Cleantechblog.com, the premier cleantech site for commentary on technologies, news, and issues relating to cleantech, next generation energy and the environment.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Cleantech Blog "Power 10" Ranking Vol. I
I spend most of my day meeting and talking to companies in the cleantech sector. And those of you who know me know I have opinions on who is doing it right, and who is doing it wrong. So I thought it was about time to initiate the Cleantech Blog Power 10 Ranking of cleantech companies doing it right. Eligibility for inclusion in the ranking requires meeting a 6 point test. Suggestions for inclusions in future volumes are welcome. The 6 point test:
1. The company is energy or environmental technology related 2. I like their products 3. The market needs them 4. The company is smart about building their business 5. I’d like to own the company if I could (for the right price, of course!) 6. It is not already one of mine (my apologies to my friends Zenergy Power)
I have included cleantech companies big and small. Volume I surprisingly ended up with a lot more solar companies than I would have guessed, and no biofuels. Perhaps I really am a closet solar fanatic.
Sharp Electronics – In solar, still the biggest, and still growing. Enough said.
Det Norske Veritas – DNV is a massive 150 year old risk management firm. Their auditors underpin roughly half of the carbon markets. In carbon, audit and verification is everything. I could not leave them off.
IBM (NYSE:IBM) – What IBM is doing in smart grid is very exciting. They are part of a large proportion of the smart grid implementations that are in process, and a huge proponent of open standards. Smart grid is to electricity what fiber is to telecom. It underpins everything.
Applied Materials (NYSE:AMAT) – The future of photovoltaics lies in scaling thin film manufacturing process. Who better to do this than the dean of semiconductor capital equipment. I broke the story of Applied’s entry to solar in the blogosphere in 2006, and if anything underestimated how hard they were pushing. The whisper mill has been whirring that the installations of their plants are not on track. Not only do I have faith they will get there, I think it is critical to the industry that they do.
Fuel Tech (NASDAQ:FTEK) – I wrote about them in 2007. The CEO John Norris is a long time friend and an excellent operator. Cleaning up coal is a huge business that needs to be done, and they do it well.
Fat Spaniel – Distributed power, solar included, is a ticking time bomb without independent monitoring. Fat Spaniel does it the best.
Smart Fuel Cells (XETRA:F3C.DE) – I wrote about them recently. I helped create a fuel cell business in 2002. This is the first fuel cell company in 5 years that has intrigued me. They actually ship product with solid gross margins. That is a start.
First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) – Lowest cost producer in the photovoltaic business. Guaranteed to make the list until dethroned.
Global Solar – I have been following this company for a long time. CIGS is very hard and has broken (or is currently breaking) hundreds of millions or billions of dollars worth of wannabes. This management team, led by Mike Gering, respects how hard it is. And since they have actually been running a pilot plant shipping product for 3 years, so we need to take note when they say they have cracked the manufacturing scale nut.
Schott – Long a major player in crystalline silicon photovoltaics, amorphous silicon photovoltaics and concentrated solar thermal, where they are one of the top manufacturers of solar thermal receivers. That balance is unique, and exciting.
Edison International Says Solar is the Great Untapped Resource
Cleantech Blog had a conversation last year with Stuart Hemphill, now the newly appointed Vice President for Renewables and Alternative Energy at Southern California Edison, a subsidiary of Edison International (NYSE:EIX), one of the largest purchasers of renewable power in the US. We caught up with him again today in a lively discussion around his predictions for the renewable sector.
Today they are announcing their sixth competitive solicitation for renewable energy. On peak delivery from the Tehachapi region is preferred, as they are currently building a massive transmission line to tap into the 4,500 MW of wind potential. But wind produces only 35% of the time. This major pipeline needs to be balanced. So they are looking for creative proposals from developers to fill up the rest of that transmission line with on peak power deliveries.
Renewable and alternative energy are still top goals for Edison. Stuart says his promotion is part a reflection of the business’ expanding interest in leadership in renewables in the US.
Prediction Number 1 - The next 10 years are going to be a wild, wild west in the solar industry. Companies around the globe are exploring new solar technologies of every variety. Stuart thinks it’s way too early to tell which ones are going to be successful. But he considers solar to be the great untapped resource in California and elsewhere.
So I asked him if by that he meant solar thermal or photovoltaics. The answer is “Yes”. Stuart responded that in the past couple of years we have seen incredible amounts of venture capital investment going into solar firms, and PV is only part of that equation.
When I pushed Stuart to predict a winner between conventional solar parabolic trough and other types of solar thermal technologies, Stuart refused, suggesting that it is still too early to tell which technologies will be the winners. That’s what makes it exciting to watch, in his opinion. As an example, he stated that we are now seeing renewed interest power tower technologies with pretty high efficiencies. The challenge is to see which ones get done.
When it comes to what’s important to SoCal Edison itself, it is really important that they sign PPA contracts with viable companies and viable technologies. He sees a wide spectrum of proposals in terms of viability, and is always looking for at least some sort of demonstration plant to prove it up and a significant level of backing for the companies before they can get involved.
Prediction Number 2 - I did ask him what his take on run of river hydro is. He responded that he hopes to be wrong, as he likes run of river hydro, but doesn’t see any major increases in the resource coming in California. Hydro in California in general has a very a limited resource potential left to be developed and lots of stakeholder concerns to be addressed in each case, so while he is hopeful, he is not predicting any great increases.
Prediction Number 3 - US Offshore Wind – We will not see much from offshore wind in California, as the limitations both from physical layout of shoreline as well as policy and consumer concerns.
We then switched to what the industry challenges are. Stuart nailed two big ones, transmission and interconnection.
He believes that transmission is getting even more challenging than last time we spoke. What’s interesting to Stuart is that most people agree and are in support of renewables in California, but very few people support the way that the goals need to be attained, ie, significantly increase transmission infrastructure. There tends to be lots of local opposition, or federal agencies that aren’t always in support of particular local goals. This makes sense, as transmission by its nature always touches a lot of different land and communities in its path, meaning lots of different stakeholders need to be involved.
Interconnection queue bottlenecks are the real next challenge in California and in the Midwest according to Stuart. This is a challenge that is addressable and there are proposals into FERC to do so. But currently it is a first come first serve system, and easy to get into the queue. Getting in the queue starts a study process based on FERC rules, including a feasibility study, then a system impact study and a facility study. The bottleneck arises because according to the current rules, if your facility is further back in the queue, your studies assume that the facilities ahead of you are up and running, but if at any point in time someone ahead of you drops out, your studies need to be effectively redone. Because it is relatively easy to get into the queue, nonviable projects that do not end up coming online as planned have been upsetting the applecart, causing all the projects behind them to go back to the drawing board as far as the study process is concerned. Since 2002, we’ve seen a steep ramp up to a level that is just unmanageable given that dynamic. CAL ISO has a proposal in with FERC to change this, so Stuart believes a solution is coming, just not here yet.
As usual, SoCal Edison is pushing forward aggressively on renewables, and we were excited to see the new solicitation and changes they are making. As we have said before, let’s just get it done.
What is it? Eco Touch Waterless Car Care is a waterless car wash made with water, plant-derived surfactants (coconut and soy), a water-based polymer, and a soy-based solvent.It simply requires you to spray and wipe with a microfiber towel.One 22-oz. bottle should allow you to wash your car 4 to 8 times.
Why is it better? I first came across Eco Touch at the San FranciscoGreen Festival in 2007.The founders were there and they had just come out with a waterless car wash.I picked up a bottle and have been using it ever since.It works very well on the every day wear and tear.
According to Eco Touch, the typical driveway carwash uses 100 gallons of water.That means each bottle of Waterless Car Care could save up to 800 gallons of potable water.That’s a lot of water that doesn’t need to go down the drain.Beyond that, Eco Touch is non-toxic, biodegradable, and phosphate-free.In December 2007, Eco Touch was approved as a certified green business by Co-op America.
Feb 26, 2008 The First Comprehensive Green Car Care Line is Introduced by Eco Touch
Portsmouth, New Hampshire—Eco Touch, a Portsmouth, New Hampshire based manufacturer of environmentally friendly car cleaning products is pleased to announce the national release of its comprehensive line of green car care products including Waterless Car Wash, Dash + Trim Protectant, Metal + Chrome Polish and Carpet + Upholstery Cleaner. For the first time a car can be effectively cleaned and detailed without using harmful, petroleum-based products.
Eco Touch’s Waterless Car Wash features an all-natural water-based formula with high concentrations of organic soaps and plant-based surfactants which break down surface grime. Its naturally derived polymers leave a protective layer that acts similar to a carnauba wax and gives that new-car shine. The application is simple: spray on, wipe off. No water required. Eco Touch is safe for the user and the environment. And it takes less time and less effort than a traditional car wash.
"The real challenge is changing people’s mindset", said Eco Touch Co-Founder and Director of Sales Anne Ruozzi. "From the first Ford ever driven, water was essential to cleaning a car. Once people see the Eco Touch results, it opens their eyes to a whole new experience. Eco Touch is more than just a great option to saving our natural resources, it’s an innovative way to clean and protect a car's finish with outstanding results.”
I have long had a respect for GE (NYSE:GE), and how it runs its business. In cleantech, I am very, very jealous. They have made themselves into the company to beat. Whether by plan, luck, or simply applying sound business discipline, GE has made itself into a top 3 global cleantech player no matter happens. And they did it for a fraction of the price, and a lot less risk than anyone in Silicon Valley or the energy sector. Venture capitalists beware, in cleantech, the behemoths have beat you to the punch, have done it cheaper, faster, and with more grit than you realize.
5 step Cleantech Program by GE
Wind - In 2002, GE bought Enron Wind out of Enron's bankruptcy for about $300 mm, making GE one of the top 5 wind players overnight (it's now well in excess of a billion in revenue). It was their first cleantech steal, right before the wind industry got amazingly tight (and huge).
Power - In 2003, GE acquired one of the leading gas engine manufacturers in Jenbacher, making GE an overnight leader in small, clean power systems, and powering their way into everything from distributed generation to landfill gas markets.
Solar - In 2004, just before the solar boom, GE acquired Astropower, one of the top 5 solar energy companies in the US, for less than $20 million out of bankrupcty, after the company was delisted following accounting irregularities. You cannot even build a single solar manufacturing line for $20 mm. Only the subsequent silicon supply shortages, and a lack of the needed investment in the business and next generation technology kept GE from making a homerun out of it. But despite that, there will never be another steal in solar quite like this.
Water - In 2005, GE acquired one of the largest water technology businesses in the US, Ionics, to complement its previous acqusitions in the water sector. Paying a full price of $1.1 Billion, it virtually guaranteed GE a top 5 position in the reverse osmosis, desalination, and water purification markets going forwrad, right after Ionics was shored up through a merger with Ecolochem.
Ecomagination Brand - Then on the back of these deals, in 2005 GE launched its Ecomagination initiative, and anchored the entire company's image around its new cleantech empire.
That, my friends, is the way you make money in cleantech venture capital. I would venture to guess that GE has made 10x its money, no matter how you spin it. Or put another way, an IPO of the GE cleantech business would be the hottest thing in years.
Over the weekend, Virgin Atlantic Airways flew a passenger-less Boeing 747-400 partially fueled by a biofuel mixture of coconut oil and babassu oil from London's Heathrow Airport to Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport. (Read USA Today story.)
The test flight, performed to evaluate comparative engine performance and emissions rates with standard jet fuel and biofuel mixtures, was conducted by Virgin along with partners Boeing (NYSE: BA), the engine-maker General Electric (NYSE: GE), and the biofuel company Imperium Renewables.
No matter how the results of the experiment pan out, and no matter your personal view on the fundmental utility of biofuels, this is yet another example of how a passionate entrepreneur -- albeit one with billions of dollars on his personal balance sheet like Richard Branson -- is exploring the cleantech frontiers of what is possible, what is economical, what is environmentally-beneficial.
Can We Actually Reduce Energy Usage without Hurting GDP?
I was thinking today, in cleantech we often talk a lot about energy efficiency. Californians often cite that this state has grown its economy for the last 20 years without a significant increase in energy usage per capita, compared to the rest of the country, where GDP per capita goes up, and energy usage goes up just as much. But of course, California has lost much of its manufacturing sector over that same 20 year period, too. Perhaps no coincidence?
But if we wanted to actually do it, where could we actually save energy without impacting GDP growth, make a serious difference in our power bill, and do it in a big way - targeting say, 50% of our total power usage on a per capita basis?
CFLs & LEDs - We are already moving aggressively towards compact flourescent light bulbs, and the penetration rates are still low. As that trend continues, and LEDs come into the mix for more and more applications, our lighting bills should trend straight downward for the next decade. Now if we can just stop cringing at the thought of a $3 lightbulb!
Heating and Air Conditioning - I know whenever my power bill goes higher than I like, I just watch how often I turn the heater on, and adjust the thermoset a bit. The answer here has always been some combination of improved technology, smart metering and more transparency in billing and usage, and energy prices rising high enough for consumers to feel the pinch. Oh, and did I mention insulation, California?
Hotwater heaters - Can anybody say, "tankless"?
Power generation -If every power plant was upgraded to the latest generation of technology - in the power generation world - newer tends to equal more efficient all else being equal - the impact could be staggering. But bottom line, this means our regulators would have to approve the increase in utility capital expenditures and pass those costs on through to us in the short term. That's about as likely as George W announcing a plan to tax every SUV Detroit makes and give the money to the poor to buy solar systems.
Solar - As for solar - which is typically sold on a "reduce your energy bill" pitch, not a chance. At $0.15 to $1.00/kwh (depending on who's counting and how they count), if we actually reduced a significant amount of our building load with solar power we'd likely send our GDP plummeting. There are lots of reasons to love solar, but decreasing energy usage per unit of GDP is not one of them. At least, not yet.
These aren't new ideas. But definitely worth repeating until we learn the lesson.
Prof. Maniates gets right to the heart of one of the things that bothers me about what I hear from some of the more ardent proponents of the cleantech movement: the unexpressed sense that saving the world can be easily accomplished with a few minor changes in behavior, and that technological advancements will be coming to save the day at little incremental cost to all of us.
His punchline: "Never has so little been asked of so many at such a critical moment."
I hope we're wrong, but Prof. Maniates and I both believe that, if we're going to seriously address our energy and environmental challenges, we're going to be exposed to major economic and behavioral sacrifice, relative to our current standards of living. I don't see how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from present levels without a fundamental shift in how we do things at every level of existence.
This takes courage and determination. As Prof. Maniates exposes, what we get instead from politicians, the media and (yes) many advocates is a mixture of hyperbole and half-truths that serve to relax the masses.
In a conversation I had about a year ago with David Orr, one of the true pioneers in environmental thinking at Oberlin College, I said to him that we all needed to create and broadcast a story about energy and environment in the U.S. that clearly induces urgency to action without inspiring panic and depression. I know that I haven't been able to craft such a well-balanced story. Has anyone out there?
Most Americans now agree that something needs to be done to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Hopefully most Americans now appreciate that this is not a small, but even more so, not a simple problem. I am a big believer that the playing field for our low carbon future should start level, and the market should be structured to allow our major power and energy companies a chance to lead the way, instead of simply dishing out punishment for our combined historical choices. Carrots and sticks work well together, but sticks alone are not going to solve our global carbon problem. I think it is also important to ensure that our carbon legislation does not result in a higher cost to consumers in middle America, just because the MidWest happens to have been historically coal fired, than the cost to those of us living on the coasts. Jim Rogers of Duke Energy puts this much more eloquently than I do.
Duke Energy (NYSE:DUK), one of the largest power companies in the US, has been a long supporter of energy efficiency, and known for being forward looking when it comes to a low carbon future, smart metering, and advanced energy technologies, despite having a generation fleet that is 70% coal fired. Cleantech Blog is delighted to welcome Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, to give us his thoughts on the devil in the details from their perspective. It is heartening to see a major power company take on the carbon issue full force, and like Duke has done, push energy efficiency in a big way.
By Jim Rogers Chairman, President and CEO of Duke Energy
As we debate our differences on how to address the challenge of global climate change, surely we can agree on the end-goal – a secure, sustainable and affordable supply of energy now, and for future generations.
Most Americans also agree that we must act now – and begin building a bridge to an energy-efficient, low-carbon economy.
As the third-largest coal consumer in the United States, and one of the largest greenhouse-gas emitters, Duke Energy has a responsibility to be part of the solution. That means looking at not only how climate change affects our business today, but also the implications for the future.
We support federal legislation to address global climate change by putting a cap-and-trade system in place. The U.S. Senate is in the process of vetting a cap-and-trade bill introduced by Senators Lieberman and Warner in October. This bill is well-intended, contains some good points and appears to have bipartisan support.
But on closer examination, questions arise. Who really stands to gain, and who stands to lose? What are the real costs to average Americans?
You would expect the bridge to a low-carbon economy to have a cost, just as you might pay a toll to cross any bridge. But should some of us have to pay twice? With the Lieberman/Warner approach, that’s exactly what would happen.
Lieberman/Warner proposes to auction a large number of emissions allowances to the highest bidder. In effect, an auction becomes a carbon tax, levied on consumers in the 25 states that depend on coal for electric power – primarily the Midwest, the Great Plains and the Southeast.
Electric power customers in those regions would have to pay for the auctioned allowances up front, and then pay again later to upgrade power plants, or build new ones, as carbon-control technologies become available.
A better approach is to allocate allowances at no cost to generators who emit greenhouse gases – and reduce the number of allowances over time, while new carbon-control technologies are being developed and put in place.
Some say that an auction is the only way to take action to reduce emissions, but history tells us otherwise. Allowances were not auctioned under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments; nearly 97 percent of them were allocated at no cost. Since then, new technologies to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have been developed and implemented. Those environmental controls have reduced emissions by more than 40 percent since 1990, and they continue to decrease, without dramatic rate hikes. In fact, the nation’s average electric rates have declined.
In contrast, some estimates put the Lieberman/Warner bill’s cost to the average family at more than $1,000 per year, while emissions traders would stand to profit greatly from a volatile market for carbon allowances. According to Bloomberg, the Lieberman/Warner bill would create a potential $300 billion annual carbon-trading market by 2020.
So the question comes down to this – are we interested in protecting consumers or enriching emissions traders?
Customers who live in the Midwest, the Great Plains and the Southeast did not choose to get a large portion of their electricity from coal – it was a matter of economics, geography and geology. They should not be punished for decisions made decades ago, in good faith, using the best and lowest-cost technology of the time, with regulatory approval – and long before anyone knew about the impact of carbon emissions on climate change.
And before we dismiss coal as a viable energy source for the future, consider this: The U.S. is sitting on more than 250 years of coal reserves, more than any other nation in the world. This rich natural resource has untapped potential for ensuring our country’s energy security. The challenge is primarily technological – to find smarter and cleaner ways to use it, such as carbon capture and storage. Until those technologies are available, we must continue to use our existing coal resources and protect the interests of consumers who rely on coal.
The goal for carbon legislation should not be to punish utilities for building coal plants to keep the lights on in the past. It should be to create the incentives to put new clean technologies in place for the future – not just clean coal, but also nuclear and renewable energy, natural gas and the “fifth fuel” – energy efficiency.
Under the Lieberman/Warner approach, electric power customers in half of our states will carry a disproportionate share of the burden. We need to pass climate legislation that is fair to all consumers and protects the economic interests of all states and regions. Our climate is at stake, and so is our economy. By allocating most allowances, following the precedent set by the successful Clean Air Act, we believe both can be protected.
Jim Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy, writing as a guest columnist on Cleantech Blog.
A recent study shows that damming the Red Sea could provide 50 GW of emissions free hydroelectric power. This would be the largest power plant in the world. However, tens of thousands of people would have to be displaced, not to mention untold ecological damage.
Hank Green at EcoGeek writes about how this would politically impact the Middle East:
"The project would provide enough power to switch off oil-burning power plants throughout the Middle East. Political scientists are already estimating the stability such a project would bring to the region."
Sustainable Leadership
Sustainability is now becoming a buzzword just like eco and environmental. But what does it take at the corporate level to promote sustainable practices?
A recent report from Avastone Consulting examined what types of leadership and organization structure was needed to carry out such changes.
"Their study found that it isn't a lack of systems and activities that limit a company's success, but rather the scarcity of what it calls "higher capacity leaders" and the direct relationship between leader mindset development and the realization of complex sustainability outcomes."
Baking Soda Solution
Jim Fraser at the Energy Blog writes about this simple but promising process:
"Sodium hydroxide, which is produced on site as a part of the SkyMine™ process is used to react with the CO2 to produce the sodium carbonate. The heat to drive the process is captured from the heat in the flue gas."
For a 500 MW power plant, that amounts to 642,000 tons of emissions reduced each year.
Frank Ling is a postdoctoral fellow at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at UC Berkeley. He is also a producer of the Berkeley Groks Science Show.
I had a chance to visit with the founders of a new San Francisco Bay Area cleantech startup called barefoot motors, which is building an all electric ATV. I think is a great idea for an untapped electric vehicle product. Think about it, of all the potential electric vehicles out there ? ATVs suck down a comparably large amount gasoline a lot of gasoline per mile and are used primarily for short range transport (range is a longtime achilles heel of electric vehicles). And riders have a serious problem with the noise and the noxious exhaust fumes. Add to that the fact that ATV riders want a combination between acceleration and power that electric drive systems are particularly good at doing, and you should be able to get a really great product from an electric all terrain vehicle. According to barefoot, Jamie Hyneman of Mythbusters fame agrees. He had a big hand in the prototype.
I have followed the barefoot story for some time, but this week one of the cofounders, Melissa Brandao who was formerly with the electric vehicle company Zap, spared a few minutes on the record to give Cleantech Blog the rundown.
So Melissa, give us the story.
barefoot motors is proud to be the first company to offer Earth Utility Vehicles. Our first vehicle is called the Model One, it's an all electric, heavy duty ATV for primarily agricultural and industrial applications. It has all the power and speed of a conventional heavy duty ATV with the added benefits of being eco-friendly lower cost of ownership driven by fuel savings, quieter and more comfortable to ride, along with those expected perks like rebates and other incentives that are likely to be instituted in the coming years to help reduce air quality issues faster. As far as air quality goes, replacing ONE conventional ATV with the Model One is like taking FOUR cars off the road. There are 1.6 million of these ATVs running around California. But because they are not in plain site they are often overlooked and forgotten by all of those that do not encounter them regularly. ATVs, unlike cars, are not highly regulated, and it will take years to change that.
Why Electric ATVs? What is better about them than electric cars?
Electric ATVs are not better than EVs they're just different, as off-road vehicles are different than on-road vehicles. The premise at barefoot was to build a comparable vehicle to the heavy duty ATVs that were currently available knowing that the one area that we would have to address is range. What we discovered is that the principal application for our vehicle did not require an 80 mile range to fit their needs. They simply need a good, reliable, heavy duty work horse that will work around their property throughout the day. That is the Model One's sweet spot.
What exactly is your Electric ATV going to look like?
That is under discussion as we speak but fundamentally it will look like an ATV with some design changes based on innovation as well as the distribution of weight and space, in essence there's less stuff on the Model One so there is more space to work with.
Melissa, you told me Jamie Hyneman of Mythbusters fame had a big hand in the prototype?
Yes, I met him at Maker Faire two years back and we have stayed in touch since then. When I introduced him to the idea of collaborating with barefoot motors, a green utility vehicle company, he was keenly interested for two reasons. One, he has been an advocate of alternative fueled vehicles for a long time. He even rides an electric bicycle back and forth to work. Two, Jamie was raised on a farm and he rode his grandfather's 3 wheel ATV on the property, so he understands the importance of a good utility vehicle for agriculture. In essence, this project hit home. As a prototype builder Jamie can create elegant solutions that are simple and functional, he is the holder of several patents and he has a deep knowledge of electronics, robotics and rapid development. In building the Model One, Jamie has been the driver behind the choice of technologies and packaging. He has kept us focused on that same principle of simple but elegant design. The proof of concept, Model One, achieves our initial performance requirements, in fact, it has exceeded expectations and it's so fun to ride, as you can see from the video of Jamie riding it. When are we going to get you on it?? (Soon Melissa, very soon).
Will it have more or less pulling power than a conventional one?
In towing capacity we can handle 1,000 lbs. That is our baseline performance which is on par with a conventional heavy duty ATV.
What about range?
Our prototype is getting about 30 to 40 miles on a charge. The BIG difference when you talk range is that an ATV encounters many variations in the off road terrain, mud, sand, gravel, dirt, steeper slopes which can skew the range figures more than it would on a standard car that drives almost entirely on asphalt.
Is there a list I can get on to buy one?
First, check out the video clip. Then yes, please contact melissab@barefootmotors.com if you are interested in purchasing one, we are building about 150 next year. We are asking for deposits of roughly 10 percent which we will apply to the price of the vehicle. It is fully refundable at any time.
Are your battery needs much different than from cars?
Our choice is lithium ion batteries we feel the density and efficiency you gain is significant enough that it only makes sense in this application.
Are we going to have a naming contest for your Electric ATV? Do we need a new acronym? EATV sounds dull. How about Electric Warthog?
Sorry, we got the name already, but I like the idea of customer interaction so you will see some clever ideas from barefoot in the coming months!
Thanks Melissa, great story. And we will put them video clip of the electric ATV up on the blog as well.
Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is founding contributor of Cleantech Blog and a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks.
With global warming and rising prices of energy on the minds of Americans, the presidential candidates have undoubtedly begun to think about energy policy for their platforms.
"The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has published a comparison of the energy policy positions of the 2008 presidential candidates, which range from environmentally responsible to business-as-usual."
Pacific Ethanol Stumbles
Ethanol may be hot but there have been and continue to be many reasons why it is overblown.
When Pacific Ethanol became public, there was widespread interest because Bill Gates had invested in it. Lately, stock prices for the company have hit a new low.
"Ethanol prices have fallen as supplies expanded faster than demand. At the same time, prices for ethanol's main feedstock, corn, rose dramatically, further hurting profit margins."
He also adds why ethanol in California is fundamentally flawed:
"There is a reason that California is not a hotbed of ethanol activity, despite the fact that Californians consume ethanol. It’s too far from the corn, so it is more cost effective to ship in finished ethanol."
What were they drinking? :)
Green Penguin
The debate among mainstream computer users is usually Mac or PC, but the time for Linux to gain consumer acceptance may be on the horizon.
Walmart is now offering $200 computer systems based on Unix.
"The Everex machine, which runs on a power-sipping Via 1.5 Ghz processor, is the first Ubuntu machine to be sold by any major retailer. It's strange that Wal-Mart was the pioneer here, but their constant search for lower prices meshes well with the freeness of Linux."
Apparently the lower end version of the system is ultra efficient because it does not hog all the resources.
Has anyone seen a green penguin? :)
Frank Ling is a postdoctoral fellow at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at UC Berkeley. He is also a producer of the Berkeley Groks Science Show.
The basement in my 1880 house is a combination of ledge and dirt floor. In the 24' by 34' footprint, where once there was a brick cistern, there is now a heating oil tank. The copper plumbing undulated, making repairs expensive. I've had the copper replaced with a clean, organized PEX system with individual hot and cold shut offs for each facility. Previous owners had installed a horizontal furnace with a maze of leaky ducts; these metal tubes commanded most of the remaining subterranean real estate. I ripped out the furnace and the ducts and patched the holes in the floor from the supplies and returns (but there remains lots of carpentry repair on the first floor pine and maple floors). Cleaned up, the basement was ready for air sealant and vapor barrier. (Air infiltration and moisture contribute to heat loss.) Whatever cash was left in the "renovation pot" (not much) would go to this measure before the Monitor and fuel pump still sitting in their boxes would be installed. Closed cell foam is more expensive than alternatives like fiberglass batts, but batts can't begin to perform like foam: not in blocking air infiltration, not in creating a clean result. Charlie Huntington of I&S Insulation says that foam is growing ever more popular in his business. This week, Charlie's crew laid down a clean mat of 60mil EPDM (rubber). I tend to get joyful fulfillment from neatness...and the prospect of a warmer house; this was no exception. Not only will the closed cell foam block air infiltration, but it will provide an R value of 6-7 per inch. We were going with three inches. With a shop vac, I sucked debris and cobwebs from the tops of the rock foundation and the above-ground brick. The installers suited up in full body protective gear (no, this isn't a low-VOC material). They waited for the liquid to reach the right temperature and began to spray a clean, flat coat of foam on the brick down to the rock foundation and up into the rim joists. They foamed along the perimeter of the EPDM, sealing off the ground from the rest of the house. They foamed around all projections like the chimneys and supports. The new basement is an incredible transformation from where it began eight months ago. A picture of a very similar install is on the I&S Insulation website.
Other Goings on This Week The vote is in this morning: the proposed IGCC coal plant in Wiscasset, Maine has been defeated. As it should be. The "Say No to Coal" campaign was swift and loud. (Google, lobstermen protest wiscasset coal). Nothing added up on this project: not the shipping of coal, not the finances of the developer, not the claims to emissions reductions or access to water or sequestration of carbon. Its one upside: reduced taxes for Wiscasset residents for a plant located on the town's periphery, at the site of a the defunct Maine Yankee nuclear plant, nearer Westport Island...and not Wiscasset which claims the title, "Maine's Prettiest Village."
Heather Rae, contributor to cleantechblog.com, manages a 'whole house' home performance program in Maine and serves on the board of Maine Interfaith Power & Light. In 2006, she built a biobus and drove it from Colorado to Maine. In 2007, she began renovation of an 1880 farmhouse using building science and green building principles.
(by John Addison) GM revealed more details about Project Driveway. GM will place 110 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles in the hands of five different types of drivers for three months to 30 months of daily driving.
Most drivers that GM will select will live in California within ten miles of one of the 25 hydrogen stations that stretch 800 miles from Chula Vista, near Mexico, to Arcata, near Oregon. Other drivers will be near stations in New York and Washington, D.C.
The Equinox Fuel Cell will typically deliver a range of 160 miles between hydrogen fueling, but only by using higher pressure 700 bar. To accelerate the presence of higher pressure stations with public access, GM is spending millions to establish nine temporary 700 bar stations from Burbank to San Diego.
The Equinox Fuel Cell uses 35 kW of NiMH batteries in a mild-hybrid configuration. In its next generation fuel cell vehicle, GM could achieve a range exceeding 300 miles by reducing vehicle weight, having a more battery-dominate full-hybrid design such as E-Flex, using its fifth generation fuel cell, and by switching to lithium batteries.
A number of existing California hydrogen stations use zero-emission hydrogen production by using electrolysis powered by renewable energy, such as solar. Next year, pipelined byproduct hydrogen will be available at a Torrance station for less than the cost of gasoline.
In California, the number of hydrogen vehicles from all makers on the road is likely to double from over 150 today to over 300 in 2008, with GM leading the way.
(by John Addison) GM revealed more details about Project Driveway. GM will place 110 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles in the hands of five different types of drivers for three months to 30 months of daily driving.
Most drivers that GM will select will live in California within ten miles of one of the 25 hydrogen stations that stretch 800 miles from Chula Vista, near Mexico, to Arcata, near Oregon. Other drivers will be near stations in New York and Washington, D.C.
The Equinox Fuel Cell will typically deliver a range of 160 miles between hydrogen fueling, but only by using higher pressure 700 bar. To accelerate the presence of higher pressure stations with public access, GM is spending millions to establish nine temporary 700 bar stations from Burbank to San Diego.
The Equinox Fuel Cell uses 35 kW of NiMH batteries in a mild-hybrid configuration. In its next generation fuel cell vehicle, GM could achieve a range exceeding 300 miles by reducing vehicle weight, having a more battery-dominate full-hybrid design such as E-Flex, using its fifth generation fuel cell, and by switching to lithium batteries.
A number of existing California hydrogen stations use zero-emission hydrogen production by using electrolysis powered by renewable energy, such as solar. Next year, pipelined byproduct hydrogen will be available at a Torrance station for less than the cost of gasoline.
In California, the number of hydrogen vehicles from all makers on the road is likely to double from over 150 today to over 300 in 2008, with GM leading the way.
Just when we think that there is a shortage in crystalline silicon for solar panels, Big Blue is coming to the rescue. IBM has developed a method to recycle silicon wafers from the computer chip industry.
"The new process uses a specialized pattern removal technique to repurpose scrap semiconductor wafers to a form used to manufacture silicon-based solar panels."
The Greening of NBC
It looks like the peacock is going green. Does this mean NBC is going to lose its rainbow colored logo?
Not exactly. This week, programs on the network will feature green themes in everything from sports to news to soaps (green weddings are going mainstream!). And is this just publicity campaign or the beginning of an ongoing process?
Joel Makower thinks consumers actually want this stuff. He quotes Zalanick who heads NBC's Green Council in Two Steps Forward:
"We heard loud and clear that there was a very high expectation that consumers have about companies. Over two-thirds believe that businesses have some responsibility for the social good. That's a lot. "
Does the Incredible Hulk count as green? :)
Home Wind
Most of us think that wind can only come away from enormous turbines installed in some windy remote area but installing them at home has become easier.
Small 10 to 100 W systems for residences have been around but they have not been practical reasons including height requirements, reliability and noise. But a home-based system developed by HelixWind aims to change that.
"First, the turbine spins no matter what direction the wind comes from (including vertically) so it can be mounted lower, and generates more energy in turbulent (urban) environments. The turbine can be mounted lower, so installation costs will be lower, and regulations less significant."
This really blows! :)
Frank Ling is a postdoctoral fellow at the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at UC Berkeley. He is also a producer of the Berkeley Groks Science Show.
The last sips of the French merlot finished dry, and the just uncorked Italian sangiovese began too chocolatey, so I looked -- left and right in the empty kitchen -- and blended the two together in a wine glass. I have been taught that this is not done; oenephiles may shudder. And, it was delicious.
Speaking at a podium before a gathering of enviros about faith and spirituality and religion presented a similarly ingrained reservation; it’s just not done. The blending of climate change science and the inspiration to do something about it that comes from the heart, from the soul and scripture, I feared, could lead to dismissal from the environmentally-, scientifically-leaning audience: she’s an ignoramus, a dreamer.
Beside me on this panel to talk of the climate change movement (and to answer the question, is there a movement?) were Jared Duval a youth Energy Action Coalition leader and David Foley, an architect of high performance homes. Jared and David went before me and gave energetic, inspiring and educational presentations; I yearned to give in to my dread of public speaking and slink off stage…but journeyed on. We each touched upon values while addressing climate change, broken political systems, the building trades, a new order for organizational cooperation, clean technologies, the future and history.
Like wine, faith perspectives are varied and numerous. At a talk I gave to a senior’s group at a UCC Congregationalist church in Colorado (it could have been called, “An Inconvenient Truth Lite,”) the most vocal response came from a handful of self-described human secularists who shrugged and responded, in short: whatever. The collective shrug took me by surprise, coming from a gathering of "the faithful." It’s a little less surprising from the likes of “bright green environmentalism.”
On the website “What is Enlightenment,” integral ecologist Michael Zimmerman speaks about “bright green, a transformative approach to environmentalism that offers a fuller and more hopeful way to respond to the global ecological challenges we face.” Says Zimmerman, “I acknowledge a forward-thinking visionary attitude: Look, we have to remake the world. We have twenty, thirty years to do the job, and we have to do it in a way that is going to appeal to the glamour in people; and moral condemnation and blaming, it’s not effective. So, in a way, you have to find a way to harness people’s energy, to harness people’s hopes for the future, for themselves, for their families, their countries and the planet and to provide them with the tools, concepts and insights necessary to really bring about any credible transformation of how we make a living on the planet, basically. That allows the planet to prosper in terms of its ecosystems as well as human beings who are dependent on it. So all that’s terrific. So if that’s bright green, then I’m on board.”
There’s a human secularist shrug within the “bright green” movement, however. Zimmerman speaks of the loss of connection with tradition and spiritual awakening, an element affiliated with the “bright green” movement.” He goes on to say, “Once you have reached a modernist kind of development, there’s a kind of secular humanist where humanity is its own kind of trip.”
When Zimmerman says, “we ought to also be working with spiritual development along with technologies -- in ways that are developed morally, aesthetically,” then I, too, am on board. It can be a delicious blend.
Heather Rae, a contributor to cleantechblog.com, manages a 'whole house' home performance program in Maine and serves on the board of Maine Interfaith Power & Light. In 2006, she built a biobus and drove it from Colorado to Maine. In 2007, she begins renovation of an 1880 farmhouse using building science and green building principles.
I have mentioned my friend Justin Label, one of the partners at Bessemer Ventures, before. Among other things he writes the Venture Again Blog. Bessemer is a highly respected old line Silicon Valley venture capital firm. They have been an active investor in cleantech for a while, and are backers of Miasole as well as SV Solar. I found myself on a plane recently with one his colleagues, Ted Lin. But more than their investments, Ted was describing to me a new carbon friendly initiative that Bessemer itself is undertaking internally.
Their logic is simple, if they are investing in cleantech because they believe in being part of the global warming solution, not only making money, then they should practice what they preach. While still early days, they are targeting both their power and travel usage, and expect they will likely implement an internal reduction plan as well as purchasing offsets.
I asked Ted where this came from, and he said this initiative has come down from the top of the firm. It makes sense, and it is good to see the activity happening. My hat is off to them.
Ted also pointed out that Bessemer is also going to be buying offsets for their smaller portfolio companies (those under 50 people). "The goal is that when these companies grow into bigger companies and leave the nest, they will continue the tradition. We want them (our portfolio companies) to lead the next generation environmentally responsible enterprises."
One of the things he did ask, did I know any good offset providers, because as with any venture capitalist, they are looking for the "best of breed". So if you are interested in helping Bessemer email Ted at Ted@bvp.com.
Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, and a blogger for CNET's Green tech blog.
