It is obvious that the purpose of these articles is to develop interest in investing. So, let’s hear about the investment.
You’re astute, Ed. As implied in the mission statement on the homepage, one of the key values that 2GreenEnergy proposes to bring to its readers is the “interpersonal connections” required for success in the renewables business. To that end, you’ll notice a new tab on the site: Investors. When the functionality is complete in the next day or so, this will become a place at which investors and opportunities can meet. I.e., those with solid business plans can present their offers to a database of serious investors: angels, VCs, hedge fund managers, etc.
I just got off the phone with a man I think of as “one of the good guys.” Jim Riggins, retired from the Air Force, now volunteers to “spread the gospel” of the National Solar Tour, through his work at its local chapter, the Central Coast Solar Tour.
What is a solar tour, you ask? The National Solar Tour, part of the non-profit American Solar Energy Society (ASES), is the largest grassroots solar event in the nation. In 2008 almost 140,000 attendees visited over 5,000 buildings in 3,000 communities across the country. In each state, homeowners, business owners, and building owners who are using solar energy to generate electric power and heat showcase their building to the public, educating large number of people on exactly what solar energy can do for them. For many people, this is the first step on an investigation and a learning experience that will take them through what Jim calls “the good, the bad, and the ugly” of solar power.
For California’s Central Coast, the solar tour is October 3, from 10 AM – 3 PM.
I asked about the standards in efficiency today, and what Jim sees on the horizon. Polycrystalline and monocrystalline are starting to come into their own at 14% – 18%. Thin film technologies offer only 9% – 10% efficiency, but are accompanied by lower production cost and lighter construction, and are thus relevant for those with roofs that may be oddly shaped or unable to handle heavier weight. Still in the lab, but looking very promising are multichromatic systems that absorb solar energy at various wavelengths, and have achieved efficiencies over 40%. The trade-offs, however, are based on the fact that the materials required (cadmium, germanium, etc.) are a bit exotic – certainly not as common as silicon.
Jim says that the confluence of the a progressive administration, financial incentives that are in place, high energy prices, and consumer awareness create an environment that is most favorable to alternative energy since the OPEC embargoes of the 1970s. R&D is “alive and kicking.” And more fundamentally, solar panels are on the shelf now; they’re as common to roofers as shingles or insulation.
Alternative energy is a true national security issue, Jim believes. So why did the George W. Bush administration – ostensibly so concerned about national security — do essentially nothing in this area? Jim explains his theory, which happens to match mine: it’s business. The folks that controlled the purse strings were the people who profited from drilling oil and mining coal. The current administration puts long-term health and safety issues first.
Yesterday I had the good fortune to reconnect with an industry colleague, Brian Wynne, the president of the Electric Drive Transportation Association in Washington, DC. The EDTA is an organization supported by members consisting largely of electric vehicle manufacturers and supply chain partners in the electric vehicle industry, whose purpose is to promote the adoption of electric transportation. For years, Brian and his small but energetic staff and have worked tirelessly to assemble and disseminate information necessary for law-makers to make decisions that will ultimately result in the migration of our cars and trucks away from fossil fuels.
In my estimation, the EDTA is a vital force in effecting this massive change that will ultimately pay enormous dividends for all of us, both in terms of stemming global climate change and eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. I was pleased to speak with Brian again, and I’m happy to publish this transcript of our talk.
Craig Shields: What would you say is the state of the EV industry as you see it, Brian?
Brian Wynne: It’s moving forward very quickly. The consumer has an important vote to cast here, and we’ve started with good incentives that will greatly reduce the price premium associated with EVs over their internal combustion counterparts. Now, of course, we just need the availability of vehicles, and this availability changes every week. In addition to the Nissan Leaf, you probably saw that Buick announced a plug-in for 2011.
CS: Yes, the crossover; I did see that.
BW: The gating issue is, as it has always been, batteries. But the Obama administration’s DoE is addressing this aggressively with its $1.5 billion for battery technology development and its $500 million for other components.
The migration to EVs requires the participation of the utilities, as well, and great progress is being made on that front as well.
CS: Please explain for our readers how the EDTA fits in.
BW: We gather and provide objective, credible information to those who need it. We deal with the level of knowledge that exists at any one slice of time, and then provide trustworthy information to build upon that. It’s not journalistic, in the sense of what you folks do at EVWorld, or 2GreenEnergy. We aggregate information and make it available through a variety of sources.
CS: Could you offer an example or two, so we can better understand this?
BW: Sure. Our information is often disseminated through power utilities, as they have relationships with tens of millions of customers. Another example is trade shows. Next year, our presentations on the subject will be made in conjunction with the Washington Auto Show.
And in addition to our consumer-face, of course, we’re lobbyists, we stand for a certain interest. I would say that our interests are completely consistent with the health and safety of everyone on this planet.
CS: Which I suppose can’t be said about every lobbyist on Capitol Hill.
BW: That’s true, but that doesn’t mean that most lobbyists are bad people; they’re simply representing certain interests.
CS: Where is your attention at this point?
BW: Well, one of our jobs is to make sure that this is all coming along in sync and that the policy decisions are providing incentive for the right thing, for example, that they are performance-based, meaning that the biggest credits go to the vehicles that displace the most gasoline.
CS: When I was in your office last fall, we talked about this being a function of the size of the battery. Is that still the case?
BW: Yes. It’s a good assumption that the more kilowatt-hours of energy storage in a plug-in hybrid’s battery, for instance, the less gas will ultimately be used to keep that car on the road.
CS: I write in my blogs, perhaps a bit cavalierly, that what I see as the four main gating factors: OEM production, battery supply, charging infrastructure, and consumer demand, all need to evolve at approximately the same rate – and that I am optimistic that this is, in fact, happening. What do you think?
BW: I guess I agree with that generally, but I have to say that a lot of this is great deal more complicated than it looks. A good example of what makes this so tough is electric power billing. If I’ve driven to grandma’s and I’m charging at grandmas’s, I want the bill to come to me, not grandma.
This is something that has taken a considerable amount of effort to get right, even when you take a much simpler case, say toll collection. Until recently, the RFID device on my car wouldn’t operate anywhere except on the Dulles Toll Road. Now, finally, I can go all the way up to Maine and down to Virginia Beach, which required the integration of systems across various state bureaucracies. The issue is the same—only worse, the power utilities, because they are all regulated differently. Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is a major player in bringing this all off.
CS: How do you see renewable energy playing a role here?
BW: I believe that renewable energy is the most interesting piece of this whole thing. To be honest, electric transportation is not a major driver to the migration to renewables and to building out a smart grid. But global warming is. Our policy makers are totally focused on avoiding a planetary catastrophe; they will not be backing down on this.
CS: That’s good to know.
BW: And speaking of the smart grid, I see this as becoming the new Internet, in the sense of enabling applications that we couldn’t have dreamed of earlier. Now you’re in a car accident, and you use your I-phone to process the claim in real-time: pictures, insurance policies, drivers licenses, etc. – all enabled by the Internet. The smart grid will have that kind of impact on our lives as well.
CS: Fascinating. Thanks so much, Brian. Great speaking with you again.
As I’ve written, I’m more than gratified at both the quantity and quality of the comments we’re receiving on the Three Brass Tacks. At a certain level, one could review these comments and note that the subject matter is quite varied, covering all aspects of the reports – a bit of praise, a few challenges to the accuracy of certain points, new ideas for renewables, etc.
But I want to call readers’ attention to one central point. Many of these comments assert either:
a) that there are corporate/political pressures that actively work against renewable energy in favor of traditional power sources, or
b) the exact opposite, i.e., that there are no such forces, and that renewable energy will be adopted when it can compete cost-effectively with coal, nuclear, oil, etc.
Well that certainly raises at least one big question, doesn’t it? Which one’s right? As we all remember from our logic classes, they can’t both be. The Law of Non-Contradiction reminds us that if proposition A is true, then proposition Not A cannot be true. E.g., it can’t be both raining and not raining at the same place and time, in the same sense of the word “raining.”
And doesn’t this discussion lie at the very core of the future of renewable energy? Is the RE industry playing on a level playing field, or isn’t it?
Both in the report and in this blog, I’ve clearly taken the stance that the RE industry faces all manner of corrupt influences that make it very difficult for large-scale deployments to be licensed, built, and set into operation. There are numerous posts and articles that provide what I feel is compelling evidence to this effect.
Yet I have the utmost respect for readers like Mark of San Jose, former employee at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose comments echo those of many other very senior people and assert that there are no such pressures in one direction or another.
Rather than belabor the point with more anecdotal evidence to support my theories, let me leave you with this:
Even if there are no overt pressures that work against RE, what’s the problem with asking the oil and coal companies to pay for the true cost of the power they provide? How long do you think we’d be scraping coal out of the earth and burning it in our 600+ coal-fired power plants if the coal industry had to pay even an ultra-conservative estimate of the increase in healthcare costs (respiratory disease) its presence causes, and the cost of the long-term environmental damage that it inflicts on us every minute of every day?
As long as they can pass those costs on to you and me and our descendents, I don’t think we can realistically expect any change. All we’re going to see is clever PR on the subject of “clean coal,” “an oil company being part of the solution” and other oxymorons that are nothing but a slap in the face of anyone really paying attention.
I just got back from a family vacation in Spain, during which I spent a fair amount of time looking for relevant things to tell readers when I returned. I didn’t have to wait long for my first inspiration. My attempt to sleep on the way over was interrupted by dawn breaking. Initially annoyed with myself for stupidly forgetting to lower the shade, I looked out the window and beheld this wonderful sight, a 20 MW solar concentrator near Seville. Another reminder of the progress that is being made in so many places around the world.
I want to call readers’ attention to some of the other blogs on the subject that seem particularly complete and insightful. Here’s one: Green Energy Blog.
Jan-Gerhard Hemming, a reader from Sweden, writes to suggest an industrial carbon cycle paralleling photosynthesis, recycling CO2 from flue gases – eventually from the air itself – converting it chemically or electrochemically to methanol and benign byproducts.
I’m always fascinated by ideas for processing CO2 at the source point of the emissions. But personally, I believe that there are “macro” solutions that can and will obsolete fossil fuels, if we can amass the political will to get there. Some of these are discussed in the reports, e.g., solar thermal and hydrokinetics. I hate to sounds pessimistic, but to me, it sounds more-less impossible to deploy millions of flue adapters, etc.
I am no adherent of Shai Agassi’s dubious scheme, but it does show the willingness of power companies to support EV. development.
As long as think has come up, here are my thoughts on Better Place.
1) I know the world is clamoring for electric vehicles, and that’s a good thing. But rushing headlong at Better Place seems very strange to me. At a minimum, it’s monopolistic. The state governments, e.g., California, are handing this guy a monopolistic position that is sure to be abused. By contrast, the cell phone companies (who are still making money hand over fist) must compete with one another. I suppose you have to give Agassi credit that he is able to talk his way into this position, but I find it outrageous.
2) Having said this, I really don’t think it’s the right solution for the United States anyway. I know I can be accused of optimism, but I see the entire “chicken-and-egg” or “Catch 22” of EV production, battery supply, battery energy density, battery cost, charging infrastructure, and consumer acceptance/demand unravelling roughly in sync with one another over the coming decades. Will there be “fits and starts?” Of course.
A lot of acceptable solutions for electric passenger cars (light duty vehicles) were already proposed and I agree that are very viable. Unfortunately for heavy vehicles (interurban buses and trucks) are not so many.
I see this changing quickly, driven in part by government mandates. There are 70,000 diesel container movers operating in the Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor, and the state of California is getting extremely tough on diesel emissions. In response, companies that offer heavy-duty EVs like Balqon are springing up. My consulting company, EV World Associates, happens to have dealings with them. I love their design; 140 kWh battery packs line the sides.
….And as for all those guys & gals of the coal, oil, nuclear and auto industries who have been delaying it all for years/decades, I wonder if they can look proudly into the eyes of their innocent kids…
First, thanks for writing, and let me say that I love Belgium. I used to consult to Philips in Eindhoven; I’d fly into Brussels and drive out that incredible road past the fields and beautiful little towns.
This also reminds me to note that we sent “Brass Tack #1” to people in 22 different countries. My sincere thanks to everyone internationally for their interest.
To your point, as I have written elsewhere, I agree with you 100%. There are thousands of people who will have to explain to Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates that their life’s work consisted to befouling a planet and damaging the health and safety of 6.8 billion innocent people. I’m certainly glad I’m not one of them.
Ed Bowerman writes:
![](http://s708.photobucket.com/albums/ww83/craigshields/?action=view¤t=Kalmar_Castle.jpg "Renewable Energy - What About "Micro" Solutions?")
