Home › Blog › Page 1661

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Biomass

With time ticking, the world is desperate to switch over to renewable sources of energy. And in a need to create one stable source of energy, all the options are being tried and tested. Thanks to the ongoing research, claims are being made of solutions replacing fossil fuels in one way or another.

In the light of the need to reduce in carbon emissions, there have been lot of attention to bio-fuels, especially those made from algae. There had been a flurry of venture capitalists (VCs), company investments and lots of attention from politics as well. Algae had been quite a promising option for preparing bio-fuels. It is assumed to be a low cost way to transform our current fleet so that they emit less carbon. The government is promoting algae fuel in a hope that it will cut down on the usage of mainstream fossil fuels.

Algae fuel production is a process in which during photosynthesis, algae and other photosynthetic organisms capture carbon dioxide and sunlight and convert it into oxygen and biomass. Up to 99% of the carbon dioxide in solution can be converted in large scale open pond systems.

Recently, the US Department of Energy (DOE) announced that they would offer up to US$85 million in funding for the development of algae based bio-fuels. The funding comes as a part of the funds released from the stimulus package, also known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The objective of the fund is to bring together a group of leading algae and advanced bio-fuels. Scientists and engineers from both universities and private firms are attempting to bring new technologies and fuels to market in an accelerated time frame.

The technology has its share of criticism as well. Researchers argue that algae fuel would not reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide because CO2 taken out from the atmosphere by the algae is released when bio-fuels are burned. However, they eliminate the introduction of new CO2 by displacing fossil hydrocarbon fuels. Algae fuel, due to some high profile investments in the recent past, is now being given utmost attention. However, researchers warn that too much shouldn’t be read into the future as of now. Despite all the efforts, algae fuel lags behind in the economies of scale.

Tomorrow, we’ll look at what some of the major players are doing in this space.

Tagged with: , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketHere’s a follow-up post to what I wrote earlier about corruption. I had a series of meetings when I was back in Washington DC a few days ago with a top-level DoD (Department of Defense) executive. She told the group of which I was a part some spine-chilling tales, for example:

  • The US Air Force fought for years against the use of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles); they want human pilots. If they don’t have live pilots, they have fewer people overall, less appeal in recruiting, and ultimately fewer resources. Of course, they wouldn’t have pilot casualties, but that seems to be an unimportant ingredient in the overall equation.
  • Many years ago, the DoD said it wanted no more C-17s. But they continued to get them anyway — year after year, rammed through by Congress and the powerful Boeing lobbyists.

The Air Force wants human pilots, so they can put them in harm’s way? Congress spends billions of dollars on items that are specifically not needed or wanted?

The relevance of this is not simply to rant; it’s to point out that dirty politics will be very, very likely to play an ongoing role in the adoption of new forms of energy.  After all, if our leaders will do patently dishonest things for billions of dollars, what do you think they’ll do for trillions?

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Sustainability

PhotobucketThe producers of a television show called “Going Green” interviewed me yesterday to determine if they would like to feature me on an upcoming program. As part of the conversation, the associate producer asked me what areas of education in “going green” are most required to get people up to speed in this area.

“It depends on what ‘people’ you mean,” I explained. “There are several diffferent constituencies that have markedly different needs with respect to knowledge.”

In discussing renewables, I’m amazed how people conflate the many different groups (consumers, corporations, utilities, government agencies, etc.) that, in fact, have completely dissimilar needs for information.  I gave the interviewer a few good examples off the top of my head, but after I hung up the phone, I realized that it might be a good idea to list the various segments and the topics which, in an ideal world, each would understand.  Here’s the list I put together:

Consumers

  • “Electric vehicle 101.” Pure EVs vs. plug-in hybrids. Trade-offs between EVs and internal combustion engines, for a each family’s unique driving habits. Considering NEVs (neighborhood EV), given the local driving conditions and traffic laws. State and federal incentives.
  • Recycling
  • Energy-efficient lighting, HVAC, and appliances

Corporate America

  • Intelligent building management. Light harvesting, integrated energy management.
  • Demand response, i.e., managing consumption of electricity in response to supply conditions, e.g., reducing consumption at critical times or in response to market prices
  • Incentives for carpooling and mass transit
  • E-commuting
  • High-efficiency vehicles (preferably electric transportation) on campus and in corporate fleets

Government Policy Makers

  • MSEV (medium-speed EVs) laws that foster use
  • Encouraging mass transit, bicycling, etc.
  • Eco-friendly community planning
  • Making use of the research performed by NGOs (e.g., World Resources Institute, Wilderness Society, etc.)
  • Incentives to consumers and businesses to reduce carbon footprint
  • Creating corridors for power transmission, using eminent domain law as necessary
  • Allocating stimulus money to organizations with demonstrable capability to deliver transformative change in energy generation and consumption
  • Stipulations to power utilities to increase purchase of energy from renewable sources
  • CAFE standards that drive increases in overall fuel efficiency
  • Intelligent placement of charging stations
  • Alternative fuelled vehicles in the government fleets
  • Laws mandating sustainable agricultural practices
  • “Internalizing the externalities,” i.e., forcing everyone to pay the complete costs of generating and consuming energy
  • Changing subsidies to create a level playing field for renewable energy

Power Utilities

  • Smart grid, i.e., delivering electricity from suppliers to consumers using two-way digital technology
  • Time of use metering, encouraging off-peak consumption (e.g., charging EVs at night)
  • Building out the grid in sync with increased demand for electric transportation
  • Efficient, long-distance power transmission using HVDC (high-voltage direct current)
  • Vehicle-to-grid (V2G), using energy stored in EV batteries to enhance delivery of electric power

Renewable Energy and Electric Transportation Companies

  • Making use of market research to gauge demand, establish the most appeal product/service features, set maximum set price points, develop effective positioning and branding, etc.
  • Writing clear and compelling business plans
  • Raising investment capital
  • Protecting intellectual property
  • Using public relations to generate large volumes of positive publicity

It sure will be a great day on Planet Earth when the majority of folks at all of these levels get their wits wrapped around each of the major issues.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketI’m back on the East Coast for a few days.  When I come here I normally stay with my parents (they’re in their mid-late 80s) at their home in Philadelphia — which happens to be an apartment in a very nice retirement community.  As it often does, the conversation this evening turned to politics.  But unlike many political discussions between parents and their children, it was not at all rancorous.   Through our talks, we try to understand why the US as a nation is having so much difficulty in gaining traction in solving its most obvious problems: wars, healthcare, financial reform — and, of course, creating a level playing field for renewable energy.

I pointed out that each of these is rooted in what I label generally as corruption, which I define as the supremacy of money and power over common sense and decency in creating and enforcing our laws.  I acknowledged that corruption is a harsh word, and that it applies more accurately in some cases than in others.  But I do think that if our leaders were kind and sensible people, uninfluenced by the power of money, we would have immediate workable answers for these and many other pressing issues.

Since we’ve so often discussed this idea of corruption as it applies to energy policy, and since healthcare is so omnipresent in a retirement community, let me use this latter as an example.  The 94-year-old lady living across the beautifully carpeted hallway from my parents’ place recently had a knee replacement, which was, of course, 100% paid for by Medicare.  We encountered her in the hallway; she still struggles to walk — which shouldn’t come as a surprise considering her age — and so they’re in the process of scheduling a second such operation.

Meanwhile, our nation has millions of people 60 years younger who happen to be uninsured and face untended illness or financial ruination — or both — because they can’t get health insurance.

While my heart goes out to the old lady, I point out a simple, if ugly truth: the only reason she’s receiving serial knee replacements is that they are profitable. She’s thin as a toothpick, horribly frail, and quite obviously has no prognosis under which she’ll ever be able to walk more than a few slow steps without terrible pain — regardless of how many times her knee is replaced.  Yet I caution you not to expect a change in healthcare legislation that might damage the profit stream generated by those surgeries she’ll be receiving — even if making such a change would free up huge amounts of cash that would more than pay the cost of insuring those who presently can’t find coverage.  The power of that money is so intense that such change simply will not happen — regardless of how compelling the argument — or how enormous the benefit to the public.

Do you have a better word to describe such a system than corrupt?  Can you introduce me to one honest, reasonably intelligent person who thinks that spending a fortune on knee replacements for 94-year-olds is a good, fair-minded idea while others who happen not to be able to get health insurance face catastrophic health conditions to which their pitiable complaints will be turned a deaf ear?

I know that the vast majority of the many millions of people working in healthcare are honest, decent, and incredibly talented.  I know dozens of them personally, and I respect them deeply.  But the fact remains that the medical industry is in place to make money.  And if you happen to be one of the lucky ones (like our friend above) who benefits from that profit motive, I urge you to consider it a bonus for which you should be profoundly thankful — because not everyone is so lucky.

So as not to ignore the energy industry entirely in this post, it’s clear that a similar argument could be made here.  As I’ve pointed out, the oil industry alone employs seven lobbyists for each of the 535 members of Congress.  Do you think Big Oil would be spending those hundreds of millions of dollars if they weren’t buying something of far greater value in exchange ? Sorry to appear cynical, but I’m convinced that the level playing field we’ve discussed here so frequently will come about when and only when we’ve found a way to disconnect our lawmakers from the powerful interests that buy their votes.

Corporate lobbying is an institution that is causing more harm to more innocent people with each passing month.  What’s the matter with simply abolishing it?  The framers of the Constitution wisely built in the right of the people to redress their government, but I think it’s pretty clear that they didn’t intend this patent dishonesty that’s ripping our civilization and its people slowly and painfully apart.  What’s the harm in simply saying that money should not buy legislative influence?

Tagged with: , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

I wrote not too long ago about the huge, long-term role that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), as part of the Department of Energy, plays in supporting the development of clean energy technologies.  Their work with solar energy leader Solyndra is a perfect example of a case in which this public support made it possible for a private company to raise critically important addition capital, by preventing their initial private investors from getting scared away.  At a certain point, new (very large) rounds of cash were required to get the company to its next level.   As I recall, NREL supported this effort to the tune of over $700 million — and this robust commitment showed investors that they weren’t alone in their belief that the company was on the right track. 

But not every company that asks for money receives any at all — let alone $700 million.  So exactly how does this process work?  How fair is it? What criteria are most important?  What types of companies are favored over others, and why?  Are more mature renewables technologies, like photovoltaics (in which Solyndra plays), favored over newer ideas?  (Solyndra has a very well proven breakthrough in deployment of CIGS (copper indium gallium (di) selenide), generating a significant leap in PV efficiencies and reduction in costs).

Unfortunately, it’s not clear.  I suppose it’s not supposed to be.  Take solar thermal/CSP (concentrated solar power) as an example of a new technology.  Technologies like PV and wind have a several-decade head-start over CSP.  When I interviewed industry leader Ausra‘s founder Dr. David Mills for my book on renewables, he told me that Ausra had gotten to the second round in one of these mega-contests in which the DoE selects its favorites to back, but that they didn’t make the finals.  When I asked if he resented their decision, he — perhaps simply out of good sportsmanship and professional courtesy — said that he didn’t, and told me that he’ll simply try again another time.

I can’t count all the people who have asked us for our insights at 2GreenEnergy on this matter — and I regret that all I can turn up are anecdotal incidents like these.  I ask readers to share their own experiences with this process so that all my learn.  Thanks.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

Reader Kate apparently thinks I’m hypocritical.  She writes:

Living in Santa Ynez must be really tough, getting around and all with those Bently’s and top-shelf jags/mercs and 6-digit priced horses. Pontificate on in the valley of the ultra rich.

How charming, Kate!  🙂  Let me make two quick points:

1) I drive a 16 year old car with 212K miles on it.  (I’ve sworn that my next car will be an EV.)  It’s likely that your refrigerator is worth more than my car. 

2) It’s true that there are some rich people around here.  But I believe the quest for renewables is a good deal for everyone at every socio-economic level.  It nauseates me when I read propaganda that clean energy will put more people out of work in an already-tough financial climate.  While it’s true that we’ll someday have a world without coal-miners, the net benefit in jobs in deploying renewable energy solutions and building clean transportation will be enormous.

Tagged with: ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

PhotobucketRe: my piece on changing attitudes to electric vehicles, guest blogger Arlene Allen writes:

I’ll roll with you on shifts in attitude. They are, however, notoriously difficult to predict. I don’t particularly give such a shift good odds when it comes to cars….I’m not yet a believer that people will come to embrace the little ducklings of our industry such as the original Insight, the Smart, i MiEV, etc. And even if such an event happens, there will be a general disgust rather than embrace…

You bring up a good point when you mention “disgust.”  I notice that some people sneer at drivers of clean little cars  — as if those of us who care about our world and the well-being of those around us are weak, pathetic, bleeding hearts.  It’s an interesting phenomenon.  And it will be more interesting to see how — or if — this dynamic changes over time. 

But speaking of dynamics, one thing that is evident to anyone who’s every driven an i-MiEV or a Mini E is that they perform like little rocketships.   The Mini E has a 200 HP motor (about the size of a basketball).  With maximum torque at zero RPM, the G-force when you hit the accelerator from a dead stop is absolutely ridiculous.  In my test-drives of both cars, I notice that this creates a kind of fun little dynamic in the minds of both drivers when my little EV blasts past a Corvette or a Porsche.

Tagged with: ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

Photobucket2GreenEnergy associate Bruce Allen supports oil drilling off the coast of California as a means of cleaning up the huge amount of crude and methane that are poured into the ocean every day. But of course, this idea is counter-intuitive, insofar as most environmentalists work against the idea of any and all drilling.

Bruce is one of the world’s leading experts on this matter, as has spent a great deal of time in Washington DC, testifying in front of Congress, and speaking to large groups of interested people. Here’s a clip.

Tagged with: , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketI was just editing my book’s chapter on media, which features an interview with Sustainable Business’s Rona Fried, which made me think about sustainable agriculture — one of her favorite subjects. No sooner had a saved the file did I note an email from another person I respect greatly, Tom Blakeslee, discussing the same subject.

Tom writes:

I’m flying to Denver Saturday to be with Abe Collins, who is starting a company to sequester carbon by rehabilitating degraded land by grazing cattle on it. Here is the site of a charity spreading the word about the method, called holistic management. It turns out that undoing the damage man has done to the land is by far the cheapest way to sequester carbon quickly. The carbon is in the biotic community that we have poisoned with nitrogen fertilizers and other bad farming methods, particularly since the “green revolution.” They have a 3-D computerized way to guide people through the process created by Alan Savory, whose son is on the staff.

This is quite powerful stuff; I urge everyone to come up to speed on the latest technologies here. Here’s Tom’s latest column on the subject.

Tagged with: , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

If there is contract enforcement and money to do a Green Energy project in Turkey or Mali, it makes good financial sense to do it. Of course, as an American, it is more than embarrassing to have a government reluctant to act, and a system with disincentives in its corporate tax structure and patent laws. The patent law issue is separate, but it makes a lot of sense to get that law changed to promote innovation without hindrance. And the government should not use corporations to raise revenue. Corporations should simply pay those fees which compensates public action on their behalf, including infrastructure, security (including courts), and whatever environmental cleanup costs there are, if any. But these are political matters, which should not be relevant to immediate business decisions. But the current situation in the USA is that the most rational business decisions will be about projects in Turkey or Mali.

Tagged with: ,