By Chanyaporn Chanjaroen
March 6 (Bloomberg) -- Oil may rise 35 percent to $60 a barrel should OPEC agree to cut production this month, according to BlueGold Capital Management LLP, the London hedge fund that returned 31 percent this year on energy trades.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries may agree to cut output for the fourth time since September at a meeting on March 15 in Vienna to shore up prices that fell as much as 77 percent from a record in July. Crude oil traded at $44.33 as of 10:30 a.m. in London today.
“OPEC has shown good compliance on their output cuts and they might be successful in providing a floor to oil prices,” BlueGold Chief Investment Officer Pierre Andurand said in an interview on March 4. “Oil prices have a chance to rise to $60 soon if OPEC members carry on showing a high level of compliance and announce another cut.”
Crude has rebounded 11 percent since March 3, partly on speculation OPEC will cut output. The group, accounting for 40 percent of world supply, may act after the International Energy Agency forecast demand this year will drop the most since 1982. U.S. crude stockpiles expanded 7.7 percent this year and are near their highest since July 2007.
BlueGold has returned 307 percent since starting operations in February last year, 32-year-old Andurand said. The money manager began trading oil in 2000 with Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s J. Aron & Co. unit in Singapore. He co-founded BlueGold with Dennis Crema, 48, who has traded energy for more than two decades.
BlueGold’s assets under management peaked at $1.3 billion in January, falling to $830 million in February as investors sought to raise cash, Andurand said. This year’s performance has increased assets to $1 billion. The fund is seeking additional investment, he said.
Economic Slump
The world economic slump is unlikely to end any time soon, the money manager said. Governments and central banks are spending trillions of dollars to combat the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. More than $31 trillion has been erased from the value of global equities in the past year.
“We are more likely to see deflation than inflation over the next few years,” Andurand said. “It could be a multi-year process, with a danger of lasting more than a decade if governments don’t react aggressively enough.”
Hedge funds lost 19 percent on average in 2008, the worst year since Chicago-based Hedge Fund Research started tracking data in 1990. They were little changed in January. BlueGold returned about 16 percent in February.
Hedge funds are private and largely unregulated pools of capital whose managers can buy or sell any assets and make bets on falling as well as rising asset prices and participate substantially in profits from money invested.
To contact the reporter on this story: Chanyaporn Chanjaroen in London at cchanjaroen@bloomberg
NEWS - Commodites, Agriculture, Green Investment - NEWS
3/06/2009
New Fund Of Funds To Focus On Pure-Play Cleantech Investments
February 17, 2009 CleanTechBrief
The Far Hills Group, a financial services firm specializing in the placement of alternative investment offerings, has joined forces with cleantech fund manager Russell Diamond to form Solution Capital Partners, a cleantech fund of funds manager.
Russell Diamond, the former manager of a smaller cleantech-focused fund-of-funds, R&D Capital Partners, will handle to the day-to-day management of the new fund, according to peHUB.
Solution’s investment committee will include members of the Far Hills Group, who will provide due diligence assistance on potential investments and help raise capital.
Geoffrey Bradshaw-Mack, a managing director with Far Hills Group, told peHUB the joint venture was the result of Far Hills professionals investing in Diamond’s previous fund. Bradshaw-Mack said many LPs have indicated strong interest in cleantech – particularly given the pending stimulus bill – but that some are seeking a broadly-diversified strategy.
Solution hopes to raise $200 million, with a $350 million cap, roughly 25% of which will go to early-stage VC, half to growth-stage/late-stage and the remainder to “opportunistic” situations. Solution expects to invest chiefly in pure-play cleantech funds.
The Far Hills Group, a financial services firm specializing in the placement of alternative investment offerings, has joined forces with cleantech fund manager Russell Diamond to form Solution Capital Partners, a cleantech fund of funds manager.
Russell Diamond, the former manager of a smaller cleantech-focused fund-of-funds, R&D Capital Partners, will handle to the day-to-day management of the new fund, according to peHUB.
Solution’s investment committee will include members of the Far Hills Group, who will provide due diligence assistance on potential investments and help raise capital.
Geoffrey Bradshaw-Mack, a managing director with Far Hills Group, told peHUB the joint venture was the result of Far Hills professionals investing in Diamond’s previous fund. Bradshaw-Mack said many LPs have indicated strong interest in cleantech – particularly given the pending stimulus bill – but that some are seeking a broadly-diversified strategy.
Solution hopes to raise $200 million, with a $350 million cap, roughly 25% of which will go to early-stage VC, half to growth-stage/late-stage and the remainder to “opportunistic” situations. Solution expects to invest chiefly in pure-play cleantech funds.
Sarasin Adds U.S. Cleantech Stocks To Power Fund
February 27, 2009
Encouraged by President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package – 13.5% of which is earmarked for climate change initiatives – Bank Sarasin is adding U.S. stocks to its New Power Fund.
“So far we haven't had such a big focus on the U.S., because in terms of renewables, it wasn't the place to be – we were more focused on Europe," Matthias Fawer, vice president of sustainable investment at Bank Sarasin, told Reuters.
"But now with the stimulus package and the slowdown in Europe, especially in the Spanish solar market, we are moving to U.S. stocks," he said.
The leading Swiss private bank expects installed wind and solar capacity to grow in 2009 in both the United States and Europe.
U.S. solar stocks chosen by Sarasin include First Solar, a thin film maker and 2.97% holding for the fund, and Energy Conversion Devices. Both could benefit from the stimulus package, as could SolarWorld, a German company with production facilities in the U.S. – at 4.89%, it was the largest holding in the fund as of the end of January.
The U.S. stimulus package commits $106 billion to climate change initiatives, according to Deutsche Asset Management figures released this week. Of this, $85 billion will go to direct spending and $21 billion to renewable energy tax breaks.
The direct spending will include investment to improve the efficiency of the electricity grid, and in new power lines to connect renewables to big cities.
In light of this, Bank Sarasin has added stocks like General Cable and ITC Holdings to its portfolio. ITC is to build a $12 billion transmission line to carry wind-generated electricity.
The fund has also invested in Itron, a manufacturer of “smart” meters, which could benefit from energy conservation grants.
Florida Power & Light Group (3.08% of the fund at end-January) is believed to be in a good position to take advantage of project financing.
Lipper data showed the Sarasin New Power Fund down 55.17% in the 12 months to the end of January. The fund family has an estimated $274.8 million in assets under management.
Encouraged by President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package – 13.5% of which is earmarked for climate change initiatives – Bank Sarasin is adding U.S. stocks to its New Power Fund.
“So far we haven't had such a big focus on the U.S., because in terms of renewables, it wasn't the place to be – we were more focused on Europe," Matthias Fawer, vice president of sustainable investment at Bank Sarasin, told Reuters.
"But now with the stimulus package and the slowdown in Europe, especially in the Spanish solar market, we are moving to U.S. stocks," he said.
The leading Swiss private bank expects installed wind and solar capacity to grow in 2009 in both the United States and Europe.
U.S. solar stocks chosen by Sarasin include First Solar, a thin film maker and 2.97% holding for the fund, and Energy Conversion Devices. Both could benefit from the stimulus package, as could SolarWorld, a German company with production facilities in the U.S. – at 4.89%, it was the largest holding in the fund as of the end of January.
The U.S. stimulus package commits $106 billion to climate change initiatives, according to Deutsche Asset Management figures released this week. Of this, $85 billion will go to direct spending and $21 billion to renewable energy tax breaks.
The direct spending will include investment to improve the efficiency of the electricity grid, and in new power lines to connect renewables to big cities.
In light of this, Bank Sarasin has added stocks like General Cable and ITC Holdings to its portfolio. ITC is to build a $12 billion transmission line to carry wind-generated electricity.
The fund has also invested in Itron, a manufacturer of “smart” meters, which could benefit from energy conservation grants.
Florida Power & Light Group (3.08% of the fund at end-January) is believed to be in a good position to take advantage of project financing.
Lipper data showed the Sarasin New Power Fund down 55.17% in the 12 months to the end of January. The fund family has an estimated $274.8 million in assets under management.
Should There be Limits on Commodity Investment?
By John Kemp, Reuters
Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:47:18 PM ET
John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own.
LONDON (Reuters)—The commodity boom and bust in the last five years suggests there is a natural limit on how much investment money these markets can absorb before price-setting mechanisms become distorted and prices unmoored from supply and demand fundamentals.
Exchange operators and dealers have a strong interest in increasing turnover and volume, since it boosts income from fees and commissions. But most also argue that increased turnover makes markets more efficient because it sharpens price discovery and makes them more liquid.
In this "more is better" view, increased participation by investors works in the interests of producers and consumers.
By bringing more participants to the market, prices incorporate a wider range of views, and the market is more likely to find the "correct" equilibrium price quickly, improving the price discovery function.
It's also more likely that producers and consumers wanting to execute hedging transactions will find a willing counterparty to take the other side of the trade, making it easier and cheaper to transfer unwanted price risks from industry to investors, boosting liquidity.
Economists and regulators have largely endorsed this view. Policymakers have been reluctant to take any steps that would restrict the number of participants in commodity futures markets or the size of the positions they may run.
But there are signs that a rethink is underway. In particular, regulators are beginning to ask whether the massive influx of investment money into commodity futures over the last five years actually distorted prices and reduced liquidity for other market users rather than increasing it as was expected.
In a letter to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) ahead of his confirmation hearing, President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler, acknowledged that "rapid growth in commodity index funds was a contributing factor to a bubble in commodities prices that peaked in mid-2008."
Position Limits Ineffective
Classic theory assumes futures markets are competitive. Prices are determined by interactions among a multitude of buyers and sellers running relatively small positions and unable individually to have a material impact on the outcome.
Protecting the market's competitive nature has always been the justification for imposing position limits and banning participants from attempting to establish squeezes or corners.
Under CFTC oversight, the New York Mercantile Exchange has established position accountability levels restricting market participants to no more than 10,000 light sweet crude oil contracts for any one delivery month, and no more than 20,000 for all months. The limit becomes tighter and more binding in the last three days prior to contract expiry, when it becomes a firm limit and drops to 3,000 contracts. Similar limits exist in other contracts and exchanges.
But accountability levels have always been "soft" limits. The NYMEX can grant exemptions for producers and consumers who need to run larger positions than this to hedge their physical exposures. In recent years, the NYMEX has also granted exemptions to banks and swap dealers who run commodity indices and exchange-traded commodity funds so they can hedge their obligations to their clients out onto the public markets. Position limits have become more theoretical than real:
(1) Congressional enquiries into the failure of U.S. hedge fund Amaranth Advisors in 2006 revealed it had amassed positions in U.S. natural gas contracts amounting to more than half the outstanding open interest for certain delivery months.
(2) When the CFTC was forced to correct its commitment of traders' data last summer, after misclassifying some positions, it revealed one trader held more than 320,000 contracts for light sweet crude oil. Not only was that far above the 20,000-contract accountability level, it amounted to more than 10% of the entire open interest in one of the world's most important commodity markets.
(3) In a letter to the CFTC last summer, investigators from the House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee demanded to know why the NYMEX had granted 117 exemptions to the normal position limits in the light sweet crude oil contract alone since 2006.
The committee noted: "Of the 117 exemptions granted, 48 were given to 18 companies based exclusively on swaps exposure, another 44 were issued to 24 companies for combined hedge/swap positions, but only 25 were granted to 11 companies based on a bona fide hedge exposure." (Click here to read the letter.)
NYMEX has granted so many exemptions some commentators wonder whether the accountability levels have any meaning at all. In his pre-confirmation letter, Mr. Gensler promised to review them all to ensure they were appropriate.
(4) One existing beneficiary is the United States Oil Fund, which sells units linked to the price of NYMEX light sweet oil. The fund's web site discloses that it currently owns almost 50,000 contracts for NYMEX light sweet crude oil in the April 2009 delivery month, far in excess of the normal accountability level and amounting to 18% of all contracts outstanding for that date.
The fund's holdings are so large it cannot hold them all on the NYMEX. So it holds another 30,000 lookalike contracts for light sweet oil on the IntercontinentalExchange, which has no position limits because the contract is based in London.
Absorbing, not Adding Liquidity
The problem is not the overall amount of money that investors have poured into commodity markets, but its concentration at certain points along the futures curve, and the fact investors have tended to behave as a herd, all trying to go long at the same time. As a result, the influx of investment money has tended to absorb rather than provide liquidity to the rest of the market.
In theory, rising commodity prices should have encouraged commodity producers to sell production forward, ensuring the market remained balanced. In practice, it simply encouraged producers to discontinue hedging programs and accept spot prices, in expectation prices would rise even further.
So as oil prices climbed relentlessly, buying interest from investors was met by less selling interest from producers, and less willingness from dealers to take a short position against the trend. Liquidity declined, prices became discontinuous and the market began to "gap" higher.
Even after prices have fallen, the concentration of investor positions in certain parts of the curve is still causing distortions. The need to roll the Oil Fund's contracts and those of commodity indices forward each month (selling existing holdings in the nearby month and buying contracts for the next one) is keeping the market locked in a deep contango. Contracts which the Oil Fund and the indices need to sell are locked at a permanent discount to the ones they need to buy, as the rest of the market preys on forced sellers. In the process it is inflicting substantial roll losses on index and fund investors even though oil prices have been steady over the last three months.
The solution is to enforce position limits more vigorously and restrict exemptions to genuine hedgers rather than dealers running commodity indices and exchange-traded funds.
Dealers would still be free to run indices and exchange-traded funds, drumming up business from pension funds and other investors wanting exposure to commodity prices. But only a relatively small part of this extra investment business could be "dumped" onto the public exchanges, creating an upward price spiral.
The rest would have to be warehoused in the dealers' own books. Unless dealers wanted to be net short, it would give them a sharp incentive to go out and find willing sellers to match the number of new buyers they are bringing to the market.
Tougher position limits would force them to become two-way dealers again, rather than simply commodity-investment promoters. It would also help ensure the influx of investment money does not overwhelm the regular price-setting and hedging needs of physical users.
Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:47:18 PM ET
John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own.
LONDON (Reuters)—The commodity boom and bust in the last five years suggests there is a natural limit on how much investment money these markets can absorb before price-setting mechanisms become distorted and prices unmoored from supply and demand fundamentals.
Exchange operators and dealers have a strong interest in increasing turnover and volume, since it boosts income from fees and commissions. But most also argue that increased turnover makes markets more efficient because it sharpens price discovery and makes them more liquid.
In this "more is better" view, increased participation by investors works in the interests of producers and consumers.
By bringing more participants to the market, prices incorporate a wider range of views, and the market is more likely to find the "correct" equilibrium price quickly, improving the price discovery function.
It's also more likely that producers and consumers wanting to execute hedging transactions will find a willing counterparty to take the other side of the trade, making it easier and cheaper to transfer unwanted price risks from industry to investors, boosting liquidity.
Economists and regulators have largely endorsed this view. Policymakers have been reluctant to take any steps that would restrict the number of participants in commodity futures markets or the size of the positions they may run.
But there are signs that a rethink is underway. In particular, regulators are beginning to ask whether the massive influx of investment money into commodity futures over the last five years actually distorted prices and reduced liquidity for other market users rather than increasing it as was expected.
In a letter to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) ahead of his confirmation hearing, President Barack Obama's nominee to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler, acknowledged that "rapid growth in commodity index funds was a contributing factor to a bubble in commodities prices that peaked in mid-2008."
Position Limits Ineffective
Classic theory assumes futures markets are competitive. Prices are determined by interactions among a multitude of buyers and sellers running relatively small positions and unable individually to have a material impact on the outcome.
Protecting the market's competitive nature has always been the justification for imposing position limits and banning participants from attempting to establish squeezes or corners.
Under CFTC oversight, the New York Mercantile Exchange has established position accountability levels restricting market participants to no more than 10,000 light sweet crude oil contracts for any one delivery month, and no more than 20,000 for all months. The limit becomes tighter and more binding in the last three days prior to contract expiry, when it becomes a firm limit and drops to 3,000 contracts. Similar limits exist in other contracts and exchanges.
But accountability levels have always been "soft" limits. The NYMEX can grant exemptions for producers and consumers who need to run larger positions than this to hedge their physical exposures. In recent years, the NYMEX has also granted exemptions to banks and swap dealers who run commodity indices and exchange-traded commodity funds so they can hedge their obligations to their clients out onto the public markets. Position limits have become more theoretical than real:
(1) Congressional enquiries into the failure of U.S. hedge fund Amaranth Advisors in 2006 revealed it had amassed positions in U.S. natural gas contracts amounting to more than half the outstanding open interest for certain delivery months.
(2) When the CFTC was forced to correct its commitment of traders' data last summer, after misclassifying some positions, it revealed one trader held more than 320,000 contracts for light sweet crude oil. Not only was that far above the 20,000-contract accountability level, it amounted to more than 10% of the entire open interest in one of the world's most important commodity markets.
(3) In a letter to the CFTC last summer, investigators from the House of Representatives' Energy and Commerce Committee demanded to know why the NYMEX had granted 117 exemptions to the normal position limits in the light sweet crude oil contract alone since 2006.
The committee noted: "Of the 117 exemptions granted, 48 were given to 18 companies based exclusively on swaps exposure, another 44 were issued to 24 companies for combined hedge/swap positions, but only 25 were granted to 11 companies based on a bona fide hedge exposure." (Click here to read the letter.)
NYMEX has granted so many exemptions some commentators wonder whether the accountability levels have any meaning at all. In his pre-confirmation letter, Mr. Gensler promised to review them all to ensure they were appropriate.
(4) One existing beneficiary is the United States Oil Fund, which sells units linked to the price of NYMEX light sweet oil. The fund's web site discloses that it currently owns almost 50,000 contracts for NYMEX light sweet crude oil in the April 2009 delivery month, far in excess of the normal accountability level and amounting to 18% of all contracts outstanding for that date.
The fund's holdings are so large it cannot hold them all on the NYMEX. So it holds another 30,000 lookalike contracts for light sweet oil on the IntercontinentalExchange, which has no position limits because the contract is based in London.
Absorbing, not Adding Liquidity
The problem is not the overall amount of money that investors have poured into commodity markets, but its concentration at certain points along the futures curve, and the fact investors have tended to behave as a herd, all trying to go long at the same time. As a result, the influx of investment money has tended to absorb rather than provide liquidity to the rest of the market.
In theory, rising commodity prices should have encouraged commodity producers to sell production forward, ensuring the market remained balanced. In practice, it simply encouraged producers to discontinue hedging programs and accept spot prices, in expectation prices would rise even further.
So as oil prices climbed relentlessly, buying interest from investors was met by less selling interest from producers, and less willingness from dealers to take a short position against the trend. Liquidity declined, prices became discontinuous and the market began to "gap" higher.
Even after prices have fallen, the concentration of investor positions in certain parts of the curve is still causing distortions. The need to roll the Oil Fund's contracts and those of commodity indices forward each month (selling existing holdings in the nearby month and buying contracts for the next one) is keeping the market locked in a deep contango. Contracts which the Oil Fund and the indices need to sell are locked at a permanent discount to the ones they need to buy, as the rest of the market preys on forced sellers. In the process it is inflicting substantial roll losses on index and fund investors even though oil prices have been steady over the last three months.
The solution is to enforce position limits more vigorously and restrict exemptions to genuine hedgers rather than dealers running commodity indices and exchange-traded funds.
Dealers would still be free to run indices and exchange-traded funds, drumming up business from pension funds and other investors wanting exposure to commodity prices. But only a relatively small part of this extra investment business could be "dumped" onto the public exchanges, creating an upward price spiral.
The rest would have to be warehoused in the dealers' own books. Unless dealers wanted to be net short, it would give them a sharp incentive to go out and find willing sellers to match the number of new buyers they are bringing to the market.
Tougher position limits would force them to become two-way dealers again, rather than simply commodity-investment promoters. It would also help ensure the influx of investment money does not overwhelm the regular price-setting and hedging needs of physical users.
3/04/2009
Le remboursement énergétique du photovoltaïque
Par Jean-Pierre Bommer*
Combien d’années faut-il à des panneaux photovoltaïques pour restituer l’électricité préalablement investie dans leur fabrication?
Combien d’années faut-il à des panneaux photovoltaïques pour restituer l’électricité préalablement investie dans leur fabrication? Cette question suscite une certaine confusion entre les notions de «remboursement» et de «coefficient de retour» énergétiques. Explications.
Tout dispositif de production d’électricité par transformation d’énergie primaire réalisée à partir d’une source renouvelable «gratuite» (soleil, vent, hydraulique, biomasse) est composé d’éléments plus ou moins élaborés à partir de matières premières, non gratuites quant à elles. Pour une éolienne, cela englobe notamment les fondations, le mât, la nacelle, l’alternateur, la boîte d’engrenage, les pales ou l’électronique de réglage.
Pour une installation photovoltaïque, il s’agit des cellules solaires, du verre, d’un film de scellement, du cadre, du câblage, des supports, de l’onduleur pour transformer le courant continu issu des modules photovoltaïques en un courant alternatif conforme au réseau électrique, ou encore d’un dispositif de régulation électronique.
Ces composants ont été préalablement fabriqués à partir de produits intermédiaires, eux-mêmes formés de matières premières plus simples ayant subi des transformations multiples, de l’extraction des matériaux bruts dans des mines jusqu’à la mise en forme, en passant par le raffinage. Ces procédés chimiques, physiques et mécaniques représentent un coût énergétique sous forme de chaleur ou d’électricité. C’est l’énergie cachée, dite «grise», investie en amont, dans la fabrication de tout objet.
La plupart des modules photovoltaïques actuels sont basés sur des assemblages de cellules solaires de 0,1 à 0,8 millimètre d’épaisseur, constitués de plaques de silicium de grande pureté chimique, dite de qualité électronique. La préparation de ce matériau à partir de la silice (oxyde de silicium SiO2) naturelle, aussi présente dans les nombreux silicates de la croûte terrestre, représente un ensemble de procédés particulièrement gourmands en énergie.
C’est pourquoi la recherche travaille désormais à la mise au point de cellules à couches minces de l’ordre du micromètre d’épaisseur (1 à 3 μm), voire moins, qui réduisent très fortement les quantités de silicium nécessaires. Ces couches sont en général déposées à l’aide d’un gaz, le silane (SiH4), également issu de la silice, via le silicium très pur. Le cas échéant, les besoins en énergie sont bien moindres que dans le cas des cellules cristallines. D’autres substances semi-conductrices (tellure, cadmium, sélénium, indium, cuivre) peuvent être utilisées, mais leurs coûts sont d’autant plus élevés que ces matières premières sont beaucoup moins abondantes que la silice dans la croûte terrestre.
Une fois en activité, une installation photovoltaïque produira un certain nombre de kilowattheures d’électricité pendant une durée de vie que l’on peut estimer, pour notre calcul, à vingt-cinq ou trente ans. La quantité d’électricité produite varie fortement en fonction des lieux d’exposition et taux d’ensoleillement. On peut compter, en Europe, sur une fourchette comprise entre 800 et 1200 kilowattheures par année pour une installation de 1 kWc (1 kilowatt-crête).
Il s’agit d’un ouvrage d’une puissance installée de 1 kilowatt qui produit «à plein» sous un ensoleillement de 1000 watts par mètre carré. Ainsi, une installation de 8 mètres carrés avec un rendement de conversion de 12,5% fournira en vingt-cinq années de fonctionnement entre 20 000 et 30 000 kWh d’énergie électrique selon l’endroit où elle se trouve.
On devra convertir ensuite cette électricité en énergie primaire nécessaire à une production équivalente par une voie classique non renouvelable, utilisée lors de la fabrication des composants de l’installation photovoltaïque. Ce calcul destiné à évaluer la quantité d’énergie grise investie dans la fabrication d’une telle installation est sujet à des hypothèses extrêmes. Il est assez complexe car les matériaux proviennent de diverses sources et de pays caractérisés par différents types de production d’électricité.
Selon les filières (silicium monocristallin, polycristallin ou amorphe, couches minces simples, doubles ou triples, autres semi-conducteurs), le temps de remboursement énergétique, durant lequel l’installation doit produire en électricité l’équivalent de son énergie grise, est de l’ordre de 3 à 5 ans. Mais le potentiel d’amélioration est considérable. Les nouvelles filières à couches minces permettront de descendre à 1 à 2 ans, voire moins si l’on ne considère que les modules eux-mêmes.
Quant au coefficient de retour énergétique, appelé «Erntefaktor» en allemand, il représente le quotient de la durée de vie productive de l’installation par son temps de remboursement énergétique, Si la durée de vie retenue est de 25 ans, ce coefficient est actuellement de l’ordre de 4 à 8. Il pourra s’élever à 10, 12, voire à 15 avec l’avènement des futures couches minces. Autrement dit, l’installation photovoltaïque «rendra» 10 à 15 fois son énergie grise. Ce progrès améliorera la compétitivité de cette source d’énergie dans des proportions considérables.
C’est dire tout l’intérêt de poursuivre les travaux de recherche et développement dans ce domaine. On pourrait dans tous les cas rapidement mettre à contribution le photovoltaïque dans les pays peu développés mais riches en surfaces et en ensoleillement. Des organisations internationales et non gouvernementales conduisent des campagnes prometteuses dans ce sens.
Et la Suisse? Elle n’a pas à rougir de ce qui a été fait jusqu’ici. Au cours des vingt dernières années, elle a installé une puissance de l’ordre de 35 mégawatts-crête en modules, qui produisent un peu moins de 28 millions de kilowattheures par année (2007). Or il faut rappeler que cette contribution ne représente qu’un demi pour mille de la consommation du pays. Même si l’on multipliait cette capacité par 100, on porterait la part photovoltaïque à 5% de la consommation actuelle. Or il faudra plusieurs dizaines d’années pour y parvenir et, entre-temps, les besoins auront augmenté d’un multiple de cette contribution.
Le prix d’un tel effort? 25 milliards de francs au coût actuel de 7,50 francs le wattheure-crête installé. Avec cette somme, on pourrait construire trois réacteurs modernes EPR, qui couvriraient à eux seuls 58% de la consommation actuelle et mettraient la Suisse à l’abri de tout risque de pénurie d’électricité jusqu’à la fin de ce siècle, tout en produisant les milliards de kilowattheures qui seront nécessaires pour assurer le développement progressif des sources renouvelables.
Combien d’années faut-il à des panneaux photovoltaïques pour restituer l’électricité préalablement investie dans leur fabrication?
Combien d’années faut-il à des panneaux photovoltaïques pour restituer l’électricité préalablement investie dans leur fabrication? Cette question suscite une certaine confusion entre les notions de «remboursement» et de «coefficient de retour» énergétiques. Explications.
Tout dispositif de production d’électricité par transformation d’énergie primaire réalisée à partir d’une source renouvelable «gratuite» (soleil, vent, hydraulique, biomasse) est composé d’éléments plus ou moins élaborés à partir de matières premières, non gratuites quant à elles. Pour une éolienne, cela englobe notamment les fondations, le mât, la nacelle, l’alternateur, la boîte d’engrenage, les pales ou l’électronique de réglage.
Pour une installation photovoltaïque, il s’agit des cellules solaires, du verre, d’un film de scellement, du cadre, du câblage, des supports, de l’onduleur pour transformer le courant continu issu des modules photovoltaïques en un courant alternatif conforme au réseau électrique, ou encore d’un dispositif de régulation électronique.
Ces composants ont été préalablement fabriqués à partir de produits intermédiaires, eux-mêmes formés de matières premières plus simples ayant subi des transformations multiples, de l’extraction des matériaux bruts dans des mines jusqu’à la mise en forme, en passant par le raffinage. Ces procédés chimiques, physiques et mécaniques représentent un coût énergétique sous forme de chaleur ou d’électricité. C’est l’énergie cachée, dite «grise», investie en amont, dans la fabrication de tout objet.
La plupart des modules photovoltaïques actuels sont basés sur des assemblages de cellules solaires de 0,1 à 0,8 millimètre d’épaisseur, constitués de plaques de silicium de grande pureté chimique, dite de qualité électronique. La préparation de ce matériau à partir de la silice (oxyde de silicium SiO2) naturelle, aussi présente dans les nombreux silicates de la croûte terrestre, représente un ensemble de procédés particulièrement gourmands en énergie.
C’est pourquoi la recherche travaille désormais à la mise au point de cellules à couches minces de l’ordre du micromètre d’épaisseur (1 à 3 μm), voire moins, qui réduisent très fortement les quantités de silicium nécessaires. Ces couches sont en général déposées à l’aide d’un gaz, le silane (SiH4), également issu de la silice, via le silicium très pur. Le cas échéant, les besoins en énergie sont bien moindres que dans le cas des cellules cristallines. D’autres substances semi-conductrices (tellure, cadmium, sélénium, indium, cuivre) peuvent être utilisées, mais leurs coûts sont d’autant plus élevés que ces matières premières sont beaucoup moins abondantes que la silice dans la croûte terrestre.
Une fois en activité, une installation photovoltaïque produira un certain nombre de kilowattheures d’électricité pendant une durée de vie que l’on peut estimer, pour notre calcul, à vingt-cinq ou trente ans. La quantité d’électricité produite varie fortement en fonction des lieux d’exposition et taux d’ensoleillement. On peut compter, en Europe, sur une fourchette comprise entre 800 et 1200 kilowattheures par année pour une installation de 1 kWc (1 kilowatt-crête).
Il s’agit d’un ouvrage d’une puissance installée de 1 kilowatt qui produit «à plein» sous un ensoleillement de 1000 watts par mètre carré. Ainsi, une installation de 8 mètres carrés avec un rendement de conversion de 12,5% fournira en vingt-cinq années de fonctionnement entre 20 000 et 30 000 kWh d’énergie électrique selon l’endroit où elle se trouve.
On devra convertir ensuite cette électricité en énergie primaire nécessaire à une production équivalente par une voie classique non renouvelable, utilisée lors de la fabrication des composants de l’installation photovoltaïque. Ce calcul destiné à évaluer la quantité d’énergie grise investie dans la fabrication d’une telle installation est sujet à des hypothèses extrêmes. Il est assez complexe car les matériaux proviennent de diverses sources et de pays caractérisés par différents types de production d’électricité.
Selon les filières (silicium monocristallin, polycristallin ou amorphe, couches minces simples, doubles ou triples, autres semi-conducteurs), le temps de remboursement énergétique, durant lequel l’installation doit produire en électricité l’équivalent de son énergie grise, est de l’ordre de 3 à 5 ans. Mais le potentiel d’amélioration est considérable. Les nouvelles filières à couches minces permettront de descendre à 1 à 2 ans, voire moins si l’on ne considère que les modules eux-mêmes.
Quant au coefficient de retour énergétique, appelé «Erntefaktor» en allemand, il représente le quotient de la durée de vie productive de l’installation par son temps de remboursement énergétique, Si la durée de vie retenue est de 25 ans, ce coefficient est actuellement de l’ordre de 4 à 8. Il pourra s’élever à 10, 12, voire à 15 avec l’avènement des futures couches minces. Autrement dit, l’installation photovoltaïque «rendra» 10 à 15 fois son énergie grise. Ce progrès améliorera la compétitivité de cette source d’énergie dans des proportions considérables.
C’est dire tout l’intérêt de poursuivre les travaux de recherche et développement dans ce domaine. On pourrait dans tous les cas rapidement mettre à contribution le photovoltaïque dans les pays peu développés mais riches en surfaces et en ensoleillement. Des organisations internationales et non gouvernementales conduisent des campagnes prometteuses dans ce sens.
Et la Suisse? Elle n’a pas à rougir de ce qui a été fait jusqu’ici. Au cours des vingt dernières années, elle a installé une puissance de l’ordre de 35 mégawatts-crête en modules, qui produisent un peu moins de 28 millions de kilowattheures par année (2007). Or il faut rappeler que cette contribution ne représente qu’un demi pour mille de la consommation du pays. Même si l’on multipliait cette capacité par 100, on porterait la part photovoltaïque à 5% de la consommation actuelle. Or il faudra plusieurs dizaines d’années pour y parvenir et, entre-temps, les besoins auront augmenté d’un multiple de cette contribution.
Le prix d’un tel effort? 25 milliards de francs au coût actuel de 7,50 francs le wattheure-crête installé. Avec cette somme, on pourrait construire trois réacteurs modernes EPR, qui couvriraient à eux seuls 58% de la consommation actuelle et mettraient la Suisse à l’abri de tout risque de pénurie d’électricité jusqu’à la fin de ce siècle, tout en produisant les milliards de kilowattheures qui seront nécessaires pour assurer le développement progressif des sources renouvelables.
China's CIC sees opportunities in natural resources
Wed Mar 4, 2009 1:58am EST
By George Chen and Xie Heng
BEIJING, March 4 (Reuters) - China Investment Corp sees investment opportunities in energy and commodities sectors as prices have fallen steeply, a senior official with the country's $200 billion sovereign wealth fund, said on Wednesday.
Officials have said that CIC wants to diversify its portfolio into the natural resources sector after booking heavy losses on high-profile financial investments in private equity firm Blackstone (BX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and U.S. bank Morgan Stanley (MS.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
Jesse Wang, CIC's chief risk officer, said the global recession had just begun, and as a result, bigger price declines in commodities and energy were possible.
"We are interested in basic necessities, resources and manufacturing because we want to balance our investment portfolio," Wang told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of a parliamentary advisory body.
"Some people think there is still downside to resource assets, but it's really hard to pick the exact bottom. As long as we believe the assets are undervalued, we will be interested," he said.
A move into commodities and energy by CIC would add to a wave of investments backed by Chinese state funds in those sectors that topped $50 billion in February alone, including Russian and Brazilian oil deals and investments in Australian mining firms Rio Tinto (RIO.AX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz)(RIO.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and OZ Minerals (OZL.AX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
Wang said CIC would continue to diversify its investments in the financial sector but sounded a more cautious note.
"Frankly speaking, the valuation of some global financial institutions is very low but their prospects are still very low," he said. "We don't know who is going to go bankrupt tomorrow."
STRATEGY SHIFT
Last month, CIC Chairman Lou Jiwei travelled to Australia to meet Treasurer Wayne Swan, who holds sway over Chinese investments such as the Rio Tinto deal agreed by state metals conglomerate Chinalco.
For a story on CIC's shift in strategy, please click on [ID:nHKG224120]
As well as long-term oil deals and equity investments, in recent months China has been taking advantage of low prices by stocking up on a wide range of commodities.
It has imported crude oil for its strategic oil reserve, which can hold about 100 million barrels of oil, and is building tanks to store another 169 million barrels.
China's State Reserves Bureau (SRB) has also bought up metals to increase stocks of strategically important raw materials such as copper and to lend support to struggling smelters of aluminium and zinc.
With commodity prices in the doldrums after a collapse in demand at the end of last year, China's buying is seen as a rare source of demand in oversupplied global markets.
Zheng Xinli, a government policy adviser, also said that China should look to invest more of its 1.95 trillion yuan in foreign exchange reserves in energy resources, along with making outright corporate acquisitions.
"(The focus) should be on acquiring foreign companies, and purchasing rights to explore and produce energy resources that China needs," Zheng, deputy head of the Communist Party's policy research office, told reporters.
CIC has faced demands since its inception in 2007 to operate more transparently, but Wang said he was now concerned by a lack of openness in the United States as the financial crisis deepens.
"We hope that the U.S. government can be more transparent when they inject capital into U.S. banks because government injections will wipe out public investors," he said.
Wang said a U.S. Federal Reserve official recently told him that Washington was preparing to put more capital into about 20 banks in a new round of injections to repair their battered balance sheets.
Along with the book losses on its Morgan Stanley and Blackstone stakes, CIC also had a close brush with turmoil in the U.S. money market when a fund in which it had invested froze redemptions.
Wang said that CIC had already been able to get back 86 percent of its investment in the Reserve Primary Fund REPXX.O, which U.S. regulatory filings showed could potentially have been more than $5 billion. (Additional reporting by Alfred Cang, Aizhu Chen and Shao Xiaoyi; Writing by Tom Miles, Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)
By George Chen and Xie Heng
BEIJING, March 4 (Reuters) - China Investment Corp sees investment opportunities in energy and commodities sectors as prices have fallen steeply, a senior official with the country's $200 billion sovereign wealth fund, said on Wednesday.
Officials have said that CIC wants to diversify its portfolio into the natural resources sector after booking heavy losses on high-profile financial investments in private equity firm Blackstone (BX.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and U.S. bank Morgan Stanley (MS.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
Jesse Wang, CIC's chief risk officer, said the global recession had just begun, and as a result, bigger price declines in commodities and energy were possible.
"We are interested in basic necessities, resources and manufacturing because we want to balance our investment portfolio," Wang told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of a parliamentary advisory body.
"Some people think there is still downside to resource assets, but it's really hard to pick the exact bottom. As long as we believe the assets are undervalued, we will be interested," he said.
A move into commodities and energy by CIC would add to a wave of investments backed by Chinese state funds in those sectors that topped $50 billion in February alone, including Russian and Brazilian oil deals and investments in Australian mining firms Rio Tinto (RIO.AX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz)(RIO.L: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and OZ Minerals (OZL.AX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
Wang said CIC would continue to diversify its investments in the financial sector but sounded a more cautious note.
"Frankly speaking, the valuation of some global financial institutions is very low but their prospects are still very low," he said. "We don't know who is going to go bankrupt tomorrow."
STRATEGY SHIFT
Last month, CIC Chairman Lou Jiwei travelled to Australia to meet Treasurer Wayne Swan, who holds sway over Chinese investments such as the Rio Tinto deal agreed by state metals conglomerate Chinalco.
For a story on CIC's shift in strategy, please click on [ID:nHKG224120]
As well as long-term oil deals and equity investments, in recent months China has been taking advantage of low prices by stocking up on a wide range of commodities.
It has imported crude oil for its strategic oil reserve, which can hold about 100 million barrels of oil, and is building tanks to store another 169 million barrels.
China's State Reserves Bureau (SRB) has also bought up metals to increase stocks of strategically important raw materials such as copper and to lend support to struggling smelters of aluminium and zinc.
With commodity prices in the doldrums after a collapse in demand at the end of last year, China's buying is seen as a rare source of demand in oversupplied global markets.
Zheng Xinli, a government policy adviser, also said that China should look to invest more of its 1.95 trillion yuan in foreign exchange reserves in energy resources, along with making outright corporate acquisitions.
"(The focus) should be on acquiring foreign companies, and purchasing rights to explore and produce energy resources that China needs," Zheng, deputy head of the Communist Party's policy research office, told reporters.
CIC has faced demands since its inception in 2007 to operate more transparently, but Wang said he was now concerned by a lack of openness in the United States as the financial crisis deepens.
"We hope that the U.S. government can be more transparent when they inject capital into U.S. banks because government injections will wipe out public investors," he said.
Wang said a U.S. Federal Reserve official recently told him that Washington was preparing to put more capital into about 20 banks in a new round of injections to repair their battered balance sheets.
Along with the book losses on its Morgan Stanley and Blackstone stakes, CIC also had a close brush with turmoil in the U.S. money market when a fund in which it had invested froze redemptions.
Wang said that CIC had already been able to get back 86 percent of its investment in the Reserve Primary Fund REPXX.O, which U.S. regulatory filings showed could potentially have been more than $5 billion. (Additional reporting by Alfred Cang, Aizhu Chen and Shao Xiaoyi; Writing by Tom Miles, Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)
China's investment in clean technology hits US$1.3 bln in 2008
Mar. 4, 2009 (China Knowledge) - China's clean technology (cleantech) sector attracted investment totaling US$1.3 billion from venture capital (VC) and private equity (PE) last year, up 120 % over the previous year, despite the financial crisis, the China Daily reported, citing a report by market researcher Zero2IPO on Tuesday.
The number of cleantech deals invested by VC and PE home and abroad reached 55 in 2008, representing a year-on-year increase of 175%.
In the past three years, VC and PE firms totally invested US$2.36 billion into cleantech sector, with solar energy accounting for 60% of the total, said the report, adding that US$287 million went for 12 water treatment deals.
The number of cleantech deals invested by VC and PE home and abroad reached 55 in 2008, representing a year-on-year increase of 175%.
In the past three years, VC and PE firms totally invested US$2.36 billion into cleantech sector, with solar energy accounting for 60% of the total, said the report, adding that US$287 million went for 12 water treatment deals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)