Innovation Drives Policy Drives Innovation. But No Chicken or Egg Without a Benefactor

I agree that the U.S. government is the single biggest investor, but I think the private sector is right behind. Q3 venture capital investments in cleantech were up 45% last quarter to almost a billion dollars ($965 million). I'd say that it's coming from Wall Street, Silicon Valley and Sand Hills Road, for sure!

Great numbers, thanks for bringing them to my attention. I think you have to give a lot of credit to the stimulus investment of $11 Bn for helping spur VC confidence in the sector.

From a political perspective, if tonight's elections are any solid indication of what has been CW, the WH and the Dems are not doing enough to connect those dots for the American people: i.e., stimulus investment in CT bridged the gap and restored confidence and brought private capital back.

The overwhelming smoothness of the campaign has been absent as the governing has begun, and just in these past few weeks, there have been inexplicable new slip-ups (Afghan run-off, Gitmo H1N1 vaccine story, and the House Speaker's bills on health care and climate). All of it will have a trickle down effect on energy legislation, and let's hope that VCs are ready to weather another storm (if we are looking at a "W" shape) and stick with clean tech in the face of political slackening.

2009 has been fascinating...sounds crazy, but 2010 is shaping up to be even more interesting!

You're both wrong! Most clean tech innovation is happening in China. US is broke both publicly and privately. Just as well because, with the little money being invested, the US is picking winners and losers with a goal to make sure renewable energy fails for the benefit of its entrenched energy monopoly special interests.

N0V 6 Evergreen leaving for China !

"Battered by the ailing economy, stiff global competition, and plunging prices for solar panels, Evergreen says it may be forced to downsize its new manufacturing plant, at the old Fort Devens Army base northwest of Boston. The company says it expects to burn through most of its $83 million in cash by year-end, and last month it persuaded the state to lend it another $5 million. Its stock, which peaked at nearly $19 per share in late 2007, closed at $1.83 yesterday.

"There are a lot of investors who believe they are not viable in their current form,'' said Christopher Blansett, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. analyst who thinks the company will survive because of its technological edge but may have to cut jobs in Massachusetts to do so. "The stock is trading like it's going to go into bankruptcy.''

The company's challenges underscore the risks the state faces whenever it places a big bet on an emerging industry or firm. While such investments create the tantalizing possibility of luring new companies to Massachusetts and creating high-paying jobs, they also carry enormous risks if the companies fail, wasting taxpayers money and providing little in long-term gains.

Evergreen's struggles are particularly sensitive for the Patrick administration, because the governor made such a personal push for the firm.

Indeed, at a closed-door meeting earlier in March, a state economic development official warned it could be a "PR nightmare'' if Evergreen collapses, according to handwritten records of the meeting obtained by the Globe under a public records request.

Despite the risk, some state economic development and administration officials insist such investments are vital to compete with other states and countries and bring new jobs to Massachusetts."

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/10/17/mass_has_bet_millions_on_evergreen_solar_which_is_now_facing_financial_uncertainty/

Hello from NE Wisconsin:

If this writer had been reading articles relating to projects being installed or the process thereof, he wouldn't be saying that projects are not taking place because of too many entities to get approval. Within the last year, there were memorandum of understanding by on shore government entities and off shore entities to ease the projects through the phase of installation. Some states like Texas has too much generating capacity and too little transmission--which doesn't sound like the case of too many entities to get permits for. If the author read about concentrating solar plants and the need for water for these plants, then water is a constraint.

I think the author needs to be cautious in his generalizations.

Doug Johnson

Doug:

Thanks for reading and commenting. I'm sorry, I cannot see how the question of streamlining permitting can be considered to be based on an over-generalization. In no less a bill than the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the investigation of ways to streamline permitting and approvals on a national basis. That was four years ago...and four years after Cape Wind received its first project approval.

That project was put on further hold today with the announcement of another round of review by the National Register of Historic Places. I think that the Natl Register does important work, but the notion that at this point they should be holding the construction of a renewable energy facility that has been proposed for a decade is a foreboding omen for the prospects of this country transitioning to a greener energy blend. And, we could go around the country and point to similar delays (look just south to Paddock-Rockcdale for an example of a project that has been ongoing for more than 3 years).

As to your Texas example, it was the lack of transmission based on the inability to site new lines that inspired EPAct 2005's "national corridors of interest" study and led to the FERC backstopping rules.

That is to say nothing of the fact that - the polar opposite of a generalization - the Texas example is an outlier. Texas is not connected to the other 47, there has not been a disintegration of the generation and distribution businesses, and it is the largest, most resource-full state vis-a-vis per capita consumption.

Definitely, there are different situations all over the country as a community-by-community case goes. But, largely - as reflected in three currently proposed Senate bills and as passed in Waxman-Markey in the House - the issue of permitting and siting is one of the most obstructive policy-related delays to renewable expansion in the US.

Mike -- not sure if you're on target that its a submarine tactic, but I do think you point out a major issue: wider deployment and integration of renewables is not compatible with every element of our regulatory system and structure.

The commercial wind industry needs to look at what's going on in Massachusetts. We now have a town in Dartmouth where the Chairman of the Alternative Energy Committee is also a wind turbine consultant / specialist and members of the Select Board are on the AEC. This may be legal but how ethical?

The Town of Dartmouth has changed the locations of the wind turbines several times. Meetings to educate the public have been postponed over and over as to make residents around the turbines give up trying to go to the meetings.

Please give us some input on how to solve this problen.Here is a pdf file from Dartmouth:

http://www.town.dartmouth.ma.us/altenergy/WT%20FEARS%20vs%20FACTS.pdf

WIND TURBINE FEARS VERSUS FACTS
Recently the New Bedford Standard-Times reported (9/28/2009) that "75 opponents" to a proposed wind turbine project for the town of Dartmouth DPW facilities showed up at a Select Board meeting and indicated concerns "about noise, a flicker effect caused by the blades of the turbine, their sleep being disturbed and a possible drop in valuations of their homes." Two residents on Chase Road and others claimed "they were never notified about the project."

Here are the facts.

The Alternative Energy Committee (AEC) has been working on this project for over five years. Over that time, two separate bylaws for wind turbines were drawn up, debated in public, discussed at two Town Meetings, and passed unanimously. A DVD was produced and placed in town libraries. A series of three articles on wind power, written by the AEC, was published in the Standard-Times. As the present project evolved through the wind assessment process and preliminary feasibility studies, several public presentations have been given at Select Board meetings and Town Meetings, all televised. A web site was created, linked to the Dartmouth home page, on which all important documents related to the project can be found. Numerous meetings, going back to 2005, of the AEC have been announced and held, but only those over the last few months have drawn the attention of residents, including the aforementioned Chase Road residents. I, as AEC chairman, have spoken on the phone and in person to several residents who live in the vicinity of the project, including the aforementioned Chase Road residents. In short, the AEC has done everything it can to bring this project to the attention of all town residents and anyone else with an interest in alternative energy.

With regard to the expressed concerns, here are the facts which have been determined by the engineering firm, Atlantic Design Engineers (ADE), hired by the town after a unanimously authorization at the June 2009 Town Meeting and displayed in various forms on the AEC web page.

NOISE – The amount of noise that would be contributed by the two 1.65 megawatt turbines above normal ambient sounds – at the boundary of the DPW property closest to residences – is less than the human ear is capable of detecting. The absolute increase in sound level is about 1 decibel on the A-scale. Residences are all located farther away than the property boundary so that the increase in sound at the residences will be even less. Thus no one in their homes or on their property will be able to hear any noise coming from the turbines.

FLICKER – The flicker effect for the project has been studied by ADE and the results can be found on the AEC web page. In short, the worst case of flicker occurs at one particular residence and may result in roughly 20 hours per year of flicker. The effect may be partially or completely eliminated if the residence has trees or shrubs or other buildings that screen the residence from the turbine. There are about 18 other residences that might get between 10 and 19 hours of flicker per year and another 348 residences
that might get between 1 and 9 hours of flicker per year – if the turbines are mounted on 100 meter towers as is currently being recommended. The flicker can only occur either early in the morning just after sunrise (if the residence lies to the west of the turbines), or late in the afternoon just before sunset (if the residence lies to the east). It lasts for only a few minutes on a given day since the earth and the sun are in constant relative motion.

The one residence that theoretically could receive the highest amount of flicker, about 20 hours per year, will average about 10 minutes per day between the hours of 8 and 9 AM from October 25 through February 17. For the rest of the year, no flicker is possible. That residence lies to the northwest of the project site. On the east side of the project, the one residence with the potential for the highest flicker, about 13.5 hours per year, could receive up to about 9 minutes per day between the times of roughly 8:30 and 9:20 PM from May 6 through August 6, and no flicker for the rest of the year.

There is no definitive determination on record as to what is an allowable level of flicker exposure, but one case in Germany found that more than 30 hours per year was unacceptable. In any extreme case should flicker become unbearable, the turbine can be programmed to shut down for the short period of flicker.

SLEEP DISTURBANCE – Given the imperceptible noise generation from the turbines, it is hard to imagine how anyone's sleep could be disturbed by the turbines.

PROPERTY VALUES – The value of one's property is determined by the sales of similar homes in the area. It is impossible to say whether or not someone's property value has been adversely affected by the presence of the wind turbines until home sales demonstrate an impact. If an adverse impact can be shown by sales of similar homes in the area, a home owner could petition the town for a reassessment and might end up paying lower taxes. Even if there is an adverse impact on the value of the property, it will not be realized unless and until an owner sells the property.

In summary, the AEC has been open, thorough, and professional throughout the research and development process. We intend to present to the town a proposal that will save the town of roughly eighteen million dollars over the 20-year life of the project, that will have minimal impact on the environment and neighbors, and that will be a source of pride for all residents of Dartmouth.
.