Posts

Goin’ Nucular

/2 Comments/in /by

by Richard T. Stuebi

It was pouring rain last Wednesday morning, as I entered an office building near Cleveland Hopkins Airport to attend a meeting convened by Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) to discuss the future of nuclear energy.

Unlike many of his peers, Senator Voinovich appears to take the issue of climate change seriously. Also unlike many of his peers, he sees an increasing reliance on nuclear energy as essential in meeting the energy and environmental challenges of the future.

The keynote speakers of this 90-minute meeting were Dennis Spurgeon (Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, DOE), Dr. Peter Lyons (Commissioner, NRC) and Adrian Heymer (Sr. Director of New Plant Development, Nuclear Energy Institute). In attendance were representatives of Ohio-based utilities with nuclear fleets AEP (NYSE: AEP) and FirstEnergy (NYSE: FE), as well as major suppliers to the nuclear industry such as locally-based Babcock & Wilcox.

The basic message from the speakers was simple: a lot of nuclear plants must be built in the coming decades, and the U.S. urgently needs to take steps to get out of the way to enable the development of these new plants. The speakers outlined the activities required to revive the industry to bring about this nuclear “renaissance”: Federal loan guarantees (at 100% of debt requirements, not 90%) for new nuclear plants, opening of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage facility, increased training and workforce development to replace retiring nuclear engineers, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), etc.

And, the speakers couldn’t reiterate enough how safety was the paramount concern. This is truly an amazing technology if everyone has to emphasize how steps will be taken to ensure disasters don’t occur. (I am reminded to recall tour of the Clinton nuclear plant in Illinois in the early 1990’s, at which point about 200 of the 1100 site employees — almost 20% of staffing! — were dedicated to security, preventing people from doing the wrong things. I can’t think of another technology that requires so many band-aids to mitigate perverse effects. Hard to imagine any private investor wanting a piece of that cost structure.)

In the open discussion that followed the speakers’ remarks, I had the temerity to question the wisdom of furthering our bet on the uranium-fission cycle as the basic technological platform for nuclear power production in the future.

While I admitted that the current nuclear fleet was an important contributor to the energy mix that we can’t afford to prematurely retire, and I conceded that some new nuclear plants of more-or-less conventional technologies may be necessary as a stop-gap measure for a few years, I also submitted that other fission cycles — certainly including thorium, maybe others as well — ought to be explored much more thoroughly, so as to create the possibility of a new and much better generation of nuclear plants offering more than just incremental improvements.

This is because, in my view, uranium fission suffers from three unavoidable pitfalls:

1. Uranium supplies are hardly infinite themselves, and have a significant concentration in places like Russia that we ought to prefer NOT to rely upon for precious commodities.

2. Uranium fission creates sizable quantities of transuranic wastes of extreme toxicity and half-lives measured in the thousands of years.

3. Uranium fission makes for excellent bombs — not only nuclear explosions, but also dirty residues — that would be highly prized by terrorists and other ne’er-do-wells.

I’ve been told by credible sources that fission from thorium essentially obviates each of these fundamental challenges. Relative to uranium, there are orders of magnitude more thorium in the earth’s crust, and it is widely distributed. Thorium fission produces wastes with much lower toxicity and much shorter half-lives (a few hundred years), in much lower quantities to boot. And, thorium doesn’t have a positive gradient that facilitates run-away fission that leads to explosions. These all sound like attractive attributes to me, worthy of a lot more exploration.

Alas, the nuclear experts at the meeting pooh-poohed thorium and defended uranium. They said that never had any uranium been used by bad guys to make a bomb. (You mean, Yet?) They said that the GNEP would create an effective international pact to prevent nuclear materials from getting into the hands of enemies. (Oh, really?) They said that there was plenty of uranium for the next generation of nuclear plants. (And then what?) They said that the GNEP would dramatically reduce the amount of long-lived nuclear wastes from future uranium fission facilities. (For tens of billions of dollars — what a bargain!)

Ultimately, I was not reassured by the views of the uranium fission advocates. To paraphrase Shakespeare, they doth defend too much. And, note that the nuclear industry is the not-so-pretty offspring of the military-industrial-Oedipal complex of the 1950’s.

It is hard to think of a less-credible set of proponents than those who carry the combined DNA of the defense and electric utility sectors, niether of which is particularly famous for a commitment to the truth in the light of established facts. Their mantra has often been: “Trust us.” I’m typically not paranoid, but in this case, I am very skeptical indeed.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

The love and hate relationship with platform technologies

/1 Comment/in /by

by Nick Bruse

One of the terms that is used to describe companies every so often is the word “platform technology”. Companies who have been labelled as “platform technology” companies invariably fall into two camps. Those which all the investment community easily understand the technology and it has applications that they all can visualise – and hence they want to throw money at. Secondly those that they don’t really get the potentially for the applications and brand as “complicated” or “no clear business model” or “Not focused”

Recently I interviewed David Forder from TAG Technology, which is a platform technology company. Their product, or their additive ( an often even scarier term for investors) has applications in over 25markets that they have identified so far. Now its been several years to get their product to the stage at which it is now, and David tells me has taken some committed Investors who have stuck with them for the long run. But it hasn’t been a case of money being thrown at them… but now they are getting some attention.

The interesting thing about Thermally Active Granules (TAG) technology is that when applied to buildings in the form of a paint additive can reduce the heat flow by 15% which results in up to 7 degrees warmer/cooler. You can apply it on the outside of the building to keep it cool, or paint it on the inside to keep it warm. Oh and it can be added to windows also to reduce heat flow.

It can be impregnated into candy bar wrappers or food packaging and reduce refrigeration costs, and can even be added into fast food packaging to keep your fries hotter and your soda cooler.

The other neat thing is when applied to power lines in the form a clear coating it can reduce the line temperature by 25% or from 100C down 75degree. This in turn reduces the resistance, in turn reducing the power losses form the line by 10% or more.

It really starts to sound interesting doesn’t it? We’ll I heartily commend David and his Team on this platform technology – and for sticking with it. This is one platform technology we should be thankful for someone having the innovation to produce. If you would like to hear more from David about the technology you can tune into the interview on The Cleantech Show here.

If anyone has any other Cleantech Platform Technologies they would like to commend – please shoot us some comments.

Nick Bruse runs Strike Consulting, a growth venture consultancy specialising in the cleantech sector and hosts the cleantech show, a weekly podcast of interviews with leaders involved in clean technology research, entrepreneurship, commentary and investment.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Payback

/2 Comments/in /by

by Heather Rae
for cleantechblog.com

A $517.47 invoice for the installation of a rented 120 gallon propane tank arrived with disturbing alacrity. The service person had done an excellent job digging a trench, drilling the hole through the house wall, installing the (unobtrusively brown) regulator, connecting the gas line to the new on-demand water heater and explaining the multiple shut-off valves. For this stellar install, I am appreciative (whopper bill aside). The propane tank invoice trailed the $999 cost of the water heater itself. The cost of labor to install the latter is a bit murky, since “the guys” (The Balsam Group) did the install in stages, coordinating it with the replacement of all the copper plumbing with PEX.

There is no way I will ever see payback for replacing an old, leaky electric water heater tank with this on-demand system, no matter how energy efficient the new system. I’ve run the numbers through building modeling software. It won’t happen, no matter how much I play with the future price of propane and electricity or combine the system with energy-efficient air sealant measures that do have positive payback.

This scenario with the domestic hot water heater gets me thinking some more about marketing and selling energy efficiency to homeowners, so I had a chat with Bob Knight of Bevilacqua-Knight, Inc. in California.

Bob forwarded a 2006 paper that he and Lutzenhiser Associates wrote for the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE): “Why Comprehensive Residential Energy Efficiency Retrofits are Undervalued.” In this paper, he and Lutzenhiser discuss comprehensive “whole house” residential retrofit programs, not single measures like my hot water heater, and they focus on California’s utility metrics for cost/benefit analysis; nonetheless, their arguments are relevant to my musings, my shrinking bank account, and the (very) satisfied feeling I get when I turn on a hot water faucet.

“In California law, the funding for energy efficiency programs must be justified solely by energy supply savings. The result is a systematic undercounting of the actual value of any programs that generate significant non-energy benefits, and particularly those NEBs realized by the participating homeowners, including examples such as comfort, health, safety, home durability and value, and environmental consciousness — for which the homeowners demonstrate their support by voluntarily paying more than can be justified solely by energy savings…

“The viewpoint of the buyer, moreover, has been largely ignored in the existing tests despite the fact that the buyer’s judgment of the the full set of benefits — rather than only energy savings — of a project determines whether that project is to be done or not…

“Classical economic theory holds that rational choices are made among bundles of goods on the basis of the value or utility that they promise. The uses of technologies determine their values to persons and influence what the technologies ought to cost in the marketplace. Other social scientists have elaborated this model by reference to how individuals perceive in different ways what they value, and how the actions and opinions of others influence perceptions (e.g., regarding style, status, and so on). So when an individual makes a significant choice regarding their home, they consider how well the new refrigerator will preserve their favorite foods, how it will fit in to their decor, and what it will contribute to their standing (in their own eyes and those of others). The same is true of a new dishwasher, washer/dryer, bathroom remodel, window replacement, or major addition. These things all cost money, and are imagined to return value and utility along a variety of dimensions. They have energy efficiency implications — which are sometimes actually taken into account. However, they are not processes that can be captured in the energy accounting schemes of supply-side avoided cost.”

Bevilacqua-Knight and Lutzenhiser discuss a small-sample survey that supports the importance of homeowners’ NEB motivations for expensive home performance (“whole house”) retrofits. “The survey included a battery of carefully structured questions to elicit information on the relative strengths of a list of possible motivations.” It found that “as much as three-fourths of the average (surveyed) buyer’s motivation arose from the desire to gain combinations of the non-energy benefits, with something like the remaining quarter possibly attributable to energy cost savings.”

“While the motivation to ‘reduce energy bills’ was frequently reported, it was far from the only reason given. Certainly, homeowners hope for some bill reduction if they are paying for energy-savings measures and higher efficiency equipment. However, other sources of value and utility are clearly the dominant rationale. Persons were clearly engaged in upkeep (e.g., replacing poorly-functioning equipment) and buying comfort, convenience, cleanliness, and a sense of doing the right thing (e.g., being efficient in energy and resource usage). In many cases, (about 40%) bill reduction was not mentioned at all among the ‘top three very important reasons’ to purchase home testing and retrofits.”

The Director of Efficiency Maine, Denis Bergeron, told me recently that he works in a building full of people (the Public Utility Commission) whose daily activities are predicated on rational economic choices, but that the world and homeowners are not rational in the same way.

Nope, we aren’t. When asking people to cough up major dough for energy efficiency home improvements that may or may not have financial payback, simply marketing the energy component of the improvement won’t cut it. But marketing non-energy benefits, if positioned well, will.


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 began renovation of an 1880 farmhouse using building science and green building principles.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Plan C

/5 Comments/in /by

by Richard T. Stuebi

I have a great deal of respect for Matthew Simmons, founder of the energy investment bank Simmons & Company International. Simmons is a frequent speaker, and one of his most often-quoted lines is that, when it comes to the possibility of declining oil production in the near-future, “There is no Plan B.”

Late last year, a non-profit organization from Southern Ohio named The Community Solution wrote a white paper in which they described a so-called “Plan B”. In their Plan B, new technologies are pursued aggressively in the vision of enabling society to transition to an alternative energy future. This presumably would represent the majority view of the clean-tech community, including the readers of this blog.

According to The Community Solution, the fly in the ointment is that Plan B only slightly slows the inexorable path to human extinction implied by “Plan A” (status quo consumption). The Community Solution essentially argues that Plan B is unsustainable, that Plan B still implies too much consumption of resources for the planet to bear forever.

For The Community Solution, the only true path of enduring sustainability comes with “Plan C”, what they call “Curtailment and Community.” Much lower consumption of all resources, much more local economic and social interaction.

In a video, The Community Solution points to Cuba as an example of how Plan C can work. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s, Cuba no longer had its industrial and economic benefactor, and oil import quantities fell by more than 50%. Out of necessity — some might say desperation — agriculture, commerce and transportation all had to be reinvented on the fly to cope with a dramatic curtailment in energy resources.

In my view, Cuba has many fine things to recommend it: food, music and cigars come to mind. However, economic policy under the Castro regime is not one of Cuba’s long suits. It is doubtful that the average American will be impressed by Cuba’s energy “revolution” in the past decade and say, “Gee, that’s wonderful — I’d like for that to happen here.”

Selling Plan C to the U.S. seems pretty much like a lost cause to me, and in any event I don’t think Plan B is necessarily as doomsday as The Community Solution portrays it. Although I agree that we’re far too materialistic and our society would benefit from more modest values, I do not endorse Plan C, and instead I vote for Plan B. What do you think?

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Blogroll Review: Sustainable Snobbery, Curry, Wind Tower

/1 Comment/in /by

by Frank Ling

My Sustainability is Greener Than Your Sustainability

In his book How to Win Friends and Influence People, Dale Carnegie says that people are motivated by a sense of importance. For many people that means gaining status.

Now that green is entering the mainstream, it is also a status symbol among a growing segment of the population. Should we be concerned with what Helen Priest from Meridian Energy calls “conspicuous sustainability”?

On CNET’s Green Tech Blog, Neal Dikeman observes that the notion of sustainability is being driven by the need to be cool.

“Nouveau riche tech execs out here in Silicon Valley put ultraclean, and even more, ultraexpensive, solar power on their roofs. Buckingham Palace offsets the carbon footprint of the Queen’s recent trip to the United States. Dell has Plant a Tree for Me Program, which I used when I bought a new Dell last month. There is an exponentially increasing number of examples of consumerism driving green.”

But is this good or bad? Back in the 20th Century and even before that, economist Thorstein Veblen described the rush to accumulate wealth as “conspicuous consumption”, which he thought to be evil.

Mr. Dikeman cautions “for green tech and the environmental movement, is conspicuous sustainability a good one?”

So, did anyone hear about the fake solar panels in Japan?

Keep it real. 🙂

Chew on This

Who could have thought that food chemistry could play such an appetizing role for plastics? The Japanese have found a way to incorporate one of the main ingredients of curry into biodegradable plastic.

Japan for Sustainability notes that

“curcumin, a plant-based yellow colorant, is highly compatible with biodegradable plastic and has appropriate colorfastness and mechanical strength properties. It has also been proved that curcumin does not harm human health even when it comes in contact with the mouth, making it applicable to food packages, processing equipment and toys. Curcumin can color biodegradable plastics not only yellow, but also bright red, blue, etc.”

Now if only we could eat the plastic… 🙂

Castle House

Putting wind turbines on the top of skyscrapers may be becoming reality.

In this week’s EcoGeek, Hank Green writes about a proposed high-rise that will get its power from wind.

“Take up residence in the Castle House, a proposed London Skyscraper, and you’ll find yourself paying as much as 40% less on power, as the building will be generating most of it for you. The building is designed to aerodynamically channel wind through the three nine meter turbines that sit on top of the 43 story building. “

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.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

"Buy Wind Power, It’s a Breeze"

/0 Comments/in /by

by Heather Rae (8/1/07)

The Natural Resource Council of Maine (NRCM) sponsored a tour of the Mars Hill wind farm this past Saturday. I went along to represent Maine Interfaith Power & Light (MeIPL) and to talk about Wind Watts, the renewable energy certificates (RECs) generated by the 28 turbine, 42MW project. MeIPL is the primary reseller of RECs from Mars Hill.

A group of about 30 made the trek by bus to the Big Rock Ski Area which sits below the project at the Canadian border. (The Boston Globe covered the trip.) We heard from a number of people involved in bringing the project to life. Dave Cowan, VP of Environmental Affairs for UPC Wind Management, the developer of Mars Hill, answered questions including the usual ones about bird kill and noise. Pat DeFillip, Project Manager for Reed & Reed which constructed the project — with Maine labor — showed pictures of the construction in all its phases. Ryan Fonbuena, a UPC technical manager originally from California, enlivened the crowd with a broad youthful smile, considerable technical knowledge, and a necklace of white shells (he’s been working on a Hawaii project as well).

The Mars Hill 1.5MW GE wind turbines are awesome by its most positive definition: breathtaking, formidable, stunning, wondrous, majestic. Try as I might, I cannot see them in any other way.

We heard from people in the community: a landowner who has multiple turbines on his property and wants to retail products oriented around the wind farm; a real estate agent who sees no decline in property values as a result of the wind farm; proprietors of a hotel; the town manager; the manager of Big Rock Ski Area. All were open and frank about the reasons for the complaints from a few vocal members of the community. Our group repeatedly asked, “is that the noise they don’t like?” expressing concern for the community and trying to get their heads around the complaints. One resident said he believes the opposition to the turbines is one of aesthetics and that leads to all the other complaints…which, he believes, are dying down. He also noted that he received his property tax bill; it’s $200 lower because of the money put into the town by the project.

At the end of a long day, as a thunderstorm moved in, I spoke about Wind Watts. I’m not fully comfortable with RECs for the many reasons that others like Richard Stuebi have written in this blog. However, Wind Watts I can pitch with equanimity, particularly after talking about how the Interfaith Power & Light organization came into being and why it exists: it’s a moral calling to support the planet and people with clean energy. It’s a faith-based response to climate change. Here’s this wondrous project, I could say with a swoop of the arm across the ridgeline and slowly spinning turbines. You’ve met the construction company and the developers, I could say, looking right at Ryan Fonbuena of UPC. You’ve heard what it means to the community, catching the sparkling and proud eye of the Big Rock Ski Area manager. Buy these RECs and you will support this project and encourage others like it.

I stumble in talking about RECs when they become entangled with carbon offsets, as if buying RECs to offset carbon emissions is the only reason to buy them. So I didn’t go there. I didn’t have to. The first question from the group was, ‘isn’t buying RECs simply a way for some people to go about their lives without making any changes, so they don’t have to feel guilty?’ This business of assuaging climate change guilt with RECS (like the business of bird kill and noise) is mass media at work. After a brief group chuckle around guilt, Dylan Voorhees, Energy Project Director for NRCM, explained the whole black electron, green electron, green attribute/REC thinking. I’ve been hearing this explanation for years and I’ll buy into it — so long as new wind is more expensive to build than the alternatives. Before carbon became all the rage, I could talk about RECs for what they are: financial mechanisms to encourage development of clean energy. To jump on the carbon offset marketing bandwagon for RECs is, I believe, limiting. And darn confusing.

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.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Muggles Perform Magic in California

/4 Comments/in /by

By John Addison (7/30/07) Everyone is mesmerized with Harry Potter and the fate of the world. My niece proudly wears a wrist band proving that she waited seven hours to buy book seven. My brother, reported that 30% of passengers on his business flight were reading the book. Harry and his fellow wizards have access to all sorts of magical transportation – flying broomsticks, flying carpets, magical flying creatures, portkeys, floo powder and floo networks, metamorphosing, apparition and disapparation Muggles, we regular human non-wizards, are also capable of a bit of magic. In California, millions have been transported with zero emissions. Not with Knight Buses, but with zero-emission buses, light-rail, cable cars, and zero-emission cars.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Regulation in 1990 to reduce the emissions from light-duty vehicles and accelerate development of zero emission vehicles. Over the years, the regulation has been modified to deal with objections and lawsuits from the automotive industry that contend that battery-electric and fuel-cell vehicles are not ready for prime time.

The regulation has made California the leader in clean vehicles and cleantech. Estimates are that by the end of 2005, the following quantities of these vehicles had been placed in California: 130 fuel cell, 4,400 battery-electric, 26,000 25-mile per hour speed battery-electric, 70,000 AT-PZEV vehicles such as the Prius, and 500,000 PZEV vehicles.

There are currently twenty-one auto manufacturers subject to the ZEV regulation. Six are defined as large volume manufacturers: Toyota (market leader), General Motors, Ford, Honda, DaimlerChrysler and Nissan. The remaining 15 are intermediate volume manufacturers. Intermediate manufacturers can meet the regulation entirely with PZEVs.

ARB staff recommends that “the Board examine more even treatment of BEVs in the regulation as compared to FCEVs. For example, BEVs and FCEVs could be offered equal credit before 2012. By returning to technology neutrality and considering BEVs and fuel cell vehicles similarly, the ARB might induce some manufacturers to choose to pursue battery electric vehicle development instead of fuel cell vehicle development. The outcome would be that overall ZEV production could be greater, but fewer fuel cell vehicles may be produced.”

ARB has been holding public hearings and getting an earful. The latest public workshop was on July 24. Leading environmental groups such as NRDC, UCS, and the American Lung Society do not want reductions in the fuel cell vehicle requirements.

The proposal to ARB which generated the most interest was from A123, a leading supplier for advanced lithium batteries. A123 has also purchased Hymotion to be the leading plug-in hybrid (PHEV) system integrator, winning important contracts from the State of New York and South Coast Air Quality Management District. A123 stated that they have been selected for GM VEU and Volt vehicle programs and are being considered by future PHEV programs from makers such as Volvo.

An A123 kit will fit in spare tire space of most hybrids including the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid, and Ford Escape Hybrid. Kits and authorized installers are expected in 2008. The A123 presenter, for his own converted Prius has used only 9 gallons of gasoline to travel 1,200 miles. He achieves up to 177 miles per gallon.

There are now over 40 million light electric vehicles now in use worldwide. Demand is exploding in Asia. ARB is considering increasing its modest credit for 25-mile per hour neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV).

Because plug-in hybrids and light electric vehicles are in the regulation, California should have no need to relax other requirements. Rapid advancements have been made in both high-performance and low-cost battery electric vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCV) have demonstrated ranges of 300 miles, 24 stations are in operation, and there are enthusiastic responses from those who drive these FCV on a daily basis. Next year, over 40 PHEV will be on California’s roads.

Permission is granted to reproduce this article which is copyright John Addison. The complete article with links to the ZEV program is at cleanfleetreport.com. John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report. He is currently inviting literary representation and a publisher for his new book Save Gas, Save the Planet.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Hydrogen Energy

/2 Comments/in /by

by Richard T. Stuebi

Whenever someone mentions “hydrogen” to me, I immediately think of fuel cells. So, when someone mentioned to me in passing the other day something about BP (NYSE: BP) and hydrogen in Southern California, I was really confused: I didn’t think that BP was doing much with fuel cells these days.

Now I understand. In May, BP announced (press release) that it has partnered with mining-giant Rio Tinto (NYSE: RTP) to form a joint venture, named Hydrogen Energy, that has licensed integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology from GE (NYSE: GE) and will develop IGCC projects involving carbon sequestration — and one of its first projects will be a 500 megawatt facility located adjacent to BP’s refinery in Carson, California. (project description)

Hydrogen Energy’s efforts therefore have nothing to do with fuel cells. Hydrogen is simply the main constituent of the syn-gas produced from the gasification of the input fossil fuel (in Carson’s case, petroleum coke), which will be combusted in a conventional combined cycle for power generation.

A few observations occur to me from this development:

1. The selection of the L.A. Basin of California for one of the first projects is extraordinary. It’s hard enough to permit a new office building in Southern California, much less a 500 megawatt powerplant that is more akin to a refinery. Then too, with California’s climate initiatives, placing any new industrial infrastructure in-state has to be massively challenging. I would have guessed someplace like Texas for one of the early IGCC plants — easy to get things done there. The Carson IGCC project is only possible because the gasification step produces relatively pure streams of by-products that can relatively easily be diverted from being emitted into the air — including CO2, which will be pumped underground. So, the Carson location for an early project is great PR not only for all the corporate parties (“We’re producing clean domestic energy for California”), but for the state of California too (“See — we’re not anti-energy, we support energy businesses and new energy projects.”).

2. The sequestration of the CO2 will occur in the Southern California oil/gas fields, which are very mature and can thus benefit from enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques to pressurize the underground reservoirs and thereby improve yields. The increase in oil/gas production, worth a lot at current energy prices, helps offset the costs of CO2 capture and pumping. As more carbon sequestration projects occur, I expect to see many of them in areas with old producing fields that can benefit from EOR, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois and so on. Oh, coincidentally, these states have lots of coal to burn in the IGCCs.

3. According to the press release BP partnered with Rio Tinto in order to obtain access to Rio’s
coal mining/extraction expertise. In this context, the selection of Rio makes sense: like BP, it too is a global colossus of a company, and gargantuan corporations tend to work best with partners of similar size. If other big oil companies want to follow in BP’s footsteps to pursue IGCC with a coal company as partner, there will be few players in the coal industry of similar heft. Indeed, I wonder if one way to view this partnership as BP moving more into coal — and if other oil majors will increase their coal activities?

4. The naming of the partnership as “Hydrogen Energy” is an interesting choice. I used to think that the “hydrogen economy” hype of a few years ago had produced a semantic burden to be avoided rather than embraced. But, here come BP and Rio Tinto — no dummies — deliberately positioning their venture not as “carbon-free” or “zero emission” or “clean coal”, but rather as “hydrogen”. This has significant branding implications. If Hydrogen Energy becomes a success, hydrogen as an energy source (or, more properly, an energy storage approach, or energy “carrier”) may therefore become more validated in the eyes of those who are currently skeptics.

5. In turn, if Hydrogen Energy really takes off, and hydrogen’s reputation is burnished, fuel cells may ultimately benefit substantially. If many IGCC plants become installed across the continent, it becomes more plausible to envision hydrogen transport and distribution on a mass-scale to support fuel cells — initially in selected stationary power applications, perhaps ultimately for vehicles too.

Of course, it will take years for us to see if Hydrogen Energy becomes a big deal, or is yet another example of a highly-touted joint venture between two mega-corporations that ultimately comes to very little.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc. (Note: Mr. Stuebi has no affiliation whatsoever with BP.)

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Australian voluntary carbon market Opened

/1 Comment/in /by

by Nick Bruse

Australia’s first carbon trading exchange opened last week and its now one week on. The initial prices for carbon was set at A$8.50 (US$7.50) per metric ton under the voluntary scheme. Current price isA$8.55 per metric ton. I’ve pieced together my research on the ACX from a variety of stories run after its opening.

Australian Climate Exchange (ACX) established the joint venture aimed at cutting the country’s greenhouse gas emissions and bracing firms for possible pollution limits five years ahead of the introduction of a government-backed scheme.

About 1,600 tonnes of Voluntary Emission Reductions (VERs) changed hands, opening at A$8.50 per tonne for 2007 and closing at A$8.60. The total value of the trades was A$13,610, according to data on ACX’s Web site http://www.climateexchange.com.au/

This compared with prices of 19.50 euros ($26.96) for European Union carbon emissions on the ECX exchange for delivery in December 2008, the first year of commitments under the U.N. Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Australia has not ratified Kyoto, which sets binding limits on emissions and envisages global emissions trading, but Prime Minister John Howard has pledged to establish a national carbon trading scheme by 2012.

The ACX exchange is the fourth voluntary market, following schemes in the United States, UK and Japan.

ACX Limited Managing Director Tim Hanlin said businesses wanted an opportunity to sponsor clean technology now.

“This is a voluntary emissions trading market and it’s business to business trading of greenhouse gas emissions,” Hanlin told Australian Broadcasting Corp. (ABC) radio.

Carbon trading involves putting a price and limits on pollution, allowing companies that clean up their operations to sell any savings below their allocated level to other companies. ACX is a joint venture with companies trader Australia Pacific Exchange
Reuters

“Under the ACX system, buyers and sellers trade the VERS in minimum lots of 100 tonnes. Each offset unit is certified by the government greenhouse watchdog and must be lodged with the ACX registry first before it can be traded. The registry tracks the traded offsets until they are extinguished – that is when an owner acquits the offset against emissions.”The Australian

The ACX is the first cab off the rank with further initiatives to be launched by the National Stock Exchange (NSX) and the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX)

The NSX, which recently bought a water trading exchange used by farmers, has said it wanted to launch a carbon emissions trading platform next month. The ASX has said it would proceed with its scheme after the federal government’s pricing details were known. The Australian

Whilst presenting an opportunity for companies to begin mitigating their carbon emissions, and also providing a market to source credits for voluntary offset retailes, not everyone is so sure that these voluntary schemes are a positive step. The world bank was quoted in a May 2007 article in the UK paper the Guardian.

The World Bank cautioned that moves in carbon offsets outside the regulated “cap and trade” systems could pose a threat to the development of the overall market. There has been growing criticism that schemes where companies or individuals seek to offset their emissions by investing in projects to cut emissions elsewhere, are either not delivering or funding developments that would have been financed anyway. Critics say that the system needs a greater degree of standardisation.

The World Bank said that on some estimates voluntary carbon offset schemes could rise to 400m tonnes by 2010. It added: “This high potential voluntary sector, however, lacks a generally acceptable standard, which remains a significant reputation risk not only to its own prospects, but also to the rest of the market, including segments of regulated emissions trading and project offsets.” The Guardian

If you would like some more dialogue with the Managing Director of the ACX, Tim Hanlin you can find it here, in an ABC radio interview transcript. There is a conference, Voluntary Carbon Markets, set to be held in London in a few months to address some of these questions regarding voluntary carbon markets as well.

If your interested in understanding the detail of carbon emissions trading schemes, you can listed to an interview I conducted with Rob Fowler from Abatement Solutions Asia Pacific on The Cleantech Show. Rob is heavily involved in helping the Australian Greenhouse Office with the development of the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme. On the show he provides a significant amount of insight into the trading schemes and the process of setting them up. You can listed to the show here.

Nick Bruse runs Strike Consulting, a growth venture consultancy specialising in the cleantech sector and hosts the cleantech show, a weekly podcast of interviews with leaders involved in clean technology research, entrepreneurship, commentary and investment.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Westport – The Greening of Big Trucks

/2 Comments/in /by

One of the companies I have followed for some time is Westport Innovations, Inc., (TSX:WPT) out of Vancouver. The technology and product suite allows large diesel trucks to run standard diesels on a 95% natural gas mix, enabling fuel switching as well as significantly improved NOx and PM, as well as CO2 emissions. The company’s rapid expansions date from a late 1990s joint venture with Cummins (NYSE:CMI), and Westport has led this market sector since then.

I had the opportunity at the recent Greenvest 2007 Conference I chaired in San Francisco to hear the talk of my friend Dr. Mike Gallagher, President & COO of Westport, and asked him to share a few thoughts for Cleantech Blog based on his conference presentation.

A few quick quotes from their website on the technology (you’ll see why I like it so much):

“Westport™ HPDI (High Pressure Direct Injection) natural gas engines on the road are producing approximately 50% less nitrogen oxides (NOx), 80% less particulate matter (PM), and 20-25% less carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions than equivalent diesel engines.” – These are the regular diesels running on 95% natural gas.

Westport has also been developing a Compressed Natural Gas Direct Ignition technology that basically similarly enables a straight natural gas engine to run direct injection like a diesel. The benefits include:

“- near-zero emissions of particulate matter
– 20% less greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) than equivalent diesel engines
– 25% increased fuel efficiency over current spark-ignited natural gas engines”

Mike, before we go into your thoughts on Westport, let me lay out some of your background in energy engineering. Mike was previously Senior Vice-President, Americas, for Fluor Corp, and held executive officer positions with the Bechtel Group in San Francisco and London-based Kvaerner Group. He also has PhD from Stanford in Mechanical-Nuclear Engineering. So Mike, thanks for the time today.

Mike, I know Westport makes products to run diesel engines on natural gas – how exactly does this work?

Westport’s LNG System for Heavy-Duty trucks uses a small amount of diesel pilot fuel for robust ignition and then allows the truck engine – we’ve based our technology on the Cummins ISX diesel engine platform – to operate using approximately 95% natural gas for high duty cycle applications. The combustion approach uses a high pressure direction injection of natural gas into the diesel combustion chamber.

Can you tell us about the greenhouse gas impact of your products? That’s such a hot topic these days.

Emissions regulations are the norm now, particularly in California where we are actively pursuing opportunities for the use of our heavy-duty product. The Westport LNG system truck produces 15-20% less greenhouse gas emissions, compared to an equivalent diesel engine.

Our joint venture company, Cummins Westport Inc., offers mid-range products for medium-duty truck and bus applications. CWI’s advanced ISL G engine produces 7-13% less greenhouse gas than the equivalent diesel.

As you just alluded to, and for those who haven’t followed the company, Westport has a major joint venture with engine company Cummins. How does this arrangement work and what’s in it for Westport?

Cummins Westport Inc., or CWI as we call it, is a 50:50 joint venture between Westport and Cummins Inc. The JV company is headquartered right here in Vancouver with us, it has a dedicated management team and a dedicated Board of directors.

Profits (and losses) are shared equally by the two parent companies. CWI Cummins Westport Inc., a joint venture of Cummins Inc. (NYSE:CMI) and Westport Innovations Inc. (TSX:WPT), manufactures and sells the world’s widest range of low-emissions alternative fuel engines for commercial transportation applications such as trucks and buses. Cummins is a global power leader in engines, electrical power generation systems and related technologies. Westport Innovations is the leading developer of technologies that allow engines to operate on clean-burning fuels such as natural gas, hydrogen, and hydrogen-enriched natural gas (HCNG).

Revenues grew approximately 40% from 2006 to 2007, to $60 million Canadian, what were the major drivers – and is that growth expected to continue? Where should investors expect the growth from?

The 39% increase in annual revenues was driven by increased CWI engine shipments (up 50%) and the delivery of our first Westport LNG systems for heavy-duty trucks. Product sales growth which we measure in Canadian dollars was actually offset by a 5% decrease in the US dollar exchange rate. In US dollar terms, revenue growth was 44%. Growth for the next couple of years is expected both from CWI global sales growth around the launch of its new ISL G, and from sales of Westport’s new LNG systems for heavy duty trucks.

And the company turned a profit for, I believe, the first quarter ever in this last quarter. Does this mean Westport has turned the corner? The company has a fairly large retained deficit – and I know investors have been looking for profits to begin erasing it.

We are pleased about this last quarter’s results for sure. We have a solid history with CWI and a new HD product now and the markets are responding. The profitability for this recent quarter was driven by a number of fortuitous events that occurred during the quarter on a one time basis. So we will continue to push for improved profitability on a recurring basis.

Perseus, one of your major shareholders (who has had two seats on the board) recently sold a large amount ($50 million worth) of shares. What was the story there? Didn’t Perseus loan money to the company just last year? Should existing or prospective investors be worried?

No, certainly no cause for worry, quite the reverse actually. In fact, the sale erased planned interest payments by Westport to Perseus which is a positive for us, and Perseus elected to capitalize on a a very attractive financial opportunity available to them based on our significant share price increase in recent months.

The stock price has tripled in the last year – what were the drivers and are you worried the run up was too steep?

It’s always hard to know exactly what is going on out there in the marketplace, but we think the market has responded primarily to two things: our CWI business is demonstrating strong and growing profitability, and our heavy duty LNG truck business has launched with some early sales and big opportunities at the Port of LA and others.

We think we are now being valued more broadly for our expertise, we are meeting expectations, and the regulatory system is catching up with our technologies, opening the door for more sales. CWI has an engine offering available now that is certified to 2010 emissions standards – that’s 3 years ahead of schedule! And Westport is positioned to provide LNG systems in trucks in California now, where they have approved a five year Clean Air Action Plan at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to replace up to 5,300 older diesel trucks with LNG trucks in five years.

Do you have any plans to list on Nasdaq in the future to make it easier for US investors to buy in?

We are always looking at listing alternatives and have expanded our communications with US institutions and investors. But we don’t have any immediate plans to do a US listing.

You personally came to Westport from big corporate engineering – what had attracted you to the company?

That’s true, I had spent 25 years and grew into senior executive positions with the pre-eminent engineering and project management companies in the world- well known names like the Bechtel Group and the Fluor Corporation. Within those companies though I had dedicated a fair piece of my career to development of alternative energy technologies- particularly alternatives to oil- and to environmental cleanup technologies. And to the entrepreneurial creation and growth of new businesses. And of course I had my Stanford and MIT engineering and technology roots to draw from. So when the Westport opportunity came along almost five years ago, I felt it was a great way to take everything I had learned and apply it to a fast-growing technology company. A place where I could work with some of the brightest young talent around to transform Westport from an R&D company to a full commercial company, making a serious contribution to solving some of the world’s oil, energy, and environmental challenges.

If you had to give an investor three reasons to like Westport – what would you pick?

Real and growing sales, short term commercialization opportunities, and a technology right in the wheelhouse of current world needs around oil, energy, environment, and climate change.

For more information, you can visit the Westport website.

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 Author for Inside Greentech, and a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Blogroll Review: Credits, Charging, Coffee

/4 Comments/in /by

by Frank Ling

Don’t Leave Home Without It

Many of us use credit cards to collect mileage point and other non-monetary credits. Now, we can use it to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

GE is introducing the Earth Rewards Credit Card, which will invest 1% of customer purchases into carbon off-setting.

Joel Makower says developing the system was not straightforward. Initially, GE thought of creating credits, which customers could use to buy eco-friendly products. However, it was found that very few people would actually do that.

It remains to be seen whether this current scheme will work but GE is optimistic.

“It’s too early to tell, of course, but Earth Rewards has the potential to catch on with the large middle market increasingly concerned about climate change but willing to make only small, incremental changes, if that. (GE envisions a potential market of 25 million Americans.)”

Priceless! 😉

Charge It

Plug-In hybrids are no longer a hobbyist’s contraption. Toyota has released the first certified PHEV for public road use.

Though it is only limited to Japan, the PHEV can run on household power and uses NiMH battery technology. Jim Fraser at the Energy Blog notes:

“The PHEV is a 5 passenger vehicle with a cruising range of 8 miles (13 km) in the all electric mode with a top speed of 60 mph (100 km/hr). It is equipped with 2 – 6.5Ah nickel-metal hydride batteries powering a 67hp (50kW)/1,200-1,540 rpm synchronous electric motor with a maximum torque of 400N-m(40.8kg-m) @ 0-1,200rpm….Charging time for the battery is 1-1.5hrs @ 200V and 3-4hrs @ 100V.”

Maybe this time, the electric car won’t be killed. 🙂

Sunbucks

Back a couple years ago when I wandered around China, there were many Starbucks ripoffs. One of them was called Sunbucks. If that trademark hasn’t been taken, then this company may still have a chance to take it.

In this week’s EcoGeek, Philip Proefrock writes about a Pueblo, Colorado company that is roasting their coffee with the power of the sun.

“The Solar Roast company uses a 10 foot (3 meter) diameter reflector array to heat its roaster to 600 degrees F (315 degrees C) with nothing more than sunlight.”

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.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Is IBM Going Solar?

/5 Comments/in /by

Cleantech Blog has commented on the maturation of the solar sector for some time now. About a year ago, Cleantech Blog broke the story about Applied Material’s entry into the solar market with the San Francisco Chronicle. We have also written on solar concentrators, the coming of consolidation in the solar markets, inverter technology, and subsidy policy. And the fascinating look into the possible future of solar continues.

I had a chance recently to visit with one of the individuals responsible for IBM’s (NYSE:IBM) Big Green Innovations strategy – which has made a splash in the cleantech world over the last half year. We were talking on a range of topics, but one that piqued my interest was the description of IBM’s work in photovoltaics – and a few thoughts on where they were going. I did not ask, and he did not offer, any particulars on the work in progress, but he did make mention of a few points that I thought were well worth repeating:

  • IBM is expecting to be a player in the solar cell business – likely seeing commercial impact in the next 18 months to two years.
  • IBM is developing both advanced crystalline technologies and CIGS processes – relying on their semiconductor manufacturing expertise and nanotech research to make breakthroughs in controlling PV manufacturing processes.
  • You will not likely see IBM making branded modules – perhaps instead a cell production business strategy?
  • IBM sees the potential for very high efficiency multi-junction cells in foreseeable future.

The fascinating part is that IBM is not a newcomer to the game. When you do a little background research, you dig up some fascinating tidbits, including a couple of articles dated 1978 in the IBM Journal of Research and Development that are interesting given the historical perspective they add to the discussion. For those still thinking that Silicon Valley venture capital is the real innovator behind the solar sector – see below.

As far as the mainstream (or even cleantech) press on IBM’s solar photovoltaic development, though, there has been little mention, and no details. News.com had a recent mention (but no details) of IBM’s solar interests (along with an oblique mention of their work in developing desalination membranes for the water sector). There was a brief mention of IBM and an organic solar cell development in a 2004 year old Business Week article. And a brief mention of interest in solar technology in an Information Week article about the IBM Innovation Agenda – which the Big Green Innovations is a part. But that’s about it.

There are over a dozen recent US patents and published applications by IBM referencing a range of solar cells or photovoltaic technology, a few are listed below – that can give some indication of what work IBM has going on.

  • 7,109,584 Dendrite growth control circuit
  • 7,094,651 Hydrazine-free solution deposition of chalcogenide films
  • 6,933,191 Two-mask process for metal-insulator-metal capacitors and single mask process for thin film resistors
  • 6,875,661 Solution deposition of chalcogenide films
  • 6,774,019 Incorporation of an impurity into a thin film
  • 6,316,786 Organic opto-electronic devices
  • 6,351,023 Semiconductor device having ultra-sharp P-N junction and method of manufacturing the same
  • 20070057255 Nanomaterials with tetrazole-based removable stabilizing agents
  • 20060032530 Solution processed pentacene-acceptor heterojunctions in diodes, photodiodes, and photovoltaic cells and method of making same
  • 20050158909 Solution deposition of chalcogenide films containing transition metals

And here are the 1978 articles I promised above from IBM Journal of Research and Development. As I said – for those who still believe Silicon Valley is inventing solar.

Low Cost Silicon for Solar Energy Conversion Applications Economically viable means of producing silicon solar cells for the conversion of solar energy into electric power are discussed. Emphasis is given to the discussion of crystal growth techniques capable of growing single-crystal silicon ribbons directly and inexpensively from molten silicon. The capillary action shaping technique (CAST) recently developed by IBM has a good potential for producing low cost silicon sheets suitable for solar cells. This technique has produced ribbon 100 mm wide and 0.3 mm thick. Problems that CAST must overcome in order to supply material for low cost solar cells are discussed. Economic and technological computer-modeled comparisons indicate that continuously grown CAST ribbons of these dimensions can meet a cost objective below $50/m2 of sheet material. The results require that it be possible to fabricate a twelve-percent-efficient solar cell from CAST ribbon 100 mm wide and 0.3 mm thick at a polycrystalline silicon cost of $10/kg.

Fascinating enough – while much earlier, this looks very similar to the Evergreen Solar (NASDAQ:ESLR) story whose success helped launch the recent venture capital rush into solar just a couple of years ago.

Growth of Polycrystalline GaAs for Solar Cell Applications Films of polycrystalline GaAs have been grown on foreign substrates by the metal-organic process. The main objective was to produce films with as large a grain size as possible, so that high-efficiency photovoltaic devices may eventually be fabricated from such thin film/substrate structures. At 973 K the average grain size was less than 1 µm, and was unaffected by the choice of substrate. Increasing the deposition temperature to 1123 K, while maintaining all other conditions the same, resulted in grains as large as 10 to 20 µm in diameter. Grain sizes as large as 10 µm could be obtained by precoating the substrates with thin films of evaporated gold or tin. However, both of these methods gave films that were discontinuous. A two-step procedure in which the films were nucleated at 873 K prior to growth at 1123 K yielded continuous films with an average grain size of 5 µm. Schottky barrier solar cells fabricated from these films exhibited short-circuit current densities as high as 15.7 mA/cm2, even though the highest conversion efficiency (AM0, uncoated) was only 1.3 percent because of the low fill factor (0.28).

Novel Materials and Devices for Sunlight Concentrating Systems Photovoltaic conversion under concentrated sunlight is a highly promising technique that could make solar-electric power generation economically competitive with fossil fuel power generation by the mid-1980s. An economic analysis has been performed which demonstrates that solar cell efficiency, concentrator efficiency, and concentrator cost are the most important parameters in a concentrating photovoltaic system; solar cell cost is only of secondary importance (at least for Si solar cells). Six novel structures are described, including modified conventional Si cells, Ga1-xAlx As/GaAs devices, interdigitated cells, vertical and horizontal multijunction cells and “multicolor” devices.

So whether it’s high efficiency multi-junction cells to compete in the concentrator market, or organic or CIGS cells for BIPV, or providing advanced silicon cells to enable a new group of entrants into the rooftop module market, or something new entirely – IBM bears watching in the solar sector.

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 Author for Inside Greentech, and a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

The Problem With Polls

/3 Comments/in /by

by Richard T. Stuebi

Recently, I’ve been working more closely with people who are active in setting and shaping policies, and it’s clear that they’re wired differently from me. As an economist, my first question in considering policy usually is: “What are the costs and benefits?”. The policy-wonks tend to first ask: “What do the polls say?”

When it comes to energy issues, it’s increasingly clear to me that an instinctual reliance by politicians and staffers on polling data is a dangerous thing. That’s because the average citizen/voter is so badly lacking in basic understanding of the key issues that the opinions of Joe/Jane Six-pack on energy/environmental matters, sadly but frankly, ought not to be given much weight.

That doesn’t seem to stop firms from conducting more and more surveys on energy topics, and from touting their fresh results to support their pet positions. For instance, Deloitte recently conducted a survey on alternative energy, and the generally pro-renewables press release claimed that “a majority of customers said they would pay more for clean energy because it is good for the environment”.

However, the frothing anti-renewables critic Robert Michaels, writing in the June 8 New Power Executive, offered an opposing interpretation of the Deloitte poll results: that the indicated support of the average customer is actually rather lukewarm when reviewed in detail.

Moreover, Michaels points out, rightly, that survey data often overstates customer enthusiasm for renewables, relative to what customers actually do decide to purchase when offered renewable energy.

And, Michaels brings up the inconvenient truth that I’m bringing up today: that Americans are clueless about energy. Michaels refers to a survey conducted earlier this year by Enviromedia Social Marketing, which reported in its press release that “more Americans have no idea what fuels their electricity than those who can name any particular source — either correctly or incorrectly.”

As an even more damning anecdotal piece of evidence, Michaels trots out a 2004 survey from Kentucky in which 41% of respondents identified coal, steel and oil as renewables. Yikes!

Do we really want the public sector following the wishes of the masses on energy, if this is what the public thinks it knows about energy?

I think the last word on the lunacy of polling Americans on critical energy issues must go to the blogger Engineer-Poet who posted the following missive on Alternative Energy Blog about two years ago in response to a Yale poll on environmental positions:

“92% considered dependence on imported oil to be serious or very serious. 89% considered the high price of gasoline to be serious or very serious. Only 19% supported a pollution fee on gasoline, and a mere 15% supported a general increase in the gasoline tax. It takes a lot of ignorance to hold such contradictory opinions.”

I think that little ditty says it all.

In general, I don’t know where I stand on the Jefferson-Hamilton spectrum, but I don’t think policy-makers ought to make policies just to appease and pacify the ignorant.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President at NextWave Energy, Inc.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Blogroll Review: Sinks, Oranges, Woz

/2 Comments/in /by

by Frank Ling

Power Bathroom

For many years, the Japanese have recycled sink water for their toilets. Now an American company is taking it further.

WaterSaver Technologies from Kentucky has developed the AQUS system, which Philip Proefrock at EcoGeek says:

“…collects the water from a bathroom sink and filters and disinfects it before it gets re-used as flush water for an adjacent toilet. (There is nothing that would prevent this from being used in a large-scale LEED project either.)”

The toilet can save up to 7300 gallons of water each year.

According to the Word Water Council, that’s enough water to produce 2 kg of beef. 🙂

Orange-ol

Apparently you can get more out of oranges than just orange juice. Some guys have figured out how to convert the citrus peel into ethanol.

Jim Fraser at the EnergyBlog says:

“FPL Energy said that ethanol from citrus peel could result in a new Florida industry producing over 60 million gallons of fuel per year, which could replace about one percent of Florida’s annual gasoline.”

If only they had a way to make Pine-sol smell orangy….oh wait, I guess they already have. 🙂


Green Woz

Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Cameron Diaz are all out there pushing for a greener future. But it doesn’t hurt to have more celebrities out there to garner support.

Steve Jobs (from his own blog!) quotes his old buddy Steve Wozniak as saying he wants to reduce his emissions:

“I have a long dream to build my own house in a very energy-efficient approach. That’s going to be very soon. It uses the right kind of wood that serves as a heater and as an air conditioner.”

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.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Big, Green Power is Flowing – But Where Are the Power Lines?

/6 Comments/in /by

I had the opportunity recently to speak with Stuart Hemphill, the Director of Renewable and Alternative Power for Southern California Edison (SCE), the power company for Los Angeles and Southern California, on SCE’s activities and views of renewable and green power. SoCal Edison is a subsidiary of Edison International (NYSE:EIX). Stuart has a direct team of 40 staff working entirely on developing and managing new renewable generation, not including the teams across the company that support from legal, operations, transmission, and marketing.

One of big challenges for SCE in building its renewables portfolio is that even though they already stand at 17% of total generation from renewables (which Stuart touted as placing SCE the farthest ahead of any US utility), customer demand in SoCal is growing rapidly – 4 of the top 10 fastest growing counties in the country are in SCE service territory.

But SCE is working to do its part. They have been the leading purchaser of renewable power for the last 20 years and don’t intend to relinquish the crown any time soon. In 2006 they purchased 13 Billion kwh of electricity, about 17% of their needs. More than half of this green power is geothermal, with solar and wind making up the rest. 50% of the power was produced locally in Southern California itself, with most of the rest from Northern California, and the remainder from surrounding states.

The geothermal resources that make up the bulk of their green power come from three regions: The Geysers in Northern California – primarily developed by Calpine; The Salton Sea (better known for its status as a massive migratory bird stopping place and an environmental headache) – primarily developed by Ormat (NYSE:ORA) and CalEnergy; and Eastern California/Western Nevada in the Mammoth Lakes region – primarily developed by Caithness Energy. The wind power comes from all over the state.

In Stuart’s mind, the biggest issue is not supply of green power but transmission. He says they have plenty of contracts in the pipeline. But it takes roughly 7 years to permit and build major transmission lines, and the California RPS itself is less than 7 years old.

So even though SCE has several big lines proposed and under review, he considers it a major limitation to rolling out green power plants. This makes sense, as by their nature renewable power plants have to be built where the ground is hot, the wind blows, or the sun shines, not where the people and the transmission lines are. He reiterated, permitting is a real challenge.

As an example, SCE has a $1.8 billion transmission project to Tehachapi just north of L.A. which has finally received initial approval. They have a 1,500 MW wind contract in place in the region with Alta Wind Power, waiting on getting the transmission built. This is the single largest wind power contract ever developed (it was signed in December of 2006). The Tehachapi region already has 800 MW of wind generation (I drove through the pass just a few months ago – and am always awed by the site of spinning wind turbines), but Stuart says SCE believes there is the potential to get 4,500 MW more, if the transmission is built to bring it down to L.A.

He also took pains to mention a recently signed contract with Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE) for a wind project which Sempra is developing in Baja, Mexico – I believe one of the only, if not the first cross-border Mexico – US wind farm projects.

They are also active in large scale solar – SCE buys 90% of the country’s solar energy now, according to Stuart, and has signed two recent agreements (2005) with Stirling Energy Systems and (2007) with California Sunrise to buy more solar power – both also waiting on transmission according to Stuart.

Stuart told me that SCE has $17 Billion in capital to be spent over the next 5 years in transmission and distribution to address these issues, but much of the solution lies in the hands of more aggressive stances by regulators and environmental groups, not just SCE. This isn’t just an SCE problem. The US has invested heavily in generation capacity in recent years, but our T&D investment has lagged – and the regulatory, environmental and political hurdles to get new power lines built may be even steeper than those for new power plants.

I asked why they weren’t building the new renewable power plants themselves. He indicated that they were prepared to, but currently saw no need because developers are really active these days – in the last 5 competitive solicitations they have received excellent response (including the 2007 solicitation). In short, there is plenty of interest and capital to build green power plants for SCE, and they have their hands full getting it to market.

When we got to talking about the future of energy in California, Renewable Portfolio Standards, greenhouse gas emissions and upcoming issues that concerned them, Stuart highlighted a few. SCE feels that while it is working hard to do its part, Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) as a group currently produce virtually zero percent of their eligible power from green sources as defined in the California RPS – but like the major investor owned utilities (SCE, PG&E (NYSE:PCG), and Sempra) ESCOs are also supposed to be generating 20% of their power of renewable sources by 2010. Stuart wasn’t sure where that supply was going to come from given long lead times to develop projects. We did discuss whether Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), which don’t currently qualify under California RPS standards, could play a role. Both he and I are personally fans of RECs and view this as an emerging area for opportunity and debate. If the free market is going to help meet our green power objectives, it needs more regulatory permitted tools to do so (the paradox of that statement notwithstanding).

We both also clearly see renewables as part of the overall solution for reducing greenhouse gases. Stuart quickly highlighted carbon credits, energy efficiency and reforestation as the other legs of that broader solution from a utilities’ perspective. But when I put to him the question of what should we be doing first on greenhouse gas emissions, he stated flat out that energy efficiency is the first area in his mind. “Energy not consumed is the best way of reducing any source of emissions.” Of course, SCE is a leader in energy efficiency, too. They don’t intend to be left behind there either.

I must admit, throughout the conversation I was struck by their insistence on maintaining a leadership position in clean energy for SCE. I guess this is just part of the California ethos about leading the nation in environmental issues.

And before I let him go, Stuart asked me to make sure to mention that they are always looking for new renewable power suppliers, and always looking to hire in renewables, so come find him. Their information is located at www.sce.com/renewables, and he can be reached at stuart.hemphill@sce.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 Author for Inside Greentech, and a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Ladylike, On-Demand

/0 Comments/in /by

by Heather Rae for cleantechblog.com

I am little like Princess Diana…soft, ethereal, ladylike, glowing, demure. I was even less like her as a pudgy college student, laying over in a very hot July Madrid, waiting for a flight back to the United States. The two Madrilena widows who ran a pensione out of their sprawling flat grilled me at their door: ‘Where is your husband? Why are you alone? No men allowed here.’ They surveyed me, distrusting, and may as well have asked the direct question, ‘are you a hooker?’ Another topic of great concern was hot water. ‘Do you want hot water? Because that will be extra. You have to pay us up front before we turn on the hot water heater.’ The third concern was the wedding ceremony for Princess Di and Prince Charles that was about to air on television — they did not want to miss it because of some trampy American wanting hot water. As I immersed into a hot tub, they fixated on the (their) angelic Princess.

There are vestiges of old technologies in this house: bits of coal in the old ‘ell,’ knob and tube wiring, the old boiler abandoned in the basement, holes in the chimneys that once served wood stoves. Purpose served, they must go. (I just wish, as I have in previous renovations, that people would clean up after themselves.) The Rinnai Continuum on-demand water heater is hung and vented. ‘The guys’ are putting together the PEX to replace the copper plumbing that will connect to the Rinnai. Living in the United States, these technologies are relatively new. But to the Madrilena widows, an “on-demand” water heater would not be. Nor would it be for the Istanbul, Turkey hotel where I stayed years ago.

In The New Yorker’s review of David Edgerton’s “The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900,” author Steven Shapin writes: “Edgerton says that we are wrong to associate technology solely with invention, and that we should think of it, rather, as evolving through use. A “history of technology-in-use,” he writes, yields “a radically different picture of technology, and indeed of invention and innovation.””

My stay at the Spanish pensione was just 10 days shy of 26 years ago. Since then, PEX has evolved through use (an earlier version would grow brittle when exposed to oxygen and UV-light); now it can be used for different applications, like plumbing. The technology of on-demand heaters evolves; there were numerous options for this old house. (I have evolved into a semblance of a lady, through use, too.) If there are other technologies that are evolving through use in other parts of the globe, then please bring them on. No sense in thinking that invention and innovation and gobs of dough spent on R&D is the only route to the US marketplace.


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.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Solar Energy…in Cleveland

/0 Comments/in /by

by Richard T. Stuebi

Last week, the American Solar Energy Society convened their annual national gathering in Cleveland.

Yes, that’s right: Cleveland. [OK, if you must, insert your joke here]

You might say that “Cleveland” and “solar” is an oxymoron. Coincident with an unusually sunny summer, many of us are trying to change that perception — and it seems like there’s at least some successes to report.

The current issue of the ASES magazine Solar Today profiles Cleveland’s growing efforts in a nice cover article. Just in the past two weeks, significant high-profile PV projects in downtown Cleveland were commissioned at Jacobs Field (ballpark for the Cleveland Indians) and at the Great Lakes Science Center.

Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the ASES solar conference in Cleveland was its attendance. During the annual public day, held on Sunday, over 3200 citizens milled through the exhibit floor (160 booths) and participated in workshops. This was more than double the showing for the public day at the previous year’s ASES conference — in solar-friendly Denver, no less.

No doubt, the great attendance was due in large part to the extensive coverage and promotion of the event by our local daily paper, The Plain-Dealer. Many thanks to them for helping spread the word. And, congratulations to the local organizing chapter of ASES, Green Energy Ohio, for putting on a good show.

Senior ASES staff and conference attendees were reported to be very pleased with their week in Cleveland. Perhaps they can see that Ohio can easily join our neighboring states to the east — Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland — to become part of what is already (as one speaker termed it) “the largest solar market on the planet”.

To be sure, I don’t want to over-hype the situation: with respect to solar energy, Cleveland is a long, long way from where California or Germany is. But, as BP used to say in its advertising, “It’s a start.”

Here in Cleveland, we cleantech advocates can’t rest on the modest accomplishments we’ve achieved so far — we need to keep pushing for more substantial progress. A strong renewable portfolio standard for Ohio, including a solar carve-out as our peers to the east have implemented, is clearly the next step.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Booming in Cleantech

/0 Comments/in /by

by Nick Bruse

We’ve been hearing a lot about whether or whether not there is a cleantech boom on at the moment. A new report by Topline Strategy Group weighs in with evidence that no boom is occuring in VC investments. An article on red herring’s website summarises the findings from the report, namely:

Only a small fraction of the dollars VCs poured into U.S.-based companies—about $1.3 billion out of a total of $25 billion—went to cleantech investments between April 2006 and March 2007, according to Boston-based consulting firm Topline Strategy Group.

Out of the 3,400 deals examined, about 120 were made in cleantech ventures; in addition, the amount of money invested from quarter to quarter remained flat.

And the numbers show that mainstream firms are still playing catch up. Only three of the top 25 high tech and life science venture capital firms have made three or more investments in cleantech over the last year […] By contrast, clean tech-focused boutique firms topped the list of VC firms with the greatest number of cleantech deals […] all had invested in seven or more cleantechcompanies.

On the other hand in the stock market of late we have seen a surge in the prices of some solar companies recently – see Ann-Marie Flemings earlier article – and last year saw surges in biofuels stocks.

When I was thinking about booms I wanted to explore the idea further of picks and shovels sellers being the big winners in these periods. For those that aren’t familiar with this term, it basically a statement that companies selling picks and shovels achieve this providing the tools that allow the more volatile companies in the space will use to make or break their fortunes.

If we go back to an article I found written prior to the dot com bust it servers as a basis for a discussion on these issues. The intriguing article is by a journalist from Asiaweek magazine back in 2000 before the dot-com bubble burst. He slams the idea that picks and shovels were the winners in the market at the time stating. “If you follow the crowd investing in producers of picks and shovels, you will likely become the owner of property in a ghost town.” If you read through the article no doubt you’ll find some amusement in his predictions – as hindsight usually provides. But I think its worthwhile to consider taking a moment to think back to that era and determine whether its the same sentiment and mood that we are seeing today in the energy space.

In a recent podcast with Tom Konrad from Alt Energy Stocks on the The Cleantech Show we discuss his opinions on what is happening in the cleantech / clean energy sector. From his point of view there’s three drivers that are pushing investment into the sector – climate change awareness, peak oil and energy security. We brought up the issue of Picks and Shovels in the clean energy business during the show and I think we decided that perhaps the areas where thats really going to occur is in the energy efficiency sector, where some of the most crucial yet unsexy technologies exist to make a short term impact on carbon emissions.

Now back in the Internet boom days from my point of view the drivers were mainly consumerism, entertainment and interaction based. I worked for a large telecoms provider at the time and much of the hype was driven by the possibility of a new range of services to business and consumers, and too a great extent driven by companies themselves hoping to sell more ATM switches. Ultimately, the expectations outstripped much of what the technology could provide and unsustainable investment resulted in a crash which collapsed the whole commercial basis on which the boom relied.

The drivers we see now in the cleantech sector i believe are more physical and real in nature that those of the internet boom, having said that we only have to see the effect that each new report on oil or climate change has on the share prices of companies in this sector.

The other aspect that i think we have to be concerned of in this sector is the sources of information driving the belief cycle of what is really going to happen with energy markets. For many people understanding the reality of what is occuring in the main drivers listed before is all too hard. Most people would struggle to digest the stern report or IPCC report in its details . So there is a reliance on the sound bytes of reporting in the media, and from professional analysts on the sector. Or from reading opinions on blogs – an information source that wasn’t around in the dotcom boom.

Ultimately my gut is telling me what we will see is a series of surges and stability as we go through the growing pains of understanding how best to deal with climate change issues in the coming years and hopefully that we get enough scares in the short term to force us to derive alternatives to fill the gap in energy supply when the oil runs out. OR we really will run into a dire state of affairs and its all hands of humanity on deck and those who managed to make a return while the good times lasted have somewhere to spend their money.

Ultimately I think we probably need to spend less time worried about the money we can make, but worry about how our money can make a difference quickly.

Nick Bruse runs Strike Consulting, a growth venture consultancy specialising in the cleantech sector and hosts the cleantech show, a weekly podcast of interviews with leaders involved in clean technology research, entrepreneurship, commentary and investment.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Sector Close Up- Renewable Energy – Solar Stocks Surge

/1 Comment/in /by

Solar Stocks Surge on Significant Gains from JA Solar Holdings, First Solar and SunPower

POINT ROBERTS, Wash., Delta B.C., July 12, 2007 – InvestorIdeas.com, a leading global investor and industry research resource portal specialized in sector investing, issues Sector Close Up – Renewable Energy Stocks – Solar Stocks available now at InvestorIdeas.com Research as well as the RenewableEnergyStocks.com investor portal. Despite the growing competitive landscape for solar companies, solar stocks have performed extremely well over the past few months and for some, significant jumps in stock price have occurred within the past 6 weeks.

JA Solar Holdings Co. Ltd (NASDAQ: JASO) has seen its stock price grow approximately 72% since June 1st, a jump of over $17 to its recent close of $41.10. In the same time period, First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR) is up more than $46.00 or 68% and SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ: SPWR) has appreciated more than $14.00 per share to $68.53.

Sector Close Up –Solar Stocks Have their Moment in the Sun

Take a look at the stock charts of the several of the solar stocks:

• First Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR)
• JA Solar Holdings Co. Ltd(NASDAQ: JASO)
• Trina Solar Ltd. (NYSE:TSL)
• Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (NYSE: YGE)
• ICP Solar Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB: ICPR)
• Akeena Solar, Inc. (OTCBB: AKNS)
• SunPower Corporation (NASDAQ:SPWR)
• Suntech Power Holdings Co. (NYSE: STP)
• Solarfun Power Holdings Co. Ltd. (NASDAQ: SOLF)
• LDK Solar Co. Ltd. (NYSE: LDK)
• Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASTI)

Cleantech Sector Stock Directories
Environment Stock Directory – click here
Renewable Energy Stocks Directory – click here
Water Stocks Directory – click here

About InvestorIdeas.com: Investor Research made easy
www.InvestorIdeas.com is a leading global investor and industry research resource portal specialized in sector investing.

Disclaimer: www.InvestorIdeas.com/About/Disclaimer.asp. Our sites do not make recommendations, but offer information portals to research news, articles, stock lists and recent research. Nothing on our sites should be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell products or securities. We attempt to research thoroughly, but we offer no guarantees as to the accuracy of information presented. All information relating to featured companies is sourced from public documents and/ or the company and is not the opinion of our web sites. The site is compensated by featured companies, news submissions and online advertising.

For more information contact:
Dawn Van Zant: 800-665-0411 – dvanzant@investorideas.com
Ann-Marie Fleming: 866-725-2554 – afleming@investorideas.com

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Cleantech vs. Greentech

/1 Comment/in /by

Cleantech vs. Greentech

The Cleantech vs. Greentech debate. I chaired the recent Greenvest 2007 conference in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago on investing in green technology. Nick Parker, Chairman of the Cleantech Group did an opening address on the state of the industry – which brought to mind the question of what exactly one should call the industry.

Is it “Green” or is it “Clean” Technology? So I thought that perhaps a brief discussion of the differences and the history is warranted.

Cleantech – Google search 1.24 million results (1.78 million for “clean tech”).

“Cleantech” is a term popularized (and I believe coined) by friends of mine who founded the Cleantech Venture Network (now Cleantech Group) in about 2002 as an umbrella term to describe the “green and clean” technologies that venture capital investors were turning to in increasing numbers as the next big thing in technology investing after the collapse of the tech boom. Before that, my colleagues and I referred to ourselves at Jane Capital as working on energy and environmental technology (a bit cumbersome). And energy tech is still a term used in many investing circles, though it has been quite heavily consumed inside the Cleantech umbrella. As a side note – before it’s coining as an asset class and technology category, “cleantech” as a word was most likely to refer to dry cleaning equipment.

Here’s straight from the horse’s mouth: “The concept of “clean” technologies embraces a diverse range of products, services, and processes that are inherently designed to provide superior performance at lower costs, greatly reduce or eliminate environmental impacts and, in doing so, improve the quality of life. Clean technologies span many industries, from alternative forms of energy generation to water purification to materials-efficient production techniques.” – Cleantech Venture Network

From Wikipedia:

“Cleantech or clean tech is generally defined as knowledge-based products or services that improve operational performance, productivity or efficiency while reducing costs, inputs, energy consumption, waste or pollution.

Cleantech is differentiated from green technology since it generally refers to the emerging financial industry (as opposed to the actual technology in which the industry invests). Specifically, the investment focus includes water purification, eco- Efficient production techniques, renewable energy, green technology, sustainable business. Since the 1990s the financial community began more active interest and investing into the Cleantech space.”

Greentech – Google search 526,000 results (741,000 for “green tech”).

The term “Greentech” on the other hand, popularized by venture capitalists John Denniston and John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins, has become almost a synonym for cleantech since about 2005 as more mainstream venture capital and Wall Street investors began entering the sector increasing numbers – and has been heavily picked up in the mainstream media – as well as new media startups like Inside Greentech and recently launched Greentech Media. Riding on the coattails established by “cleantech” – some have tried to characterize greentech as “different” to cleantech, and as more than just a subset of the cleantech umbrella. It has also been suggested that greentech is the re-emergence of an older term that never quite found broad appeal from its use in the early 1990s or prior – but is now. As a side note: I could find no greentech entry in Wikipedia yet.

““Clean tech,” as many past efforts at environmentally friendly industry have been called, hasn’t panned out from an investment standpoint, said Mr. Doerr, but “greentech” will.

The difference? The word “green” means money is to be made, he said. It’s about advances in areas such as nanotechnology and alternative fuels that mean that companies will succeed in the future where past efforts have failed.” – Red Herring

When I asked my friends Keith Raab and Nick Parker who cofounded the Cleantech Group to comment on why they coined the term “cleantech” – Keith Raab said “”who wants green air or green water”? The greentech term (and we use small caps unless referring to an org) is very retro and smacks of EPA type regulation. The whole reason we brought the cleantech term to market five years ago was to advance a new concept that reflected technological improvement and new concept. As you know, often cleantech is purchased primarily for non-environmental reasons even though it may offer significant environmental benefits. While some media outlets may be using the greentech term, just about all corps, Wall Street players and VCs who are active in the area use the term cleantech. We think there is room for various terms, eg “resource efficient” but from a capital markets perspective its important there is one term so that a defined asset (allocation) category emerges.”

But whichever term you prefer (at Jane Capital the team has been working in energy and environmental technology for over 30 years), it means building and investing in emerging technologies that are better for energy and the environment. And that means better for all of us.

As a personal note on which term I use – at Jane Capital we have founded and I write and edit the Cleantech Blog, one of the leading sites for news and analysis in energy and environmental technologies (available as well on GreentechBlog.com, of course). We are founding a venture on the portal Cleantech.org (soon to be launched) and I’ve recently joined CNET’s Green tech blog and write columns for Inside Greentech and AltEnergyStocks.com, but when people ask me what I do – I say “energy tech” or “cleantech”.

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 Author for Inside Greentech, and a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks.

Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org