Home › Blog › Page 1675

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketI’d like to introduce readers to Mike Austin, an extremely active proponent of eco-friendliness whom I met through a friend recently. In a phone call the other day, Mike explained how outrageous he finds the United States’ approach to the COP-15 summit in Copenhagen commencing in a few weeks. In particular, he points out that, given the fact that we live in an ostensible representative democracy, it’s strange (to use a charitable term) that there is no publically available information on our delegation, the players and their strategies. He writes, “Given our world’s precarious future, in a model democracy which is meant to be transparent, I find it especially curious that no one I’ve found in the last few days really knows what’s going on. I’d prefer to think it’s not business as usual for America but I’ve now my doubts.”

For those of you who may not have come across it, Mike’s Blue Planet Almanac is a wonderful resource. The first thing I notice about the site, of course, is the incredible breadth of content and the way it’s so thoughtfully presented. But I’m really taken by the technology too. Mike: that’s quite an array of audio, video and social media. It would take me about 50 years to learn how to do that myself. Keep up the good work.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

In marketing, the idea of “positioning” is rooted in the notion that we have space in our minds for precious few ideas, and we tend to associate the people, the products, and the companies in our lives with single concepts. And so it is with Audubon. When I spoke with Delta Willis, the organization’s bright and passionate Senior Communications Manager just now, we both lamented that people think only of birds when they think of Audubon — yet the group is involved in the protection of so much more.

A current project, for instance – one that will require decades to complete, is the rebuilding of the wetlands around New Orleans – and then working all the way north up the Mississippi River to its source.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of our conversation dealt with the delicate issue of the environmental impact of renewable energy plants. Of course, this is highly ironic, considering the incalculable damage that the mining and consumption of fossil fuels have wreaked. It really is paradoxical to consider that efforts to stop poisoning our skies and oceans sometimes meet resistance from environmentalists.

Yet there truly are important issues to be considered. Take, for instance, the location of wind farms in northern Wyoming. It is true that Wyoming has already been badly damaged by oil and gas exploration and that establishing wind farms and the power lines necessary to transport the electricity will do even more harm to the sage grasslands where the animals in Yellowstone spend their winters. And it’s true that there are areas in which the human footprint is already much larger in which these wind farms would do less ecological damage.

But surely we need flexibility.  I pointed out the obvious:  “If we all dig our heels in about making zero impact with our solar thermal and wind farms, we’re playing right into the hands of big coal and oil.” Well, I’m happy to report that Audubon agrees. I ask readers to go through some of the really thoughtful articles and position statements on their website.  I was gratified to see that the people at Audubon speak the language of compromise.

And let me point out that they do more than talk: they study. Using Google Earth, they’ve focused intense amounts of research on the subject, and offer maps where wind farms are most recommended.

Folks, on behalf of all the animals — on land and in the air — whose habitat you help protect — thank you.

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

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketThe mission of the World Wildlife Fund is to “Speak up for those who can’t speak for themselves.” And certainly that’s the idea — standing up for biodiversity — that most of us conjure when we call the WWF to mind.

What most of us probably do not think of, however, is the passion with which this wonderful group embraces the issue of climate change. And I’m not sure of the reason for this gap in understanding. Perhaps it’s that when most of us think of the glaciers melting, the ocean levels rising, and storms rising to new record levels of destruction, we think of the human misery, and neglect the thousands of species whose habitat – and thus whose entire populations – will be wiped out in fairly short order.

To change this perception, the WWF’s Joe Pouliot, a hearty and dedicated young man, called upon me to urge readers to check out “Act For Our Future,” a robust section of the organization’s website that is focused on getting people by the thousands involved with climate change legislation. When you visit the site, you’ll notice that the intro video is warm and inviting. Any intimidation or fear of calling one’s senators and petitioning them for action is gently but effectively removed. And every aspect of social media from Twitter to FaceBook to blogging is addressed in an easy, engaging way.

Ironically, I was considering asking my web-guru partner at 2GreenEnergy what he thought about building all this functionality on our site (and I still may entertain the idea). But I really don’t know how we can top the WWF in terms of calling for action. Great job.

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Nuclear

PhotobucketA colleague sent me an article that starts: “A nuclear renaissance needs government funding to move ahead,” and then goes on to extol the virtues of this horrifically dangerous and expensive technology.  (If you’re interested in reading it, you’ll have to find it with a search engine; I don’t want to empower it with backlinks.) I responded:

How utterly nauseating.  As Paul Scott (VP at Plug-In America) said in response to a question I asked him during the panel discussion I moderated at the AltCarExpo a few weeks ago, “Prepare yourself for a steady onslaught of lies from the nuclear and fossil fuel people.  If you thought it was bad in the 1990s with the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate, you ain’t seen nothing compared to what they’re about to throw against EVs and renewable energy in the next couple of years.”

Of course, this is an excellent example.  “Needs government funding?”  You bet your sweet $%^ is does.  Help will come only from people who have been paid off handsomely; the idea certainly will receive identically zero support from a fair-minded and informed citizenry.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketGuest Blogger Mike Brace comments on an article called “A nuclear renaissance needs government funding to move ahead.”

This is full-on garbage, written in a deliberate attempt to mislead readers. If you want to find it, use Google, as I don’t want to empower this evil cause by linking to it.

Principally, there are two things in this article that defy logic; one is plain as day: the author lists the cost as $10 billion for a 5,400 MW plant. That’s $1,800/kw. Not even coal is that cheap anymore. The last and best estimates by the DoE has nuclear at about $10K/kW.

The other lie here — this one a bit better hidden — is that large scale power generation no longer enjoys the economy of scale that it once did. In today’s economy it is seldom cheaper to go bigger unless you are at the lines in McDonalds. Large power plants lose that argument every time they stack up against localized power distribution. (This, btw, is what killed T. Boone Pickens’ plan, too).

Tagged with:

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

In my mind, one of the most important chapters in my upcoming book on renewable energy is what I refer to as the Watchdog. There is so much pressure brought to bear on public policy by the big oil and coal companies that we’re very lucky to have advocacy groups that fight hard on behalf of the public interest.

For instance, what happened behind the scenes leading up to the Bureau of Land Management’s opening up a chuck of land for oil drilling? Was there an effort to circumvent the legal, democratic process? In many cases, the answer, sadly, is yes.

So then what happens? The answer is that the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) goes after them with its own lawyers.

In this chapter, an NRDC spokesperson will speak candidly about this brave organization’s victories, its defeats, and the greatest challenges it faces in the coming years.

Tagged with: , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

Last week, President Obama, as part of the Recovery Act, announced the dedication of $3.4 billion to further advancing smart grid development. This, of course, is good news for renewables in many different ways.

Smart grid technology facilitates integrated renewables into the mix, enabling solar, wind, etc. to replace a larger overall portion of our energy needs.

All grid improvements bring us closer to the day when high-voltage direct current (HVDC) removes the importance of the geographic location of the source of the power. Considering that we have solar thermal on the southwest, wind in the plains, geothermal in the mountains, and hydrokinetics mainly in the east, this is critical to our cause.

I’m happy to see the degree that the stimulus package is aimed at cleantech, and hope that millions of jobs will be created in this sector in the coming few years. I would like to think that the decision-making process re: the exact allocation of grants is as clean as the projects themselves – but that’s another matter.

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

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

I urge readers to go through this excellent article explaining the costs of various means of generating electrical power.  This is a wonderful presentation of the most important ingredients in the calculus that we would like to think our leaders employ in establishing public energy policy.

To present a few of the basics on electric power:

  • The availability of renewables fluctuates during each 24-hour cycle, and thus it’s normally assumed that they are inappropriate for providing baseload power.
  • The cost of building the plant is independent of the cost of the fuel to operate the plant.
  • Where solar and wind can be switched on and off in seconds, fossil fuel and nuclear plants cannot.
  • The cost of pollution needs to be included in the calculations.

While I don’t dispute any of this, there are important aspects of the discussion that I feel need to be brought forward:

• The reason that we believe renewables cannnot provide baseload power is not intrinsic to the generation method per se, but to our perceived inablility to store energy inexpensively. However, molten salt technology, which stores energy as heat and coverts it to electricity on demand, is a proven method of removing this objection. I urge readers to note the work of Ausra, the US leading solar thermal company, based in Northern California. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. David Mills, the company’s founder, in preparation for my book on renewables.

• The actual cost of building these plants is almost never anywhere near the projected budget.  Readers may want to Google “nuclear plant cost overrun,” and read a few of the 54,700 articles they’ll find on the subject. Here’s one that refers to a certain nuclear project as “satanic,” based on the actual amount of the overrun ($6.66 billion). The Florida utility, FPL Group, now estimates the cost of building a new nuclear power plant at over $9 billion, nearly double their previous estimate.

• The nuclear industry and its lobbies have carefully confused us about the costs and safety of shipping and storing nuclear waste, which remains dangerous for as long as one million years.

• As noted, the author of the article above mentions the cost of the pollution, but does not suggest any real way of quantifying it. While I’ll grant that this is not a straightforward issue, it’s really crux of the matter.

As I’ve written many times in the past, if the price we pay per kilowatt-hour of electricity (or for a gallon of gasoline) included the cost of addressing the lung disease and long-term environmental damage to our skies and oceans, the math would be changed completely. Society’s desire to continue to mine, process, ship and burn coal and oil would be gone in the blink of an eye.

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

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

I was just advising a friend on the development of a cogent business plan by which his energy storage invention can for monetized, emphasized in my 25 Tips for Renewable Energy Businesses.  I reminded him of these five central points:

  • Demonstrate an ironclad understanding of key industry trends.
  • Lay out an effective and efficient marketing plan.
  • Articulate your precise positioning statement vis-à-vis your most important competitors.
  • Present a credible cash flow projection based on realistic sales projections and cash burn-rates.
  • Show investors a full ROI analysis and exit strategy.

It’s funny to me how often I encounter the “build it and they will come” approach to business.  As a marketing guy, I’ve been vigorously recommending against this tack for decades — and nowadays, of course, I feel even more strongly about the matter.  Investors want to see a clear and compelling business strategy by which an idea can fill a gaping unmet need in a well identified target market — and do so profitably. 

Again, I’m happy to review any cleantech business plan with no cost or obligation, and provide high-level comment.

Tagged with: , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

PhotobucketI come across a great number of business plans each week, each soliciting investment in some aspect of clean technology — usually electric transportation or some form of renewable energy.  And in near every case, I find that a “second set of eyes” should review the text before it goes out to potential angel investors or venture capitalists. Almost without exception, I come across typos and grammatical errors that should be fixed — sometimes dozens of them. See my “25 Tips for Renewable Energy Businesses” for more on this.

I hope I can say this without offending anyone. At the base of it all, I’m really a professional writer by trade (direct mail copy-writing, blogging, research reports, etc.) and I know when I reread my own material I find outright errors — and, maybe more commonly, things that could be presented more clearly and professionally. (By the way, I don’t have these posts proofread, and I have no doubt that there are mistakes that get by; as a reader, I hope you won’t be shy about commenting when you come across errors.)

In addition, of course, business plan authors would be well-advised to request a second opinion on content: market trends analysis, sales and marketing plans, cash-flow analysis, etc.  I can tell instantly that many of the plans I see will never receive funding (or at least should never) due to a core misunderstanding of the marketplace. 

In any case, I’m happy to review any cleantech business plan with no cost or obligation, and provide high-level comment.

Tagged with: ,