Home › Blog › Page 1628

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q7prldEBpo&w=425&h=349]

Here’s the presentation — including the audio track — that I made to the Electric Vehicle Summit at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles last week.

In essence, my point is that, though I’m bullish on the EV adoption curve, and I’m excited that for once, the good guys have a chance to win big, there are several open questions. In particular, there are so many variables here that have the potential to turn the world upside down, that it seems a bit foolish to me to think that predictions that go out 40 years have any real meaning.

Having said that, EVs are vitally necessary to the well being of all of us. Sustainability (generally) can only come from national security, which requires energy security, which in turn requires weaning ourselves off of oil. And there are other imperatives as well:

Health: We spend $250 billion a year dealing with the lung damage caused by the inhalation of the aromatics of fossil fuels.

Peak oil. We’re running out of oil.

Long-term environmental damage: Global climate change and ocean acidification.

Yet I grant that EV naysayers have some good points:

Drivers demand absolute freedom, and will not deal well with range anxiety.

Consumers are risk-averse; no one wants to invest $30,000 in the automotive equivalent of the Betamax.

Most (though not all) consumers refuse to pay extra for a benefit that accrues to everyone (eco-friendliness).

Even if this weren’t the case, there is widespread confusion and apathy about the true ecological benefits. I’m astonished by the effectiveness of the PR team that has convinced a significant number of Americans that global climate change does not represent an important problem. Morally, they’re certainly not very upright people, but I have to respect their effectiveness.

So, how to promote EVs in the US? I would consider appealing to a sense of patriotism, as there is nothing one can do that is better for the strength of our country as a whole than ceasing our reliance on oil. Simultaneously, this would:

Reduce the power, and thus the threat, of terrorism,

Remove a great deal of the motivation for war, and

Stop the outflow of US cash to the tune of $1 billion per day.

In any case, I hope you’ll enjoy the presentation.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

The talk I gave at the Electric Vehicle Summit last week is linked here, including the PowerPoint as well as the audio track.  I concluded it with a reminder that, in terms of the EV adoption curve, we don’t really know as much as we think we do. 

“Let’s put this in perspective,” I told the audience near the end of my 45-minute presentation.  “You folks are listening to me, and, I’d like to think, trusting what I’m telling you.  But I got my information from various sources, that, in turn, got their information from other sources.  At the end of the day, it’s possible that, pardon the pun, we’re all just breathing one another’s exhaust.  When there are so many variables, and so much of our world changes month to month, I look askance at  projections that go out 40 years.  I think you should too.” 

I read a poem (Please Mrs. Butler) that, in a round-about way, makes this point, i.e., maybe I’ve raised more questions than I’ve provided answers.  I acknowledged the chuckles I received, took a few questions, and sat down.  

But the idea that we think we know more than we do is an extremely important one; it certainly applies far more broadly than the EV adoption curve.  This subject, called “epistemic arrogance” lies at the root of so much of human folly.  I’m reminded of an eminent business leader I’ve met a few times who takes every opportunity to offer his position on global warming.  “It’s a hoax.  Mankind positively does not possess the power to alter the incredible power of nature.  The concept is absolutely idiotic,” he re-asserted at a recent meeting. 

“Are you sure?” I asked the first time I heard this, my jaw on the floor.  “I mean no offense — and I know there are ‘climate change deniers’ out there — but you seem quite certain about a proposition that flies in the teeth of the peer-reviewed findings that the vast majority of climate scientists have published over the last 30 years.”  But couldn’t get him to back off even a micron.

I’m wondering where we’re going to see the most dramatic and lethal evidence of our epistemic arrogance.  It certainly could be global warming, though there’s no reason to rule out nutrition.  The last hundred years has seen agricultural science develop hundreds of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, as well as farming methods that many say have ruined the soil.  Others believe that our GMOs represent a terrible biohazard.  Almost no one thinks that commercially raised tomatoes have any flavor, but, more importantly, anyone who’s studied the subject knows that the nutritional value of the food in our grocery stores is a small fraction of what it was a century ago.  

We also have skyrocketing rates of diseases that simply didn’t exist in the early 1900s. Is there a connection? 

And what’s the solution?  Should we feel comfortable with the approach that ADM, Monsanto, and the other agri-giants are taking, i.e., more unnatural processes and higher doses of more powerful chemicals — aimed at undoing the damage caused by the last round?

While it doesn’t seem likely to me that this will this fix the problem, and it’s certainly not the direction I’d be taking if I were directing this effort, I have to say what I wish other people would admit: “I don’t know.”

I’m reminded of an important idea in law called the Precautionary Principle, that requires the developer of an action or policy to prove that what he is advocating will cause no harm to the public or the environment.  I.e., if a concept could potentially contain a risk to public health and safety, the burden is placed on the concept’s proponents to prove that such risk does not exist, rather than on the public to prove that it does.  

But in cases like the food supply as discussed here, it’s obvious that we as a civilization are light-years away from any meaningful implementation of this principle.  Agribusiness makes decisions that affect the health of everyone living on this planet.  We eat what they feed us, and we suffer the consequences.

Occasionally it would be nice to hear, “Look, we clearly have no idea of the unintended consequences of what we’re doing here, so let’s err on the side of caution.”   Wouldn’t that be refreshing? 

But I’m not holding my breath.  What about you? 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

General Electric (GE) is speeding ahead on a number of renewable energy fronts.  This includes continuing to build its wind turbine division, a new smart meter project, planning to build the largest solar plant in the U.S., keeping its successful Eco-Imagination project going and increasing clean energy investment and financing through its financial services division, among other things.

In fact, the Financial Services division is growing rather dramatically and has strongly committed to renewable energy. To date, it has invested in wind, solar, biomass, hydro and geothermal power assets with a portfolio over $6B. About 30% of the division’s portfolio is in renewable energy today, while in 2006 only 6% of the portfolio could be categorized as such.

GE Financial Services has been providing structured project finance using debt and equity, as well as construction loans, (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

When I wrote the other day: “Every day we read about the global dominance that China is achieving in cleantech, and wish the US could get on the stick as well,” a well-meaning reader wrote back: “It makes you sad and it makes you furious at the shortsightedness and hypocrisy of the people we elect.”

Personally, I don’t blame the people, but the system that selects them. Put another way, shortsighted and hypocritical people are the only ones who will fit into “leadership” positions in what’s left of our “democracy.”  Just like you don’t expect to find midgets playing professional basketball or leg-amputees on “Dancing with the Stars,” don’t look for honesty and decency in government.  Apple trees don’t produce tangerines.

Until we remove the corruptive elements of our election processes, we’re doomed to an eternity of “leadership” by people like the ones who grace our evening news reports. I hope you’ll check out MoveToAmend.org and get involved. 

Btw, here’s a radio interview I did with MoveToAmend’s David Cobb.  If you get the chance to catch him on one of his speaking tours, I urge you to grab the opportunity; he’s one of the most articulate and powerful speakers you’ll ever find.  He ran for US president in 2004, so I suppose he’s had some practice.

Tagged with:

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Sustainability

Guest blogger M.L. Kiely writes:

The Earth has two paths which humanity can follow.  The first revolves around greed and oil, and assures the vast majority of humans will starve, suffer and perish. The second focuses on serving one another without borders and monetary gain, the elimination of the haves and the have nots, and eliminate the divisiveness of religion and state.

The intelligence and resources exist today to feed, house and maintain health of all of humanity; the desire to do so is the fundamental issue.

The odds of the second alternative happening would seem slim to none until you cast extinction into the mix.

Tagged with:

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Biomass

I just spoke with Sean O’Hanlon, leader of the American Biofuels Council, a national institute for biofuel research, analysis, development, and education in the United States.  Sean impressed me as a doer rather than a talker; the emphasis of his organization is moving biofuels out of the classroom and laboratory and into the world of day-to-day commerce.

But he made a pithy remark that I immediately jotted down with the smile that comes over me when I encounter something that’s truly well said: “There is no romance in renewables.”  There are so many flavors of biofuels that simply do not compete well in the overall market. Sean told me, “Do not expect to enter a market with a low-grade product, or one that’s more expensive than a fossil fuel competitor, on the basis that there is ‘romance” to renewable energy. It doesn’t exist.”

Tagged with: , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Biomass

I just had a fascinating call with Jim Lane, editor and publisher of Miami, FL-based BioFuelsDigest.com, a group that provides information products and a series of top-flight industry conferences to more than 14,000 organizations worldwide.

When I happened to mention that I run across plenty of crackpots and charlatans in my day-to-day dealings with cleantech entrepreneurs, it was instantly apparent that Jim’s had the same experience. And the more I learn about biofuels, the more I can understand how easily this may be the case. There is so much complexity; there are so many different combinations of feedstocks and technologies, it’s really impossible for anyone to keep track of all of them. One hopes for peer-reviewed analysis, but that’s not always possible; one can understand that certain of these businesses need to protect their IP very carefully.

This is further complicated by the fact that many biomass technologies work to some degree – just not at a commercially viable level. It’s not like somebody who claims to have built a car that runs on seawater.

Take waste-tire-to-biofuels, for instance. I happen to believe that the version of pyrolysis that my associates at Southeastern Biomass bring to the table will work as advertised. But I’m certainly skeptical; I think anyone needs to be. Pyrolysis has been around for a century, and dozens (hundreds?) of people have tried to make the waste-tire dream come true.

At the end of the day, some of these folks are showmen. And, while every business needs a convincing front-man, there is a line between enthusiastic promotion and fraud.

Just ask the U.S. District Judge who, last week, handed down a summary judgment against John Rivera, bombastic leader U.S. Sustainable Energy Corp, affirming charges levied by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which had alleged that Rivera used false press releases and other false public statements to drive up interest — and stock price — reaping huge profits in what turned out to be a virtually worthless company. Looks like Rivera’s headed for the slammer, which sounds about right to me.

Tagged with: , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

To understand this little anecdote, you have to know that about a year ago, I became a friend of a French fellow, Gerolf Jacobs, a very personable clean energy investor/deal-maker who lives near Bordeaux. In a few of our numerous conversations, Gerolf has mentioned his specific penchant for renewables projects in Bulgaria.

I told him I’d keep an ear to the ground, and let him know if I came across any relevant contacts in this space. Of course, I didn’t think that such an event was too probable; in fact, I was altogether ignorant of modern Bulgarian history; when I think of the place, I recall Stalin and Soviet-bloc totalitarianism and bureaucracy.

Fast-forward to July. I was playing hooky from one of the plenary sessions at the Energy Storage conference show, sitting in the lavish hallway of the top-flight resort at which the conference was held. In fact, I was writing a blog post, much like I’m doing now. Across from me was a distinguished looking guy, bespectacled and well dressed, speaking a language I didn’t recognize into his cell phone. I remember thinking: That’s a Slavic language, but I sure couldn’t tell you which one. It’s actually good that I can’t understand it; if it were English I’d be distracted.

When he hung up, I asked, “I like the sound of that language – what is it?” “Bulgarian,” he explained.  A bit later in the conversation he mentioned, “I’m connected with dozens of people in my country who are working hard to forward the cause of renewables.”

“Hmmmm. I’m wondering if I could introduce one more,” I smiled.

Well, I just learned that the two – Gerolf and Dr. Boris Monahov, Director of the International Lead Zinc Research Organization — are meeting in Sofia later in August, and I’ll let you know what comes of it. 

In any case, I’m glad to report that I’m a bit less lost when in comes to current events in Bulgaria; I’ve come to learn that it’s a remarkably stable, sane — and beautiful place. 

Now, if my father were here, he’d ask, “Craig, are you going to make any MONEY from this?” and I’d have to admit the truth. “It’s extremely unlikely in this case, Dad. Sometimes there’s a way to make a buck, and sometimes you take an action just because it’s a cool thing to do. This falls into the latter group.”

　

Tagged with:

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Business

In a May Vector story, we covered a detailed report from Ogilvy & Mather (Ogilvy Earth) about “mainstreaming green” in the U.S. One of the recommendations of the study was a call to corporations to bring simple greener products to the masses and educate them for mass adoption.  From the top down and bottom up, the U.S. needs to become more aware and more green, says the report.

From the corporate world, SC Johnson is indeed taking a step for mass implementation. On July 1st, 2011, it launched the Windex Mini, a concentrated refill pouch that uses 90% less plastic (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Efficiency, Sustainability

A white paper authored by Schneider Electric suggests that meeting greenhouse gas emissions targets will fail unless “Active Energy Efficiency” becomes compulsory. They define “Active Energy Efficiency” as “effecting permanent change through measurement, monitoring and control of energy usage,” and contrast this to “Passive Energy Efficiency,” which is regarded as the installation of countermeasures against thermal losses, the use of low consumption equipment and so forth.

The paper concludes, “Without proper control, these measures often merely militate against energy losses rather than make a real reduction in energy consumed and in the way it is used.”

I suppose this is really the crux of the political debate about CFLs versus incandescent lightbulbs, and the many other similar points of discussion. Do we have some sort of “right” to use energy in any way we please? We understandably resent government telling us what to do, but can’t we see the legitimacy of standards that are aimed at ensuring a clean and life-supporting planet?

Obviously, the ideal situation is one in which people don’t need to be forced to do the right thing. But how close are we to that? In the meanwhile, I think we need to support the idea of environmental standards for all our business and consumer products – to the degree that they can be established fairly, without the undue influence of money and power.

Of course, that doesn’t sound like a piece of cake either ….

Tagged with: , ,