That total comes to about 3 percent of the world’s current electricity consumption, according to the World Wind Energy Association.

Together, China and India accounted for more than half of newly installed wind power last year, notes the Global Wind Energy Council. It was the second year in a row in which wind energy capacity growth was dominated by countries outside the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). That trend is expected to continue in years to come.

Meanwhile, it looks as though wind power in the US is set to hit a brick wall in 2012, with the federal wind production tax credit due to expire on Dec. 31 and no apparent political appetite for an extension during a contentious presidential race. (Conservative forces, in fact, are promoting an assortment of anti-wind-energy efforts.)

So which countries are currently in the top 10 for wind-energy production? They are:

1. China – 62.4 megawatts (MW), with 17.6 MW of new capacity added in 2011;
2. US – 46.9 MW, with 6.8 MW of new capacity in 2011;
3. Germany – 29 MW, with 2.1 MW of new capacity in 2011;
4. Spain – 21.7 MW, with 1 MW of new capacity in 2011;
5. India – 16.1 MW, with 3 MW of new capacity in 2011;
6. France – 6.8 MW, with 0.8 MW of new capacity in 2011;
7. Italy – 6.7 MW, with 1 MW of new capacity in 2011;
8. Canada – 5.3 MW, with 1.3 MW of new capacity in 2011;
9. Portugal – 4.1 MW, with 0.4 MW of new capacity in 2011;
10. Denmark – 3.9 MW, with 0.2 MW of new capacity in 2011.

The world was producing nearly

238 gigawatts (GW) of wind

energy as of the end of 2011,

with the fastest development of

new capacity taking place in

China and India.

That total comes to about 3

percent of the world’s current

electricity consumption.

Together, those two countries

accounted for more than half of

newly installed wind power last

year, according to the Global

Wind Energy Council. It was the

second year in a row in which

wind energy capacity growth

was dominated by countries

outside the OECD

(Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and

Development). That trend is

expected to continue in years to

come.

Meanwhile, it looks as though

wind power in the US is set to

hit a brick wall in 2012, with the

federal wind production tax

credit due to expire on Dec. 31

and no apparent political

appetite for an extension during

a contentious presidential race.

(Conservative forces, in fact,

are promoting an assortment of

anti-wind/anti-solar efforts –

http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviro

nment/2012/may/08/conservativ

e-thinktanks-obama-energy-

plans)

So which countries are currently

in the top 10 for wind-energy

production? They are:

China – 62.4 MW
US – 46.9 MW
Germany – 29 MW
Spain – 21.7 MW
India – 16.1 MW
France – 6.8 MW
Italy – 6.7 MW
Canada – 5.3 MW
Portugal – 4.1 MW
Denmark – 3.9 MW

Water stress has “major implications for global supply chains,” according to the risk analysis firm Maplecroft. The company’s Water Stress Index for 2012 maps global water use down to a resolution of 10 square kilometers, comparing renewable water supply from precipitation, streams and rivers with consumption for domestic, agricultural and industrial uses.

The 10 countries facing extreme risk nationwide are all in the Middle East or North Africa:

1. Bahrain
2. Qatar
3. Kuwait
4. Libya
5. Djibouti
6. United Arab Emirates
7. Yemen
8. Saudi Arabia
9. Oman
10. Egypt

Other countries have subnational regions with extreme water stress. They include:

• The northeast provinces of China, including Beijing, Jiangsu, Shandong and Tianjin;
• The Indian states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan;
• Parts of the US Midwest and Southwest, including regions dependent on the Ogallala Aquifer, which is “being depleted faster than it can be recharged.”

Severe water stress also has geopolitical and security implications, notes Charlie Beldon, principal analyst for Maplecroft.

“The impacts of weather patterns on existing levels of water stress provide a vivid indication of future areas where conflict or unrest may emerge over access to water,” Beldon says. “For instance, the Argentine government’s plans to increase significantly extraction of natural gas reserves through hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’) which will require huge amounts of fresh water. Future La Niña events will compound levels of stress in agricultural and energy-producing belts, potentially creating significant tensions between users.”

So what are the best resources for a green-thinking small-business owner or mid-market company exec to turn to? Following are 10 of the most useful to add to your bookmarks:

• Energy Star – A joint effort of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Star is probably best known for its rating system for energy-efficient appliances and other products. But it also provides a variety of resources aimed at small-and medium-size business owners, including an interactive tool for building energy management, a guide to improving energy efficiency and real-life success stories from business owners across the US.
• Energy Savers – Energy Savers, the DOE’s own site for energy efficiency, offers information for SMEs looking to save energy, or interested in state and local energy-efficiency incentives to buy – or generate – clean energy. It also features resources for mid-size businesses considering a move to a cleaner, greener fleet.
• Climate Savers Computing – Climate Savers Computing was established in 2007 with the goal of reducing the energy consumption and carbon footprint of information and communication technologies (ICT). The global consortium now has some 700 member companies and individuals who have pledged to make their ICT more energy efficient. The organization offers a wide range of resources for businesses looking to improve technology efficiency, including webinars, guides to IT and networking, case studies, white papers, fact sheets and information on certification.
• Small Business Administration – The US Small Business Administration (SBA) features an entire section on its website dedicated to helping SMEs build stronger “green” credentials. Its Green Business Guide section provides information about green marketing, case studies, green business practices, environmental grants and loans, ecolabeling, regulations and much more.
• The Green Grid – This consortium of end-users, technology companies, utilities and policy-makers has the goal of improving “the resource efficiency of data centers and business computing ecosystems.” Its online resources for small- and mid-market companies include maps showing regions with the potential for free air cooling for data centers, a PUE (power usage effectiveness) estimator, webcasts, case studies in energy efficiency and a glossary of data center terms.
• EPEAT – EPEAT calls itself the “definitive global registry for greener electronics.” In addition to a searchable, global database of devices that meet EPEAT’s bronze, silver or gold standards for efficiency and environmental responsibility, the website also features sample purchase contracts, model policy language for the purchase of computers and displays, and subscription services that include a quarterly newsletter.
• SCORE – A nonprofit supported by the US Small Business Administration, SCORE provides small- and mid-market business owners with access to experienced volunteer mentors, business counseling and free or low-cost workshops. It also has an online “Green Toolkit” with links to state energy-efficiency incentive programs, green procurement information, videos and other resources for green IT.
• EU Energy Star – Available in 11 EU languages, this European guide to energy-efficient office equipment was launched in 2003 as a joint US-EU initiative. In addition to a database of energy specifications that’s updated almost daily, EU Energy Star also offers information on EU policies, statistics and energy calculators for PC and imaging equipment.

This post was written as part of the IBM for Midsize Business program, which provides midsize businesses with the tools, expertise and solutions they need to become engines of a smarter planet.

“This high level of interest proves that the UK is back on track with CCS,” a spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) was quoted as saying. “From the outset, we are working through collaboration with industry to ensure we make CCS a reality and importantly create the maximum return for what is one of the best offers anywhere in the world.”

CCS is considered a crucial strategy for controlling carbon emissions while allowing the continued use of fossil fuels, especially coal for electricity. The UK’s CCS commercialization program, which builds upon an earlier effort to kickstart the technology, offers £1 billion in direct funding support for the design and construction of CCS projects.

Companies chosen in this latest competition will also benefit from the government’s planned CCS feed-in tariff payments and other electricity market reforms designed to encourage low-carbon power.

Among the companies indicating their interest in the new CCS competition are Air Liquide (consortium lead bidder)/Progressive Energy (registered bidder), Alstom/Portland Gas Storage, Centrica/SEQ, Costain Energy & Process/Shell, CO2 Deepstore/SSE, Doosan Power Projects/SSI, National Grid/Summit Power and Peel Energy/2Co.

Under the latest program, winning projects need to be operational by sometime between 2016 and 2020 … “though earlier is desirable,” according to DECC.

While CCS technology has been proven to work, only a few projects capable of capturing and storing emissions on an industrial scale (more than one million tons a year) have been installed and, as the International Energy Agency  (IEA) notes, “(n)o large-scale installations exist yet in electricity production.”

The IEA says CCS will have to provide around one-fifth of all the carbon emissions reductions necessary by 2050 to prevent catastrophic climate change. To meet that goal, some 100 large-scale CCS projects would need to be operating by 2020, and more than 3,000 would have to be built by mid-century.

According to the most recent tally by the Institute for Electric Efficiency (IEE), nearly one in every three households in the US now has a smart meter. That means some 36 million smart meters have now been deployed across the country.

By 2015, the IEE projects, that number will rise to 65 million.

Before 2012 runs out, a total of 22 utilities in 16 states are expected to have finished rolling out smart meters to their entire customer base: 29 million people in all. Energy companies in the lead include:

• Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) — Just passed the 9-million-meter milestone in California;
• Southern Company – Almost 4 million smart meters across Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi;
• Southern California Edison – More than 3.9 million smart meters in California, with full deployment of 5.3 million meters expected to be complete by the end of 2012;
• NextEra Energy – Three million smart meters, out of a total of 4.4 million set to be rolled out in Florida;
• Oncor – More than 2.5 million smart meters across Texas, with full deployment of 3.4 million expected by the end of 2012;
• CenterPoint Energy – Nearly 2.2 million smart meters (close to full deployment) across Texas;
• State program/Pennsylvania – More than 1.4 million smart meters, with a total of 6 million to eventually be deployed;
• PPL – Completed rollout of 1.4 million smart meters across its service area in Pennsylvania;
• San Diego Gas & Electric – Close to 1.4 million smart meters in California; and
• Portland General Electric – Full deployment of 816,000 smart meters across Oregon completed in 2010.

Located in the San Luis Valley, the 30-megawatt plant was developed by Cogentrix Energy.

Covering 225 acres, the project features more than 500 pedestal-mounted trackers, each one with 7,560 Fresnel lenses that focus sunlight onto arrays of solar cells. The lenses boost the power of the sunlight hitting the photovoltaics by a factor of 500.

By focusing sunlight onto high-efficiency solar cells, concentrating photovoltaic power (CPV) is able to use fewer silicon solar cells than traditional photovoltaic power.

According to the CPV Consortium, “CPV, with its higher efficiency delivers higher energy production per megawatt installed, provides the lowest cost of solar energy in high solar regions of the world. The technology is in its early stage with significant headroom for future innovation, and it has the ability to ramp to gigawatts of production very rapidly. Many of the limitations for PV in the past are overcome by advances in CPV technology.”

As of 2011, the global base of installed CPV totaled just 60 megawatts, according to the CPV Consortium. The organization predicts that capacity will rise to 275 megawatts by the end of 2012, 650 megawatts by the end of 2013, 1,100 megawatts by end of 2014 and 1,500 megawatts by the end of 2015.

Other large CPV systems in operation include a 5-megawatt NextEra Energy plant (opened in 2011) in Hatch, New Mexico, that uses technology from Amonix; Arima Eco Energy’s 1.65-megawatt power station in Pingtung, Taiwan; Soitec’s 500-kilowatt power plant in Durban, South Africa; and SolFocus’ 1-megawatt CPV facility at Victor Valley College in Victorville, California.

A few in that group say smart meters have already caused them to suffer from a range of debilitating impacts: tingling sensations, dizziness, nausea, heart palpitations, difficulty in concentrating, etc.

What does science say? Following are 10 things we know about radio frequency emissions and their use in smart metering:

1. Radio frequency emissions, or radio waves, have frequencies ranging from 300 GHz (gigahertz) (wavelengths of around 1 millimeter) to 3 hertz (wavelengths of around 100 kilometers). They are the lowest-energy/longest-wavelength form of radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum, which also includes microwaves, visible light, ultraviolet light and x-rays.
2. Radio frequency energy is used in a wide range of medical procedures to provide targeted heating to seal IV fluid bags, reshape the cornea for vision correction, heat and destroy tumors, cauterize tissue and generate images of internal body structures through magnetic resonance imaging.
3. Radio frequency emissions can produce both thermal (ie, heating for such applications as those described above) and non-thermal effects. These non-thermal effects include ways in which cells respond to increases in temperature (caused by radio-induced thermal heating) or to the electromagnetic waves themselves.
4. In addition to smart meters, a wide variety of other common household electronic devices — cellphones, cordless phones, microwaves, wireless routers, hairdryers, wireless-enabled laptops, etc. — produce radio frequency emissions.
5. A number of studies have investigated electromagnetic hypersensitivity, or EHS. People who say they have EHS report feeling a variety of health impacts from exposure to electromagnetic fields from a range of sources: power lines, cellphones, computers, smart meters and so on. To date, however, research has found no clear, consistent connection between electromagnetic field emissions and EHS. Most studies find people who say they are sensitive to electromagnetic emissions cannot detect exposure in controlled tests any more than non-sensitive people can.
6. People who say they have EHS are clearly suffering from something — researchers just can’t pinpoint what yet. “EHS is characterized by a  variety of non-specific symptoms that differ from individual to individual,” notes the World Health Organization (WHO). “The symptoms are certainly real and can vary widely in their severity.” However, WHO adds, “EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure. Further, EHS is not a medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that it represents a single medical problem.”
7. Smart meters used only for periodic, automated meter readings (AMR) don’t emit radio frequency waves in the period between meter readings. “This means that the typical smart meter in this initial (AMR) use would not transmit any RF signal at least 96 – 98 percent of the time,” notes a 2011 report by the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) on the health impacts of smart meter-generated radio frequency.
8. Exposure to radio waves from smart meters varies by distance. According to the CCST study, “While the estimated maximum exposure level at 1 foot from the meter with a duty cycle of 50% is 180 μW/cm2 (microwatts per square centimeter) (far below the FCC guidelines), at a distance of about 10 feet, the power-density exposure approaches zero.” (“Duty cycle,” as defined in the study, is “the fraction of time a device is transmitting.”)
9. The radio frequency power density of a cellphone held to your ear ranges from 1,000 to 5,000 microwatts per square centimeter, according to the CCST report. For a microwave oven operated from a distance of one foot, that power density ranges from 200 to 800 microwatts per square centimeter. The power density for a smart meter with a duty cycle of 50% (that is, transmitting radio signals half of the time) is 200 microwatts per square centimeter at a distance of one foot, and 20 microwatts per square centimeter at a distance of three feet.
10. In addition to distance, building walls also reduce radio frequency exposure from a smart meter. A study by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) found that a bank of 10 smart meters operating at 250 microwatts of power produced, at a distance of one foot, an exposure level that was 8 percent of the maximum recommended by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). From eight inches behind the wall those meters were on, exposure fell to 0.6 percent of the FCC limit, even when the meters were transmitting 100 percent of the time.

In that context, all the new oil “wealth” coming from sources like Canada’s oil sands, the US’s corn-based biofuels and, potentially, gas- and coal-to-liquid technologies definitely falls under the “bad” column.

That’s because of the high cost to produce such non-conventional sources of liquid fuel … which have been the only sources to grow significantly, while production of conventional crude has been basically flat since 2005.

While detailed and verifiable data on production costs can be hard to come by, one estimate puts the marginal cost of production for, say, the bituminous deposits in Alberta at around $85 per barrel. Coal-to-liquids? A different estimate says it’s worthwhile when oil is between $80 and $120 a barrel.

(Note: The marginal cost of production helps define “at what point an organization can achieve economies of scale,” according to Investopia.)

In other words, our “bonanza” of new oil sources won’t be bringing a return to the days of $30 per barrel oil and $1.25 per gallon gas.

So what are the estimated marginal costs to produce different types of liquid fuels? Here’s the list, based on figures from the research and analyst firms IHS CERA and LCMCommodities Research:

• Saudi Arabian oil – Around $22 per barrel (see added notes below)
• Other OPEC conventional crude – Over $25 per barrel
• Non-OPEC conventional crude – Around $30 per barrel
• UK North Sea oil – More than $55 per barrel
• Conventional crude produced through enhanced oil recovery – A little over $60 per barrel
• US Gulf of Mexico deep water oil – Around $65 per barrel
• Nigerian deep water oil – Around $78 per barrel
• Canada oil sands – Around $85 per barrel
• Gas-to-liquids — More than $90 per barrel
• Other unconventional sources in North and South America — Around $95 per barrel

While Saudi Arabian oil still looks like a bargain from a production-cost standpoint alone, the reality is that the Kingdom needs a much higher price for its oil. As energy writer Chris Nelder notes, the Saudis need to generate enough revenue from their oil to support the massive social and infrastructure programs adopted in the wake of the Arab Spring. Chris Skrebowski, a trustee with the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, pegs the Saudis’ required price floor at $90 to $100 per barrel).

One more note: the estimates here are for current production costs. Bringing on new supplies from any of these sources are likely to carry even higher price-tags going into the near future.

For consumers, sentiment about

prices generally follows two simple

rules: more expensive and hard to get

= bad, cheap and abundant = good.

In that context, all the new oil “wealth”

coming from sources like Canada’s

oil sands, the US’s corn-based

biofuels and, potentially, gas- and

coal-to-liquid technologies definitely

falls under the “bad” column.

That’s because of the high cost to

produce such non-conventional

sources of liquid fuel … which have

been the only sources to grow

significantly, while production of

conventional crude has been basically

flat since 2005

(http://www.greenbang.com/scientists-

warn-flat-oil-production-threatens-

world-economy_21333.html).

While detailed and verifiable data on

production costs can be hard to come

by, one estimate puts the marginal

cost of production for, say, the

bituminous deposits in Alberta at

around $85 per barrel

(http://www.theoildrum.com/node/724

6). Coal-to-liquids? A different

estimate says it’s worthwhile when oil

is between $80 and $120 a barrel

(http://www.theoildrum.com/node/901

5).

(Note: The marginal cost of

production helps define “at what point

an organization can achieve

economies of scale,” according to

Investopia.)

(http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m

/marginalcostofproduction.asp#axzz1

uVN7qEQK)

In other words, our “bonanza” of new

oil sources won’t be bringing a return

to the days of $30 per barrel oil and

$1.25 per gallon gas.

So what are the estimated marginal

costs to produce different types of

liquid fuels? Here’s the list, based on

figures from the research and analyst

firms IHS CERA and

LCMCommodities Research:

Saudi Arabian oil — Around $22 per

barrel

Other OPEC conventional crude –

Over $25 per barrel

Non-OPEC conventional crude –

Around $30 per barrel

UK North Sea oil — More than $55 per

barrel

Conventional crude produced through

enhanced oil recovery — A little over

$60 per barrel

US Gulf of Mexico deep water oil –

Around $65 per barrel

Nigerian deep water oil — Around $78

per barrel

Canada oil sands – Around $85 per

barrel

Gas-to-liquids — More than $90 per

barrel

Other unconventional sources in North

and South America — Around $95 per

barrel

While Saudi Arabian oil still looks like

a bargain from a production-cost

standpoint alone, the reality is that the

Kingdom needs a much higher price

for its oil. As energy writer Chris

Nelder notes, the Saudis need to

generate enough revenue from their

oil to support the massive social and

infrastructure programs adopted in

the wake of the Arab Spring

(http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/ener

gy-futurist/the-cost-of-new-oil-

supply/468).
Chris Skrebowski, a trustee with the

Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, pegs

the Saudis’ needed price floor at $90

to $100 per barrel) (http://www.odac-

info.org/newsletter/2011/09/16)

One more note: the estimates here

are for current production costs.

Bringing on new supplies from any of

these sources will probably carry even

higher pricetags going into the near

future.