The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Monday, May 20, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Wanted: Daring VCs for the Obama Plan

Ucilia Wang, Contributing Editor
February 02, 2011  |  56 Comments

President Obama has pointed to the peak the nation has to summit for a brighter cleaner energy future, but will venture capitalists join the trek?

That is a big question in the current climate where VCs seem, well, deflated about investing in cleantech. Bets on producing solar panels and biofuels are taking so much longer to get any returns. Smart meters are finding foes in some energy regulators and consumers. Electric cars are gaining public attention, but they won’t reach critical mass for a while – maybe 10 percent in the United States by 2020.

“We haven’t seen many new comers in the venture capital space in the last few years. This will have to change if we want things to move forward,” said Gil Forer, global director of cleantech at Ernst & Young, during a panel discussion at an energy conference in Abu Dhabi a few weeks ago. “If you look at exits for VCs, they took three to five years in the 90s; seven years in 2004-05. Now we are talking about nine years plus. Not a lot of VCs can sustain this time frame from investment to exits."

VCs’ willingness to bet on technologies, particularly those in early-stage development, is crucial for achieving goals pinpointed by President Obama in his State of the Union address last week. Obama spoke at length about the importance of nurturing innovation, and he challenged the country to work on getting 80 percent of its supply from cleaner sources by 2035. He also wants to see 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

The government has long funded research that found its way into everyday lives. In hard times, the government is also known to offer cash, loans and tax credits to startups and corporate giants to sustain their technology development efforts and keep people on the payrolls. This largess comes with an expectation that the private sector will match in money and effort. In fact, billions of grants and other incentives that have flowed from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 went to companies that had to provide matching funds and specify how many jobs their projects will create.

But investors’ patience for seeing any return on their investments may be thinning. Cleantech companies, VCs have come to discover, require a much longer gestation period than they had anticipated. Many of the cleantech sectors, from solar to electric vehicles, involve manufacturing and building factories is an expensive and time-consuming undertaking. Plus, Congress’s failure to pass a climate change bill has dampened demand for cleantech, even if energy policies have taken shape, in a hodgepodge fashion, in many states.

“A lack of clear regulatory framework has created a lot of problems and made it hard to bring companies into the conventional VC cycle,” said Ben Cotton, a partner at London-based Earth Capital Partners, during the panel discussion at the conference. “The innovation cycle is getting extended because they can’t find the customers for their technologies.”

In solar, VCs are seeing their portfolio companies – many of thin-film panel makers – struggling to improve their products’ efficiencies and build their first factories while these companies’ already much larger competitors keep expanding their factories quickly.

Vinod Khosla, founder of Khosla Ventures, has become fond of pointing out how two solar companies in his portfolio, Stion and Cogenra, have been able to hit product development or manufacturing milestones without having to line up hundreds of millions in capital. One wonders if Khosla has come to appreciate these companies a lot more after seeing several of his biofuel investments stumbling mightily to overcome technical problems or raise funds to build the first commercial refinery.

In the past two years, government funding has achieved an intended effect of helping the companies attract investors. Just look at which solar companies attracted some of the biggest deals in 2010: Solyndra raised $175 million in convertible promissory notes to build a factory (it won a $535 million federal loan); Abound Solar raised $110 million in equity to build a factory (it closed a federal loan of $400 million); and BrightSource Energy raised $150 million in equity as it was getting ready to build its first solar farm (the government offered it a loan guarantee of $1.37 billion). Public funding helps companies that would otherwise have a hard time raising the capital needed to bring their products to the masses. 

But as Peachtree Capital Advisors noted in its report on 2010 fundraising activities in the United States, the bulk of the money didn’t go to early-stage companies. Why? Because investors were wary of taking chances.

“While advanced-stage funding was a popular theme, new investments proved difficult to obtain as many solar investors — still waiting on results from portfolio companies in which they have invested and continue to invest significant capital — had little appetite to stomach additional solar plays,” according to Peachtree’s report.

The report also noted that bioenergy deals slowed in 2010. The sector attracted $1.4 billion in investments, which counted capital fundraising, initial public offerings and mergers and acquisitions, in 2010, a 27 percent drop from 2009.

While VCs and their limited partners reassess their investment strategies, evidence shows that more corporate VCs have stepped in to support younger companies. General Electric recently formed a joint venture with NRG Energy and ConocoPhillips – the latter two are newcomers in the venture capital investment world. Last week the companies said they had committed $300 million to their VC firm, called Energy Technology Ventures.

The first three companies to get money from Energy Technology Ventures include Alta Devices, the somewhat stealthy company that is developing what appears to be an ultra-thin layer of semiconductor material for converting sunlight into electricity. Another company, CoolPlanetBioFuels, is developing ways to convert cellulosic biomass into fuels and, in the process, produce carbon that can be buried in the soil as fertilizer. 

To kick the innovation engine into high gear, as Obama is calling on the nation to do, we will need VCs who aren’t shy about investing in early efforts to investigate new materials, manufacturing processes and business models. Perhaps the investors will regain their appetite once they see an improved appetite for initial public offerings and more acquisitions. Maybe Congress will pass a climate bill to set a price on carbon (a big maybe). Or, we will have to move the clean energy goal post beyond 2035.

UPDATE: On Feb. 3, the U.S. Department of Energy noted that its early-stage technology funding program, ARPA-E, has given six solar, wind and battery startups a total of $23.6 million, and these companies then attracted more than $100 million in private equity. The DOE didn't specify how much of the private equity was venture capital. In his speech, Obama said he plans to ask Congress for more money to fund startups.

Disclosure: Abu Dhabi government paid for my travel and lodging for the 2011 World Future Energy Summit. 

56 Comments

Register To Comment
Thomas Edward Fairbairn
Thomas Edward Fairbairn
March 6, 2011
Thomas Edward Fairbairn Inventor CEO Fripro Energy.LLC (Ohio)

Rod-Adams-151678 46 of 59 said "I know it comes from better ideas, better plans and economic demand. "Clean, affordable electricity" is the goal and if someone figure that out, there will be plenty of demand".

Good ideas create value and demand. The problem is we haven't seen very many good ideas in RE. Not yet, at least.

Fairbairn continues:My web site www.Fripro.com shows a good idea that you Rod Adams suggests. I use atmosphere compressed air as a fuel with electron beam technology of dissociation, in utilization the foscil fuel now in place cleaned up, though Senergy.
jim douglas
jim douglas
February 16, 2011
I think we should go to Cuba and see how they are living, being the only sustainable country on the planet. Lets face it, we are beyond peak oil and renewables don,t work because it takes more fossil fuel energy than the energy we get out of them. Technology has a deminising rate of return. Lets start VC's looking into how to deal with this. There's money to be made!!
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 10, 2011
@ Jim@
The efficiency of GreenNH3 would be similar to that needed for conversion of CO2 to fuel (WindFuels): a gallon of ammonia has a mass of ~2.58 kg, which means the hydrogen mass is ~455 g. At 80% HHV efficiency (we could assume ammonia synthesis would also use the enthalpy of the gasses), this would require ~19 kWhs of electricity to generate.
Assuming further conversion was able to be sustained at 70% efficiency (I'm being very generous here, just so we don't bicker over numbers), then you will need a total of ~27 kWhs to generate one gallon of NH3.
This is clearly less energy than is needed for a gallon of gasoline. Air is free, and the capital cost for the plant would be ~70% of the capital cost for a WindFuels plant… implying a final cost of ~$0.75/gallon.
That seems pretty good… but current ammonia prices averaged ~$0.59/gallon (~$250/short ton) in 2009.
Wellhead natural gas prices are going to have to average above $5-$6/thousand ft3 for several years before investors would be comfortable building out ammonia synthesis plants.

However, even when ammonia was being traded at $215/ton, no-one discussed the idea of using that as a fuel in an ICE vehicle. A gallon of NH3 has ~16kWhs of energy, ~44% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline. This low energy density would require far larger gas tanks, and much greater mass for the engine, as much greater volumes would be needed in the cylinders. Ammonia is a terribly noxious substance that is gasseous at standard temperatures, so fill-ups would be complicated, as you see with propane, and any leaks would result in people being gassed. The surface area of platinum in the catalytic converters would have to be greatly increased, as the formation of nitric oxides would increase drastically in the combustion process within a vehicle burning ammonia rather than hydrocarbons.
I just don't feel there's any future scenario in which using ammonia for a fuel would be accepted.

Sorry.
Jim Warden
Jim Warden
February 10, 2011
Wind and solar are so much better with GreenNH3 It looks like the only one which will get us past peak. Scientific American 2014.
We want to buy a machine and possibly invest in GreenNH3 They thought they needed VC but what they really need is a company or person to organize investors who are waiting to put in money.If someone that knows how to organize this they should contact GreenNH3
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 9, 2011
Maybe REWorld can ask why a half-dozen Democrats are receiving $244 million in "development fees" for a wind project.

http://texasinstitute.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/12/wind-at-their-backs-powerful-democrats-help-chinese-energy-firm-chase-stimulus-money-.html
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
February 9, 2011
The media need wires plugged into DOE.

If criticising cuts the wires into big money, people with livelihood on the line bite their lips.

Government funders are insulated. Cutting wires leaves a reporter in the cold, while competitors grin and shuffle. Remember Helen Thomas and other notables?

Nonetheless, players know what is going on. Some, conscious of populism, carefully toss out interesting words, like de-coupling, so they will be covered with Plan B if Egypt arrives in the USA.

An unfortunate side effect of legacy-protecting is that good technologies get bad press from poor execution.

Missteps of the highly subsidized fuel the spats that can show up in industry meetings, on the west coast anyway, where eccentricity is expected.

Anybody can criticize recipients who mess up. Nobody tries to suppress this--it would not work, and besides, it can be characterized as tinkering with failure to discover better process, which saves face for everybody, sort of.

I'm not sure what to call this pattern, but if it had a catchy name, it might be easier to call it out and deal with it.

It disadvantages those who have the most incentive to be inventive, but I guess if it inhibits the determined, it makes them stronger, over time?

Legacy-protection leaves small pilots boot-strapped orphans, dependent on under-ground, informal reporters who won't wear suits or clean-up well enough to be welcome or comfortable in marble great rooms.

Little efforts have the potential to grow like kudzu.

Suddenly, they could swallow entire villages and junk yards, at which time, the big guys will say, with by now familiar incredulity, "Nobody saw this coming!"

Then we will get new faces on talk shows, discussing how the tsunami arrived while nobody heard the rumblings, on main streets and rural routes, except the elephants, who ran for the hills.
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 9, 2011
@ Glenn: DOE is not interested in breakthrough technologies. They give grants to friends and politically-connected Developers.

Dr. Chu doesn't have a single investment or program that he can say is effective. Not one. While that may seem odd to many, it isn't really - DOE gives away money and is more interested in "who" receives that money, than what that money is for.

It's a shame that nobody in the RE media holds DOE accountable.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 9, 2011
@ Andrew,

I certainly agree with you. Remember that I AM working on a real solution. But numbers are what they are. The reason wind doesn't work is that they have to curtail so much of it, not because it costs too much. Those turbines that Pickens bought are 1.5 MW, and he's installed 800 of them, and you're correct that he's put in less than $5 billion (and gotten back almost $1.5 B). Do the math, this is very cheap capital.

Some wind farms in regions that are too heavily built-out have to curtail as much as 50% of their energy (this is the case with Pickens). That's why many investments lose money. But we have to look at potential and current market realization separately. If there were a variable off-peak demand to allow for full utilization for wind energy, even at $10/MWh, almost every single wind farm would be highly profitable (especially once the $22/MWh federal subsidy and the local green tags were considered).

We at Doty Energy are enthusiastic about the potential of wind, not its current state, because we are engineering a true solution for grid stability (which of course the DOE is not supporting, because it's wasting its money on CAES, Flywheels, capacitor banks, algae, hydrogen fuel cells, and other complete BS lunacy).
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 8, 2011
@Glenn: I'm no fan of DOE. I think they are mostly clueless. But, I have not seen documentation from any reliable source that confirms your numbers. I have also invested in several wind farms during the last 10 years and they are all losers. Boone Pickens cancelled a huge $12 billion wind farm for Texas because "the numbers didn't work." Those are his words and he made that decision AFTER purchasing 2,000 GE (Chinese made) wind turbines for a cost of $5 billion. He is still trying to sell them.

Your analysis of wind fails to recognize doldrums, storage and transmission costs. While wind may have some promise as a "supplement" to our energy needs, it isn't reliable enough to solve our energy needs without a ridiculous amount of investment. Solar is worse.

This article wanted "daring VCs for Obama's 2035 Plan," but it isn't a Plan - it is a bunch of glittering generalities. We need meaningful specifics. Something that you'd find in an actual Plan.

Despite DOE's waste of billions of dollars, I continue to believe there is an elusive solution ... somewhere. We should be looking for it. We should place a bounty of "clean, affordable electricity." The sooner we do that, the sooner we'll find it. Right now, we're not looking. We're expecting DOE or "VCs" to find it. They've had 40 years. It's time for a new strategy.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 8, 2011
Andrew -

That may very well have been a publication from the DOE, but it is blatantly dishonest in any possible interpretation concerning wind energy.

As to why the DOE chose to publish something that works out to essentially a hatchet job against wind, that is a question you'll have to take up with them.

The government gives renewable investment platforms an upfront 30% cash refund for large projects... This is one of the provisions of the stimulus package that you are certainly aware of and are probably not fond of. However, due to that provision, we can finally get an absolute dollar figure on every qualified renewable project within the last 2 years. Period.

We know EXACTLY how much each project cost, total, by simply extrapolating backwards from the cash they received from the stimulus money.

The most expensive wind project in the last 2 years cost $2.20/W (built on a ridge-line in Maine). The cheapest wind project cost $1.51/W, and the average cost $1.80/W.

Since the table you linked to gives the capacity factor (34.4%), and we know wind will last well over 35 years, at $1.80/W and 7.5% discount rate; the capital cost for wind should be $48.3/MWh. The table you linked to shows a $130.5/MWh capital cost, which is complete bullshit. It's beyond bullshit, it's a blatant lie foisted off by a fraudulent hack that is trying to undermine the wind industry.

This shows the complete lack of oversight and review within the DOE (and the total incompetence inherent in its structure), but in order to trust that piece of trash you linked to you'd have to assume that investments in wind, and wind alone, have a discount rate of ~22%, while other renewable options have discount rates below 10% (and curiously off-shore wind has a discount rate below 10%).

Remember Andrew, you have to check and sometimes review your sources, especially when you're reading papers released by the DOE.
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 7, 2011
@ Rod:

DOE has estimated the levelized costs for 2016:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/2016levelized_costs_aeo2010.pdf

We need more electricity, not less, so looking at price comparisons to build additional plants is relevant.

I agree that wind and solar are unreliable and that reduces their value, but a new nuclear plant would result in $.11 per kWh and still considered "unsafe," if nor "dirty."

I don't blame the engineers for their lack of marketing skills. I'd credit Chernobyl, 3-mile Island and environmentalists. Energy has it's own "N" word.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
February 7, 2011
@Andrew

I agree with the statement that anyone who comes up with an idea for "affordable energy" needs to be ready to compete in order to sell their better product. They need to fight for market share from competitors who will work hard to defend their territory.

Competition is more than just having a great idea and a great product - you have to work at the task of convincing others that your product is not only great, but that it is better than the available alternatives. A major part of competitive success - as the "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" commercials show - is emphasizing your comparative strengths while exposing your competitor's comparative weaknesses.

I believe that the "nuclear industry" has failed miserably in this aspect of product expansion - the industry's marketing is terrible. The decision makers rarely take legitimate opportunities to point out their strengths against their competitor's weaknesses.

I attribute that failure to several factors, including the pervasive tendency of engineers to believe that marketing is below their dignity. Another problem is that many of the leading companies in the "nuclear industry" often have more interest in selling fossil fuels.

You quoted some numbers for cost that you claimed came from DOE. If anything, those numbers are guesses about the future; they are not reflective of current accounting from operating units or based on competitively bid projects. The currently operating nukes in the US are producing emission free electricity for about 2.03 cents per kilowatt hour. That compares favorably with the production cost of coal at 2.97, gas at 5.0 and petroleum at about 12.4 cents per kilowatt hour. http://bit.ly/gXlkev

Sure, those numbers ignore capital costs, but can you compute the capital cost of a plant that can produce emission free electricity from coal, oil or gas?

Nuclear also competes favorably against other emission free sources since its product is reliable vice unreliable power.
Anne Merica
Anne Merica
February 6, 2011
Hi Mary- I thought it was a great article. Reducing the need for energy for transportation should be the first logical step in our governments response to peak oil and gas. Energy efficiency in buildings is also a no-brainer. On that front at least there is progress being made since the interests of the property owners and the government are aligned.

I also think biomimicry offers smarter ways to proceed on energy, food production, manufacturing and any number of other fronts. I'm part of a Linked In discussion thread on Systems Thinking World where we try to address some of these issues from a systems (holistic) perspective. You might enjoy the group. Feel free to contact me via email.

I believe most of the next major innovations will come from applied systems and design thinking. Companies and VC's are looking for the next big way to differentiate themselves and many are scooping up training in these areas. If those innovations also incorporate cradle to cradle or biomimicry principles we will finally be starting the critical task of turning around the damage we have done.

Anne Elliott Merica
website: IntegratedFraming.com
email: IntegratedFraming@live.com
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 6, 2011
@Rod: I have enjoyed the exchange, too.

Business is ONLY in the business of making money. Our economy is built upon competition and reward. Businesses compete and some are rewarded. Until somebody has a better system, that how it is. Therefore, anyone with an idea for "affordable electricity," better understand that the need to compete to win.

DOE suggests that Nuclear-generated electricity is $.11 per kWh. Coal is $.07 and Natural Gas is $.08 per kWh. That's a big difference. Plus, people are more afraid of nuclear than coal. They have no evidence for that fear, but it's real.

I am interested in every 'currently known technology' and the missing breakthrough - clean, affordable electricity. I have invested a lot in RE. I get the need and the opportunity.

I just believe with the way our government and research institutions are incestuous and America is NOT supportive of innovation, invention and entrepreneurs, we're in a lot of trouble. The only way out of our economic mess is with new ideas. America used to make discoveries and then share them with the world. Now, we just complain or have an expectation that "somebody else" will solves our problems. We need to wake up and start thinking again. we'll figure it out if we TRY.

Back to the topic of this post. VCs are in the business to make money. They take a risk based on the reward. So far, clean-tech has been a big loser. That's why they're not very interested ... unless you have a real breakthrough.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
February 6, 2011
@AndrewW - I have enjoyed our discussion. I apologize for the use of the term "do-gooder" - I generally consider that a positive term and usually apply it to myself and many of my friends in a joking way.

Please understand that pointing out that business people are in business to make money is far from being a 'conspiracy theorist". My 11th grade semantics teacher initially opened my eyes to the ways that marketing people use language with an assignment to really pay attention to commercials for two solid weeks. That habit has never left - and I am now a grandfather.

I have also been a businessman, a member of a small town Chamber of Commerce and a Rotary Club. I suppose I could be "projecting" from too small of an experience base, but my experience has been that most businessmen will do what it takes to make money as long as they stay on the right side of the law. Bad-mouthing a competitor or 'damning with faint praise" is fair game. Organizing a group of downtown merchants to keep Wal-Mart at bay has happened hundreds of times across the US.

Where did the fear come from? Can you name a single instance of any member of the public being hurt by a nuclear energy facility? If you want to blame the bomb, please explain why there was so much optimism and expansion in the industry during the decades closest to the personal experience of the bomb and during the period when we were still testing bombs in the atmosphere.

I was the engineer officer of a nuclear powered submarine. If you want clean, reliable energy, it is impossible to beat nuclear fission with currently known technology. I will grant that my submarine reactor plant was not exactly "cheap" but I have participated in economic analysis of options for powering aircraft carriers. Those showed that nuclear was not only the best tactical option, but the cheapest form of propulsion power available for that size of ship.

Rod Adams
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 6, 2011
@Rod-Adams: I'm not going to insult the people you refer to as "do-gooders," because I respect people for their beliefs. I also don't buy your conspiracy theories or some "way the world works."

While some people may think change comes from unseen forces (or in your words "the wealthy and powerful people"), I know it comes from better ideas, better plans and economic demand. "Clean, affordable electricity" is the goal and if someone figure that out, there will be plenty of demand.

Competing technologies haven't stifled nuclear - fear has.

Good ideas create value and demand. The problem is we haven't seen very many good ideas in RE. Not yet, at least.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
February 5, 2011
@Andrew_W

Of course fission is nuclear. With regard to the action of "environmentalists" to slow the development of nuclear energy - where in the heck do you think they got their money and political clout? Do you think that it sprang out of magic? Scratch most environmental campaigns and you will find a competitor trying to do all it can to remain viable, even with an obsolete technology.

I spent about three years in the plastics business. Who do you think funded many of the anti-plastics campaigns? As plastic took market share from aluminum (cans, hardware, etc.) it gained competitive enemies. As it took share from steel, it gained competitive enemies (bumpers, car doors, containers). As it took market share from paper products (bags) it gained competitive enemies.

How many battles against waterfront development waged by "environmental" groups do you think are funded by real estate interests who own the existing waterfront properties?

Take a hard look at the way the world works. Do gooders have no real power unless they are doing something that helps the wealthy and powerful people maintain that position.
Anne Merica
Anne Merica
February 5, 2011
I deleted a previous comment because I felt the bickering was exactly the reason nobody takes RE seriously. It also makes it nearly impossible for those of us entrepreneurs who are actually trying to do something to get heard over the noise.

We need any and all technologies because nothing we do is going to be perfect the first time. Nor will it be installed instantaneously, nor will it be suitable for every situation.

That is where we are missing the boat. A funding opportunity will be released, say for the chemistry of PV, or for retrofitting a building with existing technologies. A system that is in between those scales or levels of development (or radical idea: uses both!) is not even on the radar. Such a narrow focus ignores all the lessons we have learned from nature and innovation: context matters and make the connections.

True BIPV does double duty as an enclosure and a PV collector. A system I am developing that pre-engineers the framing and wiring for PV glazing could help make the overall installation quite reasonable, potentially less than traditional construction. Use of sensors in the framing to fine-tune HVAC costs could save 40% of ongoing operating costs. But one of the contributing technologies for my system, PV glazing, is being held up because somebody calculated its current manufactured square foot costs against regular glazing, and then compared its costs per KW produced against current conventional fuels and didn't see the savings.

But guess what- China is installing PV glazing already. (I'm not against China pursuing clean technology. They need cleaner energy now, or we'll all pay the price.) But in ten years when we get finally get with the program, they will have all the kinks worked out and beat us on price AND quality.

Anne Elliott Merica
IntegratedFraming.com

ps-thanks Mary
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 5, 2011
@Rod: Fission is nuclear. I think that's the main problem, not that the fossil fuel guys are keeping it down. It faced the same objections as that invention "plastic," which was vilified by environmentalists. Turns out it's a great material and easily recycled. But, many people still hate it (plastic shopping bags). Nuclear has that problem and it was created by the environmentalists. They remain the obstacle. The NIMBY effect of anything nuclear is what makes it so hard to gain approval. France seems to have moved passed that and China certainly is.

An affordable breakthrough would win economically. Clean electricity at $.08 per kWh would create dramatic demand AND satisfy environmentalists.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
February 5, 2011
@Andrew_W

My point is that fission is a proven competitor with combustion. The challenge is that the established energy industry has done a good job at tying it down with countless barriers because they do not like the fact that it beats them on objective measures of effectiveness.

Fission requires less material input (the fuel input difference is enormous - even with current technology, a 9 gram pellet of uranium releases as much heat as burning 1 ton of coal, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, or 147 gallons of oil), it is simpler to operate, there is no waste that has to be dumped, and the fuel is widely distributed around the world.

The initial cost obstacle is largely a matter of making the investments required to overcome all of the human imposed obstacles.

If you found a breakthrough that was competitive, I would bet that you would face many of the same obstacles. I am reasonably well educated and experienced in chemistry, physics, electrical and mechanical engineering. I do not see any breakthroughs with the potential of fission.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
February 5, 2011
Anne, I much appreciated your comment. The Bigs seem so utterly unaware of the needs of everyday people, yet seem to think ordinary people can be made to pay for whatever the Bigs want. There is a profound disconnect in this.

Here is a link to an Oregon energy analyst, now an independent consultant, and an outline of his keynote address for a meeting in Portland, Maine.

http://www.gpcog.org/forums/toward-sustainable-e-future-stephens.php

I am interested in what you think about this. If you think it worthy, and you have a way to make a separate posting here, I think it would make a good topic.
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 5, 2011
@Rod: A breakthrough would happen quickly provided it is COMPETITIVE with existing forms of energy. That's the problem. Wind and solar are NOT competitive or equipped to solve the problem.

Make 'clean, affordable electricity' in abundance and you will beat coal and oil e c o n o m i c a l l y .

For all the money we've spent on "renewable" energy we haven't found our breakthrough yet. That breakthrough will be the basis of a Plan. Right now the entire energy sector is in disarray. There are two notable camps: 1) the "we need clean energy, but it's not an emergency camp" and 2) the "we need to punish all fossil fuels and just make clean energy, no matter the cost." Somewhere outside (or above) these two extreme (or fanatical) groups there is a solution. A p r a c t i c a l solution.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
February 5, 2011
@Andrew_W

I did not say it would take decades to "commercialize", I said it would take decades to capture a significant share of the commercial market. Do you realize how large the world's energy market is? ExxonMobil, a company that produces just 3-4% of the world's petroleum (which itself is only a portion of the world's energy market) captured $383 Billion in revenue, had gross profits in excess of $120 billion, free cash flow of $51 billion and net after tax profits of $30 billion.

Your large sounding $1 billion does not sound so large in the face of those kinds of numbers.

I challenge your assertion of 100-200 years of natural gas. The Potential Gas Committee Report of 2009 indicated that the total US resource base was 2000 TCF including proven, potential, possible and speculative resources. We use 23 TCF now, so even without an increased consumption rate, that resource would only last 87 years. That is within the life expectance my my granddaughter.

We will never have a plan - the pushers who are raking in the dough by selling fossil fuel to addicts will ensure that never happens. Even among the fossil fuel pushers, there is a battle over market share; none of them want to go out of business. What unites most established energy suppliers, however, is opposition to allowing nuclear energy to compete on anything close to a level playing field.

The response from addicted customers (those of us providing the revenues for fossil fuel pushers) is to increase support for efforts that allow nuclear energy to win market share wherever possible.

I know it is not very kind of me, but I have done a LOT of work evaluating all other alternatives and found that they do not have the potential to make any significant difference. There is a reason why fossil fuel companies advertise their support for every alternative EXCEPT nuclear, the only one that is an actual competitive threat.

Rod Adams
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 5, 2011
@Rod: I don't believe any breakthrough necessarily will take "decades" to commercialize. The time it takes is directly related to the importance we give it. $1 billion make it very important.

The world likely has 100-200 years of natural gas. In many ways that can be a "bridge" to a clean energy world. If DOE had even a shred of a Plan they'd look for ways to replace coal with natural gas - for starters. Instead they're hyping EVs and yet they'll be running on coal generated electricity. That's isn't very bright.

Of course it's a problem that must be solved SOON. But, I see very little evidence that's what our government and most of private industry is trying to do. DOE doesn't have a Plan. America doesn't have a Plan. Instead, all we have are faint background conversations about 'clean-tech" and a green economy. Nobody ever puts it together in a viable Plan. That's why we're failing - we aren't planning.

Fission could be part of a Plan.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
February 5, 2011
@Andrew_W

Even IF there is a power source that has not been discovered, which I find hard to believe, the process of moving that source from the lab to a point where it can capture a significant share of the commercial market for energy will take many decades. During that period, if we do not work hard to reduce the human erected barriers that currently slow nuclear energy system deployment, the fossil fuel industry will continue to have financial success like that reported by ExxonMobil for 2010. With just 3-4% of the world market, the company produced more than $50 billion in free cash flow and recorded sales approaching $500 billion. They spent $11 billion just buying back their own stock instead of investing in any productive uses. Just in case you believe that ExxonMobil's profits have nothing to do with a reluctance to use nuclear energy, you should know that fully HALF of the energy that Exxon sells every year is in the form of natural gas and the most profitable markets for gas directly compete with nuclear energy.

Why do we have to wait until there is a "severe need" to allow fission to compete and reduce our addiction to oil, gas and coal? If nothing else, we should all be worried about the incredibly selfish act of burning up all of the world's stored fossil fuel capital in just a couple hundred years. It took the sun and other planetary forces million of years to make and process that valuable material. Shouldn't we leave some for the generations who will follow us on this planet?
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 4, 2011
@Rod: I think of nuclear power as a default resource. I think progress has been made, but it's nearly impossible to get plants approved. We'd have to have a severe need for electricity for those projects to be approved and/or financed.

I think there is a solution that we just haven't discovered yet. It will never happen unless we focus more attention on the challenge. Solar and wind will not solve the problem.

I have been advocating a $1 billion PRIZE for "scalable, clean and affordable electricity." That's the goal and the price is fair. Tell DOE.
Frank Gallagher
Frank Gallagher
February 4, 2011
There is also that pesky Nuclear Waste to deal with:)
I think Bill Gates has an idea to reuse spent fuel in his next gen OS!!!
Frank Gallagher
Frank Gallagher
February 4, 2011
Andrew,
Petroleum was far to expense and not practical at the end of the 19th century, but that did not stop the government powers of world to subsidize it! Dam, it's still happening:)
My thesis does not include eternal government subsidation.
Mass production will make Fuel Cell's cheaper, hence more practical.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
February 4, 2011
@Andrew_W

Agreed. What do you think about nuclear fission heat, which can be put to use almost as directly as combustion heat. It is not so good in internal combustion engines, but its first major application was in ship propulsion engines.

It is not coal, oil or gas. It does not produce greenhouse gases, NOx, SOx or small particulates. It's fuel is widely distributed around the world and does not come from the same politically unstable locations as oil and LNG.

The currently operating nuclear power plants in the US produce power with an average production cost of just 2.03 cents per kilowatt hour.

They operate at an average capacity factor of 90%. Representing just 10% of the electrical generating capacity in the US, they still reliably produce 20% of our electricity each year.

They even use relatively new technology - humans did not even know that fission existed as a controllable phenomenon until 1942.

There are a number of venture funded companies involved in fission power developments including Terra Power, NuScale, Hyperion, and AEHI. In addition, there are a number of well established companies that are striving for new plant developments.

Unfortunately, this is an alternative that gets little attention as an alternative to fossil fuel. I sometimes think it is because fission is so competitive that it replaces fossil fuel when it is allowed to compete. That is a scary proposition to those whose wealth and power is based on selling fossil fuel and maintaining society's addiction to it.
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 4, 2011
@Frank: Nobody suggested that fuel cells don't work, it's just they are far too expensive to be practical. Solar has the same problem. Wind power may be more affordable, but it is unreliable and therefore not very effective.

We still need a SOLUTION.
Frank Gallagher
Frank Gallagher
February 4, 2011
Anonymous,
Solutions?
My thesis above will make everyone happy!
people who believe in climate change! Cleaner environments and energy Independence for all!
People who do not believe in climate change! Jobs!

Dude it's Friday, don't bum me out man:)
Frank Gallagher
Frank Gallagher
February 4, 2011
Andrew,
I saw it with my own two eye's. A large state jail here in California has a 1mw Fuel Cell that powers 80 percent of the prison! The other 20 percent is solar. It has only gone down because of PG&E, the local utility. because of the interconnect policy, the fuel cell goes down when there is a PG&E power outage.
As far as cost, ironically Chevron Corp sponsored it:( (Fox in the hen house)
Ask Pepperidge Farms, Marriott corp, Sierra Nevada, California state Universities(multiple sites), Dublin San Ramon Services District(Poop Plant, methane as the fuel!), just to name a few what they think of their Fuel Cell's.
ANONYMOUS
February 4, 2011
For more than 40 years the government has claimed they wanted to end our addiction to oil. Has it never occurred to you that perhaps our politicians are simply telling us what they should be doing instead of what they are doing? You see we have made endless proclamations suggesting that we want to end our dependency on oil yet for more than 40 years we have not been able to figure it out? Actions speak louder than words. We are now seeing the devastating effects of climate change first hand. It is becoming increasingly difficult to suggest that they are moving in the right direction. I am not sure if you know this but what is causing all of the unrest in the Middle East is not politics or any other ideological theme. It is food. Yes, the people are starving as food prices have sky-rocketed. Failed crops in Russia this past summer and now China and India have lost more than a third of their rice crops. Our government is simply trying to head off criticism before the effects of climate change decimate the worlds food supply. It is amazing what a man will do when his family is starving to death. He does not care about ideology or anything else. He is thinking with his stomach. If you think this country is going to escape the ravages of climate change then you should probably put down that 4th glass of wine. Oh my the room is spinning. No-the room is not spinning. Your mind is spinning out of control as you realize what nature has in store for us. Imagine your children walking up to you with sores on their mouths and their bellies protruding. Only then will you begin to understand the suffering we have caused millions of people around the world. How many people in sub-Saharan Africa have perished already? Now we wait anxiously as we join the numbers of people who did not make it. Where do you think the politicians will be? You are delusional if you think they care one bit about you or your family. We are in serious trouble here and they know it. I hope that you realize
Frank Gallagher
Frank Gallagher
February 4, 2011
Glen,
I never said it's not going hurt.
Last time I checked Solar has not been proven efficient with transportation applications?
Manufacturing goes up and price of materials go done. it has been proven in the solar industry, it can happen in the Fuel Cell industry.
Sacrifices must be made now. With issues in the middle east, gas prices go up and the cost of everything goes up.
Solar only is not going turn the economy around!

Cheers
Frank
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
February 4, 2011
The wineries and vineyards are a good market and a good showcase for innovative use of solar technology, not only for their own use, but also to add more texture and value for visitors.

In spots where hybrid solar set-ups yield extra thermal output, heating ground and keeping citrus trees warm enough to produce more could be an option.

Famed permaculture guru from Austria, Sepp Holzer, grows citrus in the Alps by mitigating temperature with with warmth stored in water and in rocks. In addition, the rocks are light-colored to reflect more light to the trees.

Sensible bio-mimicry options appear in businesses where forward-thinking entrepreneurs intent on staying in business need to constantly figure how to save money against the possibility of inflation and interruption in service.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 4, 2011
Frank,

In a nutshell, your post exemplifies what is wrong with the thinking concerning alternative energy. Nowhere in your posts do you recognize or acknowledge the costs involved with the processes that you state the government should fully fund. For example:

1. Fuel cell - the hydrogen fuel cell must be made of ultra-thin plates of a noble metal - either paladium (~$1100/oz), or platinum (~$2200/oz). Fuel cells for cars cost ~$30/W, and fixed installed fuel cells cost ~$10/W. They run at ~55% efficiency.
The fuel cell must then use hydrogen, which must be split from either water or hydrocarbons, and in best-technology hot alkaline electrolyzer stacks the efficiency is ~93% HHV or ~65-70% LHV.
The electrolyzers will cost you ~$0.6/W at current prices, and likely $0.15 - $0.2/W after a 4 order-of-magnitude scale up.

Final cost of electricity produced would depend on the source of the electricity used to electrolyze the water. But if we use solar electricity to do that we're looking at ~$0.35/kWh, for a final cost - after conversion to hydrogen and then reconversion to electricity you're looking at ~$1.00/kWh.

Solar itself costs ~$0.35/kWh in dry sunny places like the American Southwest. It costs far more in cloudy/cool places like New Jersey (~$0.50/kWh). If we forget about the absurd notion of using the fuel cells, and just focused on getting 10% of the country's energy to be produced from solar, then you're looking at a net government outlay of $138B/year, for a net return of only ~$15-$35B worth of produced energy...

Now we will see some added value from the employment, and I there are externalities... but that won't stack up to over $100B a year.

However, since the DOE - and by extension VC's - refuse to look at production costs... then we have advocacy that doesn't even consider costs.

Here's a different possibility - not funded by the DOE:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-kicking-oil-addiction-permanently-with-windfuels/
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 4, 2011
@frank: Fuel cell technology, wind and solar have been proven to work, but not affordably or reliably. Keep looking.
Frank Gallagher
Frank Gallagher
February 4, 2011
Economic Thesis:
The current poorly funded grants and rebates Should be replaced with substantial government assistance.
I propose that if the US government was to bailout the city's, counties, agency's and non profit groups with energy independence in the form of fully subsidized Renewable Alternative Energy solutions the the following economic benefits would be realized:

1. Cost of energy would be substantially reduced. Saving potentially millions of dollars a year that can be spent on other needed services.

1. The Alternative energy products purchased from American manufactures would jump start a VC fueled DOT Com like economy.
2. Jobs would be created.
3. Prices for Alternative energy products would become more affordable to more private companies, producing more jobs.
4. The taxes that would be generated by this economic boom that would pay back the bailout.

Renewable Alternative Energy solutions that have been proven:

1. Fuel cell is the most efficient and can make a big difference on taking the load off the aging grid. Fuel Cell is one of the oldest proven Alternative energy generators, being used by the military and NASA for last 50 years. Fuel Cell has also been proven in transportation applications, Buses, trucks and auto.
2. Wind mill technology has been around for 2 Milena and the wind farm has been around for 30 years. It has been proven to generate grid quality power.
3. Solar cell technology has been around for 60 years and has proven it self to able to generate grid quality power.

VC's and Lobbyists must unite!
Gary Vesperman
Gary Vesperman
February 4, 2011
It would be helpful for the U.S. Government to end its viciously thorough suppression of new energy inventions. For example the U.S. Patent Office has classified secret more than 5000 energy patents.

Five pages of my accumulated ten-page list of inventions which is available at www.commutefaster.com/GVlist10-16-2010pdf.pdf are energy inventions.

September 2010 I submitted to the Federal Railway Administration two documents pertaining to high-speed rail transportation - "Locomotive Power Sources" and "Non-Energy Inventions for High-Speed Rail Transportation". The construction and operating economics of high-speed rail transportation between Las Vegas and Southern California would be greatly improved by utilizing some of these advanced inventions. However, the agency expressed no interest.

For more information see www.padrak.com/vesperman.
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 4, 2011
@ Whitney: DOE is placing bets on technologies that are already proven and supporting start-up/production efforts. They are not exploring new ideas and concepts.

With the Stimulus funds, DOE spent almost $50 billion last year. Less than 1% went to R+D or to support new innovations. Most of the money - +$40 billion went directly to solar and wind "development deals." The developers will make money no matter how the deals turnout because they are charging up-front fees of 15-20%. The deals will never be economical. They will never pay for themselves.

Like many others have mentioned, DOE (and the Whitehouse) lack the education and savvy to understand technology. They are very adept at giving money to friends, though.
John Whitney, AIA
John Whitney, AIA
February 4, 2011
Information from a recent NYT article about ARPA-E:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/business/energy-environment/03energy.html

In 2009 the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) program invested $151 million in 37 cleantech start-ups deemed too radical or preliminary to attract private financing. Already 6 of the companies have attracted over $108 million in private financing.

This is a great program, modeled on the DARPA program that provided seed funding for the development of the internet. One of the companies, 1366 Technologies, got $4 million from ARPA-E and has raised $33.4 million in private money since then. 1366, based in Lexington, Mass., casts silicon wafers, a basic building block of solar cells, directly into their final form. That cuts the price of the finished solar cells about 40 percent, the company says.

6 out of 37 already pulling in significant private financing in a little more than 1 year is a tremendous track record.

The only question for me is: Why has the program not invested 10 times as much? $151 million is peanuts compared to what the Chinese are investing in similar cleantech start-ups.
Rod Adams
Rod Adams
February 4, 2011
The US has a legitimate chance of reaching the President's goal of producing 80% of our electricity with clean energy by 2035. We are part of the way there, with 20% of our electricity coming from emission free nuclear fission power plants and about 5% coming from large hydroelectric dams. We also get about 2.5% of our electricity from wind turbines.

In 1973, a large, prosperous country in Europe that declared that it had no coal, no gas, no oil and no choice decided to begin building nuclear fission power plants in a dedicated, series manner. By 1993, France had completed the process of converting more than 80% of their electricity production to uranium fission.

There are a variety of ways to turn fission heat into electricity. Most of them share the characteristics of turning combustion heat into electricity - the heat is a concentrated, reliable energy source that is controllable by both humans and smart control systems. However, fission has considerable advantages over combustion - the fuel is about 2-5 million times more concentrated. The waste that is produced is just as concentrated and easy to store in simple containers. No need to dump waste into the atmosphere.

Investing in fission is not a bet on a single technology or a single company. There are water cooled reactors, heavy water moderated reactors, gas cooled reactors, thorium fueled reactors, and metal cooled reactors. They come in a variety of sizes and shapes. Some of the suppliers are large, established companies like GE, Westinghouse and Areva and some are tiny start-ups like NuScale, Hyperion and AEHI.

Disclosure: I work as an engineer for a medium sized company on a project to develop smallish fission power plant that can produce 125 MWe using known technology applied in an innovative fashion.

For my money, including my tax money, I think that investments in fission have far more potential for clean energy production than any other alternative.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Brian Meano
Brian Meano
February 4, 2011
I am vey disappointed that I have not received a single bit of support from the federal government. Perhaps someone can tell me who I need to visit with within the DOE. I have developed a technology that can produce nearly 4 million gallons of purified water a day from sea water without generating any green house gasses. In addition, I have developed a technology that uses the oceans to produce a stable output which in turn enables us to provide base load power to the grid. This is a critical step in the migration to renewable energy. We have overcome one of the most dauting issues confronting the world of renewable energy. Is there anyone that will listen within the DOE? Send me a name and number. I would love to visit with them. Regards, Brian
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 3, 2011
@Ucilia: If you ACTUALLY believe America has an Energy Plan, you're writing for an energy-related website erases any credibility they may have had.

Amazing, just amazing.
Ucilia Wang
Ucilia Wang
February 3, 2011
Gosh darn it, Andrew_W: did you actually read the sites I pointed out? The ideas are specific strategies (tax credit for electric vehicle owners and "Race to Green" program, for example). Some are programs that already are under development or will be underway if Congress provides funding. The planning process isn't done for what Obama wants to achieve.

What, exactly, is Pickens Plan? You mean that sleek website where he re-broadcasts other people's plans and ideas? His numerous TV appearances? Or is it because he includes the word "plan" in the name of his website and publicity kits?
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 3, 2011
@Ucilia: Gee whiz, you think a few broad statements from the President is a "plan." No wonder we're in so much trouble.

A National Energy Plan has goals, costs, methods, strategies and timetables. Even Pickens has done more "planning" that Obama. He didn't include costs, but he has some specifics.

@Glenn: I agree that ARPA-E has been mostly a rehash of old ideas. Nothing about ARPA-E is seeking breakthrough technologies. With a well-screened committee of knowledgeable engineers and very specific criteria, we could examine many ideas. We know what result we want - clean, affordable electricity, and each submission must demonstrate how, when and for what cost they could achieve that result.

We've already spent +$400 billion on "clean-tech" and we have little to show for it. $1 billion would at least provide a useful snapshot of our progress OR a legitimate breakthrough.

If DOE had any real value they would produce an Energy Plan. I guess they're just too busy giving away money to wind and solar developers.
Paul Croskrey
Paul Croskrey
February 3, 2011
The lack of smart VC's is a under statement.
Viable smart technologies exist today but if they were put into action these same VCs will loose billions for the products they have invested in have not provided a return on their investment as of yet. They want to make a good return on an investment before a disruptive technology eliminates them.

Real technologies exist today that are under funded because of the nature of their product. With investors, they can become game changers and "Disruptive Technologies" or without the funds to put them to use they become worthless ideas even though they have merit.

What if a technology exist today that can make solar, windpower, coal and gas fired electrical generation, chemical reaction, storage systems, hydro electric and geo thermal all obsolete. That would be disruptive technology and destroy many VC investments.

If you were an investor in one of these technologies, would you invest in a disruptive technology that would eliminate all of your other investments in green energy?
I think not.
The answer is true for the DOE as well why invest in NEW technology when they need more bang for their buck on the old stuff.

NEW technology that makes all these other power sources and products obsolete exist today yet when exposed to the DOE and to some VC investors it gets no attention.
Is this smart or just business as usual?

Read more about this "Disruptive Technology" here
www.electric-energy-today.com
Ucilia Wang
Ucilia Wang
February 3, 2011
Hi Andrew_W, you are not correct to say Obama doesn't have a plan. He's been laying it out gradually out since his State of the Union. I'll include some links below. Maybe you won't like the ideas he's outlined so far (and those are ideas, not draft bills with details and $$). But he does have proposals beyond what he had in his speech. I should add that he will have to get money from Congress for some of the proposals, and as you know there will be a tough fight for the money. Our political system is set up so that it's not just up to the president or a central party committee to implement a major policy change.

Ideas for getting 1 million electric cars by 2015:http://www.energy.gov/news/10034.htm

Ideas for energy efficiency for business building owners: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/03/president-obama-s-plan-win-future-making-american-businesses-more-energy
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 3, 2011
@Anonymous,

I'm sorry that you cannot seem to read with any form of comprehension. We began our interest in energy at large with objections to the hydrogen hype and money being wasted in that arena. We are not developing a hydrogen technology. We are a hydrocarbon technology.

You are welcome to try again and actually see if you can understand the website before criticizing it... but it will require that you actually read it this time.


@ Ucilia,
We are aware of ARPA-E, and we were enthusiastic about the potential of such a program when it was first put forward. Experience, however, has not proven to validate the ARPA-E program's viability.

The first round of submissions saw ~100,000 submissions. Far too few program leaders with far too little time were allowed to select ~100 of those submissions for funding.

WITHOUT A SINGLE EXCEPTION, and despite the charter of ARPA-E, there was not one single idea that was funded that had not been funded since the 70's. So regardless of hype, the only projects that got funds were ones that had proven themselves to be utter failures for over 30 years.

I'm not objecting to the idea or charter of the DOE. I'm stating that through a complete failure of leadership the DOE has been a complete failure at accomplishing its goals or fulfilling its charter. That failure extended to the ARPA-E program.

@ Andrew -
The problem with your idea of a challenge is that it is limited to a selection by some kind of arbitration. This could easily result in the same kind of horror-show that we saw in ARPA-E, where completely unimaginative, derivative, useless nonsense was selected as "the winner" and received money to attempt to be developed, while the other 100,000 submissions were ignored.

How then can this be countered? Why would that same counter not work to fix what is broken within the DOE?
Andrew W
Andrew W
February 3, 2011
DOE has spent most of their resources on "development deals." Glenn is correct. While they do support some research it is clear they are NOT looking for breakthrough technologies.

Obama doesn't have a "Plan" and it's silly to suggest he does. His speech was cheerleading.

VCs have lost a lot of money on "clean-tech" and they are justifiably cautious. They are rightfully tired of wind and solar schemes because they are not "affordable" and "dispatchable."

The only reason solar has seen renewed investment is the $20 billion our government has given developers. It isn't because solar will solve our energy challenges.

If Obama was smart he would direct the DOE to offer a $1 billion PRIZE for "scalable, clean and affordable electricity." Call a National Energy Summit and let Glenn and all the other inventors/innovators/creators present their solutions. We'll either find a solution or know exactly where we are in that pursuit.

The US has been without a comprehensive energy plan for more than 40 years. It's not surprising that we are floundering.

Offer a PRIZE and see how quickly the world focuses attention on finding a SOLUTION, not just another development deal.
ANONYMOUS
February 3, 2011
Ucilia,
The level of financial support for project development on the debt side is very different in the two countries (China/U.S.). The lines of credit for project development extended to China's largest solar manufacturers is staggering--nothing like it exists in the U.S.--much to the detriment of U.S. manufacturers.
I commend China's leadership for understanding market needs and acting upon that need.
ANONYMOUS
February 3, 2011
Glen-Dotty,
Generally on target regarding VCs.
However, you missed the boat on commercial viability--bridging the gap between "great idea" and a commercially viable product is the greatest hole to fill.
AND "www.windfuels.com" is a JOKE--OLD NEWS/Hydrogen Economy stuff of no value other than advertising for you.
Ucilia Wang
Ucilia Wang
February 3, 2011
@Glenn Doty: First of all, the DOE does fund startups that are still working out their processes. It's doing that through the ARPA-E program (and other programs prior to ARPA-E's recent start). Maybe you don't agree with the DOE's selections so far, but you can't say the government doesn't have a mechanism to do so. And, by you definition, no technology is novel then -- whatever technology is under development now has been somebody's research at one point, maybe decades ago.

Second, I've been hearing people complaining about how the Chinese government and banks loan oodles of money to their solar and other tech companies and that gives the companies a competitive edge. The U.S. government has been doing the same with younger and more mature companies through loans, grants and loan guarantees. And now there are complaints about those actions.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 3, 2011
V-Bruce,

That is a problem with most of the established renewable technology - the exact same technology that has been heavily invested in for 30+ years.

However, novel technology may easily be quite competitive with fossil fuels. The DOE refuses to invest in any technology that hasn't been demonstrated (though every energy technology that HAS been demonstrated originally did so with government funding, the DOE has changed from a research & development focus to a funneling money focus, and they no longer give new ideas a try), and the VC's follow the DOE's lead.

Hence, no competition, because no competitive technologies are invested in.

I have no idea how many companies are trying to incorporate novel technology that has sound science and engineering... but I know that there is at least one (I am on the team), and we are consistently told that our technology has great promise - but doesn't exactly fit the funding criteria... Of course, the funding criteria is selected with very narrow focus on technology that is already well developed.

As long as the VC's look to the DOE for guidance as to what to invest in, there will never be solid returns for carbon neutral energy investments.

www.WindFuels.com
V. Bruce Stenswick
V. Bruce Stenswick
February 2, 2011
Let's not forget that the real problem is that it is much easier to dig,drill, etc and pull fossil fuels out of the ground and refine them, burn them, etc, than it is to try to figure out how to turn a diffuse energy source like solar into something useful, or to try to turn cellulose into a liquid fuel. Until we put a price on carbon, preventing a catastrophe will be close to impossible.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
February 2, 2011
It's not just a lack of VC's, it's a lack of SMART VC's.

Most of what is broadly referred to as "renewable technology" is fairly mature, despite hype and BS that may imply otherwise. The lithium battery was developed in the mid-80's, and now is sold in the tens (or perhaps even hundreds) of billions... Some new battery company that promises to halve costs is just selling smoke, and VC's that dump their money into that mess will get cleaned out.

The same is true of algae - the first demonstrations of that were in the 70's, and it's never been shown to be even within an order of magnitude of competitive (despite billions of government and private money being wasted).

The same can be said of several dozen other prospective "early development" companies...

VC's follow government funding, and the DOE basically has an institutional policy that it won't fund anything that hasn't been done before - ergo it funds only technologies that have proven themselves to be failures in the free market. But VC's follow that lead blindly, again only funding technologies that are proven to fail, and the VC money is lost and wasted...

The lesson that VC's learn: don't invest in cleantech.

The lesson that VC's SHOULD learn: don't invest in decades-old junk that the fools at the DOE are wasting their (our) money on. Invest in novel technology that has sound scientific support but that was NOT initially thought-up and funded during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

Think about it.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang is a California-based freelance journalist who writes about renewable energy. She previously was the associate editor at Greentech Media and a staff writer covering the semiconductor industry at Red Herring. In addition to Renewable...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 55
    Energy Expert Predicts Solar Could Upend Major Utility in California on Price
  • 27
    Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • 17
    The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • 12
    Massachusetts Solar: Healthy Mix of Business Sense, Environmental Awareness and Public Engagement

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Motech Industries, Inc.
  • SolPowerPeople, Inc.
  • Canadian Solar Inc.
  • EnergyDreams LLC
  • Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • Fairtrade-Messe
  • North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information