I’m in the process of writing my next book — this one on the practical realities of clean energy — which has brought me to a study of the nature of the playing field on which renewables competes with fossil fuels. This, of course, is critical. No one can expect capital formation for clean energy as long as the alternative is made artificially inexpensive with government subsidies that have been in place since the early 20th Century, and which, many people believe, are a permanent fixture in our national budget.
Of terrific help in helping me understand this is the Research and Policy division of the Environmental Law Institute, a non-profit in Washington DC, which endeavors to unravel the twists to get at the full truth of the relationship between government and energy.
I have to say that I was impressed with most of the speakers at the EV Update show in San Diego last week.
Frankly, I didn’t expect to be. In the trade shows I frequent, I’m often shocked at how many presenters abuse the platform to promote their company, or the basic business concept that the company supports, while carefully ignoring or underplaying the competing forces. They appear to have not gotten the memo: The audience came in the hopes of learning something of value, not to have its head filled with your propaganda.
That was almost entirely absent here, I’m happy to report.
Oliver Hazimeh, a management consultant from PRTM did a great presentation with his overview of where EVs are headed and why. Of course, it’s easy to like people who agree with you. Like me, he sees at least 10% penetration of plug-in cars (plug-in hybrids and full battery electrics) by 2020 – a $250 billion industry built over this fairly short period of time. And we both put similar valuations on the potential of the adjacent pieces of that market: generating the electricity, figuring out the charging schema, integrating the billing, etc.
I was also intrigued with the comments of the Ecotality spokesperson, whose message was that the electric vehicles adoption curve is “about lifestyle.” His point was essentially that just as Starbucks addressed an unmet need for good coffee served in a space conducive to the lifestyles of a large consumer segment, EVs will do the same. Though they’re not for everyone, they will address a sizeable swath of the American market.
First of all, let’s acknowledge that he’s 100% correct that consumer acceptance is of paramount importance. And I have to agree that the consumer piece of this is, to some degree, “about lifestyle,” whatever exactly that means. Yes, there will be people who reject this idea until their dying day; yes, they’re not for everyone.
But I’m not sure how many people will hold out due to this lifestyle thing. Imagine a time (is it hard?) when gas becomes even more obscenely expensive than it is right now, and your EV-driving neighbor, who’s long-since forgotten the location of the gas station he used to frequent, pulls up in his driveway. How long do you think it will be before you ask, “Hey, Bob. Tell me about that…”
I have a feeling that this very phenomenon of word-of-mouth promotion, along with our growing awareness of what Big Oil has done to every single one of us — will transcend whatever we mean by the word “lifestyle” — our politics, our taste in music or film, and even our standing as technology early-adopters or laggards. Electric transportation is a concept that simply make sense for the vast majority of us — and is becoming an even better fit with each passing day.
In the role I play as focal point for hundreds of cleantech business ideas, I act as an arbiter of the plans’ value and soundness. Needless to say, this frequently puts me in an unpleasant position: that of explaining to people that I see insufficient merit in their business idea, i.e., that their “baby is ugly” – something no one wants to hear.
Part of the issue here, is that there are just so many good ideas.
We don’t need dozens of start-up neighborhood electric vehicle companies run by people with no real background and experience, assembling Chinese-made parts and selling them into gated communities in the US. We don’t need – and will not have — three or four different infrastructures for delivering liquid fuels to vehicles. Conversely, we do need – and will have – a highly efficient and eco-friendly way of converting the waste stream of used tires into energy, carbon black, and recycled steel.
When I told a friend that I didn’t think the hydrogen economy would come about, he asked, “Why? Is it impossible?” he asked.
“No, it’s perfectly possible,” I responded, “but it’s impractical, just like growing plants indoors, pulling all the hydrogen sulfide out of the Black Sea, or any of the other concepts that I see every day that will simply never happen. What makes it a bad idea isn’t that it’s theoretically impossible; it’s that there are far better ideas that compete against it. If you could get all the gold out of a cubic mile of seawater, you’d be rich,” I reminded him. “But it’s just not a practical thing to do.”
Most of the business plans I review fall into this category to one degree or another. They are visions of a world that I believe will never exist.
Could I be wrong? Of course. But I’m obligated to make the call, and promote only the ideas I believe have real merit.
I can see that the process of learning more about the world of energy and transportation is making me a bit cynical. But virtually everywhere I turn, I see so little emphasis on the truth, and so much posturing to forward whatever agenda the speaker/writer is paid to promote.
Of course, a lot of this comes from the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, both of which work so tirelessly to discredit renewables. Climate change denier Art Pope’s John Locke Foundation is pouring tons of cash in their effort to repeal or gut SB 3, a landmark 2007 North Carolina law aimed at making utilities buy renewable energy. Pope and the Koch-backed “Americans for Prosperity” spent millions of dollars during last year’s elections, winning the General Assembly for Republicans.
And I was amused to learn yesterday that the nuclear industry begins to influence voters long before they’re old enough to cast their first ballots; they’ve worked feverishly to ensure that our children’s middle school textbooks include the “hard cold facts” that nuclear power is perfectly safe and cost-effective.
While I find all this nauseating, I need to point out that the art of politicking is not lost on the clean energy and electric transportation people, either. A good example is the EV Infrastructure show I’m attending down here in sunny San Diego, CA. Many of the show’s “speakers” are essentially hucksters, twisting the facts to convince the audience that their approach to whatever (vehicle charging, energy storage, predicting the EV adoption curve, etc.) is the only one that makes sense. “As you can see from this chart, Level 1 (110V) charging is too slow, and we really don’t need – and can’t afford — Level 3 (480V).”
Now let me guess. You don’t happen to sell a Level 2 (220V) charging system, do you?
I wish we could all cut the crap. But I don’t see that happening.
Great day today. Drove down to play some paddle tennis with Tom Blakeslee of the Clearlight Foundation. There may be finer, smarter, more enlightened people on this planet, but I sure haven’t met many.
From there it was a straight shot down the California coast to San Diego where I’m attending the EV Infrastructure Show. Just got here, but the end-of-day reception was very warm and cozy. Good series of meetings tomorrow.
In 2010, the U.S. installed only 15 MW of geothermal (in Nevada) and that plant will actually have a total 25 MW capacity when finished in 2011. However, more than 500 MW of projects are under development in the U.S. and will come online in 2011 and 2012 – not counting projects that may begin work in 2011.
According to a report “The Future of Geothermal Energy“ written by an MIT panel in the fourth quarter of 2010, total generating capacity of energy sources in the U.S. are currently as shown in the chart below (statistics sourced from EIA in 2004). As gas and coal deplete over time, the capacity of those sources will reduce. (more…)
Today, Ralph Avallone, the president of the National Green Energy Council, received a response to the very specific letter he had written to Barack Obama in which he urged the president’s support of green technology and renewable energy, and the “green jobs” they will create. Avallone notes:
“My letter … has facilitated nothing but a generic response. Most unfortunate….”
To which I respond:
Ralph: Speaking for all of us, I appreciate your effort. And yes, that’s unfortunate, though not at all surprising. I think we’ve seen ample evidence that the federal government – all three branches, btw — is stuck in neutral with respect to energy policy. We support whatever notions bring in votes, whether it’s as destructive and toxic as coal, or as unsafe and financially untenable as nuclear. Where we feel we need to, and that we can get away with it with our constituencies, we pay lip service to renewables – though we’re terrified that we’re doing so at the risk of being ridiculed from the right as socialists or tree-huggers.
There are some people who believe mainstream candidates’ promises to tear into the nation’s problems (of which energy, obviously, is only one) with passion, objectivity and honesty. There are people who believe in the Easter Bunny, too.
If you’re looking for spine and integrity, I’m afraid you’ll need to look elsewhere.
In an average week, I get a couple of invitations to be on radio programs whose hosts want a guest to speak on clean energy. Here’s a typical request that I got just a few hours ago, to which I gladly assented:
I’m a talk radio host/producer at … and would like to set up an interview regarding clean energy. With the nuclear crisis in Japan, and renewed worries concerning plants in the US, Middle East unrest and rising oil prices, and the demonization of wind & solar energy from the right, I think there’s plenty of ample reasons to discuss your book and thoughts on these and other topics. The station number is ..
OK, the guy’s grammar is an issue.
“There’s plenty of reasons” needs to read “there are plenty of reasons” (agreement of subject and verb)
and
“plenty of ample reasons” needs to read “ample reasons” (“ample” means “plenty”)
Just kidding here of course; this isn’t a website on grammar. And that’s a good thing, because readers sometimes point out errors in mine.
But I am interested in exploring the “demonization of wind & solar energy from the right.” Though many readers have suggested that such a trend exists, I can’t believe it’s true. What’s to demonize? Energy that doesn’t kill people? An energy policy that doesn’t impoverish our country, empower our sworn enemies — and leaves the planet clean and safe for coming generations? Wouldn’t it be a kind of warped person who would attack this notion?
I host “Clean Energy Radio,” a weekly interview program. I have to say that the station on which it airs, WebTalkRadio, is a wonderful concept in Internet broadcasting. The other 50-or-so hosts have their own areas of expertise: dog training, marital relationships, deer hunting, natural medicine, etc.; I’m the only renewable energy guy. And I totally approve of the organization; in my experience, the staff at WebTalkRadio — the business folks, the techies, etc. – are, to a person, terrific, super-professional people. (more…)
Many experts state clearly that geothermal energy could provide all the energy the world needs. 99% of the planet has a temperature above 1,000 degrees C. The earth’s heat is an inexhaustible source of energy, available 24 hours per day (night or day, in windy or calm conditions), it is practically emission-free, and it is within reach. And, geothermal power plants generate more energy over time than an equivalent solar or wind plant. Baseline power is also better; the Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that 3,150 MW of geothermal capacity generated 15.2 Gwh of electricity in 2009, while 35 GW of wind capacity generated 70.7 Gwh of electricity.
Geothermal applications are quietly growing around the world. In 2005, there was 8,933 MW of installed capacity generating 55,709 GWh per year of energy, says the International Geothermal Association (IGA). By 2010, 10,715 MW capacity is online generating 67,246 GWh. IGA projects that by 2015, about 18,500 MW will be installed, based on projects that have begun or are under consideration.
The top countries with worldside capacity between 2005 and 2010 were the U.S., Indonesia, Iceland, New Zealand and Turkey. The IGA reports that dramatic planning and growth is occuring in Europe and Africa. For instance, while only 10 countries in Europe had geothermal projects under development in 2007, that number jumped to 24 by 2010.
Why the Slow Growth and Slow Recognition?
However, geothermal isn’t growing as quickly as it could, according to most experts. Why? The capital costs and time to get a project complete is much longer than other green energy technologies, such as wind or solar projects. A geothermal plant can take 3 to 7 years to develop. As many clean energies compete for attention and dollars in the U.S., geothermal hasn’t gotten the attention of other clean technologies. Is this because we typically look for the quick fix and don’t focus on the long-term gains? Perhaps.
The potential and long-term benefits seems clear. Some analysts believe the oil & gas industry will start to invest more into geothermal with the clear cross-over in technologies and drilling, which may help the geothermal industry on some level.
What About the Earthquakes?
But there is another potential issue, which may slow down deeper drilling and geothermal development. Just a few years ago, the now-infamous geothermal project in Basel, Switzerland, which drilled three miles into Earth’s crust, set off a magnitude 3.4 earthquake, rocked the town and shut the operation down entirely. The drilling had caused the quakes. Although no serious injuries were reported, Geothermal Explorers’ insurance company ultimately paid more than $8 million in mostly minor damage claims to the owners of thousands of houses in Switzerland and in neighboring Germany and France.
Human induced earthquakes are a concern. In another case, the area near the town of Anderson Springs, CA about 90 miles north of San Francisco, which is home to natural geothermal vents, has some cause for concern. The area was nicknamed The Geysers by early visitors who saw the steam vents there. It has exploited the steam for clean natural energy over the last century. However, in the 1970s with improved technology, engineers started to crank up the production levels. Small earthquakes began shortly thereafter.
Geothermal energy that comes from 150-200 meters below surface is called “low temperature geothermal energy, and is exploited at a relatively larger scale than drilling deeper. Energy is extracted with heat pumps and/or coils. Power companies have long produced limited amounts of geothermal energy by tapping shallow steam beds, often beneath geysers or vents. While those projects can induce earthquakes, most are small. But for geothermal energy to be used more widely and more effectively, engineers need to find a way to draw on the higher heat at deeper levels percolating in the earth’s core. Some companies are working on pilot plans at depths of 5,500 meters, and some researchers believe reaching depths of 10,000 meters or more –where temperatures reach 170 degrees C –can exploit geothermal energy to a maximum. But at what cost and risk?
Iceland – a volcanic hotbed — is a testing ground, and the world is learning from its experiences. It has been using geothermal energy since 1930. In fact, 60% of the population is connected to geothermal heating in some way. Applications include harnessing geothermal in pipes below roads, keeping them free of ice and snow in the long winters. Many technologies are applications in Iceland have helped educate those elsewhere.
New safeguards in the U.S. for geothermal projects include a requirement to install and monitor ground-motion sensors, and develop a plan to shut down quickly if earthquakes generated by drilling prove larger than expected. The new rules apply to projects applying for or receiving government funding. Seismology experts must review place prior to approval for drilling.
Speaking on the subject of developing deeper drilling for geothermal, SINTEF Materials & Chemistry researcher O. Lademo said, “If we can manage to produce this kind of energy, it would clearly be a “moon landing.“
I’m in the process of writing my next book — this one on the practical realities of clean energy — which has brought me to a study of the nature of the playing field on which renewables competes with fossil fuels. This, of course, is critical. No one can expect capital formation for clean energy as long as the alternative is made artificially inexpensive with government subsidies that have been in place since the early 20th Century, and which, many people believe, are a permanent fixture in our national budget.
In the role I play as focal point for hundreds of cleantech business ideas, I act as an arbiter of the plans’ value and soundness. Needless to say, this frequently puts me in an unpleasant position: that of explaining to people that I see insufficient merit in their business idea, i.e., that their “baby is ugly” – something no one wants to hear.![[The Vector] On Geothermal](https://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/us-energy-capacity1.jpg)
Today, Ralph Avallone, the president of the National Green Energy Council, received a response to the very specific letter he had written to Barack Obama in which he urged the president’s support of green technology and renewable energy, and the “green jobs” they will create. Avallone notes:
In an average week, I get a couple of invitations to be on radio programs whose hosts want a guest to speak on clean energy. Here’s a typical request that I got just a few hours ago, to which I gladly assented:
![[The Vector] Geothermal and Its Potential – But What About Earthquakes?](https://www.2greenenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/geothermal-coils-istock.jpg)
