Unilever to Buy Oil Derived From Algae From Solazyme

NY Times

September 25, 2013

Unilever to Buy Oil Derived From Algae From Solazyme

By DIANE CARDWELL

In a sign of the growing mainstream acceptance of products derived from algae, Unilever, the consumer products giant, has agreed to buy large amounts of oil from Solazyme, a start-up that bioengineers algae to produce oils, proteins and complex sugars, executives said Tuesday.

 

Unilever said it would use the oil for its personal care products, which include Dove and Brylcreem. The agreement, under which Unilever plans to buy roughly three million gallons of the algae-produced oil over 12 to 18 months starting early next year, is part of its aim to double the size of its business while reducing its overall environmental footprint. Toward that end, Unilever has said it will use only sustainable agricultural raw materials by 2020, a goal it met last year in its purchases of palm oil from sustainable sources.

 

For Solazyme, the agreement represents an important step as it ramps up to commercial-scale production. Originally conceived as a fuel business, Solazyme has focused on making oils for products with higher profit margins like personal care, food and petrochemicals.

 

The Unilever oil, developed in a five-year partnership with Solazyme, will be made at a plant it built in Brazil with Bunge, a leading agribusiness and food company. When fully operational, the plant could produce roughly 30 million gallons of oil a year.

 

“This is the first oil that was jointly developed that’s going to a product sale,” said Jonathan S. Wolfson, Solazyme’s chief executive. “We’ve laid out the path for years, and now we’re closing the first big loop about where a big chunk of this oil goes coming out of one of these plants.”

 

Solazyme, based in South San Francisco, Calif., has developed several strains of microalgae that can produce oils, proteins and complex sugars with specific characteristics to perform a variety of functions. Though it still plans to mass-market fuel, it has entered into partnerships with established companies to help it increase manufacturing capacity for its several product lines.

 

Companies Unplug From the Electric Grid, Delivering a Jolt to Utilities

BUSINESSSeptember 17, 2013, 11:05 p.m. ET

Companies Unplug From the Electric Grid, Delivering a Jolt to Utilities

By REBECCA SMITH and CASSANDRA SWEET CONNECT

Michal Czerwonka for The Wall Street Journal

At Kroger’s food-distribution center in Compton, Calif., a tank system converts organic waste into biogas to produce electricity used by the facility

On a hill overlooking the Susquehanna River, two big wind turbines crank out electricity for Kroger Co.’s Turkey Hill Dairy in rural Lancaster County, Pa., allowing it to save 25% on its power bill for the past two years.

Across the country, at a big food-distribution center Kroger also owns in Compton, Calif., a tank system installed this year uses bacteria to convert 150 tons a day of damaged produce, bread and other organic waste into a biogas that is burned on site to produce 20% of the electricity the facility uses.

These two projects, plus the electric output of solar panels at four Kroger grocery stores, and some energy-conservation efforts are saving the Cincinnati-based grocery chain $160 million a year on electricity, said Denis George, its energy manager. That is a lot of money that isn’t going into the pockets of utilities.

From big-box retailers to high-tech manufacturers, more companies across the country are producing their own power. Since 2006, the number of electricity-generation units at commercial and industrial sites has more than quadrupled to roughly 40,000 from about 10,000, according to federal statistics.

Experts say the trend is gaining momentum, spurred by falling prices for solar panels and natural gas, as well as a fear that power outages caused by major storms will become more common.

Michal Czerwonka for The Wall Street Journal

Organic waste

“The battle cry is Hurricane Sandy,” said Rick Fioravanti, vice president of energy-storage technology at DNV Kema, a Netherlands-based consulting company.

The growing number of companies that are at least partly energy self-sufficient is sending a shudder through the utility industry, threatening its revenues and growth prospects, according to a report earlier this year by the Edison Electric Institute, a trade association for investor-owned electric companies.

State and federal regulators say they are worried that utilities could end up with fewer customers to pay for costly transmission lines and power plants.

Utility executives, meanwhile, are asking themselves a disquieting question: “Am I going to just sit here and take it and ultimately be a caretaker of a museum, or am I going to be part of that business” that’s emerging, said Nick Akins, chief executive of American Electric Power Co., a big Ohio-based utility. AEP is considering helping its customers install their own generating facilities.

Related Reading

In Post-Tsunami Japan, Homeowners Pull Away From Grid

How Fuel Cells Work

On-site generation still accounts for less than 5% of U.S. electricity production. But it is peeling off some of the bulk sales that utilities find especially profitable. And some of the companies getting into the business think it is approaching a tipping point called “grid parity,” at which point power would be as cheap to make as to buy from a utility.

Since 2007, when the first solar arrays went up on its store roofs in California, the installed costs of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s solar systems have dropped from $6 or $8 per watt of capacity to about $3.50 per watt, said David Ozment, the company’s senior director of energy management. He said he expects the retailer to be paying as little for solar power as utility power “in less than three years,” opening the floodgates to solar expansion.

Wal-Mart produces about 4% of the electricity it uses but intends to make 20% by 2020, taking advantage of idle acreage on thousands of store rooftops.

On-site generation isn’t a new idea. It existed before the electric grid—the interconnected system of power plants, substations and transmission lines that ferry power thousands of miles—was stitched together beginning in the 1920s.

But for most of the past 50 years, the practice was associated mostly with remote locations like Alaska fish canneries or industrial facilities like oil refineries that generated lots of waste heat that could be harnessed for power production.

Almost overnight, that niche market has gone decidedly mainstream. Six years ago, Google Inc. attracted attention by installing big solar arrays atop its Silicon Valley complex in California. Other tech companies followed suit, worried about ensuring power supplies for energy-hungry server farms and achieving sustainability objectives.

Apple Inc. now gets 16% of its electricity from solar panels and fuel cells that run on biogas. Apple’s data center in Maiden, N.C., makes all the power it consumes, a company spokeswoman said.

BMW AG’s assembly plant in South Carolina, which made 300,000 vehicles last year, gets half its electricity from an on-site energy center that burns methane piped to it from a nearby garbage dump. Drugstore chain Walgreen Co., which has solar panels at 155 stores, plans to install them at 200 more.

Falling equipment prices make on-site generation increasingly attractive. From 2002 to 2012, the cost of installed solar systems fell by half, according to an August report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Companies also have the option of leasing big solar systems, rather than incurring the capital cost of buying them.

Many “clean energy” projects also qualify for federal and state subsidies. In the case of solar installations, there is a 30% federal tax credit, which is set to drop to 10% in 2017. Government officials say a shift to greener energy resources is good since it reduces the output from coal-fueled power plants, which produce about 40% of the nation’s electricity and are the most polluting.

But analysts say the importance of subsidies has been waning, overshadowed by steep declines in the cost of power-generating equipment. For example, the cost of solar modules—the biggest single component in a rooftop solar system—has dropped about 80% in the past four years, to about 65 cents a watt from about $4 a watt, said Galen Barbose, a senior researcher at the lab.

Companies also are turning to wind turbines and technologies like fuel cells, batteries, small natural-gas turbines and reciprocating engines, which are natural-gas-fueled cousins of the auto’s internal combustion engine.

Engineering and technology company SAIC Inc. is installing enough generating capacity at a data center outside New York to meet the center’s core needs, with batteries for backup power. The system uses reciprocating engines burning natural gas, an option considered reliable in storms because gas pipelines are buried.

A report released by the White House in August estimated that power outages caused by bad weather cost the U.S. economy $18 billion to $52 billion a year in lost productivity from 2003 to 2012.

Demand for fuel cells in the U.S. is coming primarily from telecom companies, hotels and universities, said David Wright, CEO of ClearEdge Power Inc., a manufacturer in Hillsboro, Ore. Many buyers want reliable on-site generation as a hedge against storm-related outages.

By next year, Verizon Communications Inc. plans to install $100 million worth of fuel cells from ClearEdge and Bloom Energy, as well as solar panels, at 19 data centers and other facilities in seven states, including New York and New Jersey.

Some traditional utility companies are edging into the on-site generation business.

Edison International, which owns big utility Southern California Edison, recently bought a Chicago-based developer of rooftop solar projects, SoCore Energy LLC, and it is an investor in solar-finance company Clean Power Finance.

As power production becomes more decentralized, “I want to make sure the company is deeply involved,” said Edison CEO Ted Craver.

Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com and Cassandra Sweet at cassandra.sweet@dowjones.com

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

http://www.djreprints.com

Coal at Risk as Global Lenders Drop Financing

Coal at Risk as Global Lenders Drop Financing on Climate

By Mark Drajem – Aug 6, 2013 10:56 AM ET

Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg

An employee stands in front of stockpiles of coal inside a storage yard at the Joban Joint Power Co. coal-fired power station in Iwaki City, Japan.

The world’s richest nations, moving to combat global warming, are cutting government support for new coal-burning power plants in developing countries, dealing a blow to the world’s dominant source of electricity.

Obama Unveils Climate Plan Focused on Power Plants 48:10

June 25 (Bloomberg) — U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about his plan to address climate change. Obama, speaking at Georgetown University in Washington, proposed a sweeping plan that sets goals to reduce carbon emissions and bolster renewable energy while also preparing the country for the impacts of a warming planet. (Source: Bloomberg)

Enlarge image Coal at Risk as Global Lenders Drop Financing on Climate

A coal-fired power station stands in the distance behind a disused coal dredger in the town center in Morwell, Australia, on July 25, 2013. Photographer: Carla

Gottgens/Bloomberg

First it was President Barack Obama pledging in June that the government would no longer finance overseas coal plants through the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Next it was the World Bank, then the European Investment Bank, dropping support for coal projects. Those banks have pumped more than $10 billion into such initiatives in the past five years.

“Drawing back means there is less capital for these projects,” Richard Caperton, managing director for energy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, said in an interview. “I don’t expect private capital to move in and fill the void, either, because there is a real risk that these plants will be turned off early.”

Demand for coal in developing nations has taken on increasing importance as the combination of stricter environmental regulations in the U.S., increasing deployment of subsidized renewable resources and a drop in the price of natural gas have pushed utilities to shutter coal plants.

Among the three government-backed lenders, the World Bank has provided $6.26 billion for coal-related projects over the past five years, according to data from Oil Change International. The Ex-Im bank provided more than $1.4 billion to two coal projects, one in South Africa and another in India.

Curb Investments

While the pull back is unlikely to have a direct impact on China, the world’s top user of coal, it could curb construction of new plants in countries such as South Africa and Vietnam and dampen new export markets for coal mined in the U.S., Indonesia or Australia by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) and Alpha Natural Resources Inc. (ANR)

“We’ve never seen a cascading sentiment that coal is not acceptable like we’re seeing happen right now,” Justin Guay, the head of the Sierra Club’s international climate program, said in an interview. “It’s a snowball running downhill.”

Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club are fighting coal plants and coal mines, because coal releases the most carbon dioxide per unit of energy of any major fuel source. Scientists say carbon emissions are to blame for warming Earth’s temperatures, increasing the number and severity of storms and melting polar ice.

Supporters of the fuel source say it’s a low-cost way for poor nations to provide light, refrigeration and air conditioning to their people.

‘Our Backs’

The move by lenders against coal turns “our backs on millions without electricity and chooses not to help them achieve a better standard of living,” said Nancy Gravatt, a spokeswoman for the National Mining Association in Washington, which represents producers such as Alpha and

Arch Coal Inc. (ACI)

Analysts are divided about long-term global coal demand.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration, in a July 25 report, projected world coal use would increase by a third — to more than 200 quadrillion British thermal units a year — by 2040 as developing nations boost its use.

The cut-back in the financing isn’t causing a reassessment of that outlook, said Greg Adams, the team leader for coal at EIA. “The capacity that is going to be affected is going to be limited,” he said.

Gregory Boyce, chief executive officer of Peabody, the largest U.S. coal producer, noted that German and Japanese coal use is climbing as they cut nuclear-power generation.

China, India

“China and India imports have risen year-to-date and are on a pace to increase 15 percent this year to new record levels as the trends to urbanize, industrialize and electrify continue,” Boyce said in a conference call with analysts on July 23.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. offers a less buoyant outlook.

“We believe that thermal coal’s current position atop the fuel mix for global power generation will be gradually eroded,” Christian Lelong, an analyst at Goldman Sachs in Australia, said in a report on July 24. “Most thermal coal growth projects will struggle to earn a positive return.”

Coal is now used to generate 40 percent of the world’s electricity, and its use has grown more than 50 percent in the past decade, according to EIA. The U.S. is the world’s second-largest producer of coal, after China, followed by India, Australia and Indonesia. China is the world’s top importer of coal as well, followed by Japan, according to the World Coal Association.

1,200 Plants

According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute in Washington, 1,200 coal-fired plants are proposed globally, with more than three-quarters of those planned for India and China alone. If all are built, which WRI says is unlikely, that would add more than 80 percent to existing capacity.

China can finance its projects on its own, and India has only relied on export financing in a few cases. As a result, the recent changes are likely to impact other nations in Africa and Asia, which don’t have the same access to credit. Each group said in some instances it would still finance coal, and activists are worried about those exceptions.

“The implementation of all three of those initiatives is yet to be fleshed out,” Doug Norlen, the policy director of Pacific Environment, which is fighting these kinds of fossil-fuel projects, said in an interview. “These will be huge steps, if properly implemented.”

That implementation is still an open question.

Project Rejected

For example, as part of Obama’s climate action plan released on June 25, the U.S. pledged to end support of foreign coal-fired power plants, unless they are in the poorest nations or have expensive carbon-capture technology. The U.S. Export-Import Bank is only now developing the procedures to implement that policy, and its board will consider those changes in the coming weeks. The lender shot down a bid to finance a coal plant in Vietnam, its only pending application for coal, just three weeks after Obama’s announcement.

Norlen’s group and other environmentalists filed a lawsuit against the Export-Import Bank last week to try to block its financing of coal exports. That support is separate from the policy change Obama announced.

The European Investment Bank set an emission performance standard that would prevent lending to new coal-fired plants unless they also burn biomass. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is also under pressure to limit support.

Japan Support

Even after the World Bank said it would help nations transition from coal to natural gas or renewables, it’s still considering support for a coal project in Kosovo.

There’s also the possibility that other lenders, especially export-credit agencies from Japan or China, could step in and replace the World Bank, U.S. and Europe. Japan’s Bank for International Cooperation, its export financing body, has provided more than $10 billion in financing for overseas coal projects, more than any other individual nation, according to the WRI report.

And now China, which wants to export coal-plant technology, may ramp up support as well, said Ailun Yang, the author of the WRI report.

“It is a real concern” that “some of the funding gap for coal-fired plants would simply be filled by the Chinese banks,” she said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at jmorgan97@bloomberg.net