Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Green Tech Brightens

By Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider
August 26, 2009   |   10 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"While the effects of the financial market disruption on the venture industry will linger for some time, most venture capitalists observed an increasingly determined and talented pool of entrepreneurs and a continuing march of innovation."

-- Mark Cannice, Professor, University of San Francisco
10 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 10
August 26, 2009
Nonsense. Of course, you can stimulate an economy by spending, but if it is on junk, it will leave the country with even more debt. This government Apollo project to build a new age energy industry based on wind, solar and smart grids is all a big fraudulent bubble perpetrated by the venture capital industry (like the dot com bubble). This country is too entrenced with monopolies to effect real change to build a strong economy for the future. The nation needs competitive free markets to build base-load small-hydro, geothermal and biomass cogen.
Comment
2 of 10
August 26, 2009
Mike -- I would argue that the dot com bubble is what created the infrastructure that makes it so quick and easy to read articles on this website. No one likes the negative consequences of bubbles, but they do have dramatic consequences that can benefit societies in previously unimaginable ways....
Comment
3 of 10
August 26, 2009
Stephen, you should read "The Next Bubble" by former venture capitalist Eric Janzsen, who details the economics and motivations behind the dot com, housing and emerging renewable energy bubbles. Essentially America is broke and can only stay afloat by creating one bubble after another, becoming more broke with each bubble. Economies and new technologies should be developed more efficiently by fostering competitive free markets that encourage economic efficiency and reward innovation across all industries simultaneously over a longer, less panicked time frame. Throwing money at a few technologies over a short time period is very risky. The US is needlessly risking its future, for the benefit of fat cat venture capitalists like Al Gore, by mandating unproven technologies, namely windpower, solar and cellulosic ethanol, that will require significant technological breakthroughs with venture capital before cost competitiveness is achieved. Picking winners and losers is bad enough but this is crazy. I'm sure the utility monopolies and Big Oil don't mind since they will have to come to the rescue with fossil and nuclear plants if these pie-in-sky dreams fail. There is just no good reason to block proven renewable energies like small hydro, geothermal and biomass that can act as stepping stone to other renewables later.
Comment
4 of 10
August 26, 2009
bla bla bla...free markets....ho hum....Al Gore is the devil....waah waaah...blocking proven technologies.

Don't worry rational people...soon enough underinformed opinions will be drowned out by their own hysterical rants.
Comment
5 of 10
August 26, 2009
America will soon be broke because it has a bunch of people like Ben who have no facts to debate.
Comment
6 of 10
August 28, 2009
Man! What have you dudes been smoking?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy_and_environment/
What I would like to see is, what the real world manifestation of president Obama's R&R Act is going to look like. Who actualy gets the money and what they are going to spend it on as well as who is going to audit them to insure those people are not spending American taxpayers money on personal benefit as opposed to the benefit of American taxpayers and just who decides what is and is not beneficial. Otherwise, president Obama might as well be standing in front of the White House just throwing those millions of dollars out in the street for all of the good it will do.
In my opinion, they answer is not in making more energy to keep up with demand, which is what renewables wants to see because that sells their products, the answer is in educating America on how to live with less energy.
http://www.energy.gov/organization/dr_steven_chu.htm
The real fight is to reduce, not squabling over the "scraps from the government table" just to stay fat.
In the real world, a typical home occupied by four people should not use anymore electricity than a single common, lighted billboard along an interstate right of way. (Based on 2 - 400 watt MH fixtures burning 10 hrs. per night.) Home scale production of hydrogen should already be replacing LP and Nat. gas. Whats the hold up? Too many people want to get rich from renewable energies. Everybody wants a piece of the pie. There is only such much pie to go around folks. Unless of course you want to hang around the government table and hope they give those monies to sloppy eaters.
http://ottawadogblog.ca/odb-files/2008/04/pugandfrenchfry.jpg
Comment
7 of 10
August 29, 2009
Mike Holly -

I'm a little confused by some of your comments. I read your posts and saw no facts, only comments like "junk", "nonsense", and "crazy." But, we'll look past that! How are solar & wind unproven technologies? I agree with you that ethanol is a lost cause which is energy negative, costly, and overall grossly inefficient.

But, solar & wind? I've got two words for you......come on. These technologies have been used for decades, often subtle or behind-the-scenes, but definitely proven. Have you placed a phone call or used a satellite lately? Remember those little calculators we used growing up which would turn off when we put them back in our desks? FACTS - PV effect found in late 1800's, first modern silicon-based solar cell made in 1950's, and in FACT, solar PV has been the fastest growing energy technology globally, since 2002.

The United States needs to focus not only on the demand-side of the renewable energy industry but also the supply-side. Let's get ourselves further involved with manufacturing these goods as opposed to simply importing container loads. With aggressive adoption of solar (and perhaps wind, although I prefer distributed generation) we can be the catalyst to sustained economic growth & stability. Design, source, build, install, and consume the energy! Employment, profit, and trade opportunities at each stop on the value wheel.

Sorry to burst your "bubble."
Comment
8 of 10
August 30, 2009
I don't know what more Holy than thou Mike has been smokin but I want some. Not so that I would be as delusional as him but just caus I'm out right now. I also want all the fiber for clothing auto body parts and various other industrial uses not to mention those great seeds with all the amino acids essential for the human body's growth.
Thomas your right especially when it comes to conservation. Europe has built more than ten thousand passive houses that consume one tenth the energy of the typical North American home. (That translates into 1/50th the energy of the contemporary look at me monster home we build to pronounce our wealth and display our pathetic insecurity.) North America has yet to build more then a dozen passive houses. The Sweeds are taking it a step further and building homes that produce more energy than they consume.
Mean while up here in Canuckistan the Worlds largest per capita energy consumer is dead last in the G8 to do anything about Global warming thanks to our G.W. wanna be Subprime Minister and his desire to exploit the oil sands (worlds dirtiest oil) so that he can gleefully trade off our enviroment for jobs and in turn his percieved electability.
Reed thanks for pointing out the obvious
Comment
9 of 10
September 14, 2009
Robert Bradley, 16 year Enron veteran, "Wind technologies actually predate fossil fuels and have been experimental and uncompetitive in electricity generation for over a century."

Bradley offers the lesson from Enron:

"Reject political rent-seeking."

"A business can make money via the free-market means of voluntary consumer patronage or via the political means of special governmental favor. The first is the way of capitalism; the second, of political capitalism.

None of the wind or solar projects Enron pushed were economically competitive with its natural gas business. And the energy-efficiency contracts peddled by Enron Energy Services turned out to be a mirage..."

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/06/16/enron-vs-exxon-mobil-polar-approaches-to-energy-and-public-policy/

http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/2008/06/enrons_ghost_ca_1.html

If the wind lobby truly "believes in wind"; the wind lobby will support policy that ties by index any reduction in harmful emissions by wind energy, to wind energy required public subsidies.

Until the wind lobby agrees to support such a measure that would provide the public with assurance that wind energy indeed delivers on the wind lobby promises, in exchange for our money, we are simply tithing the wind religion.

Conservation measures should be our primary focus.

Do you "believe" in Al Gore, Ben?
Comment
10 of 10
September 15, 2009
Barbara,

Are you seriously proposing we judge the merits of the wind power industry based on Enron?? Enron has been gone now for what, 5 years? Oh and in case you missed it, *most* of Enron's balance sheet was a mirage, not just wind and solar projects. There are a number of *existing*, highly professional, serious companies that --unlike Enron-- are focussed on the wind power industry. They include names like Suzlon and Vestas. You've never even heard of those companies, have you Barbara? How about General Electric, which seems to believe in wind power enough to invest heavily in it even though they're already quite successful with fossil-fired power generation.

I've seen now in two of your posts how you propose tying wind power subsidies to reductions harmful emissions. Apparently you don't believe that generating power from the wind produces less emissions than burning natural gas, oil, or coal. Can you explain why you doubt this to be the case? And how exactly would you measure emissions reductions from wind power generation? Do you actually have an idea for how to match wind power subsidies to emissions reductions or do you simply hope to negate those subsidies by tying them to something you hope can't be measured?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Johnson Controls, Inc. Rittal Corporation Richardson RFPD, Inc. Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Rich Hessler Solar Business Development SunWize Technologies HUBER+SUHNER AG
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters