Joined NRDC

Hello all - just a quick post to let you know I've started work at Natural Resources Defense Council in their new Center for Market Innovation.

I will be blogging at their impressive Switchboard blog, which features dozens of NRDC experts. My new blog address is here (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/csteger/).

It was a pleasure blogging at IGH for the eight of you.

More utility smart grid news

Glancing through the paper this morning, I came across an interesting article regarding Xcel Energy's new smart grid initiative:

Xcel Energy Inc. plans to roll out "smart grid" technology in Boulder, Colo., in coming months that will give residents a chance to test sophisticated equipment for monitoring and adjusting how much electricity they use, even from remote locations...

...The utility also intends to install equipment upstream of consumers, on its energy-delivery system, such as in substations, that will boost grid intelligence and reliability, squeezing out some of the inefficiencies that push up costs.

Some of the details are worth focusing on:

• Xcel isn't waiting for regulator approval to recover costs, assuming that cost savings and benefits will prove its case
• 25,000 installations up front over the next year, with an option for the other 25,000 homes in Boulder
• The meters will allow for dynamic, time of use pricing and remote access
  
• Project costs $100 million, with several partners participating

The project was originally reported back in January (one of the perks of not posting in two months is that I can easily find January news stories).

There was a great study on a Seattle smart grid project (found here) a couple months back that lays out a lot of the challenges and opportunities in these projects.

I anticipate posting a lot more of these smart-grid related stories throughout the year.

Environmental costs of solar or backlash?

If you saw this article on Sunday, it is definitely something to pay attention to. It is an investigative piece regarding the environmental damage that Chinese polysilicon manufacturers are inflicting upon citizens.

In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.

I’m in two minds about this piece. As far as investigative journalism goes, it’s incomplete and tries to draw very large conclusions from a very small sample. As an environmentalist and solar enthusiast, I am deeply troubled. After all, whether it is lead paint in toys or poison in pet food, China has a contentious past in this area.

The key is to point out (as the article hints at) is that this type of production method for polysilicon is not acceptable, nor is it necessary. Unlike oil sands, or coal extraction, there are environmentally-sound methods of making poly-silicon that need not drastically impact the price. (while the article points to the cost savings in producing poly-silicon in this fashion, it neglects to point out the very limited role this plays in the overall price of a solar system).

Beyond this however, I believe this article is part of the first wave of the inevitable solar backlash we will be seeing (which I wrote about in my 2008 predictions post). I imagine that the next six months will bring a number of articles about the high cost of solar relative to other technologies, environmental damage in its production, the over-valuation of key solar stocks, etc.

It will be important to answer these charges (all accurate to varying degrees) with honesty and transparency, and point to the considerable future value of solar - its expected large reduction in costs as we move down the experience curve, its potential benefits to utilities, consumers and the economy, and the immense future importance of building a national clean, distributed generation network.

Apologies and first post in a while

The rather dramatic fall-off in production (ie zero) the last 6 weeks has been frustrating. Unfortunately, various responsibilities are pulling me away from this blog. In that many of those responsibilities actually pay however, small as the stipend may be, they are taking precedent.

Still, I enjoy the process of blogging immensely (and even the challenge of building an audience person by person), and hope that I can re-start the process now. Here goes...

Finding Where the Wind Blows: (subs. required) a very interesting short piece covering some of the next stage of challenges facing the wind industry. On the plus side, who would've thought be get here a few years ago. On the down, these issues will grow increasingly prevalent as more renewable energy is added to the grid:

An electrical emergency in Texas last week has grid officials and power companies re-examining how they manage wind energy, an increasingly popular but potentially fickle power source.

Wind turbines don't emit greenhouse gases, unlike conventional power plants. But wind power requires astute handling or it can affect reliability and power prices. Grid officials have fretted for some time that construction of enormous wind farms could jeopardize grid stability.

In response to its shortfall, Texas officials now are speeding up plans to improve wind forecasting. U.S. officials also are looking at other nations that manage far larger wind resources deftly. California's grid operator is seeking bids from wind consultants. It also is considering ways to tailor power consumption by big users so they could more closely match wind production, as well as ways to store wind energy for use later.

As always, where there are challenges, there are opportunities. A number of companies are developing innovative grid management technology, while others are seeking to get into the private weather monitoring game. Certainly weather derivatives could grow in prominence.

What happened?

A cold front blew through West Texas on Feb. 26, temporarily lifting wind production. When it subsided, wind speeds dropped, turbines slowed and productivity dropped by 80% to 300 megawatts from about 1,700.

The situation was exacerbated by greater-than-expected energy demand and by lower availability of some fossil-fuel units. To get the system back in balance, the grid operator declared an emergency and tapped big customers who had agreed to be cut in exchange for cash payments.

The specifics of the situation demonstrate that for the first few decades of adoption, renewable energy will be have a much smaller marginal utility the further up the penetration curve one goes.

And while scientists, utility executives, policy makers and some investors have been concerned about this phenomenon for a while, expect more focus as wind and solar become an increasingly prevalent phenomenon:

Nationally, grid operators have been notified that up to 147,000 megawatts of wind turbines may seek to connect to the grid in coming years, though a significant proportion won't get built. Currently, the U.S. has about 16,818 megawatts of wind capacity, enough to power 4.5 million homes, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a trade group. That amounts to less than 1% of U.S. power.

In California, there are plans to more than double wind capacity in the next few years once $1.8 billion in transmission upgrades are completed in the Tehachapi Mountains, which separate the northern and southern parts of the state.

One final note: Germany has a fascinating pilot program that seeks to solve this problem, which I blogged about here.

News and notes - wind, grids, lists and kite powered ships

News and notes from the past few days:

Acciona opens first wind turbine facility in U.S.: Acciona, the Spanish utility, has been making a strong U.S. push via Acciona Energy North America, especially in the solar, geothermal and wind segments. Given the current lack of turbines, it makes sense for Acciona to ensure stable supply for its own U.S. wind push, as well as offering turbines for other companies (given wind’s current growth rate of 45% annually).

Ensuring future reliability of the North-American power grid: The state of the U.S. electricity transmission grid could prove a significant deterrent to any domestic renewable energy strategy. The current grid is already stretched to the point of breaking, and the geographic remoteness of some power from solar, wind, ocean, etc. will require extensive new investment in grid upgrades and innovation. A sobering October study from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation points to a multitude of challenges in the future: limited long-term capacity, aging workforce, and lagging transmission build-out. Investors, executives and policy planners will all need to focus on this area in the future. The actual study is here. Meanwhile, you can get more on the investment perspective here at AltEnergyStocks.com.

Smart Grid Consortium to Develop Smart Grid City: More smart grid news. In this case, Xcel Energy is looking for a city of 100,000 residents to serve as a testbed for smart grid technologies. And, as Green Car Congress points out in the headline – plug-in vehicles with Vehicle to Grid technology (i.e. transferring energy from electric vehicles to the grid) as storage will be part of the proposed test project.

Do Something for the Glacial Good http: Apparently, I’m posting every list I come across now. Still, this list from Absolut Vodka of all things, is perhaps more noteworthy for the source than the actual contents. But the site itself is fun enough to play around in for a few minutes.

“Huh, it Works” says Captain of First Kite Powered Commercial Ship: If the post on new wind technologies a few days back interested you, here’s some additional information on the kite powered ship.

Cleantech investment looking strong - will it hold?

Interesting juxtaposition between the current stock market turmoil and recession concerns and the continued growth in renewable investment. Of course, most of these renewable numbers are backward looking (compared to the general forward-looking macroeconomic concerns), and even in recessions, one would expect to still some pockets of growth.

Ignoring the multiple challenges facing the U.S. economy (increasing unemployment, slowing business investment, decreasing consumer spending, credit contraction and contagion), there was a lot of positive domestic news the last couple days in the renewable sector, from many different angles.

Green-tech investment topped $5 billion in 2007: The Cleantech Group’s numbers are different than New Energy Finance, and Greentech Media (as each group measures different sources of financing), but the percentage growth trends for all are highly positive.

2007 venture investment in the alternative energy market in North America and Europe was $5.18 billion, compared with $3.6 billion the previous year [growth of 44% year-over-year]. The 2006 rise was also 44 percent.

The number of financing deals in the industry increased 15 percent last year to 268, and the average deal size rose 20 percent to $14.7 million.

Actual press release with more detail here, while another good overview is here.

Wind, Solar Power Gain Users: (subs. required) Meanwhile, strong numbers from both the wind and solar industries as well.

The U.S. wind-power industry grew in size by 45% last year, adding a record 5,244 megawatts of capacity that amounted to a third of all new generating capacity built in the U.S. in 2007, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

The solar industry grew at a similar clip, though from a much smaller base, adding more than 300 megawatts of capacity last year, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. Additions are expected to roughly double this year. Large commercial solar installations now exceed home installations in California, reversing a long-term pattern and likely a bellwether for other states.

Much more detail on the wind numbers here.

Hot Carbon Market Signals New Interest: Even the carbon market got into the act, showing excellent year-over-year growth.

Trading of carbon-emission permits almost doubled in value last year to €40.3 billion ($59.1 billion), according to a new report...The market saw permits representing 2.7 billion metric tons traded last year, according to Point Carbon, a market-research firm based in Oslo. In 2006, permits representing 1.63 billion tons changed hands for a total value of €22.45 billion, the firm said.

Weekly cleantech deal tracking - eSolar gets Googled: In addition to Google’s investment in eSolar, there were a number of transportation related VC investments this week in a wide range of areas (14 total in this specific post).


Certainly, this was a great start to the new year for the renewable sector. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how the industry responds to a slowing economy and any future stimulus efforts (fiscal and monetary). While the extension of production tax credits past 2008 will perhaps be the most important driver of near-term investment, the overall health of the U.S. (and global) economy could still play a role.

Green consumers - they want to, but...

Interesting study from the marketing agency EcoAlign on consumer perceptions of clean technology (1,000 online survey respondents):

A new report on consumer perceptions of clean technologies in residential areas finds that 54 percent of the respondents surveyed have not adopted some form of cleantech largely because they don't understand it…

…Asked to rate cleantech products, most non-adopters considered the products expensive (53 percent), difficult to understand (72 percent), and difficult to maintain (76 percent). Cleantech adopters surveyed agreed with these assessments, though their negative scores were 10 percentage points lower. 60 percent of adopters also said they found the technology reliable, but only 44 percent considered the products beautiful.

The survey itself (the second one conducted by the company) makes for a good read (a quick sign-up is required to download).

The second EcoPinion Survey provides further evidence of a green gap between willingness to adopt or purchase green products, services and technologies, and consumer value perceptions around those offerings. While concern for the environment is at an all time high, consumers think that many forms of green technology (renewable, energy efficient or recycled materials) are cost prohibitive, difficult to understand and maintain, and aesthetically unappealing…

…This green gap in consumer perceptions offers insight into the dichotomy of customers’ stated intentions, e.g., their desire to be more green or frugal with energy consumption, and their actual behavior….The second EcoPinion survey results point to the clear need for companies to work harder to connect their products and services with the customer’s value chain around convenience, comfort, cost and design.

This has long been a point of concern among the environmental community, and those selling “green” products or services. While polls tend to show consumer interest in environmentally conscious and/or energy saving products is rising, specific action has been muted at best (albeit with some successes also, such as Prius sales topping the Ford Explorer).

Joel Makower has long hammered this point home, with a great post last week:

This just in: pretty much every consumer is concerned about the environment and is thinking conscientiously about what they buy — how it's made, under what conditions, and by whom….sound too good to be true? It is, of course. But you wouldn't know it from the marketing studies I've been seeing — and the breathless headlines that result.

Other great posts from Joel on the same topic are here and here.

As I wrote in a post a couple weeks ago:

Perhaps the single most important aspect of marketing is "authenticity". Be it tweens, 18-34 men, housewives or NASCAR fans - know your audience and be real to them. The same of course applies for companies trying to reach consumers interested in the environmental practices, perhaps some of the toughest critics around.

No post on marketing to green consumers would be complete without the requisite “next steps”. And while that sounds snarky, I think EcoAlign does a good job with theirs, offering simple, concrete steps that may be marketing 101, but tend to be forgotten by people who should know better:

1. Invest the necessary money in market research. Market research is the skeleton of any successful marketing effort, and creating memorable, measurable campaigns that are grounded in core business, and customer expectations around the company’s brand and the value created.

2. Go deeper and articulate more compellingly the reasons why people should care and act in regard to the green tech offering. Energy tech companies are dominated by an engineering-centric, product-oriented view of the world, yet customers are more attuned to emotional appeals. This approach must be achieved through careful messaging segmentation and utilizing the full range of delivery channels, including new media.

3. Align design with functionality. While customers are satisfied that most green technologies are “reliable,” meaning that they will work as advertised, more attention needs to be paid to how these technologies look and feel to the customer. Sustainability can be beautiful, and command a premium for that value.

News and notes - Green jobs, nuclear, demand response. wind, green investment and more

CSR Jobs Rank High for Newly Minted MBAs: I'm a little dubious about the methodology (two job posting sites?), but this study demonstrates the growing demand and supply for CSR-related jobs (especially environmentally-related). A link to the study and presentation of its findings is here. Definitely some interesting information and resources at the tail end of the presentation.

Seen an uptick in nuclear power-related news recently. I'm still staying out of the debate, but wanted to pass on some articles I've found interesting. So here are two positive articles: "Devil’s Advocate: 10 Green Arguments for Nuclear Power", "A chance for nuclear industry to clean up its act", and one negative: "Green advisers dismiss nuclear plans as 'megafix' solution"

Powerit: Cashing In On Making the Grid Smarter: energy demand management system from a new venture that I imagine will soon be (if not already) embarking on its Series B round.

Making Fuel Consumption Visible: I love the broader concept underlying this announcement, and have posted on it several times. I hope someone is conducting a study looking at fuel consumption rates based on this technology, as I imagine the results would be striking.

Wind Power and M&A: A Moveable Feast: article detailing some of the consolidation now happening in the wind power industry. Ireland's Airtricity starting developing wind projects four years ago, and was recently acquired for $1.4 billion. Nice.

Unlike GM, Chrysler touting all-electric cars: As CNET points out, the #3 automaker in the US needs to differentiate itself from the top 2 (as in any mature industry really), and thus Chrysler is looking beyond hybrids and alternative fuels to all-electric vehicles.

How Green are Your Earnings? AltEnergyStocks looks at the question: should GE be included in a green portfolio or index?

Vinod Khosla's commentary - UPDATED

I wanted to point out a great set of posts over at Grist by cleantech VC Vinod Khosla. The backstory: at a conference last month, he drew a lot of attention (and criticism) for this comment regarding plug-in vehicles:

"Forget plug-ins," he said during a keynote address at ThinkEquity Partners' ThinkGreen conference in San Francisco. "They are nice toys. But they will not be material to climate change."

This perspective was subsequently challenged by a number of individuals in the online cleantech space for a variety of reasons.

However, much kudos for his 3 part set of posts at Grist during the past few days ("Pragmatist vs. environmentalist") that outline his thoughts in much greater detail.

Prius: Green or greenwash?
Hybrid emissions: Facts and numbers
Hybrids and biofuels: The road ahead

At the risk of simplification, it seems his argument focus essentially on two points: cost economics and emissions reductions.

According to Khosla, it is simply much cheaper for the consumer to go with biofuel powered vehicles. Plug-in electric vehicles and hybrids require thousands of dollars in additional up-front costs, while flex-fuel vehicles would have essentially the same cost as a "regular" vehicle. Further the predictability of long-term cost reductions in cellulosic ethanol on a dollar per gallon production cost are much greater compared to the limits on change in cost per kwh of battery capacity.

In addition, in comparing carbon emission reductions among the technologies, he concludes that exclusively cellulosic powered vehicles would have 75% lower emissions than a 2010 GM Volt.

Even though Vinod acknowledges that hybrids and biofuels are “complementary strategies”, he is first and foremost a venture capitalist, seeking investments with the least (knowable) risk and greatest (potential) profitability. Thus, the crux of his argument:

From my perspective, if I have to pick between a 5-10 times lower cost/performance battery and a cleaned-up electrical grid in the next 5-10 years (or even 20-25 years), or pick cellulosic fuels in 50 percent more efficient ICE engines, I consider the latter lower risk and significantly more probable.

I am confident that cellulosic biofuels without significant land-use impact or biodiversity impact can achieve costs of $1.25/gallon in less than five years and below $1.00 per gallon in 10 years (more details on that, especially on land use / biodiversity and sources of biomass, in a upcoming paper). At this price point, the technology will be adopted broadly and rapidly worldwide, even if oil prices decline substantially.

While I could raise several points to debate this perspective, I actually think many of the commenters on each post do a more effective job in challenging this argument. (just a sampling):

• Are the full life-cycle costs for the vehicle and fuel incorporated into the analysis?
• Is the comparison of current hybrid vehicles with futuristic cellulosic powered vehicles (nowhere close to commercialization) fair?
• How much does the build-out of a new ethanol distribution infrastructure costs?
• What about the life-cycle environmental impact of biofuels compared to electricity generation?

Still, I applaud Vinod for moving his argument forward, and his critics for responding in cordial and intelligent fashion (well most of them). But this is certainly not a debate that will end quickly. As AutoblogGreen pointed out, a lot is at stake here:

Flex-fuel plug-in hybrids are not impossible but these two technologies [battery and ethanol] are basically competing to be the green car solution of choice for government, industry and venture capital investment.

UPDATE: Great commentary on this subject from Marianne Lavelle who writes US News' energy blog - Beyond the Barrel. She also points to a prescient US News article she wrote back in 2006 that is a fun read.

News and notes - wind, carbon policy, marketing, investment and more hybrids

Alternative Wind Power Experiments - SkySails and Airborne Wind Turbines: The Oil Drum takes an in-depth look at two new wind technologies: attaching kite sales to ships and airborne wind turbines. Each technology looks to solve different challenges – the kite sale would reduce fuel consumption for shipping, while airborne wind turbine proponents believe they could limit the intermittency challenge and gain from the increased wind speed in the upper atmosphere.

Carbon Caps: Devil in the Details: The WSJ’s energy blog points to an interesting EIA study concerning the Bingaman-Specter climate bill. Both the post and the study draw some disappointing but realistic conclusions. To me, it seems that in trying to find a middle ground between mitigating economic impact and meeting environmental needs, the B-S climate bill achieves neither. It offers little actual climate impact, centers most of the onus on the electricity sector, and assumes much of the future emissions reductions will come from technologies that have yet to be fully developed or commercialized.

Given the assumed inevitability of climate change legislation (although likely not in 2008), this type of analysis is important in reminding that the compromise and negotiation process can sometimes produce mediocrity that pleases no one.

Clorox Aims to Show that 'Green Works'. The always-interesting Joel Makower has an insightful post concerning Clorox’ new green initiative, which is being co-branded with the Sierra Club. The press release can be found here. These types of deals can play havoc on the internal operations and politics of the non-profit. It took three years of internal deliberation before Oxfam agreed to work with Starbucks (to unfortunately mixed results).

Makower apparently spent some time in 2006 working with the Clorox/Green Works team, and has the inside scoop. I find fascinating that the roots of this project are only 3 years old. As Wal-Mart and GE have demonstrated, given a significant amount of material and human resources and high-profile executive support, most any company can become a member of the “green business” community. Rather than a strategic push, it seems Clorox essentially stumbled onto this effort, and only recently realized that it in fact possesses a number of valuable, if under-leveraged, attributes, resources and initiatives that could be utilized in a green campaign.

Is Environmentalism Compatible with Capitalism? I say yes. Richard Stuebi agrees, and writes a very interesting post explaining why.

GE Energy Financial Services Raises its 2010 Renewable Energy Investing Target to $6 Billion: This increases GE’s previously announced renewable target by 50%. The press release has some good detail on GE’s current wind portfolio.

Green Guide to the Detroit Auto Show: Earth2Tech does its usual fabulous job outlining a number of developments at 2008 Auto Show. As the post points out, most of the key green developments involve plug-in vehicles - could this be the big trend of 2008? (see #3)

The New CAFE Standards: MIT Tech Review raises the point that fuel standards aren’t necessarily likely to encourage innovation, in part because the technology is already there to reach the 35 mpg standard. Instead, they believe that tax credits, R&D grants and loan guarantees will spur more development.

Adding New Fuel Standards, Solar Incentives: Greentech Media covers a number of important foreign renewable energy policy developments, in China, the EU, Brazil, India and Japan.

Japan’s goals (30% of all households with PV installation by 2030) may seem aggressive, but their past success over the past 15 years in incentivizing and mandating solar installation in the commercial and residential sectors shows otherwise. Having studied the Japanese model specifically, it represents, in my opinion, one of the best demonstrations of strategic, sustainable and intelligent renewable energy policy design that has accomplished real results.

12 Tips for Green Living: I’m developing an unhealthy interest in the variety of lists that purport to help others live a cleaner, greener lifestyle. You might notice this is the third such list I’ve posted in the past week. This one shares a similar kitchen sink approach, and it might be useful to provide some basis of comparison – for example, how much money and energy would be saved in switching to CFLs compared to washing clothes in cold water and line drying. But it’s a nice list nonetheless.

Using the PPA model to spur renewables

One of the more interesting developments during this latest wave of renewable energy interest and development has been the decision by governments and businesses to go to market with the technology they have, as opposed to waiting for the next (and the next) revolution in renewable technology. This new strategy has accordingly shifted the focus from R&D investment to sourcing funds for installation, developing new business models, and improving pricing and cost economics.

Along these lines, Greentech Media has a very interesting article up, concerning the migration of the SunEdison business model across other renewable energy technologies.

A utility service model pioneered by SunEdison, which lets cash-strapped municipalities and building owners purchase solar power with no upfront capital, is beginning to generate more than just kilowatts.

It's also producing copycats in energy efficiency, heating and cooling. Companies such as Mondial Energy and GeoXperts have adapted the utility approach to solar-thermal and geothermal heat-pump systems, allowing customers to dramatically offset their use of natural gas or electricity without weighing down their balance sheets.

The “Power Purchase Agreement” (PPA) is by no means a new model, but SunEdison has taken the lead in facilitating its use in the solar space.

Essentially, in a solar PPA, a company, organization, municipality, etc. enters into a long-term agreement to purchase power from a solar generator. The solar generator is responsible for sourcing funds and building and maintaining the solar energy system on-site, and assumes all risks of ownership. The customer hedges in a certain electricity cost, practically eliminating its exposure to increasingly volatile (and increasing) energy prices. In addition, the customer reaps the public benefits of being a “green” company, without necessarily denting their balance sheet with energy-related capex.

The article also points out a new development – modifying and adapting PPAs to sell conservation and energy efficiency services:

[H20 Applied Technologies] goes into hospitals, colleges and universities and installs energy-efficient equipment at its own expense, in exchange for an 80-percent cut of savings, usually over a six-year contract period. After the contract expires, the customer can purchase the equipment from H2O at "fair market value" -- typically 6 to 8 cents on the dollar.

H2O's trick is to keep the entire agreement off the institution's balance sheet so it doesn't tie up scarce capital that's desperately needed in other areas. It does this by investing in new equipment, or modifications to equipment, rather than changes to a building, which are subject to different accounting rules.

Other examples in the article include an RFP by the city of Toronto to install 20 solar rooftop systems on various municipal buildings via a PPA, and GeoXperts, which is trying to leverage the PPA model to install geothermal heating and cooling systems.

High-speed trains in Europe

A while back, I wrote a post on the potential for high-speed trains in the U.S., covering some of the challenges but also the considerable productivity benefits to train transport.

According to this new BusinessWeek article (h/t Spiegel), Europe's high-speed rail networks are doing exceptionally well and are in the process of completing a number of important new projects. Eurostar, the train network connecting the UK with Europe, reported revenues increases of 15% while carrying over 8 million passengers.

A trip from Heathrow to Paris, including check-in, security and travel time, can still take several hours. By contrast travel from London to Paris via Eurostar takes only 2 hours 15 minutes, and can cost as little as $120 roundtrip (perhaps explaining why Eurostar carries 70% of all passenger traffic between the two cities).

However, potentially more exciting is the new Railteam, which promises to improve train connections via countries (currently a difficult and time-consuming concern) via a strategy similar to Europe's airline carriers:

Last July seven operators banded together to form Railteam, an alliance that is working to create a seamless, high-speed network across a large swath of Western Europe. Functioning much like an airline alliance, Railteam is setting up a common reservation system that's set to begin operations in 2009. It is also helping member railways coordinate their schedules to reduce layover times. A frequent-traveler program will even be offered -- another page from the airlines' playbook.

Additional information on Railteam can be found at After Gutenberg.

Given current environmental, energy and national security concerns, improving the high-speed rail model could be extremely lucrative, and offer a valuable example for future U.S. transportation initiatives.

Plug-in Buzz

A number of items to note in the electric vehicle space. Carmakers are falling all over themselves in demonstrating their newfound appreciation for all things clean and green. At least with the U.S. auto companies, I sense a faint whiff of desperation in some of the pieces, as GM and Ford try to reassure the investor community that “they get it”, and that while they missed the boat with ever larger SUVs throughout the late 90’s and early 00’s, they’re now firmly on board with electric vehicles and alternative fuel technologies.

The Detroit auto show is of course partly responsible for the sudden explosion of interest towards plug-in autos, and I’m just going to link to a few articles. For my previous recent posts on this topic, go here, and here.

Electric-Car Firms Get Star Investors: discusses Kleiner Perkins’ investment (with an assist from Al Gore) in Fisker Automotive, which is releasing an ’09 luxury plug-in hybrid which has all the requisite performance attributes (50 miles before charging, 125 mph, 0-60 in 5.8 seconds). The article also mentions a couple other bigger names in this space including Tesla, and Shai Agassi’s start-up

Closing the Power Gap Between a Hybrid’s Supply and Demand: highlights AFS Trinity Power which has developed a prototype for a plug-in hybrid with pre-existing lithium-ion batteries and ultracapacitors which gets 150 miles/gallon.

Toyota Will Offer a Plug-In Hybrid by 2010: in an effort to outdo GM’s Chevy Volt and Saturn Vue efforts, Toyota will be offering an entire fleet of plug-in hybrids, and extend the initiative to the Lexus line. Another take on these competing efforts is here.

A PHEV - EV Demand Curve: Meanwhile, AltEnergyStocks takes a look at the demand curve for mileage range by household, and comes to some interesting conclusions about PHEVs (plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) vs. EVs (electric vehicles).

Six Major Pre-Production Electric Vehicles Compared: and through the previous link at AltEnergyStocks, I found DIY Electric Car’s very helpful grid comparison of electric vehicles. Although a couple months old, key similarities and points of difference are already beginning to appear.

And finally, there’s been a lot of attention given GM’s investment in Coskata, a cellulosic ethanol company still in pilot stage. As always, Earth2Tech was on the scene months ago, and has a great first-hand account of the technology and company.

Morning links - wind, PEVs, green business, transportation and smart-grids

Various items I've come across this morning that I thought I'd share.

Size Matters: Good round-up on wind development and investment in the U.S. from the WSJ's free blog "Energy Roundup". Several new developments are noted in this post, including the first-time use of 3MW turbines in the U.S., competitor collaboration among Enel and GE, and increasing industry consolidation.

Race to Make Electric Cars Stalled by Battery Problems: Long front-page story on the challenges plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle makers face in sourcing batteries that are safe and reliable. Very good overview, and adds some necessary context to my post yesterday on PEVs.

Wal-Mart faces hurdles in green electronics: Wal-Mart's sustainability push, and the sizable impact of that decision on manufacturers, other retailers, supply chains, and ultimately consumers, has been reported and debated ad naseum. This article discusses some of the challenges electronics manufacturers (and Wal-Mart) are facing in meeting Wal-Mart's objectives. Depending on the outcome of next year's elections, we may finally see some kind of federal legislation that consolidates the wide-ranging standards for energy efficiency, sustainability and recycling.

27 electric cars companies ready to take over the road (h/t Earth2Tech): An interesting list of electric car manufacturers. There are enough cars here for every taste and desire imaginable.

Moving Billions of People on a Still-Green Planet?: Rather fascinating piece from the NYT's blog on environment, focusing on broad trends and scenarios in transportation. A lot of links and research here to digest.

News Flash: 110% of Consumers Shop Green!: Joel Makower is one of my favorite thought-leaders in this space, and his new post on the environmental consumer and greenwashing has far-reaching implications. I covered a similar topic (sparked by an earlier Makower post) here.

What's so smart about smart metering?: Its a couple weeks old, but an informative interview with the CEO of smart-grid-focused company. I thought it wrapped up a lot of what I've been discussing recently here, here and here.

News and notes - Cleantech Investment, Green business and Oil issues

Few other quick links from today:

2007 energy tech VC totals - First look: Rob Day at Cleantech Investing takes us through a breakdown of cleantech VC investments in 2007. A lot of insightful commentary.

The Cleantech Revolution: a number of interesting articles in Goodwin Procter's custom publication entitled "Big Ideas in Technology". Cover story from pg. 8 - 14 is a good overview and has a number of interesting sidebars and there are various cleantech related stories sprinkled throughout.

Global Oil Supply Challenges Will Drive Crude Prices to US$150: (h/t The Oil Drum). Very bullish look at the oil markets from CIBC World Markets, focusing on supply issues. The actual research is here. Just one opinion, but a very pessimistic one.

Consumer electronics go green

About a month ago, the WSJ had an interesting article (subs. req'd) about the immense impact of a new generation of consumer entertainment electronics:

Consider that a 42-inch plasma set can consume more electricity than a full-size refrigerator -- even when that TV is used only a few hours a day. Powering a fancy TV and full-on entertainment system -- with set-top boxes, game consoles, speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders -- can add nearly $200 to a family's annual energy bill.

It appears electronics manufacturers are listening:

Philips' Eco TV sips power, saves rainforest

Electronics makers vie to make machines green

GridWise Study: saving energy through smart grid management

A wonderful new study out of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on smart grid management demonstrates very effectively what this blog has discussed in detail here and here:

A yearlong study by the Department of Energy has concluded that when consumers are given the means to closely track and adjust their energy usage, power use declines by an average of 10 percent. In addition, the study found that households' electricity usage during peak times fell by up to 15 percent.

Additional reporting on this study provides more detail:

The demonstration project was as much a test of consumer behavior as it was of new technology. Scientists wanted to find out if the ability to monitor consumption constantly would cause people to save energy…

...112 homes were equipped with digital thermostats, and computer controllers were attached to water heaters and clothes dryers. These controls were connected to the Internet. The homeowners could go to a Web site to set their ideal home temperature and how many degrees they were willing to have that temperature move above or below the target. They also indicated their level of tolerance for fluctuating electricity prices...The households, it turned out, soon became active participants in managing the load on the utility grid and their own bills.

As I wrote here in my predictions for 2008: "Some smart people will begin applying the lessons of the most recent technological revolution to the consumption of energy". Key to the success of this study was Internet-enabled technology such as two-way, real-time communication and online banking:

Participants received constantly updated pricing information via the Internet. The ability to connect the homes with energy providers as well as the grid was made possible through IBM technology known as a service oriented architecture (SOA). A "virtual" bank account was established for each household and money saved by adjusting home energy consumption in collaboration with needs of the grid was converted into real money kept by the homeowners. With the help of these tools, consumers easily and automatically changed how and when they used electricity, for their own financial benefit and the benefit of the grid.

Another study conducted in parallel looked at allowing appliances to automatically adjust their power use based on elevated or reduced demand stresses on the grid, thus serving as a “shock absorber” for the grid:

The Grid Friendly appliance project fitted 150 homes in Oregon and Washington with "smart" dryers and water heaters equipped with circuit boards to detect when the power grid is stressed. When that happens, the appliances curtail power use for a minute or two.

Grid friendly" circuit boards could be put in refrigerators, and other big appliances...If every big household appliance in the country were so fitted, the U.S. could cut electricity use by 20 percent.

The study further predicts that in five years, GridWise-type smart system for appliances will be available in 10 to 15 percent of U.S. homes. Currently the cost of installation is $500 and falling.

More information on the study is available directly at the PNNL GridWise website. A good recap of the study is here, while those with extra time on their hands can read through the two 150 page reports that accompany this study. They are dense reads, but the conclusions and additional readings sections are definitely worth a look.

Still, there are many challenges to overcome before this type of participatory strategy can be put into practice:

Many utilities are experimenting with this so-called smart-grid technology, but most are using it to upgrade their own networks, not to let households manage consumption. One big hurdle is that in most states, utilities are still granted rates of return that depend mainly on the power plants and equipment they own and operate instead of how much energy they save.

What’s also incredibly interesting in this study is that rather than focus on subsidies and mandates (yesterday's WSJ article on PG&E $117 million program to subsidize CFL purchases) this project relied on real-time market information and direct price signaling to encourage natural human behavior.

Further, this study adds to the growing body of evidence, such as this IBM report, this SmartPower study, and this So. Cal Edision experiment, that all demonstrate a key principle: The individual energy consumer will actively participate in their energy use with appropriate incentives, tools and information. The question then becomes, are we willing to make them a direct and engaged part of the solution?

UPDATE: couple of great additional readings from the PNNL report Part 1:

Energy efficiency: Super savers: Meters to manage the future
The Path to Perfect Power: Galvin Electricity Initiative

UPDATE II: this post is a definite must-read, offering several different perspectives as to the potential of the concepts outlined above:

Want to Manage Your Energy Usage? How Badly?

Other links from today - market transformation, cleantech investing, and global risk

A few other items of note today:

Utilities amp up push to slash energy use: Great article in the Journal today (subs. required) about the California "carrot/stick" approach to incentivize utilities to push energy efficiency, mandating a reduction of equivalent to three power plants...or else:

The state has designated $2 billion in utility customers' payments to be spent over three years on conservation programs. The utilities need to spend that money to find ways to avoid another $2.7 billion in energy costs, by reducing demand enough that they can buy less power or build fewer plants. If they come close enough to the target, regulators award them a cut of the savings; if not, they pay a penalty...

As one would expect, PG&E (California's biggest utility) is emphasizing the easiest and cheapest method to reduce energy consumption: compact fluorescent lightbulbs. So far the utility has spent $116 million on rebates and subsidies, which has helped contribute to CFLs selling for $0.25 to $0.50 (10 to 20 times less than in 1999). All told PG&E subsidized the sale of 7.6 million CFLs last year, and up to 20 million this year.

No doubt the outcome of this experiment in market transformation will be extensively studied. If it proves successful in generating long-term, sustainable energy reductions, while allowing CFLs to finally supplant incandescents, this is a good example for other market-based renewable efforts to follow.

F.T.C. Asks if Carbon-Offset Money Is Well Spent: following up on Monday's post about the FTC hearings on green marketing, the carbon-offset portion received a good deal of press. Some good examples of green business within the article.

Cleantech funding rising, may overvalue sector: I always enjoy the articles that rely exclusively on anecdotal evidence to prove a headline. I definitely believe certain sectors are over-valued, but I'm not ready to call it a "bubble" just yet.

WEF warns 2008 uncertainties may hurt climate fight: I mentioned this here, and its something I'm looking at closely. What happens to the momentum around climate change, renewable energy development, green business, if a particularly nasty recession hits? The report itself has a scary list of risks for 2008 focused on four areas: financial security, food security, supply chains and energy.

Plug-in Electric Vehicles

For whatever reason, I came across a number of developments today in the plug-in electric vehicle space. In that PEVs are another example of technology that empowers the individual energy user, (and I just posted on a similar theme), I thought I'd highlight them here. Apologies for the lack of structure or continuity in this post.

"Smart charging" plug-ins

Some estimates place the number of plug-in vehicles by 2015 at 500K to 1.5 million. Unfortunately, for utilities, if plug-in electric cars achieve anywhere near this level of penetration, the electricity usage could be enormous.

For example, in an ACEEE study last year, a typical electric-only car might have an efficiency of 4 miles per kWh. If you assume an average 1,000 miles per month driving (and possibly more with the anticipated reduction in fuel prices) one car could “consume” 250 kWh per month. According to the EIA, the average household used about 900 kWh back in 2001 (their most recent data). Thus, acknowledging the multiple caveats associated with back of the envelope calculations such as this, switching from a gasoline-powered car to a pure electric would increase household energy usage by over 25%.

Therefore, while the actual fuel savings (and accompanying emissions reductions) would be significant, plug-in electric cars would need large amounts to draw large amounts of electricity from already over-stretched utilities and infrastructure.

This is where companies such as V2Green come in. V2Green is an early-stage venture focused on developing both the hardware and software necessary for utilities to efficiently manage the rate, pace and timing for charging plug-in vehicle. Its technology would allow thousands of vehicles to wirelessly communicate with utilities in order to determine the optimal charge time. The company faces a number of challenges (need for outside capital, partnering with both utilities and vehicle manufacturers, small current market size), but believes it is poised as the leader in a new market opportunity. Today, it announced a transition to a new CEO who will focus on V2Green’s growing business responsibilities (a typical process for most new technology ventures).

Over the past few months, Earth2Tech has written a number of smart posts focused on the company, and the broader challenges and opportunities in managing the electricity needs of plug-in vehicles and the potential for this new technology. Recommended if you're interested in learning more, and also here (h/t Earth2Tech).

Rapid charging of plug-in electric vehicles

Along a similar vein comes this commentary from Leonardo Energy today.

When screening the data sheets of prototypes electric vehicles and electric vehicle batteries, you often come across some spectacular recharging speeds…What the data sheets don’t say is that the electric connection must be capable of supplying sufficient power for this rapid recharging....Consequently, rapid charging would be impossible at home. Moreover, it would create a serious challenge for any grid connections for electric recharging stations located along the road…

…That is why some experts, like Andrew Burke, an electric vehicle engineering pioneer at the University of California, see the rapid charging of plug-ins as a technological dead end. Others, like Alan Gotcher, CEO of Altair Nanotechnologies, see those barriers merely as challenges that need to be overcome. Watch this space to see which of these two visions prove right.

The articles and study within the post add context, and are an informative read if this is of interest.

Boosting batteries

Finally, I wanted to close on a couple of developments that involve the actual batteries with the vehicles. While this should be a much longer post, I am including these two links here to highlight the fact that many technological advances that could impact PEV's are coming from parallel industries. This article (from several months back) helps explain the value of the two potential advances below:

Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery

Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries.

Cui said that a patent application has been filed. He is considering formation of a company or an agreement with a battery manufacturer. Manufacturing the nanowire batteries would require "one or two different steps, but the process can certainly be scaled up," he added. "It's a well understood process."

A Better Battery for Laptops

Boston-Power says that it's poised to enter the market for portable power, with a notebook battery the company claims is safer, lasts longer, and can be charged faster. The Westborough, MA, startup recently announced that it is more than tripling production of its high-performance battery, called the Sonata, after receiving $45 million in a third round of venture financing. The move puts the company in a position to mass-produce and commercialize its next-generation lithium-ion battery within months…

While focused on laptop computer batteries, there are hybrid-electric vehicle applications as well:

The unmatched safety benefits available from Boston-Power's technology apply in …other applications such as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). With existing notebook computer batteries containing roughly the same power as hand grenades -- and HEV batteries representing far greater than that -- Boston-Power's proactive, preventative safety features overcome the issues challenging current Lithium-ion batteries.

Encouraging the Individual

One of the primary themes of this blog involves the meta-trend of individuals actively participating in their energy consumption, generation and management. I recently came across an interesting post outlining some potential consumer-based activities that could save energy and help the environment. While I applaud the intentions behind this post, I thought I might comment on a different strategy here, which is based on my personal perspective of explicitly engaging the individual.

Environmental Defense - Eight Earth-Friendly New Year’s Resolutions:

1. Replace my conventional light bulbs with energy-efficient ones.
2. Calculate my carbon footprint and see what I can do to reduce it.
3. Make small changes at home.
4. Drive like the Earth depends on it.
5. Buy carbon offsets to help offset my emissions even further.
6. Choose seafood that’s good for me and the ocean.
7. Write my members of Congress demanding a strong global warming law.
8. Pass this list on to my friends and family.

Certainly the first three – changing to CFLs, calculating carbon footprint and making other small changes at home – are immensely important and relatively easy to do.

Where I challenge are the remaining five. Each is very much a relevant and useful environmental action, but I’m not sure if this is the best audience for these activities, or if these are the best tactics for that audience. And as the goal is ultimately to inspire and elicit action, I thought this a relevant critique.

Telling people (especially Americans) to change how they drive has never been very successful, unless it occurs through regulations (speed limits) or some form of incentives (or disincentive) such as peak congestion charges, car pool lanes, taxing gasoline, etc. Buying carbon offsets seems to conflict with the entire premise of the piece (which is reducing energy consumption). I’m not sure where # 6 comes from, and the last two are innocuous but sadly futile.

Instead, were I to make this list, I would have focused on empowerment and incentives. The individual consumer can do a great deal to encourage "right behavior" by leveraging one thing they have control over: his/her purchasing power. So, for example, rewarding environmentally friendly companies with spending and penalizing those that are the opposite.

Also, I might also think about areas where the consumer could take control in their home. Give the consumer tools to monitor the actual energy usage of their applicances. Encourage them to sign up for smart-metering (if available) or green power, or have them lobby their city to use companies such as RecycleBank.

Along those lines, I thought this, ("Green Plug looks to cut energy waste and cable clutter") both a cool little innovation and a wonderful technology to promote. Lou Grinzo seems less enthralled, but even if this isn't the exact right type of technology, it is a good example related to the above.

News and notes - electric cars, solar, CCS, ethanol, marketing and more

Charged up by electric cars: Tyler Hamilton's interesting new column on electrification of cars covers what large automakers and small entrepreneurs are doing in this space, and also speculates on the accompanying importance of load management software. More here on his blog. (he's a one person media conglomerate)

SunPower’s solar power plant building boom: details on SunPower's multiple new solar installation deals in Europe (especially Spain). Given that Spanish PV sector grew 500% in the last year, perhaps this is not surprising.

Solar-energy sector seems primed to grow. Nothing new, but some good P/E numbers on some very highly valued solar stocks - First Solar is at 130 time earnings, SunPower 60x, while others are lower (e.g. Trina at 18x).

Archer Daniels Midland to Bury Carbon From Ethanol Plant: ADM is working with a number of state and national government agencies to inject 1 million tons of carbon underground. Project is expected to cost $84 million, with almost $67 million coming from the Department of Energy.

Canon Unveils "Generation Green" Brand: at first, I was writing a snarky little post about this, until I remembered that Canon ranked number one on the Climate Counts scorecard, put together by Clean Air. Perhaps it was the company's environmental bona fides, that explained why a rather plain announcement got quite a bit of media attention.

Open Source Free Energy Tech: given my interest in leveraging successes from the Information Age, I thought this a wonderful example of energy technology development using the open-source method.

Deeya Energy Raises $15 Million Series B Financing for Energy Storage: yesterday, I linked to a great interview with two DFJ VC's. Deeya is one of their cleantech investments.

Switchgrass shows promise for ethanol production study: finally, some good news for pro-ethanol folks on the cellulosic ethanol front. Apparently, native North American prairie grass produces 540% more energy than energy consumed, compared to previous estimates 343% net. According to the article, this is due to higher yields from new breeds of switchgrass.

Could renewables supplant 100% of traditional electricity generation?

As I first wrote here, managing intermittency of renewable energy through geographic diversification could be a key driver of large, utility-scale adoption of renewable power beyond the 10%-15% threshold typically assumed. It also featured in my predictions for 2008.

Now, the Combined Power Plant in Germany is putting all of the theory into practice. (via The Sietch Blog, h/t Gristmill)

In an pilot experiment featuring 36 renewable energy power sources (11 wind, 4 biogas CHP units, 20 solar systems and a pumped storage power plant) all linked by a central control unit, the Combined Power Plant project demonstrates that most, if not all energy demand can be met exclusively by renewable energy. From the background paper:

Wind turbines and solar modules help generate electricity in accordance with how much wind and sun is available. Biogas and hydropower are used to make up the difference: they are converted into electricity as needed in order to balance out short-term fluctuations, or are temporarily stored….

…Cutting edge technology is already able to forecast energy yields reliably. The Combined Renewable Energy Power Plant makes use of this technology and regulates electricity needs just as securely as conventional, largescale power stations…

...These power plants are intended to meet one ten-thousandth of Germany’s electricity needs – roughly equal to the electricity requirements of a small town with 12,000 households (such as Stade in Germany). The Combined Power Plant therefore shows in miniature what is also possible on a large scale: 100 per cent provision with renewable energy sources at all times.

The Technical Summary has more.

I recommend first starting with the 7 minute video which does a wonderful job explaining the program and underlying reasoning.

Certainly, a national roll-out of this project would require the development of several enabling and ancillary technologies, including the build-out of an extensive high voltage power transmission infrastructure, and sophisticated demand response technology and networks. But coupled with improved energy efficiency and individual power management initiatives, this could potentially represent a quantum leap in a renewable energy powered future.

News and notes - Cleantech VC conversation, wind M&A, marketing

Few things I came across this weekend.

Earth2Tech Video: Cleantech Investing With Draper Fisher Jurvetson: Informative and insightful interview with two prominent cleantech VCs. Their thoughts on the cleantech "bubble" (about the 9 minute mark) are especially interesting, and they spend a good deal of time in the latter half of the interview talking about specific companies.

Scottish and Southern Energy to Acquire Airtricity for EUR 1 Billion: a couple weeks ago, I wrote the following in this post:

We should see continued consolidation in the wind power industry over the next few years, and those companies with the capacity to go public or raise private capital will do so soon....Those companies with available capital and market leadership should be best positioned to take advantage of this maturing sector.

I will be keeping track of this deals for future reference, as I expect we'll be seeing many more, especially if several planned wind IPOs come to fruition.

Truth in Advertising: more "something to watch" at this stage, but the FTC's decision to move up the review of its Green Guide (last updated in 1998) doesn't come a moment too soon. Many of the year-end posts that I linked to here focused on the trend of corporate environmental initiatives, and greenwashing. Perhaps the single most important aspect of marketing is "authenticity". Be it tweens, 18-34 men, housewives or NASCAR fans - know your audience and be real to them. The same of course applies for companies trying to reach consumers interested in the environmental practices, perhaps some of the toughest critics around.

Thoughts on the energy question at last night's debate - UPDATED

Watching the debates on Saturday night, I was especially interested in the Republican answers given to the question of $100 oil, and what to do about it. I’m focusing on the Republicans here in part because the Democratic candidates are loudly on the record as being pro-renewable energy, pro-climate change legislation etc, and in part because any far-reaching, paradigm-shifting new energy and climate policy will require significant Republican support (no matter which team wins the 2008 elections).

You can find the text of the entire debate here, the energy question is close to the bottom. I was struck by several things.

• The focus on energy independence and energy security. Every candidate framed the argument in terms of energy independence, mostly in terms of national security. Moreover, every candidate (with the exception of Fred Thompson) spoke passionately and persuasively on these terms. John McCain was the only candidate to broach the topic of climate change, and no one else dared touch it. I’ve linked several times to reports focused on the national security implications of global warming and I wonder if the overlap between the two could be leveraged. If "saving the planet" doesn't work on some people, then maybe "protecting America" would. Second, for the renewable energy enthusiast, I think it also points to the value in reframing the debate when reaching out to different groups. Of course when doing so, one needs to first make sure that renewable fuels and power capacity is of a large-enough scale that it can actually make a significant dent in meeting our oil demand.
  

• The multiple mentions of “solar”, “wind”, “fuel efficiency”. As an anecdotal statement of progress in these industries, would you have expected these technologies to feature as solutions in a question on oil four years ago at a Republican debate? Certainly I would expect mentions of clean coal, more oil refineries and drilling, natural gas exploration, etc. But this took me by surprise.

• The focus on nuclear power. Looking at the debate transcript, almost every candidate emphasized the value of a nuclear solution. Perhaps it’s the easiest way to support climate change and alternative energy technologies without coming off as “too green”. A way of maintaining a certain political leaning if you will – “Sure I believe in climate change – but I’m a nuclear advocate, so I’m not an environmentalist or anything.” Just a thought that really needs further development.
  

• The interest on broad, large-scale national programs. Practically every candidate spoke of the need for and value of a strategic, massive, long-term energy plan. While there may be some political cognitive dissonance for the small-government proponents, all candidates were in favor of significant increases in investment in new energy technologies.

While politics is politics and those running for office have a tendency to write checks they can’t actually cash, the tone, tenor and specificity of these answers were a strong positive to me, and, I believe, bode extremely well for the coming years.

UPDATE: you can find more perspectives here, here and here. (h/t Gristmill). I think the difference in perspective between these account and my own can in some part be explained by the fact that I've given up on winning over many climate change skeptics. At this stage, I'm not sure what other evidence can be brought to the table to convince them, and I'm not interested in waiting 10 years for even more concrete evidence. Contrarians and iconoclasts enjoy that title and typically stand firmer in their positions when pushed. It's how they became contrarians and iconoclasts in the first place. So for me, I'm focusing on reframing the debate to reach the end goal (reducing carbon emissions and "traditional" energy usage).

UPDATE II: thought this a relevant (if old) article germane to my thoughts above.

Welcome The Cost of Energy Readers

Lou Grinzo had some nice words to say about a recent post here. This is the link to the actual post he references. Not to get to obsequious, but The Cost of Energy is a great resource, and Lou's insights are always appreciated. Welcome!

New climate study explores national security and social change

Fascinating new study out of the entitled "The Age of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change."

Using a scenario planning method, the study explores what's "plausible" as it relates to climate change as opposed to what can be established with scientific certainty.

For each of the three plausible climate scenarios, we asked a national security expert to consider the projected environmental effects of global warming and map out the possible consequences for peace and stability. Further, we enlisted a historian of science to consider whether there was anything to learn from the experience of earlier civilizations confronted with rampant disease, flooding, or other forms of natural disaster.

Real Climate has a much better breakdown, so I'm just sending you there. The potential outcomes are downright catastrophic (on practically a biblical scale):

The “expected” scenario calls for 1.3 °C of warming globally, by the year 2040. Changes in precipitation and sea level prompt migration at a scale sufficient to challenge the cohesion of nations...

...In the “severe” scenario, the globe warms by 2.6 °C by 2040 and sea level rises about a half a meter. Scientists in 2040 conclude that the eventual collapse of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets has become inevitable in the centuries that follow. Agricultural production declines in the arid subtropics and in increasingly flooded river deltas. Again to pick a random example from the report: the river systems in the American Southwest collapse, leading to impoverishment of Northern Mexico and increased migration pressure in the U.S. Resource stress in Latin American leads to a tendency toward populist, Chavez-type governments, and more extensive regions of de facto anarchy such as found today in parts of Colombia.

I won't even bother posting the "catastrophic scenario" as I'm sure you get the hint. A compelling study and read.

Scientific American - solar grand plan

If you haven't seen it yet, you might want to read Scientific American's strategy for a massive solar roll-out that would take place over the next four decades.

On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh)....

...The federal government would have to invest more than $400 billion over the next 40 years to complete the 2050 plan...The infrastructure would displace 300 large coal-fired power plants and 300 more large natural gas plants...The plan would effectively eliminate all imported oil...In 2050 U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would be 62 percent below 2005 levels, putting a major brake on global warming.

I appreciate the ambition and scale of investment and resources that this article is willing to contemplate and it is certainly a considered and well-researched piece. The strategy is laid out essentially as follows:

• CSP and PV are both brought to large-scale deployment by 2020, amounting to 84 GW (I assume actual installed capacity). This ramp-up stimulates manufacturer scale up, optimizing production, improving installation and reducing overall cost of solar drastically.

• Thin film cadmium telluride solar accounts for 80% of the solar energy, with module efficiency improvements to 14%, and $1.20/watt installation cost. Concentrated solar power with molten salt heat retention is further developed and accounts for 20% of solar power.

• In parallel, a new high-voltage, direct-current (HVDC) power transmission backbone is built from the US Southwest around the nation while compressed air storage facilities are installed around the country in abandoned underground facilities. Excess solar power would be sent over high-voltage DC transmission lines to compressed-air storage facilities throughout the country.

• Federal policy support through 2020 includes loan guarantees, guaranteed government PPA, and price subsidies. After 2020, the study assumes self-sustained industry growth.

• In addition, over the next 40 years, a total of 46,000 square miles of easily available and accessible land will be required for photovoltaic and concentrated solar power installations.

What I enjoy most about this study is the research tacked to each initiative. If you're feeling wonky, you can have fun exploring the underlying assumptions and projections for each primary strategic point.

Meanwhile, the total cost of this plan is sizable: $420 billion in federal government support over the next four decades, but the authors believe this to be a bargain:

Although $420 billion is substantial, the annual expense would be less than the current U.S. Farm Price Support program. It is also less than the tax subsidies that have been levied to build the country’s high-speed telecommunications infrastructure over the past 35 years. And it frees the U.S. from policy and budget issues driven by international energy conflicts.

Certainly there are a number of aggressive assumptions and challenges associated with this plan. In fact, I feel it actually best serves as a “thought exercise”, as the article itself concludes:

The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan.

UPDATE: There was one other thing I wanted to add to this post. The greatest benefit of this type of plan might not actually involve developments of solar energy per se but where that technology leads. While it's not the most efficient or cost-effective, $420 billion in federal expenditures can lead (indirectly) to a lot of R&D. I'm reminded of NASA's impact on technology transfer (e.g. fiberglass, breathing apparatus, GPS, computers, etc.) There's a great report on this here: "NASA’s Legacy of Technology Transfer and Prospects for Future Benefits"

The difficulty in predicting oil prices

I’m going to stray a bit outside my comfort zone to offer some thoughts on oil prices.

Excluding renewable fuels and transportation, evidence demonstrating a correlation between the price of oil and either renewable energy investment or renewable energy stocks and is somewhat anecdotal. Research demonstrates a link, but others disagree. I imagine it’s a difficult relationship to tease out, given the numerous variables underlying price movement, many unrelated to each other.

[of course, the boom in ethanol, biodiesel and other renewable fuels, as well as the new CAFÉ standards and interest in plug-in and gas/electric hybrid vehicles are all directly tied to the high price of oil. But that’s a different post.]

I’m more interested in the prevalent assumption among the media and general public, that oil prices directly impact interest and/or investment in all renewable energy (for a variety of economic, behavioral and political reasons). I find it an interesting potential paradox that while a long stretch of $100 bbl/oil might have a psychological and economic influence that could ultimately boost renewable energy finance and R&D, there would be considerable negative macro-economic impact in the short-term (which would damage those renewable energy opportunities).

As one of my assumptions for 2008 is that there will be a short-term pause in the “green movement”, I’m specifically interested in the prospect of higher oil prices in 2008 and more importantly, if the outcome can predicted with any certainty.

If the price and volatility of oil drives renewable energy decision-making (as an investor or financier, politician or typical consumer) then having some confidence and clarity about the price of oil would be immensely valuable for a variety of stakeholders.

Thus I found the multiple articles on oil prices in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal to be especially interesting as much for what they said about the staggering impact of high oil prices as for our inability to determine what we might see occurring in the oil industry.

Interestingly the Journal already ran this article two months ago before an oil summit. Back then, I wrote:

If you view $95 oil as the result of speculation, a deflating dollar and a war/risk premium (as opposed to simple supply/demand issues), you can now, according to this article, also add as drivers of high oil prices:

• Resource nationalism
• Limits on oil field access
• Billions of dollars in infrastructure underinvestment
• Declining production levels in existing fields
• Oil field damage due to over-depletion
• Revenue surplus which limits extraction investment
• Labor, construction and equipment bottlenecks
• Booming commodity markets
• Overestimation of near-term potential in alternative supplies

Yesterday’s article took more of a longer-term view, but still offered the same perspective:

Economists, Wall Street commodity traders and even seasoned energy executives were caught flat-footed by oil's dizzying rise. Looking back, several factors came together at the same time to help oil shoot up roughly tenfold in less than a decade and briefly touch $100. Those factors are likely to stick around -- and perhaps push prices up further.

Reading through the article, I was able to add the following to my list of drivers for higher oil prices (responses edited):

• Unexpected surging oil demand in China, the Middle East and other developing countries
• Chronic underinvestment in oil fields in the past decade
• Wall Street penalizing risky extraction efforts
• Insensitivity of U.S. and global oil demand to rising oil prices
  
• Price volatility sparked by 24 hour NYMEX trading, hedge funds and financial traders

In addition, via an email exchange with Lou Grinzo from The Cost of Energy, I confirmed several of these trends and added two other price drivers:

• Rise of national oil companies (NOCs)
• Inability/unwillingness of some exporters to keep pace with demand.

Accordingly, in the process of gathering this information for this post, I ultimately wound up collecting almost two dozen reasons why oil prices are as high as they are today. Which, for me, then begs the question: why has $100 bbl/oil been so hard to predict? And should recent developments really be all that shocking? And in future, can we say with any confidence if these trends and drivers will continue indefinitely?

I feel there is a relatively simple reason why so many investors and analysts have been (and continue to be) caught by surprise with the oil price increases over the past five years. In predicting oil prices over the past twenty years, there hasn’t been much need for innovation in either modeling or research. Oil fluctuated gradually between $20 and $30 (occasionally drifting to $10-15), demand grew consistently and steadily, except in times of recession or the occasional war, and supply was essentially infinite. [as this great chart demonstrates]

To this end, most oil experts and analysts I’ve met tend to be old-school traditional guys, with solid relationships in the Middle-East and a belief that oil supply would forever top demand, and the US would always find a way to smooth pricing through invasion, regime change, sanctions, etc. I have a number of examples which I’m prudently withholding.

Meanwhile, those who predicted peak oil, or that demand could eventually outpace supply have been consistently marginalized, and (for about 20 years) wrong. I would imagine most left the industry. And I would further assume that few young or contrarian individuals ever entered oil trading or analysis, perhaps due to the lack of excitement or change (given the absence of volatility in pricing and need for “physical trading”).

And thus now, as we face a suddenly new and volatile era, we are left with experts who possess a great deal of expertise and experience, only in doing the same basic thing and never really needing to innovate. While I have no doubt as to their economic and mathematical brilliance, we unfortunately need experimentation and non-linear thinking. I imagine it must be paradigm-shattering for some old-timers to have to consider current developments while imagining a world of finite supply and a U.S. unable to “encourage” increasing production. To this end I would expect most oil analysts and investors to have little clue about what to do next, and to continue to be surprised by an oil market that they’ve never really had to consider or model before.

Take for example one senior energy analyst at a large investment bank, who I enjoyed meeting recently. Unlike many of his peers, he's been bullish on oil for several years now. And yet, while he expected high oil prices for 2008, by 2010, he assumes supply constraints will ease considerably, leading to a significant decline of oil prices past 2009.

What struck me in discussing this with him was his reasoning. He ignores most of the 20+ reasons I listed above as to why prices have sparked so high in the past few years and focuses mostly on supply and demand. Moreover, in terms of supply, he thinks OPEC has the capacity to grow up to 3.0 mmbpd, which he believes will easily match average global demand growth of 1.5 mmbpd for the near future.

Beyond this, he has aggressive projections for alternative and non-conventional fuels. He expects ethanol and biodiesel to see incremental growth to almost 0.7 mmbpd by 2010, while Gas to Liquids/Coal to Liquids, oil sands and condensate splitting will add another 1.2 mmbpd by then. This, coupled with additional refinery capacity coming online and an assumption of calming political issues, means that while he expects $80 oil through 2008, after that, he is fairly bearish, and assumes prices will fall significantly.

Unfortunately, to me, this analysis ignores the myriad price drivers described above. And should the OPEC supply growth prove optimistic, the increase in capacity is heavily reliant on the scale up of the alternative fuels mentioned above to match growing oil demand. Meanwhile, forecasting the price of oil, already an immensely difficult exercise given the aforementioned variables in this post, becomes yet more complicated by 2009 if additional oil capacity doesn’t come on line.

In pricing oil, an analyst today needs to consider all of the above challenges and then include a host of new variables associated with the production of alternative fuels (price of corn, tar sand oil extraction, etc). So oil, already incorporating political risk premiums, economic risk and at least two dozen other new variables referenced above, now must factor in variables around the capacity, expense, production and pricing for at least five different unproven fuels, which are necessary to meet growing oil demand.

All of which explains why oil price forecasting is so difficult to get right. And why many "experts" continue to be surprised. And so where does this leave me? Apparently throwing darts and making a blind guess about the average cost of oil in 2008 and beyond.

UPDATE: I only touched on this above, but check out this piece today linking the rising price of oil to a weak dollar, and then some in-depth analysis here.

Free research - carbon markets, renewable energy, climate change and more

Missed this a couple of weeks ago, but it's such a great idea, I had to share. If you're like me, you just lost 4 hours on this site. Or not, if you have a life. Either way is fine. But a great source of information and thought-leadership if you have some time to explore.

Investment banks, research institutes and the City of London authority have collaborated to release a public collection of investment research relating to climate change, to help inform investors about the issue...

...The institutions contributing reseach include ABN Amro, Bank Sarasin, Barclays, Canaccord Adams, Cheuvreux, Credit Suisse, Forum for the Future, Herbert Smith, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Société Générale and WestLB.

I've long been a fan of investment research for broad industry coverage, and there are a number of good reports here. But you can also find some cutting edge academic and NGO work as well.
Enjoy.

Welcome Earth2Tech Readers

Thanks to Earth2Tech's Katie Fehrenbacher for the link in the Daily Sprout news post. The actual post can be found here. Glad to have you here.

Thoughts on 2008 - caution and optimism

Below is a collection of my own predictions for 2008 in cleantech and sustainable business, along with links to writing I've done in the past covering these topics. My post on the predictions from other bloggers, writers and experts is here.

1) Weak US and global economic conditions will have some negative impact on the “green movement” in the short term.

The weakening U.S. and global economies will dampen investor enthusiasm in all things green and cause national politicians to temporarily back off their environmental pledges. The frigid housing market will negatively impact PV solar installation in the US and the poor economic environment will cause some cleantech companies to fail or post poor results. These won’t be representative indicators, but the mainstream media, in a downcast mood, will jump on these outcomes anyway as signs the “green” boom is ending.

Due to this, many undecided Americans will take a step back to pause and reflect on the “green movement” (a term I dislike, but use to encompass “clean energy investment”, “corporate sustainability”, “climate change solutions”, etc). I think there are still many more skeptics than optimists regarding the potential future success of renewable energy and green business. These developments will give the skeptics ammunition to re-emerge and question if the hype is justified. While I think this backlash would have occurred naturally, the 2008 conditions described above will exacerbate it.

2) However existing concerns (energy prices, climate change etc.) will remain, lessening the impact of the developments described above, and allowing for the future long-term development of the “green movement”.

The pause in interest in all things green will be short-term. No more than a year. High energy prices, energy security concerns, increasing scientific certainty around anthropogenic climate change and new weather phenomena (climate change-induced or not) will mitigate some of the media (and the public’s) skepticism and ensure continued interest in all things green. Climate change will not be a large campaign issue (too much issue clutter), but it will be discussed, especially if McCain gets the Republican nomination.

Longer-term, the steps taken to boost the economy (lower interest rates, tax cuts/credits, housing industry bailout) will have a beneficial longer-term impact on the “green movement” spurring consumer and business interest and institutional investment. U.S. politicians and business leaders will recognize the value (and currently wasted opportunity) in developing the variety of industries under the “green/clean” banner. But that will be a 2009-2010 development.

3) One new trend will capture public imagination, while solar will experience a backlash.

This stems from a conversation I had a few months back. To borrow from my own writing, it certainly seems as though the last few years, one specific technology has captured the imagination of the media, the business community and the public. There’s a love affair for about a year, followed by the inevitable falling out of love period, as various individuals question the economic, environmental and political realities underlying each technology. 2004 was the year of the hybrid (Prius); 2005 - wind; 2006 - biofuels; 2007 - solar. I see no reason why this pattern won't repeat itself. As to what 2008 would be, I think I'll stick with energy efficiency (although I'd broaden it to include #5 and #7 below).

4) Coal power plant cancellations will grow, sparking interest in a variety of energy alternatives

As I blogged here, I believe the pace of coal plant cancellations or postponements will quicken. I last counted 22 cancellations in the past 12 months. There’s a reason why a lead Citigroup analyst (and others) downgraded coal stocks in July. There are a number of financial ramifications as a result of this, but more importantly, that lost capacity must be made up somewhere. Utilities and power generators (and city and state governments) will need to choose between natural gas, lobbying for nuclear, or looking at other alternative technologies.

5) Some smart people will begin applying the lessons of the most recent technological revolution to the consumption of energy.

As I also blogged here, the concept of empowering and engaging the consumer, so that they are actively involved in the generation and consumption of their own power will be a dynamic trend in the coming year. Demand response technology, smart and net metering, last-mile smart grid efforts, incentivizing energy efficiency – each can and will play a role. Although as my caveat above stated, we should only be witnessing the start of this long-term trend, and maybe even just the first outliers.

6) Reducing the energy intensity of transportation will be the primary focus, but the solution is still to be determined.

Whether one considers the new Energy Act, the build-out of high speed trains, the focus on ethanol and infrastructure from “field to fuel pump”, or electric vehicles and battery storage, the bottom line is this. We need to get people from point A to point B using less energy, and with less environmental damage. I didn’t post as much on this topic as I would've liked this year, but it is one that will continue to hold the attention of investors, policy makers, corporate executives and individual consumers. 2008 will see a variety of solutions proposed, and while I don’t see one gaining more favor than any others, I do believe those solutions that keep #5 in mind may do well.

7) “Design” and aesthetic appeal will be a growing consideration and differentiator among renewable energy and other clean technologies.

My significant other has long appreciated the idea and concepts underlying renewable energy, but disliked the outwardly unappealing and awkward appearance of solar panels, wind turbines, CFLs, etc. I think it’s a valid criticism. Key to the resurgence of a number of companies (Apple, Mini Cooper) and has been the focus and integrating of style and design with technology. Everything from green buildings to urban environments to distributed generation could benefit from a similar philosophy and I think they will in 2008.

8) Labor shortages will be as big a constraint to the energy industry (traditional and alternative) as polysilicon and turbines are to solar and wind respectively.

Clean Break (linked above) has a good reference on this (although he has a different take), and I’ve posted about jobs in the green industry here and here. The US was already suffering from a dearth of engineers and scientists in most fields, but the shortage appears especially acute in energy. The lack of qualified technicians and installers for distributed generation mirrors a similar shortage (for different positions) in traditional oil, gas and power. While some “green jobs” legislation was included in the Energy Act, ultimately, much more support is necessary to meet the growing need for labor in this space.

9) People will focus on “managing intermittency” through diversification and other energy portfolio strategies, as well as a variety of energy storage solutions.

I’ve covered the geographic diversification and intermittency issue here for solar and wind in detail. Outside of cost per watt, this is the biggest challenge and drawback for renewable energy. It’s not a bold prediction to state the people will be working on ways to store energy where intermittency is a factor, but I do think more project financers, investors, energy executives and policy makers will focus on the potential value in diversification across regions for wind and blending solar (Thermal, CSP and PV) with other renewable and traditional energies.

****

So that’s it – my predictions for 2008. Before writing this post, I didn't expect that I would leave out predictions on carbon legislation and carbon markets, emission measurement technologies and global climate change policy. I could be wrong, but ultimately, given the economic challenges and US elections in 2008, I don’t think much will be happening in those areas.

I was somewhat surprised also by my pessimism, but as I worked through this post, I started to realize what had been bothering me about so many of the predictions and forecasts I had read. Many (especially the optimists) seemed to be looking to cram at least 5 years of development and success into 2008.

I personally believe the industries that are growing around cleantech, renewable energy and green business are strong enough to withstand a pause, and in fact could benefit from one. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t love to see growth that far exceeds the $117 billion invested this year and in fact I’m sure just that in 2008. But the rush to invest and overwhelming interest in all things clean and green is, yes, beginning to look a little frenzy-ish and bubble-ish. And I’d rather smooth that out of the system now, than go through a dot-com cycle lasting five years.

2008 Predictions from others - UPDATED

Predictions are an especially fun post. Opining about the future with no real consequences, connecting historical trends with forecasts and projections, seeing how it all fits into the ever-evolving social, economic and political context…what’s not to love?

Unfortunately, the difficulty with year-end recaps and predictions is that they tend to put a finite cap on certain trends, and artificially inflate others. So for example, 2007 becomes the year when the business community took global warming seriously, or the year when the stock market finally profited from renewable energy, or the year when the biofuel boom ended, and so forth. A similar philosophy is applied to 2008, which can lead to predictions which are in fact just continuations of existing trends, or ignoring new developments which may become large-scale phenomena down the road.

As this blog is theoretically a long-term endeavor, I’ve collected a lot of other (smarter) bloggers’ predictions as well in this post. Partly I wanted an easy collection point for future reference, and to see what others were saying, but I also wanted to rank myself against others. A few of my favorite prediction posts (and 2007 trend recaps) are below ranked in quasi-order of enjoyment, followed by my own thoughts for 2008 in a separate post. Each post here takes a different perspective on 2008, but all are fascinating to read.

2008 Clean Break Lookahead
The World of Energy in 2007
The Top Energy Stories to Watch in 2008
Renewables and the New Year
Looking ahead to 2008, pt. 1: Finally the exits?
Eight Cleantech Developments to Watch for in 2008

Reviewing these various predictions and trend recaps (and many others that weren’t included here), I’m struck by a few things.

There is a good deal of interest in ocean power and/or offshore wind, energy efficiency and capturing carbon for storage. A lot of people are targeting electric cars and battery storage. Many are focused on the potentially gigantic impact of China, both as a manufacturer and a market, and the resurgence of nuclear power. Others are looking at the authenticity and strategy of the corporate environmental response (versus charges of “greenwashing”).

What I found even more interesting however, was what was missing. Almost no one was interested in carbon markets, advanced biofuels or infrastructure investment, capacity constraints, the U.S. political environment or the impacts of a weakening economy, a reduced interest in coal and an increased interest in design.

You can see my own thoughts for 2008 here.

UPDATE: A few more posts on the same subject are below. Some of these are really good:

10 green tech predictions for the new year
The top green stories of 2007
Three Financiers Foretell 2008
The Green Year in Review
Earth2Tech’s Predictions for 2008
Photovoltaics: 2007 Post Review and 2008 Trends to Watch – Part 2

Evolution of Thought or Spin?

There's a rather interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post that quite a few are talking about. It leads with the possibility that President Bush is ceding ground in the climate change legislation front, and looking for non-Kyoto-based alternatives as solutions:

For years, Bush bristled privately at what he considered sky-is-falling alarmism by the liberal, elitist Hollywood crowd. The clatter over climate change, according to friends and advisers, seemed to him more like a political agenda than a rational response to known facts. But ever so gradually, they say, Bush's views have evolved. He has found the science increasingly persuasive and believes more needs to be done, especially after a set of secret briefings last winter. A former aide said Bush's staff even developed models for a market-based cap on greenhouse emissions.

Now Bush bristles not at the Hollywood types but at the notion that he does not care. At an end-of-the-year news conference, he spent more time answering a question on climate change than on any other inquiry, outlining his approach in detail to dispel the notion that he does not have one. "I take the issue seriously," he said, later repeating the phrase. "And we're developing a strategy that will deal with it, and an effective strategy."

Typically, I find it difficult trying to separate the partisanship and the spin from genuine political developments. This article feels no different. But rather than get embroiled into any kind of debate, I'm just going to follow this article with what I believe are a few countering sentiments. I have a specific viewpoint on the matter (which is why I chose the articles that I did), but others may believe there's more to this article, than I.

Hard Choices on Climate Can Wait for Next President, Aides Indicate

Bush Faces a Long Legal Battle With California

Bush and Global Warming in 2008

Oil limits

Last month, I posted on an interesting WSJ article that discussed a plateau in oil production. In it, I said:

The idea of oil production reaching a "constant" level of output that it can't push through sounds suspiciously like a natural limit to me. The article references 100 million bpd as that limit several times. I'm not implying there's a natural law from which we can't deviate, but given the plethora of challenges currently found in oil discovery, drilling and funding, I wonder what happens north of 100 million bpd. Does each marginal barrel have an increasing incremental cost of extraction? Does it cost $150 per barrel to go from 100 million to 105 million bpd say?

Returning to this topic, I came across a great post a few days ago (yes, I know, but the holidays area time consuming endeavor) with a more in-depth look at the fact that "forecasters are converging on 100 million b/d" (h/t The Cost of Energy):

While the latest mainstream energy forecasts don't predict a peak or plateau, they do see little more than 100 million b/d of conventional oil output by 2030 -- the end of the forecast period. Both Exxon Mobil's new long-term outlook and the latest World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency (IEA) project conventional oil production of 105 million-106 million b/d against total liquids supply of 116 million b/d.

Both links are worth a read.

Carbon capture and storage

Just wanted to highlight something that I saw in Greentech's weekly email. Filed as a "something to watch":

Meantime, Shell and StatoilHydro said Thursday they would scrap plans to build a gas-fired plant with technology to capture and store greenhouse gases in Norway (see stories from Reuters and The Times). The companies said the project was too costly to be economical. The news came after BP cancelled plans to build a carbon-capture center in Scotland in May, after a government decision on subsidies was delayed.

PV solar data in 2006 and 2007 - (less than meets the eye?)

According to some reports, there has been some impressive 2006 and 2007 growth in the PV solar space. The actual report is here. Diving into the numbers however leads me to some more conservative conclusions.

• Annual PV production increased to 3,800 megawatts globally in 2007, up an estimated 50 percent over 2006. Cumulative global production is now at 12,400 MW. Since 2002, production growth has increased 48 percent each year.

The usual caveat is that the production capacity base has been so low for so long, that 12.4 GW (non-peak) is an infinitesimally small amount of energy capacity globally. While these are good numbers that the media and investor community can publicize, I’m more interested in installation than production. Unfortunately, annual installation numbers aren’t as impressive, except in the US.

• According to the 2007 estimates, annual worldwide installation increased to 2,287 megawatts, up 31% from 2006 when 1,740 megawatts installed.

Breaking down the numbers on a region-specific basis adds some additional color:

• In 2006, Germany added 1,050 megawatts, and another 1,260 megawatts in 2007 (estimate). There are now more than 300,000 buildings with PV systems in Germany.

• Japan, the United States, and Spain round out the top four markets with 350, 141, and 70 megawatts installed in 2006, respectively. Japan’s growth slowed considerably, while Spain tripled its PV installations in 2006.

• The growth in U.S. installations increased from 20% in 2005 to 31% in 2006, primarily driven by California and New Jersey. Initial estimates for the United States as a whole indicate that PV incentives helped to achieve an incredible 83% growth in installations in 2007.
  

In that Germany has accounted for at least half of all global installation since 2003, its phenomenal growth has pushed overall global growth rates higher. Removing Germany from worldwide numbers reduces previous annual growth rates in PV installation from 2003-2006, but increases this year’s growth to 48%.









[Click picture for larger image]

While these are positive numbers, I always keep in mind that consumer adoption rates have been much higher for other technologies. While perhaps a bit apples to oranges, consider the following:











Several years of 40%-50% annual growth are very positive, but given that PV solar is on less than 1% of all American roofs, there will need to be many more years of 75% growth (and higher) to reach 10% and 50% adoption.

The top five PV-producing countries are also interesting.

• Ranked in order, they are Japan, China, Germany, Taiwan, and the United States, with China expected to be number one by 2008. China almost tripled its PV production in 2006, and is estimated to have doubled it again in 2007.

Finally, unfortunately costs still don't appear to be coming down. While everyone is aware of the impact of the polysilicon shortage, looking at the past few years isn’t especially heartening. Although spun in this report as an overall decline, and 2007 numbers aren’t included, one can see the impact of supply constraints and strong demand.











Overall, the first set of numbers looking at the 2007 solar industry are positive. While these are good numbers (and if you’re a PV solar advocate, credit to the Earth Policy Institute for spinning them so strongly), 2007 and 2008 actual results may need to be much higher to justify the positive press and investor interest.

Making ethanol production cheaper and less carbon-intensive

Interesting new study by the EPA: “The Impact of Combined Heat and Power on Energy Use and Carbon Emissions in the Dry Mill Ethanol Process.” (h/t The Energy Blog).

While this may seem like a wonky and arcane study, energy usage is actually an important variable in the production of ethanol. Next to the price of corn, energy costs are the second biggest variable cost component of ethanol production and account for 15-20% of cost per gallon of ethanol. As almost all plants currently use natural gas for energy, the volatility of natural gas prices has increased the economic complexity of producing ethanol.















As seen in this chart, in the past five years, the monthly industrial spot price for natural gas has ranged from $3 to $12. While much of this risk can be hedged out, the overall trend has been an increase in natural gas prices - which has not gone unnoticed in the ethanol space.

In addition, the energy source (coal, natural gas, biomass, methane, etc.) will have a significant impact on the total carbon emissions of the ethanol production facility. Therefore, if considering a future where carbon has a price per ton, the choice of energy input could significantly increase/decrease the operating costs per gallon.

For example, Richard Plevin and Steffen Mueller conducted a study comparing the ethanol production costs in five dry-grind configurations – coal, natural gas and biomass (looking at CHP and non-CHP systems). They arrived at the conclusions that once $13/ton for CO2 emissions is reached, biomass is cheaper than coal with CHP, and after $37/ton CO2 emissions, natural gas is cheaper than coal (w/o CHP), but coal with CHP is still cheaper than natural gas.

Therefore, this research from the US EPA can have a good deal of relevance and impact. [a quick refresher on CHP might be useful...was for me]. Among conclusions of the study:

By efficiently providing electricity and thermal energy from the same fuel source at the point of use, CHP significantly reduces the total fuel used by a business or industrial plant, along with the corresponding emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants….

...The analysis examines the impact of CHP on total energy consumption, including the impact on reductions in central station power fuel use and CO2 emissions caused by displacing power purchases with CHP. The analysis shows that the use of CHP can result in reductions in total energy use of almost 55 percent...

...[Among several natural gas CHP configurations] In Case 1, CO2 emissions are reduced by 21 percent on a pound-per-gallon basis...In Case 3, CO2 emission reductions from displacing central station power exceed the CO2 emissions at the plant itself, resulting in negative net CO2 emissions for the CHP system compared with base case conditions.

CHP reduces overall fuel use by 9 percent and CO2 emissions by approximately 5.6 percent in the case of coal. CHP provides a total fuel reduction of 8 percent in the case of biomass-fueled ethanol production and results in CO2 reductions of 91 percent.

A couple additional points about this study:

• Measuring energy use MMBtu is certainly valuable, but I wish the authors had taken this to the next level, looking at the cost/gallon of CHP. There are different variables impacting “total energy cost” between the energy sources. For example, plant maintenance cost, transportation costs and time offline all increase for coal-fired and biomass systems, and capital costs vary among each type of plant. While cost per gallon adds an additional layer of complexity, I think this is a more relevant analysis for decision-makers.

• There is little real discussion about the potential for biomass as an energy input. Although most ethanol plants run on natural gas, given the current political debate, and future environmental concerns, corn (and cellulosic) ethanol should really be produced in as sustainable a fashion as possible (ie using biomass-derived energy). In only using one potential biomass CHP system, they ignored a number of other methods to include biomass as a feedstock.
  

Still, I applaud the inclusion of a biomass CHP case study and the focus on emissions as a good first step. Overall, an interesting study and relevant to anyone modeling ethanol production costs.

EIA Outlook - continuing frustration

I quickly linked to this article a few days ago, but I wanted to return to it as it points out a continuing source of frustration.

Two weeks ago, I wrote:

The unfortunate thing about the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Annual Energy Outlooks is that reporters tend not to understand (or at least write about) the assumptions underlying these forecasts. Most articles I've seen on this topic over the past few years tend to highlight the very low levels of growth forecast in future renewable generation capacity. As the EIA is touted as "Official Energy Statistics from the US Government" I've always been troubled by this.

Just to offer one more example, this US News & World Report article makes the same mistake (ruining what is otherwise a solid piece).

[in discussing the potential of renewable energy supplanting fossil fuel-derived energy] This grand goal is not remotely in sight, even with wind and solar energy and ethanol growing at a breakneck clip. These renewables now provide just 3.6 percent of the nation's energy, and the government predicts their share will grow to a grand total of 4.2 percent by 2030. By those calculations, it sure looks like a fossil fuel future for America.

As a result, the meme continues: a fossil-fuel-based energy future is inevitable, and renewables will amount to nothing more than a drop in the bucket. Some restated version of the EIA assumptions wouldn't be that difficult to include, would it? From the EIA Outlook:

As in previous editions of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), the reference case assumes that current policies affecting the energy sector remain unchanged throughout the projection period. Some possible policy changes—notably, the adoption of policies to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions—could change the reference case projections significantly.

Nanosolar Update

As usual I'm late to the party, but I wanted to post a few thoughts about Nanosolar. On December 18, NanoSolar CEO posted the following on his company's blog (tangent: now that's message control):

After five years of product development – including aggressively pipelined science, research and development, manufacturing process development, product testing, manufacturing engineering and tool development, and factory construction – we now have shipped first product and received our first check of product revenue.

There was a great deal of press, both mainstream and non-traditional, around this announcement.

The thin-film technology and industry isn't particularly new (given the lightning fast evolutions in the solar segment), and a great overview of the industry is available from Earth2Tech. What is unique about Nanosolar is that it has figured out how to manufacture and mass produce this thin-film technology. Two strong overviews of the Nanosolar technology are available from Popular Science magazine (where it was Innovation of the Year) and Celsias:

Ultimately, the reason for this excitement is understandable:

[Nanosolar has] successfully created a solar coating that is the most cost-efficient solar energy source ever. Their PowerSheet cells contrast the current solar technology systems by reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.

The one topic lacking from most of these articles, however, has been a discussion of the sunlight-to-energy efficiency concern. Traditional crystalline-silicon PV panels have an efficiency ratio of anywhere from 15%-17% (with some claiming up to 19%). Thin-film solar achieves half of that energy conversion. Thus while installation costs drop, the necessary installation size and area necessary (and thus overall system costs) rise significantly. Information from Nanosolar is difficult to find, but Celsias does some great research in this post:

Wikipedia has an updated snippet that adds to the mystery: "The company uses Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide—which can achieve up to 19.5% efficiency—to build their thin film solar cells."

Just because the material can achieve 19.5% efficiency, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are in practice. A little digging and I found a PDF in German... the document indicates they have an efficiency rating of 13.95%. This is pretty standard.

However, a commenter on the same post, Tom Rust, had an interesting follow-on, which I wanted to pass on:

Although I applaud Nanosolars efforts to bring low cost PV to market, users should be clear about modules cost vs installed cost vs long term power output cost. I read the same article mentioned, and the 13.95% is for a 0.5 square cm test cell - NOT production. They hint at 10% modules in production. Miasole has had trouble achieving production volumes in CIGS and has only a few 9% modules - most are 6% or less.

CIGS also has relatively poor lifetime - NREL reports of past efforts have shown 1-2% degradation per year, vs 0.1-0.4% per year for silicon. So modules will likely have only a ten year warranteed lifetime.

My guess is when production finally stabilizes they will be around 6-8% efficiency.

Ultimately, this is a great year-end development for Nanosolar and the solar industry in general, justifying some of the tremendous excitement and run-up in solar company valuations, and demonstrating why solar experts and some renewable energy thought-leaders have been so bullish on the space in the past few years.

Individual Empowerment and the Consumption of Energy

This is a longish lead-in to the first post (of many) on how consumers are growing increasingly empowered in their ability to directly manage their individual energy usage and consumption. As always, I welcome any thoughts/feedback in the comments section.


The tremendous advances of the telecommunications, computing and Internet industries have wrought far-reaching economic, political, societal and behavioral changes, many of which we’re only just beginning to see. To list all of them would take a lifetime and is far beyond the scope and expertise of this blog.

However, there is one development which I believe directly relevant to what I discuss here daily. I’ve long been fascinated by how in many industries (e.g media, retail, communications, entertainment) “the Individual” has been empowered at the expense of the larger corporate entity, but to the benefit of the industry. One recent example I came across yesterday:

People once believed that the Net was going to transform where we shopped—that it was going to make physical stores obsolete. It hasn’t…What it has changed is how we shop…

…The results of this shift are obvious. First, consumers know a lot more about prices than they once did... It’s harder to create a sense of urgency around short-term sales…And the wealth of online product reviews and commentary has made the cues that stores use to shape shoppers’ perception of quality and value far less effective.

This doesn’t mean that consumers are impervious to retailers’ tricks…Still, there’s no disguising the fact that power has shifted from sellers to shoppers.

For other examples, think TiVo, NetFlix, open-source software, blog aggregators, eBay, Wikipedia, etc. Each allows its users to enhance and reshape their consumption experience while increasing the utility and efficacy of the products/services in question. More importantly, consumers, especially younger generations now anticipate and expect this capability to become available in a much broader swath of industries.

I know I’m generalizing excessively, but moving forward, I will be extending this concept of “individual empowerment” to energy generation, distribution and consumption as a key theme of this blog. Ultimately, this idea of individual empowerment is where I believe many of the most important opportunities in renewable energy lie.

To this end, I'm extremely interested in the policy, research and business models that reshape the Individual’s experience with energy – giving people demand-response technology so they can monitor their consumption, providing affordable and effective distributed technologies so they can generate their own power and sell the rest back to the grid via net-metering, powering their hybrid vehicle directly from this distributed generation rather than going to the gas station and recycling their garbage and waste for both power and profit.

Ultimately, the Individual is empowered, actively engaged in their own power consumption and generation, to their profit and the profit of the industry (and society and our environment) as a whole.

Research is beginning to bear this out. Consider this recent report from IBM:

Historically, the relationship between utilities and consumers has been rather lopsided – utilities had the power, both literally and figuratively. But the confluence of climate change concerns, rising energy costs and technology advances leading to greater consumer involvement is now radically redefining that relationship. Our recent surveys of 1,900 energy consumers and nearly 100 industry executives across the globe reveal major changes underway – a more heterogeneous consumer base, evolving industry models and a stark departure from a decades-old value chain. We believe companies need to prepare now for a participatory network that enables customers to choose from a wide variety of suppliers, actively manage their consumption and even sell back surplus power they generate. ..

….We anticipate a steady progression toward a Participatory Network, a technology ecosystem comprising a wide variety of intelligent network-connected devices, distributed generation and consumer energy management tools….

…Within five years…we believe sufficient supplier choice will allow meaningful consumer switching to emerge in most major competitive markets. Also…we expect utility demand management initiatives to expand dramatically and electric power generation by consumers to make tremendous inroads within ten years.

If you buy the concepts underlying this post, then this report is a must read. The accompanying survey is also insightful, although it makes me feel as though I’m putting a little too much faith in the typical energy consumer.

Other surveys point to similar findings. In one recent poll of 1,004 U.S. adults:

49 percent said they plan to make an eco-friendly New Year's resolution. Out of those making green pledges, 75 percent said they would most likely reduce energy use in their homes, 74 percent plan to recycle more, and 66 percent will cut their use of harmful chemicals.

A recent study by SmartPower on how best to motivate consumers to conserve energy draws some very similar conclusions:

Like any typical consumer, the participants in SmartPower’s study want to know what is in it for them. They yearn to be inspired. They do not want to be preached to. They want to feel that they are a part of a “we” approach. They want to understand and feel the real-world ramifications of their actions. They’re busy. They’re over worked. They want quick, simple tasks they can do that will make a difference. They want to feel smart and cool. They want to feel empowered and knowledgeable about saving money and saving energy.

The actual study, although qualitative, is an interesting read.

Moreover, building on this study’s conclusions, there are a number of interesting products and services that I’ve come across recently that directly tie-in to both the study and the concepts underlying this post.

While it’s older than the rest, I was fascinated by an article in this past July’s WIRED Magazine, discussing a very simple way to engage consumers in reducing their energy consumption:

Mark Martinez couldn't get Southern California Edison customers to conserve energy…Then he saw an Ambient Orb. It's a groovy little ball that changes color in sync with incoming data…Martinez realized he could use Orbs to signal changes in electrical rates, programming them to glow green when the grid was underused — and, thus, electricity cheaper — and red during peak hours when customers were paying more for power. He bought 120 of them, handed them out to customers, and sat back to see what would happen. Within weeks, Orb users reduced their peak-period energy use by 40 percent.

The article goes on to cover a number of technologies and ideas that could make energy usage “visible”. Nathanael Greene goes into greater depth on one of them - the Wattson.

I’ve also come across a number of other technologies and ventures pursuing the same objectives (of course, the ones listed here represent a tiny portion of what must be thousands of opportunities):

• Get a Kit, Cut Your Home’s Carbon Footprint. “Earth Aid Enterprises…is offering…customizable Earth Aid Kits come with a variety of products to help you reduce the carbon footprint of your house, apartment or dorm room: appliance timers, oxygenating showerheads, compact fluorescent lightbulbs, LED nightlights that turn on and off automatically, faucet aerators, programmable thermostats, Smart Power strips and more.”
  

• Hooking up a greenhouse gas meter. [previously written about here] “[IBM] has collaborated with Evergreen Energy to create what they call the GreenCert greenhouse gas meter…an Internet-based software program designed to collect real-time emissions data from sensors and other sources. It calculates the volume of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere by a company and certifies any reductions as credits that can be traded on carbon markets."

• Kill A WATT – Watts Killing You? "Connect your appliances into the Kill A Watt™, and assess how efficient they are. A large LCD display counts consumption by the Kilowatt-hour just like utility companies. You can figure out your electrical expenses by the hour, day, week, month, even an entire year."

Ultimately, this idea of "empowering" the individual, so that they are cognizant of the impact of their energy usage and the value that they can create, is where I believe many of the most important opportunities in renewable energy and environmental sustainability lie. As I stated above, I plan on making these topics, and the many issues that surround them, a key focus of this blog moving forward.

UPDATE: It's a couple months old, but this is another great example: Gadgets to Spur Energy Conservation, about glowing lamps that manage and inform on energy consumption and conservation.

Links

Given time constraints, only passing on a few stories and links I've enjoyed recently:

Who has the oil? Picture = 1000 words

The success of solar depends on storage. Will the technology underlying various energy storage solutions become the new "latest, greatest" technology in 2008?

There are innumerable barriers preventing the large-scale implementation and adoption of renewable energy technology. Certainly the past few years have knocked down the obvious easy barriers, such as "no one will invest in unproven renewables", "grid parity of renewables will never match traditional energy", "supporting green policy is political suicide". [and by 'knocked down', I don't mean to imply discussion has ended. Just that the impossible has been made possible]

Now the more complicated barriers are next. One, the challenge of overcoming "intermittency", could become a bigger topic of debate in 2008. I covered it partially here, but developing efficient and cost-effective storage solutions is going to be a key. Which is a horrendously long-winded way of describing the relevancy of this article.

Questions about biofuels, for the records. Pay attention to #1 and #7.

Power revolution. Good overview of some key renewable technologies. You'll be seeing a lot of discussion and writing around each of these in 2008 and 2009.

UPDATE: Corrected a few typos and a sentence that was really bothering me.

A couple welcomes

Wanted to welcome readers from Gristmill, (as David Roberts gave a link to this post), and the readers of Get Venture, one of the best blogs out there on venturing and entrepreneurialism.

Ethanol Infrastructure

Something to keep your eye on is the build-out of ethanol infrastructure now that the Energy Act has been signed into law, with an RFS requiring 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. [if you're keeping score at home 36 billion gallons would be almost 8 times the amount produced in 2007 (4.7 billion).]

Developing the ethanol supply chain at a pace matching the considerable growth in ethanol production and demand has been an issue in the ethanol industry for a while. This article in Ethanol Producer Magazine a few months back highlights many of these concerns:

Is the infrastructure and equipment in place to handle the production, loading, unloading, shipping, transporting, storing and delivery of ethanol and its derivative products—with all of their unique properties and compatibility issues—to the consumer's gasoline tank or store shelf?

One major concern has been the difficulty in using pipelines to transport ethanol. Pipelines would be the cheapest way to move ethanol from the middle of the country to the coasts, but ethanol producers are limited to far more expensive truck and rail transportation. Why? A number of reasons:

Due to its unique properties, ethanol-blended fuel generally can’t be shipped by petroleum product pipelines... This is mainly related to ethanol's affinity for water, which is a byproduct found at some level in all of the world's major petroleum pipeline systems. The ability to ship by pipeline is also limited because there are currently no pipeline networks near the majority of ethanol production facilities. Therefore, a separate distribution system is needed to get ethanol to the point where it is blended into petroleum-based fuel and loaded into tank trucks or railcars for delivery to retail and fleet operators. The costs of building a new pipeline in the United States are also extremely prohibitive with estimates as high as $1.1 million to $1.3 million per mile.

The American Petroleum Institute has a great backgrounder on the issue here (document download) while the Association of Oil Pipe Lines has a great presentation available here.

This topic certainly requires much greater analysis and coverage than one post, but I wanted to highlight one example I came across this week. Despite the challenges, the ethanol and oil industries are feeling optimistic that they can solve the issue:

The burgeoning U.S. ethanol industry is looking longingly at existing oil product pipelines for transporting the alternative fuel, an idea almost unthinkable a few years ago because of contamination fears...

..."We have been engaged in research on this," Steve Baker, a spokesman for the Colonial Pipeline, the country's largest oil products pipeline, said in an interview. "Early results are encouraging, but there is a lot more research required on our end." He said Colonial has worked with several major ethanol producers on studying ways to send the alternative fuel up existing pipelines or along new dedicated pipelines that could be built on the existing right-of-ways...

...Oil companies are cautiously optimistic that breakthroughs could be made. "The problems with water contamination are technical issues that need to be addressed; it's not that they can't be addressed," said Peter Lidiak, the pipeline director for industry group the American Petroleum Institute. He said the industry is researching whether sending pure ethanol, or fuel blends, via pipeline can be done without corroding the ducts. "The hope is that some of the first bit of this research will yield some good results within the next year or so, and then it will be a matter of time before the companies move it -- if the results look good," said Lidiak.

Again, there are not a lot of specifics in the article (although separately the AOPL is expanding its R&D efforts, and some companies are considering building pipelines). Still, I believe this is a topic and issue that will grow in prominence. And, given the mandate put forth by our government, it will likely become an area that receives increasing attention (and capital investments) over the next several years.

Extension of incentives and tax credits

Having covered this topic recently, as well as the importance underlying these policies here, I'll only point out some recent discussion on the topic. First, from Reuters (h/t Gristmill):

Leaders in both the Senate and House of Representatives vow to revisit the tax incentives next year, but so far have advanced no definite plans. "We're going to be back and we're going to get that vote more quickly than you think," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, the president of the solar lobby group (the Solar Energy Industries Association), Rhone Resch, gave an optimistic interview to Cleantech:

"Although this bill didn't include an extension of the tax credits, we're optimistic that we will see another tax title move early in 2008 that'll include a long-term extension and expansion of tax credits both for solar and for wind," Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, told Cleantech.com....

..."There's no opposition from the White House or Republicans to extending the tax credits for solar, it's just a matter of finding the best way to pay for it,"

Resch's counterparts at the American Wind Energy Association have created a link for you to contact your elected officials. A slightly more detailed article is here from a couple days ago.

The Climate Group

In recent years, numerous business groups have sprung up, organized around tackling climate change (e.g. CERES, The Carbon Trust, Carbon Disclosure Project, US Climate Action Partnership, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, etc).

Having worked for CEO-driven social change non-profits in the past, I know these groups can be hit-or-miss affairs. Sometimes they serve solely as industry-boosting PR platforms, or old boy networks and are a waste of time. But if these groups can engage relevant and committed employees below the C-level at the member companies (while encouraging at least some CEO participation), I’ve found that they can accomplish a great deal – sharing ideas and best practices, building and fostering industry-wide networks and leaders, publicizing important industry-related milestones, etc. These business groups can have an especially significant impact if they address and help solve the lack of industry-standard “metrics” and/or industry-wide measurement platforms that are commonly missing in new or emerging industries.

So I wanted to quickly highlight a small bit of news from one of the good ones:

Four prominent corporations joined the ranks of The Climate Group this week to promote pragmatic climate change policy and demonstrate that companies can slash emissions but still make money. Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical, Bloomberg L.P. and Florida Power and Light bring the organization's total membership to 44. The group was formed in 2004.

A press release with additional information can be found here.

I read The Climate Group’s report “In The Black” this summer, and found it insightful and useful. They've recently posted an executive summary that's a little more friendly. Their “Carbon Down Profits Up” series is also effective, especially as it focuses on the measurement challenge for companies involved in climate change. Finally, you may want to check out their “Viewpoint” section, which has a number of interviews with CEOs and thought-leaders in this space.