Like most environmentalists, I was peeved with the presidential candidates’ avoidance of the climate change issue in their first two debates. Here’s a good article that has convinced me that this is probably best for those of us concerned with the subject. The typical American voter is not disposed to process this stuff well, in a time of financial pain.
I was lucky enough to stay on a magnificent property in Northern California this past weekend, an Italian-style villa made even more spectacular by a rushing river running through it, which bathed my fellow guests and me in what is arguably the most soothing and tranquil sound on the planet.
Coincidentally, our host told me that he is very interested in renewable energy, and asked me about solar panels. But when we finally got around to walking down to the river, I was impressed at what I saw, and told him that I’d do some rough calculations on the power that could potentially be extracted from the river itself.
I just wrote to him:
Per our talk, I’ve done a few calcs based on the hydrokinetic power you may be able to take out of the river that runs through your property. Even with the river running at the seasonal low point, at a minimum you have at least 50 gallons per second, dropping at least a few feet.
Potential energy = the mass of the water * gravitational acceleration * the height from which the water’s falling. Here, let’s round that off to 200 KG * 10 M/sec/sec * 1 meter = 2000 joules/sec = 2000 watts. Even though you won’t get all that due to efficiency losses, that’s not too bad, and, in the winter and spring, I’m guessing you’ll get at least 5 – 10 times that.
The bad news is you will have to make some changes in the flow of the river in the form of a small dam, which may not be feasible for various reasons. In any case, I thought you’d be interested to know that such a project could be worthwhile if you wish to pursue it.
A dear friend invited me to go wine tasting this weekend with some of his buddies, and I accepted, even though I’m anything but a connoisseur. Some of the people in the group asked me a few times during our time together: “What are you going to write on your blog about this, Craig?”
“Good question!” I’d laugh in response. “I’m still developing the angle on it. We’re kind of near Sacramento, so maybe something on state government. And hey, how about this: there are chemical fertilizers and insecticides in all but organic wine. How about that? Does organic taste better?”
“Sorry, no,” came the unanimous response.
At the end of the day, it’s possible that there really is no angle here, and I’ll have to content myself with having spent three days with no purpose other than hanging out with some very cool people, and doing a bit more reading than I otherwise would have accomplished in the same period. Took a great hike with our host, a retired attorney who’s one of the smartest people I’ve ever met. Could have been a lot worse.
A reader sent me this article that suggests that it’s too late to stop global warming by cutting emissions and writes:
I happen to agree with this guy. Climate change is so far advanced at this point that it makes more sense to me to concentrate our scarce resources on dealing with the effects of climate change rather than the causes, i.e., effects like the impact on agriculture, forestry, flora and fauna, sea levels, etc. Sometimes it seems that our approach to climate change is overly focused on emissions. Kinda like a doctor trying to prevent the patient from getting sick when the patient is already sick and the focus should be on dealing with the symptoms or the general fighting the last war.
I’m not sure. Coincidentally, I just this minute got back from a short but vigorous hike with a friend in which we talked about this very thing. I’m guessing that, if we really had all the information we need at our fingertips, that we’d see the need to cut emissions.
Keep in mind also that CO2 is only one form of emissions coming from coal-fired power plants. 13,200 died this year in the U.S. alone from the aromatics. Cost to our healthcare system: at least $250 billion.
A reader sent me this article on wind turbines made of wood.
I’m aware that the footprint of wind turbines is a significant factor in determining their value to the promise of eco-friendly energy generation. In fact, as shown in this article from Inside Climate News, wind has the lowest eco-footprint of any mode of generating electricity. Personally, I doubt that this approach using wood represents an important improvement.
Having said that, one of the clean energy business plans I happen to like contemplates a wind turbine design that greatly reduces the materials required for a given nameplate rating. Materials usage is a huge factor in the cost of the devices as well; at least two-thirds of onshore wind is contained in the cost of the materials themselves. Therefore it makes sense to rethink the massive three-blade approach in which a turbine can weigh as much as 300+ tons. The company’s breakthrough enables them to cut material usage in half, reducing the turbine cost by 35-40%, with no sacrifice of reliability or performance and no increase in operating costs.
I’m constantly reminding readers that I’m willing to review their business plans for free, and, if I like them, do what I can to help them raise the investment capital they need. Historically, however, most of these concepts have been “non-starters.” Why? Perhaps the discussion below will help to clarify what works and what doesn’t:
Reader: Hi Craig. Thank you for taking the time to return my call today. Per our conversation I have attached our investment pitch for our (waste-to-fuels) project. The company is hoping to raise bridge funding so as to achieve the initiation of our project. Once we have received the engineering reports, paid the municipality fees and other administrative costs we will have satisfied all of the prerequisites of the main project funding source.
Per our talk, I appreciate your reaching out, but this is typical of a class of projects in which I know for a fact I can’t help. For me to have a chance, the team needs to have all the development capital in place, the project shovel ready, and considerable liquidity on top of that. In addition, in a case like this, there needs to be no doubt whatsoever about the long-term availability of feedstock and take-off, as well as proven technology. Re: the concept of using “other people’s money” to develop a project from the ground up, all I can say is, “That dog don’t hunt.”
If you can move this along to the point I’ve described here, please let me know. In any case, good luck!
A friend writes re: my recent piece on the politics of energy and the environment:
Looking at history, significant changes move at a glacial pace unless:
1) National leadership, especially the bully pulpit, drives a massive sea change. (e.g. JFK and the space race.)
2) Ideas among the general public grow to an irresistible crescendo. (e.g. The anti-war movement regardingVietnam.)
3) External events leave no options. (e.g. The 9/11 attack on the WTC.) Note: natural disasters from climate change fit in this category. (more…)
“We should look inward and think about the meaning of our life and its purposes, lest we do it in 20 or 30 years and it’s too late.” – Robert Coles
As a professional, a husband, a father, and a citizen of the world, I think about this a great deal. In terms of the “citizen of the world” category, by the time I check out of here, I’m hoping to be able to say that I was quite effective at identifying really good concepts in cleantech, and moving them forward.
That, of course, is the thinking behind this page of the 2GreenEnergy website.
My job, and I take it seriously, is to reach out to the investment community, into which I’m maneuvering myself further each day, and say: “Here’s the result of my efforts. Here are ideas that have huge potential implications, the science of which is not smoke and mirrors, the teams behind which have proven that they have what it takes to be successful. Do you need to do your own due diligence? Of course. Have I added value in vetting 1200+ business concepts over the last 3+ years? I’d like to think so.”
If you haven’t seen it recently, I urge you to visit our so-called “Investor’s Page” and scroll down slowly and thoughtfully. As always, if you know of anyone interested in playing a role, please let me know.
I wrote to a friend yesterday that I really don’t know whom or what to trust when it comes to evaluating the safety of nuclear energy. Obviously, there is a ton of content that suggests a cover-up on Fukushima, i.e., that the damage is far worse that officials admit. There are also reports to the effect that the danger to human health are over-exaggerated.
He writes back: (more…)
Reader: Hi Craig. This is an interesting report from DOE stating that there are over 30,000 potential hydroelectric sites in the US where hydro power could be used with minimal environmental impact as there are already structures in place in the water flow. It goes on to say that using just the best 100 sites could amount to 8GW of renewable energy.
Sometimes there are easy solutions. I think baseload hydro should be used before covering our deserts with solar panels and our plains with wind turbines. Solar and wind are today’s sexy choices and get the most publicity, and poor old hydro and geothermal get the scraps from the table.
Craig: To me, the issue is scale. As you pointed out, there is a limit to run-of-river hydro. If you multiply the weight of all the water in all the rivers in the U.S. by the altitude from which it falls (i.e., all the potential energy), you’re under a terawatt, even if you got it all. 8 GW is about one-seventh of 1% of the 5.4 TW we’re consuming as we speak. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it, but it’s not the answer we need. And btw, geothermal doesn’t seem to be making headway in terms of costs coming down and competing with solar, wind, and fossil fuels.
Reader: I guess you’re right. It seems it’s going to take a variety of solutions to get this thing done.
Craig: Yes. I don’t turn up my nose at hydro, but I don’t spend too much time on it either.
