[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciJv4exh8_k&w=425&h=349]
The other day I was asked to do an hour-long interview on KMST, talk radio in Mt. Sterling, KY. Here it is: pretty wide-ranging discussion of the need for clean energy, the potential solutions. Knowing that a great number of listeners are into coal, I tried to be compassionate but firm on the subject.
![[The Vector] Clean Energy News from Around the Country: Green Hospitals](https://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/doctors.jpg)
The national hospital community gathered in Phoenix in early April 2011 for the most influential conference on sustainable health care, “CleanMed.” Hospital administrators, clinicians, businesses and organizations servicing the health care community, such as green builders, were in attendance.
The conference included a complimentary solar tour of the Phoenix VA Medical Center compliments of SunWize, a company that provides solar solutions for hospitals. The tour was to the largest solar carport installation in the U.S., which started in 2010 and has expanded to 4.45 MW of power.
“The conference is the most important sustainability event of the year for the health care sector,” says Peter Diamond, (more…)
In a phone conversation with my mother just now, we talked about this article in today’s New York Times: a pending project whereby 200,000+ power poles in New Jersey will be outfitted with solar panels. Apparently, residents are dismayed about the aesthetics. Mom asked my opinion, to which I reply:
Until I actually read the article, I figured that this project must have been about generating a small amount of power to enable smart-grid communication. But no, it’s about generating meaningful amounts of power. Here are two points:
1) At $6 per watt, it’s clearly no bargain. But how could the idea of nesting small amounts of PV at the top of 200,000 different locations possibly be cost-effective? The industry is trying to get PV to $1/watt — and we’re already close. Paying $6 shows poor thinking, corruption, or some combination of the two. Though, from what I read, it’s not exactly as if either of these two concepts would be strangers to the state of New Jersey, would it?
2) To me, and I can’t imagine that I’m alone here, one of the key costs of renewables is aesthetics. The only reason we’re still using fossil fuels is their high “energy densities,” i.e., their ability to pack a lot of energy in a little space. This means that they can be kept in small, unobstrusive places, e.g., in our gas tanks, where each gallon gives us 35 kilowatt-hours of energy. Even the space in which to make this all happen is fairly compact; though no one wants to live next to an oil refinery, they occupy a relatively small portion of our land mass.
Clean energy, by contrast, requires certain amounts of space onto which the sun can shine or across which the wind can blow. Because of that, it’s incumbent upon us proponents of renewables to get clever in ways to deal with these issues — to try to hide our wind turbines, solar panels, etc., in places where they affect us the least. This, of course, is why the 6.6 gigawatt offshore wind project going in off the Atlantic coastline will be 12 miles offshore: far enough away so as to be invisible to anyone but marlin fishermen.
Having said all this, I would argue that the project in New Jersey is the worst of all possible worlds. Here, we have 200,000 assaults upon the natural beauty of the landscape that the NJ citizens have a right to expect to be preserved.
If they honestly wanted a better solution, all they needed to do was to ask me first… 🙂
I had a wonderful chance encounter the other day with Melinda Keller, a professor of engineering at California Polytechnic at the Santa Barbara Summit on Energy Efficiency. It seems that she specializes in CSP (concentrated solar power) – and is tackling what is arguably its thorniest problem: cooling. CSP does best in the desert, but that’s where cooling is the toughest. How efficiently can you cool a fluid by blowing 115-degree air past it?
Unfortunately, she couldn’t tell me the exact nature of her project, as it’s funded with private money by a group that wants to keep the work under wraps at this point. But she asked, “Just ask yourself: What’s cold in the desert?”
How intriguing! “The air at night? Underground?” I probed.
She smiled mysteriously. Looks like I’ll have to wait to get my answer.
Maybe “you had to be there” for this one, but I was personally amused by the following dialog in which a presenter at this year’s Santa Barbara Summit on Energy Efficiency fielded a question from an audience member:
Audience member: It’s clear that we need to build out our grid, in a way not too different from what we did in the 1950s with the national highway system. Why can’t we do that?
Presenter: Oh, that would require help and guidance from the federal government.
Now, if you didn’t chuckle, maybe the story is too sad to be funny. Of course we need federal help in executing a project that involves every one of the 50 states. That’s what the federal government does. But apparently, we’ve gotten to the point that this is really out of the question, and all we can expect of Washington is partisan bickering and political posturing.
And that is sad indeed; I’ll understand if you’re not snorting with laughter.
I spent a few happy hours at the Santa Barbara Summit on Energy Efficiency over the last couple of days. Most (though not all) of the presentations were really good, and totally relevant to the audience.
I was really pleasantly surprised, because I’ve noticed that sometimes speakers have one PowerPoint deck, and make the same talk, regardless of the audience. None of us could believe that the lady presenting from the Office of Naval Research would spend 15 minutes on a slide, taking us through the names and ranks of dozens of people we couldn’t have cared less about.
Also, I’m amused at the way some speakers present ideas that leave the audience with gaping, obvious questions. Here’s a good example. The spokesperson from Southern California Edison, whose talk was otherwise excellent, talked about an energy storage project that her organization has underway in the Tehachapi Mountains, northeast of Los Angeles. It’s a whole bunch of lithium-ion battery packs that can provide 8 megawatts for 4 hours.
At the conclusion of her talk, I approached her, and we the following dialogue:
Craig: I’m amazed every time I hear about lithium-ion – or any other battery chemistry – proposed for utility-scale storage. If we’re struggling with the price of a 30 kilowatt-hour pack for an EV, is there really any trajectory for what you folks would need?
Linda: It sure would be expensive, wouldn’t it?
Craig: To be sure. Well given that, why build this 32 megawatt-hour project, which is obviously a drop in the bucket?
Linda: To be honest, I’m not sure.
Craig: Hmmm. Though I’ve heard good arguments for other ideas, to me, pumped hydro seems to be the only good storage technology — and especially if you’re in the mountains anyway, with the natural changes in elevation.
Linda: Yes, you’re probably right.
Craig: OK, thanks very much. Good presentation!
Linda: Thanks!
See? Nice, cordial conversation, but one that left me wondering what’s going on there. It’s a strange world sometimes.
For those who missed April’s webinar on electric vehicles, here’s a press release that hits a few of the highlights.
In a webinar attended by interested participants all over the world, Craig Shields presented his views on the business aspects of electric transportation. Shields began by noting the importance of the transition from a purely practical standpoint. “Energy consumption is closely tied to GDP,” he told listeners. “So, as long as we’re concerned about economic growth and stability – as long as we’re not returning to our roots as an agrarian or hunter/gatherer society, we’ll need to generate and consume more energy. This creates the imperative to do so wisely, and EVs will play a huge role here.”
Shields went on to discuss the other aspects of electric transportation that make it so attractive, especially national security and health issues.
Of course, consumers normally make purchases for selfish reasons, and so predicting a bullish EV adoption curve means believing that the EV industry will develop an attractive value proposition. Craig sees that as a reality. “I predict 10% penetration by 2020 – a $250 billion market. I know there are people who disagree. But 78% of Americans commute less than 40 miles a day. As oil prices rise – and remain obscenely high — the common man is going to be highly motivated to own a car that will never take a drop of gas.”
Craig acknowledged that predictions in this area are all over the map, but he pointed out that shifts like this happen very quickly in our society nowadays. “When was the last time you rented a video? Bought a CD? Technology has almost completely obsoleted these industries that were huge just a few years ago.”
When the audience was asked to submit questions, they came in torrents. Shields addressed as many as he could squeeze into the hour-long session.
Shields admits that there are a few interesting open issues that remain. Sure, we’re witnessing a huge, messy divorce between Big Auto and Big Oil, but don’t think that ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, and so forth are going down without a fight. They’ll be around for many decades regardless of what happens. But they’re fighting hard to forestall the advent of EVs – and the renewable energy that will fuel them — to an ever-growing extent. “California’s Prop 23, which was funded almost exclusively by a few big oil companies, would have set the environmental movement back 30 years. Big Oil spent tens of millions of dollars promoting it, and it got about 47% of the popular vote. We came very close to extinguishing the entire push for clean air in this all-important state,” Shields said.
A key take-away from the webinar was the myriad types of businesses that will flourish as a result of the migration to electric transportation, including clean power generation, “telematics” (information services), smart-grid components, and billing services.
Of course, batteries are critically important. Shields continued: “As we achieve scale here, as we experience ongoing technology innovation, establish design standards, and remove cost from the supply chain, we’ll have battery costs at $300/kWh, which will enable EVs to be offered at terrifically attractive prices. Consumers will also see that corporate America is deploying EVs in bulk; I have to think people will be pretty impressed when they see large fleets owned by FedEx, Verizon, and Frito Lay and a dozen or so others. Sure, there are just so many early adopters. But soon you’ll see the pragmatists getting onboard.”
Craig closed with a few remarks about American Interest in Renewable Energy. “We feign concern about the national debt we’re leaving to our children, while borrowing an incremental $1 billion per day to buy foreign oil and sending it to regimes that are openly hostile of the US and its interests. We act like we’re concerned about unemployment, while ignoring the fact that the migration to clean energy will create three new jobs for every one that is lost. Expect to see this as a huge factor in the 2012 presidential election; Every credible candidate will have well-articulated (even if disingenuous) positions on the subject.”
Those wishing to view the archived webinar can do so here.
— Craig Shields is editor of 2GreenEnergy.com, and author of Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies (published by Clean Energy Press, 2010)
![[The Vector] The Department of Energy Weighs In](https://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/capitol-courtesy-dreamstime.jpg)
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a FACT SHEET on March 30th in concert with the President’s speech.
First, the good news (in my opinion.) I tend to agree with the statements of the FACT SHEET in the section entitled “Innovating our way to a Clean Energy Future:”
Creating Markets for Clean Energy. The FACT SHEET concludes that in order to move capital off the sidelines and into the clean energy industry (which creates jobs), we need to give businesses and entrepreneurs certainty and a clear signal. The Clean Energy Standard (CES) aims to achieve 80% of our electricity from clean sources by 2034. Bravo. Recognizing that businesses will not act in uncertainty, and setting a clear goal is commendable.
Cutting Energy Bills through Efficiency. Increasing efficiency is a given – conserve and use wisely what you do have.
Staying on the Cutting Edge through Clean Energy Research & Development. The Department of Energy tells us that (more…)
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoS8oCMeNMs&w=480&h=390]
In this episode of the 2GreenEnergy Video Report, I discuss a unique business opportunity: paper made not from trees, but from sugarcane waste. I’m referring, of course, about our relationship with our client Canefields USA, based in upstate NY.
I just got off the phone with John Aker, CEO of Aker-Wade Inc. in Charlottesville, VA, a leader in Level Three (fast-charging) solutions for electric vehicles. Obviously, the establishment of a solution for charging away from the home and workplace is a necessary condition to the widespread adoption of EVs. Until we can get a charge in about 15 minutes (preferably 10) that provides a range of a couple of hundred miles, there will always be a need for gas and diesel.
John’s solution, fast-charging (400 volts and 125 amps, or about 50 kilowatts) enables a Nissan Leaf owner to go from 20% state of charge to 80% in about 20 minutes. This is good, but he sees a day in the not-too-distant future in which batteries will improve and become larger, eliminating any need for gasoline-powered passenger cars.
From your lips to God’s ears, my friend.
