Perspective: Keeping clean tech down-to-earth

Editor's note: Earlier this year, venture capitalist Vinod Khosla and Herman Scheer, a member of Germany's parliament, debated the merits of different solar technologies at a forum at PG&E.

Although the two agreed on many points, the debate also highlighted one of the more interesting aspects of the so-called clean-tech market: Opinions vary widely on which technologies will and will not help the world get off a petroleum diet.

(For the record, Khosla disparaged wind power and solar panels as uneconomical and touted solar thermal power plants. Scheer pointed out cracks in the solar thermal argument, noting that it only works in a few places, and highlighted Germany's success with solar panels. These points have cropped up in other debates on the technologies.)

Khosla wrote the below response to Scheer and included a wide-ranging analysis of other energy issues. In fairness, we will also be contacting Scheer for his views.

Recently, I was on a panel with Dr. Herman Scheer, a member of the German parliament, the president of EuroSolar, and a much-honored "environmentalist." Suffice it to say that there was great commonality of goals but significant disagreement about "how."

From my admittedly biased point of view, his views sounded great but were ineffective and inefficient ways to reduce carbon emission and achieve sustainability. In fact, some ideas were downright harmful to the environment. This difference became vivid to me as we debated the role of PV technology versus that of solar thermal energy, the effectiveness of wind power, charging your cell phones with solar panels, on idealized distributed self-contained homes, and centralized power services and more. It did bring to mind a problem that has reared itself many times in renewably energy--the role of the idealist or dogmentalist versus that of the pragmatist.

Dr. Scheer has been a pioneer in his advocacy of renewable energy and sustainability goals. I agree with him on most of the goals and admire his early insights

Environmentalists versus pragmentalists
First, it is worth reviewing the situation we find ourselves in. Electric power worldwide is over 40 percent of total global carbon dioxide releases, and it is the fastest-growing portion (in terms of human-released greenhouse gases). India, China and other countries are rapidly industrializing and bringing basic electric power services to their peoples. Their development, like U.S. electric power, follows least-cost options.

Our least-cost electric power options--coal-fired power plants--are by far our most destructive and dangerous ones. Coal burning directly kills hundreds of thousands of people worldwide in particulate, sulfate and mercury releases, thousands of tons of radioactive emissions yearly, and emits over twice as much carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour (kWh) as any other form of power generation. The coming costs from worsening droughts from Africa to Indiana, intensified storms, and rising sea levels will bring misery to billions.

To achieve these goals, we must provide services that consumers want and prefer over their non-sustainable fossil competitors, while at the same time be profitable for business.

Nevertheless, U.S. utilities and their banking partners are planning to build about 150 new coal-fired power plants in the U.S. over the next five years, and China is building roughly 60 large plants every year. (The recent TXU settlement is a step in the right direction but will probably not make a dent.) Electric power is an engine of economic growth, bringing light, cooling, and communication to billions, but every coal-fired power plant is a ticking slow bomb. Knowing this, we need solutions that work--now.

As such, we must address some basic rules: For any energy scheme to be viable, it must be cost effective, and it must be scalable. If solutions don't get adopted in India and China, global warming control efforts are futile. To scale, they must make economic sense in China and India. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that from 2003 to 2030, non OECD-Asia's (including India and China) energy consumption will grow at 3.7 percent--faster than anywhere else in the world. India and China are also the home of more than one-third of the world's population and are likely to continue to grow furiously in the near future, using lowest-cost energy.

If we allocate the same carbon emission per person worldwide (an equal right to pollute for every human) we are toast at anywhere near current levels of U.S. emissions or even at levels of carbon emission in Europe. It is reasonable to assume that when India and China are part of a global carbon emissions pact, they will demand the same per capita emission rights for their people as we have in the west. This will require huge transfers. The president of the World Bank recently suggested over a hundred billion dollars a year of "quota purchases" unless the new lower carbon emission approach to power generation is cheaper than coal or nuclear-based power generation (Do we want hundreds of nuclear plants in India and China?).

Moreover, these lower carbon emission generation technologies must be attractive not only to government planners, but also to private capital that cares only about economics and regulation--hundreds of billions if not trillions of which needs to become available. Simply put, government money will never be enough to reform the world's energy infrastructure.

To achieve these goals, we must provide services that consumers want and prefer over their non-sustainable fossil competitors, while at the same time be profitable for business (unless it can politically be mandated worldwide through policy, which seems unlikely, especially in India and China). Applications that meet the engineering needs but fail to meet the commercial ones are doomed to failure, which provides one of the key reasons for my disagreements with Dr. Scheer.

Biography
Vinod Khosla co-founded Daisy Systems and was the founding chief executive officer of Sun Microsystems. He currently is a general partner with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

More Perspectives

[billmosby]

Thanks for a great article

Thanks for a great, detailed article. You mentioned that needed <br />nuclear energy research and development was short-circuited by <br />misguided environmentalists. Have you looked at the work that was <br />done between 1984 and 1994 in the Integral Fast Reactor project at <br />Argonne National Laboratory (and the fuel recycling process that <br />continues now)? If so, I'd like to know what you think of it.

[brianelegant]

Vinod more correct than Herman but

Vinod indicates that Nuclear cannot make a material difference in carbon emission in 20 years. However, 29 nuclear plants are being constructed now around the world and they will be done in 4 years. they will add 23GW. that is 6% increase in nuclear power. It moves the 16% of electricity provided by nuclear power up to nearly 17%. Another 66 plants are scheduled to be completed by 2017 for another 71GW. By 2027 (the 20 year timeframe) a total of 220GW of nuclear power is scheduled to be added including the 93GW mentioned in the first 10 years. this is a 4-5% reduction in global CO2. This seems like a material and does not include up-powering nuclear reactors by 50% over the next 10-15 years using donut shaped fuels and nanoparticles. The 50% increase would move currently in motion plans to 6-7.5% CO2 reductions.<br /><br />An MIT innovation.<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/jan/tech/kb_nuclear.html?sa_campaign=rss/cen_mag/estnews/2007-01-03/kb_nuclear" target="_newWindow">http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/jan/tech/kb_nuclear.html?sa_campaign=rss/cen_mag/estnews/2007-01-03/kb_nuclear</a><br /><br />China is looking to add 100GW by 2030 and 300GW by 2050 of nuclear power. <br /><br />India is also building a lot of nuclear and planning to add more. <br /><br />Vinod indicates that he thinks nuclear is good but is just concerned about getting it implemented fast enough. Unless Vinod is indicating that his CSP and other solutions will eliminate all coal energy usage within 20 years, then it seems that we should hedge and continue to push ahead as fast as possible with nuclear power as well. <br /><br />Note: For nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is mostly (95%) unburned uranium. Japan and France reprocess their waste. <br /><br />For proliferation. There are already 443 nuclear power plants. US, China, India all have nuclear weapons. 40 countries already have the knowhow and the material for nuclear weapons. Iran and N Korea were proliferated with knowledge to in the 1980s from Pakistan. What is the incremental risk from more nuclear power ? Nuclear material for nuclear weapons is better made from reactors that are not designed for nuclear power.<br /><br />There are better nuclear plant designs such molten salt reactors.<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com</a><br /><br /><br />===<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://advancednano.blogspot.com/search/label/nuclear" target="_newWindow">http://advancednano.blogspot.com/search/label/nuclear</a>

[billmosby]

Better alternatives

Any comment about the already mostly researched and developed <br />Integral Fast Reactor?

[brianelegant]

Vinod more correct than Herman but

Vinod indicates that Nuclear cannot make a material difference in carbon emission in 20 years. However, 29 nuclear plants are being constructed now around the world and they will be done in 4 years. they will add 23GW. that is 6% increase in nuclear power. It moves the 16% of electricity provided by nuclear power up to nearly 17%. Another 66 plants are scheduled to be completed by 2017 for another 71GW. By 2027 (the 20 year timeframe) a total of 220GW of nuclear power is scheduled to be added including the 93GW mentioned in the first 10 years. this is a 4-5% reduction in global CO2. This seems like a material and does not include up-powering nuclear reactors by 50% over the next 10-15 years using donut shaped fuels and nanoparticles. The 50% increase would move currently in motion plans to 6-7.5% CO2 reductions.<br /><br />An MIT innovation.<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/jan/tech/kb_nuclear.html?sa_campaign=rss/cen_mag/estnews/2007-01-03/kb_nuclear" target="_newWindow">http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/jan/tech/kb_nuclear.html?sa_campaign=rss/cen_mag/estnews/2007-01-03/kb_nuclear</a><br /><br />China is looking to add 100GW by 2030 and 300GW by 2050 of nuclear power. <br /><br />India is also building a lot of nuclear and planning to add more. <br /><br />Vinod indicates that he thinks nuclear is good but is just concerned about getting it implemented fast enough. Unless Vinod is indicating that his CSP and other solutions will eliminate all coal energy usage within 20 years, then it seems that we should hedge and continue to push ahead as fast as possible with nuclear power as well. <br /><br />Note: For nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is mostly (95%) unburned uranium. Japan and France reprocess their waste. <br /><br />For proliferation. There are already 443 nuclear power plants. US, China, India all have nuclear weapons. 40 countries already have the knowhow and the material for nuclear weapons. Iran and N Korea were proliferated with knowledge to in the 1980s from Pakistan. What is the incremental risk from more nuclear power ? Nuclear material for nuclear weapons is better made from reactors that are not designed for nuclear power.<br /><br />There are better nuclear plant designs such molten salt reactors.<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com" target="_newWindow">http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com</a><br /><br /><br />===<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://advancednano.blogspot.com/search/label/nuclear" target="_newWindow">http://advancednano.blogspot.com/search/label/nuclear</a>

[brianelegant]

coal power are not slow ticking bombs they kill now

1 million people die each year from coal pollution (air pollution, arsenic, mercury, mining etc...) About 500 people on average are killed by each coal plant. Some coal plants are more deadly than others. The older and smaller ones can be over 10 times more deadly.<br /><br />People are also made sick by coal. the people who are sick before they die from cancer and heart disease and those who are just made sick from asthma and other illnesses. This makes the entire medicare problem worse. <br /><br />40% of all freight rail traffic in the US is to move coal. So a large part of the diesel fuel usage is also linked to coal power. Over 1 billion tons of coal per year is in used each year in the USA alone. 40% of rail subsidies and maintenance are thus coal related.<br /><br />60,000 people die early deaths each year in the united states because of coal pollution. The immediate step is clean up the coal plants and there are some bills to help about 25%-50% in the USA.<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/04/support-clean-air-bills-to-save.html" target="_newWindow">http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/04/support-clean-air-bills-to-save.html</a><br /><br />But to get the rest of the way we need to replace coal completely.

[wildchild_plasma_gyro]

When all other solar options don't fit invent one

Ok so these thermal technologies don't work in all areas probably due to mainly a lack of solar heat maybe.<br />Anyway two points i'd like to make here.<br />1) if you can't make rome at home take rome to where you can build it and make the most use of it industrialy.<br />2) what about heat effected nano crystals to collect up heat.

[Orion Blastar]

What about geothermic energy?

We have all of this heat in the Earth that we can tap into for energy.<br /><br />Did you know that <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp">George W. Bush uses geothermal heat pumps</a> to heat and cool his house in Texas? I am betting we can build even bigger geothermal heat pumps to provide electricity by turning water into steam and using the steam to turn generators which crank out electricity.<br /><br />It seems if you want a greener house, George W. Bush has a greener house than Al Gore has. While Al Gore continues to bash people for not being green enough, George W. Bush is leading the way by example and made his house greener in hopes that others would follow his example.

[Pixelslave]

Nuclear Backlash

&gt; That being said, the lack of research and development into nuclear technology (primarily as a result of environmental backlash, but also due to the innate conservatism of energy companies)<br />While I agree with most part of the article, I cannot agree with this point. We only need to look back to our history. If there's no nuclear meltdown accident, there will not be enough R&#38;D goes into handling the meltdown, nor nuclear waste. It's simple economy -- no problem, no demand, and there will be no money flow into handling those issues. There WILL be money trying to get more output, or build a bigger plant w/ minimum money, however, because if there was no accident, people would find the idea the best thing discovered ever, and would like to squeeze every bit out of it.<br /><br />The primary reason why nuclear plant doesn't fly is because economically there won't be enough money to make it safer until disaster hits, but when disaster does hit, it's so scary and affects us so much that people will demand we abandon the idea altogether, instead of finding ways to fix it.

[brianelegant]

How will this hypothetical accident be worse than 1 million dead per year

How will this hypothetical accident be worse than one million dead per year that we are getting every year from coal pollution ? <br /><br />Even if a nuclear plant was to blow up like a nuclear bomb (which they cannot) it would not take out one million people because they are not that close to that many people and would be blowing up on the ground. <br /><br />The coal plants collectively generate 20,000 tons of uranium and thorium fallout every year. Parts per million of the 6 billion tons of coal waste that gets thrown into the air.<br /><br />Why are you not more scared of the 1 million dead every year from coal ? <br />Air pollution is killing 3 million per year. This includes all of the fossil fuel pollution.

[brianelegant]

How will this hypothetical accident be worse than 1 million dead per year

How will this hypothetical accident be worse than one million dead per year that we are getting every year from coal pollution ? <br /><br />Even if a nuclear plant was to blow up like a nuclear bomb (which they cannot) it would not take out one million people because they are not that close to that many people and would be blowing up on the ground. <br /><br />The coal plants collectively generate 20,000 tons of uranium and thorium fallout every year. Parts per million of the 6 billion tons of coal waste that gets thrown into the air.<br /><br />Why are you not more scared of the 1 million dead every year from coal ? <br />Air pollution is killing 3 million per year. This includes all of the fossil fuel pollution.

[suyts]

You are right!!

You are right. We should just forget it. No reason to pursue a solution that we can all be happy with. Why give cheaper and cleaner power all at the same time when we can do something more drastic?

[mahurshi]

we should also pay attention to conserving energy

we should also pay attention to energy conservation and educate kids in school and general public by sponsoring some shows on TV on ways to help reduce energy. it is amazing how so many people do not know about energy efficient bulbs, etc.<br /><br />one thing i noticed after coming to the US is that there are 100s of lights turned on (in offices, etc) where they really only need 50% of them. at least, they can replace these with the new energy efficient LED lights which also last longer. temperature in the water heaters can be lowered, motion sensors could be set up to turn on/off lights and air condidtioning. you know.. little things like these would make a big difference in the long run. <br /><br />Mahurshi Akilla

[dani spirig]

clean tech

As I can understand investers want to see a revenue<br />I think they should understand people want to see the world preserved, species protected, the air clean and<br />society harmonious. Basically we need to understand that improvement will not come by increasing income but by reducing losses. I can see no difficulty in backing up solar systems and the target should absolutely be that no fossil fuel is beeing burned on a sunny day.

[Allan338]

Eye opening rebuttal

Well reasoned and well thought out.<br />I'd never looked at green power through the lens of 3rd world perspective.... Thank you.