I just spoke with Sean O’Hanlon, leader of the American Biofuels Council, a national institute for biofuel research, analysis, development, and education in the United States. Sean impressed me as a doer rather than a talker; the emphasis of his organization is moving biofuels out of the classroom and laboratory and into the world of day-to-day commerce.
But he made a pithy remark that I immediately jotted down with the smile that comes over me when I encounter something that’s truly well said: “There is no romance in renewables.” There are so many flavors of biofuels that simply do not compete well in the overall market. Sean told me, “Do not expect to enter a market with a low-grade product, or one that’s more expensive than a fossil fuel competitor, on the basis that there is ‘romance” to renewable energy. It doesn’t exist.”
I just had a fascinating call with Jim Lane, editor and publisher of Miami, FL-based BioFuelsDigest.com, a group that provides information products and a series of top-flight industry conferences to more than 14,000 organizations worldwide.
When I happened to mention that I run across plenty of crackpots and charlatans in my day-to-day dealings with cleantech entrepreneurs, it was instantly apparent that Jim’s had the same experience. And the more I learn about biofuels, the more I can understand how easily this may be the case. There is so much complexity; there are so many different combinations of feedstocks and technologies, it’s really impossible for anyone to keep track of all of them. One hopes for peer-reviewed analysis, but that’s not always possible; one can understand that certain of these businesses need to protect their IP very carefully.
This is further complicated by the fact that many biomass technologies work to some degree – just not at a commercially viable level. It’s not like somebody who claims to have built a car that runs on seawater.
Take waste-tire-to-biofuels, for instance. I happen to believe that the version of pyrolysis that my associates at Southeastern Biomass bring to the table will work as advertised. But I’m certainly skeptical; I think anyone needs to be. Pyrolysis has been around for a century, and dozens (hundreds?) of people have tried to make the waste-tire dream come true.
At the end of the day, some of these folks are showmen. And, while every business needs a convincing front-man, there is a line between enthusiastic promotion and fraud.
Just ask the U.S. District Judge who, last week, handed down a summary judgment against John Rivera, bombastic leader U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp, affirming charges levied by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which had alleged that Rivera used false press releases and other false public statements to drive up interest — and stock price — reaping huge profits in what turned out to be a virtually worthless company. Looks like Rivera’s headed for the slammer, which sounds about right to me.
To understand this little anecdote, you have to know that about a year ago, I became a friend of a French fellow, Gerolf Jacobs, a very personable clean energy investor/deal-maker who lives near Bordeaux. In a few of our numerous conversations, Gerolf has mentioned his specific penchant for renewables projects in Bulgaria.
I told him I’d keep an ear to the ground, and let him know if I came across any relevant contacts in this space. Of course, I didn’t think that such an event was too probable; in fact, I was altogether ignorant of modern Bulgarian history; when I think of the place, I recall Stalin and Soviet-bloc totalitarianism and bureaucracy.
Fast-forward to July. I was playing hooky from one of the plenary sessions at the Energy Storage conference show, sitting in the lavish hallway of the top-flight resort at which the conference was held. In fact, I was writing a blog post, much like I’m doing now. Across from me was a distinguished looking guy, bespectacled and well dressed, speaking a language I didn’t recognize into his cell phone. I remember thinking: That’s a Slavic language, but I sure couldn’t tell you which one. It’s actually good that I can’t understand it; if it were English I’d be distracted.
When he hung up, I asked, “I like the sound of that language – what is it?” “Bulgarian,” he explained. A bit later in the conversation he mentioned, “I’m connected with dozens of people in my country who are working hard to forward the cause of renewables.”
“Hmmmm. I’m wondering if I could introduce one more,” I smiled.
Well, I just learned that the two – Gerolf and Dr. Boris Monahov, Director of the International Lead Zinc Research Organization — are meeting in Sofia later in August, and I’ll let you know what comes of it.
In any case, I’m glad to report that I’m a bit less lost when in comes to current events in Bulgaria; I’ve come to learn that it’s a remarkably stable, sane — and beautiful place.
Now, if my father were here, he’d ask, “Craig, are you going to make any MONEY from this?” and I’d have to admit the truth. “It’s extremely unlikely in this case, Dad. Sometimes there’s a way to make a buck, and sometimes you take an action just because it’s a cool thing to do. This falls into the latter group.”
In a May Vector story, we covered a detailed report from Ogilvy & Mather (Ogilvy Earth) about “mainstreaming green” in the U.S. One of the recommendations of the study was a call to corporations to bring simple greener products to the masses and educate them for mass adoption. From the top down and bottom up, the U.S. needs to become more aware and more green, says the report.
From the corporate world, SC Johnson is indeed taking a step for mass implementation. On July 1st, 2011, it launched the Windex Mini, a concentrated refill pouch that uses 90% less plastic (more…)
A white paper authored by Schneider Electric suggests that meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets will fail unless “Active Energy Efficiency” becomes compulsory. They define “Active Energy Efficiency” as “effecting permanent change through measurement, monitoring and control of energy usage,” and contrast this to “Passive Energy Efficiency,” which is regarded as the installation of countermeasures against thermal losses, the use of low consumption equipment and so forth.
The paper concludes, “Without proper control, these measures often merely militate against energy losses rather than make a real reduction in energy consumed and in the way it is used.”
I suppose this is really the crux of the political debate about CFLs versus incandescent lightbulbs, and the many other similar points of discussion. Do we have some sort of “right” to use energy in any way we please? We understandably resent government telling us what to do, but can’t we see the legitimacy of standards that are aimed at ensuring a clean and life-supporting planet?
Obviously, the ideal situation is one in which people don’t need to be forced to do the right thing. But how close are we to that? In the meanwhile, I think we need to support the idea of environmental standards for all our business and consumer products – to the degree that they can be established fairly, without the undue influence of money and power.
Of course, that doesn’t sound like a piece of cake either ….
Brazil aims to triple its renewable energy use by 2020, according to the new national plan. Wind energy has a strong place in the plans, along with small hydropower. Brazil has already reached 1 GW from wind energy alone this year – and the goal is to be at 12 GW by 2020.
The country plans to generate 16% of its electricity from renewable (more…)
In our July 2011 webinar “Corporate Sustainability: Tapping the Incredible Wisdom of Nature,” I interview Kathryn Alexander, leader of Ethical Impact, a group that helps the corporate world in issues concerning sustainability.
In his farewell address in 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned us:
“You and I, and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow.”
I was only six years old at the time, quite unaware of the insight that Ike had bestowed upon us. Of course, he wasn’t the first. 150 years earlier, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.”
I bring this up to call your attention to Jeremy Grantham’s quarterly newsletter, in which he writes about the strengths and weaknesses of capitalism as it applies to forming the underpinning of our society. He notes:
Capitalism, despite its magnificent virtues in the short term – above all, its ability to adjust to changing conditions – has several weaknesses that affect this issue.
o It cannot deal with the tragedy of the commons, e.g., overfishing, collective soil erosion, and air contamination.
o The finiteness of natural resources is simply ignored, and pricing is based entirely on short-term supply and demand.
o More generally, because of the use of very high discount rates, modern capitalism attributes no material cost to damage that occurs far into the future. Our grandchildren and the problems they will face because of a warming planet with increasing weather instability and, particularly, with resource shortages, have, to the standard capitalist approach, no material present value.
It is clear that there is a time and place for an enlightened government to step in and regulate market activity such that it does not jeopardize our future.
Enlightened government. Does anybody know where I can get some of that?
Virtually no one doubts the basic concept. But how soon in our future (or how recently in our past) does that point lie? And what are its consequences?
A few weeks ago, a fine — and well-read friend told me over breakfast in New York, “Did you know that there’s enough oil under South Dakota to last 200 years?”
“That’s amazing,” I replied. “Then what’s all the fuss about?”
“Damn environmentalists.”
I’m not sure it’s that easy. The truth, which he, as an educated man should have known, is that we truly have exhausted the supply of easy-to-find oil, but that there is a huge deposit of shale/tar sands oil, whose economic and environmental costs of extraction are extreme.
Is there more oil? Yes. Does that provide us an easy answer? Not in the least.
I just received an interesting phone call. Chris Mason, renewable energy contractor in Anguilla (Caribbean) called to discuss my work in Bermuda and understand how it might apply to his country a thousand miles south.
Mason speaks in a calm, measured tone, but there was clearly urgency in his voice as well. “We pay $0.41 to $0.43 a kilowatt-hour for electricity here, and it’s ruining us. The major hotel says that it will be forced to close its doors if we can’t come up with less expensive electricity. But no one is really trying to solve the problem. Can we talk about this?” he implored.
“Of course. Let me ask you: What are the issues re: solar?” I asked.
“It’s cultural,” Mason explained. “As far as the leaders here are concerned, there is no problem to fix. You flip a switch and the lights come on. Until the power goes out, there is no issue at all. I can do solar arrays for private customers, but there’s no incentive. Not only are there no feed-in tariffs, it’s even illegal to tie them to the grid.”
“Isn’t there any public consciousness on the subject?” I asked. “Won’t these so-called ‘leaders’ eventually be replaced by more enlightened people?”
“Oh yes, the government turns over completely every four years. But instability just makes the problem worse. Investors have no certainty in what they’ll be dealing with even a few short years in the future.”
“I hear you,” I sympathized. “I can tell you about a larger country in which that kind of uncertainty is putting a damper on clean energy. It’s called the United States.”
As we chatted and exchanged ideas, I came to know Chris as a terrific person with a heart the size of Texas. Information on his company, Comet Energy, and his blog, Caribbean Renewable, is linked here.