We arae having a Gren Battery day here at work and I was listening to some of the presentations and some crazy things were sadi - can anyone comment? "16 of the world’s largest ships (be it a VLCC, or a bulk carrier laden with coal) produce as much sulphur pollution as all the cars in the world (800million). We have over 100,000 such ships in operation in the seas, and the number is only getting bigger" wow. "Hybrids like the Toyota Prius have opened up a whole new benchmark – fuel efficiency of the Prius is the holy grail at 32%, and unlikely you can get any better. Current diesel engines, with a stop start addition, have similar fuel efficiencies as the best hybrids. And will we be more environmentally friendly with electric-powered vehicles? If in China, more than 80% of the electricity is still coal-fired…. Unless China ramps up their share of nuclear and renewable energy, I still cannot see the point. " You would think this would be obvious E Bikes are a massive craze here in HK/China.
Hornin, The Prius has fuel effenciency of 32% of what? The Prius has a dust to dust larger carbon footprint than a fuel efficient petrol only car. I don't dispute that ship comment, but damn... The BIG polluters really aren't happening because of individuals small time use. For instance, I think about those people who fly all over the world all the, live in massive houses, etc... the average Joe, like me could NEVER afford the costs of the carbon footprint.
You are asking a difficult question because you are asking for knowledge of the "big picture." Almost no one looks at the overall picture, just their backyard. I believe diesel usage can be efficient and somewhat low polluting, but only if it is "low sulfur" diesel. Texas, or at least the high pollution areas of Texas, has started required low sulfur diesel formulation. Obviously, this would be difficult to enforce on the high seas. They required the low sulfur for the Galveston ferries, and it caused some engine problems, which weren't expected. So there may have to be a more low emission causing fuel for only newer engines made for that fuel. I don't know how it could be applied to ocean going vessels, which dump all their trash overboard so that it washes up on Padre Island all the time, but who knows, maybe even sailors and ship owners will become green in time.
Wrong, but if you can be green and make money, that obviously is more appealing to more than just the most dedicated individuals.
Money is the only motivation for many actions people make. But not all people are solely motivated by making a profit in every action they take.
911 - do you think everyone is motivated by money? are some motivated more, or less? and how do you tell them apart?
In actuality John is partially right. SRI and Green energy funds are very popular right now and I have recently done deals for Solar, Water treeatment, waste to energy and wind power companies that were taken in large part by these SRI funds. If they LOST money the capital wouldn't be there but investors in said funds are typically willing to make less money. Johnny's theme is a good one but by suggesting you can lose money for a a cause ignores a salient point and I see it espoused by people that don't understand how innovation happens (no offense) - you need lots of cash and people want return on capital. There is nothing wrong with this.
Companies will only go green when its profitable or they are forced to by the govt, which is indirectly profitable to avoid fines. Of course, companies will do minor initiatives that lose money, like offer recycling in an office environment, but real change will be because of money. Let energy become expensive again and change will start to occur.
Small exampe, I raised 185 million dollars a few months ago for a Chinese water treatment company that has novel waste to energy technology. Think about how long it would take to raise that much money by Charity as per John's suggestion. Note that this is an advantaged industry that receives government tax credits already. It's simply impossible to do things on the scale necessary out of largesse. You need investors who are typically cranky about getting a profit.
I agree that it is highly preferable for a green technology to be profitable for the private sector, and that it will be much more likely to take root. But these things would not have come to the marketplace if governments did not make lessening pollution/global warming gases/habitat protection, etc. a requirement, at least in most cases. If the carrot, rather than stick, approach is used, green technology and practices will spread more rapidly.
I asked a question, I did not assert an opinion with that statement. My question was not rhetorical, I was hoping for answers. As for what I think, I do think there is more at stake than money. To only change when you're going to make money is to not really change at all. What I want is a corporate morality where we don't accept the pursuit of profit at the expense of all else as "just good business". Why isn't it considered good business to say "this is going to cost us money, but it's in our collective best interest so we're going to do it anyway"? So no, I don't expect us to throw money down any ratholes, but I think we've got a LONG way to go before I'm satisfied that big business is the driver of this change like they easily could be.
Here's an article na recent IPO done in HK for a chinese wind power company. People in Asia (and globally - lots of foreign investors in this) are certainly keen to invest in these companies. Government support really helps Recently money has been pouring in to Solar/WTE/Wind Power companies and the Chiense SWF has put billions in as well. Longyuan Power shows investors are keen to buy green By Anette Jönsson | 7 December 2009 The Chinese wind power company prices its Hong Kong IPO at the top to raise $2.3 billion. advertisement China's leading provider of wind power, China Longyuan Power Group Corp, was able to raise the maximum funds it sought from its initial public offering after the deal attracted the support of several global funds specialising in renewable energy. A source said these funds helped drive the momentum in the bookbuilding and also gave the company and the bookrunners the confidence to fix the price at the top of the offering range. The final price of HK$8.16 resulted in a total deal size of HK$17.49 billion ($2.3 billion). The stock is due to start trading on the Hong Kong main board on Thursday (December 10). But experts on renewable energy were by no means the only ones interested in this company, which is expected to grow in line with the Chinese government's aim for a 10-fold increase in the country's total wind power generating capacity by 2020. Longyuan currently has a 24% market share and an installed capacity of about 3,900MW, but is expected to grow this to 12,000MW by 2020. Some analysts also expect the company to become the second largest wind power producer in the world by 2013, from its ranking as the fifth largest today. Hong Kong retail investors definitely bought the story. According to sources, they subscribed to approximately 230 times the number of shares initially set aside for them, tying up $26.5 billion worth of cash and triggering a full clawback that increased the size of the retail tranche to 20% from the initial 5%. While the amount of cash committed by retail investors is less than half the $64 billion worth of retail orders received by pharmaceutical distributor Sinopharm in September, and the $59 billion put towards BBMG Corp's IPO in July, it is still impressive given that the retail segment of the Hong Kong market has been tapped for $4.5 billion since mid-September (including the institutional tranches, these companies have raised a combined $23.5 billion). And on top of that, we are only a couple of weeks away from Christmas -- a time of year when investment activity slows down significantly. After the clawback and excluding the 31.2% of the total deal ($730 million worth of shares) that was reserved for cornerstone investors, the remaining $1.1 billion institutional tranche was about 27 times covered. More than 400 institutional investors submitted orders. The deal was priced on Friday, a couple of days ahead of the start of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen today, which will try to achieve a new agreement on how to limit carbon dioxide emissions by both developed and developing countries. While such an agreement remains in doubt, the Copenhagen summit has put the spotlight on the need for more alternative energy sources and, in that respect, Longyuan's IPO was well timed. As an operator of wind farms, Longyuan has a right to sell carbon credits from approved projects into the international market and, since 2007, a certain portion of its profit has come from the sale of such credits. The company sells both certified emission reductions (CERs) and voluntary emission reductions (VERs) and a syndicate research report projects that revenues from carbon credit sales will account for 8.8% of Longyuan's operating profit this year and 14.2% in 2010. Longyuan offered 2.143 billion new shares, or a 30% stake in the company at a price ranging from HK$6.26 to the final IPO price of HK$8.16. The price translates into a 2010 price-to-earnings multiple of 28.9 times, or 2.2 times the company's estimated book value in the same year. The cornerstones comprised: China Investment Corp, which bought $400 million of the deal with an agreement not to sell its shares for the first 12 month; China Life Insurance, which took $180 million worth of shares; private equity investor Wilbur L Ross who bought $100 million worth; Value Partners which took $30 million worth; and a fund affiliated with Hong Kong tycoon David Li, which is invested $20 million. Beijing-based Longyuan is a first-mover when it comes to the building of wind farms in China and has been able to acquire a lot of the best wind sites in the country. In addition to its existing installed capacity, the company also has enough land, across 15 different provinces, on which to erect wind turbines with a combined capacity of 43,000MW. Together with the funds raised from the IPO, Longyuan has the key ingredients in place to deliver on its growth plans. The deal was jointly arranged by Morgan Stanley and UBS.
HorninHK, Would you please contact me offline? I work for a CleanTech fund with connections in Europe and a desire to move to Asian areas as well. I think folks like 911 and others fail to account for externalities. The fact is, as others have stated, if these technologies only 'broke even' they would not have the capital needed to get off the ground. And as any basic excel spread sheet can prove, even without help or accounting for the negative externalities, many of these definitely make great money. Your Prius pays for the hybrid premium within 2-3 years if not faster.
sure, I'm about to go talk to someone about nuclear - what do you guys think - do we consider that green energy or not? One thing that is interesting is that many green techs (solar for instance) have some very non-green processes necessary to get green tech at then end - making polysilicon for example.
Yes Polysilicon is extremely energy intensive- but I view this process as a bridge tech, much like hybrids bridge us to full EVs. Because of our current, energy intensive PVs we will one day have much better, cheaper and higher efficiency PVs. And no nuclear is not renewable due to its fuel source- but it sure as hell is clean!
