Trending Now

Building a Resilient Supply Chain with Advanced Predictive…

New Articles

Helping the World is Good for Business

emissions
Archives, Global Logistics, Global Trade Daily, Special Reports

Helping the World is Good for Business

Leave a comment

There aren’t many times in any industry when going the extra mile to do the right thing is actually really good for business too. But it does happen.

Skeptical? You’re not alone. After two years of juggling, pivoting, problem solving, reimagining and then doing it again – all of which have drained energies and operational budgets – any transportation logistics executive in charge of budgeting, could be forgiven for taking a hard line on non-essential expenditures.

Proactively protecting the environment? That’s a must-do for every industry, but it’s low on a priority list that has been exclusively focused on finding and retaining carrier capacity and keeping the flow of goods moving across the country and around the world.


 

As we all continually re-examine ways to cut costs and realize even greater operational efficiencies, improving environmental protocols – and reducing C02 emissions specifically – presents a rare win-win dynamic in which operations leaders can preemptively align around incoming regulations, optimize network efficiencies and reduce C02, an increasingly problematic contributor to greenhouse gasses (GHG’s) and overall environmental impact. If all of that sounds a little like having your cake and eating it, you’re not wrong. Let’s dig in, get some broader perspective and take a closer look at the issues and strategic steps to lowering emissions and raising profits.

The Global Perspective: efforts to reduce emissions

Protecting the environment seemed more an extreme activist position a few decades ago but it’s rightly now a global perspective – and with good reason. The Paris Accord – an agreement by countries around the world to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – mandates a target of no more than a 1.5 degree Celsius change in global temperature beyond pre-industrial levels. According to Stanford University, as of March 2021, 64 countries signed the agreement but the race is on. While pandemic lockdowns and other confinement measures cut global emissions by 2.6 billion tons of CO2, about seven percent below pre 2019 levels, experts say that level of control cannot be maintained and the world is on track to increase global temperature by 3-5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century: a world-changing problem.

The good news is that change is being affected at the global, national, corporate and individual levels. Or at least initiatives are in place to fast track new behaviors. At the international level, 27 countries have implemented a carbon tax, imposing fees on industries for carbon emissions in an effort to incentivize a switch to improved practices and both green technologies and power sources. Pro-tax countries include Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, the European Union (27 countries), Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine. Others considering joining include Brazil, Brunei, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam. In addition, 64 carbon pricing initiatives are currently in force across the globe on various regional, national, and subnational levels, with three more scheduled for implementation, according to The World Bank. Together, these initiatives have been estimated to cover 21.5% of the global greenhouse gas emissions in 2021.

A gradual shift to renewable energy worldwide is also underway with solar-generated power leading the way. While coal and gas still account for around 60% of the world’s energy, renewable forms of energy production are growing fast. According to Earth.org, worldwide solar power production has grown 25% year-on-year with overall renewable energy now accounting for 29% of the global power supply and the first countries, like Iceland, being close to 100% renewable-energy-powered. This pace of change will pick up, but it’s also going to require the major industries that generate large amounts of C02  – for example manufacturing and livestock-based meat production – as well as other private sector companies and every team within them – to affect change from the top down and bottom up. While the earth’s agriculture goliaths tackle damaging methane gas emissions (9.6% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions), a society-wide movement is beginning, with the adoption of consumer and coming commercial electric vehicles, single use plastics, ride sharing and plant-based food production.

The C-Suite Perspective: targeting the supply chain and improving visibility

While all of that is tremendously encouraging and needed, corporate America and its global counterparts are being asked to do more. Forbes reports leaders now recognize the need for their companies and organizations to drive more proactive environmental change through C02-limiting practices across the organization but particularly in relation to the supply chain. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), company supply chains now account for a staggering 90% of an organization’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

While changes to other emissions-reducing strategies, including business travel practices, electric vehicles and renewable energy use, all help corporations lower their carbon footprint, tackling supply chain emissions from manufacturing to the transportation, handling and management of goods is the single greatest impact generator for many businesses. Kevin Sneader, global managing partner, McKinsey & Company hits the nail squarely on the head about exactly what’s needed to affect this level of network-wide change:

“While there wasn’t much debate about the science [of necessary reduction of C02 emissions], executives and investors were concerned about the lack of reliable data on the efforts companies and society are making, not to mention their impact. Greater clarity is required in order to speed development of new standards to help markets act more efficiently and reward progress.”

The answer lies, as with many operational efficiencies initiatives, in clear access to data across your supply chain operation. How much C02 is being emitted at any given time? What are the major causes, modes or geographies and other contributing variables? Only by tracking this data, by embedding an enterprise-wide approach to ongoing C02 monitoring, can we build effective strategies to manage and reduce emissions and realize greater efficiencies at the same time. This is especially critical post global pandemic as many industries re-set and examine better practices to mitigate risk and manage challenges.

Creating Sustainability Practices in Transportation Logistics

When it comes to creating sustainable practices in logistics transportation, the great news is that the train has already left the station. Meaning shippers are already organically looking for better ways to improve execution and lower costs. And typically those changes – optimizing network and mode, carrier/LSP selection via advanced routing as well as packaging strategies to reduce dimensional weight and trim cost – will all contribute to emissions reduction. The challenge, of course, comes in how to measure any impact from these actions as part of an overall carbon reduction program.

How do we begin thinking about C02 monitoring and measurement? How do we acquire quantitative proof of progress or KPI’s that can demonstrate we’re delivering against our footprint- reduction goals? Measurement needs to include everything from the role warehouse management, packaging, product sourcing all play in emissions as well as, of course, the movement of inbound materials or inventory delivery and outbound transportation of goods across mode, region and geography.

Tracking CO2: Supporting a Broader Sustainability Initiative

As we set about to review sustainable practices within an operation, it’s a good idea to adopt a broader view of sustainability. Yes, transportation will be a major driver of C02 emissions and require monitoring, but let’s review other contributing factors too. Do your carriers across your network practice emissions-reduction strategies? Things like load consolidation, which will typically lower cost per unit weight, reduce your number of shipments, reduce fuel needs and lead to an overall reduction of C02. If they’re not using basic emissions-reduction practices or considering doing so, it may be time to find new carriers.

Unfortunately, there is no global standard to measure CO2 in relation to transportation logistics which makes comparison across the industry extremely difficult at present. In the United States, the EPA’s Smartway program is attempting to standardize CO2 coefficients but not all companies have adopted a single source of CO2, nor a common definition as it relates to transportation logistics. Until this happens, the best course of action is internal measurement: consistently monitoring and measuring across your operation and benchmarking emissions- reduction against your own goals and initiatives to affect them. Only by doing this and having the data-driven proof points can we set new goals as well as broader sustainability targets that can all be reported to customers, partners, investors and other stakeholders.

It’s All About Data: FAP’s Role in CO2 Measurement

Visibility is the key to delivering on your targets for sustainability and emission reduction, and that can only come from data collection, curation and analysis. Two fundamental components for measuring CO2 emissions in transportation logistics are weight and distance. How large and heavy are my goods? How far and by which means do they need to travel, what’s the fuel required and how efficient is consumption? A good quality Freight Audit and Payment (FAP) system tracks weight and lane, which can help calculate distance, plus additional variables, making it a foundational step and required tool for any CO2 measurement and reduction effort.

While there is no single source or method to deriving CO2 yet, distance, weight, and mode of transportation are all key fundamental elements that support the calculation of CO2 related to transportation logistics. The bottom line is that by combining these input values with CO2 coefficients, it’s possible to calculate the CO2 associated with any shipment, regardless of mode of transport and geographic region.

A natural place to begin is where carbon emissions reduction has a material impact (transportation logistics) and where transportation spend management data is available (historical record of shipping activity with specific distance, weight, mode of transport available).   Dashboards and trends along with KPIs for both cost to serve metrics (cost per unit, cost per shipment, cost per unit weight) and carbon emissions (CO2 by lane, by LSP) create awareness and can be used to establish baselines and alignment for both carbon reduction and transportation spend optimization. This same dashboard can be used by logistics, procurement, operations management, and executives to align on, and report, progress at all levels of the organization at any given time.

Getting the Most from Your KPI’s

According to Forrester, 59% of all companies worldwide now follow data-driven strategies and that number is growing as even small-to-medium sized organizations realize the benefits of data analysis. As you build your sustainability protocols and measurement practices to get the most from your KPI’s, two things are important.

Continuous Process Improvement

Set goals and use appropriate KPI’s and influencers (cost per unit of distance, CO2 per unit of distance) which will deliver ongoing process improvements: proper supplier and LSP management across your operation as well as more informed decision making for everything from mode of transportation and packaging choice all the way to corporation level decisions around emissions control strategies.

Optimized Strategies

Build carbon emission reduction strategies into your overall optimization strategies. They’re one and the same. Putting in place operational changes to improve efficiencies will reduce emissions. Setting emissions reduction goals will necessitate changes that improve efficiency. And consistent, standardized and high quality data is essential for both.

Do both of these things: continually drive improvement across every process and embrace data- driven decision making to optimize strategies, and you’ll put in place the steps and tools to not just lower C02 emissions, but related operational costs too.

___________________________________________________________________

Steve Beda is executive vice president of customer solutions for Trax Technologies, the global leader in Transportation Spend Management solutions. Trax elevates traditional Freight Audit and Payment with a combination of industry leading cloud-based technology solutions and expert services to help enterprises with the world’s more complex supply chains better manage and control their global transportation costs and drive enterprise-wide efficiency and value. For more information, visit www.traxtech.com.  

AD/CVD
Archives, Global Trade Daily, International Trade, News

Commerce Issues Final Determination in AD/CVD Investigation on Utility Scale Wind Towers from India

Leave a comment

The Department of Commerce published its Final Determination in the antidumping (“AD”) and countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation of Utility Scale Wind Towers from India on October 13, 2021, which investigation was initiated in November 2020. The AD/CVD petition was filed by Wind Tower Trade Coalition (“Petitioner”). The mandatory respondent selected by Commerce in both the antidumping and countervailing duty investigation was Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited (“Vestas”).

The additional producers/exporters Commerce included in the antidumping investigation were: Anand Engineering Products Private Limited, Windar Renewable Energy Private Limited, and GRI Towers India Private Limited.

The additional producers/exporters included in the countervailing duty investigation were: Naiks Brass & Iron Works, Nordex India Pvt. Ltd., Prommada Hindustan Pvt. Ltd., Suzlon Energy Ltd., Vinayaka Energy Tek, Wish Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., and Zeeco India Pvt. Ltd.

In its final determination, Commerce found that (1) imports of wind towers from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States, at less than fair value and (2) that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of wind towers from India. As a result of these findings, Commerce instituted:

-A 54.03 percent weighted-average dumping margin on exports by Vestas and the five other producer/exporters from India;

-A 2.25 percent countervailable subsidy rate for Vestas and all others that were not specifically investigated; and

-A 397.70 percent countervailable subsidy rate for the seven other producer/exporters.

The factsheet detailing these amounts can be found here.

In the anti-dumping investigation concerning whether Vestas and the other producers/exporters were selling or likely to be selling at less than fair value (“LTFV”), Commerce based its calculation of the dumping margin “entirely on the basis of facts available with the application of adverse inferences (“AFA”).” This decision was mainly due to a lack of documentation and cooperation from Vestas and the five other producers/exporters. Despite many briefs filed by parties opposing the use of AFA, Commerce upheld its Preliminary Determination and adopted it in full.

Notably, Commerce did not receive the necessary information from Vestas or the five other producer/exporters by the agreed-upon deadline. While Vestas did eventually submit the information requested, Commerce stated that it would only accept untimely filed information in extraordinary circumstances. Vestas argued that the COVID-19 pandemic had hindered it from timely filing its responses. However, Commerce noted that Vestas was using a U.S. based law-firm and that the filings were made by the law firm from the law firm’s U.S. office location. Therefore, the extraordinary COVID-19 impact in India was not affecting Vestas’ ability to timely file.

In the countervailable subsidy rate calculation, Commerce reversed its Preliminary Determination to use AFA to calculate the subsidy rate for Vestas. Commerce stated that for the Final Determination, based on the information it received in lieu of its onsite investigation, Commerce was able to investigate and verify all of the information provided by Vestas and “[agreed] with Vestas that use of facts otherwise available is no longer necessary because all necessary information is on the record.” However, Commerce maintained that AFA was the correct calculation for the other producers/exporters to calculate the countervailable subsidy rate due to a lack of cooperation. Specifically, none of the seven other producers/exporters responded to Commerce’s quantity & value questionnaire; therefore, Commerce held that AFA was the correct calculation because the companies “failed to cooperate to the best of their ability….”

The next step in this process will be for the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) to complete its investigation and make a determination “as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury.” If the ITC decides that the domestic industry is being harmed, then Commerce will issue AD/CVD Orders and instruct Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to implement the duties described above. If the AD/CVD orders are issued, they will remain in force for a period of five years after which there will be a mandatory sunset review to determine the continuation of dumping and/or subsidization. Also, for the next five years, Commerce will continue to conduct annual reviews of the AD/CVD rates on an ongoing basis, which might be an avenue to providing relief for certain manufacturers and exporters.

_____________________________________________________________

Nithya Nagarajan is a Washington-based partner with the law firm Husch Blackwell LLP. She practices in the International Trade & Supply Chain group of the firm’s Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation industry team.

renewable energy
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Utilities

States That Produce the Most Renewable Energy

Leave a comment

Since President Joe Biden and a new Congress took office earlier this year, federal policymakers have been working to speed up the U.S. transition to clean and renewable energy sources. One of Biden’s first actions in office was to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord, the 2016 agreement in which countries pledged to significantly reduce their CO2 emissions. The Biden Administration followed this up with aggressive carbon reduction targets and the American Jobs Plan proposal, which includes provisions to modernize the power grid, incentivize clean energy generation, and create more jobs in the energy sector. Much of Biden’s agenda builds on prior proposals like the Green New Deal, which would achieve emissions reductions and create jobs through investments in clean energy production and energy-efficient infrastructure upgrades.

 


The transition to renewables has taken on greater urgency in recent years with the worsening effects of climate change. Carbon emissions from non-renewable sources like coal, oil, and natural gas are one of the primary factors contributing to the warming of the atmosphere, and climate experts project that to limit warming, renewable energy must supply 70 to 85% of electricity by midcentury.

Renewable energy still represents less than a quarter of total annual electricity generation in the U.S., but the good news is that renewable energy has been responsible for a steadily increasing share of electricity generation over the past decade. Most of the upward trajectory comes from exponential growth in the production of solar and wind power. In 1990, solar power generated only 367,087 megawatt-hours of electricity, while wind power was responsible for 2,788,600 megawatt-hours. Since then, technological improvements and public investment in wind and solar helped lower costs and make them viable competitors to non-renewable sources. By 2020, solar production had reached 89,198,715 megawatt-hours, while wind produced 337,938,049 megawatt-hours of electricity.

But this evolution is uneven across the U.S., a product of differences in states’ economies, public policy toward renewables, and perhaps most importantly, geographic features. Even among states that lead in renewable energy production, these factors contribute to different mixes of renewable sources. For instance, Texas—the nation’s top producer of renewable energy—generates most of its renewable electricity from wind turbines. Runner-up Washington and fourth-place Oregon take advantage of large rivers in the Pacific Northwest to generate more hydroelectric power than any other state. And California, which is third in total renewable production, has been a long-time leader in solar energy thanks in part to an abundance of direct sunlight.

Meanwhile, states that lag behind in renewable generation include several states without the size or geographic features to scale up production, like Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, along with states whose economies are more traditionally dependent on fossil fuels, like Mississippi and Alaska.

To determine the states producing the most renewable energy, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to calculate the percentage of total electricity generated from renewable sources. Renewable energy sources include wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectric. In the event of a tie, the state with the greater five-year growth in renewable electricity production, between 2015 and 2020, was ranked higher.

Here are the states that produce the most renewable energy.

State
Rank
Percentage of electricity generated from renewables
5-year change in renewable electricity production
Total electricity generated from renewables (MWh)
Largest renewable energy source
Vermont    1     99.9% +9.0% 2,155,177 Hydroelectric Conventional
South Dakota    2     80.5% +55.0% 11,388,457 Hydroelectric Conventional
Maine    3     76.7% -1.7% 7,674,956 Hydroelectric Conventional
Idaho    4     76.1% +15.0% 13,456,149 Hydroelectric Conventional
Washington    5     75.0% +5.6% 87,109,288 Hydroelectric Conventional
Oregon    6     67.5% +9.5% 42,928,468 Hydroelectric Conventional
Iowa    7     59.4% +85.6% 35,437,099 Wind
Montana    8     59.4% +16.8% 13,872,119 Hydroelectric Conventional
Kansas    9     44.2% +117.6% 24,117,519 Wind
California    10     42.6% +38.9% 82,239,832 Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic
Oklahoma    11     39.7% +91.9% 32,687,539 Wind
North Dakota    12     38.1% +87.0% 16,084,768 Wind
Colorado    13     30.9% +77.4% 16,724,964 Wind
Alaska    14     30.8% +8.3% 1,931,545 Hydroelectric Conventional
Nebraska    15     28.9% +115.7% 10,648,740 Wind
United States    –     19.5% +43.9% 783,003,365 Wind

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/states-renewable-energy/

thin-film
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

Rising R&D in Photovoltaics to Propel Thin Film Materials Demand

Leave a comment

The global thin film materials market is poised to record commendable gains in the ensuing years owing to an escalation in research and development activities centered around photovoltaics.

An instance of the same is the deployment of expertise by NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) on the utilization of thin films for the development and enabling of technologically useful applications. A prominent exemplar in the renewable energy sector is photovoltaics (PV).

Over recent years, different types of thin films have become popular as they provide the potential for low-cost processing with the minimal usage of materials in the process of fulfilling application requirements. Thin-film uses comprise applications where mechanical flexibility and low weight are of prime importance.

Driven by these factors, the thin film materials market share is slated to gain remarkable traction through 2027.

This product is expected to witness considerable demand on account of the increasing usage of solar cells and LEDs. In September 2020, Missouri S&T researchers depicted the direct crystallization of highly ordered copper thin films on a one-molecule-thick-layer of organic material instead of inorganic substrates that have been utilized for years. The copper thin films are excellent candidates for utilization as underlying substances for high-temperature superconductors.

In addition, thin-film materials will record a high demand in Europe owing to the robust adoption of artificial lighting such as LEDs for the improvement of crop performance, particularly in northern Europe. The regional growth is driven by the surging installation of PV panels in Germany for greater energy independence.

Surging product development initiatives

Numerous industry participants and organizations are taking a keen interest in the adoption of strategic initiatives such as mergers, acquisitions, collaborations, partnerships, and product developments for boosting the penetration across several thin films applications. Few instances of the same are mentioned below:

-In April 2021, scientists evolved a method for turning X-ray fluorescence into an ultra-high position-sensitive probe for the measurement of nanostructures, which are tiny internal structures, in thin films. These nanostructured films form an essential component of numerous light-related and electronic technologies.

-In October 2020, a research group from the NIMS-University of Tokyo, formulated a machine learning technique that can be deployed for expediting the process of ascertaining optimal conditions for the fabrication of high-quality thin films. The method reduces the number of material samples that require up to 90% evaluation in comparison to the presently available methods of thin-film fabrication.

-In December 2019, scientists developed thin films produced from BaZrS3 (barium zirconium sulfide). The films integrate good charge transport with exceptionally strong light absorption, which makes them ideal for use in LEDs and photovoltaics.

-In April 2019, das-Nano was granted U.S. patent for its quality inspection of Onyx, a thin film materials device. The product has been designed for calculating indicative parameters of the quality of thin-film materials on the basis of reflection measurements.

Along with such developments, the industry is characterized by the trend of rising investments towards the launch of similar more initiatives.

In a nutshell, increasing product application on account of various advantages of thin-film will bolster the thin-film materials industry landscape over the estimated period.

fossil fuels
Archives, Global Trade Daily, State Spotlight, Utilities

U.S. States Most Dependent on Fossil Fuels

Leave a comment

With the effects of global climate change becoming increasingly apparent, policymakers across the U.S. are moving to reduce the nation’s reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels.

At the beginning of his term, President Joe Biden rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, and in April, the Biden Administration announced aggressive new greenhouse gas reduction goals, including an overall aim to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas pollution to half of 2005 levels by 2030. Meanwhile, nearly 40 states have adopted renewable portfolio standards to facilitate a transition away from fossil fuels for energy production to renewables.

Despite these efforts, however, fossil fuel consumption remains deeply entrenched in the U.S. economy, and it could take years to transition away from fossil fuels as the country’s primary energy source.

Petroleum remains the leading source of energy in the U.S., accounting for approximately one-third of energy consumed. Energy consumption from natural gas expanded over the last decade as the rise of hydraulic fracturing made it less costly to extract. Most of that growth has come at the expense of coal, which represented 22.7% of the energy consumed in 2008 but just 13.1% a decade later. And while nuclear has held steady and renewables have continued to grow with improved technology and greater scale, fossil fuels still represent more than 80% of total energy consumption in the U.S. each year.

One example of the difficulties of shifting away from fossil fuels is consumers’ relationship to gasoline and car travel. Recently, gasoline prices have been on the rise again: prices dropped sharply in 2020, as many travelers and commuters stayed off the roads during the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, with many public health restrictions being relaxed as cases decline and more people get vaccinated, prices have topped $3 per gallon nationally for the first time since 2014. But despite what the laws of supply and demand might suggest, rising prices do not strongly affect driver behavior: research shows they tend to purchase the same amount of gasoline regardless of how much it costs. Instead, breaking drivers’ reliance on fossil fuels will depend on auto manufacturers providing more hybrid and electric options, whether by choice or by policy, like California’s zero-emission vehicle regulations.

State-level data reinforces that there is a long way to go before the transition away from fossil fuels is complete. Every single U.S. state derives at least 50% of its energy from fossil fuels, and a total of nine states derive more than 90% of their energy from fossil fuels. Among the most dependent are small states like Delaware and Rhode Island, which import most of their energy from elsewhere, and states with rich stores of fossil fuels, like Alaska, West Virginia, and Kentucky. At the other end of the spectrum are states like Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire, which rely more on nuclear and renewables like hydroelectric power and derive less than 60% of their energy from fossil fuels.

To find the states most dependent on fossil fuels, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to calculate the percentage of total primary energy consumption from coal, natural gas, and petroleum in 2018 (the most recent available data). Researchers also calculated the percentage of total primary energy consumption derived from renewable sources, as well as the largest fossil fuel source.

Here are the states most dependent on fossil fuels.

State Rank Percentage of energy derived from fossil fuels Percentage of energy derived from renewables Total energy consumed from fossil fuels (trillion BTU) Total energy consumed from renewables (trillion BTU) Largest fossil fuel source

 
Delaware     1     96.4% 3.6% 213.1 8.0 Petroleum
Alaska     2     95.9% 4.1% 584.8 25.0 Natural Gas
West Virginia     3     95.4% 4.6% 1,103.3 53.7 Coal
Rhode Island     4     95.0% 5.0% 189.1 10.0 Natural Gas
Kentucky     5     94.1% 5.9% 1,616.5 102.1 Coal
Wyoming     6     93.5% 6.5% 793.2 54.9 Coal
Indiana     7     93.4% 6.6% 2,617.2 185.9 Coal
Utah     8     93.1% 6.9% 830.0 61.3 Petroleum
Louisiana     9     92.1% 3.7% 3,895.5 155.0 Petroleum
Texas     10     89.9% 7.1% 12,752.3 1,009.0 Petroleum
Ohio     11     89.7% 4.7% 3,040.2 158.6 Natural Gas
Hawaii     12     89.4% 10.6% 261.8 31.1 Petroleum
Colorado     13     88.8% 11.2% 1,305.1 164.6 Natural Gas
Mississippi     14     88.2% 6.1% 1,116.6 76.8 Natural Gas
Missouri     15     88.0% 5.9% 1,608.7 108.5 Coal
United States     –     80.5% 11.2% 81,238.0 11,281.6 Petroleum

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/states-fossil-fuels/

renewable energy
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Utilities

Best Renewable Energy Stocks in 2021: A Survey by Paul Harmaan

Leave a comment

The global economy nowadays is pivoting towards renewable energy, leaving fossil fuels behind. According to Paul Haarman, the economy is evolving and finding ways to adapt to modern technology, changing the whole world and making it more efficient. The various green energy sources that it was planning to adopt vary from solar energy to geothermal energy, from wind to biomass, and many more.

For the economy to convert to clean renewable, there will be a need for a strong financial back which is possible only when we use the economic prowess of renewable energy, and this is only possible through their stocks. So let us go in-depth to understand a few of those energy stocks.

Stocks for Top Renewable Energy

According to Paul Harmaan, various energy stocks like biomass, wind, solar, geothermal, etc., are present, which could support fast-forwarding the clean energy conversion for the economy. First, however, we will look for two of the best stocks where you should invest your money to get the best returns

First Solar

First Solar is one of the top leaders responsible for developing efficient thin-film solar panels. The company produces low-cost electricity per watt compared to the traditional silicon-based panels. Their solar panels are efficient mainly because they work well in extreme hotness and humidity conditions and work efficiently in shedding snow and debris quickly. These few features make them the most ideally used solar panels for utility-scale applications.

Moreover, the panel manufacturing sector of the first solar acts like a strong balance sheet responsible for making First Solar the number one choice and making it stand out.

NextEra Energy

NextEra Energy is responsible for two businesses which it runs efficiently. One business shows the efficient use of the competitive energy segment and is responsible for generating electricity. Besides this, it also transports natural gas under fix-free agreements that are beneficial for the long run. At the same time, the other one revolves around the rate-regulated electric utilities that NextEra Energy takes responsibility for and distributes that power to various businesses and consumers.

One of the highest credit ratings with the support of the largest electric utilities makes the NextEra Energy-efficient in working its stable operations responsibly. The two efficient businesses conducted by NextEra Energy are solely credited, and why shouldn’t they? The combined powers of both businesses help produce extra units of energy from natural resources like that of the wind and the sun, which any other company in the world is incapable of, making it a unique company.

Future of the Top Renewable Energy stocks

The effective and efficient shift by the world economy from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources or clean energy sources has created a massive opportunity for a variety of investors to look into the profits. At the same time, they understand the concept of how these sources can change the world and turn it into a better place. Suppose there is a need to find the future of these top renewable energy stocks. In that case, the most important thing to look for is the balance sheet of the company and the solar energy-focused growth profile, as these two main factors are highly responsible for generating higher returns in the future both for the world and the investors.

green hydrogen
Archives, Global Trade Daily, News

The European Hydrogen Market Benefits from Economic Recovery and Rising Demand for Alternative Fuels

Leave a comment

Increasingly stringent environmental legislation and the emergence of new gigawatt-scale electrolyzers indicate that hydrogen fuel boasts the future potential to develop as a strong competitor to traditional energy resources.

Key Trends and Insights

EU hydrogen production declined sharply in April 2020 by -15% against March figures, due to lockdown and stagnation in the chemical industry. Production only recovered in Q4 and continues to increase as of the beginning of 2021.

189 countries are now committed to reducing greenhouse emissions under the terms of the Paris Agreement, indicating that the demand for sustainable fuels will increase. The hydrogen market demonstrates tangible prospects: hydrogen, irrespective of its current high production costs, constitutes an excellent sustainable fuel due to the fact that when being combusted, it transforms to just water, without any harmful exhaust gases or carbon.

In July 2020, the European Union adopted the EU Hydrogen Strategy, to promote the widespread use of hydrogen as an alternative fuel, and conducted research into hydrogen production in Europe to determine investment opportunities from 2020 to 2050. The European Clean Hydrogen Alliance was established at the same time to connect industry, government authorities and the public. A dedicated regulatory and legal framework, specifically the Trans-European Networks for Energy (TEN-E) and The Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) initiatives should further promote the use of hydrogen from the perspective of alternative energy.

In addition to the European Union, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, amongst others, have already adopted their own hydrogen strategies. The UK carbon-free energy plan also envisages an increased role for hydrogen fuel, while in the U.S., a targeted program has yet to be developed.

Encouraged by the latest technological developments, commercial interest in hydrogen fuel increased over the past year. 96% of global hydrogen output is still generated from natural gas; this process emits considerable volumes of greenhouse gases. The production of ‘green’ hydrogen through water electrolysis represents a sustainable alternative to this synthesis method. The emergence of gigawatt-capacity electrolysis facilities will reduce production costs and make hydrogen more accessible.

The Netherlands Features the Largest Volumes of Consumption and Exports

Hydrogen consumption rose to 8.1B cubic meters in 2019, picking up by 3.8% on the previous year’s figure. The total consumption volume increased at an average annual rate of +1.9% from 2007 to 2019. The growth pace was the most rapid in 2008 with an increase of 26% against the previous year (IndexBox estimates).

The size of the hydrogen market in the European Union declined to $1.4B in 2019, approximately equating the previous year. This figure reflects the total revenues of producers and importers (excluding logistics costs, retail marketing costs, and retailers’ margins, which will be included in the final consumer price). In 2020, the value of the European hydrogen market was estimated at approx. the same figure (IndexBox estimates). .

The countries with the highest volumes of hydrogen consumption in 2019 were the Netherlands (2.6B cubic meters), Germany (2B cubic meters) and Spain (1.1B cubic meters), with a combined 70% share of total consumption. France, Finland, Italy and Hungary lagged somewhat behind, together comprising a further 24%.

From 2007 to 2019, the most notable rate of growth in terms of hydrogen consumption, amongst the key consuming countries, was attained by Finland, while consumption for the other leaders experienced more modest paces of growth.

The Netherlands represented the key exporter of hydrogen in the European Union, with the volume of exports reaching 301M cubic meters, which was near 73% (IndexBox estimates) of total exports in 2019. It was distantly followed by Belgium (78M cubic meters), mixing up a 19% share of total exports. Germany (14M cubic meters) held a little share of total exports.

The Netherlands was also the fastest-growing in terms of hydrogen exports, with a CAGR of +9.9% from 2007 to 2019. At the same time, Belgium (+1.4%) displayed positive paces of growth. Germany experienced a relatively flat trend pattern.

Source: IndexBox AI Platform

electricity
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Utilities

States With the Most (and Least) Expensive Electricity

Leave a comment

When an extreme winter storm tore through Texas earlier in 2021, the widespread power outages that followed put a microscope on how electricity is produced and generated. A state that prides itself on its critical role in the energy economy—both as a source of traditional fossil fuel energy sources like oil and a growing hotspot for renewables like wind and solar—had its electric grid completely crippled for days. Stories emerged of customers being billed thousands of dollars for using the state’s limited supply of electricity in the storm’s aftermath. The situation became a flashpoint for a longer-running debate in the state (and beyond) over whether renewables or fossil fuels were a more dependable source of energy.

Despite the renewed political back and forth over energy production in the wake of the Texas storm, the overall trends in the U.S. energy sector are undeniable: renewables will be the fastest-growing contributor to electricity production in the U.S. in the decades to come. Government incentives and technological advancements in the renewable sector have lowered costs and improved reliability in recent years, and low costs will spur increased adoption of the newer technologies.

Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that renewables currently represent around 21% of electricity generated in the U.S. By 2050, that figure is expected to double. Meanwhile, natural gas will decline slightly from 40% to 36% of electricity production over the same span. And the respective shares of electricity generated from nuclear and coal will be nearly cut in half.

The increased use of renewable sources will also pass on savings to consumers. The cost of electricity is also projected to decline in the next three decades, albeit gradually. The 2021 cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour currently averages around 10.5 cents across all sectors; that number will drop to 9.6 cents by 2050. And this trend will not be limited to any one sector: cost projections for electricity in the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors all show the same downward trend. Customers can expect to see a reduction in retail prices across the energy sector spectrum as the cost of electricity generation declines.

Some parts of the country could feel more of the benefit than others as costs decline. By one measure—average monthly residential electricity bill—most of those beneficiaries will be in the Southeastern U.S. The main factor driving costs in the Southeast is the greater use of electricity throughout the year compared to other regions. Warmer weather in the summer means high bills from air conditioning, and in the winter, Southeastern households are more likely to heat their homes with electricity than with other sources like natural gas or fuel oil. While these factors suggest that consumption levels will remain high, customers in the Southeast will benefit from electricity’s lower unit costs.

Another way to evaluate the different costs between states is to look at the average per kilowatt-hour cost of electricity across all sectors. On this measure, one of the key factors driving disparities between states is whether the state must import fuel or energy to supply their electricity. The most expensive states include the geographically remote Hawaii and Alaska, along with New England states that have largely retired old coal and nuclear facilities in recent years and rely on imported natural gas for electricity. In contrast, states, where electricity prices across sectors are cheap, tend to have nearby resources for electricity production, whether that be natural gas, coal, or a strong renewables sector.

To find the states with the most and least expensive electricity, researchers at Porch used information from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and ranked states based on the average electricity price for all sectors in cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). In the event of a tie, the state with the greater residential price for electricity was ranked higher.

Here are the states with the most and least expensive electricity.

States With the Most Expensive Electricity

State Rank Average electricity price for all sectors Residential price Average monthly residential bill Average monthly consumption

 
Hawaii 1 28.72¢ per kWh 32.06¢ per kWh $168.21 525 kWh
Alaska 2 20.22¢ per kWh 22.92¢ per kWh $127.29 555 kWh
Connecticut 3 18.66¢ per kWh 21.87¢ per kWh $150.71 689 kWh
Rhode Island 4 18.49¢ per kWh 21.73¢ per kWh $121.62 560 kWh
Massachusetts 5 18.40¢ per kWh 21.92¢ per kWh $125.89 574 kWh
New Hampshire 6 17.15¢ per kWh 20.05¢ per kWh $120.04 599 kWh
California 7 16.89¢ per kWh 19.15¢ per kWh $101.92 532 kWh
Vermont 8 15.36¢ per kWh 17.71¢ per kWh $97.18 549 kWh
New York 9 14.34¢ per kWh 17.94¢ per kWh $103.60 577 kWh
Maine 10 14.04¢ per kWh 17.89¢ per kWh $100.53 562 kWh
United States – 10.54¢ per kWh 13.01¢ per kWh $115.49 887 kWh

 

States With the Least Expensive Electricity

State Rank Average electricity price for all sectors Residential price Average monthly residential bill Average monthly consumption

 
Louisiana 1 7.71¢ per kWh 9.80¢ per kWh $120.70 1,232 kWh
Oklahoma 2 7.86¢ per kWh 10.21¢ per kWh $113.93 1,116 kWh
Idaho 3 7.89¢ per kWh 9.89¢ per kWh $93.83 949 kWh
Washington 4 8.04¢ per kWh 9.71¢ per kWh $94.49 973 kWh
Wyoming 5 8.10¢ per kWh 11.18¢ per kWh $96.53 864 kWh
Arkansas 6 8.22¢ per kWh 9.80¢ per kWh $109.46 1,118 kWh
Utah 7 8.24¢ per kWh 10.40¢ per kWh $75.63 727 kWh
West Virginia 8 8.49¢ per kWh 11.25¢ per kWh $121.90 1,084 kWh
Texas 9 8.60¢ per kWh 11.76¢ per kWh $134.07 1,140 kWh
Kentucky 10 8.61¢ per kWh 10.80¢ per kWh $120.08 1,112 kWh
United States – 10.54¢ per kWh 13.01¢ per kWh $115.49 887 kWh

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Porch’s website: https://porch.com/advice/states-with-the-most-least-expensive-electricity

energy exports
Archives, Global Trade Daily, Utilities

U.S. States that Export the Most Energy

Leave a comment

The energy economy in the United States has been transformed over the last 15 to 20 years, reducing reliance on some traditional fuel sources while bringing others to the forefront.

The main factors driving this shift have been the increased use of natural gas and renewable energy. The emergence of fracking has reduced the costs of natural gas extraction and led to a boom in domestic production over the past couple of decades. Simultaneously, new innovations in renewable energy sources like solar and wind power have reduced costs and made these alternatives more viable at scale. With the adoption of natural gas and renewables, production and consumption of formerly predominant sources like oil and coal have leveled off or declined.

This transition has also shifted the U.S. political economy around energy. Nationally, political figures have called for U.S. energy independence from imported foreign fuel resources for years, hoping to reduce reliance on other nations in the event of geopolitical conflicts. Because of the U.S.’s increased production of domestic energy sources, the country has made rapid progress toward that goal in recent years.

In 2019, the United States was a net exporter of energy for the first time since 1957, meaning that it produced more energy than it consumed. With a sharp increase in production over the past twenty years, production has begun to catch up with consumption and exports with imports. The nation’s net imports of coal and coke, natural gas, and petroleum have all fallen below zero, leaving only crude oil as a major fuel import—and even imports in that category are showing a decline.

Within the U.S., states have different levels of production and consumption affecting their import and export levels as well. While some states—especially those who produce coal in large numbers—have suffered in the transition between fuels, others have dramatically increased their energy production. As a result, these states are now producing far more energy on a per capita basis than peer states are.

This is particularly true for two of the states at the front of the natural gas boom, Wyoming and North Dakota. These states lead the nation in both total energy production on a per capita basis, a function of both their high levels of production and their low populations.

Interestingly, Wyoming and North Dakota are among the nation’s leaders in per capita energy consumption levels as well. One of the reasons is that extracting and refining fuel is itself an energy-intensive process—which is why some of the other leading states for energy consumption per capita are also major fuel producers, like Alaska and Louisiana.

Despite their high consumption levels, leading states Wyoming and North Dakota nonetheless have the highest net energy exports per capita, followed by other major energy producers like West Virginia, New Mexico, and Alaska. To find these locations, researchers at Commodity.com used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s Electric Power Annual Report and ranked states based on their net energy exports per capita—calculated as the difference between per capita production and consumption.

Here are the states that export the most energy.

State Rank Net energy exports per capita (million Btu) Total energy production per capita (million Btu) Total energy consumption per capita (million Btu) Net energy exports (trillion Btu) Total energy production (trillion Btu) Total energy consumption (trillion Btu)

 
Wyoming     1     12,368.3 13,335.4 967.1 7,158.3 7,718.0 559.7
North Dakota     2     4,677.5 5,549.4 871.9 3,564.6 4,229.0 664.4
West Virginia     3     2,200.0 2,661.6 461.6 3,942.7 4,770.0 827.3
New Mexico     4     1,301.0 1,636.8 335.8 2,727.9 3,432.0 704.1
Alaska     5     1,099.3 1,928.8 829.5 804.2 1,411.0 606.8
Oklahoma     6     800.4 1,233.5 433.1 3,167.2 4,881.0 1,713.8
Montana     7     522.5 932.8 410.3 558.5 997.0 438.5
Pennsylvania     8     392.5 702.0 309.5 5,024.8 8,987.0 3,962.2
Colorado     9     370.0 635.9 265.9 2,130.8 3,662.0 1,531.2
Texas     10     206.2 704.3 498.1 5,978.2 20,421.0 14,442.8
United States* –     2.7 307.8 305.2 873.0 101,038.0 100,165.0

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Commodity.com’s website: https://commodity.com/blog/states-export-most-energy/

renewable energy
Archives, Commentary, Global Trade Daily

States With the Largest Increase in Renewable Energy Production

Leave a comment

One of the most significant trends over the last decade for the economy, society, geopolitics, and the environment has been the rise of renewable energy. Fossil fuels have been the basis of the industrial economy for generations, powering tremendous economic growth but with dangerous consequences for the environment and public health. With the dramatic expansion of renewable energy technologies over the last decade, power sources like wind, solar, and geothermal have offered a more sustainable—and increasingly more affordable—path forward.

Several factors contribute to the expansion of clean energy. For one, technological advancement in renewables has made energy production and storage more efficient than ever before. The renewables industry has also received a boost from public policies and investments enacted by governments worldwide seeking to decarbonize in response to the threat of climate change. These developments have helped bring down renewable energy production costs over time, allowing market forces to spur continued growth in the sector. In all, electric power generated from renewables in the U.S. has grown by more than 70 percent since 2010.

And although growth is occurring across many renewable sources, wind and solar have been the most prominent success stories of recent years. In 2007, wind accounted for about 35 million Megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity produced in the U.S.; since then, wind production has increased by an average of around 20 million MWh per year, rising to nearly 295 million in 2019. Meanwhile, solar is the fastest-growing of all renewables. Solar production constituted less than 1 percent of renewable energy until around 2010, but experts now project that by 2050, solar and photovoltaic energy will account for nearly half of all renewable electricity production.


Growth in renewable energy production in the U.S. is widespread, but unique features of each region mean that the transition to renewables looks different from state to state. Measured by the proportion of total electricity generated from renewable sources, states in New England and the Western U.S. surpass the rest of the country, largely as a result of renewable-friendly state policies. Vermont generates a remarkable 99.9 percent of its electricity from renewables.

In terms of total electricity produced from renewables, California (97 million MWh), Texas (91 million MWh), and Washington (74 million MWh) are the national leaders. Physical geography explains much of these three states’ strength in renewables. California is the largest producer of geothermal (with the world’s largest geothermal field) and solar (due in part to large installations in the Mojave Desert). With plenty of cheap land and strong wind in many of its regions, Texas dominates the U.S. in wind production. And in Washington, major water features like the Columbia and Snake Rivers provide the basis for the nation’s strongest hydropower sector.

To identify the states with the fastest-growing renewable energy sector, researchers at FilterBuy used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to calculate the percentage change in renewable electricity production between 2010 and 2019. The researchers also calculated what percentage of total electricity production is accounted for by renewables, as well as the largest renewable energy source currently.

Here are the states with the largest increase in renewable energy production.

State Rank Percentage change in renewable energy production (2010-2019) Total renewable energy production 2019 (MWh) Total renewable energy production 2010 (MWh) Renewable energy share of total production 2019 Renewable energy share of total production 2010 Largest renewable energy source

 

 
Kansas     1      511.0% 21,218,058 3,472,565 41.7% 7.2% Wind
Nebraska     2      379.7% 8,667,568 1,807,009 23.2% 4.9% Wind
Oklahoma     3      377.6% 33,281,621 6,968,743 39.1% 9.6% Wind
New Mexico     4      310.1% 8,496,851 2,071,802 24.2% 5.7% Wind
Rhode Island     5      228.5% 472,344 143,779 6.2% 1.9% Biomass
Texas     6      213.9% 90,922,198 28,966,660 18.8% 7.0% Wind
Ohio     7      189.8% 3,272,411 1,129,113 2.7% 0.8% Wind
Utah     8      188.6% 4,261,269 1,476,479 10.9% 3.5% Solar
Illinois     9      186.4% 15,057,518 5,256,702 8.2% 2.6% Wind
Colorado     10      173.6% 14,043,640 5,132,797 24.9% 10.1% Wind
Iowa     11      155.7% 26,356,275 10,308,651 42.7% 17.9% Wind
Nevada     12      155.3% 11,345,373 4,443,943 28.4% 12.6% Solar
North Carolina     13      144.3% 16,709,383 6,839,691 12.7% 5.3% Solar
Michigan     14      143.3% 9,932,713 4,083,005 8.5% 3.7% Wind
North Dakota     15      134.0% 14,392,502 6,150,146 35.0% 17.7% Wind
United States     –      70.3% 727,696,543 427,376,077 17.6% 10.4% Wind

 

For more information, a detailed methodology, and complete results, you can find the original report on Filterbuy’s website: https://filterbuy.com/resources/states-largest-increase-renewable-energy/