Home › Blog › Page 1718

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

PhotobucketA quick comment on California’s governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s presence at the Los Angeles Auto Show. My friend Steve Ellis at Honda, who also spoke, submitted this video to EVWorld.

If you watch the first few minutes, you’ll see great political speechmaking at work. The governor introduced the car companies and the state EPA as if they were friends, working hand in hand to preserve the pristine California skies.

Of course, anyone who knows anything about the last 15 years of the state’s history knows that this is utter tripe. Not that anyone’s asking me to run for office, but this is the very reason I couldn’t get elected dogcatcher: I simply wouldn’t be able to pronounce a statement as patently absurd as this.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Hydrokinetics

PhotobucketWe’ve seen a marked increase in the attention — and the funding — given to hydrokinetically-generated energy by the Obama Administration’s Department of Energy. Personally, I’m gratified by this; until recently, I had been concerned that this subject was being badly neglected; I’m glad to see this turnaround.

I happened to be working on my book on renewables yesterday, and had the good fortune to knock out the chapter on hydrokinetics, which is based on a talk with Dr. Brian Polagye at the University of Washington. Brian is part of the DoE’s Northwest National Marine Energy Research Center for Tidal Energy; I was referred to him by an expert on the subject at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) who told me, “In my opinion, Dr. Polagye is the nation’s leading researcher on hydrokinetic energy.” Good enough for me!

A few highlights:

I think – or I guess I should say I thought – of hydrokinetic energy as being essentially constant. The sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day, but rivers never stop flowing. Yet there are significant variations in the extractable power from flowing rivers. As I suppose I should have surmised, rivers, based on rainfall as they are, experience significant seasonal variations. And tidal currents, of course, have periods of relative calm in cycles during the day. So there is nothing unique about hydro as a renewable source from this perspective.

As I noted in the white paper I wrote on the subject last summer, those wishing to submerge power generating devices in the rivers or oceans — in the US, at least — face a considerable battle in terms of regulation. As an advocate for renewables, that rankles me — yet Brian helped me put this in perspective. According to what he told me, the DoE is far more involved in expediting approval for such projects now than they were when the original devices were developed — but it’s still not easy – nor should it be. “If both sides aren’t screaming, regulators probably aren’t doing their job,” he said. “Environmentalists should probably be concerned that regulators aren’t sufficiently aggressive in protecting aquatic ecosystems, and entrepreneurs in power companies should be yelling that regulators are too sheltering and too slow to grant approvals.”

When I asked for an example to illustrate the point, Brian replied, “Easy. I’m up here in Puget Sound. If I have a turbine in the water and an orca washes up with its belly cut open – even if that was really caused by a ship’s propeller, it would set this operation back a decade – if it wouldn’t kill it completely.”

For my money, the real issue with hydro is scale. The theoretical limit to the amount of hydrokinetic energy that can be generated in our rivers, for instance, is the potential energy of the water in the first place, i.e., the weight of that water times the vertical distance it will fall. That is, by reports I’ve seen, insufficient to generate more that a few percent of North America’s power needs. “That may be true on a continental basis,” Dr. Polagye agrees. “But on a regional basis, hydro can make an extremely significant contribution.”

Fascinating stuff. My sincere thanks to Brian for his time, and for the dedication that he and so many others make to such a wonderful cause.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketWriting about the political process, Bob Goldschmidt notes:

The system will never allow campaign finance reform or term limits. However there is a way — individual contributions made to move election results.

It’s interesting that you say this. I personally never contribute to campaigns; I don’t even ask the IRS to send along $2 for me. If I were king of the world, I would reform the election process so dramatically that it would have virtually no resemblance to its current form.  My very first action would be to abolish corporate lobbying.  10 minutes later, I would make political advertising illegal, and force the media to cover all candidates equally and neutrally. 

Frequent guest blogger Dan Conine says, “The people are somnambulant ‘consumers’ who couldn’t care less who lives or dies as long as there are Cheez Doodles on the shelves at WalMart and gas to go get them.” Sadly, this is 100% true — and I can’t change that.  But at least with this reform, these somnambulists would occasionally be bumping into the truth — versus the corporate-controlled garbage that they’re currenly being fed.

Tagged with: ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketA couple other thoughts on the global warming (GW) “debate.” In the interview that I conducted with eminent physicist Bruce Allen for my book on renewables, he pointed out that there are numerous climatologists who do not support the anthropogenic GW theory but who have not published their ideas for fear of ridicule or reprisal. He claims that once this is taken into account, there is a healthy number (though still a minority, he admits) of skeptics in the ranks of serious scientists.

For the record, Bruce isn’t claiming that GW doesn’t exist; his real beef is that scientists who don’t toe the line on this subject are being suppressed, i.e., that politics is superceding science. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this, and if it’s true, of course I agree that this is unacceptable. Again, we seem to see simple corruption at work. Just like the oil companies have bought favoritism for fossil fuels, anyone can see that there is the potential for corruption here. No GW problem = no money to fix it.

Having said all this, my response is unchanged from my earlier post on the subject:

The only real issue is the level of certainty with which accept the theory. Are we “100% sure” or “sure beyond a reasonable doubt” that human activity is causing GW? Perhaps not. But do we really need to be? If the majority of the oncologists examining me told me that I had early stage cancer and a prompt operation would save my life—even if a minority weren’t sure—I’d have the operation every day of the week.

Tagged with: , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketIf you’ve seen this video titled “United Breaks Guitars” you’re certainly not alone; in fact, you’re only one of over 6.2 million.  It was created by a musician whose $3500 guitar was damaged when thrown by United baggage handlers (people in the plane saw it happening).  The artist tried for nine months to get United to pay for damages, but United said no — so he vowed to make videos to tell consumers what happened.     

Here’s what’s not in the video: a close friend of mine recently met someone in the airline industry. He said the economic and PR impact of this video was incredibly severe; when this video went viral, United Airlines was losing 10,000 bookings per hour.  The senior team considered convening an emergency board meeting to discuss the crisis. 

I bring this up to remind us all of the power of the consumer voice. 

Never think for a moment that you have no power to change the course of corporate or governmental misbehavior.   Remember what Henry Kissinger recently told the world: “If it weren’t for the broad and vocal opposition to the War in Vietnam, we’d still be there” (emphasis added).  Every voice makes a difference.

Tagged with: , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Science

PhotobucketI thought I’d write a quick post on the “debate” over global warming.  Perhaps the first thing to note here is that there really are very few informed people actually debating.  Of scientists covering the issue who publish peer-reviewed papers, there are very few who question the concept that human activity is raising the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which have caused — and will continue to cause — a rise in the temperature at the earth’s surface. I’ve met many of these people personally, e.g., Dr. Ramanathan at Scripps, and they’re enormously convincing.

Out of fairness, here’s a rare dissenter.

I point out three things:

1) As discussed here, the oil companies have spent a fortune creating doubt in the public’s mind about the validity of concern for global warming.  With a brazen lack of regard for the truth and a callous indifference to your health and safety that rivals that of the tobacco companies, they’ve funded sham “research” companies whose sole purpose is to build a cloud of uncertainly regarding global warming.  There’s no debate about that.

Now is it possible that, again out of fairness, those who stand to profit from global warming mitigation are campaigning in the opposite direction? I suppose so.

2) But even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, no one is saying that it isn’t likely. Is it sane to risk inaction that could result in complete ecological, social, and economic catastrophe?

Here is a video that I think everyone on this planet should watch, that offers cogent reasoning that mankind should take action to deal with the possibility that most climatologists are correct in their theories.

3) Again, even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be incorrect, even fewer scientists doubt that increased CO2 levels are lowering the pH of the oceans, causing long-term damage to the fragile ecosystems therein.

I would think that this would make it intensely difficult to argue against controlling carbon emissions. But hey, I’ve seen incredible behavior from people where money is concerned before. Why should I think it will suddenly cease now?

“The debate” continues here.

Tagged with: , , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

PhotobucketMy colleague Bill Moore of EV World wrote an excellent article on the likely trajectory for the price of cars and trucks.  In it, he speculated that the prices of electric vehicles (once they are introduced in production quantities) may actually fall steadily, much like the price of consumer electronics — and that this will represent a first-ever event in automotive history.

I agree.  In fact, I’m quite certain that we’ll see this effect, as it’s essentially guaranteed by Moore’s Law – (named for Intel co-founder Gordon Moore — no relation to Bill — the idea that the sophistication of technology rises and its price falls exponentially over time).

I’m also sure we’ll see this same phenomenon at work driving down in the price of renewable energy. The cost of energy from the burning of fossil fuels is rooted in its ever-shrinking supply, producing prices increases.  On the other hand, the price of renewables is all about technology: semiconductors, advanced materials science, nanotechnology, etc. — all areas that can only improve as the years go by. 

All we have to do is get over the hump associated with ushering oil and coal off the stage. What do you think it will take to accomplish that, do you suppose?

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Fossil Fuels

PhotobucketHere is a new post on a subject that I think lies at the very crux of the discussion on renewable energy: identifying the true costs of fossil fuels. Yes, the migration to renewable energy is expensive, but it’s the bargain of the century when one honestly and carefully adds up all the costs — obvious and hidden — associated with coal and oil — not to mention nuclear.  As long as we as a civilization live under the delusion that “gas prices are low,” we’re destined to follow irrelevant discussions on the subject of its alternatives.

The most obvious candidates for inclusion in this list of costs are healthcare, global climate change, and ocean acidification.   While no one suggests that quantifying the cost of the damage in any of these categories is easy, I call readers’ attention to this recent article in the New York Times that opens a discussion on the subject, quoting a report from the National Academy of Sciences. The article concentrates on the healthcare issues, and points to a cost of about $120 billion a year in US alone (less than 5% of the world’s population), due largely to the thousands of premature deaths caused by air pollution.

Of course, these figures don’t put a price on the enormity of the human misery associated with these premature deaths — most of which are cancer.  It’s ironic that we’re talking about the cost of treating people who are slowly succumbing to agonizing deaths, while not even mentioning the suffering of the patients — and that of their loved ones. 

To be fair, these costs are even harder to quantify. In a way, one could argue that these are all cases of “wrongful death,” insofar as we actually have the technology at hand to make the move to renewables, but we find it politically infeasible to stop mining coal and pumping oil.  It certain makes one wonder if the energy industry will be facing the same type of class-action lawsuits (not to mention public loathing) that has greeted the tobacco industry over the last half century. 

In any case, articles like this New York Times piece indicate that we’re starting to ask ourselves the right questions.  And as always, that’s a prerequisite to finding the right answers.

Tagged with: , , ,

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

As I’ve noted previously, the eminent venture capitalist Vinod Khosla advises “Since one fails often, address markets that make it worthwhile when one does succeed.” 

This, of course, is solid advice.  But unfortunately, not everyone is a position to swing for the fences; some technologies, while not really transformational, are nonetheless worthwhile and need to be brought to market.   Examples would include marginal improvements in the efficiency of solar panels.   I suppose one could also say that plug-in hybrids fit that description.  When battery energy densities and cost curves advance pass a certain point, fewer and fewer electric vehicle customers will be concerned about extending their range by lugging around big, heavy, and expensive internal combustion engines.   20 years from now, I predict that we’ll regard plug-in hybrids the way we do eight-track tapes or floppy discs today. 

But what a joy it is to promote a technology that really changes the way billions of people live and work.  I happen to be talking to some people who are sitting on what appears to me to be a real game-changer in renewable energy:  relatively inexpensive, unobtrusive, and benign to its local environment. 

Maybe what I like about bringing a technology like this to market is that it’s so easy; there are far fewer errors that can be made along the way.  Thus my advice to them: 

It seems to me that there are only two basic mistakes we can make here:

a) Losing control of the technology; in particular, letting it fall into the hands of someone who suppresses it.  I don’t think I’m being at all paranoid in making this point; the energy industry is rife with examples of this. 

and

b) Waiting for a certain preferred business model to take form, while excellent opportunities for perfectly valid but different business models come and go before us.

The beauty of the energy market is its enormous size — measured in trillions of dollars. In this case, I recommend entering it by “making (this solution) too cheap to steal.” One-tenth of one percent of the market is still billions of dollars.  That will make everyone quite happy, won’t it?  Let’s just go get it.

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

by Craig ShieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

PhotobucketWith the Copenhagen summit occupying so much attention on the international stage, I may as well weigh in with my own viewpoint. In brief:

Obama’s commitment to a 17 percent emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020 is virtually meaningless – even if it actually occurs. It’s a small fraction of what climate scientists have called for in their peer-reviewed studies on global warming. This carefully contrived, last-minute decision to send Obama was made with the proviso that it needed to appear to be a success. The commitment to this meager cut in emissions may be construed as a victory for the White House, but it most certainly is not for the rest of the people who live on this planet.

Having said that, as I’ve written many times before, Obama’s hands are tied. Here’s a man who won a landslide election a year ago, who has no more power than I do to move forward a progressive agenda and make real change. The lobbyists who work for the big energy corporations have an utter stranglehold over him and the entire the legislative process.

If you think I’m exaggerating, look at the healthcare logjam. The vast majority of Americans – and 57% of the physicians who treat them – favor single-payor – and we can’t even get that on the table. Here, the lobbies for the big money in healthcare are so powerful that our representatives are forbidden to even discuss an idea that represents a potential threat.

I honestly wish I could find I way to be optimistic and less cynical about the way in which we govern ourselves — but I can’t.

Tagged with: , ,