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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Environmental markets, measuring emissions, algae and energy legislation

Environmental Exchange Is Planned. CCX has a new US competitor.

New York Mercantile Exchange parent Nymex Holdings Inc. and a group of Wall Street trading houses plan to launch an exchange for trading carbon emissions and other environmental products. Dubbed the Green Exchange, it will offer environmental futures, options and swaps contracts, Nymex will own 25% of the new Green Exchange venture, and its chairman, Richard Schaeffer, will be CEO until a new one is named. Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Credit Suisse Group will be among the partners….Evolution Markets has been the designer of the new exchange.

Accurately measuring emissions: Interesting dichotomy presented in these two posts. Oxford Economist Dieter Helm and others have released a new study stating that the UK is significantly underreporting its annual GHG emissions:

…Official figures fail to capture the true picture because they don’t take into account pollution from aviation, shipping, overseas trade and tourism or the carbon footprint of Britons abroad. According to figures filed with the UN, Britain’s emissions are down 15 per cent compared with 1990. But the report says that the figure is actually up by 19 per cent once the missing emissions from shipping and citizens abroad are included.

Meanwhile one new venture is trying to take advantage of these measurement challenges (on the micro-level) via a partnership using IBM technology, to launch “Green Cert” which promises to ease the monitoring and reporting of carbon emissions. Additional information here. The concept of “empowering the individual”, and making them responsible for their energy usage and emission reductions, is especially interesting to me. I’ll post on this concept at a later date.

Once carbon has a non-volatile, transparent price, I imagine measurement accuracy will be less of a concern. Back in 2005, Trucost put emission levels at about 1,100 tons per million pounds sterling of revenue for FTSE 100 companies. So, for example, a company with $10 billion of revenue (almost all of the Fortune 500) would emit somewhere on the order of 5 million tons. If carbon goes at $40 per ton, and you miss your emissions quotient by 10%, you just cost your company $22 million. That’ll get your bosses notice.

That said, having spent time researching the difficulties in quantifying GHG emissions from tropical deforestation, I certainly recognize the immense challenges of cheaply and efficiently quantifying emissions. It won’t be easy. Expect many the launch of many more companies with new technologies and processes seeking to solve the measurement issue.


Algae to Biodiesel: This concept keeps popping up. I heard Martin Tobias (Imperium Renewables) speak at a conference last year and was intrigued by the idea. GreenFuels is another company in this space that’s drawn interest, but has had some recent problems.


New York taxis boosting fuel economy . Older news, but still interesting. New York City taxicabs purchased after Oct. 1, 2008, will be required to get at least 25 miles per gallon, and those purchased after fall 2009 will have to get 30 mpg. Turnover for NYC taxis averages 3-5 years, as this article from July points out, so expect most taxis to be changed over by 2012.


Senate takes up the energy legislation. Apparently the Senate may begin work on the new energy legislation. The 15% RPS has been dropped, but much of the renewable energy tax incentive package is still on the table (although dropping from $21 billion to $13 billion). This interesting post on Daily Kos states that most of the package focuses on solar subsidies, with extension of various renewable energy tax credits and sizable tax credits for hybrids. According to the post, the bill is exactly one senator away from passage. It’s a Kos diarist though so take with a grain of salt.

High-speed trains

Really cool article in Popular Mechanics about the potential for high-speed trains in the U.S. Having lived in Los Angeles for five years, and now New York without a car, I sympathize with the arguments of high-speed rail proponents, but recognize many of the problems highlighted by critics.

There are a number of challenges of course - the political nightmare and financial cost of building the tracks (the article lists the cost per mile as ranging from $5 million to $100 million, compared to $500K to $10 million for Florida interstate construction), the "stranded cost" of under-utilized existing infrastructure, and low population density of the US (31 per square km compared to 339 and 232 in Japan and Germany respectively).

But at some point, the strains on infrastructure of absorbing growing urban, suburban and sub-suburban population become enormous.

By 2035, the six counties in the Los Angeles region will add roughly 6 million people—that’s the size of two Chicagos—to the 18 million residents already living [t]here

At that point, I imagine all options will be on the table.

Meanwhile, there is also a productivity argument hiding in here. From the article, the average commuter spends 38 hours a year stuck in traffic (and much higher in some urban areas), burning 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel. Given that 100 million Americans commute (information taken from a fascinating DOT study by the way), that 3.8 billion hours and 2.9 billion wasted gallons could theoretically be worth quite a bit. If you use a $17.63 average hourly wage and average US gasoline prices ($3/gal), that's almost $76 billion wasted per year (half of 1% of GDP). Of course, a full-functioning rail system would only touch a fraction of those 100 million commuters, and there are a host of other complications and underlying assumptions. Just thought it worth a quick calculation and mention.

I also wonder if these trains could be used in transporting cargo (or is the cost per mile to high), or in moving freight alongside passengers (which could boost revenue per mile and alleviate overcrowding on key intra-and interstate highways).

In any event, close on a fascinating chart from the article, which compares high-speed trains with Amtrak, airplanes and cars on a 400-mile trip:




















One last point - many of the 532 reader comments attached to the article are fairly insightful and informed. Well, some. Certainly a representative cross-section of America's varying political, economic and environmental ideologies (and all that missing/lack/dis-information present therein).

Emissions Cuts Order from America's Favorite Liberal

America's favorite foreign governor, Ahnold, with his latest endeavor - ordering cuts in California emissions.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that he would ask regulators to require the state’s petroleum refiners and gasoline sellers to cut by 10 percent the emissions of heat-trapping gases associated with the production and use of their products.

The order for cuts, which the governor wants completed by 2020, follows California’s trademark pattern of hitching its environmental aspirations to its market muscle. It also represents one of the first examples of a state or a national government regulating the fuel in its passenger vehicles as part of a strategy to reduce both emissions that contribute to climate change and dependence on foreign oil.

The executive order asks state air regulators to take up the governor’s challenge. The California Air Resources Board will be responsible for drawing the blueprints to carry out the order, with the help of advisers from the University of California, Berkeley.

There's actually a lot here for the alternative fuels sector.

The 10 percent cut in emissions would be accomplished, experts said, largely through the use of alternative fuels, like ethanol and other gasoline blends, which would be provided by the refineries and other producers.

Environmentalists expected the order to turbocharge the market demand for corn-based ethanol and biodiesel fuels, and for natural gas, and to jump-start the introduction of experimental fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which is made from plant waste or nonfood crops like switch grass or wood chips.

The contemporary environmental movement links clear air goals to potential profits, and Mr. Schwarzenegger’s order, with input and support from lobbyists from Environmental Defense, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Hewlett Foundation, mirrors that approach. The companies or industries that stand to benefit financially from his plan include producers of corn-based ethanol, biodiesel and other, more experimental forms of renewable fuels.

One especially interesting aspect involves the understanding of "cradle-to-the-grave" concepts, so typically absent from non-sustainable manufacturing processes:

The plan....is unusual in its focus on the so-called cradle-to-grave emissions associated with each fuel. In the case of ethanol, this can mean carbon emissions generated in the production of fertilizer, in the planting and harvesting of corn, in distilling the fuel and, finally, in transporting it to the distributor and burning it in a car. Thus, two otherwise identical gallons of ethanol could have different greenhouse-gas ratings, if one were refined using carbon-intensive coal-fired electricity, while the other was refined using relatively carbon-light electricity from natural gas.

GM's Electric Car - Version 2.0

As I wait for this flick from Netflix, news comes of General Motor's latest attempt at being a responsible automaker (and by "responsible", I mean trying to match consumer demand with products that can be profitable and brand-enhancing).

General Motors Chairman G. Richard Wagoner Jr. on Sunday unveiled an innovative prototype, the Chevrolet Volt -- a plug-in vehicle that derives its power primarily from electricity rather than gasoline -- as the world's automakers take on global warming and U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Wagoner's announcement underscores the depth of GM's previous miscalculation on alternative vehicles and the degree to which the U.S. automotive landscape is changing. In 1990, GM introduced the concept of an all-electric car, the EV1. The vehicle made it to U.S. consumers but didn't survive through the decade.

GM hasn't given a date when consumers can buy the Volt because the advanced lithium-ion batteries needed to power the vehicle -- similar to technology used in cellphones -- are still years from widespread use in automobiles.

Are they even trying at this stage? To me, it sounds as though that whole "strategy" thing is pretty absent from the process. The scent of desperation hangs heavy in the air. Just sayin'... as these batteries might have a wee bit of importance to the ultimate success of this venture. But oh, don't worry, the CEO's on it.

Though the battery technology is still early in development, GM officials say they are pushing ahead. "We are taking a calculated gamble on this," said Robert A. Lutz, GM's vice chairman of global product development. "We are making the bet that the batteries will be available."

Ladies and gentlemen. We're not America's largest potentially bankrupt company for nuthin.