“We should look inward and think about the meaning of our life and its purposes, lest we do it in 20 or 30 years and it’s too late.” – Robert Coles
As a professional, a husband, a father, and a citizen of the world, I think about this a great deal. In terms of the “citizen of the world” category, by the time I check out of here, I’m hoping to be able to say that I was quite effective at identifying really good concepts in cleantech, and moving them forward.
My job, and I take it seriously, is to reach out to the investment community, into which I’m maneuvering myself further each day, and say: “Here’s the result of my efforts. Here are ideas that have huge potential implications, the science of which is not smoke and mirrors, the teams behind which have proven that they have what it takes to be successful. Do you need to do your own due diligence? Of course. Have I added value in vetting 1200+ business concepts over the last 3+ years? I’d like to think so.”
If you haven’t seen it recently, I urge you to visit our so-called “Investor’s Page” and scroll down slowly and thoughtfully. As always, if you know of anyone interested in playing a role, please let me know.
I wrote to a friend yesterday that I really don’t know whom or what to trust when it comes to evaluating the safety of nuclear energy. Obviously, there is a ton of content that suggests a cover-up on Fukushima, i.e., that the damage is far worse that officials admit. There are also reports to the effect that the danger to human health are over-exaggerated.
Sometimes there are easy solutions. I think baseload hydro should be used before covering our deserts with solar panels and our plains with wind turbines. Solar and wind are today’s sexy choices and get the most publicity, and poor old hydro and geothermal get the scraps from the table.
Craig: To me, the issue is scale. As you pointed out, there is a limit to run-of-river hydro. If you multiply the weight of all the water in all the rivers in the U.S. by the altitude from which it falls (i.e., all the potential energy), you’re under a terawatt, even if you got it all. 8 GW is about one-seventh of 1% of the 5.4 TW we’re consuming as we speak. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it, but it’s not the answer we need. And btw, geothermal doesn’t seem to be making headway in terms of costs coming down and competing with solar, wind, and fossil fuels.
Reader: I guess you’re right. It seems it’s going to take a variety of solutions to get this thing done.
Craig: Yes. I don’t turn up my nose at hydro, but I don’t spend too much time on it either.
Here’s a quick note to let you know that we just updated the “Advocate!” page on 2GreenEnergy.
It’s a sad fact that so many people are victims of disinformation campaigns on energy, and thus it’s important to promote a quick and easy way for them – and their elected officials – to get the facts straight. As usual, I hope you’ll go to the page and participate; it’s not trivial stuff — and please spread the word.
Sanders is sponsoring comprehensive legislation, the End Polluter Welfare Act, designed to remove subsidies for the fossil fuels industry in the U.S. The bill would save taxpayers more than $10 billion a year and more than $110 billion over ten years. Perhaps best of all, it would represent an important first step in creating a level playing field for renewable energy.
I thought I’d share a conversation with a lady I’ve known for about 30 years, who, each election cycle, does extensive work in researching the issues and the candidates, to bring some level of clarification to (I guess) at least a few hundred whose emails she’s been collecting over the decades and who read her viewpoints with interest.
I wrote her recently about the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens Uniteddecision, and asserted that this renders moot the entire political process. (I admit that this may have been a bit indelicate.)
The American voters who are hoping that the cause of clean energy and sustainability will still be alive when the dust clears in November can sleep a bit easier after tonight’s debate. But it sure was a tragedy to see the top two prospective leaders of the world’s most powerful nation behave like schoolchildren, and speak so evasively on these issues.
In particular, can’t someone tell the coal miners that their jobs are going away? Do both sides of the debate team really have to sell coal as a vital part of the U.S. energy future, when the exact opposite is so clearly the case?
If you guys won’t do it, I will. Watch this:
Attention coal miners and the executive strata in coal companies: Retrain, regroup, rethink, reorganize. Do whatever you want, but go out and acquire new skills that won’t kill you and the rest of the world.(more…)
Tomorrow morning, I’ll begin an effort to engineer a conversation with Stuart Bernstein, the global head of the group, with an eye toward walking him through our list of clean energy investment opportunities. I know that most of these aren’t precisely the later-stage deals that Goldman is looking for, but one never knows. Bernstein is obviously a bright and sincere guy; he may like a couple of these. And, as they say, “If you don’t ask, you don’t get.”
Below is a graphic that I borrowed from my friends at Energy and Capital (Hi, Jeff Siegel!) illustrating the real problem we face vis-a’-vis coal on the international scene.
A friend writes re: my recent piece on the politics of energy and the environment:
