Perspective: Five dirty truths about clean technology

(continued from previous page)

One of the most promising alternatives with the necessary scale to augment oil is the Fischer-Tropsch process. Fischer-Tropsch produces synthetic fuel from coal, which is abundant in America. The process was pioneered by Germany during World War II and later used by South Africa during the boycott on apartheid to keep its vehicles on the road.

This kind of massive industrial endeavor simply can't be undertaken by a venture-backed start-up. But start-ups can play a significant role in helping reduce the energy intensity of the American economy by facilitating efficiency and eliminating waste.

The real issue is whether shareholders of publicly held enterprises will stomach the risk--and appreciate the reward--that comes with pioneering new clean technologies.

• The fourth truth may sound trite, but it is right: collaboration, rather than competition, is going to win the day here. The large incumbent organizations in the old energy economy--whether they are in oil, electric utilities or the automotive industry--aren't innovating fast or well enough. Their R&D budgets are shrinking, and the best and brightest engineers are no longer flocking to them.

Venture capital-backed start-ups, on the other hand, are constantly and rapidly innovating, and they are beginning to flood the market with clean-technology options.

In the transportation efficiency arena alone, for example, there are fledgling companies that have developed almost anything and everything that will eek out additional fuel savings.

How will all these options be developed, evaluated and implemented in a cost-effective way in time to make a difference?

Perhaps the best approach is a new hybrid model that blends the creative strengths of venture capital-based start-ups with the muscle and might of traditional large enterprises. Large corporations like Intel, Microsoft and Cisco Systems have already shown the way by accessing innovation externally, outside of their own central research organizations and mergers-and-acquisitions operations.

The key question in the long run is whether these large consolidating companies will embrace or resist change, once they make new energy economy acquisitions. To achieve optimal value, they must understand and nurture the clean-tech start-up culture rather than just buying revenues and earnings, and amalgamating human capital and intellectual property.

• The fifth--and last--truth is all about managing risk and responsibility in the postpetroleum era. The only way that clean technology can fulfill its promise and potential is if venture start-ups and large established companies handle the upside and downside together. Venture capitalists routinely deal with risk, so that's not a problem. The real issue is whether shareholders of publicly held enterprises will stomach the risk--and appreciate the reward--that comes with pioneering new clean technologies.

If large corporations partner with venture capitalists and allow them to vet innumerable clean technologies before assimilating the "derisked" winners, and if venture capitalists then permit big enterprises to incubate the new businesses and operate them crisply, we would have an ideal combination--one that would propel this clean-energy revolution forward and give us a better chance of reversing decades of environmental damage.

This is not an either-or proposition. A true meeting of the minds is essential here, if we are to save the planet, serve communities and reward stakeholders.

Biography
Kirk Washington is a founder of Vancouver-based Yaletown Venture Partners, a venture capital firm that invests in seed and early-stage technology companies.

More Perspectives

[ragjunk]

At last, someone is talking sensibly

In the era of we-are-changing-the-world mentality, someone is speaking the truth. While it is true that every step counts, it is a tremendous task.

[cyberspittle]

It's the (global) economy ______

Great read. Many truths abound. It is an onion that has many layers and every solution seems to have it's problems.

I think the growth of the global economy is to be blamed. with much outsourcing and production far from market, it creates huge efficiencies. for example, a tanker ship crossing the Pacific will consume an incredible amount of fuel. We have hundreds, no thousands of tankers crossing our seas and oceans. remember the good old days, when people ate fruits and vegetables in season? People lived reasonable lives. Now, we expect things on the table from all year round. Thanksgiving used to be a special day with a special meal ... which can be had at any buffet across the country, any time of year.

We need a more efficient transporatation backbone, or perhaps think more about what we transport. Certain things probably can't be given up ... like driving to work, I'm sure. but, that is the world we live in.

[Tsee-1968031069905097881578618]

Internalizing costs

One big reason alternative energies have not been more cost-competitive with fossil fuel (which includes coal) is that their by-products, aka. pollution, is currently being born by the flora and fauna of this planet, rather than the producers/consumers. As long as these externalities are not forced upon the guilty parties - eg. via a carbon tax - there will be continued overproduction and overusage of these resources.

BTW, the impending energy crunch will be more severe than most people seem to realize. Even if oil production "slowly declines" as this article's author wrote, demand will continue to rise barring a severe and lasting economic downturn. This will cause rising prices for fuel. In addition, global oil production will almost certainly follow a bell curve as it did in the United States. This means production will precipitously drop before leveling off, rather than the other way around.

[gggg sssss]

carbon tax

what a fraud If Jimmy Baker was alive HE would start a carbon tax TV pledge drive. And laugh all the way to the bank while morons like you emptied ther wallets. ( Maybe he is still alive??)

[Hoser McMoose]

Costs heavily subsidized

It's not just the flora and fauna that are bearing the costs, but also humans and our medical system!

One estimate I saw put the cost of medical problems from coal at $160B per year in the US. Considering that roughly half of all medical costs are funded by state and federal governments, that means we're effectively subsidizing the coal power plant industry to the tune of $80 billion dollars a year! Even if those numbers were exaggerated in the estimate it's still clear that we're spending an enormous amount of money to clean up the mess from coal power plants.

If those plants had to cover all the costs themselves rather then unloading it on everyone else in the form of income taxes then they would be MUCH more expensive, making some of the new 'green' technologies seem a whole lot cheaper in comparison.

[Draq Wraith]

The 6th, 7 th and 8th dirty truths.

The 6th dirty truth suppression of technology, we have had to more toward a green tech since World War 2 only one person realized it then and started the movement in her role as first lady Lady Bird Johnson.
Since then oil companies have suppressed inventions to bring cleaner tech to the auto industry by buying out the inventors invention and shelving it.

People's fear of change suppresses wide spread adoption of the technology. Hatred of losing their lands looks has stagnated wind power for quite sometime, recently folks are suing one man for having a wind turbine 8 ft higher than allowed.
People's fear of losing jobs somehow to clean technology, I tell them this technology will make jobs and they will not listen.

The 7th truth is Apathy
there are lots of people who just do not care one way or another. As long as they can fill up their tanks, go out to have fun they will not care one iota about the environment, economy, and people.
An example Live Earth I know of about 25 people i asked them if they knew of the 24hr concert called live earth? Then i explained to them what it was and what it is about they said cool i told them they might be able to catch it on TV, not one person other than me did out of 25 people.

I submitted the Live earth pledge to 4 people
liveearthpledge.org Only one responded.

The 8th Dirty truth is some alternative energy technology being passed off as "green" technology when it isn't. Coal to fuel is one such tech as well as ethanol. The amount of energy used to produce these is not equal to the amount acquired for use. Ethanol done right can be done wrong can never be. This is the third coming of ethanol it was rejected by Henry Ford shortly after making his first car, it was rejected in the 70's chrysler was the only one making a car to run it and to buy the fuel you had to hunt around for a pump throughly.

It makes me truly sad to see people only reading the hypes and not doing their own homework on it and seeing the way to save the environment and our future for generations to come.
The earth is our only home and we need to protect it at all cost.
D~W

[jamie.p.walsh]

a little proofreading goes a long way buddy

I realize these aren't great works of literature people are writing here, but a little proofreading and editing would make your point a heck of a lot clearer.

I did, however, get the gist of what your 3 points were and agree.

If you want to talk about collaboration as Mr. Washington speaks of here, I would say that these business ventures should spend a little more time in academic research. The greater good would be served if some money was poured into scholastic and scientific funding rather than some band of already-wealthy schemers investment portfolio.

The university communities, linking several supercomputing systems, could collaborate to model current and developing solution, and do some what-if analysis to refine everything to energy cost/efficiency ratios, effective production/delivery/consumption scenarios, engineering for fuel economy

[qwerty75]

Much truth and denial

The oil companies have done their best over the past 30+ years to keep alternatives down and brainwash people into thinking that oil is an infinite supply.

In this and many areas were are only beginning to see the damage that corporate control of the world has done.

Serious alternative fuel research should have become a priority in the 70's at the latest. The problems should have warned us of the dangers of reliance on oil.

Yes, there was some research back then, but it was generally considered wacko fringe research, much like SETI used to be.

The problem today is that corporations are still shortsighted. They will try alternatives if and only if it is cheaper. This is very wrongheaded. No credible studies(ie not funded by people with a interest in maintaining the status quo) show that we have no negative impact on this earth.

This goes far beyond corporate profits and the supposed sanctity of them. If profits drop 10, 20 or even 50%, so be it. This is more important then money. Granted, unless the business is a flagrant violator of environmental laws, moves towards greener solutions shouldn't put them out of business. A reduction of profits is hardly the same as losing money.

There should be serious rewards for real innovation. $1 billion dollar prize to meet challenging and worthwhile goals would not be out of order.

As long as the oil companies own governments nothing will really change. Perhaps when this earth becomes close to uninhabitable then perhaps these greedy people will realize what they have done, and how truly pointless the pursuit of more and more money is.

[Neo Con]

No discussion of energy is complete without...

Nuclear energy! I saw not one single mention of this clean, endless, relatively cheap supply of energy in this sham of an article.

Wise up, people. We need energy, and the only viable alternative to oil is nuclear. Everything else is just academic crap that will never work.

[qwerty75]

Nuclear energy

Come visit the Hanford Nuclear reservation in Washington State with a Geiger counter and see how clean nuclear energy is.

Nuclear waste makes it a worthless investment.

[Draq Wraith]

Nuclear is too dangerous

Evidently your not reading the stories out of japan about their nuclear technology.

they have had to shut down their reactors due to cracks from earthquakes and severe damage. Earthquakes can hit every part of America no place is safe enough to build then unless you design for earthquakes, fires, floods, droughts then you have weaknesses in your designs that can destroy more than just the reactor.

And the Toxic waste will remain here long long after you and I have passed on.

No the current fission reactors are not the answer. Fusion however might be.

Nuclear power is still work in progress.
D~W

[max-ray]

Non-renewable

I'm not a supporter of Nuclear Energy, but I believe that it will likely need to be in the mix to get us to whatever the next stage of clean fuels is.

Nuclear is still a non-renewable resource and not any more of a solution than coal is. Maybe as a stop-gap solution, but nothing more.

[shoffmueller]

What a great article

No political bashing. No emotional scare tactics. Just sound logical ideas. Why is this type of expression of opinion so rare in this topic?

[jamie.p.walsh]

I was wondering the same thing

I'd like to hear from more people like this. People who aren't caught up in the bs of hyping up products and ideas for their gain.

Energy and Healthcare are the biggest topics our generation should hope to conquer in our lifetime. I'd like to see more genuine innovation and creative thinking as I did in school rather than the spin and marketing tactics I see in the business world today.

[jasred]

100 year turn around?

While keeping our feet on the ground and heads out of the clouds is necessary, but to claim that the next energy revolution will take 100 years seems very pessimistic. 100 years from when? Remember the fuel cell was invented in the 19th century, refined sufficiently in the 60/70s for space flight and in the last 10 years for vehicle use (there are at least 5 different basic types of fuel cells each with pros and cons for various uses). Take a look at the following examples of nearly ready for production technologies;

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.smartfish.ch/" target="_newWindow">http://www.smartfish.ch/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.hydratus.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.hydratus.com/</a>

and tell me that there is no room for smart start-ups that will rapidly change the face of the energy industry (this is only a few examples of many emerging technologies). All we need is the will to make it happen politically and economically (ie invest in these companies rather than the oil/coal companies!)

[jamie.p.walsh]

What do we do with the batteries when they wear out?

For every great fuel-cell idea, we need to see an equally impressive battery innovation, specifically those that solve the problem of disposing toxic batteries.

[kgsbca]

He's smoking crack

First of all, the bit about meaningful technology transformations taking 100 years, where did that come from? I know fossil fuels have been around more than 100 years and haven't changed much, but computers? Semiconductor-based computers were first built in the 50's, and by the 60's there were mini-coimputers, the 80's brought PCs, and the 90s brought the web. Each generation spurred an extremely meaningful transformation in our society and economy. And i haven't talked about airline travel, communications, or any one of many different areas where technology didn't take any where near 100 years to transform the world (look at the difference in weapons between WWI, WWII, the Vietnema War, the Gulf war, and today and tell me there's no difference).

Then Washington repeats the entirely untrue claim (originated from the oil industry, when the price of oil made all forms of ethanol economically viable) that ethanol has a negative EROEI. I won't call him a liar, just seriously misinformed. Maybe he read one of those "executive summaries" that was prepared using data from major news websites, which is never vetted. You couldn't make ethanol for $1.40 per gallon if it had a negative energy return.

Washington then implies that some people claim clean technology may reverse rampant globalization. I have not read of this claim being made by any of the proponents of clean energy. The big reasons for investing in clean energy are reduced carbon emissions, reduced oil imports, reduced dependence on imports from unfriendly countries, more jobs in America, and a healthier economy. I have never heard anybody say clean energy will reverse gloablization.

His last piece of insanity is that the incumbent energy suppliers must lead the charge to new energy. He is crazy. That would be nice, if they were truly energy companies, that would be happening already. However, they are not energy companies, they are natural resource extraction and marketing companies. They have a huge investment in energy in the ground, and they are incentivized to sell as much as that stuff as they can. They don't want to sell ethanol or biodiesel, they want to sell oil, coal, and natural gas. When the government gives out grants to study hydrogen based energy, these companies spend it on research to convert fossil fuels into hydrogen, which defeats the whole purpose of a hydrogen based economy.

The mindset of the technology world is so different than the mature "energy" industry. In computers, consumer electronics, communciations, and other tech markets, the mantra is "we must have a new product". Most companies turn over their product lines in 2 or 3 years. Chip vendors build new $3 billion factories every 3 or 4 years. In the oil industry, there is no progress. When faced with competition, the industry has always relied on lobbying for legislative protection and subsidies. Washington wants to keep people with those philosophies in charge of New Energy. If they are, we're doomed.

[max-ray]

Ethanol usage

They can make ethanol cheap because its being heavily subsidized by you and me. Ethanol from corn is on the razor's edge of being on the plus side of EROEI, but only if they are using all the latest and greatest technologies. If not they are breaking even or negative. But who cares, they are making money thanks to Uncle Sam.

About the 100 years? I think that's not a bad number. Might even take longer in my opinion. Right now, people are too concerned about windmills spoiling their view or harming the birds or solar collectors spoiling the look of their neighborhood. My dad put up a windmill in the 70's and he got alot of flak from all the neighbors for doing it. It's going to take a generation just to get enough people smart enough and old enough to get this whole shift of energy really going in my opinion. Another generation to start production of some of those great ideas and yet another generation for a significant portion of the world to be using it.

[SiXiam]

I can't see how we would avoid Nuclear Plants

Let's be honest...

Our energy needs are increasing and led's, compact fluorescent bulbs and energy efficent appliances just are not gonna cut it.

So if we can't conserve our way out of this problem what do we do...

We either invent very cheap high efficency solar panels and fuelcell's or we will have to build nuclear plants it is that simple.

It is always easier when the oil is right under your feet, but it will be gone soon... Likely in my life time (my current age being 25)

[gggg sssss]

300 years of coal

All we need to do is figure out how to use it, but then we went born knowing how to use oil either.

[melhalle]

Today's cost of solar energy is not an absolute

Until 2005, solar tech was a bastard child of the semiconductor industry. Now that there's market demand, companies around the world are focusing on driving down costs. New production facilities are coming online to meet demand for silicon,the most abundant material on the planet. The true cost of solar energy should be compared to the retail cost of electricity, not wholesale, because it is inherently distributed. And all energy must be priced in terms of its total environmental cost. While I agree that I can't see solar helping jet planes, electric vehicles could certainly be charged at night by their photon-collecting carports (or by day in their office parks). Increasing efficiency of solar technologies combined with better batteries could make a huge difference. Furthermore, the lifetimes of most solar cells have been intentionally underestimated by physicists. Some may last hundreds of years, with the occasional tuneup.

One lesson we should have learned from Toyota's hybrid is that decrying the limitation of any one technology may keep negative people busy while true innovators figure out how to combine every smart move available to create new form factors and a total energy-efficient system.

Borrowed from Scott Aaronsen's blog: If you?re going to make skeptical pronouncements, you?d better distinguish clearly between the provably impossible, the presumably impossible, and the merely difficult and not yet achieved. . . . If you?re going to claim something?s impossible, you?d better have an argument, and you?d better understand what assumptions it rests on.

[galeso]

Solar

You can not see solar being used to make hydrogen from water for use in trains, plains, &#38; automobiles? Toyota is thinking about adding a plug for the Prius.

You say solar is distributed, but solar farms are also being created.

How solid is the research on CO2? I do not trust talk show host like Rush or the Sierra Club (you name it is ruining the environment, please send more money)

Water vapor is a more abundant greenhouse gas, what effect is this having? The warming is said to take place mostly in the winter. What effect does asphalt roofs and roads have on the warming trend?

[bladerunnerr]

One Simple Truth Re: Washington's Article

The simple truth about the author's "Five Dirty Truths about Clean Technology" is that it makes no reference to contrary information which has been presented for decades in numerous investigative reports. To give just one example out of a myriad of possible example, I refer people to the case of General Motors' all-electric car, the EV1. This was a viable freeway vehicle which had a driving range suitable for daily commutes, created at a time when battery technology would have greatly increased even that driving range and which could have been mass-produced during the 1990's at a price savings which mass-production always gives a product so that it would have been affordable to a significant portion of our population. The EV1 was taken out of the hands of leasees in spite of the fact that the leasees were very happy with their EV1. Some of the leasees fought hard to buy their vehicle out right because they were so satisfied with it. The best guess as to why General Motors would sabotage its own all-electric product is because it got pressure from the oil industry to kill it due to the EV1's extremely low need for oil. General Motors has gone to the extreme measure of shredding all of its EV1's in a metal shredder (no small feat) rather than have any left lying around for anyone to study and improve upon.
The EV1 case history is just one example of the many omissions that where left out of the author's article for readers to consider. When there are so many important, relevant facts that have been omitted from such an article it leaves the reader wondering why there was such omissions.

[One-Eared Gundark]

Consumers killed the electric car.

I saw the documentary on the EV1. I think it was called, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" or something like that. I believe it was the market that killed the electric car.

At the time the EV1 was made gas was cheap. GM was losing money on the EV1 vehicles they produced. Even going to mass production, the cost of the vehicles would have been too high. To be profitable, the EV1 would have been in the same price category as the Corvette, while competing in the market segment of the Ford Escort.

There also was the issue with the EV1 being only a two-seater. All the other sub-compact cars (sports cars excluded) were four-passenger vehicles. Even today, people want more than two seats. This is evident in the large number of crew cab pickups being sold. Remember the Honda Insight? Great car - two seats - slow sales, so Honda killed it.

Then there was the mileage issue. Although probably 80% of the public would have been more than happy with the range of the EV1, they saw a limitation in the range. Consumers are of the mind-set that "more is better" and we want all we can get. The EV1 couldn't match the range of a topped off tank in a Cavalier.

Really, the consumers are to blame for the death of the EV1. We saw that GM (and Honda later) were going to offer us less vehicle for more money, and we didn't like it. They couldn't force us to buy it, so their options were to kill the car or go out of business.

So why did GM destroy all the EV1's? I think they were all destroyed to keep competitors from reverse-engineering the car. That also explains why GM only leased them, instead of selling them outright. If they were leased, GM still owned them, limiting what people could do with them. The only EV1 still around is in the Petersen Auto Museum...and it has been "deactivated" by GM. Hmmm.

[Hoser McMoose]

Too many drawbacks for all-electric for now

There are MANY reasons why all-electric vehicles just aren't ready for prime time yet, let alone 10 years ago when the EV1 was being produced. The biggest problem is the batteries and getting the energy in to recharge 'em.

Take the Tesla Roadster as one good example. Neat little vehicle, but definitely not ready for the mainstream. The batteries in the thing cost about $40,000, twice as much as a complete conventional car, and there's just no way that mass production would solve that problem in the next 10 years at least.

The other problem is how long it takes to recharge electric cars. The Tesla takes about 4 hours, and that's assuming you happen to have a 240V/70amp circuit wired to your garage! If you want to 'fill' up the cars quickly you need obscene quantities of power delivered in a short period of time, basically an electric car fueling station would need it's own electrical grid substation to power it. This is basically going to limit electrical cars to being 'commuter cars' for the near future at least. Not entirely a bad thing, but most people can't afford to have one car just for commuting and then buying another car for any longer trips.

Fortunately GM has learned from the EV1 and are working on a solution to these problems. The GM Volt is a HUGE step forward in the auto industry and, IMO, is really pointing the way forward. It has a small battery that doesn't add TOO much to the cost (probably $5,000, similar to the extra cost a parallel hybrid drive train would add). This lets it still do most commuting on pure electrical power (up to 60km/40miles), and that battery can be charged overnight using a standard 110V/15amp circuit. More importantly though the battery can also be charged by a gasoline generator, so it can be fueled up like a standard car for long trips. And when running off the gasoline generator it gets about the same fuel economy as a Toyota Prius but does so with a 160hp all-electric drive engine vs. the 117hp combined engines of the Prius.

Sure the Volt isn't going to eliminate gasoline usage, but the design does have the potential to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce it's use. Of course, that's only half the equation. We still need to solve the issue of how electricity is produced in the first place and that, IMO, should be a VERY high priority for everyone involved. I personally see electricity production as the #1 environmental priority facing our world today, and there's no single solution to that problem.

[K.P.C.]

Sone simple truths re: eletric cars . . .

1) Where do you think all of that electricity comes from?
Electric power plants - be they coal or nuclear.
(a.k.a. "The Bad Guys")

2) If all the cars in America were to become electric, what do you
think that would do the the electric grid - especially in big
cities?

3) Consider the increase in demand for electricity in the time
period that normally has the lowest demand - over night when
people are sleeping.

4) There's the theory of supply and demand. As demand
increases the "Bad Guys" would need to build more power plants
(though not in your back yard of course). The cost of electricity
would go up across the board. Then in the summer when
"Granny", who doesn't even drive, dies because she can't afford
to turn on her air conditioner you can blame the electric car.

5) More power plants = more green house gasses.

Yep, The Electric Car - The answer to all of earths problems. ;-)

[lalithaviswa]

Fuel Saving in Cars/vehicles

Cars and vehicles with directly injected diesel engines can save 20%plus fuel by using the patented invention of Mr Somender Singh of Mysore, India. The modification is simple and requires grooving of cylinder head. Hundreds of
cars/ two wheelers of all makes in India have been sucessfully modified by Mr Singh including a few diesel driven buses. Car enthusiasts in US and other countres have modified their cars and are saving gas. Detalis are available in Mr Singh's web site www.somender-singh.com and he can be oontacted at [e-mail].
This invention if incorporated in the engine manufacturing stage may cost very little, and the resulting benefits will save gas/diesel,reduce pollution/global warming and save cash for the car owners.
Hopefully car manufacturers will seriouly consider using this invention to manufacture more efficient cars/vehicles to save the environment and prolong the life of the depleting crude reserves.

[st911.org]

There are answers

Solar and Wind can be stored by Vanadium Batteries. And these
batteries only need their casing replaced as the electrolyte lasts
for a long time. Advances in steam and electric cars and the
inventions of energy efficient water heaters and air/water
extractors (see waterunlimited.com.au) based on reverse fridge
technology make all of the above sustainable. Most of the
technologies are being used today on a small scale and have
been used for the past 20 years. And most of these items were
invented in Australia and ignored by corporate governments and
media. The Pritchard steam car, The vanadium battery, The
Quantum hot water system and the Engineair motor. These
things can give us a sustainable future and only Fusion energy
would replace this.

[Pangean]

Renewable energy doublings like Moore's Law

Facts:
Wind - installed capacity doubles every 3.5 years
(25% Compound Annual Growth Rate CAGR)
Solar - installed capacity doubles every 2 years
(&gt;40% CAGR)

Wind - Currently ~1.0% of global energy
Solar - Currently ~0.1% of global energy

Wind - Price diff. from grid = 1.7 cents/kWh
Price diff is not due to production cost but to finance charges for perceived risk, subsidies close the gap to parity. Subsidies are only renewed on a 1-2 year basis currently.

Far off shore wind via MIT/GE large rotors on floating/anchored oil-drilling-like platform will harvest wind 2X as strong and 2X as frequent (blowing 50% of the time).
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/16801/" target="_newWindow">http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/16801/</a>

An example of one company commercializing:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.bluewaterwind.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.bluewaterwind.com/</a>

Stanford/U Delaware mapped continental shelfs
and found 7X total global energy available
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/ResourceMap/index-world.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/ResourceMap/index-world.html</a>

20 year projection for wind at CURRENT prices and at current growth rates:
2011 2%
2014.5 4%
2018 8%
2021.5 16%
2025 32%
2027 50%

Larger wind grids ensure that wind is blowing somewhere ALL THE TIME.

Prices for wind will head downward significantly with far offshore wind. With a combined 4X efficiency improvement with but with less than 2X additional cost (rig and long cable), leads to a 50% reduction in cost.

Coal and Nuke Plants have doubled and tripled in price. Now cost $2,000-$3,000/kW capacity <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/business/worldbusiness/10energy.html?ref=business" target="_newWindow">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/business/worldbusiness/10energy.html?ref=business</a>

Currently, a new Wind plant is the cheapest source for new energy. Wind costs $1,700/kW capacity for turbine farms of 650MW and larger.

Solar installed capacity has been DOUBLING every 2 years even at today's high price of $4,800/kW for the last 16 years!

Plethora of trends will drive the price of solar to waaay below coal, nukes, and even wind.

- Lower silicon - thin film, amorphous silicon, and solar concentrators
- Higher efficiencies - multi-junction, thin film, quantum dot, organic and plastic all are rapidly increasing efficiencies
- Big boys are in the game - Boeing, Applied Materials, GE, Hitachi, Honda, and many others
- Enormous numbers of start ups - Nanosolar, NanoSys, Konarka, Miasole, CoolEarthSolar, SolFocus, just to name a few off the top of my head
- Over $1 Billion of venture capital worldwide went into clean tech this year

20 year Solar projection at current prices and doubling rate:
2009 0.2%
2011 0.4%
2013 0.8%
2015 1.6%
2017 3.2%
2019 6.4%
2021 12.8%
2023 25.6%
2025 51.2%

Plug-In Hybrids are inevitable and will serve as batteries to use and store renewables in the short run.

This is called Vehicle-2-Grid
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.udel.edu/V2G/" target="_newWindow">http://www.udel.edu/V2G/</a>

Long run (by 2030): Inter-Continental, Lossless High temperature Superconducting Cables

New York city will be testing this early 2008.
They are connecting two substations a 1000 meters apart.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18790/" target="_newWindow">http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18790/</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1195" target="_newWindow">http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1195</a>

Both DOE and EU discuss their Grid 2030 visions in depth:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="https://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/Files/20050608125055-grid-2030.pdf" target="_newWindow">https://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/Files/20050608125055-grid-2030.pdf</a>

The Wind is always blowing somewhere on Earth.
The Sun is always shining somewhere on Earth.

The future is renewable and it is coming much faster than the King CONG companies (Coal Oil Nuke and Gas) think, and faster than Kirk Washington or Al Gore or Monbiot or Pearce or Lovelock or Hansen think.

Those of us in tech industry who have witnessed close up the impact of exponential growth through rapid doublings are very aware of how things can go from being barely visible and dismissed, to being the dominant paradigm with just a decade or two of relentless doublings.

[Troll Hard]

Global warming is not that big of a deal

nuclear winter will cancel out the effects of global warming and then things will be back to normal.

Just watch the developing nations that are building their own nuclear weapons. Eventually one of them will start a nuclear war and cause nuclear winter. Then it will get cold, but due to the CO2 in the air, it will warm up, causing global lukewarming and then global spring.

[CyberWoLfman]

Answers to the future's energy problems already exist.

In the article, they state that solar photovoltaic systems are too costly to compete with fossil fuels, but, there's new innovations in photovoltaic technology like photovoltaic spray-on paint. Certainly, this would be cheaper than solar cells. In time, it may even be used on homes and other buildings as well as things like bridges and perhaps public transportation systems that run on electricity.

In addition to this, I've been telling people on my blog pages (here for example: www.cyberwolfman.com/blog_2006.htm#new_electric_cars and no, it's not a real commercial site, not a single ad on it anywhere) that there are electric cars out right now that can go from 0 to 60 MPH in about four seconds, have a top speed of 130 MPH, and can go 250 miles on a single charge. They take from between 3 to 5 hours to charge, but they can be charged up from regular outlets. The cost of these cars are reported to be around $90,000, but they intend to make a four-door, four-seat car in a few years that'll sell for less than $50,000, and one after that which will be even cheaper. One of these is the Tesla Motors' Roadster, which this site itself did at least one story on.

Perhaps these technologies can be combined to save on the electric bill as well as increase the range of the cars?

There may be hope, yet . . .

[legionz]

to the article writer.

as complex a system, a way will be found. solar photovaltaic systems arent efficient because they are just using 1 spectrum of the light. theres a solar panel company that has developed a way to use 7 layers to assorb the 7 colors of the light spectrum, and thats only 7 not counting the mixes and combinations possible.
as for meaningful technology takes up to 100 years. well drop the years old man-the computer was about 50 years old and most modern medical devices has been developed within the last 30 years i assume. so the time to introduce a new technology is getting shorter. with advances in chemistry and physics i bet someone can invent a sky scrubber, it probably wouldnt be by a human thats what i believe.
clean technology doesnt reverse globalization, its the laws that limit globalization.
as for false hopes, you are hell giving alot of them out.

[wallinger1]

I have all the well you know as I've been told {many times}

Hello I think it would be simple to fix this whole oil problem with clean free electrical power. I have I think figured out how to generate power without any oil or anything for that matter. People are always coming up to me asking for solutions to a problem and are amazed one by how reasonable the costs were or at how easy it was to get the outcome they desired. I looked at a few of the comments and agree with it will take investment and risks to arrive at a finshed product best example the x-box 360 with it's problems. I am looking for people to develop this power source but have had no takers seems not to be important enough at the moment but in time it will.

[jdbwar07]

Biased article?

I could be wrong, but it sounds like this article is much too biased towards the oil industry. It suggests we need to rely on the large established oil companies to solve our problems, and supposedly no one else can (without their assistance at least).

However anyone who's been paying attention knows these companies have been actively fighting AGAINST any form of alternative energy. They pay millions for lobbyists to prevent any serious government funding for renewable energy, run ads saying how we have nothing to worry about regarding things like global warming. Sadly he may be right that oil is running out, and when we start working on this problem it'll be too late, but lobbying money, think tanks, and propaganda funded by them is a large part for this.

The author writes, regarding solar and wind power:
"...And electricity won't do anything for cars, trucks, ships and aircraft."

Maybe not aircraft and ships, but hasn't he heard of electric cars? Electric-powered vehicles might not be ready for prime time, but they're far more plausible to implement soon than hydrogen, ethanol, so some wished-for energy source that will replace oil if we just trust Exxon-Mobil to save us.

Any significant work on alternative energy such as electric cars, new solar panel technology, and the like is being developed by other companies, often small start-ups like Tesla Motors.

[nuckelhedd]

do nohing for ships eh?

I suppose the Nuclear fleet maintained by most of the large navies of the world have nothing to do with electricity? Nuclear fusion creates steam drives generator runs motor turns propeller? But i suppose it does nothing for ships.

[babaroberto]

And bozos shall disappear from the earth forever

not likely. rebuttal is pointless. You shall be led, now out of the way dirty truth teller.