Latest News
courtesy Worldwatch Institute
OPINION: China’s Wind Power Development Exceeds ExpectationsA recent boom in Chinese wind power development has surpassed the government's original target and forced policymakers to set a new goal that might still be too modest.
In 2007, cumulative wind installations in China exceeded 5 gigawatts (GW), the goal originally set for 2010 by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China's top economic planner. The Commission had set the target in its 2006 mid- and long-term development plan for renewable energy. The plan's target for 2020 was 30 GW, a level that is now projected to be reached by 2012, eight years ahead of schedule.
In March, the NDRC revised its mid-term target, doubling it from 5 GW to 10 GW for 2010. Yet this new goal is still too modest, with wind installations likely to reach 20 GW by 2010 and 100 GW by 2020. China is witnessing the start of a golden age of wind power development, and the magnitude of growth has caught even policymakers off guard.
China's wind power sector has experienced tremendous development since early 2005, when the government enacted its landmark national renewable energy law. Added installed capacity grew by over 60 percent in 2005, and it more than doubled in both 2006 and 2007. By the end of 2007, cumulative capacity had reached roughly 6 GW, ranking China fifth in the world in wind installations. The country added 3.3 GW in 2007 alone, trailing only the United States and Spain. In total, the world installed 94 GW of wind power that year, with Germany accounting for about 20 GW and the United States 16 GW.
The breathtaking growth of Chinese wind power illustrates how effective government policy can influence the market. Since the issuing of the renewable energy law, the government has enacted a series of policies to facilitate wind power development. One important step has been to improve the wind power pricing regulation, which uses a competitive bidding process to determine the price of wind power. Through five rounds of public tendering to issue wind concessions, policymakers have explored ways to further improve pricing and disperse worries in the industry about excessively low bidding hindering further development.
By 2007, the NDRC had evaluated and approved pricing schemes for more than 60 projects, taking into consideration local conditions and other major benchmarks, including a provision that a minimum of 70 percent of a wind turbine's components be manufactured locally. The more sophisticated pricing schemes have stabilized China's wind power market, while the benchmark of turbine localization has provided market-entry opportunities for fledging domestic manufacturers. The government also supports wind power through tax incentives and subsidies.
In addition to policies and regulations related directly to renewable energy and wind power, climate change considerations have played a major role in encouraging China's wind sector. As the only country in the world that has set up a national leading group for responding to climate change, headed by Premier Wen Jiabao, China is stressing measures to tackle the challenge through all levels of government. Developing a low-carbon economy and using cleaner, renewable energy sources provide an attractive option. As a result, regions with rich wind resources are readily embracing wind power development; Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and Jiangsu are all embarking on constructing 10 GW wind power bases.
Policy incentives and government prioritization have sent a clear signal to the market, and investors are springing into the nascent realm for big growth. What has surprised even policymakers is the exponential growth of China's domestic wind turbine manufacturing industry. Only a few small turbine manufacturers existed before 2005, and most turbines and key components were imported. Over the past three years, however, domestic manufacturers have increased their investment and expanded quickly, while all major international wind turbine manufacturers have started to set up local factories.
By 2007, China's turbine manufacturing capacity exceeded 3 GW. It is expected to double in 2008, roughly sufficient to meet domestic needs for the equipment. The country is projected to see 10-15 GW of wind turbine capacity by 2012-not only meeting domestic demands, but also becoming a major exporter of wind turbines.
Top Ten Wind Turbine Manufacturers in China, by Cumulative Market Share, 2007
Manufacturer
Country
Capacity (kilowatts)
Share of total capacity (percent)
Goldwind Domestic 1,497,300 25.4 Gamesa Spain 1,044,200 17.7 Vestas Denmark 855,500 14.5 Sinovel Domestic 754,500 12.8 GE United States 492,000 8.3 DEC Domestic 237,000 4.0 Suzlon India 218,750 3.7 Nordex Germany 184,750 3.1 NEG Micon United States 151,950 2.6 CASC-Acciona Joint Venture 100,500 1.7
Source: Shi Pengfei, China's Wind Power Installation Capacity Statistics, 2007, China Wind Energy Association
Domestic wind turbine technology is catching up quickly. Before 2005, China was able to manufacture turbines of only up to 600 kilowatts (kW). But policy incentives have helped to accelerate technological upgrades. The country made its first 750 kW turbine in 2005, which became the mainstream market type for 2006 and 2007. In 2006, China produced its own 1,500 kW wind turbines, which entered the market in large quantities in 2007. In late 2007, the first 2,000 kW turbine was ready for testing, and it is expected to enter the market in 2008. Meanwhile, the country is developing a 3,000 kW turbine, projected to be ready for testing in 2009. The accelerated progress has narrowed the technological gap between domestic manufacturers and top international producers.
The latest powerful push came in late 2007 from the State Council, the country's top policymaking body. In its white paper on national energy policies, the Council stressed energy diversification and prioritized clean and low-carbon energy. For the first time, it also eliminated the chronic rhetoric of "using coal as the primary energy source." China's draft energy law, currently in the comment-seeking period, will provide a more solid policy framework for renewable energy development once finalized.
Currently, coal-fired power still provides the lion's share of China's energy, at roughly 70 percent. In 2007, the country added some 88.3 GW of coal-power generation capacity, an increase of 14.6 percent. However, the country registered a decline of 9 percent in coal-power capacity in 2006.
Wind power is said to already be more cost effective than oil, natural gas, and nuclear power generation in China. As the stability and predictability of the sector attract greater investment, it is widely believed that wind power will be able to compete with coal generation by as early as 2015. That will be the turning point in China, which by then will be the world's largest energy consumer.
Junfeng Li is Secretary General of the China Renewable Energy Industries Association (CREIA) and co-author of the Worldwatch Institute Report Powering China's Development: The Role of Renewable Energy. Lingjuan Ma of CREIA and Yingling Liu of Worldwatch Institute also contributed to the article.
Lighting an Efficient Future, Minus the MercuryMore and more countries are banning incandescent light bulbs in favor of energy-efficient compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs. But options to recycle the mercury-laden alternatives are often scarce.
A variety of European Union recycling regulations make it unlawful for EU residents to dispose of CFLs in the trash. In the United States, some states are following suit, though most localities rely on consumers to voluntarily mail the bulbs back to manufacturers for recycling. In developing countries, recycling is less available, and proper landfills often do not even exist in the event that the bulbs are discarded as trash.
To reduce hazardous waste at its source, leading CFL manufacturers have committed to reduce the mercury content of their products. Martin Goetzeler, CEO of Munich-based Osram, said his company aims to cut the mercury content of its CFLs by half in the coming years. "It should be part of any new technology that hazardous substances are regulated," he said. "And we should use the lowest levels [of toxins]."
CFLs presently contain between 2.5 and 3 milligrams of mercury, which Osram will reduce to between 1.3 and 1.8 milligrams, Goetzeler said Wednesday during a talk organized by the Worldwatch Institute.
General Electric is investing in lower-mercury CFL technology as well. "If we can get [CFLs] down to 1 milligram of mercury, that is a big breakthrough," Lorraine Bolsinger, vice president of GE's ecoimagination unit, told reporters last year,
Despite the mercury content, CFLs have emerged as one of the most environmentally prudent indoor-lighting options. They use one-quarter to one-fifth the electricity of incandescent bulbs, and can last about 10 times longer. Switching to CFLs is the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a McKinsey & Company analysis.
By saving energy, greater CFL usage also results in less coal-based power generation. This is important when considering that the roughly 2 tons of mercury contained in the 380 million CFLs sold in the United States last year was dwarfed by the 50 tons of mercury that U.S. coal plants emitted into the atmosphere.
Osram is also developing bulbs with a longer lifetime, which chief sustainability officer Wolfgang Gregor says would stall disposal and therefore increase the bulbs' "mercury mileage." "Mercury down to zero is impossible without a performance drop," Gregor said. "We can increase the lifetime of the lamp with the same amount of mercury - increasing the mercury mileage drastically."
Mercury, a neurological toxin, often leaches into the soil and groundwater beneath landfills, or is incinerated into the air - unless it is recycled. Osram has arranged CFL-recycling drop-off locations throughout the European Union, and has also helped coordinate a mail-in program with the U.S. Postal Service. Goetzeler said recycling rates are as high as 80 percent in parts of Europe, but the EU acknowledges that its recycling initiatives are uneven in different regions. Recycling options have yet to be organized in many other countries, especially those with much lower recycling rates.
In recent years, a variety of industrialized and developing nations have mandated for incandescent bulbs to be banned over time. In Australia, Italy, and the Philippines, for example, the sale of incandescent light bulbs will be banned by 2010.
GE has opposed the bans because the company has been developing mercury-free, super-efficient incandescent bulbs. But Osram's Goetzeler says his company encourages consumers to abandon incandescent bulbs for reasons of global sustainability, in addition to profits. "It's technically feasible to save 50 percent of electricity [generated] for lighting," he said. "If you want to save energy.... No excuse, you can do it today."
Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.
Aquaculture Operations Seek Organic CertificationOf the several proposed or available labels for seafood products, none are as divisive as organic.
As the aquaculture, or fish farming, industry continues its rapid expansion, some U.S. environmental groups have called on the government to set organic standards for aquaculture. Their hopes are that the booming organic market, with its higher premium, would motivate fish farms to clean up their acts. Others remain unconvinced that an organic fish market could address aquaculture's environmental concerns without ruining the credibility of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic label.
The specifics of how marine fish species can be certified as organic are still uncertain. Whatever the outcome, the fates of global fisheries and the organic industry as a whole may be at stake.
A Fish Feed Dilemma
Aquaculture was once considered the safe alternative to a seafood industry that has driven global fish species toward extinction. Now fish farms are labeled by some environmentalists as a more destructive option. Tremendous concentrations of fish waste and antibiotics pollute coastal waters, and fish escapees threaten the ecological balance of wild fish communities. Some aquaculture operations, such as Hawaii's Kona Blue Water Farms, are implementing more expensive measures they say help to better protect the environment.
The United States passed Japan last year as the second largest seafood importer, behind the European Union, so a new organic demand may have global implications. But the USDA National Organic Standards Board is struggling over the first step in the organic fish process: what would these fish eat? A panel of aquaculture experts suggested that fish caught in the wild should be permitted to eat fishmeal in "organic" aquacultures, and over time more fishmeal would have to be farm-raised.
A coalition of 44 environmental organizations protested the proposal, which they said would violate organic rules that require organic animals to be fed organic food. Plus, they said it may threaten the survival of smaller fish, which are disappearing as they are caught to feed carnivorous farmed fish, such as salmon or trout. Commercial fishing dedicated to fishmeal or fish oil now amounts to 32 million tons per year, or 37 percent of all fishing, compared to 7.7 percent in 1948, according to a University of British Columbia study.
In response, the standards board's livestock committee passed a recommendation that prohibits the use of fishmeal and fish oil from wild aquatic animals. Instead, aquacultures could purchase the feed from providers who are certified as organic by a foreign certification scheme, even if the label is less stringent than USDA standards. USDA would adopt its own fishmeal or fish oil standards as the industry grows. "If we don't allow organic aquaculture to start, there won't be a competitor to conventional aquaculture," said Joseph Smillie, a board member who is an organic certifier with Quality Assurance International in Vermont.
The standards board deferred its decision in a meeting last week, but the proposal has already split the environmental community.
Risky Innovation
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Ocean Conservancy, and Oceana said that while 90 percent of edible marine fish may disappear by 2048, the need to create a competitive, sustainable aquaculture industry is urgent. These groups reason that, in the absence of government regulations, the aquaculture industry needs economic incentive to change its practices, and organic is the best motivation, they say.
"Organic products have a price premium, people are willing, producers are willing, to try new things," said Rebecca Goldburg, an EDF senior scientist. "It's not going to transform a whole sector, but it's a good way to pioneer techniques. You can't do that unless if you create incentive for people to pursue them."
Michael Hirshfield, chief scientist at Oceana, said that a stringent organic standard for aquaculture could influence fish farms to alter damaging practices such as catching fish for fishmeal. "This potentially provides not just what we see as appropriate for meriting the organic label, but also what we would see as what aquaculture, period, should be," Hirshfield said.
As organic becomes more mainstream, larger organic operations-dairy, for example-have been accused of lowering their standards to meet the demands of a growing market.
Groups including Food and Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, and Greenpeace oppose an organic aquaculture standard due to fears that it would further tarnish consumer faith in the organic label, discouraging farmers from switching to organic. "We don't want to sacrifice the credibility of the organic label for all food, just to satisfy issues of aquaculture," said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch.
All environmentalists likely oppose a standard that undermines the organic label, which is a reason why the USDA standards board concedes that they lack a consensus-building solution. Environmental groups are also highly concerned. "The last thing the world needs is a fight between groups that are interested in ocean conservation and ocean sustainability attacking the word organic," Hirshfield said.
The strength of an organic label is not the only complaint. Individuals from the David Suzuki Foundation, Sierra Club, and WWF criticize an organic standard because they doubt it will create sufficient environmental improvements.
For instance, sea lice, a parasite found in salmon aquacultures, can decimate wild salmon populations when the farmed fish escape-but they are treatable with antibiotics. "The only option to some of these farms is to use chemicals-a treatment which would not be allowed on organic standards, for a very good reason," said Jay Ritchlin, director of marine and freshwater conservation for the David Suzuki Foundation. The organic standards board also has not resolved how to best treat animal waste from fish farms.
More Comprehensive Labeling
Instead of focusing on organic, which may become only a niche market, greater attention should be paid to an aquaculture label that addresses pollution, invasive species, fishmeal, and socioeconomic impacts, said Jose Villalon, director of WWF's aquaculture program. Villalon is currently heading up the "aquaculture dialogues," a collaboration of 1,400 representatives from nongovernmental organizations and industry who are shaping standards for marine and freshwater species that he said will be more robust than the 17 labels presently available. "We recognize the value of organic certification," Villalon said, "but if you are going to look at the environmental impact, you really need an environmental eco-label."
If sustainability labels can be agreed upon for aquaculture, EDF's Goldburg and Oceana's Hirschfield both said they welcomed the labels in addition to organic. While the challenge of creating significant standards is tremendous, the result may be worth the risk.
"The feasibility argument is always raised anytime there's a stretch that's implied by a new standard or a new regulation," Hirschfield said. "It's only when the standards are there and they're real and they mean something that the creative energies of industry are generated to meet them."
Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.
Stay Tuned! Worldwatch will be releasing a comprehensive new report, Farming Fish for the Future, in September 2008, written by senior researcher and food expert Brian Halweil.
