SunPower's panels, though not the cheapest, are much in demand because they are most efficient at transforming sunlight into energy. The San Jose, California, company also benefits from having recognized the market potential early on and proven its technology to potential utility customers over a number of years, Shah said.
No. 1 Chinese panel maker Suntech, however, is nipping at the heels of its U.S. rivals and does not face the same quality concerns as many of its Chinese peers.
"As Suntech moves up I don't think there is going to be any difference there," Milunovich said. "They are going to be competitive."
To establish itself in the U.S. utility market, Suntech last year formed a joint venture called Gemini Solar Development Company LLC with solar developer Renewable Ventures, which was acquired by privately held Spanish power producer Fotowatio in March.
So far the group has secured a 30-megawatt project for Texas municipal utility Austin Energy, and Suntech is seeking to build a U.S. manufacturing plant ahead of an anticipated boom in the utility market.
Chinese panel maker Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd is also expected to make some inroads into the U.S. market thanks to a new supply deal with solar developer AES Solar, a joint venture between power producer AES Corp and private equity firm Riverstone Holdings LLC.
New York inches closer to offshore wind farm
Government agencies and power companies said on Wednesday they are gauging interest from developers and manufacturers about building a wind farm about 13 miles off the New York city coast that could end up being the largest such project in the United States.
The Long Island Power Authority, the New York Power Authority, other agencies and Consolidated Edison Inc hope to build the 350 megawatt wind farm off the Rockaway Peninsula in the Atlantic.
Potentially, the project could be expanded to 700 MW, giving it a shot of being the biggest U.S. offshore wind farm. One megawatt powers about 1,000 homes in New York, but wind does not blow all of the time.
Taking stock of the interest of developers is a precursor to issuing a request for proposal for the project which is anticipated for release by the end of the year, the collaboration said.
"There clearly is growing interest in this proposal by many parties," Kevin Burke, chairman and CEO of Con Edison, said in a release.
"If the technical, environmental, economic and social challenges can be met, and we have the support of government, energy and environmental leaders, I am confident this project will be built and produce enormous benefits for our region," he said.
The group did not offer a price estimate for the project, but according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a work that size would cost about $1.35 billion to $2.7 billion.
Also on Wednesday, New York's state power authority said it had selected five firms to study the possibility of building an offshore wind farm on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in western New York.
Such projects are consistent with New York Gov. David Paterson's "45 by 15" program, which establishes the goal for the state to meet 45 percent of its electricity needs through energy efficiency and renewable sources by 2015.
The Rockaway project would not be the first time a large wind farm was planned in the region.
The LIPA proposed the construction of a 40-turbine wind farm that would have produced 140 MW of energy off the shore of Jones Beach on the south shore of Long Island. The project was canceled in 2007 after estimates it would cost $800 million, more than double the initial estimate.
The Long Island Power Authority, the New York Power Authority, other agencies and Consolidated Edison Inc hope to build the 350 megawatt wind farm off the Rockaway Peninsula in the Atlantic.
Potentially, the project could be expanded to 700 MW, giving it a shot of being the biggest U.S. offshore wind farm. One megawatt powers about 1,000 homes in New York, but wind does not blow all of the time.
Taking stock of the interest of developers is a precursor to issuing a request for proposal for the project which is anticipated for release by the end of the year, the collaboration said.
"There clearly is growing interest in this proposal by many parties," Kevin Burke, chairman and CEO of Con Edison, said in a release.
"If the technical, environmental, economic and social challenges can be met, and we have the support of government, energy and environmental leaders, I am confident this project will be built and produce enormous benefits for our region," he said.
The group did not offer a price estimate for the project, but according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a work that size would cost about $1.35 billion to $2.7 billion.
Also on Wednesday, New York's state power authority said it had selected five firms to study the possibility of building an offshore wind farm on Lake Erie and Lake Ontario in western New York.
Such projects are consistent with New York Gov. David Paterson's "45 by 15" program, which establishes the goal for the state to meet 45 percent of its electricity needs through energy efficiency and renewable sources by 2015.
The Rockaway project would not be the first time a large wind farm was planned in the region.
The LIPA proposed the construction of a 40-turbine wind farm that would have produced 140 MW of energy off the shore of Jones Beach on the south shore of Long Island. The project was canceled in 2007 after estimates it would cost $800 million, more than double the initial estimate.
Green stocks flourish despite demand concerns
While green shoots of economic recovery are appearing only tentatively, green stocks are showing no such hesitation.
Since March, clean energy stocks have put together a mighty rally, outpacing the U.S. equities market as a whole. While some see it as a harbinger of increased demand for companies providing cleaner sources of energy, others say it merely reflects the benefit of being on the right side of political trends, thanks to initiatives from China, the United States and other countries.
Three major indexes tracking green energy companies have risen sharply of late. The U.S.-only Wilderhill Clean Energy Index, comprising 51 companies, is up 72 percent since a March 9 low. Its global counterpart, the Wilderhill New Energy Global Index, which tracks 88 companies in 21 countries, is up 66 percent in the same period.
The CleanTech Index, which tracks a broader group, including industries like sustainable agriculture, is up 57 percent. By comparison, the S&P 500 is up 35 percent since hitting a 12-year low on March 9.
Analysts see some of the rally as a corrective recovery after green stocks took a drubbing last year. Hammered by the drop in the price of oil and the credit freeze, the Wilderhill indexes plunged 70 percent, and the Cleantech Index 50 percent, in 2008. The indexes are still off 2007 peaks.
The stocks in question tend to be volatile small-cap and mid-cap names, and so it isn't rare for stocks to move 20 percent in a day -- the biggest company in the domestic Wilderhill index is Applied Materials Inc, worth $14 billion. The stocks are also not widely followed by Wall Street research, causing some swings in pricing.
"When the tape is down one percent, the group is down three percent," says Rob Stone, an analyst at Cowen and Co in Boston.
Stone is bullish on solar stocks, thanks to plenty of initiatives likely to drive demand.
The climate change bill passed by the U.S. House a week ago and now being considered by the Senate could be a boost to all renewables. Even without that, January's U.S. stimulus package allotted $37 billion to clean technology companies, money that should start to flow by the fall.
Large-scale solar power plants are expected to begin construction in coming years in the United States, though the bigger companies, such as First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp, are likely to get most of the business.
China, meanwhile, is set to announce a national feed-in tariff this year that would open a vast market to providers. U.S.-listed shares of Chinese solar companies like Yingli Green Energy Holding Co and Trina Solar Ltd have surged in anticipation.
PRICING PRESSURES
Still, some say the green stocks rally is a house built on the shifting sands of political chance.
"Rather than being judged by consumer preference, these technologies are dependent on temporary political majorities for their viability," says Robert Bradley Jr., chief executive of the Institute of Energy Research, a conservative non-profit.
Cost has also been an issue. Solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, though Stone points out that polysilicon, the main raw material in photovoltaic solar panels, was trading at $400 a kilogram ($180 a pound) a year ago, and is now $60 a kilogram.
Similarly, the price of solar cells has dropped by about half in the last year as a result of reduced demand and a glut of supply. Analysts eventually hope solar can compete with fossil fuels as an energy source. Prudential Financial has just launched a green commodity index tracking prices of biofuels and other raw materials.
The recession itself is keeping some cautious, and the sharp declines in these stocks in 2008 suggests that investors still cast a fickle eye toward these names. As the industry grows, that belief should change.
"We're in the bullish camp on long-term solar potential," said Matt Schultz, analyst at Battle Road Research of Waltham, Massachusetts.
"Right now, it is in the transition period from growth story to a maturing industry made up of long-term businesses not dependent on government largesse."
Since March, clean energy stocks have put together a mighty rally, outpacing the U.S. equities market as a whole. While some see it as a harbinger of increased demand for companies providing cleaner sources of energy, others say it merely reflects the benefit of being on the right side of political trends, thanks to initiatives from China, the United States and other countries.
Three major indexes tracking green energy companies have risen sharply of late. The U.S.-only Wilderhill Clean Energy Index, comprising 51 companies, is up 72 percent since a March 9 low. Its global counterpart, the Wilderhill New Energy Global Index, which tracks 88 companies in 21 countries, is up 66 percent in the same period.
The CleanTech Index, which tracks a broader group, including industries like sustainable agriculture, is up 57 percent. By comparison, the S&P 500 is up 35 percent since hitting a 12-year low on March 9.
Analysts see some of the rally as a corrective recovery after green stocks took a drubbing last year. Hammered by the drop in the price of oil and the credit freeze, the Wilderhill indexes plunged 70 percent, and the Cleantech Index 50 percent, in 2008. The indexes are still off 2007 peaks.
The stocks in question tend to be volatile small-cap and mid-cap names, and so it isn't rare for stocks to move 20 percent in a day -- the biggest company in the domestic Wilderhill index is Applied Materials Inc, worth $14 billion. The stocks are also not widely followed by Wall Street research, causing some swings in pricing.
"When the tape is down one percent, the group is down three percent," says Rob Stone, an analyst at Cowen and Co in Boston.
Stone is bullish on solar stocks, thanks to plenty of initiatives likely to drive demand.
The climate change bill passed by the U.S. House a week ago and now being considered by the Senate could be a boost to all renewables. Even without that, January's U.S. stimulus package allotted $37 billion to clean technology companies, money that should start to flow by the fall.
Large-scale solar power plants are expected to begin construction in coming years in the United States, though the bigger companies, such as First Solar Inc and SunPower Corp, are likely to get most of the business.
China, meanwhile, is set to announce a national feed-in tariff this year that would open a vast market to providers. U.S.-listed shares of Chinese solar companies like Yingli Green Energy Holding Co and Trina Solar Ltd have surged in anticipation.
PRICING PRESSURES
Still, some say the green stocks rally is a house built on the shifting sands of political chance.
"Rather than being judged by consumer preference, these technologies are dependent on temporary political majorities for their viability," says Robert Bradley Jr., chief executive of the Institute of Energy Research, a conservative non-profit.
Cost has also been an issue. Solar is still more expensive than fossil fuels, though Stone points out that polysilicon, the main raw material in photovoltaic solar panels, was trading at $400 a kilogram ($180 a pound) a year ago, and is now $60 a kilogram.
Similarly, the price of solar cells has dropped by about half in the last year as a result of reduced demand and a glut of supply. Analysts eventually hope solar can compete with fossil fuels as an energy source. Prudential Financial has just launched a green commodity index tracking prices of biofuels and other raw materials.
The recession itself is keeping some cautious, and the sharp declines in these stocks in 2008 suggests that investors still cast a fickle eye toward these names. As the industry grows, that belief should change.
"We're in the bullish camp on long-term solar potential," said Matt Schultz, analyst at Battle Road Research of Waltham, Massachusetts.
"Right now, it is in the transition period from growth story to a maturing industry made up of long-term businesses not dependent on government largesse."
Preliminary notification on sanctuary issued
The government has issued gazette notification declaring its intention to constitute the proposed Malabar Wildlife Sanctuary. The sanctuary will consist of 7,421.50 hectares in Chakkittapara and Chembanoda villages of Koyilandy taluk in Kozhikode district. These include the reserve forests of Pannikottoor and Kakkayam and vested forests of Karampara Mala and Olathukki Malavaram and Sankaranpuzha, Athikode and the water-spread area of the Kakkayam reservoir. Out of about 2,200 hectares of Pannikottoor forests, about 400 had been excluded from the sanctuary. Of that, about 115 hectares had been identified for the proposed Tiger Safari Park while 94 hectares had been leased out to the Indian Institute of Spices Research. The balance is fragmented areas. From the vested forests, nearly 557 hectares of ecologically fragile lands have been excluded as disputes over their takeover remain to be settled. The notification said that the richness of biodiversity and conservational significance of the proposed sanctuary area had been identified by various agencies. So, the government found it necessary to declare the area as a wildlife sanctuary for protecting the ecological, faunal, floral, geo-morphological and natural wealth and ensuring its long-term conservation. Since the rights over the said reserve forests and vested forests were yet to be settled, the government had decided to notify the proposed sanctuary under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. (This enables the Collector to settle the claims within the area intended to be declared as a sanctuary). Preliminary ecological studies of the forests of Kakkayam by the Malabar Natural History Society have shown that the area was rich in diversity of flora and fauna. Topographically, the area is situated in a plateau rugged with steep hills of the Western Ghats, which suddenly rises from 50 metres to 1,600 metres within the reserve. It was once a good patch of wet evergreen forest, fragmented later by the construction of the Kuttiyadi hydro-electric project, plantations and human settlements. Now, it is the only evergreen patch left in Kozhikode district. Once the area was contiguous with the forests of the Brahmagiri Hills. The forests form the catchments of the Kakkayam and Peruvannamoozhi reservoirs. More than 40 species of mammals have been recorded from the reserve, including three endemic to the Western Ghats. Brown Palm Civet, one of the rarely recorded civet species of the Western Ghats, occurs in the area besides elephants, a small population of lion-tailed macaques and other animals. The area also harbours more than 110 species of birds, including eight endemics, six restricted range species and two globally threatened species (Kerala laughing thrush and Wayanad laughing thrush). It is also the habitat of king cobra, python and many rare and endemic amphibian species. Endangered game fish Mahseer has also been reported from there. In addition 94 species of butterflies (including 14 endemics) and 24 species of dragon flies have been recorded in the region.
Â
Â
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)