In April 2011 report, a new report was released by NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). It takes a look at American awareness, attitudes, knowledge and usage of renewable energy and the study further breaks down these views regionally. Some surprising results came from the study.
The data was taken from the Natural Marketing Institute’s Lifestyle of Health & (more…)
A big part of my quest to understand the migration to renewables is wrapping my arms around the issue of costs. I’m headed for San Francisco on Tuesday to conduct two book interviews specifically on this subject; in one, I’ve engaged a true energy techie to walk me through the latest, most detailed reports that compare the costs of various forms of power generation.
Apparently, I’m not the only one struggling to make sense of this. And this subject comes up even more frequently now that nuclear is so prominent in our headlines. I’ve long predicted that, despite the rhetoric, we’d never see another nuclear power plant built in the US, and I based my belief on cost alone. Even if we can magically get a grip on operational safety and waste disposal issues, the costs of nuclear are scary – and unlikely to improve. It strikes me as unlikely that any amount of political and economic power has sufficient strength to sell a solution that – along with all the other things that people find repellant – actually costs more to boot.
Again, it’s not easy to get hard cost estimates, since the bidding for power plants is kept secret, and so most of the figures we have are generated by private institutions – many (all?) of which have their own certain biases.
But here’s an article on the cost of energy generated by various sources that quotes both an agency in the German government and the California Energy Commission, a public agency mandated with the task of periodically examining the costs of various electricity generation technologies that may be used in the state to meet demand. Both suggest that I may be correct.
I don’t have money burning a hole in my pocket that I can’t wait to get into the stock market, but I do think a well-timed investment in the electric vehicle space makes sense. To that end, I’m always looking for publicly traded companies that are about to enter the EV space in a big, strategic way with products that sound competitive.
Ever hear of Yulon? It’s a huge contract Taiwanese manufacturing company that does a great deal of auto work for the Asian OEMs, especially Nissan. They have their own brand, “Luxgen,” that’s just about to enter the EV space, using a drive train made by my good friends at AC Propulsion.
I was out at the AC Propulsion R&D facility last week, speaking with CEO Tom Gage, and he seemed encouraged about Yulon. Of course, there is a lot that he and his people can’t say, so I try to read between the lines. I ask questions like:
“So you must be working with a large engineering team over there. How’s that going? Are there bugs in integrating your product? I’m sure certain members of the team are brighter than others. Does that concern you? Does management seem engaged, or do they have bigger fish to fry?”
Overall, things sound positive.
And I find it quite credible that terrific EVs will be coming out of Taiwan. Of course, their own market is small, and, given their issues with Mainland China, it’s not easy for them to sell into that market either. But they’re brilliant technologists, as they’ve proven over the past couple of decades, and the whole rest of the world is champing at the bit for high-quality, reasonably priced EVs.
Sounds like a good bet to me.
For years, Portland, Oregon has been maintaining – and heightening – its commitment to leading the migration to clean energy and electric transportation. Here’s what they’re doing in solar chargers for EVs in public parking lots.
Not to quibble over details, but the company’s spokesperson needs to refine his language. When he says, “The electrons created eight minutes ago in the sun were collected here on the surface of this system and put directly into your car,” he means, “The photons that left the sun eight minutes ago caused electrons to flow in this system that we put directly into your car.”
Whatever. His heart’s obviously in the right place. Way to go, Portland!
I’m always interested in articles that speculate on the “electric vehicle adoption curve,” i.e., the pace at which EVs will be integrated into our transportation mix. Here’s a piece by Steven Cohen, Executive Director, Columbia University’s Earth Institute, that concludes with roughly my own belief: “I suspect that the transition to electric vehicles will happen suddenly and unpredictably; perhaps sooner than we think.”
The author comes at his conclusion by going in a few directions that I don’t feel have too much relevance: the driving habits of lifestyles of those living around New York City (where public transportation is excellent and the cost of car ownership is off the charts) and the impact of Shai Agassi’s Better Place battery swapping model (which, in the US, I think is negligible). Having said that, there are some terrific observations:
The issue is how long will it take to overcome the momentum of sunk costs and old habits. Perhaps the cell phone provides a good model. Ask young people if they ever plan to own a landline phone. Look at the declining price per minute of phone time, and the increased use of phones, text messages and e-mail. These changes have been quite rapid and were not predicted by anyone. While an auto is far more expensive than a phone, and represents a major household investment, people seem open to new thinking about cars.
Exactly. Once this migration begins, and the common American starts talking to his neighbor and understanding how “unscary” electric transportation really is, I predict that it will be a matter of just a decade or so until we’ll find it hard to remember what all the shouting was about.
I’m happy to report that my hometown of Philadelphia has recently implemented energy efficiency technology on the trains I ride virtually every time I go back. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the nation’s sixth-largest public transportation system and the fifth-largest electricity user in the Philadelphia metro region, has cut a deal with Viridity Energy to install an advanced battery storage system to recapture and deploy power from the trains’ regenerative braking.
I’ve seen a variety of competitive energy storage concepts, designed to accomplish the same task, and I find it interesting that we’ve wound up, at least for now, with batteries. Notably, it appears that flywheels make sense in this environment; the angular momentum that makes them impractical in vehicles with low turning radiuses is not a significant factor on trains.
In any case, go Philadelphia!
A reader points out:
I feel that as long as clean energy has proponents who use words such as “elite, rich, etc”, it will continue to turn off a lot of people. I have gone to zoning meetings in which rabid proponents of clean energy have made comments on my coal to biomass developments and have provided a negative effect to the zoning.
Thanks for writing, and yes, you make a good point.
One factor that makes the migration to renewables so interesting is the many different motivations and political viewpoints one encounters. In fact, the cast of characters involved in renewables runs from business pragmatists who dispassionately want to capitalize on a solid market opportunity – all the way to “children of the 60s,” who don’t care a whit about money, but want to save the planet from the evils wrought by capitalism and the exploitation inherent in it. Most of us lie somewhere in between.
I’m not sure there is anything that you or I can do about this. Speaking for myself, I’m happy to have people onboard regardless of their motivation.
Here’s an extreme case: I met a guy the other day who was about as adamant a Global Warming Denier as one could possibly imagine. Here’s a well-educated, apparently refined businessman who referred to the theory (held by the vast majority of climate scientists) as an “evil lie” and to Al Gore as a “bastard.” Yet he thinks clean tech is important for other reasons and works hard in coaching entrepreneurs in this space (effectively, I might add) in presenting their business plans to investors.
Holy cow, I thought. Is this guy for real? I would have bet that such a combination of viewpoints couldn’t exist in the same human being. In fact, I smiled when I first heard this, as I thought he was kidding. But no, he was as serious as a heart attack.
In any case: Do I understand him? Nope. Do I want him around? Every day of the week.
I want to thank the 500+ respondents out there who participated in May’s survey regarding the migration to clean energy, and offer you — and all our subscribers — the free report I wrote on the subject.
It’s true that the world is moving to clean energy, but at a far slower rate than many people would like to see. But why, exactly, is it so slow? I have my own opinions, but I’m constantly looking for accurate answers to this incredibly important question, and I’m very grateful to the more-than-500 of you who shed a heck of a lot of light on the subject.
Of course, there is a profound difference between opinion and fact. But when enough people share the same opinion, that level of agreement becomes an important fact on its own. That’s the reason for a survey like this. In some cases, perception is reality.
Here’s the report summarizing the project:
Alex C. writes in:
We need to migrate to MORE fossil fuels and nuclear because they are the most economical. The Tea Party movement in the USA will assure in 2012 that we elect DRILL BABY DRILL candidates and we end the insanity of the extreme green movement and progressive socialists. $$ will always flow to the most economical and practical sources of energy. Using the rule or law and force does NOT justify the green movement. Respect the free market and let the most economic energy sources win. The green movement will end come November 2012. No more free handouts. Time for many parasites to get a real job rather than spending taxpayers’ money that we don’t have.
It’s cool that 2GreenEnergy caters to readers with divergent viewpoints. But holy smokes!
A couple of points:
Let’s assume for a moment we should cast off all concerns about the costs to our health and safety, and that we have no obligation to preserve a habitable environment. Nuclear STILL won’t happen for the precise reason you name, i.e., it’s expensive. The actual cost of building these plants is almost never anywhere near the projected budget. Readers may want to Google “nuclear plant cost overrun,” and read a few of the 54,700 articles they’ll find on the subject. Here’s one that refers to a certain nuclear project as “satanic,” based on the actual amount of the overrun ($6.66 billion). The Florida utility, FPL Group, now estimates the cost of building a new nuclear power plant at over $9 billion, nearly double their previous estimate.
Also, I’m not so sure about the Tea Party in 2012. I’ll grant that voters are extremely displeased with big, wasteful, corrupt government. But the poll numbers surrounding the Tea Party are strikingly negative (currently favorable 32%, unfavorable 47%).
