Photo Credit: Jim Tetro
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (10) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
3 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
August 26, 2009

Green Tech Brightens

by Ken Silverstein, Editor-in-Chief, EnergyBiz Insider
Washington, D.C. United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com]

Americans have been given a respite from the constant dribble of bad news. And so have the country's entrepreneurs. As the nation's gross domestic product is stabilizing, investment in start-ups is considerably picking up.

"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

It's due in part to more optimism about what the future holds. It's also because of the massive government stimulus plan passed early this year. That package was enacted to not just to stop the bleeding of the country's collective wealth but also to spawn the next-generation of technologies and jobs, specifically those centered on green energy and innovation. And according to the President's men and women, it is working.

"Six months ago, when the President took office, we were talking about whether recession would become depression," said Larry Summers, a top economic adviser to President Obama, in an appearance on Face the Nation. "Today we are talking about when the recession is going to end."

According to Ernst & Young, clean technology investment during the second quarter of 2009 increased by 73 percent in terms of capital to $572 million compared with the first quarter of the year. Altogether, there were 48 rounds of financing. About $157 million of that went into clean generation with solar deals getting 26 percent of that money. Technologies to promote energy efficiency got $152 million of that.

The solar results were driven by deals such as the $25 million, first-round investment in Skyline Solar, which was led by New Enterprise Associates, says the global consulting firm. It adds that investments in energy efficiency were helped in large part by a $30 million foray in the residential smart grid company Tendril headquartered in Boulder, Colo. This investment was led by VantagePoint Venture Partners and has since followed with a partnership with General Electric to enable smart appliances to communicate over metering and broadband networks.

Government support is now playing an influential role in the growth of the U.S. clean-tech market. For example, the United States Department of Energy released more than $47 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to accelerate the completion of eight smart grid demonstration projects in seven states. Beyond that, the stimulus plan provides $83 billion to clean technology investments and $6 billion to loan guarantees to shovel-ready projects.

"The quarterly uptick reflects investor confidence in the ability of clean-tech companies to capitalize on market opportunities," says Joe Muscat, director of clean-tech for Ernst & Young, Americas. "While enacted and anticipated government actions have helped bolster confidence and catalyze new capital, we believe that leading clean-tech companies will be defined by their ability to execute on business plans ..."

Healing Markets

To be sure, the nation has a long way to go before it completely recuperates. To keep the country humming along after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Federal Reserve Board reduced interest rates, which subsequently began a massive borrowing binge. Easy credit led to bad loans that were then sold on secondary markets to unsuspecting investors.

The financial toll resulting from those toxic assets has led the nation and ultimately the world into recession — one that has lasted 18 months and which has led to severe downturns in gross domestic product. That's why even the President's advisors acknowledge that while the worst is over, the best is still a long way off.

The culmination of the current recession is best seen in the venture capital numbers: The second quarter of 2008 was among the finest ever for the sector. But the second quarter of 2009 — despite it being considerably brighter than the dreary first three months of the year — attracted far less capital compared to the same time one year earlier. About 59 percent less investment was raised during this time span, says Ernst & Young.

Despite the overall drubbing that the economy has taken, the consulting firm says that the nation is in for better times. It credits not just improved investor confidence but also the change in legislative tone that is intended to attract risk takers to green energy. Other indicators point in the same direction, including the Silicon Venture Capital Confidence Index that has risen to 3.37 on a 5-point scale. By contrast, in the fourth quarter of 2008, it had its worst score in five years.

"Venture capitalists expect that the worst of the financial crisis is behind us," writes Mark Cannice, a professor at the University of San Francisco, in a report in which he interviewed the area's risk takers. "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."

He goes on to say that while innovation is a natural outflow of the human condition, money is what enables such ideas to move forward. As the capital markets begin to heal, resurgence in newer and greener tools will start to foment.

In a typical setting, entrepreneurial businesses would start by raising venture capital before they would try to access established debt and equity markets. But the credit crisis has changed all that. That's why the administration and its supporters of the stimulus measure have argued that government had no choice but to step in, guarantee credit and provide federal dollars. The twin goals were to avert depression and to inspire business leaders to innovate.

The nation's arduous economic woes appear to be ending. And while a robust recovery is far off, entrepreneurs and their financial backers are positioning themselves in an effort to try and usher in the next wave of clean technologies.

Ken Silverstein is an award-winning journalist who is the editor-in-chief of Energy Central's publication, EnergyBiz Insider. With a background in economics and public policy, he has spent several years writing about the issues that touch the energy and financial sectors, and his work has been published in more than 100 periodicals.

Republished with permission from CyberTech, Inc. EnergyBiz Insider is published three days a week by Energy Central. For more information about Energy Central, or to subscribe to EnergyBiz Insider, other e-newsletters and EnergyBiz magazine, please go to http://www.energycentral.com/.

Image Gallery (1)
 
Reader Comments (10)
 
No image available
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 1 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 2 of 10
No image available
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 3 of 10
No image available
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 4 of 10
No image available
August 26, 2009
America will soon be broke because it has a bunch of people like Ben who have no facts to debate.
Comment 5 of 10
No image available
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 6 of 10
No image available
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 7 of 10
No image available
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 8 of 10
No image available
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 9 of 10
No image available
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?
Comment 10 of 10
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
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Bella Energy Solar Living Institute Suntech Power Holdings Solarfun Clayton Power National Hydropower Association
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo