US Electric Vehicle Infrastructure

A plug-in hybrid medium-duty vehicle programme: a national programme co-ordinated by the EPRI to procure three hundred and seventy eight vehicles for fifty fleets in the US. A total of USD 45 look at these guys.4 million has been allocated in federal stimulus funds for the development of electric vehicles and their commercialisation.

A solar assisted plug-in vehicle charging project: the EPRI, NYPA and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) are developing a grid-connected, scalable solar covered parking canopy with vehicle charging.

A utility-automaker plug-in vehicle programme: the EPRI has formed partnerships with vehicle manufacturers to develop and test plug-in electric vehicles, and the NYPA is involved in vehicle demonstration projects with Ford and General Motors.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates a 40% increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks over the next 10 years. By 2014 it is expected that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) will be cost competitive with conventional cars. Two years’ later it is expected that will be USD 3,400 more expensive than existing hybrid vehicles; have a 40-mile all-electric range; be equivalent to 100 miles per gallon vehicles; and PHEV batteries will meet industry standards for economic life and safety. Whether these measures promote the domestic or export market remain to be seen.

Funding has also been given to eTec’s BEV Infrastructure Project. A USD 99.8 million grant from the Department of Energy will be used to deploy 10,950 LBEVel-2 220 volts/2 to 4-hour charging systems and 250 LBEVel-3 up to 480 volts/15 minute charging systems in eleven cities in Arizona, California, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington states, as part of a project involving Nissan and electric utilities. This is in addition to a BEV corridor built by SolarCity and Tesla Motors, an electric-car developer, along a 497-mile stretch of Highway 101. This is comprised of five Level 2 charging stations and a BEV corridor, which are located between San Francisco and LA.

Mexican Water institutions

In Mexico, institutional power is most heavily vested in the President and the federal agencies. According to Article 27 of the Constitution, the President is granted the power to regulate the extraction and use of the nation’s waters, to establish areas where water cannot be extracted and, through his designated agents, establish rules for issuance of permits for water use under terms mandated by laws passed by the

The executive branch of the Mexico government includes several ministries, which correspond to the departments of the executive branch of the US government.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (Secretaría de Agricultúra y Recursos Hidráulica, or SARH) is the most important ministry for allocating water. The National Water Commission was created by Congress and works in concert with SARH to carry out water allocation. The Commission operates with advisors from other ministries and is divided into five subcategories: 1) Planning and Finance; 2) Irrigation Works Infrastructure; 3) Urban and Industrial Infrastructure; 4) Research; and 5) Water Administration. The last category includes record keeping, granting of permits, and the overall process of water allocation from an administrative standpoint.

The Commission maintains six regional offices, each represented by a regional administrator appointed by the Commission director.

The Basin of Mexico is its own region. Within this region are the Federal District, and the States of Mexico, Hidalgo, Puebla, and Tlaxcala. Each of the represented states has a state regional director. While not unimportant, they exercise less power because of the tremendous financial and institutional power of the Federal District under a special law allocating water in the Federal District.

In the Mexico City Metropolitan Area, the key institutions are the Federal District, the National Water Commission, because of the substantial number of wells in the area and the trans basin diversions into the basin, and the State of Mexico. The Federal District is not a state, but in fact is an entity of the federal government and thus is regulated pursuant to special federal legislation. Accordingly, the Regente of the Federal District is named by the President. Institutionally and politically, the Federal District has the most influence in the MCMA compared to the State of Mexico.

Solar PV in Germany

The installed base of solar PV reached 9,151 MW by the end of 2009 and the final figure for 2010 is expected to be 11,520 MW. We now note the development and potential development of a number of large scale installations, the most significant of which are the 54 MW project in Strasskirchen and 53 MW project in Lieberose. dekor-okno

In recent years, Germany has executed important programmes in the field of PV, which have triggered substantial results in market development and technology.

Government funding in support of the solar PV industry is concentrated on the long-term options and activities to create a technological basis for small and medium enterprises. In January 1999, the 100,000 Rooftops Solar Electricity Programme came into force, which targeted for 300 MW to be installed by the end of 2003. The 100,000 Rooftops Solar Electricity Programme was designed to run until the end of 2003 and has been replaced with the “Solarstrom Erzeugen – Solar Power Generation”.

The three leading German companies are Q-Cells, SolarWorld and Schott Solar, all of which have grown rapidly. Solarworld has made two important strategic moves in 2005/06 in addition to the fast organic growth it has achieved already. In February 2006 it acquired Shell Solar and has taken over all the silicon cell assets of that company. In another move, Solarworld has secured supplies of silicon feedstock by entering into a partnership with REC of Norway, the only dedicated solar grade silicon manufacturer.

Q-Cells AG was founded at the end of 1999 and has grown rapidly, with an expansion over 1,000 MW of production capacity by the end of 2008.

Market continuum within the United States natural gas industry

From total regulation in 1970 the market has evolved into partial deregulation, with varying degrees of market opening at the different stages of the industrial process. This has happened in 3 stages; wellhead deregulation, pipeline reform and finally unbundling gas services. At the retail level, reforms and restructuring have occurred on a piecemeal basis. For example, state commissions have allowed LDCs to offer unbundled transportation service to large customers; occasionally to provide flexible pricing in competitive markets; and to engage in other competitive activities.Как углубить колодец

In 1979 price deregulation was introduced in phases for producers and completed with almost total deregulation by 1989. There are 24 majors and some 8,000 independent producers in the US. 160 gas transmission companies operate 285,000 miles of pipelines and these now provide open access. Over 500 marketers have been established in response to the deregulation of the gas market.

Before the restructuring process in the 1990s, many natural gas processing plants were owned and operated by natural gas and oil companies as a part of the overall energy production. During the 1995 – 2004 the types of companies owning and/or operating processing plants shifted from primarily oil / gas producers to what are now referred to as ‘midstream’ companies or operating divisions. Midstream operating companies such as Duke Energy Field Services, Enterprise Products Operating LP, Targa Resources, and BP dominate the market.

Financial transactions are no longer closely tied to the flow of the commodity. The outcomes of liberalisation of the US natural gas market is that the physical flow of gas remains much the same, from producer to end users, via pipelines and local distribution companies, but more market participants are involved in the financial transactions.

Over the past two decades FERC has encouraged the development of competitive wholesale power trading. Their belief is that competitive markets will lead to more efficient power generation, more technological innovation and eventually to lower retail electricity prices. Since the movement towards wholesale competition started, the number of companies that generate and sell power in competitive markets and the volume of wholesale power trading has increased significantly.

Unproved Probable Reserves

Probable reserves are those unproved reserves which analysis of geological and engineering data suggests are more likely than not to be recoverable. In this context, when probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 50% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the sum of estimated proved plus probable reserves. Гидроизоляция фундамента – виды гидроизоляции

In general, probable reserves may include (1) reserves anticipated to be proved by normal step-out drilling where sub-surface control is inadequate to classify these reserves as proved, (2) reserves in formations that appear to be productive based on well log characteristics but lack core data or definitive tests and which are not analogous to producing or proved reservoirs in the area, (3) incremental reserves attributable to infill drilling that could have been classified as proved if closer statutory spacing had been approved at the time of the estimate, (4) reserves attributable to improved recovery methods that have been established by repeated commercially successful applications when (a) a project or pilot is planned but not in operation and (b) rock, fluid, and reservoir characteristics appear favourable for commercial application, (5) reserves in an area of the formation that appears to be separated from the proved area by faulting and the geologic interpretation indicates the subject area is structurally higher than the proved area, (6) reserves attributable to a future work over, treatment, re-treatment, change of equipment, or other mechanical procedures, where such procedure has not been proved successful in wells which exhibit similar behaviour in analogous reservoirs, and (7) incremental reserves in proved reservoirs where an alternative interpretation of performance or volumetric data indicates more reserves than can be classified as proved.

Possible reserves are those unproved reserves which analysis of geological and engineering data suggests are less likely to be recoverable than probable reserves. In this context, when probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 10% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the sum of estimated proved plus probable plus possible reserves.

In general, possible reserves may include (1) reserves which, based on geological interpretations, could possibly exist beyond areas classified as probable, (2) reserves in formations that appear to be petroleum bearing based on log and core analysis but may not be productive at commercial rates, (3) incremental reserves attributed to infill drilling that are subject to technical uncertainty, (4) reserves attributed to improved recovery methods when (a) a project or pilot is planned but not in operation and (b) rock, fluid, and reservoir characteristics are such that a reasonable doubt exists that the project will be commercial, and (5) reserves in an area of the formation that appears to be separated from the proved area by faulting and geological interpretation indicates the subject area is structurally lower than the proved area.

SPE, Society of Petroleum Engineers, World Petroleum Council 1997

Wind Power in Denmark

After 6 years of marginal growth, the Danish wind industry experienced strong growth in 2009 with 294 MW of new installed capacity. The bulk of this, 209 MW, was new offshore capacity, resulting in a total installed capacity of 3,410 MW at year end. In 2009, the share of total energy production in Denmark for wind power was 20%. Кракен

This follows six years of stagnation where Denmark reached a plateau of wind power penetration at around 3.1 GW. Although a relatively small market now in terms of sales, Denmark remains an important country in the global wind power industry because of its leadership in expertise and technology and its strong manufacturing base.

During the early 1980s, Denmark had nearly all of the wind capacity outside of the United States, and this remained the case until Germany, the Netherlands and India began to build capacity in the latter part of the decade. By 1990, Denmark’s capacity amounted to 343 MW, far below the 1,911 MW of the US. Development continued through the 1990s and included two offshore projects. In 2003 Denmark reached its peak in capacity with 3,110 MW installed and has remained static since then, with 3,125 MW at the end of 2007, a slight drop from the previous year.

The renewable energy programme in Denmark which until recently was heavily subsidised, directly and indirectly, is primarily based on wind power. The programmes were assisted by an obligation on Transmission System Operators (and ultimately on electricity consumers) to purchase the total output of power from wind and local district heating sources at increased prices which were fixed by the government. Direct subsidies were paid for renewable energy produced both under compulsory purchase and free market conditions.

The feed-in tariff in Europe

In contrast to the US, most European countries have adopted feed-in tariffs. While RPS policies typically seek to create electricity price competition, feed-in tariffs require utilities to purchase power from renewable energy generators at a fixed price. These fixed prices are structured either in the form of long-term payments based on generation cost (as in Germany) or in the form of a fixed premium on top of the spot market price for electricity (as in Spain). Most of the laws also require utilities to interconnect all eligible renewable generation, thereby guaranteeing that renewable electricity can `feed in` to the grid. As of February, 2007, eighteen countries in the EU had feed-in tariffs. This figure rose to 23 including Turkey in April 2010.

Like RPS, feed-in tariff designs vary widely. The three wind power leaders in the EU, Germany, Denmark, and Spain have had feed-in tariff policies in place since the 1990s. Some of the systems (especially those of the newer EU member nations) are fairly new and untested.
Successful feed-in tariffs have several characteristics.

In the 1980s there was a voluntary agreement between Danish utilities and the Danish Wind Turbine Association whereby utilities purchased wind generated electricity at 85% of the retail electricity rate. The German Stromeinspeisungsgesetz (StrEG) (1991-2000) was patterned after this system and has been especially successful, with a fixed price for renewable energy set at 90% of the retail electricity rate. In 2000, when retail rates in Germany declined to a point that renewable energy development slowed under the StrEG, Germany introduced the Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), under which a fixed price was established independent of retail rates. This system still applies.

Through the EEG, renewable generators receive a fixed payment for 20 years, but payment streams decline over time such that a generator beginning production in 2007 will receive a lower payment stream than a generator beginning production in 2006. This declining payment structure is intended to account for improved efficiencies from economies of scale and encourage cost reductions over time. The EEG also differentiates between renewable technologies and each resource receives a different guaranteed price per kWh.

The world’s water service providers

Over 90% of the world’s water supply is under public control, mostly municipal or provincial in ownership. Historically, water and sanitation services were developed by both the public and private sectors. In the last century however, there was a tendency for governments to take over these services, for social and financial reasons. The clock is turning full circle though as governments can no longer afford the vast sums of money that are being demanded to meet today’s environmental standards, and as such they are decentralising services and responsibility and turning to the private sector. Countries which operated centrally controlled economies are devolving water and sewage systems to regional, provincial and municipal levels. There is a new realisation that water has to be paid for properly and prices have to be calculated at full cost recovery.

Anything less results in inadequate investment in the systems and a failure to serve the poorest sections of the community, who end up buying expensive water from private vendors. Money is needed, not only in the developing world, but equally in the industrialised countries, and in huge amounts. The investment needs of the most developed systems are escalating. Most pipeline systems in Europe and North America are 100 to 200 years old and although the engineers of the 19th century built them well they have not been maintained adequately and many are now approaching critical deterioration.

It is ironic that because these engineers built such lasting systems, there has not been a pressing maintenance requirement.

Power Supply Shortages

Power supply shortages are nothing new, and regular occur following extreme weather incidents affecting infrastructure, unexpected increases in power demand such as demand for air conditioning on a very hot summers day and failure of generators, transformers etc.visualcage

As a result of a lack of power supply following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, consumers supplied by Tohoku Electric have been asked to voluntarily reduce their electricity consumption. Businesses are shifting work schedules to earlier in the day and at weekends and turning auxiliary energy use off (such as unnecessary lighting and air conditions at 6 pm). Some of these actions, especially the work pattern shifts, are not sustainable in the long run.

Weather events such as storms and extreme temperatures have caused power cuts. For 3 days in February 2011 a severe cold snap resulted in rolling blackouts affecting 4.4 million customers in the Southwest of the US. Both electric and gas shortages were reported, which could have been prevented by the weatherisation power plants and increase in gas storage capacity. It is also worth noting that weather events affect fuel production. For example, oil platforms and refineries were closed of the Gulf of Mexico coast following Hurricane Katrina. Therefore, a weather event can affect all parts of the energy supply chain.

Another issue is that plans to expand nuclear power capacity or extend the lifetime of existing capacity in some countries is now on hold following the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. Within Japan the country’s Premier has announced plans to phase out nuclear power all together. A very ambitious plan as nuclear accounts for 30% of the country’s generating capacity, and not too long ago there were plans for nuclear to account for half of capacity. Since the accident the country has been relying on crude and diesel to meet demand, along with behavioural changes and planned rolling blackouts.

Water Deregulation in Select European Countries

In Austria, the assets are owned by the municipalities and regional governments, and operations are either conducted directly or by management companies.

In Belgium, 6 large provincial inter-municipally owned water companies’ supply 90% of the water; municipalities and communes own small companies. Water management is mostly public, but waste is sub-contracted. The arrangements differ in the two regions and Brussels city.

In Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden municipalities own assets, or in some cases have “corporatised” them. A high proportion of water mains leak and 60% of sewers more information. Water loss is high.

In France, municipalities own the water and waste assets and the responsibility lies with the municipalities to manage or have the services managed. There is some direct municipal management but three large private water companies Suez, Veolia and SAUR account for 92% of the private water market. They are the largest water companies in the world.

In Germany, over 12,000 different municipally owned management units provide water and sanitation services. Water and sanitation services are predominantly run by the public sector. The municipal authorities have the choice of how their region’s water services will be managed. There is a mix of direct management and contract management by large water companies. The level of private management is about 30% in the water supply sector and 10% in wastewater.

In Greece, 142 Municipal Enterprises of Water Supply & Sewerage (DEYA) are public corporations which carry out the WS and WWS functions of municipalities, communes or associations, which have been reduced from 227 as part of recent reform of the sector. 1,500 water associations serve villages, communities and towns. The two leading companies, EYDAP in Athens and EYATH in Thessaloniki have been privatised as part of recent austerity measures.

In Ireland, direct responsibility for water supply and sewerage is divested locally to 36 sanitation and water departments of 52 local and county councils. 5,500 group schemes operate in rural areas.

In Italy, with 20 regions, 103 provinces and 8,101 municipalities, the Italian water and waste sector is in transition, both in ownership and management. The Galli Law was enacted in 1994 and the highly fragmented system of over 7,000 local supply companies, Aziendi, are being rationalised into about 100 consolidated authorities, based on natural catchment areas.

In the Netherlands, the public water supply is the responsibility of 11 water supply companies’ majority owned by individual provinces and municipalities. There is an official ban on privatisation of water supply companies, enacted in 2004.