[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BNLOIQeH68]Here, 2GreenEnergy Report host George Alger interviews me on cold fusion. While I’m as skeptical as the next guy, I see no reason to throw the concept out the window, and dismiss it as impossible.
If you don’t laugh, you’ll cry. That’s the way I feel when I read something as stupid as this article in Automotive News Europe:
TURIN – Chrysler Group LLC will lose more than $10,000 on every battery-powered Fiat 500 it sells, Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne says. That heavy financial hit won’t stop the automaker from launching the Chrysler-built electric version of the minicar in the United States in 2012, underlining the pressure automakers face to improve fuel economy and remain competitive in the race to offer alternative powertrains.
“The economics of EVs simply don’t work. On the 500 that (Chrysler) will begin selling in the U.S. next year, we will lose over $10,000 (per unit) despite the retail price being three times higher” than a version of the minicar with an internal combustion engine, Marchionne said on the sidelines of Fiat S.p.A.‘s general meeting on Wednesday.
“The economics of EVs simply don’t work?” Really? What could this guy possibly mean by making such an outrageous generalized statement? Maybe he means the economics don’t work at very low volumes, when the world is introducing its first ten thousand EVs onto a planet that has roughly one billion internal combustion engine-based cars and trucks in it, the result of over a century of automaking — dominance by a factor of 100,000:1 over EVs.
But this is so obvious. It goes without saying that IBM didn’t expect to make money on the first computer it sold. This can’t be news to the CEO of one of the world’s largest companies. Why wouldn’t he make himself clear? There must be something else going on here.
No. Sure enough, skipping down to the bottom of the article, we see: “Although the per-unit loss is high, the automaker’s total financial hit should be minimal because Fiat-Chrysler, without being more specific, said it would produce a low volume of the electric 500.”
Ah! Thanks for the clarification, Sergio! That’s information we could have used.
Here’s a short follow-up to my piece on synthetic fuels the other day, in which I mentioned that I would be driving up to San Jose for another “Craig Shields…At Your Service” session.
I spent the day with Dr. David Doty (http://www.dotyenergy.com/), the developer of a proprietary set of processes for formulating liquid fuels from off-peak wind energy, water, and carbon dioxide. Soon after he and his wife (also incredibly sharp), met me at the appointed place and time and exchanged a few pleasantries, we launched into a fascinating discussion on the issues associated with each of the major forms of energy generation and storage available now and for the foreseeable future.
I listened to their viewpoints on how even things that sound good to me (like CSP with molten salt) won’t scale and come down in cost effectively. I’m not sure I’m completely onboard with all of this — after all, the businessman in all of us tends to pull forward the facts that stand in the favor of our own ideas. Having said that, this was a terrifically compelling presentation — particularly when we got into a potential solution to all this: Doty’s unique and patented approach to synthetic fuels.
I suppose you could say it’s similar to what the “ammonia as fuel” folks are talking about, but
a) using CO2 (a greenhouse gas, but more difficult and expensive to acquire in high concentrations than atmospheric nitrogen), and
b) aimed at developing using a much higher-grade (energy dense) fuel.
His presentation makes a great deal of sense in terms of the chemistry and thermodynamics, and he’s gotten the endorsement of some of the other top researchers in the field.
Of course this still leaves us burning hydrocarbons, even if they’re carbon-neutral. But, as a pragmatist, I often ask myself: Even if we have millions of electric passenger cars on the road soon, how long before we have electric Class 8 trucks? Electric airplanes? In my estimation, this approach to eco-friendly liquid fuels may be a solution with a great deal of impact on our civilization for a century to come.
Yet we need to acknowledge that skeptics will dismiss the idea out of hand, given that so many other attempts to develop synthetic fuels scaleably and cost-effectively have failed outright – or at least languished in obscurity and unmet expectations. “You must run into people who write you off as a crackpot or a charlatan,” I ventured. Doty smiled graciously. “Only once or twice a day,” he grinned.
(Continued from an earlier post…)
U.S. Venture Capital
U.S. Venture Capital investments increased in 2010, too, from $3.5 billion in 2009 to $5.1 billion in 2010 (a 45.7% increase). The number did fall short of the record-breaking $6.1 billion invested in 2008. However, more than 370 deals in 2010 represent the largest number of financings recorded in a 1 year period, says the report. Of the ten largest venture capital deals in 2010, 5 were in solar, 2 were for EVs, 2 were for bio-based materials and 1 was for geothermal.
The Issue of Cost Parity
As the authors of the reports have stated almost every year, clean energy markets will only truly thrive when they reach cost parity with “conventional” energy. In a recent study, the group analyzed current and future costs of distributed solar PV compared with US retail electricity rates, and in select markets, solar is starting to reach cost parity. The authors project that by 2015, distributed solar PV systems will be cost competitive for residential owners in at least 11 states, and by 2020, in 47 states.
Wind is already cost-competitive with fossil fuel-generated electricity, says the report, when considering time to market, sitting requirements and overall costs. At present, most new wind farms are producing electricity in the range of 5 to 8 cents per kWh range, making it one of the least expensive options. But this doesn’t mean that wind, like the fossil fuels, should require some subsidies and supportive policies.
The World Ten Years from Now
The Clean Energy Trends authors, using research and data, say they expect changes to the scenery in the next decade, including:
Two Key Trends
In addition to the general trends and growth, the report also outlined some key trends that will impact clean energy markets in the coming years. Two of the trends are:
1) Natural Gas will advance as a powerful partner for wind and solar energy.
This trend is somewhat controversial. The move to include natural gas in clean-energy plans, included in President Obama’s call for clean energy, will most likely be integral. Natural gas is abundant in the U.S.; it burns far cleaner than coal or oil; it can successfully be paired with renewal energy; it is highly flexible and can be used in a wide range of applications; prices have fallen and may remain relatively low for an extended period. Most U.S. states don’t include natural gas in their top-tier of clean energy requirements, says the report.
As the report states, “President Obama’s expansive view of clean energy may not fit everyone’s view of a clean-tech future. But definitions aside, natural gas provides many advantages over coal and nuclear. With proper regulation and oversight, the combination of natural gas and renewable energy sources could serve as a useful bridge to a clean-energy economy.”
2) Alternatives to Rare Earth Materials & Metals.
Innovation provides alternatives to Rare Earth materials (such as lithium used in batteries and indium, gallium and tellurium used in thin-film PV solar.) Rare Earth materials are of particular concern because 95% of the world’s supply is currently in China. Many of these materials are important in green energy applications (as well as other electronic devices such as smart phones and hard drives.) The demand is high, and the supply is vulnerable to risks. The ability to innovate in this area will alleviate some future concerns.
Ron Pernick, the co-founder and managing director of Clean Edge said in a press release, “As witnessed over the past decade, clean tech has proven to be a significant business opportunity, and its growth rates now rival that of earlier technology revolutions like telephony, computers and the internet.” (BusinessWire, March 14, 2011.)
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzhXSKReVV8]
In this episode of the 2GreenEnergy Video Report, host George Alger interviews me on my trip to visit Kleiner Perkins, the legendary venture capital firm, and what I learned about the process of raising money for clean energy firms.
I’d like to announce the opening of the 2GreenEnergy social media platform.
We’ve long recognized the need for a way to connect readers with one another, enabling them to answer one another’s questions, share advice, or simply voice opinions. Now it’s here: http://2greenenergy.com/community/
Note that this is brand new, and, though it’s been through a bit of testing, I urge you not to be alarmed if you come across areas that don’t function according to expectations. In fact, please hit “Contact” (above) and make us aware of anything you believe should be fixed.
I’m hoping to get as many people signed up and active here as possible. So, to help kick off, we are offering the “founding members” who participate in our April launch special these bonuses:
What is a “qualified” community participant? Simply an individual who participates in the community by:
After you send your message, you will receive a reply email with the link to the free download of RENEWABLE ENERGY — FACTS AND FANTASIES, as well as a link to the special 6-month subscription to THE VECTOR for only a $1.00.
There are no user fees associated with participating in the 2GE Community.
Many thanks to 2GreenEnergy co-founder George Alger and ever-willing teammate Adam Battenfield for all their hard work in putting this together and ironing out (most of) the bugs.
Here’s the link again: http://2greenenergy.com/community/
When a captain of industry like FedEx CEO Fred Smith makes a statement on our nation’s dependence on oil like:
“What is needed now is an urgent, national commitment to action. As oil prices once again top $100 a barrel, we’re unveiling a video that we hope will help bring more attention to doing just that.”
… and makes a video like this one on the shift to electric transportation, you know the idea has hit the mainstream.
You can question Mr. Smith’s motives for wanting government support for a less expensive and more stable/predictable source of fuel for his trucks and airplanes, but it’s certainly good to see him on the right side of the issue.
I just got off phone with frequent commenter and insurance pro Bill Waite, who called my attention to an interesting article. I know essentially nothing about the risk modeling that insurance people do in their sleep, but I’d like to call readers’ attention to this piece on the import of the fact that of the 104 nuclear power plants in this country, 23 are within 30 miles of a geologic fault. My intent isn’t to make people any more worried than they should be, but to point out the great number of disciplines that go into analyzing things like this.
To the surprise of no one, The Clean Air Act is under siege in the Senate. Fortunately, four amendments attacking our clean air each failed to get the required 60 votes to pass in yesterday’s sessions. But I was a bit shocked to see that 17 democrats sided with big polluters and radical republicans, and cast at least one vote to undermine the Clean Air Act’s ability to limit carbon pollution. What’s even more alarming is that several democrats — Jay Rockefeller, Debbie Stabenow, Sherrod Brown, and Max Baucus — were actually the sponsors of three of the four anti Clean Air Act amendments.
But how astonishing is this really? Let’s keep it in perspective. So politicians show that they have no spine, and go whatever direction the wind blows. Didn’t we already know that?
I’d much rather drive than fly if the trip is less than about five hours by car. For that reason, I’ll be driving to San Jose this afternoon for one of my “Craig Shields…At Your Service” sessions, in which I’ll be advising a client on a business strategy for his synthetic fuels concept. From what I can determine, this looks like a real breakthrough.
These are the kind of projects I love: working with a smart guy whose strength lies in the science, wide open to a range of business possibilities, and richly appreciative of the value that I bring to the table. With any luck, we can change the world.
