Bill Joy: Better to be in green tech than Internet
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The legendary Internet technologist Bill Joy has found a better place than the Internet to put his venture capital dollars: green technology.
On Monday Joy gave a talk on why he is exploring a wide range of green technologies as a partner at venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers. He spoke at the Lux Research conference on nanotechnology where he also predicted major changes in transportation industry and solar energy.
Joy, credited with inventing several Internet technologies as a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, joined the high-profile Silicon Valley venture capital firm in 2005.
Bill Joy, partner at venture firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET Networks)By contrast, the urgent problem of global warming means that energy and green tech investments represent a great opportunity for innovation, he said.
"Eugene Kleiner, the co-founder of Kleiner Perkins, said there is a time when panic is the appropriate response. And I think we should go into a panic--not only (because) the scale of the problem but also the economic opportunity that becoming more efficient in our use of energy gives to us," Joy said during his talk.
In an interview after his presentation, Joy said that energy and green tech makes for appealing venture investments because there is a large technology component and the markets are huge.
He is confident that there will be good financial returns in green tech, which is seeing an explosion of investment. In the past few years, some clean tech companies in electricity-grid demand management and solar electricity have successfully gone public, while other fields, such as biofuels, have had mixed results.
"We're still finding really high-quality ventures at an early stage where we think the prices are fair. I wouldn't say that's true in the Internet space. Things in Internet space are wacky right so it's nice to be someplace where things aren't so crowded," he said.
Electrification of vehicles
During his talk, Joy forecast how the transportation and electricity businesses could change over the next five to 10 years.
Although biofuels--fuels like ethanol made from plants--are garnering the bulk of investment dollars, Joy thinks that "electric vehicles will beat biofuels." That means that the transportation and electricity grid will be increasingly interlinked.
The key stumbling block to plug-in hybrid cars are electric vehicles is batteries. But Joy is again optimistic there.
"There's a range of new chemistries coming so that you can imagine, say five to ten years from now, instead of 100 watt-hours per liter we're at today, that a break-out company will have a 500 or thousand watt-hours--a five to 10 times (increase in) the energy density," he said.
"It'd be perfectly practical to have a car that you plug into your garage and you never have to go to a gas station," he said.
For longer trips, people could have tanks for liquid fuels. Joy also imagines that cars will be equipped with 40- to 50 percent-efficient solar panels to charge their batteries. "Maybe outdoor parking lot spots will be more valuable," he said.
He said it's more likely that these electric cars will take hold in Europe before the United States because Americans drive longer distances, have heavier cars and drive more trucks as passenger cars.
In solar energy, his long-term bet is on photovoltaics--materials to convert light into electricity.
Solar panels right now require hefty upfront investment, typically for homeowners who don't have as many financing options as large organizations.
Although the efficiency of panels is improving, companies are pursuing solar technologies, such as solar thermal and solar concentrators, which can be more cost-effective.
Kleiner Perkins, in fact, has invested in both solar thermal and photovoltaics. But Joy sees photovoltaics winning out in the end.
Cells made from silicon--the most widely used material for solar panels--have an efficiency of about 20 percent. Joy predicts that advances in materials can boost the efficiency while keeping costs low.
"It's much easier in the long run to get higher efficiency from photovoltaics. The cost is prohibitive today because we're making high-efficiency photovoltaics out of high-purity crystalline silicon which is very expensive to make," he said. "That's not inherent in physics. Physics will win ultimately, I think."
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
I agree with Joy on several points - also, electricity is a proven technology and there is an existing grid for distribution - try fueling your alternative fuel vehicle outside of a major urban area, you had better be ready to have AAA tow you back to civilization or use good ol' gasoline to drive out a few gallons of "alternative fuel" to the edge of the uncharted "wilderness".
http://venturebeat.com/2007/01/23/eestor-to-blow-away-lithium-ion-battery-technology-to-launch/
alternative energy field if he thinks photovoltaic will win out over solar thermal, or he simply is behind the times in his information. Solar thermal such as Ausra is providing next year is light years ahead of photovoltaic, no matter how eficient photo becomes in the future - that because 1) it will produce 5 cent electricity in the future, and 2) it will be dispatachable, which photovoltaic never will be,
regardless of efficiencies it achieves. It will be just as useless as wind power in meeting new demand, which means new levels of peak demand.
Photo will have to go a long way just to compete on price. But it will never be able to compete in
quality with solar thermal. I gues its Joy's weakness to beleieve that silicon is he anser to everything. Photovoltaic makes little sense now, either economically or logically, and will make a whole lot less once the new solar thermal plants ordered by two of the largest power companies in the country go online in the next two years.
Nuclear is far superior as a carbon reducer and the Chinese, as usual, are way ahead of us both in hot water reactor construction and gas pebble bed development, which will extend nuclear to places never before envisioned - you can locate it on a fault line without worries, if you wish. California, as usual, lags the rest of the world
(and nuclear power rich Vermont, which produces a paltry 5 pounds per megawatt of electricity produced, versus filthy California, which spews out 670 pounds per megawatt. Even coal heavy South Carolina matches California's emission
levesls, all because California foolishly decided to block nuclear power and thereby became the major cause of global warming in the U.S. - thanks California - always messing with the environment while ignorant of the true effects).
I disagree with his opinion on nuclear power:
CONSIDER NUCLEAR POWER RISKS:
* Catastrophic accident risks
* Attractive terrorism target
* proliferates fissionable material requiring security, transport, and storage.
* unsolved waste disposal issues
* legal obstacles; "not in my backyard" issues
* regulatory bureaucracy (though necessary given the dangers)
* municipal insurance costs
* decommissioning costs
* worker safety risks
* uranium a scarce resource in future? not solar
* not scalable, as is solar, which can be incrementally expanded wherever needed (which means it is easier to meet new demand)
* real costs of nuclear are understated because they don't consider long term costs.
(Many issues above become much more serious if done on a massive scale).
It's true that nuclear would be a quick and effective carbon reducer, but with all the long term risks above. It would be better IMO to have a "Manhattan project" to get solar off the ground. Multi square mile solar arrays (in the southwest deserts)could supply much of the grid power to the nation. What about nightime? Electrolyze H2O for hydrogen production. Use it to replace natural gas (even using the same pipelines?) as fuel for conventional power plants. This could provide a basis for a 24/7 electric grid.
If solar thermal is presently more efficient, go for it. If PV overtakes ST then that's great.
A common misconception is that PV competes against 6 cent/kwh rates such as you find in states that burn coal to produce electricity. PV competes with peak power hot summer daytime rates. PV competes when power lines are full to capacity and rolling brownouts are occuring to reduce load. PV competes when air conditioners are fired up. Because of this, PV is *currently* cost effective.
Maybe solar thermal will beat PV into the ground, but, one thing PV has going for it is that the electricity it produces is consumed at the point of production. This means you don't spend capital buying land and building transmission lines. In fact, you reduce peak demand on existing transmission lines.
PV successfully competes in off-grid applications, and one can argue that many of the applications that are considered to be on-grid are actually off-grid. Many parts of the urban grid grow rapidly, requiring new transmission lines. Thus, neighborhoods that will exist as on-grid in the future are currently off-grid.
In the long term, residential PV will definitely out-compete central solar thermal. In the long term, shingles will be manufactured that generate electricity. Solar shingles will cost the same amount to build and install and non-solar shingles do today. Electricity consumed during daylight hours will be too cheap to meter, something that nuclear advocates frequently wished for but were never able to provide.
- Technology only part of the answer
- by merecat66 October 27, 2007 1:27 PM PDT
- Photovolatics as currently constructed make use of increasingly expensive metals such as copper and aluminum. What portion of our current energy requirements PVs can replace is a calculation I'd like to see (I've read the gamut from 10% to 100%!). New technologies can help increase energy efficiency and unlock potentially new sources (algae, organic solar cells, ...) but we'll likely really need to reduce our overall energy consumption from our current levels, which have been happily fueled by concentrated fossil fuel energy for the past 150 yrs.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(7 Comments)