The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Friday, May 24, 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
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured 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
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Foreign Dominance of U.S. Clean Energy Market Spells Trouble for America

Think tank Third Way explains in a new report that while domestic investment in American clean energy wanes, foreign investment in the U.S. is growing, and that's bad news for U.S. companies.

Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
May 22, 2012  |  94 Comments

If you are a small player in the U.S. clean energy market, you are having a harder and harder time finding capital to continue to fund your business, despite that fact that your domestic market is seen as the one with the largest potential for growth. So what do you do? According to Third Way, a political think tank, you look to foreign investors.

In its latest report, Fire Sale: The End of American Ownership of Clean Energy, the self-proclaimed "moderate" organization points out that American investment in clean energy is at an all time low, all the while foreign investment in the new energy economy is increasing. The government has curtailed its investment in the sector. In its report, Third Way points out, “by 2014, federal clean tech investment is expected to drop 75%, from $44.3 billion in 2009 to $11.0 billion.”  The organization expects the government’s dwindling support to lead to decreased private sector support of renewable energy as well. And this lack of support is happening despite the fact that the clean energy industry has been one of the fastest growing industries in the U.S. for the past few years.

According to Third Way, Congress’ view that private sector funding will be enough to create a vibrant new industry “ignores history.”  It writes, “when the opportunities and/or risks are perceived to be in the national inter­est, the federal government has supported numerous industries and individual companies for centuries. As far back as 1789, the government imposed tariffs on coal imported from Great Britain in order to give domestic producers a competi­tive advantage in a developing domestic market.”

The report then points to the billions of dollars that the U.S. government has offered to oil, gas and nuclear companies, vastly greater than the level of support offered to renewables.

Some staggering investment numbers are put forth in the report; foreign countries are increasing their levels of investment for renewables at huge rates:

  • The United Kingdom has established a £15 billion Green Bank.
  • The China Development Bank has made available $32 billion in low-interest credit facilities to Chinese solar and wind companies.
  • Saudi Arabia wants to raise $109 billion for its solar industry.
  • Indonesia out­paced the rest of the world with a massive 521 percent growth rate in 2011.
  • India was the second fastest growing clean energy market in the world in 2011, rising 52 percent to $10.2 billion.

Further, foreign countries are investing here in the U.S. Of the 26 banks that were actively investing in clean energy in America in 2010, only six of them were U.S. based. However, what concerns Third Way the most is not that foreign countries are increasingly investing in clean energy, both in their own countries and in America; in fact, this is seen as a vote of confidence for the U.S. market, not to mention the whole industry. What is worrisome is that it appears as though the outsiders are seeing a gold mine in the U.S. clean energy economy while the American Congress sits idly by doing nothing, says Third Way.

“A Congress apparently blind to the emergence of a clean and renewable energy sector in the U.S. is about to turn over the keys to this critical industry to others. The auto industry went down this same path. Are we going to let history repeat itself?”

Lead image: Global World Economy Machine via Shutterstock.

94 Comments

Register To Comment
Ronald Thomas
Ronald Thomas
June 17, 2012
billp37. You could have quoted ounces of coal and gotten a really big number. Also your comment about supply and demand can not make wind and solar viable alternatives. If coal is not used into the future electoral bill; as Obama has said "will sky-rocket"; while they will tell us users "we did not conserve enough"!
william payne
william payne
June 17, 2012
Google 'Coal train plans need careful study' As much as 150 million tons a year. More than 260 trillion pounds. Nearly 700,000 train coal cars. Any way you measure it, that's a lot of coal. On Feb. 23, Australian company Millennium Bulk Terminals applied for federal, state and county permits to export between 25 million and 44 million tons of coal annually through the port of Longview, Wash. ...
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
June 17, 2012
Not holding my breath!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 14, 2012
We'll be waiting, Dennis!
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 13, 2012
Sooner or later I will develop this technology and then you'll be buying from me Instead of selling with me.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
June 13, 2012
Dennis "..organic materials convert to hydrogen" is nonsense. Virtually all organic materials contain more hydrogen atoms than any other type of atom (except for ethylene, benzene, and a few others where the carbon-hydrogen ratio is 1:1) , and they are the lightest atom. Any radiation with enough unit energy will tend to knock hydrogen atoms out of such material. The radioactive waste materials at Hanford were merely storing some of the energy coming from their decay in driving hydrogen atoms out of the organic materials. No atomic conversions were taking place in the organic materials, only in the radioactive waste itself. And by the way what does this stuff have to do with "Foreign Dominance of U.S. Clean Energy Market Spells Trouble for America".
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 13, 2012
Dennis, cosmic rays convert water in the air to hydrogen & oxygen. Shall we just spread the poop out on the ground? You've apparently no idea what you're talking about from any engineering or scientific standpoint.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 12, 2012
Hanford corroborates organic materials convert to hydrogen . Poop is an organic material
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
June 12, 2012
Dennis, you seem to be totally confused. The Hanford problem discussed in http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html has NOTHING to do with waste sewage, human poop, etc., it is purely the radioactive waste products from nuclear reactors. The particles and other energetic items (photons, probably, as gamma and X-rays) in passing knock hydrogen atoms out of the organic materials inadvisedly placed in the tanks, the hydrogen collects under a crust, until it breaks free. The hydrogen is already in the organic materials placed in the tanks, and the energy is just that of the radioactive waste decaying. A somewhat similar process happened with a graphite-moderated nuclear reactor in England at Windscale, back in the 1950s or thereabouts, where carbon atoms (graphite is one crystalline form of solid carbon) were knocked out of place while the reactor was operating, and did not go back on their own. Once, when the graphite was allowed to get unusually hot, the carbon atoms started snapping back into place, releasing so much energy it heated the graphite enough that it caught fire, causing a serious accident, and I think the release of some radioactive material. The problem is avoided in graphite-moderated reactors today by keeping the graphite (and the rest of the reactor) hot enough that the displaced atoms move back on their own, minimizing the stored energy. Sorry, no exciting new energy source there.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 12, 2012
Modify existing sewage system redirecting effluent to the facility where it is exposed to intense radiation and burned in turbines, that generate electricity. Transmitted in the existing grid. how do you ascertain loses greater than other systems? I guess my being an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer with Boeing 727 and 757 endorsements, is indicative of a lack of engineering sense.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 12, 2012
Dennis, you're jumping all over. You still have no analysis to explain how you get poop to a place where you make hydrogen with radiation (safely), compress it, transport it, burn it and transmit the electricity, losing power at every stage. You seem to have nothing behind your idea that makes engineering sense.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 12, 2012
Corn ethanol ....... Good point......... My suggested solution would reduce emissions to a point where the alleged necessity of redirecting food land usage towards uses other than food, moot. Just those 3 realities bring your hydrogen scheme doen below the efficiency of any gas or nuclear plant. efficiency ....the dickens you say. Gas produces Carbon emissions, your point is, moot. Your without sufficient data regarding the expedited deployment of existing nuclear facilities to replace fossil fuels. this one of those 'ideas' that just confirms why America's standing in the world's science & math rankings are so poor." Thats where your correct, only the rich are allowed to own their own thoughts, and roadblocks to others are a plenty.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 12, 2012
Our government world never waste $? Really, Dennis? Remember corn ethanol, which ended up pricing hungry people around the world out of corn food products? You stuill haven't explained how you make up for the ther,modynamic inefficiency of running turbines from burned hydrogen that had to be compressed at about 3kWHr/lb and how the long-distance transmission lines you proose wouldn't lose the 10% of power they normally do. Just those 3 realities bring your hydrogen scheme doen below the efficiency of any gas or nuclear plant. The question of where the radiation comes from, its density needed to produce sufficient hydrogen via a method not specified, etc. makes this one of those 'ideas' that just confirms why America's standing in the world's science & math rankings are so poor.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 11, 2012
Cool real questions that require some thought and thats where we hire experts in these fields to provide these answers! How much is water, the volumes required per day, optimum excrement to radiation ratios, all are great questions thank you very much. Compression and transportation are no issues as the plan is burn the Hydrogen on location in turbines to generate the electricity, transmission lines to the grid answer transportation questions. Please note the link to the Potential vendors list to DARPA, I doubt they would waste time and money on something not feasible. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&tab=ivl&tabmode=list
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 11, 2012
Dennis, how much of the trillion tons is just water? How does the hydrogen get produced? How much per day? How do you compress & transport it? How do you burn it any better than 40% efficiency? And so on. You've a long way to go from this odd dream to any useful reality.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 11, 2012
the fiquire for the USA alone is in excess of 1 trillion tons canada is in the billions fortunately your able to inform Hanford that the hydrogen generated is not hydrogen I'm sure they will be relieved.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 11, 2012
Dennis, do you really poop 1000 tons ay year? We have 7 billion folks now. You say we have "trillions of tons" of poop. Each of us must be eating & pooping an awful lot! Beside, the tons are mostly water. If you want hydrogen, you dissociate water. If you use poop, you get methane which has carbon, and you get carbon dioxide, which has carbon. We don't want to burn anymore carbon to make any more carbon dioxide. BC may be bad with poop. Most places aren't.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 11, 2012
DR A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis although I no longer have it stored in my computer Hanford Washington did state the following " the radiolydic decomposition of organic material generates hydrogen" since there are trillions of tones involved the volume is there to compensate for your suggestion of a minimal return !
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 11, 2012
peter bradshaw as for your belief in advanced countries, halifax and victoria in Canada dump untreated sewage today! regardless treated is still a poison when dumped. as for you methane assumption ............ http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
June 11, 2012
First of all, Dennis, you say "I suggested we use radiation to, convert the trillions of tons of human excrement dumped into lakes ,oceans and streams, into hydrogen." Advanced industrialized countries have been processing their human excrement for up to 150 years, not dumping it into lakes, oceans and streams. Yes, major efforts need to be made to do the same things in other countries also, and to improve the completeness of this process everywhere. The only "radiation" I know of that will convert this waste into a burnable product are anaerobic bacteria, which will generate mostly methane, rather than hydrogen. Methane is a GHG many times (say N) more effective than CO2, so it is good to burn the methane, generating H2O and CO2 and reducing the GHG by N-1. In fact many sewage treatment plants indeed do that, and provide the methane as a supplemental supply of local natural gas, or generate electricity or heat from it. But the energy so produced, though valuable, is only a small fraction of the energy use of the associated communities. Sunlight (is that the "radiation" you are talking about?) could also be helpful to this process. But I do not see any connection to nuclear processes here. Incidentally, garbage dumps also generate methane, which is now often collected and added to local natural gas supplies. Mountain View (near Dr A's Palo Alto) has a large such dump, from which most (but clearly not all, as you can smell if you visit) methane is extracted in just this way, and there are many others. The best that can be said is that they are better at generating useful energy than attempts to extract it from politician's hot air.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 11, 2012
Dennis, I don't get how you use radiation to get hydrogen from human waste, but the energetics aren't there -- iur wastes come from food we grow/catch. There's far less energy in our waste thatn the energy that was in the food and its growing/transporting, and less than the energy we use for industry, heating & transportation. Add to that the low thermodynamic efficiency of burning hydrogen or anything lese and whatever energy is retrieved from burning the waste is now just about 1/3 its original content. This is why waste composting for local heat, as European farmers have done for centuries, and burning resulting methane for some power (and to get rid of the methane), are useful, but not a solution.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 10, 2012
Dr AlexC Burning waste H2 or CH4 is good, but it won't solve energy needs. your correct in that statement in more ways than you intended. Specifically the the obsolete reactor design .....generating steam! I do not suggest burning waste H2, I suggested we use radiation to, convert the trillions of tons of human excrement dumped into lakes ,oceans and streams, into hydrogen. What is your difficulty with that?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 10, 2012
Bill, as a long-time environmentalist, I've hated "green", because it's just marketing and most folks don't know what it means or how to evaluate the worth of things it's used to label. For what it's worth, local solar, EVs & efficiency are indeed exactly what the term should mean, because of facts. Advanced nuclear is as well, because of its power density and high availability for thousands of years. The rest can be forgotten, when their subsidies run out.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 10, 2012
Dennis "hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy" is true only when a present, 1946-design, water reactor's Zirconium fuel cladding feels hot enough steam to take the Oxygen out of the steam & release Hydrogen. This isn't normal operation at all! In fact, one silliness of using water in reactors is that its pH has to be conrinually monitored and pure Hydrogen is in fact injected into the main reactor water loop to prevent free Oxygen from corroding the plumbing. As for poop power, it's already done worldwide and will likely be the next step nearby in Palo Alto... www.pagreenenergy.org/ However, only a fraction of the homes will be powered by methane combustion. Remember, any heat engine (Hydrogen...) only delivers power in proportion to (1 - Tcold / Thot), where Thot is the internal combustion temp in Kelvin and Tcold is the exhaust temp out of the engine. That thermodynamic reality is why over 60 cents of every $ we put into fuel tanks goes out the exhaust as waste heat. It's also why water reactors (at ~320C) only yield under 40% efficiency, while salt reactors, at >700C, yield what the best combustion plants yield ~45%. Burning waste H2 or CH4 is good, but it won't solve energy needs.
william payne
william payne
June 9, 2012
Google 'Not Easy Being Green, But It Sure Has Proven Expensive' By Jonah Goldberg / Syndicated Columnist on Mon, Jun 4, 2012 It was interesting while it lasted. But it looks like the "green revolution" has entered the long slide into "What was all that about?" Is Goldberg right?
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 9, 2012
The primary source of GHG is fossil fuel burning electrical generating facilities. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/uploads/2012/01/GHG-emitters-2010.jpg 7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered. reference info Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ... DARPA-SN-10-37@darpa.mil https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&... Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions. http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over. Dennis Baker 106-998 Creston Avenue Penticton BC V2A1P9 cell phone 250-462-3796 Phone / Fax 778-476-2633 dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com @dennisearlbaker
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 9, 2012
Indeed water & food are #1 -- primitive, eh? So don't hide your "solution", Dennis!
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 9, 2012
if your following all the issues you see that food and water are equal,with energy. your point of land use is valid. my suggested solution deals with all three issues.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 9, 2012
The issue with any power source is power density -- how many acres need sacrificing to deliver a MW, etc. Wind/wave fail miserably, especially because of necessary power losses in transmission and because of the huge resource & combustion burden in making/maintaining systems with 20-year life spans. Local solar is great because -- no land. But it's limited 3MW/acre -- right now, 20% of that. It saves transmission loss and resources, however, so this is why we have the "million solar homes" program in Calif. and why communities are doing this sort of thing... http colonslashslash paloaltoonline dot com/news/show_story.php?id=24561 www dot cityofpaloalto dot org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1877?id=223 www dot environmentcalifornia dot org/sites/environment/files/reports/California%27s%20Solar%20Cities%202012%20-%20Final.pdf?utm_source=041+April+30+General+Newsletter&utm_campaign=General+March&utm_medium=email www dot sccgov dor org/sites/opa/nr/Pages/Santa-Clara-County-Celebrates-Completion-of-New-Solar-Installation-Project.aspx So, from less than 100 Watts/sq meter peak for wind, to a few hundred peak for solar, to over 10 times that for nuclear 24/7, we see why the intermittent sources should be carefully scrutinized. Local solar, plus efficient storage, as by EVs (betterplace dot com) can meet peak daytime needs. Add in efficiency improvements and we need just some 24/7 nuclear/hydro. The beauty of advanced nuclear is that it not only makes power cheaply & for decades, it makes important isotopes and process heat for desalination, etc. The isotope shortage problem is growing -- Homeland Security desperately needs Helium3, hospitals need Molybdenum99 and NASA can't go beyond Mars without Plutonium238.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 8, 2012
importunately yet overlooked is the fact that the condenses(400ppm) is that time, no longer is a luxury, and wind and solar are incapable of being the replacement technology for fossil fuel powered electrical generation, now. Therefore something else is required, now.
william payne
william payne
June 8, 2012
The laws of supply and demand dictate that wind and solar will be the major source of electrical energy throughout the world in the not too distant future. Second law of thermodymanics may argue against this?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 8, 2012
Apparently.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 8, 2012
you don't understand , nothing I can do about that.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 8, 2012
Dennis, we can't understand your point. In nuclear fission, the energy release per kg is over 500,000 times that of burning a kg of hydrogen. And, you don't need to find any oxygen. The latter is the nasty little secret combustion folks hide -- their products are incomplete and must have oxygen supplied free by the user. Nuclear-fission power just needs a few neutrons to start a chain reaction and those come from the fissile fuel itself. The heat of fission products is about 7% of a total fission reactor's output, so solid-fuel reactors waste that much when they have their old fuel removed for storage. and that heat then just goes to heat the environment. This is why we say that liquid fuels are superior, because nothing is removed from the reactor unless we want to remove it. The molten-salt reactor was designed to take advantage of this and many other advantages of liquid fuel.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 8, 2012
we are of topic mine anyways! human excrement + nuclear waste = hydrogen
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
June 8, 2012
Fission reactions (uranium, plutonium or thorium based) are caused by absorption of a neutron, and produce two new atom nuclei, about half the original in weight, plus a few neutrons. The neutrons not absorbed in future fission reactions will, in a few minutes, decay to hydrogen. The energy from all these nuclear reactions greatly exceeds any energy to be gained from burning the produced hydrogen by a huge factor. If the hydrogen accumulates, it can undergo a chemical explosion with (e.g.) oxygen, causing mechanical damage, as apparently happened at Fukushima, but the energy so released is tiny as compared to that released by the long term nuclear reactions that preceded it, whose energy output is realistically only usable as thermal energy.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 8, 2012
1) you concur with Yule Brown then 2) why would you want to do it ? to get rid of it ! 3)" We want those new atoms to stay in a reactor to deliver useful heat" no in fact we don't want heat, that's where the danger is, cooling ponds corroborate this fact. 4) "thus very quickly decay by emitting appropriate particles & gamma rays or Xrays" Hundreds of thousand of years as quickly decay. ................................................................. 4)a) decay by emitting appropriate particles & gamma rays or Xrays, to generate Hydrogen I suggest.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 8, 2012
Dennis, the only way to reduce an element's half life is to make it more radioactive. Why do that? A fission reactor splits relatively long-lived Uranium/Plutonium atoms in about half. The two pieces (daughters) now have too many neutrons each, so are very unstable, thus very quickly decay by emitting appropriate particles & gamma rays or Xrays. We want those new atoms to stay in a reactor to deliver useful heat, just as decaying atoms in the earth's core keep it molten, to keep it making a magnetic field that keeps our atmosphere & us safe from cosmic radiation. Long half lives are easy for biological entities to handle. Short half-lived elements are the dangerous ones. You have about 4400 particle emissions inside your body every second from natural Potassium 40, which (along with Thorium & Uranium decay) keeps our core molten! But 40K's half life is 1.2 billion years, so its emissions are no problem for Ma Nature's cellular-repair mechanisms, which operate every second in every cell 24/7. We have about 10 trillion cells each -- no wonder we get tired each day! Google "DNA repair".
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 7, 2012
cool you know more than I do .I concede this to you . But if I understand you correctly everyone knew that you could reduce the half life of nuclear materials from 100,000 years, to 19 seconds, as Yule Brown claimed ? If everyone knew than why was it not being done?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Don't know what you mean Dennis -- Soddy & Rutherford were the first to demonstrate transmutation of elements in the early 1900s. Here's their first "transmutation"... Transmutation "...was first consciously applied to modern physics by Frederick Soddy when he, along with Ernest Rutherford, discovered that radioactive thorium was converting itself into radium in 1901. At the moment of realization, Soddy later recalled, he shouted out: "Rutherford, this is transmutation!" Rutherford snapped back, "For Christ's sake, Soddy, don't call it transmutation. They'll have our heads off as alchemists." Gotta love it. Nobellist Seaborg was the first to prove that transmutation of Thorium to Uranium could make a viable nuclear power source, via 233U fission. And, we don't indeed want to use steam as a working fluid for power, that's why the molten-alt reactors were designed and operated at ORNL in the '60s, and why the Brayton Cycle, using inert gas, is the next step in turbine power.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 6, 2012
professor yule brown invented transmutation years ago yet nothing was done till he died ! Nothing would be done on my invention till I die, except for the fact that its the only alternative technology to replace fossil fuel power plants. regardless of your references, they do not relate to my solution! Steam generation is a flawed concept and the technology is expensive and time consuming regarding construction ect, we don't have the luxury of time to eliminate carbon emissions
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Dennis, it was determined decades ago how to avoid all combustion, including Hydrogen. And, it was determined then how to avoid weapons materials and most nuclear waste. The US was to e done with wasteful combustion power by 2000... http colonslashslash tinyurl dot com/6xgpkfa And, the molten-salt reactor could consume existing wastes, while the Thorium molten-salt cycle would produce almost none... www dot thoriumremix dot com/2011 That's where many countries, including China are now moving to complete the R&D we did in the 1960s, but de-funded for the wrong Cold-War reasons... http colonslshslash tinyurl dot com/73p7ler Countries (put http colonslashslash in front of each)... tinyurl dot com/4t5ojde tinyurl dot com/7hatm2b asia.iop dot org/cws/article/news/47111 tinyurl dot com/6vmaljn vimeo dot com/39052604 tinyurl dot com/8ynwcqw www dot deccanherald dot com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html We may soon be hearing Canada & S. Africa being added to the above.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Dennis, it was determined decades ago how to avoid all combustion, including Hydrogen. And, it was determined then how to avoid weapons materials and most nuclear waste. The US was to e done with wasteful combustion power by 2000... http colonslashslash tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa And, the molten-salt reactor could consume existing wastes, while the Thorium molten-salt cycle would produce almost none... www.thoriumremix.com/2011 That's where many countries, including China are now moving to complete the R&D we did in the 1960s, but de-funded for the wrong Cold-War reasons... http://tinyurl.com/73p7ler Countries (put http colonslashslash in front of each)... tinyurl.com/4t5ojde tinyurl.com/7hatm2b asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 tinyurl.com/6vmaljn vimeo.com/39052604 tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html We may soon be hearing Canada & S. Africa being added to the above.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Dennis, it was determined decades ago how to avoid all combustion, including Hydrogen. And, it was determined then how to avoid weapons materials and most nuclear waste. The US was to e done with wasteful combustion power by 2000... http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa And, the molten-salt reactor could consume existing wastes, while the Thorium molten-salt cycle would produce almost none... www.thoriumremix.com/2011 That's where many countries, including China are now moving to complete the R&D we did in the 1960s, but de-funded for the wrong Cold-War reasons... http://tinyurl.com/73p7ler Countries (put http colonslashslash in front of each)... tinyurl.com/4t5ojde tinyurl.com/7hatm2b asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 tinyurl.com/6vmaljn vimeo.com/39052604 tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html We may soon be hearing Canada & S. Africa being added to the above.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
Dennis, it was determined decades ago how to avoid all combustion, including Hydrogen. And, it was determined then how to avoid weapons materials and most nuclear waste. The US was to e done with wasteful combustion power by 2000... http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa And, the molten-salt reactor could consume existing wastes, while the Thorium molten-salt cycle would produce almost none... www.thoriumremix.com/2011 That's where many countries, including China are now moving to complete the R&D we did in the 1960s, but de-funded for the wrong Cold-War reasons... http://tinyurl.com/73p7ler Countries... http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111 http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn http://vimeo.com/39052604 http://tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw www.deccanherald.com/content/246849/india-all-set-tap-thorium.html We may soon be hearing Canada & S. Africa being added to the above.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 6, 2012
Dr AlexC Nuclear is the answer to the issues you've outlined! I only suggest that instead of generating steam we generate hydrogen! Best part there is no need of weapons grade materials! Existing stockpiles of highly radioactive waste materials that do not require cooling ponds can be utilized to generate hydrogen!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 6, 2012
US coal emissions deaths/year >13,000 China's coal emissions health costs a significant % of GDP. That's one reason they're moving quickly on nuclear power.
william payne
william payne
June 5, 2012
Google 'Not Easy Being Green, But It Sure Has Proven Expensive' By Jonah Goldberg / Syndicated Columnist on Mon, Jun 4, 2012 It was interesting while it lasted. But it looks like the "green revolution" has entered the long slide into "What was all that about?"
william payne
william payne
June 5, 2012
bill payne 6.5.12 Hello Prof Banks, That misconception of reality was also published on a site where I have been graciously allowed to demonstrate my competence in oil and nuclear matters. As to your competence in nuclear matters, are King or Katusa right or not? The US produces only 7% of the uranium it consumes, Byron King reported. Five new generators are on track for completion this decade, including two reactors approved just a few weeks ago (the first new reactor approvals in the US in over 30 years). Those will add to the 104 reactors that are already in operation around the country and already produce 20% of the nation's power. Those reactors will eat up 19,724 tonnes of U3O8 this year, which represents 29% of global uranium demand. If that seems like a large amount, it is! The US produces more nuclear power than any other country on earth, which means it consumes more uranium that any other nation. However, decades of declining domestic production have left the US producing only 4% of the world's uranium. With so little homegrown uranium, the United States has to import more than 80% of the uranium it needs to fuel its reactors. Thankfully, for 18 years a deal with Russia has filled that gap. The "Megatons to Megawatts" agreement, whereby Russia downblends highly enriched uranium from nuclear warheads to create reactor fuel, has provided the US with a steady, inexpensive source of uranium since 1993. The problem is that the program is coming to an end next year. The Upside to a Natural Gas Downturn Marin Katusa, for The Daily Reckoning Monday April 2, 2012
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 5, 2012
reduced health care costs will be an instant gratification of my system, politicians might consider this aspect as its short term positive economic reward.
william payne
william payne
June 4, 2012
The pollution from coal-fired electricity plants is estimated to bring many times more premature deaths to the US each year than Al Qaeda has ever managed in the last decade.

Google 'obama stuxnet' for possibilities of premature deaths.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
June 4, 2012
"What was all that about?" Well, partly about the horrendous consequences of our vast production of CO2 in the last ~200 years. This has driven the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to levels never seen in 400,000 years (ice core tests) or probably in 70 million years (analysis of animal fossils in rocks). There are strong indications that the climate is undergoing faster changes than ever before. The oceans do appear to be rising (Lousiana coastline, many many other indications).

The CO2 is increasing the acidity of the oceans (recent article in Newsweek shows probable further serious effects of this on seafood supplies for us humans).

If you seem to be speeding toward some nasty dangerous wall or equivalent, it is wise to at least apply the brakes (only exception I can think of was on a Disneyland ride, where the carriage swung right just before I was impaled on the fast-approaching stalactite, restoring my faith in Walt!).

The pollution from coal-fired electricity plants is estimated to bring many times more premature deaths to the US each year than Al Qaeda has ever managed in the last decade.

Those are the things it is all about.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 4, 2012
The point is always efficiency. The efficiency of our power usage in the US is less than 50%. The production of it from combustion is less than 50%. So whenever we burn something to generate electricity, we've wasted over 75% of the potential fuel=air energy.

The opportunities to get away from combustion that approach 50% will be what are actually 'green', though I dislike that adjective anyway.

There really are only two sources, plus efficiency improvements in our usage. The two are continually improving local solar on existing structures (PV & hot water) and high-temp nuclear, such as molten salt.

Local solar eliminates land consumption and transmission loss, while building a more robust grid, while >700C nuclear allows meeting the best combustion-plant thermal efficiencies and making truly CO2-neutral fuels plus desalination.

The Saudis & other oil producers are well aware of that last benefit, which allows them to sell others the chance to burn their oil.
;]
Some refs...
http://tinyurl.com/4t5ojde
http://tinyurl.com/7hatm2b
http://asia.iop.org/cws/article/news/47111
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
http://vimeo.com/39052604
http://tinyurl.com/8ynwcqw
william payne
william payne
June 4, 2012
Google 'Not Easy Being Green, But It Sure Has Proven Expensive'
By Jonah Goldberg / Syndicated Columnist on Mon, Jun 4, 2012

It was interesting while it lasted. But it looks like the "green revolution" has entered the long slide into "What was all that about?"
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 4, 2012
Fukushima generated Hydrogen.
This Hydrogen was considered an unwanted byproduct, not the product! Therefor with the exception of your corroboration of the potential to generate hydrogen the point is moot.

Again I stated this as replacement technology for fossil fuel
powered electrical generating facilities. They are generally not driven very far....................
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 4, 2012
Dennis, Fukushima generated Hydrogen. That's what blew its lids off!
;]
Do we really think we want to drive vehicles with 8000psi tanks of compressed H2 behind our seats? Every taxi is a Hindenburg!

Do we really think we'd feel comfortable driving into a Hydrogen station manned by the same level of attendant in today's gas stations? Or by us, as self-service patrons?

The Hydrogen Highway died here in Calif. long ago and is dead scientifically & engineering-wise worldwide.

For 15kWHr/lb of H2, we had to invest many kWHrs to separate it, then another few kWHrs to compress it in very expensive storage systems, and then figure out very expensive means to distribute & deliver it to target machines.

Then, here's the kicker, it's little better than burning anything else in an engine or fuel cell -- materials & thermodynamics cause over 1/2 the heat value of the H2 to be wasted out the exhaust.

So, when we compare burning H2 with any other combustion fuel, we see only one advantage -- no CO2. However, that advantage is wiped away by using high-temp reactors to make fuels from CO2 & H2O in the air, etc. A molten-salt reactor easily runs at 700C and can make diesel or other equivalents while generating power to a city.
dennis baker
dennis baker
June 4, 2012
It seems we all concur that Nuclear in its present format,
Steam Generation, is not ideal, and has signification difficulties!
There fore I respectfully submit Hydrogen Generation!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 4, 2012
"its huge stockpile of plutonium useless" -- Japanese LWRs don't consume Pu. And their Fast Breeder that would have made it and consumed it, was a failure. They reprocess some, or send their used fuel to France for reprocessing, and are 3rd, behind France & Germany, in tonnage. See IPFM reports, like: www.fissilematerials.org

I don't understand what you're talking about. Low-enriched Uranium (LEU) is what they use, like most everyone else. The Pu resulting from fuel reprocessing isn't suitable for weapons without further isotopic separation. Trying to make a bomb with "reactor Pu" from used LWR fuel, would result in it blowing apart on the bench all by itself, due to the spontaneous, natural fissioning of 240Pu.
william payne
william payne
June 3, 2012
Do you understand the electricity generation problem yet?

Last year's tsunami crisis left Japan's nuclear future in doubt and its reactors idled, rendering its huge stockpile of plutonium useless for now. So, the nuclear industry's plan to produce even more this year has raised a red flag.

Nuclear industry officials say they hope to start producing a half-ton of plutonium within months, in addition to the more than 35 tons Japan already has stored around the world. That's even though all the reactors that might use it are either inoperable or offline while the country rethinks its nuclear policy after the tsunami-generated Fukushima crisis. ...

Japanese officials argue that, once those plans are in place, the reactors will draw down the stockpile and use up most of it by 2030.

"There is no excess plutonium in this country," said Koichi Imafuku, an official at the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy. "It's not just lying around without purpose."
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
June 3, 2012
Even an airconditioned church in the Central Valley can do it year 'rou8nd, even for Sunday services @11 in June...
http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
May 30, 2012
PV system on house in N CA:- area 800M/sqMeter. Annual generation over last 3 years, over 4MWh/yr.

Maybe BillP is living in a cave.
ANONYMOUS
May 27, 2012
Charging a premium for "covered solar parking" is a violation of tax law (ITC) and if the IRS finds out the "owner" will lose your 30% tax credit--PERIOD (assuming they claimed it). So far, no argument to the contrary has persuaded IRS to rule differently, since doing so is expressly counter to what was intended.
btw--almost all integrators are not good resources for tax analysis.
Ian Purdie
Ian Purdie
May 27, 2012
As a non-US citizen looking in, it seems to me that governments and the private sector need to work together, particularly when it applies to developing fields, such as renewable energy. The public confidence is all-important and private investment relies on that and the confidence comes with a sound government policy direction and some allocated dollars.

If the investment dollars end up coming from outside USA so be it. However, if the government diverted the obscene subsidies it gives to the fossil fuel industries then the picture ight change quite a bit.

One crucial change that needs to occur is to shift from production tax credits to feed-in tariffs. It works well in other countries and I don't understand why the USA is taking it up so slowly.
John Ihle
John Ihle
May 26, 2012
Anonymous,

Generally, foreign investment into U.S. RE isn't "bad in total". But when federal and state governments spur investment through grants, and other subsidies that the American taxpayer ends up paying there should be balance. The same incentives should be given what I call normal people. Is it "bad in total"? I think so.

Unfortunately it's not the way it works. Consequently billions of dollars that otherwise would stay in our communities are exported that would otherwise go to work in our communities.

If you don't understand that or care than it's your business.

Your first point: Do you actually think that wind and solar energy would've outpaced other energy investment over the last few years, like it has, if it wasn't profitable? Are you kidding?

Your second point: See my comment prior to the first point. Economics 101....ancillary spinoff/multipliler effects of economic development and keeping money/profits within communities. Foreign investment far exceeds domestic investment in RE..and there is virtually no local investment into RE because the incentives aren't there. I'm talking about manufacturing and generating assets. Real, tangible assets having the capability to generate income for decades.

Markets have dictated the direction we've gone and are going with far too much investment into traditional energy and most legislators don't get how things could be tweaked to enhance local economies. That's unfortunate.

The discourse that would otherwise lead to sound, sustainable economic development unfortunately is convoluted to the benefit of corporations and utilities. However, when legislation is written providing investment for local communities I've seen firsthand the explosion of interest into local RE investment. And yes, such ventures are profitable.

Your point about Goldman Sachs. If you think they're a "U.S. private investment firm" you missed the global meltdown of 2008
william payne
william payne
May 25, 2012
Terrified yet?

http://home.comcast.net/~bpayne37/theinvestigation/swissradio/swissradio.mp3
ANONYMOUS
May 25, 2012
First, let me point out that I'm a big proponent of advancing RE technology here in the US. The US economy is one of the world's most productive environments for developing new technologies or improving existing ones. That's why so much foreign investment comes here.

But in all of the previous posts I didn't see a single one that made a coherent, reasoned argument supporting the article's proposition that more foreign investment and less domestic investment in the US RE markets is bad in total.

First of all, can anyone show me a single US RE investment that has generated a net positive ROI over the past decade?

Second, the US investment capital that is not going into RE doesn't just sit idle. Instead, it goes into other markets, where it provides capital for those businesses to grow. The most important thing for US economic growth is to use capital investment efficiently.

At one time the US dominated manufacturing industries like radios, televisions, computers, digital electronic components, etc. Now the US has no domestic manufacturing capability for these products, and imports them at very low cost from overseas suppliers. Has that really been a bad thing for the US economy overall?

Lastly, I would point out that Goldman Sachs just announced it will invest $40B over the next decade in RE, which is a huge private investment. So don't get too depressed about US private investment in RE ventures.
william payne
william payne
May 25, 2012
Kudlow report Friday May 25, 2012 has 'open mouths' reporting Iranian high enrichment of unraium with implications of immediate attack on Iran's nuclear generation of electricty facilites.

The US and Iran may face electrity increased costs and shortages?

Possibly serious stuff?

Google 'Iran cornerstone of possible ww3'

Then 'ryan crocker j orlin grabbe'.

Regards, 'embedded controller forth for the 8051 family'

80051? Edit capability appreciated.

Google 't4 landscaping' for a more fun project.

Google 'aboulghassem zirakzadeh' for history.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
May 25, 2012
Okay, I take your point: if you put solar panels overtop of land used for other purposes and it creates no additional land area requirement then that's x/0 Wp/m^2 which is infinite power density. Of course, you still run out of available area quicker than you'd think due to structural, orientation and shadowing issues. One clever integrator I ran into puts solar panels over parking lots so that owners can charge extra for the shaded parking spots created - a negative land use cost. On the other hand, solar water heating panels have a high efficiency and don't need much area: from talking to installers it seems that the biggest problem is dealing with excess capacity as it doesn't take much area to meet domestic hot water requirements (the ideal case seems to be to have a large heat sink available such as a pool or geothermal system).
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 25, 2012
Gerald, you didn't get it. Infinite isn't zero,. And what I was saying is that no land area is needed for local solar on existing structures. It was an attempt to be cute, while showing the great advantage of DG solar.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
May 25, 2012
Dr Alex - I thought Billp had outdone you in dialing down the sun but now you appear to have set solar irradiance down to 0 W per square meter. In reality, the sun can be pretty bright on a good day. 'Standard' solar irradiance is 1000 W/m^2 but that's a fictive average condition. Solar irradiance can be more or less depending on elevation, humidity, latitude, air pollution, etc. In arid high-elevation locations, peak irradiance can get into the neighborhood of 1250 W/m^2 in the Northern Hemisphere (without atmosphere it averages ~1380 W/m^2). Factors that limit the power density of a solar array are efficiency, module spacing and ambient cooling capacity (temperature, wind speed, latitude and terrain). For a fixed mount solar farm in southern location, ~25% of land is used for service access. With 17% efficient panels one would achieve a net efficiency of 12.75% less wiring and inverter losses. For a location with 1200 W/m^2 peak insolation and 17C peak ambient (and there are plenty in the southwest), that works out to ~135 W/m^2 or ~0.54 MWp per acre (Billp claims 5 Wp/m^2). Compared to typical large scale hydro-electric projects, that's a much higher power density; for example, Grand Coulee == 21 Wp/m^2. A 6-up nuclear plant with a 20 km exclusion zone has a power density of ~5 Wp/m^2.

Our local farmers get better land utilization than utility solar farms as they prefer tall post-mounted trackers so that they can use surrounding land for agriculture. A typical 9600 Wp array sits on a 12 m^2 pedestal == 800 Wp/m^2.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 24, 2012
Actually, local solar PV & hot water is infinite Wsq meters needed. ;]

http://paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=24561
www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1877&targetid=223
www.environmentcalifornia.org/sites/environment/files/reports/California%27s%20Solar%20Cities%202012%20-%20Final.pdf?utm_source=041+April+30+General+Newsletter&utm_campaign=General+March&utm_medium=email
www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/nr/Pages/Santa-Clara-County-Celebrates-Completion-of-New-Solar-Installation-Project.aspx
william payne
william payne
May 24, 2012
Messing with wrong cats?

http://www.radiojavan.com/mp3s/mp3/Ahmad-Saeedi-Dooset-Daram
william payne
william payne
May 24, 2012
Let's lighten up.

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrider/solarlights.htm

http://www.prosefights.org/pnmrider/pondless.htm

Albert Gore willing, of course.

Google 'ryan crocker j orlin grabbe'.
william payne
william payne
May 24, 2012
Post

fast neutron
Santa Fe, NM
January 12, 2009

From actual experience, wind farms produce 1.2 watts per square meter. Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic methods capture 5 to 6 watts per square meter. There is no economy of size in either technology. Dividing the watts you need by those values gives the land area in square meters needed to produce the juice. The numbers are astronomical

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/santa-fe-new-mexican/T0QVJ5UD3R25C8HRL

plus statement that large-scale solar generation of electricity is a fraud cause us to investtigate.

Google 'case no. 12-000007-ut'
Matt Snyder
Matt Snyder
May 23, 2012
The primary energy problem we believe we can solve is one of transition of transportation technology. Not by replacing the trucks, ships, trains and jet airplanes. The cost and lead time alone make doing that impracticable at best. We have observed something that correlates petroleum and algae based fuels even from the satellite view.

In a cracking tower, oil seperates according to hydrocarbon (HC) molecule length into different fuels. Each species of algae that produces lipids, produces a different length HC molecule. Ergo, the correct algae species per application grown in monoculture can be converted to the target finished fuel cheaper, faster and on site.

Imagine an airport with a number of photobioreactor circuits circumnavigating the property just inside the perimeter fence with processing done under the terminal building to make all fuels needed for the specific demands of customers.

BTW - Anonymous is now not anonymous anymore. This individual's "proclivities" will soon invite them to enjoy an extended vacation at a state run "resort". I got my crystal ball back from the repair shop today.
richard awni
richard awni
May 23, 2012
As a early stage company that is building the pipeline America really needs, Alternative e-transportation, from inflatable e-jet skis, to electric streetswweepers, a 'Superstore' of all electrics we too are now looking to Asia for investment funds. We have spent 18 months scouring the planet, visiting the best and most forward thinking e-manufacturers, built relationships with the most applicable to deliver access via 'Flagship' locations for local access to main street americans. If your interested in helping build the pipeline America really needs,if your an investor, or know those who do invest in real clean tech contact me at: richard@plugngo.us, or visit our website: www.plugngo.us
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
May 23, 2012
Learn somethin' every day! Anonymous (claimed former CIA guy) is with an algae company out here in CA! I like the fancy term for it: Phycotronics, meaning nothing, since Phytotronics is already a corporate name.

But, now we know ol' Anon (do folks who had real CIA jobs disclose that?) is in business trying to figure out how to separate water from algal oils efficiently.

About 4000 strains have been studied just to get a bit better oil yield, which of course opens the question of monocultures and disease epidemics (algal not human). It also raises questions for the pros in the business about effects of escape from the 'farm'.

But, it's at least better than the miserable performance of corn ethanol, which nets <1% energy out of the solar energy put into the plants. And that doesn't even account for loss of soil nutrients, food cropping, and food price inflation for the billion or so already suffering malnutrition.

Subsidies are often necessary, but as often are exploited by those interested in $ for themselves, rather than solving problems for us all.
ANONYMOUS
May 23, 2012
Algaeboy/scipio,
Your technology, company and comments are laughable. That is why you can't get funding.
Now I will go away, just like you spam comment promoting you BS tech "went away" from this comment section.
Have a wonderful day trying to scam people.
Matt Snyder
Matt Snyder
May 23, 2012
iAnonymous - You falsely assume we have had no offers and that our own principles can be bought at any price. Your glib assumptions demonstrate the miniscule depth of your understanding of algaculture, technology design and commercialization. An even bigger joke is the individual who is only willing to comment in an ignorantly critical fashion IF THEIR NAME ISN'T INCLUDED.

Of you are not man enough to own your comments, neither are you man enough to have the credibility that comes with being on the same planet as the reality you ignorantly mock. Grow up, or shut up. I bet you are the Bozo who decided that giving just enough information to allow others to fact-check qualifies as spam.

Don't go.away mad, just go away.
ANONYMOUS
May 23, 2012
[At Scipio Biofuels Inc. Www.scipiobiofuels.com we have developed exactly what is needed, that works, and have been ignored by the feds for three years.]
As if another $450k would do the trick! What a joke of a company. As if there is a Federal conspiracy to thwart such a technology. IF it were a REAL game changer, then big oil would bought it and killed it--enough said.
William Feldmann
William Feldmann
May 23, 2012
We need to invest heavily in battery/electrical storage capacity, that is the game changer. Ask the CEO of Exxon Mobil, He knows that as soon as you can pull a trailer with a full load up a mountain road with an electric tractor his company is history.
dennis baker
dennis baker
May 23, 2012
Federal funds needed to keep clean-tech from 'valley of death'

http://www.environmental-finance.com/news/view/2513
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
May 23, 2012
wick10

Solar is intermittent that is true. But your statement is not true. Look into all the HVDV lines going into China and Europe - much of which is to transmit intermittent energy THOUSANDS of miles with very little loss...
Ronald Thomas
Ronald Thomas
May 23, 2012
All this RE is too intermittent to be useful!
John Ihle
John Ihle
May 23, 2012
The report should be renamed; "Fire Sale-Business as Usual".

Foreign investment into RE resulting in the exportation of boatloads of cash off shore and out of our communities is a concept not understood too well by those making sausage. Somebody should do a study on that.

From my perspective things are not much different now than it was 30 or 40 years ago. America has made some progress and perhaps, through ARPA E and other efforts grid parity is closer to reality than ever. Cose of energy from RE has come down significantly since the late 70's. Corporations have been the primary beneficiary with respect to monies earned.

Much more should be done to spur local investment into real, energy producing projects as well as r&d efforts. Often it is an educational process coupled with innovative structures and economic incentive. You obviously have to have the legislation in place for any traction to develop.

Democrats and Republicans alike apparently are satisfied with status quo because of lobbying efforts funded by oil, gas and coal (and nuclear). That is and has been the issue since the first oil embargo. Unfortunately most politicians don't have the understanding or the vision that is needed to develop comprehensive and sustainable energy policy that could otherwise have huge economic impact for our country.
Chris Hollerback
Chris Hollerback
May 23, 2012
I have a start-up business with a technology for fuel efficiency and hydrocarbon capture for fleet transportation.
This story hits home with me from a personal experience. Over the past few years we have applied for several of the limited grants and small contract opportunities offered that allows private companies to participate in. The limited scope of what is considered "Cleantech" has also limited interest from pirvate U.S. investment. Until reading this article I was under the impression that it was just us having this problem.
We recently had a story written concerning the issue:
http://www.entrepreneurcommunityonline.com/can-a-fleet-refueling-system-be-considered-as-cleantech/
We would like to have U.S. support, but will consider other options.
Chris Hollerback
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
May 23, 2012
Scipio - Please send me a business plan - solarjpl@aol.com.

Ravineta - I understand your thinking, but this is NOT a time to wait. There is much to be done and much that can be done. Cuts can be made in other places - defense etc. this is NOT a area to cut back on - but one to accelerate.

We are in a critical period and this is NOT a time to delay

"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." Winston Churchill
David Coles
David Coles
May 23, 2012
Some of your comments are right on. But digg this web site and tell me if you think this company should have to go to China for Funding through a PPM. We have a client waiting in the wings for our prototype system to hit the market. Revenue from this client alone is estimated to be $ 30,000,000 in 4 years. Want proof? First visit the site at. www.dcasystems.com. Second, request a copy of our PPM Stock Offering by email at: dcasystems@live.com. You be the judge.
ALFREDO RAVINET
ALFREDO RAVINET
May 23, 2012
I work in the field of RE and certainly I believe that there is an important future for our technology, however the US economy it is at a circumstance that needs to prioritize its resources and keep focus on taking the country out of the recession and stop the horrible government deficit (16.5 trillions). Conclussion: RE have to wait and advance the R&D at a slow pace waitting for the right economic moment.
dennis baker
dennis baker
May 23, 2012
US Department of Energy (DoE) for funding to support first-of-a-kind engineering, design certification and licensing.
dennis baker
dennis baker
May 23, 2012
I'm waiting for ARPA-E to correct this scenario.

The primary source of GHG is fossil fuel burning electrical generating facilities. http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/causes/uploads/2012/01/GHG-emitters-2010.jpg
7 Billion humans generate vast quantities of excrement. I believe this excrement is capable of providing all human electrical demands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiolysis
Right now hydrogen is perceived as a negative by product, of Nuclear Energy, when it should be the product, as the Pentagon has considered. reference info Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies ... DARPA-SN-10-37@darpa.mil
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d0792af88a6a4484b3aa9d0dfeaaf553&...
Large scale conversions sites are intended to replace fossil fuel powered electrical facilities the Primary Source of Carbon Emissions.
http://www.populist.com/99.12.krebs.blob.html
In what officials now say was a mistaken strategy to reduce the waste's volume, organic chemicals were added years ago which were being bombarded by radiation fields, resulting in unwanted hydrogen. The hydrogen was then emitted in huge releases that official studies call burps, causing "waste-bergs," chunks of waste floating on the surface, to roll over.

Dennis Baker
106-998 Creston Avenue
Penticton BC V2A1P9
cell phone 250-462-3796
Phone / Fax 778-476-2633
dennisbaker2003@hotmail.com
@dennisearlbaker
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
May 23, 2012
"the US RE market is not currently a profitable investment" - you've gotta love it. The implication is that big investors don't know how to make money. I believe their record proves the contrary case: they didn't get all that money making dumb decisions. Meanwhile, American lenders seem happier to invest in paper rather than hard assets - after all what's a few billion of pension fund money down the drain to them? One might ask, why did the government have to bail out GM? Apparently, not one patriotic financial institution could see their way to making what would, given current high profits, a pretty decent investment. The bigger threat is that American financials are moving further away from hard value such as physical assets and productive capacity and more into vaporous paper. On the surface of it, it doesn't matter where the money comes from - except that it does (there's a reason why they put presidents pictures on the money).
William Feldmann
William Feldmann
May 23, 2012
The laws of supply and demand dictate that wind and solar will be the major source of electrical energy throughout the world in the not too distant future.
The real question for congress is, will our children and grandchildren participate in the prosperity generated by the industry?
ANONYMOUS
May 23, 2012
The whole situation surrounding foreign investment in US RE or lower cost foreign RE products being imported to the US is much more complex than the author describes it.

There are lots of examples throughout US history where there has been significant foreign investment in core domestic industries. FIAT now owns Chrysler/Dodge, Rolls-Royce owns Allison, Mercedes-Benz owns Detroit-Diesel, Bridgestone owns Firestone, etc. The only difference between these examples and the current US RE market is that the US RE market is not currently a profitable investment.

As for lower cost foreign RE products, that lower capital cost greatly benefits the domestic purchasers. If foreign governments want to subsidize hundreds of $millions towards the purchase cost of turbines for US buyers, that's a good thing for profitability of those US operators.

Add Your Comments

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

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Jennifer Runyon

Jennifer Runyon

Jennifer Runyon is managing editor of RenewableEnergyWorld.com coordinating, writing and/or editing columns, features, news stories and blogs for the publications. She also serves as conference chair of Solar Power-Gen Conference and Exhibition...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • The Future of Solar in Latin America
  • Fighting Blackouts: Japan Residential PV and Energy Storage Market Flourishing
  • The Economic Case for Divesting from Fossil Fuels
  • Are Run-of-River Hydroelectric Systems Ready to Ride US Currents?
  • Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief

Most Commented

  • 15
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 8
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • SolarFlairLighting.com
  • Creotecc Solar Mounting Systems
  • Quickscrews International Corp.
  • EnergyDreams LLC
  • Solar Power International 2013
  • RevoluSun
  • Met Office
  • Intertek
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
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