The Holy Grail of the solar industry — reaching grid parity — may no longer be a distant dream. Solar may have already reached that point, at least when compared to nuclear power, according to a new study by two researchers at Duke University.

It’s no secret that the cost of producing photovoltaic cells (PV) has been dropping for years. A PV system today costs just 50 percent of what it did in 1998. Breakthroughs in technology and manufacturing combined with an increase in demand and production have caused the price of solar power to decline steadily. At the same time, estimated costs for building new nuclear power plants have ballooned.

The result of these trends: “In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina,” say study authors John Blackburn and Sam Cunningham. “Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.”

Source: The Energy Collective

The provincial government plans to have 15 percent of all electricity used in the Western Cape generated from renewable energy sources – like wind, wave and solar – by 2014.

It also aims to reduce electricity use in selected schools and hospitals by between 5 and 10 percent, and to reduce the provincial product-to-carbon emission ratio by 10 percent, also by this date, as part of its climate-change mitigation efforts.

Source: IOL

The Great American Algae Rush is in full swing.

Dozens of companies and hundreds of scientists are working hard to engineer algae to produce green — literally and figuratively — fuel.

The endeavor is at the crossroads of energy and science, and the trend is spreading worldwide.Why? Because some algae strains can produce 10 or more times more fuel per acre than the corn that is used to make ethanol, or the soybeans used to make biodiesel.

Better still, you can grow algae on arid land and in brackish water, which avoids competing with food production, unlike the corn and soybeans that coat much of the Midwest’s farmland.

Best of all: algae consume carbon dioxide, combating greenhouse gas emissions.

But a new profile of the industry in the New York Times demonstrates that this technology has its share of pitfalls.

For one, efforts to engineer and manipulate the organisms has environmentalists concerned because algae are the base of the marine food chain.

For example: Screw up and over-engineer a strain, and suddenly you have an organism that’s out of whack with the biosphere, stripping water of its oxygen and harming fish — and maybe humans — in the process.

Source: Simply Green

The International Energy Agency (IEA) presented two new solar energy analyses in Valencia, Spain this week, a Solar Photovoltaic Energy Technology Roadmap and a Concentrating Solar Power Technology Roadmap.

The key finding from these is that 20-25% of global electricity production could be from solar energy by 2050.

In a blog post on our sister site, One Block Off the Grid, I just discussed how the United States and how rooftop solar fit into this. Below, mostly from the reports themselves, is a short discussion of what government’s role in all of this needs to be.

Source: Simply Green

Tomorrow, at 8.30pm, thousands of people across the UK and maybe a billion across the world will take part in Earth Hour.

It’ll look impressive, no doubt. The big switch-off will make the news. But so what? We know that just one hour, even on this global scale, won’t in itself save energy or reduce emissions in any significant way. This is a giant photo opportunity – eye-catching and symbolic, yes – but how can it really make a difference? More importantly, why would a science-based organisation like WWF believe this is worth the effort?

I think there are many reasons, but there are three worth focusing on.

Firstly, climate change is a threat truly global in its nature. It demands global attention, commitment and action. In December last year, as the climate talks in Copenhagen came to a stuttering finish, many in the UK felt disappointed and disillusioned. But talking to my colleagues working in areas of the world already feeling the effects of climate change, emotions ran much higher. Anger and disbelief best describes what nations like the Maldives, Bangladesh and Tanzania felt on seeing the failure of world leaders to take collective responsibility. They are seeing the effects of climate change now. It is, for countries in their position, no theory for debate or distant possibility.

As I write, more than 125 countries have confirmed their participation in Earth Hour, almost 40 more than in 2009, including 56 national capitals and eight of the 10 most populated metropolises on the planet. “Earth Hour” has appeared more than 30m times online in the past 24 hours and is currently one of the top 10 trending topics on Twitter. While the UK and the US (two major global emitters) may have seen an increase in sceptical noise on climate change in recent months, I feel confident that globally, this is no waning movement.

Secondly, politicians here in the UK need a mandate to act. Unlike elsewhere in the world, our main political parties all understand the threat of climate change and say that they are committed, albeit with different policies and approaches, to dealing with the problem. However, Copenhagen largely failed and leaders need us, the voters, to keep up a demand for action.

This close to a general election, there’s no better time to make a big, bold, collective statement that as a public, we expect leadership from our next government, whatever its hue. Schools, cathedrals, large companies, small businesses, pubs, clubs, councils all add up to a pretty comprehensive slice of our population and just this week, under pressure from Earth Hour participants, supporters and many committed MPs, the Palace of Westminster and 10 Downing Street joined the Senedd in Cardiff and the Scottish parliament in Holyrood and signed up to switch off. In the US, 31 state governors are supporting Earth Hour. The people who matter do notice.

Lastly, Earth Hour is for me a brilliant analogy for how we can get to a solution. Climate change will demand big, global ambition from world leaders – the “landmarks” of our political landscape. Just as lights go off at Christ the Redeemer, the Empire State Building and the Forbidden City, we need Presidents Lula da Silva, Obama and Hu Jintao and many others to work together in order to get a binding commitment to reduce emissions.

A low-carbon future will demand small changes from all of us at home, like the families taking part in Earth Hour, perhaps eating their dinner by candlelight. Better insulation, more efficient heating, using public transport and the products we choose to consume can all have impact on the energy we use and reduce our personal impact on our environment.

Earth Hour is not about a world without light, power and the great human achievements that keep us warm and safe. It is absolutely a celebration of their positive role; we want a bright future in which the lights stay on, drawing on forms of energy and innovative technologies that have a lesser impact on people and nature around the world. As the 10:10 campaign has shown alongside Earth Hour, collective action can have an impact.

We know that a single hour, once a year is not enough. But also we know that there is no greater, global call to action available at the flick of a switch. We firmly believe Earth hour is worth it.

Source: Guardian