Posts Tagged by DoE
Don’t Be Misled About Renewable Energy Growth
| February 12, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
A reader waxes enthusiastic, in a kindhearted attempt to provide encouragement for me in my discussions at the Cato Institute next week. In particular, he points to the DoE “Monthly Energy Report,” and notes:
Renewable energy sources have now surpassed nuclear in the U.S. and are closing in on others. The trend is clear- renewables are growing rapidly for all kinds of reasons in your linked article. Jobs in America will grow, too, when the energy sources used are ‘home-grown’. Also, as you probably already know, wind and solar (in some areas) are already at parity with fossil fuels.
There is some encouraging news, but I caution this reader and all others to keep this in perspective. Read More
Infographic: The Pros and Cons of Renewable Energy
| February 5, 2012 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
Whenever I speak on renewable energy, I’m careful to leave my audience with a sense of the “tough realities.” We all want simple answers to our questions, but in the case of clean energy, none exist.
There are dozens of different flavors of solar, wind, biomass, hydro, and geothermal, each improving in terms of cost and efficiency, but at different rates. There are economic issues, as none of these flavors can compete with the dirtiest form of coal, if we don’t take into account the “externalities” like lung disease and environmental damage. And Lord knows there are political issues, where we have serious candidates for president of the U.S. who, if elected, boldly pledge to dismantle our Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy. If this occurs, it would effectively end the efforts of the largest economy on Earth to migrate away from fossil fuels and nuclear. Read More
Should Government Pick Winners and Losers in Energy Technology?
| October 12, 2011 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Politics |
For those of you who, like me, watch very little commercial news television, here’s a sample of reporting to consumers on the energy industry. This happens to concern Solyndra – a debacle that’s thrown a cold swimming pool of water on the already floundering US renewable energy industry.
Btw, I’d love to know how this happened in the first place. I talk to people in the private sector all the time who swear they saw this train-wreck coming far in advance. At a meeting I had with Kleiner Perkins managing partner Ray Lane earlier this year, he told me, “We knew that technology wouldn’t scale. We had been telling the DoE that for over a year, but no one would listen.”
So what are we to believe? That the public sector knew this too but made it happen for “political purposes?” Sorry, I think there’s more to the story than that. Yet God help me if I can add more clarity. I feel rather like those trying to figure out the JFK assassination; I know what didn’t happen, but not exactly what did. Read More
Bizarre Times at the IEEE Energy Show in Boston
| September 27, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Science |
As I mentioned, I’m back in Boston for a couple days, attending the IEEE Energy Innovations show, and meeting a few industry colleagues who happen to be in the this part of the world. In a nutshell, the show itself has less relevance to our world than I hoped it might. The breakout sessions are extremely technical – as I suppose I would have predicted. But the main sessions are also a bit strange. Here’s an example:
Victor Reis, Senior Advisor, Office of the Undersecretary of Energy for Science, spoke for 30 minutes this morning on the future of energy. His principal message (actually his only message) was how appealing small modular nuclear reactors are: how safe, scalable, and relatively inexpensive. He explained at great length how the DoE itself could be the first customer—going into elaborate detail about how they had been the first customer of massively parallel computing many decades ago—leaving the audience scratching its head to ferret out a meaning. When he ended his talk half an hour later, in which he had projected the future of energy in the US out 40 – 45 years, we all realized in collective horror that he had done so without ever mentioning renewable energy once! Not a world about solar, wind, geothermal – nothing. Just a steady drone on SMRs.
After a smattering of polite applause, I asked another presenter how this was possible, and he just smiled, as if to say, “If you can’t figure out that this guy has an ax to grind, I’m afraid I can’t help you.”
Bizarre times.
Powerhouse China and The Renewable Energy Race — By Guest Blogger Kathy
| March 21, 2010 | Posted by Kathy-Heshelow under Wind Energy |
“China missed the first industrial revolution, missed the computer revolution, and the biology revolution – they want to be a leader in the green revolution,” said Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy. (Scientific American, “Is ARPA-E Enough to Keep the U.S. on the Cutting edge of a Clean Energy Revolution?” March 3, 2010).
And indeed they are rushing ahead. From nowhere, they are now the third largest producer in the wind power market and one of the fastest-growing in domestic wind installations. For the fourth consecutive year, says the World Wind Energy Report 2009, China doubled its wind installations, which is no small feat. While the U.S. was number one in world total installed capacity with China number two, China had the most share of new capacity in 2009 (13,800 MW to America’s 9,922 MW). The following chart, courtesy the World Wind Energy Association (WWEA) illustrates new capacity in 2009.
Read More
Hybrid of Public/Private Financing for Renewables
| March 8, 2010 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
I wrote not too long ago about the huge, long-term role that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), as part of the Department of Energy, plays in supporting the development of clean energy technologies. Their work with solar energy leader Solyndra is a perfect example of a case in which this public support made it possible for a private company to raise critically important addition capital, by preventing their initial private investors from getting scared away. At a certain point, new (very large) rounds of cash were required to get the company to its next level. As I recall, NREL supported this effort to the tune of over $700 million — and this robust commitment showed investors that they weren’t alone in their belief that the company was on the right track.
But not every company that asks for money receives any at all — let alone $700 million. So exactly how does this process work? How fair is it? What criteria are most important? What types of companies are favored over others, and why? Are more mature renewables technologies, like photovoltaics (in which Solyndra plays), favored over newer ideas? (Solyndra has a very well proven breakthrough in deployment of CIGS (copper indium gallium (di) selenide), generating a significant leap in PV efficiencies and reduction in costs).
Unfortunately, it’s not clear. I suppose it’s not supposed to be. Take solar thermal/CSP (concentrated solar power) as an example of a new technology. Technologies like PV and wind have a several-decade head-start over CSP. When I interviewed industry leader Ausra‘s founder Dr. David Mills for my book on renewables, he told me that Ausra had gotten to the second round in one of these mega-contests in which the DoE selects its favorites to back, but that they didn’t make the finals. When I asked if he resented their decision, he — perhaps simply out of good sportsmanship and professional courtesy — said that he didn’t, and told me that he’ll simply try again another time.
I can’t count all the people who have asked us for our insights at 2GreenEnergy on this matter — and I regret that all I can turn up are anecdotal incidents like these. I ask readers to share their own experiences with this process so that all my learn. Thanks.
Hydrokinetics and the DoE
| December 5, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Hydrokinetics |
We’ve seen a marked increase in the attention — and the funding — given to hydrokinetically-generated energy by the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. Personally, I’m gratified by this; until recently, I had been concerned that this subject was being badly neglected; I’m glad to see this turnaround.
I happened to be working on my book on renewables yesterday, and had the good fortune to knock out the chapter on hydrokinetics, which is based on a talk with Dr. Brian Polagye at the University of Washington. Brian is part of the DoE’s Northwest National Marine Energy Research Center for Tidal Energy; I was referred to him by an expert on the subject at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) who told me, “In my opinion, Dr. Polagye is the nation’s leading researcher on hydrokinetic energy.” Good enough for me!
A few highlights:
I think – or I guess I should say I thought – of hydrokinetic energy as being essentially constant. The sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day, but rivers never stop flowing. Yet there are significant variations in the extractable power from flowing rivers. As I suppose I should have surmised, rivers, based on rainfall as they are, experience significant seasonal variations. And tidal currents, of course, have periods of relative calm in cycles during the day. So there is nothing unique about hydro as a renewable source from this perspective.
As I noted in the white paper I wrote on the subject last summer, those wishing to submerge power generating devices in the rivers or oceans — in the US, at least — face a considerable battle in terms of regulation. As an advocate for renewables, that rankles me — yet Brian helped me put this in perspective. According to what he told me, the DoE is far more involved in expediting approval for such projects now than they were when the original devices were developed — but it’s still not easy – nor should it be. “If both sides aren’t screaming, regulators probably aren’t doing their job,” he said. “Environmentalists should probably be concerned that regulators aren’t sufficiently aggressive in protecting aquatic ecosystems, and entrepreneurs in power companies should be yelling that regulators are too sheltering and too slow to grant approvals.”
When I asked for an example to illustrate the point, Brian replied, “Easy. I’m up here in Puget Sound. If I have a turbine in the water and an orca washes up with its belly cut open – even if that was really caused by a ship’s propeller, it would set this operation back a decade – if it wouldn’t kill it completely.”
For my money, the real issue with hydro is scale. The theoretical limit to the amount of hydrokinetic energy that can be generated in our rivers, for instance, is the potential energy of the water in the first place, i.e., the weight of that water times the vertical distance it will fall. That is, by reports I’ve seen, insufficient to generate more that a few percent of North America’s power needs. “That may be true on a continental basis,” Dr. Polagye agrees. “But on a regional basis, hydro can make an extremely significant contribution.”
Fascinating stuff. My sincere thanks to Brian for his time, and for the dedication that he and so many others make to such a wonderful cause.
Just Got Fooled Again
| November 14, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Electric Vehicles |
This week’s news in electric transportation calls to mind the auto companies’ deceit a decade ago with California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle mandate. According to the Automotive News, Chrysler has disbanded the engineering team that was working to bring three electric models to market as a rush job. This program, of course, was the basis on which they got every man, woman and child in the United States to bail them out with $12.5 billion in taxpayer money. And I suppose we have to add in the $70 million in grants that Chrysler took from the U.S. DoE to develop a test fleet of 220 hybrid pickup trucks and minivans — vehicles that are now scrapped as well.
I was speaking with my friend Bill Moore (of EV World fame) just now about how cheesed off we should all be by this. I mentioned that $12.5 billion is quite a heist. “Isn’t that one of the biggest burglaries in history?” I asked. “Yes,” Bill said. “But they’re too big to arrest.”
Jay Leno, move over.
China — Helping to Bring in Wind Power
| November 6, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Renewables - Business |
What’s not to like about a $1.5 billion wind project covering 36,000-acre and generating the power for 180,000 homes in western Texas? For one, it rubs our nose in the fact that China is one of many countries that out-invests the US when it comes to renewables. The project is a joint venture that includes China’s Shenyang Power Group, which points out how much China’s own wind industry has grown, and reminds us of what Energy Secretary Steven Chu told Congress earlier this week: The U.S. is falling behind China and others in alternative energy investment.
But how shocking is the idea that China should aspire to be a world player in wind? “This is a natural progression,” says Harvard-educated Lou Schwartz, president of Pittsburgh-based China Strategies. “We need to avoid looking at this narrowly and saying ‘China’s up and we’re down.’ We have to welcome each other.”
Thus the reality we all need to face: the source of the renewable energy may be local, but the equipment to harvest it most certainly is not. I’m reminded of what Ray Lane, partner in venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, told the audience in the “Business of Plugging In” conference a few weeks ago: The United States needs to cut the rhetoric and make real investments if it is to be a real player on the world renewables stage.
Solyndra – Renewable Energy Cinderella Story
| September 16, 2009 | Posted by Craig Shields under Photo-voltaics |
Dr. Kelly Truman was good enough to update me on what I have to call a textbook success of the business he started with his partner CEO Chris Gronot. Solyndra, a venture-capitalized photo-voltaics company, is based in Fremont, CA — and seems to have done essentially everything right. And that starts with the company’s proprietary PV technology, using cylindrically shaped elements coated with the semiconductor copper indium gallium (di)selenide (or CIGS), which is perfect for large, low-slope roofs, and is targeted mainly to commercial buildings.
There are several features of this technology and its implementation that have come together to form a highly differentiated product that is making a real name for itself around the world in a period of time that is, relative to other similar ventures, unbelievably short. First, because wind blowing through the elements tends to hold the installation on the roof (rather than blow it way) the system can be put in place very easily, quickly, and inexpensively with no penetration of the rooftop itself. Also, CIGS deployed in cylindrical elements results in 25% to 100% more power than conventional thin-film technology installed onto equivalent roofs.
As a business consultant, I’ve lived through dozens of stories of venture-capitalized start-ups, and I have to say that Kelly’s narration of the company’s history makes it sound – to me at least — like one of the smoothest in VC history. The company received its initial venture funding in 2005 and went about the business of building prototypes, working with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) which provided the equipment and technology for deposition. Soon the technology was demonstrated, the technical milestones were reached, beta customer feedback was positive – and actually serendipitously helpful; customers would often provide constructive input that none of the principles had thought of — e.g., “Do you realize that this could be used for — (some new application)?”
But the good news goes on: Solyndra took over a facility that Seagate (the hard disk-drive manufacturer) had abandoned when they took their operations overseas, and smoothly completed its third-party testing, validating not only the energy efficiency of its products, but also their seismic and wind readiness. By mid-2008 the first volume customer shipments were coming off the loading docks, and the company has grown in revenue in every subsequent quarter.
Looking for some plot twist or at least some conflict to make this story more interesting, I asked if investors getting antsy for a liquidity event, like an IPO on an acquisition by a publicly traded company. “No,” Kelly says, “They’re wonderfully patient. They know we’re in this to make a real difference against the reality of global warming, and that will require some time for growth. To give you an idea of their patience, we received a nine-figure from the DoE which required us to put up 27%. Even in this financial climate, our investors made sure this happened.”
Kelly Truman and I don’t know one another outside of this one-time encounter, and so I didn’t feel it was my place to ask anything else. When the interview was over, I politely thanked him and hung up. But I have to admit that I was wondering: Do his kids have naturally straight teeth? Are they headed for Ivy League colleges on full academic scholarships? I somehow feel that I want to hang out with Kelly, as he’s obviously doing a great number of things right.
I’m kidding here, of course. What I really mean is this: congratulations.
