Home Based Business Network

Home Based Business Network

Renewable energy execs say change comes too slowly

LAS VEGAS (Reuters) - Renewable energy leaders on Monday said the United States is moving too slowly to turn the economy green, despite support of the administration of President Barack Obama.
Executives from companies seeking profits in the ever more popular world of "cleantech" aired their complaints at the National Clean Energy Summit sponsored by Senate Majority Leader and Nevada Democrat Harry Reid.
The conference, which included clean environment advocates and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and others, was a pitch session of sorts for new technologies from renewable energy chief executives.
More often than not, those executives said that they could better deploy the products to help the environment if the government did not make it so hard and provided better incentives.
High-tech building supplies and window maker Serious Materials Chairman Marc Porat said his company is retrofitting homes with insulating panes that were five times more effective than traditional ones.
But it wasn't going fast in terms of replacing all the windows in the United States. "We are on a 10,000 year trajectory," he said.
BrightSource Energy President and Chief Executive John Woolard said that he was "two and a half years into a one-year process" to get permission to build a California solar thermal plant, which would use heat from the sun to power a turbine.
"I'm here to tell you from the front lines, it is not an easy thing," he said, arguing that every project delay backed up the projects behind it. "If you look at the sense of scale, we are losing ground," he said.
Technology transfer of U.S. inventions overseas and lack of investment funds at home also concerned many around the table of more than 20 speakers, who were given a few minutes each.
"Most of our materials go offshore," said Stephanie Burns, chief executive of Dow Corning, which makes solar-power system components. Potential factory builders needed cash. "They need access to financing," she said.
The U.S. Southwest is full of deserts and windy mountain passes that are turning the region into a renewables leader, but not fast enough for many, even as the U.S. Congress considers a climate change bill.
"The technology is there, scalability is the issue," said Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat from Washington, summarizing speeches in the morning.
Clear policy would make building big projects easier, she added, echoing executives whose complaints ranged from red tape stopping large-scale solar power plants in the desert to the slow roll-out of efficiency products.
Gore sparked the only confrontation at a table resoundingly positive about the possibility for change, asking the head of utility Nevada Energy why his company was not capturing waste heat for further use at coal-fired plants.
"We'd keep after a question until it was answered," Gore said, recalling Senate hearings with Reid, after NV Energy Chief Executive Michael Yackira failed to satisfy him.

The executive said he would look into it.

GE sees tide coming in for water business

General Electric Co predicts that water purification could grow from a drop in the corporate bucket to a major growth driver within years, just as its wind unit did.
The largest U.S. conglomerate has taken about a decade to build its water unit, which focuses on large-scale treatment and purification for municipal and industrial water users, through five takeovers costing about $4 billion.
With an estimated $2.5 billion in revenue, the water business remains a sliver of the $156 billion in sales the world's largest maker of jet engines and electricity-producing turbines is expected to generate this year.
The unit's small size has lead some investors to wonder if GE might prefer to sell it to focus on businesses where it can better enjoy the benefits of scale.
But executives with Fairfield, Connecticut-based GE said water has the potential to become a major profit contributor.
"What GE tries to do is to align the company with some of the mega-trends, the mega-challenges of the world. Energy is one, healthcare is the other, and the third one is water," said Heiner Markhoff, president and chief executive of GE Water & Process Technologies.
While arid areas of the world, from the Middle East to the southwestern United States, have long coped with water shortages, rapid population growth and rising environmental regulations are making water scarcity and purification a more prominent issue in temperate, wetter areas.
GE does not disclose the profits or revenue of its water business, but the unit has been hit by the global recession.
In a conference call discussing the company's 36 percent second-quarter profit decline, GE executives noted that service revenue related to the water business, which does not include equipment sales, fell 18 percent in the quarter.
While some of GE's businesses, like lighting and appliances, have developed over a century, others take off more quickly.
Take wind turbines. When GE officials first pitched Chief Executive Jeff Immelt on the idea of getting into the business in 2001, he dismissed the technology as a "hula hoop." Immelt later changed his mind when Enron's bankruptcy provided a cheaper way into the business, and wind turbines last year generated about $6.5 billion in revenue.
"I hesitate to compare ourselves to (wind), but the space, clearly is similar," Markhoff said.
GE is not the only major multinational to see potential in water. Its rivals include German conglomerate Siemens AG and No. 2 U.S. chemical company Dow Chemical Co, as well as smaller companies including Danaher Corp and Nalco Holding Co.
LARGE SCALE FOCUS
GE and its rivals are focusing on scarcity, and the growing competition for water among residential and commercial users.



An example of GE's technology at work can be found in Loudon Water in Virginia, which serves 175,000 people. Located along the Potomac River in a commuter suburb of Washington, D.C., Loudon faces some of the state's strictest wastewater quality standards.
Last year, Loudon's Broad Run Water Reclamation Facility started treating wastewater with a GE system incorporating biological agents that clean the water of impurities and a membrane system that prevents them from escaping the plant.
That allows it to process higher volumes of water at lower cost than older, chemical-based options, said Tom Broderick, program manager for the facility.
The treated water is clean enough for the utility to offer it for industrial use, he said.
"More and more wastewater utilities are looking to water reuse, just from a sustainability standpoint," Broderick said.
"We have signed up our first customer approximately two miles to the north of us. It's a data center that will be using it for cooling water."
IN FOR THE LONG HAUL?
As it focuses on large-scale purification, GE has pulled back from residential water treatment. Last year it moved its residential business into a joint venture with U.S. industrial Pentair Inc, which owns 80 percent of the enterprise and handles sales and distribution.
Some analysts think GE may soon exit the water business.
"We think it is increasingly likely that GE may seek to divest its $2.5 billion water and process technologies platform over the next one to two years," said Bank of America/Merrill Lynch analyst John Inch. In a June note to clients he noted that the water business has lagged GE's typical profit margin and growth targets.
Markhoff, who would not confirm or deny Inch's estimate of GE Water's size, said the company remains committed to water.
"We have a lot of support throughout the energy infrastructure business, up to the chairman of the company," Markhoff said. "We see clearly the medium- and long-term potential of this business, and it is very well aligned with the major trends."

North America nations to cooperate on emissions trade

The United States, Canada and Mexico said Monday they would put in place infrastructure to cooperate on greenhouse gas emissions trading as part of efforts to fight climate change.
"We will build capacity and infrastructure with a view to facilitate future cooperation in emissions trading systems, building on our current respective work in this area," the three countries said in a statement.
They also said they would work toward reducing emissions from the transport sector, including "by striving to achieve carbon-neutral growth in the North American aviation sector in the context of global action."

Big quake hits off India's Andamans, no tsunami

A major earthquake of magnitude 7.6 struck in the Indian Ocean off India's Andaman Islands early on Tuesday, but a tsunami alert for India, Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand and Bangladesh was later canceled.
Three hours after the earthquake there were no reports of a tsunami or of any casualties from the tremor, officials said.
"We all ran out as fast as possible and have not gone back inside, fearing another quake. Everything was shaking, we are all very, very scared," Subhasis Paul, who runs a provision store in Diglipur island in North Andaman, told Reuters by telephone.
"People are calling each other out of their homes and everyone is huddled together outside," Paul said from Diglipur, about 300 km (185 miles) north of Port Blair, the capital of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The small chain of islands lie hundreds of miles east of India in the Indian Ocean.
The U.S. Geological Survey said the quake, initially reported as a magnitude 7.7, struck at 1:55 a.m. (1955 GMT on Monday). It was relatively shallow, at a depth of 33 km (20.6 miles), and was centered 260 km (160 miles) north of Port Blair.
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center said there could be a destructive wave along coasts up to 1,000 km (600 miles) from the epicenter, but it later withdrew its warning.
"Sea level readings indicate that a significant tsunami was not generated," it said in a statement.
Officials at the tsunami alert center in southern India said chances of a tsunami were remote.
"The earthquake has not caused displacement of water necessary to generate a tsunami either in the deep sea or near coastal locations," said Rajesh, a senior official at the Indian National Center for Ocean Information Services.
"We are monitoring the situation, but everything appears normal so far. It seems we have been lucky," added Rajesh, who goes by one name.
A 7.6 magnitude quake is classified by the USGS as a major earthquake and is capable of widespread, heavy damage.
A massive quake in the Indian Ocean in 2004 caused a tsunami that killed some 228,000 people, the majority in the Indonesian province of Aceh on the northern tip of Sumatra island.
WOKEN BY A JOLT
"I was on the balcony, and it felt very strange for a while, like my chair was leaning to one side," said Reuters correspondent Martin Petty in Bangkok. "So I got out of there sharpish. Aftershocks went on for a good few minutes.


In Indonesia, a meteorology agency official said his agency was monitoring Aceh, but there had been no reports of a tsunami.
"I was waken up by the jolt," said Kyaw Min, a resident of Yangon in Myanmar.
In the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago, officials said there was no news of any immediate loss of life or damage.
"We have patrol parties everywhere possible and everything appears normal. We are asking people not to panic and return to their homes," P. Karunakaran, a police superintendent in charge of the North and Middle Andaman region said by telephone from Mayabandar, 270 km (165 miles) north of Port Blair.

Dr. Bill Elliott: Who'll get swine flu vaccine first?

The H1N1 flu (swine flu) pandemic continues at low levels in the United States, but is expected to pick up in intensity this fall, once schools go back in session. As most are aware, H1N1 is a new virus that is the result of a mutation or "reassortment" of the genetic material of several flu viruses. Most younger people have no natural immunity to the virus and it has spread rapidly worldwide, mostly in people younger than 40, since the first cases were discovered in Mexico just a few months ago.

The Centers for Disease Control and vaccine manufacturers are working diligently on a vaccine, and the CDC reports that it should be available by this fall.

The logistics of the H1N1 vaccine are still unclear. The H1N1 vaccine will be a separate vaccine from the standard flu vaccine that is given every year, so most people will need at least two shots this fall. It is likely that the H1N1 vaccine will not be ready by the time the yearly flu vaccine is available, and it is not clear if they could safely be given together. It is also not clear if the H1N1 vaccine will require two shots or just one to achieve immunity.

What is clear is that are there are some people who will need to get first doses of the vaccine.

Unlike most flu strains, it is younger people who are at highest risk of dying from this virus, so those over 65 years old are the lowest priority for the vaccine. Most older adults have some natural immunity to similar viruses from years ago and seem to get a milder

form of H1N1.

The vaccine will be first given to those who are at highest risk and those who are most likely to spread the disease if they get infected. This includes:

- Pregnant women

- People who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age

- Health care and emergency services personnel

- Persons between the ages of 6 months through 24 years of age

- People from ages 25 through 64 years who are at higher risk for novel H1N1 because of chronic health disorders or compromised immune systems

The groups listed above total approximately 159 million people or nearly half the population of United States.

There are no current concerns about shortages of the vaccine, but if supplies are limited initially, the priority would be: pregnant women; people who live with or care for children younger than 6 months of age; health care and emergency services personnel with direct patient contact; children 6 months through 4 years of age; and children 5 through 18 years of age who have chronic medical conditions.

Once high-risk patients have been vaccinated, the vaccine distribution will be expanded to everyone, including adults over 65.

Dr. Bill Elliott is assistant physician in chief for Kaiser Permanente's Novato office and Petaluma and an Assistant clinical professor of medicine at UCSF Medical School. His column appears every other Monday.

Global goal for swine flu vaccine quest

THE surprisingly rapid global transmission of the so-called swine flu has captured the attention of the Rudd government and his counterparts in North America and Europe, sparking a worldwide race to develop an effective vaccine. Two Australian biotechnology companies, Adelaide-based Vaxine and Melbourne-based CSL Biotherapies, initiated the first vaccine trials in late July, followed by Europe and the US.

Finding a technological solution to swine flu _ technically, Influenza (A) H1N1 (swine flu) _ will be a key scientific advance, but vital questions of scarcity, fairness and safety loom large. The swine flu vaccine will almost certainly be scarce, with manufacturers unable to meet the huge global demand.

The industry is struggling to produce good vaccine yields with the H1N1 seed virus. At the same time, the vaccine may not be fully effective against the present strain of the virus or, worse, the virus may mutate, rendering the vaccine ineffective. The vaccine, moreover, will probably require two doses, further reducing supplies.

The World Health Organisation recommends the use of adjuvants, a substance added to a vaccine to improve the immune response so that less vaccine is needed.

Yet the US may not follow WHO guidelines, thereby depleting an already short vaccine supply. The US Food and Drug Administration has never approved a human vaccine containing adjuvants, and clinical trials in the US do not include adjuvants.

Governments face hard choices on how to ethically ration a scarce lifesaving resource such as a flu vaccine, particularly if the virus becomes more lethal: Who shall live when not all can live? In Australia and most developed countries, children and the elderly have had priority for seasonal influenza vaccines. Children and their careers should certainly be a high priority for swine flu vaccine because they rapidly spread the infection in day care and school. Yet privileging the elderly would be a mistake because they have contracted the new strain at the lowest rate and appear to have some immunity because of exposure to distantly related flu strains that circulated decades ago.

Instead, government should assign top priority to the most vulnerable who have died at a disproportionate rate from swine flu: those who have poor health such as heart disease, asthma or diabetes. This is also the fairest way to allocate scarce vaccines because people with multiple health conditions also tend to be the most disadvantaged in society, such as the Aboriginal community and other minorities. Healthcare and emergency workers also deserve priority because they provide essential services in the face of an epidemic.

It is vital that government makes allocation decisions fairly and transparently. The public has a right to know which groups will have priority access and why.

One key problem, however, is that the private market is still likely to privilege the rich and politically connected in gaining access. Business culture is geared towards satisfying consumer demand, so the industry will charge what the market will bear for a scarce, valuable vaccine.

Rich countries will face scarcity, but they will have much more ample supplies than poor countries. The pressure on governments to protect their citizens will be intense during a pandemic. The vaccine industry is likely to supply markets that can afford to pay and in countries where they are located. More than 90 per cent of the world's capacity to manufacture influenza vaccines is concentrated in Europe and North America.

Australia will also be well off because of its economic resources, small population and the fact key vaccine producers are based here. As the rich stockpile vaccines, poor countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America are left much more vulnerable.

Australia, Europe and the US are spending a fortune on vaccines and antiviral medication for influenza, but virtually none of these resources will benefit poor countries. Serious questions of global social justice arise when wealth, rather than need, becomes the primary allocation criterion. The mal-distribution of vaccines in the face of a global financial crisis will only widen the already yawning health gaps between the rich and the poor. Rich countries hoarding vaccines is also is a bad public health strategy because it allows the virus to circulate unchecked in highly populated developing countries.

Safety, of course, is just as important as equitable access. There is intense political and market pressure to move quickly on vaccine development. Many national regulatory agencies have set up fast-track approval processes, and the vaccine industry is pushing hard to finish clinical trials and gain government approval. The politics of swine flu is pushing toward mass public vaccinations in September and October, the beginning of the flu season in the northern hemisphere.

Dose-sparing strategies to avoid depletion of an already short vaccine supply will increase risks. Studies show that vaccines containing adjuvants cause more adverse effects. More worrying, because the clinical trials are so small, is that adverse effects will not be detected until the vaccine has already been used on a large population. It's essential to conduct rigorous post-marketing surveillance to pick up rare, but serious, effects.

Hefty public and private spending on influenza treatments will result in a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry, with Roche reporting that sales of Tamiflu (an antiviral medication that ameliorates flu symptoms) have tripled. GlaxoSmithKline is predicting huge profits from a vaccine. At the same time, the industry is seeking liability protection in the event that the vaccine causes unintended harm to health. Patients groups, too, will want to be sure to be compensated for any ill-effects from vaccinations.

Reminiscent of the present situation, the media fanned emotions about a catastrophic swine flu epidemic in 1976 that never emerged. Pharmaceutical companies lobbied governments hard _ and successfully _ for resources and liability protection. In the US, Gerald Ford advocated a mass immunisation campaign. Unfortunately, the vaccine caused several cases of a serious paralysis called Guillain-Barre syndrome, which was politically disastrous for the president. The 1976 swine flu affair is instructive and suggests caution in rushing to vaccinate the public without proper clinical trials.

The Rudd government needs to assess carefully the risks and benefits of rapid approval and roll-out of a vaccine. Thus far swine flu has been mild, with most patients making a full recovery. The fear, of course, is that H1N1 will mutate, becoming much more lethal. This was what happened with the second wave of the 1918 Spanish flu, which killed more than 50 million people in a much less populated world. It is a remote possibility, but one that demands watchfulness.

The most prudent course today would be to conduct careful clinical trials with due scientific deliberation; use the vaccine on high-risk groups, phasing in the full population only as evidence of safety and effectiveness becomes clearer; and conducting post-market surveillance for adverse effects.

And even if it's not politically expedient, justice requires that scarce and safe vaccines go to the most disadvantaged in Australia and worldwide. Equitable access to a vaccine against swine influenza is not merely a moral imperative. It is also critically necessary for the success of any pandemic strategy to safeguard global health.