Home › Blog › Page 1673

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketYesterday, I conducted an interview with Dr. V. “Ram” Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution. In the course of the talk, I asked Ram if he would comment on the likely outcome of the upcoming conference in Copenhagen — which he’ll be attending and the world will be anxiously watching.  In particular, I wanted to know if a rational person should hold out hope for any substantive agreements and subsequent changes of behavior with respect to global climate change — arguably the world’s thorniest problem.  Though he didn’t come out and say it, Ram didn’t appear optimistic.

He explained his concern in much the same way we hear the subject reported in the press:  The developing nations say, “You caused the problem; you fix it.” But the developed nations refuse to control emissions if the developing nations refuse to do so as well, as a large and growing contribution to current emissions is coming from these developing nations.  This standoff appears unlikely to resolve itself in Copenhagen — or anytime in the near future.

As always, the full interview will occupy a critically important chapter in my book on renewables. Suffice it to say that Ram, the man who was part of the team that discovered the phenomenon of global climate change in the 1970s, had plenty of insight into this matter — as well as many specific suggestions on renewable energy. 

There is true concern and sadness in his voice. “I’m not concerned about getting attacked by the oil companies,” he said when I asked him about that. “I simply feel sorry for the planet. We’re coming ever closer to the precipice.”

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Energy Storage

In response to my recent piece on solar thermal and molten salt, a reader admonishes:

You assume that “molten” salt is universally available over the entire power grid? Get real!

Apparently, I’m not describing this as clearly as I thought I was. As shown in this diagram on molten salt energy storage these devices wouldn’t need to be universally available over the entire power grid; units are located within solar thermal farms to store energy for distribution back onto the grid during the hours that the sun is not high in the sky. In other words, it’s part of the power generation plant, like a subsystem within a coal or nuclear plant.

Having made that clarification, if you’re referring to the expense of the migration to renewables in general — or to molten salt energy storage in particular, you have a point; I can’t say that this whole process will be cheap. But I do believe two things:

  • This is the least expensive (and most secure, reliable, and scaleable) alternative, and
  • We literally do not have a choice.

I don’t want to come off as an alarmist, but I do not believe that our civilization with survive the run-up of oil scarcity that it inevitably faces — not to mention the long-term environmental damage associated with consuming 100 million barrels of oil a day — until we run out.

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

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketThe interviews that I am conducting that will eventually form the chapters of my upcoming book on renewables are, by design, on a variety of different topics.  Yet I can’t help noticing that powerful common threads are emerging from the words of a range of different types of professionals speaking on topics that, on the surface, have virtually nothing to do with one another. 

Perhaps the  most obvious example of this lies in the politics behind Big Energy.  Here are a few points of consensus:

  • A “cozy” relationship exists between government regulators and those they ostensibly regulate.
  • This relationship is spawned from the fact that regulators often come from — and later return to — those industries.
  • Political campaigns are financed largely from contributions from the corporate giants whose interests the legislators are asked to regulate, presenting huge and obvious conflicts of interest. 

All of this may sound like “old news” — so obvious that it hardly bears mentioning.  Yet here is a variation on this theme — perhaps more intersting — that actually comes up in our my conversations even more often that this “the fox is guarding the henhouse” discussion above:

The political cycle is two years.  Advocating an idea that does not produce demonstrable results in that time period is political suicide.  Such support has no upside, and will be used by the supporter’s opponents as evidence of stupidity or corruption.  Yet investment in renewable energy — in all its many forms — is long-term (certainly more than two years) by nature.  Throwing money quickly and carelessly at the energy problem without thinking it through is guaranteed to produce failure — including gross inefficiencies, and, ironically, more ecological damage.

And guess who wins when renewable energy projects misfire?  That’s right, it’s the status quo boys, heartlessly pumping their oil, greedily mining their coal, and recklessly splitting their atoms. 

Again, I point to our political machine as the true culprit underlying the horrible environmental effects that the energy industry is wreaking on us.  In particular, if we do not see intense grass roots efforts demanding a total reform of campaign finance law, it appears that we are doomed to sit idle while the last few billion barrels of oil are sucked from our earth and its exhaust fumes dumped into our skies.

I’d love to hear readers’ comments here.

Tagged with: ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketI just spoke with Dr. Greg Mitchell of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, as the basis for my book’s chapter on biofuels.  Dr. Mitchell’s focus is on algae and cyanobacteria (a related photosynthetic, aquatic organism). He generously gave me a solid hour’s worth of proof-points that algae represents a critically important component in finding answers to civilization’s toughest questions on energy and food supply.
 
Biofuels store chemical energy that is ultimately derived from the energy of the sun. This potential energy is carried in carbon bonds that are then oxidized (burned) to produce useful work, e.g., heat energy to warm our buildings or kinetic energy to drive our vehicles. As an alternative to growing plants in sunlight, algae can be fed macronutrients, but the energy in those nutrients comes ultimately from the sun as well. Dr. Mitchell favors algae over other forms of cellulosic biofuels because “small is efficient”; a given amount of biomass in algae contains 10 – 50 times more energy than the same mass of terrestrial plants. About 35% of the mass in algae is converted directly into biofuel, and most of the rest becomes useable food.

As I’ve written in the past, I have been openly skeptical of the wisdom of biofuels, since they themselves are hydrocarbons. Why make and burn more of them if we’re concerned about CO2 in the atmosphere? Dr. Mitchell acknowledged the intuitive merit of this idea (or was just being kind?).  But he points out that there is a lot to like about algae. Here are few points I hadn’t considered. Algae:

  • does not require arable land for production

    •  

  • is irrigated with salt water

    •  

  • can photosynthesize using CO2 that comes from an external and controlled source

Dr. Mitchell showed me that there is enormous promise as this industry develops. The challenge at this point is a combination of the technological and the financial. Right now, in fact, there is indeed no industry — nor should there be, he says, while we take the time to pose and resolve a few basic and vitally important questions, e.g., the exact species to be developed, the methods of production and harvest, and the modes of processing and distribution.

Fascinating stuff.  And more coming soon.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

Photobucket“It’s distinctive without being bizarre.”

This is the description that Plug-In America’s Paul Scott bestowed upon the new Nissan Leaf, a sleek electric vehicle that will be introduced in the US next fall. I finding this telling, as it’s what I’ve advised the industry since I became involved as the VP Marketing at EV World 18 months ago: make the right statement with the design. The Aptera‘s design is cool, but how many people want a car that looks like that?

Understanding and appreciating the psyche of the customer is critical – and I normally like to do this by survey; it’s best when a client places a real value on market research and funds a statistically valid sample of one-on-one interviews that enables me to get my finger on the pulse of the market. Absent that, we have to guess, which is always a bit frightening.  But here, I think we can take a pretty darned good guess.

EV customers want to be noticed, respected, and tacitly yet sincerely thanked for their enlightened contribution to environmental stewardship.

EV customers do not want to be regarded as self-deprecating weirdos, ridiculed for their willingness to throw away all material comforts to protect some species of rare earthworm.

To me, design speaks to this very directly. And I agree with Paul: Nissan has nailed it. Let’s hope that behind this announcement there is full, unflagging commitment to production and distribution, and that we’re standing at the dawn of a new era of electric transportation.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

PhotobucketThis week’s news in electric transportation calls to mind the auto companies’ deceit a decade ago with California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle mandate.   According to the Automotive News, Chrysler has disbanded the engineering team that was working to bring three electric models to market as a rush job. This program, of course, was the basis on which they got every man, woman and child in the United States to bail them out with $12.5 billion in taxpayer money. And I suppose we have to add in the $70 million in grants that Chrysler took from the U.S. DoE to develop a test fleet of 220 hybrid pickup trucks and minivans — vehicles that are now scrapped as well.

I was speaking with my friend Bill Moore (of EV World fame) just now about how cheesed off we should all be by this. I mentioned that $12.5 billion is quite a heist. “Isn’t that one of the biggest burglaries in history?” I asked. “Yes,” Bill said. “But they’re too big to arrest.” 

Jay Leno, move over.

Tagged with: , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketI must say that the process of interviewing subject-matter experts for my book on renewables is perfect for my temperment as a writer. I don’t aspire to be an authority on any one subject within the framework of renewable energy, but I certainly aspire to grasp fully the fundamental issues at stake in each, and to be able to learn from a good, engaging conversation. Thus it is with joy in my heart that I’ll be headed for the Scripps Institution of Oceanography next week for my interview with Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan. I’ll be speaking with a man, affectionately known as “Ram,” who is perhaps the most well-respected scientist on the subject of global climate change. In fact, his assistant told me that he is credited with discovering the phenomenon, correctly predicting in the early 1970s that there would be a measurable increase in the planet’s temperature by 1980. Unless something unforeseen takes place, the full transcript of the interview will occupy an important chapter.

In any case, the process of preparing for these interviews forces me to read and digest short but pithy articles like this one, and to familiarize myself with the nomenclature associated with the key issues. For instance, we all recall from Al Gore’s movie the cooling phenomenon of certain pollutants, which, when they are removed from the atmosphere, will actually increase global warming. This is known as AMGW, or aerosol mask global warming. Of course, there are dozens of such concepts into which to sink one’s teeth. I would say this would be unbridled fun, if it weren’t for the tragic circumstances and the severity of the consequences.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketI want to make sure my book on renewables contains a robust chapter on the moral standards to which we need to hold our corporates; I’ve tentatively named this section “Corporate America – Managing Both Profits and Ethics.” I’m delighted to report that the Josephson Institute for Ethics will be granting me an interview on which I will base my writing. With their hugely influential “Character Counts” program, the Institute has been successful in changing the ethical thinking and behavior of literally millions of people — both children and adults — all over the world; it’s certainly had a profound effect on me personally.

At stake here, of course, is the imperative for our corporations to behave decently, respecting the rights of those of us who are affected directly or indirectly by their decisions and actions. But why is such an institute needed? Isn’t it precisely clear what’s right and wrong? I’m afraid the answer is no.

I don’t believe we need an ethicist to comment on behavior like Beechnut’s selling apple juice that contained 0% apples (only chemicals and water). But many of the decisions faced in the modern business world are not so cut and dried. What should we make of businesses whose products are harmful to society, like fast food? Should that judgement be mitigated if such companies sustain considerable philanthropic efforts elsewhere? Perhaps more to the point, what about oil companies that covertly but aggressively divert our focus on dealing with global warming? What about those that abide by our well-enforced environmental laws in the US, but commit atrocities outside our borders in the (I hope mistaken) belief that they can get away with it?

I hope readers will enjoy this chapter – and, in the meanwhile, visit the Josephson site and learn more about the incredible work these people are performing on a daily basis.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketGiven the realities of our time, most of us are short-term focused – even those in renewable energy R&D. We tend to want to know what can we do NOW to lower our carbon footprint and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. I’m not saying that this thinking is flawed, but occasionally I like to ask questions that attempt to get at the long-term answers as well.

To that end, in preparing my book on renewables, I’ve conducted a few interviews with extremely senior physicists, and asked questions about the theories and experiments in the lab right now that may change the may we power our world 100 years hence.

One such interview was yesterday’s, featuring Martin Perl, Nobel Laureate in particle physics – a man so brimming with warmth and kindness (not to mention overwhelming intelligence) that I really hated to leave when the interview was over. We sat just a few feet from the Stanford Linear Particle Accelerator — a device that speeds up particles – normally electrons – to velocities just under the speed of light – and then subjects them to various conditions, e.g., strong magnetic fields. Suffice it to say that wild things happen under those conditions.

The reason I traveled those 300+ round-trip miles was my belief that:

  1. the point of cutting-edge physics is to understand the ultimate building blocks of the universe,
  2. depending on whom you believe, we as a civilization are somewhat close to achieving that understanding, and
  3. with that understanding will come (somehow) an endless supply of clean energy

But surprise! Dr. Perl’s beliefs are 180 degrees opposed to these points. Summarizing an hour-long conversation, one that was both fascinating and disappointing at the same time, he believes that we’re nowhere close to understanding those building blocks and mechanics of the universe, and, even if we were, there is no indication that clean, useful, and inexpensive energy would ever come as a result. (Having said that, there are some extremely powerful implications of Dr. Perl’s work that will be a true boon to mankind in other areas, e.g., medical science.)

So what’s the take-away from all this for us fans of renewables? I suppose it’s this: If you believe Dr. Perl – and it’s hard not to given his credentials – we’ll have to look elsewhere for a long-term answer to our energy challenge. In a way, I suppose, that ratchets up the pressure to find answers using today’s technology that work within the confines of the law of conservation of energy as we know it. And is that impossible, when the sun bestows 6000 times more energy each day on the earth that all 6.8 billion of us consume? Hardly.

Tagged with: , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

Photobucket
Honda’s Steve Ellis is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject of alternative fuel vehicles and their commercial trajectory.  He happened to be a fellow speaker at last month’s AltCarExpo in Santa Monica, and I’m proud to count him among my friends.  We’ve have had several meetings over the past year or so, from which I’ve learned how much more there is to the subject of fuel cells than most people realize.  In an interview last night, Steve reviewed the subject with me from top to bottom, forming the basis of an important chapter in my book on renewables.

While they were fresh in my mind, I thought I’d note a few of the most interesting highlights from Steve’s presentation:

  • Of those who know anything at all about fuel cells, most have opinions that are based on sources that have made essentially no effort to treat the subject fairly. 

  • It is true that the process by which hydrogen (the “fuel”) is electrolyzed from water and then, in the car, recombined with oxygen to form water is less efficient that the process of storing electrical energy in a battery and converting it to kinetic energy in an electric motor.  However, this is largely missing the point; there are far more important factors that affect fuel cells’ utility in transportation that are normally overlooked.

  • Both types of electric vehicles (fuel cell and battery) offer the potential for completely clean transportation; the issue is how the energy is generated in the first place.

  • Over the past few years, the efficiency of fuel cells has improved faster than the relevant statistics (energy density and cost) of batteries.   

  • Technologies by which drivers can refuel their cars for longer trips will bedevil the battery electric vehicle market for the foreseeable future.  Better Place is not a good fit for the US, and ubiquitous quick-charging is many decades away, if it ever comes at all.  So if you want clean vehicles that can be refueled in a matter of a few minutes (versus many hours), hydrogen is your only answer.

I guess the most memorable moment of the interview was the concept of personal emotion and politics.  Steve is at a loss to understand why people with a sincere devotion to environmental stewardship would manipulate the facts to denegrate a technology that is strategic to moving us in the right direction.  “This is truly strange behavior. Fuel cell advocates don’t try to derail the battery industry.  It’s obvious that both have strengths and weaknesses, and form complementary paths in our journey to clean transportation.”

I guess we’d all like to think that meeting the challenges of reducing our carbon footprint are purely technological, rather than political.  Or — if the challenges in fact do have political components that it’s “the good guys against the bad guys” — and that there is a kind of “brotherly love” among the fans of renewable energy and electric transportation.  But my recent interviews have suggested that this is not the case.  All I can say is what I remind my kids of constantly:  This is not going to be easy.  Let’s not fight among ourselves and make it impossible.  

Tagged with: , ,