2011年3月12日 星期六

Japan struggles with nuclear reactors in wake of quake

By the CNN Wire Staff
March 12, 2011 -- Updated 2146 GMT (0546 HKT)


Tokyo (CNN) -- Crews at a nuclear plant struck by an earthquake, then a tsunami and then an explosion in the span of 36 hours resorted Saturday to flooding a feverish nuclear reactor with sea water in hopes of preventing a meltdown of its core.

An explosion that sent white smoke rising above the Fukushima Daiichi plant Saturday afternoon buckled the walls of a concrete building that surrounded one of the plant's nuclear reactors, but did not damage the reactor itself, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters.

The explosion was caused, he said, by a failure in a pumping system as workers tried to prevent the reactor's temperature from racing out of control.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, citing Japanese authorities, said the explosion occurred outside the plant's primary containment vessel and that the vessel remained intact. The explosion injured four workers, it said.

To limit damage to the reactor core, Tokyo Electric Power Company began injecting sea water mixed with boron into the primary containment vessel in an operation that got under way Saturday night, IAEA said.

Nuclear plants
Explosion at Japanese nuclear plant
Expert: 'This is a serious situation'
Japan's nuclear worries
Nuclear crisis looms in Japan
Map: 8.9 earthquake hits Japan
Gallery: Massive quake hits Japan

The use of sea water and boron was described as a "Hail Mary pass" by Robert Alvarez, senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies focused on energy policies and a former senior policy adviser to the U.S. secretary of energy.

"My understanding is that the situation has become desperate enough that they apparently don't have the capability to deliver fresh water or plain water to cool the reactor and stabilize it and now, in an act of desperation, are having to resort to diverting and using sea water," he said.

Boron, a chemical element, was being added to the water "to sort of stymie other potential nuclear reactions," he said.

But, he acknowledged to reporters in a conference call, "There's a lot that we don't know about what's happening with these reactors. It's trying to piece together a picture where you're dealing with just a few pieces of the puzzle."

Another expert said enough was known to conclude that Saturday's nuclear events in Japan rank high on the list of similar incidents. "If this accident stops right now it will already be one of the three worst accidents we have ever had at a nuclear power plant in the history of nuclear power," said Joseph Cirincione, an expert on nuclear materials and president of the U.S.-based Ploughshares Fund, a firm involved in security and peace funding.

He said only the 1979 partial meltdown of a reactor core at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Soviet Union were worse.

If the effort to cool the nuclear fuel inside the reactor fails completely -- a scenario experts who have spoken to CNN say is unlikely -- the resulting release of radiation could cause enormous damage to the plant or release radiation into the atmosphere or water. That could lead to widespread cancer and other health problems, experts say.

Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) was dribbling out information slower than some experts wanted: it said Saturday that it detected cesium-137 and other isotopes near Unit 1 early in the day. Cesium is a byproduct of the nuclear fission process that occurs in nuclear plants.

While Cabinet Secretary Edano said later in the day that radiation levels appeared to be falling, the government nevertheless ordered an evacuation of residents within a 20-kilometer radius of the Daiichi plant, as well as a second facility where the cooling system had failed -- the Fukushima Daini plant.

An estimated 170,000 people have been evacuated, though the process was ongoing, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Saturday.

Japanese authorities have classified the event at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 as a level 4 "accident with local consequences" on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale intended to communicate to the public the significance of radiation-linked events. The scale runs from 0 to 7, with the latter being classified as a major accident.

On Saturday night, three patients at a hospital tested positive for radiation exposure, according to the Japanese public broadcasting station NHK, citing a statement from Fukushima Prefecture.

The three were randomly selected from a group of 90 hospital workers and patients who were outside the hospital -- about three kilometers from the Daiichi plant -- awaiting evacuation at the time of the explosion. The patients had already been hospitalized at the medical facility prior to Friday's quake.

While the three showed signed of exposure, "no abnormal health conditions have been observed," NHK quoted the prefecture as saying.

Meanwhile, two experts from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission with expertise in boiling-water nuclear reactors like those affected by the disaster have been sent to Japan as part of a U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) team.

The NRC's Maryland-based headquarters operations center has been operating around the clock since the beginning of the emergency.

Japanese authorities, meanwhile, appeared to be preparing for the possibility of a nuclear release. Japan public broadcaster NHK reported the country's defense ministry had sent a unit that specializes in dealing with radioactive contamination to a command post near one of the stricken plants.

The government was also preparing to distribute iodine tablets to residents, the IAEA said. Iodine is commonly prescribed to help prevent the thyroid gland from taking in too much radioactivity, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website.

In all, the earthquake prompted the automatic shutdown of 10 reactors at three nuclear plants near the quake site, Japan's nuclear agency said. Problems have been reported at all three plants, although the fire reported Friday at the Onagawa nuclear plant was quickly extinguished and it has not been a focus of concern since.

At the Fukushima Daini plant, problems had been detected with the pressure and cooling systems at three of the four reactors that shut down, but plant owner Tokyo Electric Power Company reported all of the reactors were stable Saturday.

Japan's nuclear agency said there is a strong possibility that the radioactive cesium the monitors detected was from the melting of a fuel rod at the plant, adding that engineers were cooling the fuel rods by pumping water around them.

A spokesman for the agency said atomic material had seeped out of one of the five nuclear reactors at the Daiichi plant, located about 160 miles (260 kilometers) north of Tokyo.

The problems at the Daiichi plant began Friday when the 8.9-magnitude quake struck off the eastern shore of Miyagi Prefecture. The quake forced the automatic shutdown of the plant's nuclear reactors and knocked out the main cooling system, according to the country's nuclear agency.

A tsunami resulting from the quake then washed over the site, knocking out backup generators that pumped water into the reactor containment unit to keep the nuclear fuel cool, according to the agency.

As pressure and temperatures rose inside the reactors at the Daiichi and Daini plants, authorities ordered the release of valves at the plants -- a move that experts said was likely done to release growing pressure inside as high temperatures caused water to boil and produce excess steam.

As crews were working to pump additional water into the reactor containment unit to lower the temperature, the pumping system failed, Edano said, causing an explosion that injured four workers and brought down the walls of the building containing the reactor.

The team then reverted to a plan to flood the reactor with sea water, which Edano said would lower the temperature to acceptable levels. That work began Saturday night and was expected to take two days, Edano said.

Before Edano's announcement, Malcolm Grimston, associate fellow for energy, environment and development at London's Chatham House, said the explosion indicated that "it's clearly a serious situation, but that in itself does not necessarily mean major (nuclear) contamination."

"This is a situation that has the potential for a nuclear catastrophe. It's basically a race against time, because what has happened is that plant operators have not been able to cool down the core of at least two reactors," said Robert Alvarez, a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington.

If damage from the explosions or aftershocks have compromised the structural integrity of the reactor complex, it could make efforts to cool the reactors more difficult, Cirincione said.

"The big unanswered question here is whether there's structural damage to this facility now," he said.

Japan's nuclear path

Can nuclear power save Japan from peak oil?

If the recent proclamations from various bodies, including the International Energy Agency, about our close proximity to the peak in world oil production are true, then Japan may be sitting on the equivalent of an energy security time bomb.

The greatest concern is that this time bomb could explode as early as 2015, and with a high probability before 2020 when a global oil crunch has been predicted by Chatham House (the UK’s Royal Institute of International Affairs), by the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security (a group of businesses, including Virgin Airlines, Ove Arup and Partners, etc.) and by the Energy Research Centre, amongst others.

The reason for this concern is simple — Japan’s self-sufficiency in primary energy stands at 18%, including nuclear. This compares with an average 70% energy self-sufficiency across OECD countries.

One issue here is Japan’s high dependency on oil. A paper just published by Andrew DeWit and Iida Tetsunari points out that:

“Japan relies on oil for 44% of its primary energy. It also gets over 90% of its oil from the unstable Middle East.”

It costs Japan around ¥16.6 trillion (around US$200 billion) each year to pay for these oil imports. Basically, this represents a quarter of all Japanese annual expenditure on imports.

It is both an expensive and vulnerable position to be in. What if the supply of oil was suddenly cut-off? This is a reality that Japanese leaders and bureaucrats are well aware of. The 2010 Annual Report on Energy by the Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (METI) makes specific reference to “choke points” that obstruct the flow of oil from the Middle East and other oil producing regions.

A choke point is a strategic location on a sea route (e.g., the Malacca Straits) that could easily be blocked to prevent the flow of shipping in a time of geopolitical turmoil.

With respect to alternatives, as in some countries like Germany and Sweden, there is considerable potential for the development of more renewable energy in Japan if the suitable conditions are in place.

Power generator in Yokohama city. Photo by Ykanazawa1999.

It is possible to calculate something called a “choke point ratio”. A ratio of 100 means that 100% of the oil reaching a country passes through such points. When it exceeds 100, this means that the oil passes through multiple choke points. Japan’s choke point ratio is 171, while those for Germany and the United Kingdom are around 5 and 3 respectively.

Countries tend to respond to concerns about supply vulnerability by stockpiling oil. Japan maintains stockpiles for 129 days. So in the advent of a major disruption to oil supplies, Japan would be able to carry on for around five months under business-as-usual scenarios (perhaps longer if only vital services are maintained). That is a rather thin safety cushion to rely on, and the question here is how is Japan dealing with its energy security vulnerabilities in the short term and long term?

How to increase energy security?

The last time we spoke to officials from METI back in 2009, it appeared that the direction of Japan’s future energy policy was in flux and renewable energy (particularly solar) was gaining increased support, especially through the country’s stimulus packages.

In the intervening period a great deal appears to have changed. These changes are explained by DeWit and Iida who argue that the nuclear lobby has reasserted its influence over the Japanese political and bureaucratic elite and that now nuclear power is seen as “the only realistic option for reducing dependence on fossil fuels and cutting [greenhouse gas] emissions” and as a “major export business”.

The Strategic Energy Plan of Japan, published by METI in June 2010, sets forth the goal of constructing nine new nuclear power plants by 2020 and more than 14 by 2030.

The plan envisions a significant reduction in the overall energy consumed by Japan in 2030 through efficiency measures, as shown in the figure, with nuclear power growing from 10% of primary energy today to 24% in 2030. The share of renewables is also predicted to grow from 6 to 13%.

There are a lot of assumptions underpinning these proposals. First, although the Japanese population is predicted to decline, the number of households is expected to increase slightly, reflecting changing lifestyles and family structures. As a result, greater energy efficiencies are required in the residential sector that would also have the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions. The plan envisions something like a revolution in the efficiency of household electrical appliances.

Also in the plan, nuclear and renewable energy are both described as zero emission power sources, although some may contest whether from a life-cycle perspective either are totally carbon dioxide emissions free.

Japan currently sits at number three in the world, behind France and the United States, in terms of the amount of energy generated from nuclear sources. The direction presented in the latest Strategic Energy Plan is essentially taking France as the model, since like Japan, it is a country that lacks domestic fossil energy resources (except coal).

Japan’s 2010 Energy White Paper makes specific reference to key advantages of the French model: powerful energy supply businesses, such as EDF and TOTAL, a monopolistic energy sector, and vertically integrated national and public companies.

This closely reflects the situation in Japan where ten electrical utilities maintain regionally-based monopolies and, according to DeWit and Iida, these companies “want to protect that dominance against competitors and energy alternatives that might threaten their plans to expand nuclear power.”

Moving in the wrong direction?

In many respects, it may possible to argue that, with respect to the future of energy in Japan, nuclear may be the wrong direction. This is not to argue against the merits of nuclear power per se, but to express concern of the emphasis placed on nuclear above other options, including renewables. This approach runs counter to experience in countries like Sweden and Germany, and also to the findings of recent research that shows that we could power the world on alternative energy technologies within 20–40 years. So why not Japan?

Clearly, from an historical perspective, nuclear makes considerable sense taking into account Japan’s lack of domestic fossil fuel options and also bearing in mind the considerable industrial expertise that Japan has developed in this sector. Nuclear for Japan represents the “business as usual” option. It ensures a coordinated, centralized, monopolized energy system that can guarantee the maintenance of a high technology industrial system. Nuclear seems to make sense if you want to maintain huge urban agglomerations like Tokyo (which has 1% energy self-sufficiency).

If you conclude that the future will be the same as the past then nuclear seems like the right choice. But when you also think about the less urbanized areas of Japan, nuclear is much less attractive.

Certainly the best and the brightest in Japan’s bureaucratic elite would say, “Yes, categorically, nuclear is the way to go”. But the problem here is the lack of independent think tanks inputting into policy (i.e., those not directly set up by, or related to the government) which means that the energy policy process in Japan is not open to the consideration of alternatives and that could also explain why peak oil is yet to enter the policy debate.

The other big challenge related to nuclear is the issue of safety and risk, especially in an earthquake prone country like Japan and particularly in relation to how radioactive waste is dealt with, as we touched on in Monday’s article.

With respect to alternatives, as in some countries like Germany and Sweden, there is considerable potential for the development of more renewable energy in Japan if the suitable conditions are in place.

For instance, the first Renewable Energy White Paper published in 2010 by a group of independent Japanese think tanks argued that it would be possible to meet 67% of domestic energy demand in Japan by 2050. This view has been largely ignored by Japanese energy policy-makers at the national level.

That estimate may be optimistic and some may argue that renewable energy also has very significant limitations. Nevertheless, a major expansion of renewable energy in Japan could help reduce energy insecurity by diversifying supply and decentralizing power generation. This would give local communities more say on how they generate their electricity and allow them to innovate in the process. This approach would represent a radical and visionary change in how the energy sector works in Japan; if history is any guide, such a transition does not yet seem palatable for those who decide how the country will invest in its energy infrastructure.

From a peak oil perspective, some commentators, such as Rob Hopkins and John Rawlins, are concerned that nuclear may not be the right way forward. They are worried about the availability of uranium, suspecting that future scarcities and suggesting that nuclear is a “stop-gap” solution rather than something that can be sustained long into the future.

Another concern would be how nuclear may fare in a world where energy supplies as a whole are declining. According to Hopkins:

“Nuclear power has always been predicated on the concept that future generations will be more capable than we are to deal with nuclear waste. The logic runs that they will, by that time, have cracked how to make it safe, and so therefore it is fine to leave it as some kind of intellectual puzzle for them to figure out.”

Solving something as complex as how to process nuclear waste is an energy intensive industry and this increases the vulnerability of the energy sector in an energy scarce scenario. Hopkins is concerned that:

“Future generations will not have the dubious luxury of being profligate with fossil fuels as we have been.”

An important point to make here is that the planning, construction and implementation of nuclear power plants take decades. So Japan, and every other country, may be facing a race against time, where the rate of oil depletion after the peak will be a significant factor in determining how rapidly we need to find alternatives to oil.

Pushing nuclear does mean that Japan would require less oil for energy, which then could be utilized in the transportation sector, for instance. But here too is another race against time. The 2010 Strategic Energy Plan aims to increase the number of next generation cars (hybrids and electric) from 10% today to 70% of new cars sold by 2030. This still suggests a very large proportion of cars in Japan in 2030 will be gasoline powered. Ideally, in order to avoid major disruptions almost 100% of cars would be electric by 2030, but that is just not going to happen under the current policy framework.

So it may be safe to conclude that by pushing so aggressively down the nuclear path, Japan may be putting too many eggs in one basket. The rationale behind this approach is easy to understand since business as usual is easier than radical reform, and maintaining monolithic centralized structures is easier than decentralised ones in which less control by Tokyo and other urban centres would be a given.

However, let’s give the people behind the strategic energy plan the benefit of the doubt for just a moment. The plan is required to be reviewed every three years and revised if needed. So we have to wait until 2013 before the next review and by that time we all may have greater awareness about the state of our collective energy predicament.

For now, the central question remains open: will nuclear power actually save Japan from the worst effects of a peaking oil production? What do you think?

2011年3月10日 星期四

German export destinations: China overtaking the US

For the first time ever, German companies are shipping more vehicles, machines and electric goods to China than the U.S.

Latest trade figures showed China, including Hong Kong, accounted for 6.6 percent of Germany's export total in December 2010, compared to 6.5 percent to the U.S.

This marks a turning point to Germany's export structure after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008.

2011年2月22日 星期二

A grubby Libyan lesson in realpolitik

By Gideon Rachman

Published: February 21 2011 22:25 | Last updated: February 21 2011 22:25

Ingram Pinn illustration

Another week, another revolution. Muammer Gaddafi of Libya may soon become the third Arab president to be swept from power in little more than a month.

Until a few years ago, his toppling would have been greeted with delight in western capitals. But in recent years, the Libyan leader has been recast as a reformed sinner, an ally in the “war on terror” and a valued business partner. His current travails should be a cause of justified embarrassment – not least in London – since Britain has led the way in the attempted rehabilitation of Col Gaddafi.

Changing attitudes to the colonel highlight the way in which western concern over human rights is almost always coloured by convenience. In the 1980s, the Libyan leader was regarded as the foremost state sponsor of terrorism and rightly denounced for his dreadful human rights record. Ronald Reagan called him a “mad dog” and the US bombed Tripoli in 1986. Saddam Hussein of Iraq, by contrast, was largely tolerated because he was useful in containing Iran.

When the US decided it needed to topple Saddam, his ghastly human rights record received much more attention. By contrast, the cruelty of Col Gaddafi’s regime has been downplayed in recent years. As the US and the UK searched for a retrospective justification for the war on Iraq, Libya’s renunciation of weapons of mass destruction was seized upon as convenient evidence that the Middle East had changed for the better after the Iraq war. In 2004, Tony Blair visited Libya and hailed Col Gaddafi as a partner in the “war on terror”. British business followed in the prime minister’s wake and lucrative oil contracts were signed. In 2008, Condoleezza Rice became the first US secretary of state to visit Libya since the 1950s.

It is true that Libya’s behaviour, in recent years, has become less directly threatening to the west. But the Libyan leader remained a brutal despot. If he is now toppled it will be little thanks to the US or Europe. Instead the Libyan people have looked for inspiration and practical support to their recently liberated neighbours in Egypt and Tunisia.

Libyans need all the help they can get, because the colonel runs a much more vicious regime than those that were toppled in Egypt or Tunisia. Unlike in Tahrir Square or Tunis, no foreign television crews have been let in to record the bloodshed on the streets of Benghazi and Tripoli. Libya has never allowed even the facade of democracy and opposition that was tolerated in Egypt. All opposition political parties are banned. Indeed membership of a political party is punishable by death.

Freedom House, which monitors political and civil liberties across the world, recently ranked Libya as the most despotic country in the Middle East. It was the only country to get the worst mark (a seven) for both political and civil liberties: it is worse than Syria, worse than Iran, much worse than Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt. According to the Freedom House rankings, Libya ranks alongside the world’s worst dictatorships – North Korea and Burma.

Libya’s oil wealth and its eccentric and brutal ruler have allowed the country to loom much larger on the international scene than its population might warrant. Despite its vast territory (it is the fourth biggest country in Africa), Libya has a population of just 6.7m – compared with the 80m in neighbouring Egypt.

As the Libyan regime totters, it no longer seems hyperbolic to call the events in the Middle East, “the Arab 1989”. But while the European revolutions of 1989 swept away undemocratic regimes that were profoundly hostile to the west, the Arab revolutions have, so far, claimed pro-western regimes that were regarded as forces for moderation in the region.

Egypt and Tunisia have gone. Libya, the west’s new-found friend, is wobbling. Bahrain, the base for the US Fifth Fleet, is in turmoil. So is Yemen, an important ally in the fight against al-Qaeda. The Americans would love to see their enemies in Iran and Syria swept away by the tide of popular revolt. The fear is that those regimes might be ruthless enough to cling on.

That leaves Saudi Arabia as the west’s most crucial Arab ally. Few in Washington are comfortable defending a feudal monarchy whose educational system produced fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. Yet the Saudis have only grown more crucial to the west in recent years, as a bulwark against Iran and as the “Central Bank” of oil – the world’s largest oil producer.

It is not clear how Saudi Arabia will react to the loss of a key ally in Mr Mubarak and to turmoil in neighbouring Bahrain and Yemen. But a rapid move to democracy can certainly be ruled out. Rather more likely would be a Saudi move to prop up their neighbouring Sunni royal family in Bahrain, perhaps through military intervention, using the vast amounts of weaponry sold to the Saudis by eager westerners.

The Obama administration would love to have a clear narrative in which freedom and American interests advance, hand-in-hand, across the Middle East. In reality, things are much messier and more dangerous than that.

But there should be little room for mixed feelings about the downfall of Col Gaddafi. Despite the feeble post-Iraq efforts to rebrand the Libyan leader as a force for good, he remains what he always was – a despot and a monster.

2011年1月4日 星期二

2011: The Enterprise Resets

Aaron Levie Jan 2, 2011

This post was written by Aaron Levie, CEO and co-founder of Box.net. His last guest post for us was “Building The Simple Enterprise.”.

On a recent call, an analyst shared a story about a company whose IT infrastructure was completely wiped out in a natural disaster. Forced to start from scratch, the company reinvented the spirit and composition of its enterprise IT strategy, and the set of solutions that emerged from the rubble made their organization inherently more mobile and efficient. Which begs the question: what would enterprise IT look like if all companies were afforded the opportunity to “start over?” In 2011, we might just find out. Other less destructive but incredibly powerful drivers for change are at work, and the coming year will be one of massive transformation in the enterprise.

The cloud has tipped for the enterprise

IDC forecasts that worldwide IT spending will hit $1.6 trillion this year, with 13% growth coming from software and services, and public cloud solutions making up the largest growth area. Cloud services are no longer on the periphery. 2011 will make this undoubtedly clear, bringing a massive wave of adoption, innovation and transformation as the cloud crosses the chasm from the early adopters to larger, more pragmatic organizations.

Evidence that the cloud has tipped is everywhere. It especially hit me when my dad, who works at a blue-chip paper company, told me that one of his business units had recently adopted NetSuite. Microsoft has started advertising their cloud products at airports and on television. In 2010, the US government determined that Google apps is secure enough for the GSA and Microsoft’s BPOSS for the USDA, citing millions in cost savings annually. Even Larry Ellison, one of the cloud’s biggest detractors, opened his Oracle Openworld keynote talking about, well, cloud computing.

Suffice it to say, we’re in the middle of one of the most important computing shifts in history. And as has happened before with other major paradigm transitions, new businesses will emerge to define and dominate markets. Apple and Microsoft took over as we moved from Mainframe to Personal. Google’s power grew alongside the rise of the consumer internet era. Facebook is owning social. We know the drill. We will look back on this period with wonder, when five years from now managing your own servers and infrastructure will seem about as quaint as when Bill Gates supposedly said, “No one will need more than 637KB of memory.”

Cloud in the enterprise is a classic disruption story. It began as a way to deliver lower-end applications that we didn’t yet care about or know we needed. Most incumbent vendors ignored or tried to delay the early indicators. But that’s how all disruption stories start: from the low end, and as the technology matures – more security, uptime, traction – the wave builds momentum. Soon, the enterprise wakes up to the fact that this approach to doing business and IT is not only more time and cost effective, it’s transforming the way their organization operates.

The first cloud deployment in a large enterprise is always the greatest hurdle, but once Walmart implements SuccessFactors for performance management or Chiquita’s CIO decides that Workday is reliable enough to be its system of record for HR, there’s very little holding these organizations back from moving other non-core systems to outside vendors.

And their cloud adoption paves the way for others, creating a ripple effect through organizations of all sizes. If you had surveyed the market a year ago you’d have found many enterprises still wary about the state of cloud solutions for their business, but we’re now seeing the inverse become true: enterprises are no longer comfortable with investing in on-premise systems when trusted web-based alternatives exist.

Just as mainframe computing became obsolete when personal computers and servers matched their power far more efficiently, today’s big iron IT infrastructure may well see its own obsolescence for the majority of needs. In fact, perhaps the most prescient quote of all was from Thomas J. Watson, former president of IBM, when he said, “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” He was just about 60 years too early.

The mobile enterprise will finally be realized

Mobility is creating major demand for cloud offerings today, and is a disruptive force on its own. In last year’s summer earnings call, Apple COO Tim Cook shared that, “…in the first 90 days, we already have 50% of the Fortune 500 that are deploying or testing the iPad.” In 2010, AT&T said that nearly 40% of iPhone sales were going to businesses and enterprises, with the most relative growth in enterprise market share coming from Android devices in 2010.

As Aberdeen’s Andrew Borg points out, these devices aren’t completely enterprise ready, yet it doesn’t take much clairvoyance to see that this trend will continue to gain momentum in 2011; and with greater diversity of sophisticated mobile devices in the enterprise comes completely new opportunities for disruption.

For these new devices to be fully corporate-ready, they need seamless access to email systems, business data and intelligence, communication tools, and more. The cloud rewrites the rules here, enabling new handsets and tablets to connect to the “grid” like any other computer, something that is finally making the mobile workplace a reality. And with the truly mobile workforce, completely new computing cases are emerging.

Remote sales teams are pulling down inventory or product information from the cloud while on-site with just their iPad in hand. Construction workers on rooftops are viewing up-to-date digital blue prints from the main office. Good luck doing that with SharePoint. Mobile devices are becoming a catalyst for completely new enterprise applications, and vice versa. The marriage of the two is so uniquely powerful that businesses will experience a wave of productivity transformation over the next few years.

The polygamous enterprise and the fall of Microsoft monogamy

While enterprises of prior decades may have gotten by predominantly on a combination of software developed in Redmond and Redwood Shores, this won’t be the case for the enterprise in 2011. The mandate of the modern enterprise IT department is transitioning from maintaining and upgrading systems from a limited set of vendors, to piloting and implementing a diverse set of services to solve problems.

We’re even seeing this shift on the hardware side, as Macs enter corporations in greater proportions, seeing double and in some cases triple digit growth within large enterprises and the government. The era of near-religious adoption of vertically integrated tools from behemoth vendors is coming to an end, providing an unprecedented opening for best-of-breed solutions to compete for enterprise customers.

Microsoft will likely be the most affected party, but enterprises in 2011 will start to feel both the upsides and management strain immediately. With the floodgates open for new and heterogeneous solutions, we’ll continue to see massive adoption of technology directly from employees themselves. This is quickly becoming the fastest entry point for new software and hardware, and these tools aren’t being immediately turned off by IT.

During an audience survey at this year’s Dreamforce conference half the group said they had SharePoint in their organization; yet when asked how many were looking to switch off SharePoint in the coming year, more than half of the group kept their hands up. Ballmer and company are still trying to figure out how to operate in a world that isn’t centered around them, and the rise of cloud and mobile is producing just exactly that. Microsoft—a company that has traditionally grown through complexity and new product lines—is going to have to fight to stay competitive.

Social and personalization will permeate all business apps

All this variety would normally create chaos, except that these applications are becoming connected in incredibly powerful ways. They’ll work harder for us, surfacing more relevant information for a passive user than an active user could ever possibly discover in their silo-ed legacy software.

Social capabilities will transform how we interact with our applications, and not just within the category of enterprise social software, which is finally beginning to move from the periphery to mainstream, with Gartner estimating a $1B market size in 2011. To get much further than this, Rob Koplowitz of Forrester points out that business value has to be established, and organizations must learn to embrace a different kind of risk, suggesting there’s more danger today by not sharing enough than having too much transparency.

This is not just about our software becoming more social in the contemporary sense, with status messages and communication between users. It’s about our software becoming much more personalized for our job functions, and being smarter than us in the areas it has more knowledge. Your content management solution should surface information and collaborators that are relevant to your current projects.

Your social software platform should recommend experts for a team you’re putting together without being prompted. LinkedIn should tell you what candidates fit the position for which you’re hiring. And as the business social layer continues to grow, a rich ecosystem of applications that connect to one another will emerge. This will lead to the ability to write mashups on top of our business social software, have viral business applications that live on top of the “graph,” and an enterprise experience in 2011 that is far more personalized and contextual to our own work behaviors.

The disruption story of cloud in the enterprise is still in its early chapters, but in 2011 it will be impossible to deny. Don’t be surprised if the rise of mobility, the fall of vendor hegemony, and the spread of social capabilities across all business applications creates massive upheaval in the enterprise software market—more than we’ve seen in the past five years combined. (I may be biased here since I run an enterprise cloud startup, but I may also be right).

It will also create short-term challenges for IT departments as they find their footing in a world with more applications and devices to manage than ever before, but with a long-term upside of significantly reduced system maintenance and a role that is inherently more strategic and dynamic. For users, however, this disruption only brings benefits. The devices they want to use are finally the ones they’re being armed with, and thanks to cloud applications, they can now work from anywhere.

The technology they’re using is best-of-breed rather than chosen by default or vendor lock-in. And the social capabilities that have revolutionized their personal lives are now being applied to their work lives in ways that are arguably even more powerful. Welcome to 2011.

Photo credit: Flickr/Jennifer Konig

get widgetminimize
Box.net image
Website: box.net
Location:Palo Alto, California, United States
Founded: 2005
Funding: $29.6M
After starting as a college business project in 2005, Box.net was officially launched in March of 2006 with the vision of connecting people, devices and networks. Box.net provides more than 4 million users with secure cloud content management

2011年1月3日 星期一

Goldman invests in Facebook at $50 bln valuation

January 2, 2011, 11:31 pm Venture Capital
Zuckerberg
Tony Avelar/Bloomberg News
The deal could double the personal fortune of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-founder.

Facebook, the popular social networking site, has raised $500 million from Goldman Sachs and a Russian investor in a deal that values the company at $50 billion, according to people involved in the transaction.

The deal makes Facebook now worth more than companies like eBay, Yahoo and Time Warner.

The stake by Goldman Sachs, considered one of Wall Street’s savviest investors, signals the increasing might of Facebook, which has already been bearing down on giants like Google.

The new money will give Facebook more firepower to steal away valuable employees, develop new products and possibly pursue acquisitions — all without being a publicly traded company. The investment may also allow earlier shareholders, including Facebook employees, to cash out at least some of their stakes.

The new investment comes as the Securities and Exchange Commission has begun an inquiry into the increasingly hot private market for shares in Internet companies, including Facebook, Twitter, the gaming site Zynga and LinkedIn, an online professional networking site. Some experts suggest the inquiry is focused on whether certain companies are improperly using the private market to get around public disclosure requirements.

The deal could add pressure on Facebook to go public even as its executives have resisted. The popularity of shares of Microsoft and Google in the private market ultimately pressured them to pursue initial public offerings.

So far, Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has brushed aside the possibility of an initial public offering or a sale of the company. At an industry conference in November, he said on the topic, “Don’t hold your breath.” However, people involved in the fund-raising effort suggest that Facebook’s board has indicated an intention to consider a public offering in 2012.

There has been an explosion in user interest in social media sites. The social buying site Groupon, which recently rejected a $6 billion takeover bid from Google, is in the process of raising as much as $950 million from major institutional investors, at a valuation near $5 billion, according to people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly.

“When you think back to the early days of Google, they were kind of ignored by Wall Street investors, until it was time to go public,” said Chris Sacca, an angel investor in Silicon Valley who is a former Google employee and an investor in Twitter. “This time, the Street is smartening up. They realize there are true growth businesses out here. Facebook has become a real business, and investors are coming out here and saying, ‘We want a piece of it.’ ”

The Facebook investment deal is likely to stir up a debate about what the company would be worth in the public market. Though it does not disclose its financial performance, analysts estimate the company is profitable and could bring in as much as $2 billion in revenue annually.

Under the terms of the deal, Goldman has invested $450 million, and Digital Sky Technologies, a Russian investment firm that has already sunk about half a billion dollars into Facebook, invested $50 million, people involved in the talks said.

Goldman has the right to sell part of its stake, up to $75 million, to the Russian firm, these people said. For Digital Sky Technologies, the deal means its original investment in Facebook, at a valuation of $10 billion, has gone up fivefold.

Representatives for Facebook, Goldman and Digital Sky Technologies all declined to comment.

Goldman’s involvement means it may be in a strong position to take Facebook public when it decides to do so in what is likely to be a lucrative and prominent deal.

As part of the deal, Goldman is expected to raise as much as $1.5 billion from investors for Facebook at the $50 billion valuation, people involved in the discussions said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the transaction was not supposed to be made public until the fund-raising had been completed.

In a rare move, Goldman is planning to create a “special purpose vehicle” to allow its high-net-worth clients to invest in Facebook, these people said. While the S.E.C. requires companies with more than 499 investors to disclose their financial results to the public, Goldman’s proposed special purpose vehicle may be able get around such a rule because it would be managed by Goldman and considered just one investor, even though it could conceivably be pooling investments from thousands of clients.

It is unclear whether the S.E.C. will look favorably upon the arrangement.

Already, a thriving secondary market exists for shares of Facebook and other private Internet companies. In November, $40 million worth of Facebook shares changed hands in an auction on a private exchange called SecondMarket. According to SharesPost, Facebook’s value has roughly tripled over the last year, to $42.4 billion. Some investors appear to have bought Facebook shares at a price that implies a valuation of $56 billion. But the credibility of one of Wall Street’s largest names, Goldman, may help justify the company’s worth.

Facebook also surpassed Google as the most visited Web site in 2010, according to the Internet tracking firm Experian Hitwise.

Facebook received 8.9 percent of all Web visits in the United States between January and November 2010. Google’s main site was second with 7.2 percent, followed by Yahoo Mail service, Yahoo’s Web portal and YouTube, part of Google.

For Mr. Zuckerberg, the deal may double his personal fortune, which Forbes estimated at $6.9 billion when Facebook was valued at $23 billion. That would put him in a league with the founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who are reportedly worth $15 billion apiece.

Even as Goldman takes a stake in Facebook, its employees may struggle to view what they invested in. Like those at most major Wall Street firms, Goldman’s computers automatically block access to social networking sites, including Facebook.