Green technologies to watch
From a technology perspective, things have changed a lot since the first Earth Days of the 1970s.
After barely moving for decades, there's been a surge in innovation in energy the past five years, fueled both by society's growing interest in clean energy and by the technology revolutions in other industries, like IT and biotech. That has expanded the definition of clean energy from solar and wind to many other areas.
"We are in a new era of energy innovation," declared Daniel Yergin last week at a forum on clean-energy policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Yergin is someone who should know. As the author of "The Prize," a book about the history of the oil industry, and co-founder of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, he advises CEOs of giant oil and gas firms on energy strategy. Like many people in green tech, he's not a typical 1970s-era tree hugger but a hard-boiled business man who sees technology change driven by economic, environmental, and national security reasons.
Innovation "runs across all sectors and it has a very strong climate change focus," Yergin said. "Clearly, one of the areas of major innovation is the nexus of transportation, smart grid, and renewable and alternative" energy.
Which technologies specifically have a good shot at making the biggest impact? As part of our Earth Day 2009 coverage, we try to handicap technologies that bear watching.
The list:
Utility-scale solar. Despite all the press around solar energy, its contribution to national electricity generation is barely a blip. But after a multi-decade hiatus, utility-scale solar power is back on the agenda, led in the U.S. by sun-blessed California's renewable energy mandates.
Over the past five years, several start-ups have designed concentrating solar thermal systems that generate heat by focusing the sun's light to make steam. The steam then turns a traditional turbine to make electricity. Desert areas like the Southwest region of the U.S. are tailor-made for this technology.
Sign of more to come? eSolar's demonstration plant in Lancaster, Calif.
(Credit: eSolar)After racing forward for the last few years, concentrating solar upstarts have had to hit the brakes or change plans because of the cost and complexity--from environmental permitting, building transmission lines and the like--of these projects.
eSolar and BrightSource Energy stand out for having announced programs to move ahead with their solar tower technologies. Other relevant technologies in utility-scale solar are flat solar panels mounted on racks that follow the sun and concentrating photovoltaics from companies like Cool Earth Solar and SolFocus.
Energy storage. If solar was the technology that venture capitalists loved in 2007, last year and this year it's energy storage. For investors and entrepreneurs who like a tough problem, they picked a good area.
Why are electric vehicles so expensive? The batteries. What will transform wind and solar power from variable to reliable sources? Storage. How do we make our power-hungry electronic gadgets last all day? You get the picture.
There are a dizzying number of technologies to store electrical energy but they just can't seem to be too cheap, light, or environmentally benign.
The breakthrough for electric vehicles has roots in consumer electronics where lithium ion batteries have become the standard. U.S. companies on the forefront of making lithium ion batteries for cars and other portable electronics, like power tools, are Ener1 and A123 Systems, which signed a deal to supply Chrysler earlier this month.
Companies to watch in electric vehicles are, once again, high-profile Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive, which will release its plug-in electric later this year, and Bright Automotive, a company founded by the former head of General Motors' EV1 program.
Meanwhile, a handful of progressive utilities are quietly dipping their toes into grid storage, installing one or two megawatt banks of batteries the size of tractor trailers or a small building. Although the lithium ion battery makers tend to get most of the attention, this is an area where alternative chemistries, such as zinc, or even stationary fuel cells are creeping in.
Efficiency. Ask nearly any clean-energy expert about the best way to lower greenhouse gas emissions in the most economical way and they'll say efficiency. An investment in efficiency, whether it's your home or your data center, will typically be the quickest payback when it comes to energy.
From a technology perspective, efficiency takes many forms, from Ford's EcoBoost to deliver better mileage on gasoline engines to LED lighting. For the power grid, efficiency means smart-grid technologies that help utilities better match the supply of electricity with demand and give homeowners ways to cut their monthly bills.
Although the grid will get a major upgrade from the stimulus plan, it's still unclear how many utilities can successfully make the financial case for investing in smart-grid technologies or how much consumers are willing to pay for home energy monitoring.
During a speech at last week's MIT forum on clean-energy policy, John Holdren, the director of the president's Office of Science and Technology Policy, said carbon capture and sequestration is a technology that deserves more research as a way to mitigate climate change.
Right now, though, technology for pumping large amounts of carbon dioxide underground is still not commercial. There are some companies, including GreatPoint Energy and Tenaska Energy, devising ways to make cleaner-burning natural gas from coal and to store carbon dioxide from that process underground.
The Department of Energy's budget--which has not yet been passed--calls for $3.4 billion in research for "low-carbon coal technologies" to study whether it can be done safely and economically.
Disappointments and a reality check
Looking back at our coverage of Earth Day 2008, perhaps the biggest disappointment, economically and environmentally, was the biofuels area. Because of fluctuating commodity prices, corn ethanol providers got clobbered last year with at least two declaring bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, cellulosic ethanol made from wood chips or prairie grasses hasn't yet been done at commercial scale as some in the industry had hoped. It's still a goal worth pursuing because cellulosic ethanol has a better environmental profile than corn ethanol, but the economic turmoil has slowed progress.
The great hope--and perhaps the sleeper--for the biofuels industry remains the lowly algae, although even the most optimistic say that it will be three years before it can be produced at large scale.
Another disappointment on my list is roof-mounted small wind turbines for homes. It's not that the technology doesn't work, but two studies in the U.K. and Massachusetts have shown that the available wind on people's homes is typically below manufacturers' minimum requirements.
Finally, water technologies attract very little investment even though awareness of water problems continues to rise, fed by high-profile droughts in California and Australia.
Sum it all up and it's clear there's a flowering of innovation in energy and environmental products, from people's homes to businesses. At the same time, we shouldn't fool ourselves: technology alone won't magically create a low-carbon economy and more sustainable lifestyles.
A healthy green-tech industry requires a healthy financial system and supportive policies. Many people are aiming for technology breakthroughs and, no doubt, there will be surprises along the way. But given the scope of the problem, it's clear the road to a greener economy will be long, expensive, and will need a different set of rules.
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. 
Food should be grown for people to eat and not just to burn, especially as so much land is being cleared to grow plant based vegetation just to used tons of energy to then transport it, process it and eventually burn it. Still creating local pollution where it's burnt.
Electricity seems the better option and I would back putting all the effort into making electricity using cleaner tech like solar, wind and tidal and greener storage of electricity, especially batteries.
Solar and Biofuels seem to get too much of the attention, wind and tidal seem a much richer resource than the sun that only shines for half the day..
I mean this source trumps all that is mentioned in the above article maybe the US should invest in this some more???
http://news.cnet.com/MIT-led-study-finds-geothermal-energy-potential-untapped/2100-11395_3-6152048.html
For now, solar panels on roofs are pretty much it, especially now with the cost of solar panels dropping with the use of nanotechnology panels and the potential soon for at-home ultracapacitor power storage when the Sun is not up. And with every house with a solar panel, the power from them could be managed with an intelligent power grid so the power will be available to anyone in the neighborhood who needs it.
Here in the NW, we rely heavily on hydroelectric. We continue to learn more about how we can manage the fish runs with the dams, and the situation continues to improve. Meanwhile, driven by the "greens", the Washington state legislature has declared hydroelectric power as non-renewable. Do you suppose there were any politics involved in that? Sure as heck wasn't science.
Now tidal power seems the biggest untapped resource, most of the planet is covered in this huge volume of liquid sloshing around due to the free gravitational force of the moon and sun. Yet tidal power seems to be bottom of most peoples list. I don't get it.
As for Carbon reclamation... trees, they are slow but make most of their height from carbon out of the air.
The Lancaster plant seems nice so far. I live about half mile from it and no complaints from me so far.
Either the caption should be updated to explain solar hot water panel functions, or the picture should be changed to one of solar photo-voltaic panels. Not to mention that the most cost-effective solar technology, solar hot air panels, is not even mentioned. Try doing some research so that you can understand the different solar technologies, their costs and potential savings. Thanks.
Solar and wind aren't reliable enough for an industrialized nation like ours. At current efficiencies you'd need square miles of solar panels to replace a small conventional power plant. All those pristine deserts would have to be covered in panels, and you still wouldn't get the power.
Solar and Wind power (along with storage tech) should be used for peak power supplement. So instead of firing up a gas-turbine on those hot summer days, utilities can draw extra power from solar batteries and wind.
We need to start being honest about what we need power wise as a nation. We need to get rid of the nuclear scare mongers who've helped to cripple our energy production and we need to invest in expanding electrical infrastructure. Not big brother style smart meters, but more transmission lines, and more power plants. We can't wind up like Sweden which banned all of its nuke plants, and now is struggling to find clean ways to power itself.
"renewable" (a completely useless term) energies such as wind and solar ARE NOT going to be
transformed into reliable and controllable source simply by the advent of practical large capacity batteries. At best, those batteries could store a few hours of energy and make the power THAT COULD BE COLLECTED available at a more propitious time of the day (peak demand)- but many days little or no energy will even be available form the sun. And the wind often doesn't blow, even in the windiest of locations and even in the Southwestern desert, the sun doesn't shine over 30 days a year, or shine very much on others. And the "Sunshine state", Florida is actually not all that sunshiney. By far the most practical and highest quality carbon free energy comes from nuclear plants and that will obviously continue to become even more true in the years ahead, especially with the advent of mid and peak range capability, already present in France. Vermont is heavy into nuclear (over 75%) and enjoys the distinction of being lightyears ahead of all other states - she produces a paltry 5 pounds of carbon
for each megawatthour of power produced (compare to California's filthy 650 pounds, despite spending billions to build very expensive methods of producing small amounts of carbon free power).
California continues to believe their usual nonsense and, as typical of such reality starved people
everywhere, are now more or less bankrupt. China will construct over 6000 megawatts of nuclear generating power just in the next 5 years. And they are capable of building at a cost of $1500 (or less)
per kilowatt. That's 1.5 million per megawatt. Here in the US, contracts already signed call for
$5 million per megawatt. The build cycle is 3 years, which is faster than solar plant contruction.
And there is often no need for expensive transport lines, as nuclear plants occupy a small
environmental footprint, unlike the tens of thousands of acres required for solar.
Arizona recently contracted to pay a solar thermal company $1 billlion to build a 150 megawatt
solar thermal plant. That solar thermal plant can only collect 150 megawatts of power during the middle of a sunny day. Its average power output would be less than 70 megawatts. That's a build
cost of $6 million per megawatt. That solar plant's lifespan is 20 years. A nuclear plant will last 60 years, three times as long. That means that to compare build technologies a figure of $18 million per megawatt needs to b assigned as the cost of solar. This also does not take into account that the solar plant cannot produce reliable or controllabel power and thus is incapable of guaranteeing power during peak demand. It cannot replace existing fossil fuel plants. The plant also gobbles up enormous tracts of land that cannot be used for anything else, another side effect expense.
Now perhaps you can see just how expensive solar thermal power will be. I'm astounded at the lies that alternative energy folks manufacture concerning the costs of their primitive and obsolete
methods of producing power. It's embarrassing to see this country being fed pure BS, and the media
is either too scared or too ignorant to call these liars out.
If you think that the sun's energy is "free," think again. Nuclear fuel is a paltry .39 cents per kilowatthour these days. There is no bigger lie around than the claim that alternative energies are cheap because their energy source is free.
transformed into reliable and controllable source simply by the advent of practical large capacity batteries."
Check out the Ffestiniog Pumped Storage Scheme in Wales (UK) it's been running since 1963 and pumps water uphill during times of over production of energy and releases it back down using gravity to generate electricity during times of high demand. Things like this are ideal for wind and solar power where demand fluctuates.
"By far the most practical and highest quality carbon free energy comes from nuclear plants "
Quite a few reports state that the construction and decommissioning of nuclear along with the transportation and storage of fuel and waste has quite a high carbon footprint. Therefore they are not carbon free.
I wonder how many tidal generation plants could be installed for the cost of one nuclear power plant and don't tides happen all the time meaning they would be generating power 24/7.
The other big problem with nuclear is the fact no-one want's the plant to be built in their back yard, or in fact within quite a few miles of their home/work.
Again, the problems with tidal is the tech isn't there and many places don't have the water and in many cases the transmission lines aren't there to bring the power from the tidal source to places without water. They just tried a big tidal experiment in the East River (NY) and it failed because the materials they used couldn't withstand the environment. Between the water pressures and the corrosive environment (salt water is really corrosive you should see what it can do to zinc) Portugal has had a successful plant, but I'm not sure what its outputs are.
And can we please stop with this "carbon" is a poison crap. Carbon is a building block of life. Water is a bigger greenhouse gas than carbon. You want to ban water too? Carbon sequestering is a scam. There I've said it. Now lets move on to real solutions please.
- by JZACG April 24, 2009 9:24 AM PDT
- http://fishingformoney.blogspot.com/2009/04/chinas-lost-chance-or-do-they-really.html
- Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)