Westward group alternatives: Alternative Energy: Investing Essentials

Alternative energy is currently one of the fastest growing areas in energy. There are also a variety of factors driving the industry’s pursuit of alternatives to traditional oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy. Climate change in impacting how we look at fossil fuels, and Inexpensive oil is becoming more and more scarce, but the biggest driver may be the economics of alternatives to fossil fuels.

Over the next decade, it’s improving costs that will drive the adoption of wind, solar, electric vehicles, and biofuels. That opens up a world of potential for investors.

What is the alternative energy industry?

Alternative energy consists of energy sources that are different from traditional energy sources like oil, natural gas, nuclear, and coal energy. They may be renewable and they may be clean but those aren’t requirements to be an alternative.

On the electricity generating side of energy, alternative energy is dominated by hydro, wind, and solar energy. Hydroelectric energy has long been a contributor to the electric grid but wind and solar energy are growing in popularity as costs fall and concern about climate change increases. These are the two major growth markets in electricity generation in alternative energy.

Alternative energy is also of growing interest as an alternative to gasoline or diesel to fuel our vehicles. In recent years, electric cars have been produced in growing numbers as have natural gas trucks and even hydrogen vehicles. While these aren’t a large part of the current energy industry, they do have long-term potential to replace oil as a primary fuel energy. But today, the energy industry is still dominated by fossil fuels.

How big is the alternative energy industry?

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 9.3 trillion BTUs of alternative energy from hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, and biofuels were consumed in 2013. The largest contributors were hydroelectric power (2.56 trillion BTUs), followed by wood energy (2.1 trillion BTUs), and biofuels (2.0 trillion BTUs). Wind and solar energy are the fastest growing among the renewable group.

While these are big figures in energy, they pale in comparison to the energy industry as a whole. Alternative energy accounts for just 11.4% of all energy consumed in the U.S. last year, so the upside for alternative energy is very large.

How does alternative energy work?

Alternative energy is sold into two primary markets: electricity and fuel. In the electric market, sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy are sold to utilities through power purchase agreements or sometimes through the spot electricity market. Occasionally, utilities will own these generating assets themselves.

In the fuel market, alternative energy is often mandated by the government but is increasingly becoming a choice for consumers. For example, an ethanol mix into gasoline is mandated by the government, creating demand for the alternative energy. Tax breaks are also given to hydrogen and electric vehicles and both are growing in availability and popularity, opening up a new market for energy companies. In fuel, natural gas is also considered an alternative energy because it is competing with oil and provides a cleaner and cheaper alternative.

The EIA says that in 2011 (the most recent data available) the consumption of alternative transportation fuels increased 13% as more ethanol and natural gas were consumed by consumers.

Expect electricity and hydrogen to be a larger piece of the pie above in the future as the technology improves and costs come down.

What are the drivers of alternative energy?

There are two main drivers of alternative energy: cost and government mandates.

Falling costs for wind, solar, biofuels, and other alternatives to traditional energy sources will keep driving adoption further. To give an example of this progress, according to GTM Research the cost to install a utility scale solar-power system fell 61% from the first quarter of 2010 to the second quarter of 2014. These kinds of cost reductions will drive demand long-term, and are making alternative energy more economically attractive than fossil fuels.

Government mandates will also drive demand for products like ethanol and other biofuels. Incentives like tax breaks and renewable energy standards also drive demand for alternative energy, although these incentives are declining around the world as the cost of alternative energy falls.

For investors, it’s important to understand the dynamics between cost and government mandates or incentives. Government incentives can come and go quickly, leading to an unsustainable market for some alternative energy sources. Investors should focus on energy sources that are becoming economically viable without these incentives because in the long-term, that’s what will make alternative energy a winn

More related article here: Westward Group Alternatives


Cambridge Hydro buys Brant Power for $40.2M by Westward Group Renewable Energy News

Cambridge Hydro buys Brant Power for $40.2M by Westward Group Renewable Energy News

Original Source at

PARIS – Cambridge and North Dumfries Hydro, also known as Energy+, has purchased Brant County Power Inc. for $40.2 million.

County of Brant announced to the sale on Monday afternoon (May 12).

The county will receive $32.2 million after settlement of debt and other obligations, which it said represents a significant premium over Brant Power’s book value.

The county announced last August it was putting its utility up for sale to raise money for infrastructure and help keep property taxes under control.

Conditions of the sale protect Brant Power customers from hikes in hydro distribution rates for four years and guarantee the jobs of Brant Power employees.

Energy+ agreed to freeze current Brant Hydro distribution rates for four years. Afterward, Energy+ will apply to the Ontario Energy Board to harmonize the Brant Power rates with its own rates, which is expected to result in similar or lower rates for Brant customers than if Brant Power remained municipally owned.

About 30 per cent of a customer’s hydro bill covers distribution. The rest is the actual cost of the electricity, which is set by the Ontario Energy Board.

Energy+ also agreed to continue to employ all Brant Power employees and honor all existing conditions of employment following the transaction, and continue operations from Brant Power’s Paris operations center for at least five years.

County council will create an investment fund using the sale proceeds. Annual returns are expected to “significantly” exceed the annual dividend the county received from Brant Power. The investment proceeds will go to infrastructure projects and to maintain and improve country roads, bridges, parks, trails and other public assets.

Ontario Energy Board approval of the sale is expected to take four to five months.

During that time, the county will work with Energy+ and Brant Power representatives on a transition plan. Energy+ plans to form an advisory committee made up of representatives from the county and its own officials.

Westward Group Tokyo Energy News: Is Tesla project a Dream Factory?

San Antonio had to claw its way into contention for Tesla Motors‘ planned “gigafactory,” a dream project that would put 6,500 people to work in a $5 billion plant that produces lithium-ion batteries.

By several accounts, local officials overcame the city’s also-ran status in the early stages of Tesla’s site selection. They finally coaxed the electric-car maker into taking a serious look at San Antonio for the project, which the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company announced in late February.

Now, San Antonio may be considered the strongest potential site in Texas.

That’s because CPS Energy brings a lot to the table as a would-be partner for Tesla and because Mayor Julián Castro is reportedly working as many angles to win the project as he and his staff can think of.

As Tesla vets potential locations, CPS Energy is posting flirtatious Tweets on the virtues of electric vehicles. The city-owned utility is also using social media to play up its commitments to renewable energy — it’s looking to make wind and solar power account for 20 percent of its electricity sources by 2020 — and demand response, which is when customers voluntarily reduce their use of electricity at times of peak demand.

Presumably, that’s music to the ears of Elon Musk, the co-founder, CEO and chairman of Tesla. He’s also co-founder of SolarCity, one of the largest providers of residential solar systems in the U.S., and Tesla’s gigafactory would produce battery packs not just for Tesla vehicles but also “stationary storage applications” for homes and businesses. Solar panels on rooftops and battery systems to store the power they generate would come in handy for the demand response CPS Energy boasts about.

Texas — which is competing against Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico for the gigafactory — also has caught a couple of lucky breaks lately.

A big black mark against both Texas and Arizona is that they basically outlaw Tesla’s distribution model — to sell cars directly to consumers, without going through franchised auto dealers.

True, Texas lawmakers are unlikely to break free of the hold dealers have on them (and their campaign accounts) anytime soon. But at least Arizona proved itself to be in the same position last week; a bill that would have allowed Tesla to sell straight to consumers — perhaps giving the state an edge — died in the legislature, according to news reports.

Also last week, the drive in New Mexico for a special legislative session to OK incentives for the gigafactory appears to have petered out, Albuquerque Business First reported Tuesday.

But as San Antonio officials have gotten their hopes up, questions about the viability of Musk’s gigafactory have been relentless. An April 1 headline in the Wall Street Journal: “Does Tesla Really Need a $5 Billion Battery Factory?”

Some of the skepticism started with Panasonic, which currently supplies lithium-ion batteries to Tesla.

The maker of the luxury Model S sedan is willing to spend $2 billion on the facility, which would take up 10 million square feet and sit on as many as 1,000 acres. The company needs partners to cover the other $3 billion, and Musk suggested Panasonic might be one of them.

But Panasonic’s president, Kazuhiro Tsuga, was noncommittal when he talked with reporters in Tokyo on March 26. As Bloomberg reported, he said: “Elon plans to produce more affordable models besides Model S, and I understand his thinking and would like to cooperate as much as we can. But the investment risk is definitely higher.”

Tesla has stayed mum on potential partners since then.

The big idea behind the gigafactory is that mass production, with raw materials such as lithium and cobalt coming in the front door and battery packs going out the back, will push down the cost of batteries by about 30 percent. Since batteries are the most expensive components of electric vehicles, the cost cuts would make Tesla cars less expensive.

A good thing, considering the Model S now starts at a little more than $70,000.

The company also has its mid-market Model E in the works — a car priced for the rest of us. It’s expected to launch in 2017, the same year Tesla wants its gigafactory to start production.

Some of the questions coming at Tesla are whether it could actually slice 30 percent off of battery production costs, and how it would source the raw materials. But the most important question is whether enough drivers will embrace all-electric vehicles to keep the gigafactory humming.

As planned, the facility would produce enough batteries for 500,000 vehicles per year by 2020.

Selling that many Teslas would be a real feat.

The company began delivering the Model S is 2012 and had sold over 25,000 in North America and Europe by the end of 2013, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. For a little perspective: Chevrolet sold 42,000 Silverado trucks in March.

Overseas sales will be critical to Tesla. The manufacturer will start selling Model S sedans in China this month, and in Japan, the United Kingdom and Australia later this year.

A local official I talked with recently, who’s worked on the gigafactory bid, was hopeful but also wary, saying, “There are questions about how viable this project is.

“It depends on your view of the future. Will enough people give up their gas-powered cars?”

Westward Group Tokyo Energy News Floating Nuclear Plants Could Ride Out Tsunamis

This illustration shows a possible configuration of a floating offshore nuclear plant, based on design work by Jacopo Buongiorno and others at MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering. Like offshore oil drilling platforms, the structure would include living quarters and a helipad for transportation to the site. Illustration courtesy of Jake Jurewicz/MIT-NSE

New power plant design could provide enhanced safety, easier siting, and centralized construction.

When an earthquake and tsunami struck the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant complex in 2011, neither the quake nor the inundation caused the ensuing contamination. Rather, it was the aftereffects — specifically, the lack of cooling for the reactor cores, due to a shutdown of all power at the station — that caused most of the harm.

A new design for nuclear plants built on floating platforms, modeled after those used for offshore oil drilling, could help avoid such consequences in the future. Such floating plants would be designed to be automatically cooled by the surrounding seawater in a worst-case scenario, which would indefinitely prevent any melting of fuel rods, or escape of radioactive material.


Cutaway view of the proposed plant shows that the reactor vessel itself is located deep underwater, with its containment vessel surrounded by a compartment flooded with seawater, allowing for passive cooling even in the event of an accident. Illustration courtesy of Jake Jurewicz/MIT-NSE

The concept is being presented this week at the Small Modular Reactors Symposium, hosted by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, by MIT professors Jacopo Buongiorno, Michael Golay, and Neil Todreas, along with others from MIT, the University of Wisconsin, and Chicago Bridge and Iron, a major nuclear plant and offshore platform construction company.

Such plants, Buongiorno explains, could be built in a shipyard, then towed to their destinations five to seven miles offshore, where they would be moored to the seafloor and connected to land by an underwater electric transmission line. The concept takes advantage of two mature technologies: light-water nuclear reactors and offshore oil and gas drilling platforms. Using established designs minimizes technological risks, says Buongiorno, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering (NSE) at MIT.

Although the concept of a floating nuclear plant is not unique — Russia is in the process of building one now, on a barge moored at the shore — none have been located far enough offshore to be able to ride out a tsunami, Buongiorno says. For this new design, he says, “the biggest selling point is the enhanced safety.”

A floating platform several miles offshore, moored in about 100 meters of water, would be unaffected by the motions of a tsunami; earthquakes would have no direct effect at all. Meanwhile, the biggest issue that faces most nuclear plants under emergency conditions — overheating and potential meltdown, as happened at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island — would be virtually impossible at sea, Buongiorno says: “It’s very close to the ocean, which is essentially an infinite heat sink, so it’s possible to do cooling passively, with no intervention. The reactor containment itself is essentially underwater.”

Buongiorno lists several other advantages. For one thing, it is increasingly difficult and expensive to find suitable sites for new nuclear plants: They usually need to be next to an ocean, lake, or river to provide cooling water, but shorefront properties are highly desirable. By contrast, sites offshore, but out of sight of land, could be located adjacent to the population centers they would serve. “The ocean is inexpensive real estate,” Buongiorno says.

In addition, at the end of a plant’s lifetime, “decommissioning” could be accomplished by simply towing it away to a central facility, as is done now for the Navy’s carrier and submarine reactors. That would rapidly restore the site to pristine conditions.

This design could also help to address practical construction issues that have tended to make new nuclear plants uneconomical: Shipyard construction allows for better standardization, and the all-steel design eliminates the use of concrete, which Buongiorno says is often responsible for construction delays and cost overruns.

There are no particular limits to the size of such plants, he says: They could be anywhere from small, 50-megawatt plants to 1,000-megawatt plants matching today’s largest facilities. “It’s a flexible concept,” Buongiorno says.

Most operations would be similar to those of onshore plants, and the plant would be designed to meet all regulatory security requirements for terrestrial plants. “Project work has confirmed the feasibility of achieving this goal, including satisfaction of the extra concern of protection against underwater attack,” says Todreas, the KEPCO Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.

Buongiorno sees a market for such plants in Asia, which has a combination of high tsunami risks and a rapidly growing need for new power sources. “It would make a lot of sense for Japan,” he says, as well as places such as Indonesia, Chile, and Africa.

This is a “very attractive and promising proposal,” says Toru Obara, a professor at the Research Laboratory for Nuclear Reactors at the Tokyo Institute of Technology who was not involved in this research. “I think this is technically very feasible. … Of course, further study is needed to realize the concept, but the authors have the answers to each question and the answers are realistic.”

The paper was co-authored by NSE students Angelo Briccetti, Jake Jurewicz, and Vincent Kindfuller; Michael Corradini of the University of Wisconsin; and Daniel Fadel, Ganesh Srinivasan, Ryan Hannink, and Alan Crowle of Chicago Bridge and Iron, based in Canton, Mass.

Westward Group Tokyo Energy News Tokyo Power opens new Biomass Plant in Mahiyanganaya

The Tokyo Cement Group recently opened its second Biomass power plant to supply the largely rural region of Mahiyanganaya with 5MW of energy.

This Rs. 2.4 billion plant by Tokyo Power, the energy arm of the nation’s leading cement and concrete manufacturer, Tokyo Cement Group, is an initiative to build on its expertise in sustainable biomass power. “Tokyo Power launched the Mahiyanganaya plant after successfully pioneering the first plant of its kind in Sri Lanka that provides 10MW of clean energy to their factory in Trincomalee,” according to a company statement.

This 5MW Dendro power plant is expected to contribute approximately 40 million kWh annually to the national grid using sustainable green energy sources, notably Gliricidia, a fast growing tree legume, which is available in abundance in the country’s dry zone. The fuel-wood is obtained from plantations of Gliricidia sepium, or from farmers in the region who grow these trees through Tokyo Cement’s out-grower agricultural programmes.

The expected generation capacity of 40 million kWh per year or 3.33 million kWh per month should enable the supply of electricity to reach an additional 30,000 rural households, thereby allowing the farmers that grow and supply Gliricidia, to directly benefit from their involvement in supplying biomass for the community’s energy consumption, the company said.

“Our success with our initial Biomass plant in Trincomalee, gives us confidence that this plant will not only supply clean, stable energy to an under-served region but will also help stabilise the electrical grid, by supporting the CEB (Ceylon Electricity Board). Consistent, stable power generation will allow for small and medium scale industries in the region to perform better without the fear of outages,” noted E. Kugapriya, General Manager, Tokyo Power.

The Tokyo Power Dendro Plant in Mahiyanganaya will generate 40million kWh annually to light up 30,000 rural homes with clean energy, whilst preventing 28,122 Metric Tons of greenhouse gasses being emitted into the atmosphere.

“This is the equivalent of taking 5,920 passenger vehicles off the road, or if we were to drive 10,775,846,000 kilometres less every year. It is the equivalent of NOT consuming 11,978,640 litres of gasoline, or NOT burning 13,701,421 Kgs of coal. It is the equivalent of 10,80 tons of waste NOT being sent to landfills. The environmental impact of such carbon emissions could only be sequestered by planting 721,082 tree seedlings grown for 10 years, or the equivalent of 23,051 acres of a forest per year,” the statement noted.

Tokyo Cement said it aims to engage 20,000 farming families and promote Gliricidia growing across 2500 acres of Mahiyanganaya, to empower rural communities and develop sustainable land use systems, thereby securing the wellbeing of resource-lacking farming communities.

“Through the Gliricidia growing programmes, we have forged many strong bonds with local farming communities. We decided early on that we wanted them to take ownership of this project that not only leads to the electrification of their homes, but will also stimulate their local economy. We’ve projected that this Tokyo Power Dendro plant, will contribute Rs. 24 million per month in direct cash flow to farmers in the region. Thereby making this a truly self-sustaining initiative,” said Salinda Kandapola, Agricultural Outsourcing Manager at Tokyo Cement Group.

How Alternative Energy Companies Use Big Data Tokyo Westward Group Energy Alternatives

The latest monitors can help homeowners track their energy consumption in greater detail than before.

It’s the middle of a steaming hot summer afternoon. You’re at home, blasting the air conditioner, washing your clothes, and standing in front of the open freezer while the TV plays in the background.

You may not realize it, but you’re racking up kilowatts, increasing your utility bill, and adding to Earth’s pollutants.

In the past, consumers didn’t have the resources or education to know how to use energy efficiently. But thanks to big data, they now can reduce costs and help save the planet, all with the click of a button.


Analyzing Energy Usage

Home and commercial monitors are showing customers just how much energy they’re using at any time of the day.

Efergy, a power tracking company, sells monitors and hardware that connect to fuse boxes via a wireless signal. Users can see the energy usage on the monitor or their computer screens through a platform created by the company. The devices show customers the past 255 days’ worth of hourly energy consumption, usage trends and how those translate into dollars and cents.

“It makes you realize when you’re using too much electricity and see how you can reduce,” says Juan Gonzalez, president of Efergy USA.

Efergy’s system sends out an audio alert to let customers know when they’re reaching their maximum consumption target. That helps them save on their energy bills while preventing the electricity grid from being overloaded.

Scott Wiater, president of solar panel installation business Standard Solar, says the key to reducing utility bills is being aware of your habits.

“When people can see how much they’re using in real time they tend to focus on it and use less energy,” Wiater says. “If a customer gets solar in a smart home system, they can track what the solar power system is doing and track down whatever resolution they’re looking for.”

Big data enables alternative energy companies that monitor usage to see what’s happening on a broader scale and come up with solutions. For example, if a customer doesn’t know why his or her bill is hundreds of dollars every month, one of these companies can help them see where spending can be cut. The data collected by the companies also shows the customer’s peak hours and how they can avoid using energy at those times.

“When you put data in a larger context, which is big data, it allows them to help make more sense of that information and make it more actionable,” says Ali Kashani, a co-founder and the vice president of software development at Energy Aware, an energy monitoring business. “The only way we can detect all these things in our home is looking at many homes and developing an algorithm to determine the connection.”


Cutting Emissions

At Efergy, one of the goals is to create products that are going to cut down on carbon emissions, which in turn helps utilities companies “reduce the power plants using the most pollutants and make them more efficient,” says Gonzalez.

EnerNOC, a company that collects energy and operational data for commercial, industrial and agricultural businesses, is also producing systems that cut energy usage. Clients not only save on energy bills every month but get a one-time incentive to pay for system upgrades.

Whenever the grid is under stress or prices are peaking, EnerNOC’s systems let utilities send remote signals to the businesses to reduce energy usage.

“We’ll use our technology to reduce the amount of load that customers have,” says Micah Remley, vice president of product strategy and technology.

This technology includes a small gateway device that collects and analyzes energy usage day and night. At any point, users can log on and see their energy data. They’ll also receive advanced notice about downtimes, grid instability or even power outages.

“At large commercial buildings we raise temperature settings and turn off extraneous lights and fountains and things that don’t need to be running,” says Remley. “At a retail space we turn off non-essential AC equipment and non-essential lighting when customers aren’t there. We turn off irrigation pumps. Instead of watering between 2 p.m. and 4 pm. on a hot summer afternoon when costs are highest, we automate and turn them on at a different time.”

Remley says that because of big data, energy is being saved in ways that weren’t possible in the past.

“These tools have allowed us to take all the data and really automate the processing of it to find energy savings and efficiency opportunities in places we never would have been able to,” he says. “Having servers run through algorithms has completely changed the game for us. Using the tools and analysis has allowed us to scale all of these energy insights that we’ve always had to thousands of buildings very rapidly.”

Europe’s Wind-Turbine Makers Are Pleading For More Political Support Tokyo Westward Group Energy Alternatives

EUROPEAN climate policy has spent vast amounts of public money, sent power utilities to the brink and done little to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, an impressive display of multi-pronged incompetence. But might all that money at least have built a robust, world-beating European renewables industry?


Not yet. European makers of solar panels have been largely wiped out by a combination of the financial crisis and competition from cheaper Chinese rivals. Q-Cells of Germany, once the world’s largest solar manufacturer, went bust in 2012. SolarWorld, Germany’s largest remaining maker, begged successfully for investors’ patience to avoid bankruptcy late last year. The EU, like America, is bringing anti-dumping complaints against Chinese firms, but even if these were to succeed it is clear that the future of solar-panel manufacturing lies beyond Europe.


Besides barely-green biomass, geographically limited hydropower and unproven tidal power, that leaves wind turbines as the best hope for European green energy. The picture is brighter than for solar. But Prokon, a German wind-park developer that offered generous profit-shares to small investors, filed for bankruptcy in January. And Europe’s makers of wind turbines have gone through a dark few years, shedding jobs and racking up losses.


Vestas, of Denmark, was once the pin-up of the wind-turbine industry. But it overinvested just as others piled into the market. As its balance-sheet deteriorated, investors took fright, forcing the management to announce huge cost-cuts and lay-offs, culminating in the sacking last year of Ditlev Engel, its boss. His successor, Anders Runevad, announced last month that the restructuring was paying off, producing €211m ($288m) in operating profit before special charges.


Kristian Tornoe Johansen, an analyst at Danske Bank, thinks that Vestas’s new “asset-light” model, with many of its production processes outsourced, puts it in a strong position to compete in Europe, America and emerging markets. HSBC’s wind-sector analysts are also bullish on Vestas, as they are on two European competitors, Nordex of Germany and Gamesa of Spain, saying that the industry is ready for a turnaround, as it were.


Perhaps it is appropriate that Mr Runevad came from Ericsson, a Swedish telecoms-equipment maker. Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation compares the renewables firms’ boom and bust to Nokia and Ericsson, which lost their early lead in mobile telephony when Apple and Google entered the market and became “killers”. The two killers the wind-turbine makers should fear are not the Chinese but GE and Siemens, two huge Western conglomerates. GE has overtaken Vestas to become the world’s biggest wind-turbine maker. Siemens outsells Vestas in the small but growing market for offshore windpower installations. Both conglomerates boast that they can offer their customers a complete package of transmission, storage and other capacities, in contrast to Vestas’s focus on generation only.


Free as the wind

In some countries, such as Brazil, windpower is already competitive without subsidies, and as the technology continues to develop there will be more such markets. But in Europe that point is still far off: Siemens is aiming to cut the cost of electricity from offshore turbines to ten euro cents a kilowatt-hour by 2020, from around 14 cents now, but this is still well above the current cost of fossil-fuel generation.


So Europe’s specialist renewables firms are pleading for help. A group of the firms’ bosses, including Mr Runevad, has gone to Brussels to call on the EU to impose a further round of binding renewable-energy targets on each member, for the decade to 2030. The EU’s initial proposals for energy policy during this period, announced in January, did not include these.


Mr Runevad and his fellow windpower bosses argue that compulsory targets would encourage power utilities to buy lots of wind turbines, helping their makers achieve economies of scale. Maybe, but there is a more sensible way for Europe to accelerate the switch to renewable energy and boost its wind-turbine makers. It should reform its crippled market in emissions permits, in particular by scrapping the exemptions from having to buy permits that many polluting industries enjoy. If the turbine-makers were to lobby for this, rather than pleading for a guaranteed market share, it would be a sign of an industry confident of its future.