This event description is submitted by the organisers of the Global Clean Energy Congress . China 2010.

Conference Overview

The Global Clean Energy Congress . China 2010 will be held in October 18th to 21st in Beijing, China. This event is organized by the China Association of Resources Comprehensive Utilization, Modern Energy HNZ industrial Group and supported by the World Alliance for Decentralized Energy, Chinese Renewable Energy Society, Zhejiang Renewable Energy Association, Zhejiang Nuclear Society, Nuclear Branch of China Physical Research Society, Power System and Clean Energy Magazine, Power.IN-EN.com, Heilongjiang Electric Industry Association, Shanghai Metering Industry Association, Zhejiang Electric Power Transmission and Distribution Industry Association, China Geothermal Society and so on.

GCEC 2010 is combined of seven independent summits:
World Wind Energy Summit·China 2010
World Photovoltaic Summit·China 2010
World Nuclear Energy Summit China·2010
World Carbon Market Summit·China 2010
World Bio-Energy Development Summit·China 2010
World Strong Smart Grid Summit·China 2010
World Geothermal Energy Cascade Development & Pump Technology Summit·China 2010

Conference Background

With the continuous growth of the global industrialization, the traditional fossil fuel energy is generally running out. For the sustainable development of all the man kinds, developing new type of renewable energy has become consensus for all countries.

China has the responsibility for bearing the heavy task of meeting the energy demand from one fifth of world population. And at the same time, there is a large potential for developing renewable energy for its vast land with rich resources. However, the renewable energy industry in China is just in the initial stage, on the basis of keeping its own advantages, China should also strengthen the international cooperation.

Global Clean Energy Congress . China 2010 provides a systematic analysis and all-directional view into the renewable energy industry by 7 specialized and high-level summits, World Wind Energy Summit, World Photovoltaic Summit, World Bioenergy Summit, World Nuclear Energy Summit, China Carbon Market Summit, World Strong Smart Grid Summit and China Geothermal Energy Cascade Development & Pump Technology Summit, gathering with senior management levels and top experts from government, authorities, institutes, project owners, solution providers, equipment (part) and material providers etc from home and abroad in clean energy industry.

The Global Clean Energy Congress . China 2010 not only brings the latest information of scientific technology, upcoming projects and enterprise strategies, but it is also a good communication platform for you to exploit your market.

Conference Highlights

• Most comprehensive clean energy congress in China
• Largest scale of information exchange
• Direct dialogue between the government authority and technical elites
• Depth Insight into 7 Specialized Conference Stream
• Witness to the development of china’s clean energy and future scenarios for China’s clean energy market
• Projects-matching conference to get to know target business partner
• Gain the chance of communicating with over 1,000 delegates from home and abroad
• A series of communication activity to maximize interaction
• Precious chance of one time cooperation with us equals seven times promotion by yourself

For more information, please visit: www.gcec2010.com

Shanghai Marriott Hotel Hongqiao

China Green Transport Summit is one of the international leading and largest scale conferences in the world. In the past two years, the summit has established a mature communication platform for government and industry crossing countries and regions to exchange information and share experience. The summit invites officers from government and association to guide developing trends of future auto industry, well-known company leaders to share marketing strategy in global and Chinese market, technical experts to discuss technical solutions. All industry leaders gather together to join the festivity once a year.

For more information, please visit：http://www.hnzmedia.com/events/cgts2010/en

Contact:

Vita Jiang

Tel: +86 21 6167 0500 ext 224

Fax: +86 21 6167 0511

Email:marketing@hnzmedia.com

The study covers six countries – China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, and has the following key messages:

… large-scale deployment of energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies can simultaneously stabilize East Asia’s CO2 emissions by 2025 and significantly improve the local environment and enhance energy security, without compromising economic growth.

… accelerating the speed and scaling up the efforts are needed to get onto a sustainable energy path. The window of opportunity is closing fast, because delaying action would lock the region into a long-lasting high-carbon infrastructure.

This shift to a clean energy revolution requires major domestic policy and institutional reforms. Governments can adopt climate smart domestic policies now to deploy existing low-carbon technologies while a global climate deal is negotiated … To fully realize the huge energy efficiency potentials in the region requires the removal of fossil-fuel subsidies and incorporation of environmental externalities into energy pricing as well as a concerted strategy to tackle market failures and barriers with effective regulations, financial incentives, institutional reforms, and financing mechanisms.

Developed countries need to transfer substantial financing and low-carbon technologies. To achieve this sustainable energy path, a major hurdle is to mobilize financing for the net additional investment of $80 billion per year over the next two decades. It is estimated that approximately $25 billion per year would be required as concessional financing to cover the incremental costs and risks of energy efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, substantial grants are also needed to build capacity of local stakeholders. The technical and policy means exist for such transformations, but only strong political will and unprecedented international cooperation will make them happen.

Source and image credit: Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future by The World Bank

Speakers: Vijay Jagannathan, Sector Manager (Infrastructure), East Asia and Pacific (EAP) Region of the World Bank; Wang Xiaodong, Senior Energy Specialist, East Asia & Pacific (EAP) region of the World Bank

Venue: Seminar Room 3-5, Level 3, Manasseh Meyer, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, 469C Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 259772

Synopsis: According to a recent estimate by the US Energy Information administration, Asia accounts for 40 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions. And as major Asian economies are now growing at more than four times the pace of OECD country economies, Asia has become the primary region of global engagement in the pursuit of a low-carbon strategy.

Winds of Change – East Asia’s Sustainable Energy Future, the World Bank’s East Asia Energy Flagship Study, incorporates the lessons learned from the World Bank’s 17-year engagement in advocating policies and programs aimed at promoting cleaner energy investments in East Asia and Pacific countries.

This report, which will be disseminated in April 2010, demonstrates that a low-carbon growth path is possible for large Asian economies through policies focused on energy-efficiency improvements and innovations in renewable energy technologies. A low-carbon path is both technically and economically viable for the region, and if the right decisions are made, coal’s share in power generation could be halved to 37 percent by 2030.

The report concludes that about US$85 billion a year of additional financing will be required to achieve these ambitious goals. The authors of the study, Dr. Vijay Jagannathan and Dr. Xiadong Wang, will be launching the report and presenting their findings in Singapore on April 19, 2010.

Visit the LKYSPP website for details and registration.

Source: LKYSPP

The reason why we wrote the letter and sent it to the media is because we worry that The Rebound Effect could be happening with more people switching to other substitute activities that consume more energy during Earth Hour. We wanted to remind everyone that we must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

Unfortunately, it seems that our worries came true. Today Online reported today that:

This year, the 400 Earth Hour participants in Singapore contributed to electricity consumption falling by 23 megawatts on Saturday – a drop that represented a mere 0.021 per cent of average electricity consumption for Saturdays, according to the Energy Market Authority (EMA).

The total reduction was only roughly half that of last year’s Earth Hour, when power consumption fell 42 megawatts.

World Wide Fund for Nature’s Earth Hour campaign manager Ms Carine Seror said: “There could a number of factors – people could have turned off the lights but not the air-conditioning. We’ll be asking EMA to help us interpret the numbers.”

This year’s Earth Hour saw more participants and organisations taking action with electricity consumption dropping by 23 MW, but this was half of last year’s 42 MW drop. Why is this happening? This is serious and has deep implications for future actions. The organisers must find out what’s wrong.

Is it due to The Rebound Effect?

Our letter to the media:

Earth Hour is back again and takes place this Saturday. Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights; it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect.

The Asymmetry Principle as described by the energy economist Peter Tertzakian, states that a unit of energy saved at the consuming end (lighting a light bulb) amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source (at the natural gas well). This is due to the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission, and conversion to useful work.

When you switch off your lights or appliances during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream. However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Annual Earth Hour actions will be insufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources.

The Rebound Effect refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of energy efficiency measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the measures. For example, if you replace a 20W light bulb with a 10W energy efficient bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eats away the energy savings from the more efficient bulb.

The Rebound Effect can be adapted to explain that actual energy savings could be less than expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy from one activity but use more energy by switching to other substitute activities, the actual savings is less than expected savings. Everyone should support Earth Hour but we have to remind ourselves that the Earth Hour activities we take part in should not be using more energy as compared to our usual activities.

We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect. We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy. So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

my paper published an edited version of our letter today:

Today published an edited version of our letter on 30 Mar.

The switching off of lights is a symbolic act for everyone to take responsibility and fight climate change. Find out more about what you can do and pledge your support for Earth Hour.

Earth Hour has been successful in gaining support and participation over the past few years. For this year’s Earth Hour, we would like to remind everyone that Earth Hour is not just about switching off lights, it’s about two key forces at work – The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect:

The Asymmetry Principle

In his book, The End of Energy Obesity: Breaking Today’s Energy Addiction for a Prosperous and Secure Tomorrow, energy economist Peter Tertzakian describes The Asymmetry Principle as:

the lopsided relationship between how much raw energy is available at the primary source — for example, at a natural gas well — and the small fraction of energy that is actually put to useful work at the consuming end — for example, in lighting a light bulb. The principle states that a unit of energy saved at the consumer level amplifies into multiple units of energy saved at the source. In effect, the asymmetry principle exposes the high levels of inefficiency in society’s energy systems and highlights the tremendous leverage offered by efficiency gains and conservation in mitigating source energy consumption.

He gave the example of a light bulb:

1. 100 energy units of natural gas at source
2. 40 energy units remaining due to conversion to electricity
3. 35 energy units remaining due to transmission losses
4. 2 energy units remaining due to conversion to light

In this example of a light bulb, reducing the consumption of one unit of energy (as light) actually saves the production of 50 units of energy (as natural gas) if you account for the inefficiencies and energy losses in fuel production, electricity generation, electricity transmission and thermal conversion to light.

To put it simply, when you switch off the lights and save X units of energy, you are actually saving more than X units of energy as the energy savings amplify back to the energy source.

Therefore, energy conservation or reducing your energy consumption plays an important role in reducing carbon emissions. When you switch off your lights or appliances at home during Earth Hour, it is not merely the act of pressing a switch but the multiplying and amplifying effects of conserving the energy resources upstream.

However, energy conservation must be done by everyone daily to make a significant difference such that The Asymmetry Principle plays out. Take the example of last year’s Earth Hour:

In Singapore, turning off lights and electrical appliances during Earth Hour saw a 42-megawatt drop in electricity demand. This is equivalent to 40 per cent of the electricity demand in Ang Mo Kio for that hour, said Energy Market Authority (EMA).

However, there was no real decrease in carbon emissions.

Since we only used 1 per cent less electricity as we normally would have in that hour, the generation companies (gencos) burnt just as much fuel as usual, said EMA.

- The New Paper

For actual reduction in the fuel usage and carbon emissions, everyone in Singapore (households and organisations) must play a part in energy conservation on a daily basis to reduce Singapore’s energy demand. Ad hoc or yearly Earth Hour actions will not be sufficient to effect an actual change in the reduction of energy resources and carbon emissions.

The Rebound Effect

The Rebound Effect usually refers to the behavioral responses to the introduction of new energy efficiency technologies or measures, which tend to offset the actual benefits of the new technology or measures. In other words, actual energy savings is less than expected savings.

For example, if you replace a 20W incandescent light bulb with a 10W energy efficient compact fluorescent bulb, the energy saving should be 50%. However, the actual energy saving is usually less than 50% because as you find that you pay less for lighting, you tend to be less concerned with switching it off. The increased usage thus eat away some of the energy savings from the more efficient light bulb.

Here, we will adapt The Rebound Effect to explain that the actual energy or carbon emission savings could be less than the expected savings from energy conservation. When you reduce energy or carbon emissions from one activity but use more energy or generate more emissions by switching to other substitute activities, then the actual savings is less than expected savings.

For example, you usually read a book on a Saturday night. But to support Earth Hour, you switch off your lights, thus saving X units of energy. In the dark, you can’t read so you switch on the TV and watch it for the whole night. The actual energy savings is thus less than the expected X units of energy savings.

Or instead of staying at home, you decide to drive your car to an event that celebrates Earth Hour. The additional carbon emissions could be more than the expected emission savings from switching off the lights.

You should still support Earth Hour but remember The Rebound Effect and remind yourself that the Earth Hour activities you take part in should not be causing more energy consumption or carbon emissions as compared to your usual activities.

The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect

Earth Hour is really about The Asymmetry Principle vs The Rebound Effect. We need to see more of The Asymmetry Principle and less of The Rebound Effect.

We need more people to switch off their lights and reduce their energy consumption daily so as to amplify the energy savings at the source. We need less people to switch to other substitute activities that consume more energy or generate more emissions.

So remember for this year’s Earth Hour, everyone must take action to conserve energy daily and ensure that our actions do not contribute to the problem we are trying to solve.

• Prof. Linda Yuen-Ching Lim: Professor of Strategy at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan
• Dr. Natasha Hamilton-Hart: Associate Professor and Deputy Head in the Southeast Asian Studies Programme of the National University of Singapore
• Dr. Tilak Doshi: Chief Economist and Principal Fellow at the Energy Studies Institute
• Dr. Cheng-Guan Michael Quah: Chief Scientist and Principal Fellow at the Energy Studies Institute

The panelists provided their frank views on the ESC recommendations and report, both good and bad. Some of the key views include:

Timid and Bounded

Dr Natasha called the report timid while Dr Michael called it bounded. Dr Natasha said that some of the recommendations were already what the government has been doing for decades. It also fails to look at the reality of some problems, including the income inequality of the rich and poor. Dr Michael said that there were no stretch goals and the KPIs were achievable. There is a need to create new thinking, look forward and keep pushing the boundaries.

Lack of Integration

Prof Linda said that there is a lack of a holistic approach to integrate all the strategies. Manufacturing, tourism or other sectors, and energy can’t be looked at separately. There is a need to integrate our energy strategy across the different sectors. The government is at a competitive advantage as it can do things other government can’t do easily.

Culture Change

Dr Michael highlighted the importance of culture change and a different kind of lifestyle while Dr Tilak spoke about the role of behaviour economics. Prof Linda commented on the difference between energy conservation and energy efficiency. There is a need to reduce our absolute energy consumption if we talk about energy security. Steps have to be taken to reduce our energy dependency and prepare for higher energy prices.

Here is Eugene’s reply letter to the ST Editor:

I refer to the article, “Reign of old king coal is not necessarily over” by Grace Chua (ST Mar 19).

The article highlighted several environmental and technological uncertainties associated with the use of coal, which would be best answered by the government. The public needs to know the pros and cons of using coal, and it would help if the government openly and clearly explains its decision to use coal, while anticipating the coming carbon-constrained world, maintaining our clean and green image, and achieving our aim to be a clean energy hub.

For a start, the government could clarify the following:

1. Has the government assessed the environmental impacts of using coal or conducted a life cycle assessment study of coal? How does it compare with natural gas?

2. Would the government require the upcoming coal and biomass-fired power plant by Tuas Power or new power plants using coal, to conduct an environmental impact assessment before going ahead to construct?

3. Would the use of coal lead to more carbon emissions as compared to using natural gas, and undermine the government’s own efforts to reduce emissions by 16% from 2020 business-as-usual levels?

4. Is the government funding research on carbon capture and storage, or technology to reduce coal emissions so that they are on par with those from natural gas?

5. Would the use of coal tarnish Singapore’s reputation as a clean and green city?

6. Would the use of coal without carbon capture and storage technology contradict Singapore’s vision to be a clean energy hub?

7. Would the use of coal reduce the demand for LNG and challenge the viability of the government’s new LNG terminal?

• Sustainable Development – Overall Approach to Resource Efficiency and Mitigating Climate Change
• Improving Energy Efficiency
• Singapore’s Vulnerability to Climate Change
• Managing Our Water Resources
• Recycling and Waste Minimisation
• Building Up R&D and Manpower Capabilities in Clean Environment and Water Sectors
• Dengue
• Sustaining Public Cleanliness
• Licensing Elderly Tissue Paper Peddlers
• Noise
• Enhancements to Food Hygiene Regime
• ABC Waters Programme

Here are some key points that they raised:

At Copenhagen, Singapore supported the Accord, and has since written to the UNFCCC Secretariat to associate ourselves formally with the Accord as a good basis for advancing negotiations towards reaching a legally binding global agreement on climate change. Though the Accord as it stands does not create legal obligations, it contains important elements that can facilitate the on-going negotiations. To date, about 100 out of the 194 Parties to the UNFCCC have associated themselves with the Accord. About 30 non-Annex I countries, including Singapore, have also tabled their emission reduction targets.

To play our part in international efforts to mitigate climate change, Singapore has pledged to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 16% from the 2020 business-as-usual scenario. This target is contingent on a legally binding global agreement in which all countries implement their commitments in good faith. Our target is credible and rigorous given our past efforts to reduce emissions and the constraints we face as a city-state, including our limited potential to adopt renewable energy.It is a substantial commitment by Singapore. Achieving it will involve considerable costs, and changes in lifestyle and business practices.

BCA will increase the mandatory minimum energy efficiency standards for Green Mark certified new buildings by 10% from today’s standards by the end of this year, and will also mandate the submission of building energy usage data from 2011.

Our consultations with large energy users indicate that a wide range of energy management practices exists today. We therefore see the need for minimum standards to ensure greater management attention is paid to energy. While this will ultimately benefit companies in terms of cost-savings, we also recognise the need to give companies sufficient lead-time to prepare.

By 2013, we will require companies in the industry sector consuming more than the equivalent of 15 GWh of energy each year to appoint an energy manager, monitor and report energy use to NEA, and develop and submit energy efficiency improvement plans. NEA will be consulting the companies involved on the detailed requirements.

To ensure a smooth transition, NEA will introduce the Energy Efficiency National Partnership, or EENP, in April to help companies build up the necessary capabilities before the mandatory energy management practices come into effect. We will also be reviewing our incentive schemes and exploring long-term energy efficiency financing options to cater to the needs of companies.

These energy management requirements for industry and energy efficiency-related legislation in other sectors will be consolidated in an Energy Conservation Act that will come into force in 2013. The Act allows for a co-ordinated approach to standards-setting for energy efficiency across all sectors, and will represent a major milestone in the government’s efforts to develop energy efficiency as a competitive advantage for Singapore.

As I announced last year, minimum energy performance standards or MEPS will be implemented for household air-conditioners and refrigerators in 2011.MEPS will remove the most energy inefficient air-conditioners and refrigerators from the market. Depending on the appliance category, all 0-tick models and some 1- and 2-tick models will be removed, representing about 20% of current sales volumes. A sufficient range of brands and models will remain available for consumer choice.

MEPS will help consumers save on electricity bills and is not expected to significantly increase the upfront cost of air-conditioners and refrigerators. A more efficient fridge that costs the same as one phased out by MEPS can save a household about $130 a year. When all the existing air-conditioners and refrigerators in Singapore comply with the MEPS standards, consumers will enjoy a total energy savings of about $20milannually.

We will tighten the MEPS standards over time. We will also consider extending MEPS to more appliances, such as lighting and televisions.

The public sector will continue to take the lead on environmental sustainability measures. From FY11, all Ministries will set energy savings targets. We will continue to study new measures that can be implemented.

In 2007, NEA commissioned a study involving local and foreign experts to understand our vulnerabilities to climate change.

The first phase of the study covering the physical impacts of climate change has concluded. The results have been peer reviewed by international experts who noted that the study adopted well-established methodologies and that the findings are plausible.

The study projects that the average daily temperature in Singapore could increase by between 2.7 to 4.2°C from the current average of 26.8°C by 2100 and the mean sea level around Singapore could rise by 24 to 65 cm by 2100. These findings are within the range of our expectations and consistent with global projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

By 2011, Singapore’s water catchment area will increase to two thirds of our land area with the completion of the Punggol and Serangoon reservoirs.

In addition, when Changi NEWater Factory is fully completed in 2010, NEWater will be able to meet 30% of our current water needs. As a source which is independent of rainfall, NEWater enhances the resilience of our water supply by supplementing local water stocks in the event of extended dry spells, like what we are experiencing today.

Singapore’s overall recycling rate increased from 40% in 2000 to 57% in 2009 and we are on track to meet the target of 60% by 2012. We are studying how we can enhance the effectiveness of existing recycling efforts. For instance, there is scope to reduce the amount of domestic waste disposed and we are working with the public waste collectors to review the National Recycling Programme. This includes studying the provision of more recycling bins in HDB estates and the collection and recycling of other waste streams such as garden waste from landed homes and food waste from markets.

To reduce waste at source, NEA has collaborated with the food and beverage industry on the voluntary Singapore Packaging Agreement since July 2007. The Agreement demonstrates that environmentally friendly practices make sound business sense – the participating companies saved $4.4mil from a reduction of 2,500 tons of packaging waste over the last two years. … Following the extension of the Agreement to cover all types of product packaging since October 2009, we can expect to see avoided waste and reduced packaging in other sectors as well.

Source: MEWR

Here are some key points that he raised:

Our goal is to make Singapore a Smart Energy Economy with an energy ecosystem that is secure, sustainable and competitive. Our strategy to meet the global energy challenges rests on two key thrusts: diversification and competitive energy markets.

The Government agrees with the Economic Strategies Committee’s (ESC) recommendation to adopt a portfolio approach towards energy – in other words, no one energy option will be adequate to meet our varied energy objectives.

We will adopt a pragmatic approach by evaluating the alternatives on the basis of energy security, economic viability and environmental sustainability.

Among the renewable energy sources currently available, solar is one of the most promising in our context for electricity generation. While still relatively expensive today, solar energy prices could achieve grid parity in the medium term.

… why are we prepared to study nuclear energy as an option now. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, it can potentially enhance energy security, reduce carbon emissions, and mitigate the impact of volatile oil and gas prices – thus it could meet, potentially all our objectives embedded in the national energy policy.

The aim is to ensure that we fully understand, and objectively evaluate from all perspectives, the opportunities, challenges and risks involved with nuclear energy. The study will commence later this year. It will entail a careful, deliberate and rigorous examination of the technical, economic and safety aspects of nuclear energy.

Clean coal could be a component of our energy diversification strategy. Currently, coal makes up more than 40 per cent of global power generation. And, it is expected to remain at this level until at least 2030 given the relative abundance of coal sources in the world. Coal also has a cost advantage though this may be eroded by any future global carbon pricing regime. However, combustion technology is evolving, making coal cleaner than before and we must, therefore, keep this option open.

We are price-takers in the global energy market because we are small and import almost all our energy requirements. We therefore must allow the full cost of energy to be reflected in prices. Subsidising energy would be encouraging wasteful consumption and it will also be a drain on public finances.

Source: MTI