GREEN DEALS: A great big solar blimp

As biofuel makers work to come to the rescue of air transport in a carbon-constrained world, companies like Canada's Solar Ship are working on a completely different solution: a hybrid airship that uses aerodynamics to help provide lift, and has its top surface area covered in solar cells to provide energy and minimise its carbon footprint. According to the Toronto-based company behind the aircraft, the Solar Ship can carry huge cargo loads with greater flexibility and more efficiency than traditional aircraft. Primarily designed to service remote areas and disaster zones, it can also take off and land in a space of as little as 50 metres.

As Gizmag explains, while the Solar Ship will be filled with helium, under normal circumstances it will rely on the aerodynamic lift provided by the wing shape to provide more than half the lift required to get it off the ground. "Additionally, the aircraft could also fly when filled with plain old air," says Gizmag. "This means (it) ...will still be able to fly – and, more importantly, land safely – if there is damage that results in helium loss." According to Solar Ship, the aircraft's electric motor can either be powered solely by the energy provided by the on board batteries, or by the solar panels covering the wing.

The company has designed three different concept aircraft, the smallest of which, the "Caracal," has a payload capacity of up to 750kg for 2,500km with a maximum speed of 120 km/h. The mid-size "Chui," targeted at ISR and cargo markets, can carry up to 2,500kg over distances of up to 5,000km at speeds of up to 100km/h using solar power. The largest model, the "Nanuq," is a dedicated cargo freighter designed to carry payloads of up to 30 tonnes for distances of up to 6,000km at speeds of up to 120 km/h.

Tru's classical gas play

TruEnergy has reacted quickest to the recent AEMO report that identified Queensland as the state most in need of energy investment to cope with its booming LNG development and soaring population growth. Tru has announced plans to build up to 3000MW of gas at two sites - near Ipswich in the south-east corner, and near Gladstone, the site of LNG developments and growing industrial capacity.

AEMO says Queensland's energy needs will be critical by 2013/14, around the time that Tru says it can begin construction if planning approvals are completed in time. The first phase will likely see 500MW plants constructed at each sight, with Gladstone likely to be CCGT turbines best suited for baseload and intermediate power, but Ipswich more likely to be open-cycle peaking plant to cope with surging peak demand, driven by a massive uptake in air conditioning.

The Ipswich plant will also help replace spply from the 250MW Swanbank B coal-fired plant that is due to close in 2012, although AEMO says peaking plant is the most critical needed, with new baseload possibly not needed till 2016/17. Tru is likely to design a plant that can be converted from open cycle to combined cycle further down the track if needed. Unlike the decision last month by Xstrata to commission AGL and APA to build a new gas plant in Mt Isa, this investment is unlikely to have a crowding effect or impact on the rollout of renewables in the state.

A mighty small wind

New data from the US Department of Energy has turned up a surprising fact about the economics of wind farms – smaller is better. The 2009 Wind Technologies Market Report by Ryan Wiser and Mark Bolinger shows that wind power projects between 5-20MW have the lowest installed cost per watt of any size wind project. Energy policy researcher, John Farrell, lists a couple of "plausible explanations" for this on his blog (via Grist), including that the economies of scale for wind projects are limited. "At some point, the marginal cost of an additional turbine is much like the previous one. The 500th wind turbine is likely the same price to install as the 499th," he says. And there may be disproportionate costs for larger wind projects, Farrell says. "For example, projects over 20MW must by processed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), a more onerous step than smaller projects being handled at the state level."

And then there's the fact that bigger projects may need financing on a level that only a few large firms can handle, adding a price premium; as well as the possible need for new transmission line capacity, which is costly and time-consuming. Whatever the reason, says Farrell, "go local" is obviously the best policy with wind farms in the US. And he sees this as a good thing: "The cost advantage of modest-sized wind power projects may open up opportunities for local ownership... The prospect isn't just good for the cost of wind power, but for clean energy and the economy. Not only do locally owned projects ...bring more public support for wind, they also garner significantly greater local economic benefits." But while smaller is better, it seems this is only true up to a point. The DOE chart Farrell reproduces in his blog post shows that the least economic wind power option, by some dregree, in cost-per-kilowatt terms is for projects less than 5MW.

The carbon hit

New research released Tuesday by carbon advisory and analytics firm RepuTex has found that the federal government's carbon pricing mechanism will cost S&P ASX 200 companies $18.7 billion over a 10-year period from FY 2013-2022, with high polluting medium and small capitalised materials and industrials companies faring the worst.  RepuTex measured the carbon liability of all S&P ASX 200 companies over a 10-year period, assuming Treasury's carbon price scenario of $23 commencing on July 1, 2012, rising by 2.5 per cent to 2015, then staying flat at $29 to 2022. The findings show that, before any carbon costs are passed through, S&P ASX 200 companies are expected to face cumulative direct and indirect carbon costs (after government assistance) of approximately $33.4 billion from FY 2013 through to FY 2022.

It also estimates that 43 per cent of the above cost, or $14.6 billion, will be passed through to consumers, leaving S&P ASX 200 companies liable for $18.7 billion over the 10-year period. Reputex says it expects all firms will be exposed to an indirect cost through the purchasing of electricity and supply chain inputs, and that these liabilities will account for 43 per cent of the total S&P ASX 200 carbon cost. It says that mid- and small capitalised materials and industrials companies face the highest earnings impacts, due to their lower revenues and generally lower levels of diversification.

“Company exposure is dependent on a range of factors, most notably each plant's projected emissions, their entitlement to government compensation, their degree of exposure to indirect liabilities that are passed down the supply chain, plus their capacity to pass through any cost of their own, without eroding product demand,” said RepuTex's associate director of research, Prayank Katiyar. “Small to mid cap companies will be in the firing line due to their lower levels of revenue and lower flexibility to absorb costs. These companies, particularly if they are less diversified and engaged in carbon intensive activities, are likely to face more immediate competitive challenges during the transition period, even in spite of Government assistance or their own cost transfer.”