Follow this blog:
RSS

Clean energy in 2012: China surged, U.S. sagged

By | January 14, 2013, 10:43 AM PST

Clean energy investment in much of the Western world took a dive in 2012, thanks to regulatory uncertainty and steep curbs in subsidies.

That wasn’t the case in China, which saw investment in clean energy hit a record $67.7 billion last year, up 20 percent from 2011, largely due to a surge in its solar sector, according to a year-end report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Overall global clean energy investment fell 11 percent in 2012 to $268.7 billion from a record reached the previous year.

Still, it’s striking the decline wasn’t bigger, considering policy uncertainty in countries, the ongoing European fiscal crisis, and the continued drop in technology costs, said BNEF CEO Michael Liebreich in a release accompanying the report.

Despite the less-than-stellar results, 2012 investment was still the second-highest ever, and five times that of 2004, according to BNEF.

A look back

The year kicked off with a warning from BNEF (as well as other analyst and research firms) that investment would fall below 2011 levels. And it did. Global investment in clean energy dropped sharply to $27 billion in the first quarter of 2012, the weakest posting since the depths of the financial crisis in early 2009.

The rest of the year wasn’t much better. Global investment in clean energy totaled $56.6 billion in the third quarter, some 20 percent lower than the same period last year, due partly to a lull in wind farm financing and weaker performance from the United States and India.

A change in investment

Clean energy investments broadened rapidly in 2012 from established markets, such as Europe and the United States, to new ones in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia-Oceanic, said BNEF.

South Africa was a particularly strong performer, which saw investment leap to $5.5 billion from just a few tens of millions in 2011. BNEF credited the country’s tender process for wind and solar to a string of large project financings.

Other highlights

  • Asset finance of utility-scale renewable energy projects, such as wind farms and solar parks totaled  $148.6 billion, representing the largest chunk of investment in 2012;
  • Venture capital and private equity investment in specialist clean energy companies fell 34 percent to $5.8 billion, its lowest figure since 2006;
  • Public market investment in quoted companies fell 54 percent to $5.1 billion, the lowest figured since 2004 and down 80 percent from a peak of $25.6 billion in 2007;
  • Solar was the dominant sector, in terms of overall investment, raking in $142.5 billion in 2012, a 9 percent decline from the previous year;
  • Wind investment was $78.3 billion in 2012, down 13 percent from the previous year;
  • Investment in energy-smart technologies, such as smart grid, energy efficiency and electric vehicles fell 7 percent to 18.8 billion.

Photo: Abengoa Solar

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Kirsten Korosec

About Kirsten Korosec

Kirsten Korosec is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Kirsten Korosec

Kirsten Korosec

Contributing Editor

Kirsten Korosec has written for Technology Review, Marketing News, The Hill, BNET and Bloomberg News. She holds a degree from Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism. She is based in Tucson, Arizona.

Follow her on Twitter.

Kirsten Korosec

Kirsten Korosec

Kirsten does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
11
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
And yet, our air is cleaner than ever...
...while China's is at its worst:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIoSmkzLLhSNMUJow3_yFT5FcSEw?docId=0ac61208975c4d4d9ce31f0e1846ed10
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
14th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
What's your point?
The reason for clean energy is less to reduce toxic pollution and more to reduce greenhouse gas pollution which because of its nature is relatively evenly distributed throughout the world.
Posted by riverat1
14th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
That this whole "China is more into green than we are" meme...
...is both tiresome, misleading, and complete PRBS.

And uber-green Germany is binge-building coal plants.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
14th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
So your point is.
Preventing a buildup of CO2 is more important than controling toxins?

As I have said before.

Such twisted thinking in the global warming community is why we will all die of toxic poisoning long before CO2 causes the seas to rise if people like you have your way.
Posted by Hates Idiots
15th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
No, that's not my point
I think the two things are equally important. But it's true that a lot of the things that produce CO2 also put toxic pollution into the atmosphere so reducing them kills two birds with one stone.

The effects of CO2 caused climate change are already being seen in increased temperatures, more extreme droughts and precipitation events, ocean acidification and yes, increased ice melt. But the changes are generally incremental in nature accumulating slowly over time so it's easy to ignore them in the short term. Problem is there is a lag in the effects so even if we were to stop net CO2 emissions now it would take decades to centuries for the new equilibrium to be reached.
Posted by riverat1
15th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
But it is.
Toxic pollution from China and India is already showing up in increased mercury levels in seafood across the globe.

We are allowing China, India and others using dirty coal technology to poison a major global food source while global warming panic button pushers are being obsessive about western nations CO2 output.

Forgive me if my priorities are in the here and now, not the theoretical future of inflated computer models.

The need for action on dealing with toxic emissions is more immediate because of real time threats. It also does not hurt that the science is 100% indisputable. Face it, people are dying today from toxic pollutants.

As mentioned, the CO2 argument is based on computer models and little hard evidence. The PROOF of people dying from warming because of higher CO2 levels is sketchy at best.

Bottom line for this realist, controlling toxics is far more critical than controling CO2.
Posted by Hates Idiots
16th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Nuclear is down in the US also...
The US DOE 2013 proposed budget hardly touched nuclear technology.
Posted by kralspaces
14th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Clean but Dirty
Somewhat misleading since China is polluting to build and go green. It is sad that the same people who scream for Green technologies do not recognize the negative impacts of building such technology. Following are links to articles that show the real impact in China:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/chinas-smog-hits-new-highs-and-lows/10176?tag=nl.e660&s_cid=e660
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
Posted by geoff.schardein@...
15th Jan
+3 Votes
+ -
So how many GWhr did the investments produce
It is meaningless talking about billions in clean energy unless you state exactly what that money bought and how much energy it produced and compared with other power sources.

Germany for instance invested $130B in solar as of 2011 and had 17GW of peak solar capacity to show for it. But that only produced 2GW of average power about the same as 2GW of nuke or coal. If they had built a 2GW nuke plant for $130B, the greens would have gone absolutely ballistic. Germany has since increased solar to 30GW which now gives 3.5GW avg power. Similar for wind, 30GWp gives 6GW avg power.

Also lets see the investments in "clean" coal that Germany is building to back up the solar and wind when the sun don't shine and wind don't blow, and the extra investments in the grid to make these intermittent supplies work.

Trying to get the specific cost of each power project is like getting blood out of stone, I wonder why that is.
Posted by energy_guy
15th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
'clean' energy in China?
In the same issue you have this and...
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/chinas-smog-hits-new-highs-and-lows/10176?tag=nl.e660&s_cid=e660

Editors coordinate?

And the picture of the solar 'power tower' with daisies in front is trhe typical industry fib -- why not look at the devastated surface of hundreds of acres on the other side? Why not explain that remote, thermals solar is wasteful of not just land & species but of power in transmission/conversion as well? Why not explain that such power systems must burn gas overnight to either keep their working fluids warm, or to actually become 24/7 gas plants. Why not explain that such installations suffer threat of severe damage as clouds pass & thermally stress the tower focus gear?

Remote solar/wind 'farms' of any kind are not "clean energy". Local solar.hot-water is indeed clean and efficient. Add in EVs, efficient storage and advanced nuclear, and we have thousands of years of clean power ahead.
Posted by DrAlexC
15th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Investment in clean energy hit a record $67.7 billion
I think considering policy uncertainty in countries, the ongoing European fiscal crisis,nevertheless investment in clean energy hit a record $67.7 billion last year.
Posted by http://thedebtsreliefreviews.com
22nd Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!