Australian renewable energy efforts have been featured in Matthew Perry’s Green Chip column of the New York Times on 22nd August “Australia steps up renewable energy efforts“

Australia has plans to build the biggest wind farm in the southern hemisphere by 2013, part of its scramble to fight climate change and harness its abundance of clean energy sources — wind, solar, waves, geothermal energy and bioenergy.
Renewable energy now supplies just 6 percent of power in Australia because the country has historically lacked the political and commercial will to pursue big renewable energy projects. And the very sources of Australia’s clean energy — its vast outback and nearly 60,000 kilometers, or 37,000 miles, of coast — are major obstacles to linking new, remote power sources into the grid.

Matthew Warren, head of Clean Energy Council which represents over 350 cleantech companies that specialise in renewable energy and energy efficiency, said:

“It’s a blessing and a curse,” said Matthew Warren [...] “Australia is really at the top of the list, in the scale of the economy and the quality and scale of renewable resources,” Mr. Warren said. “But the grid issues are significant because we run a very, very large, long and thin grid,” he said.
“It’s like running a grid from Paris to Moscow with sparsely distributed energy demand through that grid.”

However, Australia is beginning to tackle the problem as demonstrated with the revised renewable energy targets passed in June which earmarked AUD $20 billion for clean energy technologies and is expected to create 28,000 green jobs. Furthermore, the Clean Energy Council feels that despite the fact that Australia has not yet set a price on carbon the renewable energy target of 20% by 2020 is achievable.

Climate change policies have been a topic of hot debate during this year’s neck and neck Federal election and, despite lack of the climate policy stability, movement in the sector is progressing. A.G.L. Energy, the largest energy retailer in Australia and New Zealand’s state-owned Meridian Energy announced earlier this month that they would build a billion dollar wind farm in Victoria – with 140 proposed wind turbines it would make it the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere.

Read the full article here.

Farmers in California’s San Joaquin Valley that have had to remove thousands of hectares of farmland from agricultural production in most part due to salt build up caused by years of irrigation are calling for the revitalisation of the land by putting it to a new use: renewable power generation.

By installing the proposed “Westland Solar Park” which they claim at peak output would generate as much electricity as several big nuclear power plants they would reuse the land which would have otherwise been useable for years to come. 12,000 hectares have been allocated by farmers from the region and officials at Westlands Water District, a public agency which supplies water to farms in the valley, into what would be one of the world’s largest solar energy complexes if it moved ahead.

As Australian farmland is tackling similar difficulties, the “Westland Solar Park” would be a good example of potential large scale projects – turning a bad situation into a positive outcome for our environment and local farmers.

First reported in the New York Times by Todd Woody, “Recycling Land for Green Energy Ideas” Aug 10th:

The San Joaquin initiative is in the vanguard of a new approach to locating renewable energy projects: putting them on polluted or previously used land. The Westlands project has won the backing of groups that have opposed building big solar projects in the Mojave Desert and have fought Westlands for decades over the district’s water use. Landowners and regulators are on board, too.
“It’s about as perfect a place as you’re going to find in the state of California for a solar project like this,” said Carl Zichella, who until late July was the Sierra Club’s Western renewable programs director. “There’s virtually zero wildlife impact here because the land has been farmed continuously for such a long time and you have proximity to transmission, infrastructure and markets.”
Recycling contaminated or otherwise disturbed land into green energy projects could help avoid disputes when developers seek to build sprawling arrays of solar collectors and wind turbines in pristine areas, where they can affect wildlife and water supplies.

He followed up with this story on the 11th of Aug “For Parched Farmers, a Crop of Electrons“:

In an article in The New York Times on Wednesday, I wrote about an ambitious plan to build one of the world’s largest solar energy complexes on 30,000 acres of farmland in the San Joaquin Valley of California.
Elsewhere, big renewable energy projects have encountered opposition from farmers, ranchers and environmentalists who worry about the impact of solar power plants on agriculture, wildlife and scarce water supplies.
But farmers in the San Joaquin Valley’s Westlands Water District are embracing solar power as a solution to their water woes. And environmental groups are backing the project as a way to avoid fights over building solar power plants in pristine desert areas.

Source: J. Emilio Flores for The New York Times

Also printed in the AFR, this story can be read online “Green energy scheme to revive unusable farmland”

As the election moves into the final sprint, Cate Blanchett has made this video with the Australian Conservation Foundation to call for a national commitment to clean energy in Australia and a strong climate change policy from our Government.

“Along with millions of Australian’s, I believe that we need to increase our efforts to reduce pollution and tackle climate change. Australia has more sunlight than any other continent. We’re an island, our waves are powerful and the wind roars in from the ocean. We could lead the world in clean renewable energy. And now is the time for us to make that transition from a pollution dependent economy to a cleaner one. Statistics show that Australians overwhelmingly support this notion. We have the technology here and the people to make it happen. We just need the right policies and leadership.”

Cate Blanchett calls for Australia to tackle climate change and transition to clean renewable energy. Source: Australian Conservation Foundation

Watch the video here.

Cate Blanchett and Andrew Upton, Artistic Director’s of the Sydney Theatre Company, have been determined to make their stamp on the company and to have it be green. Since their time at the STC, they have initiated a number of policies to reduce the environmental footprint of the company.

Just last month, they were recognised for their contribution to the environmental cause at the 2010 Green Globe Awards, a NSW government initiative recognising sustainable businesses, where they were awarded the prestigious Premier’s Award for their “Greening the Wharf” program – introducing rainwater harvesting and solar power to the theatre.

As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in an article entitled “Theatre project shines brightly” on the 28th July:

“Designing a sustainable performing arts centre on a greenfield site is one thing but doing so with a heritage building in a prime position on Sydney Harbour presents a considerably greater set of challenges,” Green Globes judging panel chair Ronnie Harding said of the decision to recognise the theatre.
“With 300,000 attendances at the Wharf each year the STC has an excellent starting point to promote its Greening project, including through hosting lectures, discussion forums and art exhibitions,” she said.
At the launch of the program in June, Blanchett said she felt environmental issues were simply too big to ignore.
“As a cultural institution we want to be engaged in what is the most important issue that is facing us as a species, that is, climate change.
“We all know theatre happens under electric lights. We’re a huge consumer of energy, so this is a really positive thing.”

STC artistic director Cate Blanchett, NSW Environment Minister Frank Sartor and NSW Arts Minister Virginia Judge inspect the greening of the theatre. Photo: Wolter Peeters. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/theatre-project-shines-brightly-20100728-10uwb.html

A few cleantech stories you might have missed…

From Australia:

“Big solar’s big potential”, Climate Spectator, 16th Aug

This week, the Australian Solar Energy Society joined the Australian Conservation Foundation in calling for an additional 5 per cent of Australia’s electricity to come from ‘big solar’ by 2020.
That target would see the generation of around 8,500 megawatts of large-scale solar, and the construction of more than 30 big solar plants around the country. It would also cut Australia’s carbon pollution by more than 240 million tonnes over the life of the projects.

“The wind farm that ate the RET” Climate Spectator, 13th Aug

In Australia’s renewable energy market, fortune favours the quick and the big.
The $1 billion Macarthur wind farm to be built in south-western Victoria is being touted as the most significant renewable energy project in Australia since the Snowy Hydro.
But don’t expect another project of similar ambition to follow anytime soon, even though there are a couple on the drawing board – there’s simply no room left in the market.
Macarthur has been a long time in the planning for AGL, it’s just been waiting for the opportunity provided by the passage of the Renewable Energy Target.

“How to be fully renewable in 10 years” Sydney Morning Herald, 13th Aug

AUSTRALIA could switch completely to renewable energy within a decade by building a dozen vast, new solar power stations and about 6500 wind turbines, according to a major new study.
The Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan – a collaboration between Melbourne University’s Energy Research Institute, the environment group Beyond Zero Emissions and engineers Sinclair Knight Merz, puts the cost at $37 billion in private funding and public investment every year for the next decade.

“Fossilised approach to power” – The Australian, 11th Aug

BOTH Labor and Coalition policy on carbon trading will damage Australia’s emerging renewable energy industry, leading scientists have warned.
Michael Dopita, co-editor of an Australian Academy of Science report on renewable energy, says Labor’s plan to delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme and the Coalition’s plan to go without one will send some start-up companies developing renewable energy to the wall.

“Geothermal’s pressure test“, Climate Spectator, 11th Aug

Geodynamics has spent an estimated $300 million over the past decade on the development of its cutting edge hot dry rocks geothermal technology in the Cooper Basin. Some time in the next month or so it might find out if it has all been worth it.
It may seem overly dramatic to label the fracturing tests that will be undertaken at a single well over the next few weeks as a “make or break” for the company.
But that is the way it is being viewed by Geodynamics and its backers. Success will deliver the key to an estimated 6,500MW of clean, base-load power that could be brought to the grid over the next 10 to 15 years; failure will cause the company to undergo a major rethink of its ambitions.

“Ten climate policy ideas Julia or Tony could steal” ABC Environment, 9th Aug

Some might say the government and the opposition are lacking for ideas on climate change policy. ABC Environment has 10 good ones they could consider.
THE GOVERNMENT’S proposed emissions trading scheme never quite got off the ground. And with both major parties being attacked for a lack of strong policies on climate change, it would seem alternative ideas were thin on the ground in the party rooms. However, ABC Environment has scanned the globe for climate policies the next Australian Government could steal.

“Ambitious targets in greenhouse proposal” Sydney Morning Herald, 9th Aug

THE state government is developing a new plan to combat climate change and it says it can make deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions even if a proposal to build two new coal-fired power plants goes ahead.
The state’s old greenhouse gas targets have been thrown out and replaced by a far more ambitious agenda to cut emissions by at least 5 per cent by 2020, instead of just stabilising them by 2025.
This means the average carbon footprint of every person in NSW will have to be reduced by a hefty 27 per cent in the next 10 years, according to federal government estimates. The NSW Department of Climate Change, Environment and Water says the plan is realistic even if there is no national emissions trading scheme by 2013.

“A mighty wind – turbine power growth hit 40 per cent last year” Sydney Morning Herald, 9th Aug

Wind power generation across the eastern states grew by 40 per cent last year as several large farms began operating.
A Climate Group report on electricity generation and its emissions, covering all states except Western Australia, found 83 per cent of power used in 2009 came from greenhouse-intensive coal. Nine per cent was from renewable sources – mainly hydro power – and 8 per cent from gas.

From overseas:

“Ban announces high-level panel to tackle global sustainability issues” – The UN News Centre, 9th August

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today unveiled a new panel on global sustainability that is tasked with finding ways to lift people out of poverty while tackling climate change and ensuring that economic development is environmentally friendly.
“I have asked the Panel to think big,” the Secretary-General told reporters in New York today. “The time for narrow agendas and narrow thinking is over.”
To be co-chaired by Finland’s President Tarja Halonen and South African President Jacob Zuma, the 21-member High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability brings together representatives from government, the private sector and civil society in countries rich and poor.
It is essential, Mr. Ban said, to promote low-carbon growth and enhance resilience to climate change’s impacts, as well as to tackle the intertwined challenges posed by poverty, hunger, water and energy security.
“In short, we need a new blueprint for a more livable, prosperous and sustainable future for all,” he stressed.

“The Necessity of Smart Grids” RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 9th of Aug 2010

You could argue that smart grids are unnecessary and that traditional system reinforcement with copper and steel will do the job. I can’t argue the physics of that, but I can argue on the commercial side. I know of a utility that complains that 30 percent of its copper and steel is idle for 350 days of the year, only getting used during the peak of summer. And its forecast is that this will progressively get more extreme with time. To install more metal infrastructure for progressively shorter periods of peak demand is just not economically feasible.

“Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover” New York Times, 9th Aug 2010

Five years ago, the leaders of this sun-scorched, wind-swept nation made a bet: To reduce Portugal’s dependence on imported fossil fuels, they embarked on an array of ambitious renewable energy projects — primarily harnessing the country’s wind and hydropower, but also its sunlight and ocean waves.
Today, Lisbon’s trendy bars, Porto’s factories and the Algarve’s glamorous resorts are powered substantially by clean energy. Nearly 45 percent of the electricity in Portugal’s grid will come from renewable sources this year, up from 17 percent just five years ago.

As reported by Giles Parkinson on Climate Spectator, “Big solar’s big potential”, Australian Solar Energy Society has joined with Australian Conservation Foundation to call for an addition 5 per cent of Australia’s energy to come from “big solar” by 2020.

That target would see the generation of around 8,500 megawatts of large-scale solar, and the construction of more than 30 big solar plants around the country. It would also cut Australia’s carbon pollution by more than 240 million tonnes over the life of the projects.
A 5 per cent target is ambitious, but not unrealistic. The projects exist – Solar Flagships drew out 52 big solar projects, at least scoped at the initial phase, with local partners and support (see table below) – and the technology is ready, including the ability to dispatch power to the grid when it is needed most, 24 hours a day. The only thing missing is the incentive to invest.
The International Energy Agency reports Australia could generate 5 per cent of its electricity from concentrated solar power. In its recent report, Technology Roadmap: Concentrating Solar Power, the IEA indicated concentrating solar power should be a competitive form of peak and intermediate power by 2020, and of baseload power by 2025 to 2030. The IEA went even further, reporting that concentrating solar power would be able to provide 40 per cent of Australia’s electricity by 2050.
But as the IEA makes clear, government incentives will make the difference between the success or failure of big solar in Australia.

Read the full article on Climate Spectator and the AuSES press release regarding their announcement last week.

As reported by Adam Morton in the Sydney Morning Herald today, the eastern states of Australia experienced a whopping 40% growth in wind power generation last year.

A Climate Group report on electricity generation and its emissions, covering all states except Western Australia, found 83 per cent of power used in 2009 came from greenhouse-intensive coal. Nine per cent was from renewable sources – mainly hydro power – and 8 per cent from gas.

This growth was boosted by the opening of the largest wind farm at Waubra, north-west of Ballarat and wind turbines from across the states fed 4.1 million megawatt hours into the national electricity grid.

Wind supplies about 2 per cent of total power across the eastern seaboard. This is expected to grow dramatically over the next decade as wind farms are built to meet the bulk of the national 20 per cent renewable energy target.
The growth in renewable power last year meant emissions were about 2 million tonnes lower than if the electricity had come from coal.

Read the full story here.

Image Source: http://thinkgeoenergy.com/

Last friday, WA Sustainable Energy Association (WA SEA), Australia’s largest energy chamber issued a new release outlining a sustainable framework for the next government.

The WA Sustainable Energy Association Inc. (WA SEA) has created a comprehensive list of cost effective and practical actions that can be taken across all sectors of the economy that will boost national productivity, reduce inflation and ensure continued strong growth within the Australian sustainable energy industry and across Australia’s economy for decades to come.

WA SEA CEO, Professor Ray Wills says:

‘We must fundamentally change the way we think about energy and how we do business. And we must act,’ says WA SEA Chief Executive Prof Wills. ‘In particular, all Government operations must aim to source 100% renewable energy for their power requirements by 2015.’

WA SEA warn that some while some politicians are trying to play down the importance of climate policy issues in this election, a poll – jointly commissioned by the ACF and WWF conducted by respected Auspoll – revealed that ‘Pollution and climate change’ will influence the votes of 78 per cent of the 2,200 voters surveyed.

CEO, Professor Wills goes on to warn against hollow election promises that are not backed up by strong actions when the new government takes power.

‘Most importantly, a new Federal Government must also walk the talk – measures being encouraged for business and the community must be rolled out and demonstrated as a greater priority in government operations. All government departments and agencies must be instructed to increase energy efficiency and install renewable energy on all existing government facilities and other public buildings. Further, the Government must ensure new buildings built on the public purse are energy efficient buildings and powered by renewable energy.’

Next week WA SEA will release an election score chart that will document how well election commitments from all major parties are tracking against this action list.

Full release can be read on the WA Sustainable Energy Association.

A historic moment has been reached in the renewable energy sector of North Carolina. A report compiled by John O. Blackburn, Professor Emeritus of Economics and former Chancellor of Duke University, along with a student, Sam Cunningham for the NC Warn: Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, claims that solar power has reached the crossover point and is now cheaper than nuclear power.

“For many years the U.S. nuclear power industry has been allowed to argue that ‘there is no alternative’ to building new nuclear plants,” Blackburn’s report concludes. “This is just not true.”
Source: Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy

In the summary, the report entitled “Solar and Nuclear Costs — The Historic Crossover: Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy“, sumarises it’s findings as:

Solar photovoltaic system costs have fallen steadily for decades. They are projected to fall even farther over the next 10 years. Meanwhile, projected costs for construction of new nuclear plants have risen steadily over the last decade, and they continue to rise.
In the past year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina. Electricity from new solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new nuclear plants.
This new development has profound implications for North Carolina’s energy and economic future. Each and every stakeholder in North Carolina’s energy sector — citizens, elected officials, solar power installers and manufacturers, and electric utilities — should recognize this watershed moment.

Samuel Avro has published an article on Consumer Energy Report quoting Blackburn from Duke University:

Cost estimates for new nuclear plants have risen dramatically since the much-heralded “nuclear renaissance” began during the past decade, says Blackburn. “Projects first announced with costs in the $2 billion range per reactor have seen several revisions as detailed planning proceeds and numerous design and engineering problems have emerged. The latest price estimates are in the $10 billion range per reactor.”

Avro also writes that Blackburn and his report have attracted criticism from pro-nuclear bloggers like Rod Adams, author of the Atomic Insights Blog:

Rod Adams … criticized the basis of the study saying that the study’s nuclear cost projections rely on a paper written by a lone researcher with unclear qualifications. “Mark Cooper’s brief biography states that he has a ‘PhD from Yale’ but it does not specify his field of study. It indicates he is an ‘acivist/advocate’ with a rather wide range of interest areas including telecommunications regulations and energy consumer issues,” he writes. Adams also listed a number of papers on the subject which he says were ignored by Blackburn’s report.

The cost of nuclear versus various forms of renewable energy power generation has long been a hot topic for discussion. Rod Adams, whose blog post was entitled “Gullible Reporting By New York Times On the Cost of Solar Electricity Versus Nuclear Electricity” was responding to the article published by the New York Times on the 26th of July. The NYT Special Report on Energy and Environment written by Diana Powers was entitled “Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage“. No doubt plenty more public debate will follow.

Read the full report here.

We heard about this report on Twitter from @EnergyPerson. Join CTTV on twitter to keep up to date with all the latest cleantech news.

Revision from the New York Times:
On 3rd of August 2010, The New York Times has made a formal correction to their Special Report: Energy and Environment “Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage” outlining in an appended Editor’s note what had been omitted in their coverage. The main issues raised was that the original article failed to state that the report was prepared for an environmental advocacy group. It also did not contrast the report against others which had drawn contrasting conclusions and failed to approach the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is quoted extensively from their website, directly to respond to the claims of the study.

According to Nick Hodge of Seeking Alpha, the time for discussing the days of discussing cleantech viability are over and we should be focusing on how the industry will mature and grow:

The alternative future isn’t alternative at all. It hasn’t been for a while now.
Peabody’s (NYSE: BTU) taking part, for crying out loud. One of the world’s largest coal companies just paid $15 million for Calera, a company that turns carbon dioxide into green building products.
After you let the hypocrisy of that sink in, take a moment to think about what this massive switch means for your energy portfolio.

Nick Hodge’s article entitled “When cleantech came of age” examines recent cleantech industry mergers and acquisitions – outlining the recent feeding frenzy of blue chip acquisitions of green chip companies – as well as other movements in the sector showing that the big players are postitioning themselves for a “place at the table”:

Did you really think the industrial conglomerates of this world were going to stand by and let clean business billions pass them by?
Companies like that — the GEs (NYSE: GE), the Siemens (NYSE: SI), the Ciscos (NASDAQ: CSCO), the Dows (NYSE: DOW), the Honeywells (NYSE: HON), the big utilities — haven’t gotten where they are by resting on their laurels. They see how profitable the cleantech future is. And you can be sure they’ll get their piece.
The seeds of their plans were planted long ago. GE launched Ecomagination in 2005. IBM has spent millions over the past few years telling us they’re at the forefront of building smart cities.

Read the rest of the article Seeking Alpha. Join us on CTTV Twitter for the latest in the cleantech space.

As reported on Cleantechnia, the US Center for Climate Strategies has issued a report outlining 23 climate policy options with a detailed cost/benefit analysis and their expected net cost per ton of greenhouse gases removed.

The Center for Climate Strategies has plenty of hands-on experience as it has already helped create full climate action plans for 16 states through consensus building and input from technical experts and stakeholders. This has allowed the researchers to go back and assess their recommendations as to the real life costs and success or failure of those policies.

From the Center for Climate Strategies website:

CCS has performed a US-Wide macroeconomic analysis taking 23 key stakeholder-based climate and energy strategies derived from 16 state planning efforts and applying them nationwide. The 23 measures were developed by more than 1,500 stakeholders who participated in their state efforts. This report, Impacts of Comprehensive Climate and Energy Policy Options on the U.S. Economy, also analyzes the economic impacts of applying nationwide implementation of these policies and measures in conjunction with recent proposals from Senators Kerry and Lieberman.

You can read the full report or download an executive summary on their website but in her article for Cleantechnia, Susan Kraemer has provided a brief summary of the 23 climate policies evaluated in the report:

1. Shift from Truck to Rail Cost: -$91.56 per ton. Incentivising a move to rail (or river) cargo movement rather than trucks also reduces smog and wear and tear on highways.
2. Vehicle Purchase Incentives Cost: -$66.37 per ton. Incentives like cash for clunkers for choosing fuel-efficient vehicles. Switching to pay-as-you-drive auto insurance, (which makes insurance more expensive for more miles driven).
3. Anti-Idling Technologies and Practices Cost: -$65.19 per ton. Setting limits on how long buses and trucks can idle, and investing in electrification of truck stops. Requiring automatic engine shut-down/start-up system controls.
4. Appliance Standards Cost: -$53.21 per ton. Setting higher appliance efficiency standards which make it cost effective for manufacturers to compete in efficiency, knowing there will be a market creating an economy of scale.
5. Energy Efficiency: Demand Side Management Cost: -$40.71 per ton. Rewarding energy reduction, such as decoupling utilities and offering incentives to reduce energy (by investing in efficient appliances or machinery).
6. High Performance Buildings Cost: -$24.99 per ton. Setting incentives and targets for building owners and developers to meet high-efficiency standards.
7. Building Codes Cost: -$22.86 per ton. Strengthening building codes to require minimum levels of efficiency.
8. Combined Heat and Power Cost: -$13.18 per ton. Encouraging the use of CHP systems wherever fossil fuel is used, in order to double usable energy output per unit of input energy.
9. Reducing Municipal Solid Waste Cost: -$3.20 per ton. Reducing waste to reduce landfill methane.
10. Smart Growth/Land Use Cost: -$1.11 per ton. Encouraging smart growth planning to reduce sprawl and maximize open space protection, like siting development near transit hubs.
These first ten cost less than nothing. The following ones, in order, are from least to most expensive.
11. Landfill Gas Management Cost: $0.34 per ton. Landfills can harness methane through anaerobic digestion to create electric power, heat or liquefied natural gas.
12. Anaerobic Digestion and Methane Utilization Cost: $11.27 per ton. Manure digesters at livestock operations can be used to create heat or power, offsetting fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.
13. Coal Plant Efficiency or Repowering Cost: $12.95 per ton. Installing more efficient boilers and turbines, improving control systems, using combined-cycle technology or switching to low-emitting fuels, such as natural gas or biomass.
14. Urban Forestry Cost: $13.35 per ton. Encouraging urban greenery to absorb carbon and help reduce cooling needs by providing shade.
15. Recycling Municipal Solid Waste Cost: $13.39 per ton. Creating incentives for recycling waste (like construction materials) and helping generate markets for it with municipal purchases.
16. Crop Production Practices Cost: $15.69 per ton. Encouraging no-till farming and crop rotation to increase the amount of carbon stored in soil.
17. Transit Cost: $16.72 per ton. Expanding public transit options, such as bus and rail, can cut automobile emissions.
18. Renewable Portfolio Standards Cost: $17.84 per ton. Requiring that utilities get a gradually and predictably rising percent of their electricity from renewable sources.
19. Nuclear Power Cost: $26.98 per ton. Incentivising nuclear power with subsidies or guarantees.
20. Carbon Capture and Storage or Reuse Cost: $32.92 per ton. Requiring that coal plants install equipment to capture carbon, or find new ways for coal to produce energy so carbon can be captured during the process or never created.
21. Reforestation/Afforestation Cost: $33.18 per ton. Planting new forest to boost the carbon uptake of forestry.
22. Forest Retention Cost: $39.38 per ton. Setting aside lands for conservation to maintain the current carbon uptake of forests.
23. Renewable Fuel Standard Cost: $57.14 per ton. Requiring that a percentage of fuel options include non fossil sources such as ethanol or bio-diesel.
Source: The 23 Most Cost-Effective Policies for Stopping Climate Change, Cleantechnia