Current congressional Republicans are ignorant of the energy situation....
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-23-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Current congressional Republicans are ignorant of the energy situation....
Or at least they act like it in congress.
Earlier this week TIME online news had this story:
Environmentalists Warn of Natural Debt as Budget Cuts Loom
TIME Tues 2-22-2011 By BRYAN WALSH
In his article, he presents the idea that we may be living beyond the level of the Earth and its biosystems to recover from our use and continue to work right in the same way that financially it can be damaging in the long run to use up capital gradually instead of only living on the interest or dividends.
Here’s a brief quote:
"....the very politicians who are so worried about the public debt - and who want deep spending cuts now to save our future, whatever the cost - utterly dismiss the idea that we could face an equal crisis of natural debt. Politicians like Boehner and Ryan order us to tighten our belts immediately, but they utterly deny the climate and resource crisis the world faces. In fact, the Republicans in Congress are going well beyond simple denial - they're now using their budget to erode America's ability to prepare for that very scary future.
The Republican budget would cut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) budget by one-third - $3 billion - and would prevent the agency from setting any limits on CO2 and a number of other pollutants. It would eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - which would save all of $12.5 million.
It would cut Department of Energy budgets that promoted renewable energy by $1.7 billion - a 23% reduction at a time when the U.S. is in a clean-energy race with China. The National Science Foundation budget would be cut by $395.5 million.
"This is probably the single most irresponsible bill I have seen either Chamber of Congress pass in the more than 20 years I have been in Washington," wrote Dan Lashof, the director of the Natural Resource Defense Council's climate center.
To which the Republicans would respond, We face an unprecedented fiscal crisis, and tough choices have to be made.”
What this misses entirely is that cuts that increase the future costs for energy and which cut into the reliability of our energy supply are dramatically more dangerous to our economy than cuts elsewhere.
Cuts that reduce our increasing energy sources other than coal and particularly other than petroleum threaten to cause truly grave increases in costs and even catastrophic downturns in our economy.
Whatever is cut must NOT be things that will prevent increasing our other sources of energy.
We can cut elsewhere if we must though that won’t be popular either.
But we also must not only leave alone but increase spending on things that increase energy efficiency, increase our usable supply of sustainably produced energy and electricity, education for jobs actually in demand and which support the economy, and small business formation and venture capital.
If we continue to spend on those, we will create jobs and the economy will be strong and able to keep growing. That will enable us to restore the other cuts.
Here’s why cutting things that sharply decrease our dependence on oil and on coal to some extent and cutting things that decrease energy efficiency programs and increased production of renewable energy will cause economic disaster.
1. Bright, well educated, grade school children know that once scientists measure things enough and in enough ways, the conclusions they come to are quite reliable.
The work has been done to show that:
CO2 release from our vast and so far fast-increasing burning of fossil fuels is a primary driver for global warming and that global warming is real and continuing.
Global warming doesn’t just increase the mean global temperature, it produces increased numbers and severity of extreme weather events. (This means that both things like the recent floods in Australia and Pakistan and the heat waves and fires in Russia, Greece, and Oklahoma in the United States AND the recent and repeated massive snowfalls in the United States are all products of global warming.)
Further, such extreme weather costs lives, costs money to deal with, and disrupt the economy. Not stopping global warming means these costs will all increase.
If global warming continues, most countries in the world with important cities on their coasts, will face massive costs to relocate or to dam off the rising sea levels.
Lastly, if you can’t grow food, you starve. If global warming continues enough, our ability to grow crops will be threatened.
2. Even if we could somehow get away with pretending these events from global warming are going on and will get worse if we do nothing, our economy will still stay in recession or go back to it or even collapse if we continue to rely on petroleum for transport.
Much of the world’s oil is in the Middle East including a frighteningly large percentage of the oil those of us in the United States use for gasoline and diesel fuel now. The recent events may wind up improving things there in the long run if we are lucky and God is merciful. But, in the short term anywhere from a quarter to all of that supply may be shut off.
USA Today had a headline this week that gasoline prices of $5 a gallon will arrive by early summer, just 4 months from now, and may well happen because of the events in the Middle East.
Second, peak oil is predicted now by Kuwaiti scientists for 2014, just 3 years from now. There will still be oil available to be sure. But the combination of increasing costs to extract oil and increased demand from increases in population and attempted increases in living standards will combine very soon to drive the cost of gasoline even higher.
It’s well to remember that our recent sharp downturn was triggered by the increase of gasoline prices to about $4.50 per gallon.
If we don’t have transport SOON that either needs no oil or much less oil, we will be in serious trouble.
That means that for both preventing huge costs from global warming and for a reliable energy supply for all transport that avoids huge cost run ups, we need to continue programs that begin to limit the use of oil and to massively increase renewable energy and energy efficiency and the amount of all electric vehicles and of plug-in hybrids.
I understand that many Republicans take political contributions from the oil industry. Understandably, the oil businesses don’t want restrictions and increased costs.
But once all members of congress take the oath of office to serve in the congress of the United States, their JOB is to serve the interests of the entire country and to be well and accurately informed about the risks it faces.
The current crop of Republicans in congress flunks that test in my view. Every single one who voted for the cuts described above, should resign or change the votes they make.
They are either ignorant to the point of incompetence &/or failing their responsibility as members of our congress.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Biofuels need not cause extra increases in food costs....
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-16-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Biofuels need not cause extra increases in food costs....
Earlier this week TIME online news had this story:
Food Prices: Crisis Deepens as Biofuels Consume More Crops
The article explains that while recently bad weather is much of the reason causing the currently higher grain prices, using corn for ethanol, may also have a price-boosting effect by cutting the amount of corn available for food use.
But using more and more of the corn for animal feed and the increases in world population and the resulting demand for food also drive up corn prices.
Since eating corn oil, refined corn meal, and high fructose corn syrup -- and meat from grain fed animals fed corn has recently begun to be increasingly found to be bad for people, using corn for ethanol might seem a better choice. In fact, once the corn is grown, this evidence suggests making it into ethanol may be a far superior choice due to the avoided medical care costs for obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
But that ignores two more serious problems.:
Before the current corn monoculture, that same land was used to raise a variety of foods including fruit and vegetables of many kinds that WERE good for people to eat.
If we can make ethanol or other biofuels without this land, we WOULD be better off.
Secondly, by the time the corn is grown and turned into ethanol, it takes close to as much fuel to do -- or maybe even more -- than the ethanol produced.
That is NOT a wise solution to producing biofuels.
The much better news is that there are other ways to produce ethanol and other biofuels or to get similar effects that do not share these two problems.
1. If you make ethanol and other biofuels from agricultural waste or weeds grown on land not otherwise arable or from algae grown on land not useful for growing food or from feeding such algae the CO2 produced by power plants still using coal, or oil, or natural gas, you get biofuels, including ethanol, jet fuel, gasoline, biodiesel, and other carbon based chemicals now made from petroleum.
Brazil already grows quite a bit of sugar cane. The waste is used to make ethanol.
Further, the company Amyris now has biotech methods to convert this waste to ethanol more efficiently.
Solazyme now is making jet fuel for the US Navy from biofuels.
And, there are many more new experimental companies working on biofuels from a variety of sources that do not use farmland.
There are so many, due to the increasing demand expected, that it’s hard to keep track of them all.
I found one article tracking such biofuels.
Genencor has produced an enzyme process to make cellulosic alcohol. On their website,
http://www.genencor.com , I found they have a separate website, http://www.accellerase.com about that product and other biofuels. And, on that website, I found a story about what the current status is for many venture backed biofuel companies.
(See http://bit.ly/idABn7 And, if I succeeded in copying it all, see:
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/next-gen-biofuel-cheat-sheet-where-are-they-now/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+earth2tech+%28GigaOM%3A+Cleantech%29 .
If that doesn’t run, go to the previous website listed as their link works or did as of yesterday.
2. In their blog, the founder of Nanosolar once published an analysis showing that the electricity harvestable by Nanosolar’s thin film photovoltaic cells per acre of land was something like 100 times a great as growing a crop on it, turning that into biofuels, and then making electricity with them.
So, in the long run, sharply increasing the use of solar generated electricity to power transport instead of liquid fuels and biofuels is likely a better choice.
That IS beginning to happen. But the amount of vehicles now in operation that depend on liquid fuels is so great, that biofuels will remain extremely important for 30 years or more. And, for such uses as jet fuel, liquid fuels will still likely be needed.
The good news is that there are superior ways to produce the needed biofuels that do NOT need agricultural land -- or land that is currently forest that removes CO2 from the air at no charge to us.
We need to do far more to put those in place and to speed up the development and large scale use of transport powered by electricity made from renewable sources.
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-16-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Biofuels need not cause extra increases in food costs....
Earlier this week TIME online news had this story:
Food Prices: Crisis Deepens as Biofuels Consume More Crops
The article explains that while recently bad weather is much of the reason causing the currently higher grain prices, using corn for ethanol, may also have a price-boosting effect by cutting the amount of corn available for food use.
But using more and more of the corn for animal feed and the increases in world population and the resulting demand for food also drive up corn prices.
Since eating corn oil, refined corn meal, and high fructose corn syrup -- and meat from grain fed animals fed corn has recently begun to be increasingly found to be bad for people, using corn for ethanol might seem a better choice. In fact, once the corn is grown, this evidence suggests making it into ethanol may be a far superior choice due to the avoided medical care costs for obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
But that ignores two more serious problems.:
Before the current corn monoculture, that same land was used to raise a variety of foods including fruit and vegetables of many kinds that WERE good for people to eat.
If we can make ethanol or other biofuels without this land, we WOULD be better off.
Secondly, by the time the corn is grown and turned into ethanol, it takes close to as much fuel to do -- or maybe even more -- than the ethanol produced.
That is NOT a wise solution to producing biofuels.
The much better news is that there are other ways to produce ethanol and other biofuels or to get similar effects that do not share these two problems.
1. If you make ethanol and other biofuels from agricultural waste or weeds grown on land not otherwise arable or from algae grown on land not useful for growing food or from feeding such algae the CO2 produced by power plants still using coal, or oil, or natural gas, you get biofuels, including ethanol, jet fuel, gasoline, biodiesel, and other carbon based chemicals now made from petroleum.
Brazil already grows quite a bit of sugar cane. The waste is used to make ethanol.
Further, the company Amyris now has biotech methods to convert this waste to ethanol more efficiently.
Solazyme now is making jet fuel for the US Navy from biofuels.
And, there are many more new experimental companies working on biofuels from a variety of sources that do not use farmland.
There are so many, due to the increasing demand expected, that it’s hard to keep track of them all.
I found one article tracking such biofuels.
Genencor has produced an enzyme process to make cellulosic alcohol. On their website,
http://www.genencor.com , I found they have a separate website, http://www.accellerase.com about that product and other biofuels. And, on that website, I found a story about what the current status is for many venture backed biofuel companies.
(See http://bit.ly/idABn7 And, if I succeeded in copying it all, see:
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/next-gen-biofuel-cheat-sheet-where-are-they-now/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+earth2tech+%28GigaOM%3A+Cleantech%29 .
If that doesn’t run, go to the previous website listed as their link works or did as of yesterday.
2. In their blog, the founder of Nanosolar once published an analysis showing that the electricity harvestable by Nanosolar’s thin film photovoltaic cells per acre of land was something like 100 times a great as growing a crop on it, turning that into biofuels, and then making electricity with them.
So, in the long run, sharply increasing the use of solar generated electricity to power transport instead of liquid fuels and biofuels is likely a better choice.
That IS beginning to happen. But the amount of vehicles now in operation that depend on liquid fuels is so great, that biofuels will remain extremely important for 30 years or more. And, for such uses as jet fuel, liquid fuels will still likely be needed.
The good news is that there are superior ways to produce the needed biofuels that do NOT need agricultural land -- or land that is currently forest that removes CO2 from the air at no charge to us.
We need to do far more to put those in place and to speed up the development and large scale use of transport powered by electricity made from renewable sources.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
US Government seed investments in energy technology are working....
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-9-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
US Government seed investments in energy technology are working....
Last week the San Jose Mercury News had this story:
“Cleantech companies off to a good start By Dana Hull dhull@mercurynews.com “
Here is her main point:
“Six cleantech companies that received a total of $23.6 million in seed funding from the Department of Energy's highly regarded ARPA-E program have, a year later, attracted more than $100 million in private capital investment.”
She noted that this announcement highlighted ARPA-E's success in making early and strategic investments in potentially game-changing clean-energy technologies.
She then quotes Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
"This amount of private capital support indicates that the business community is hungry to invest in truly innovative solutions to the country's energy challenges."
& "The goal of the ARPA-E program is to swing for the fences, to focus on truly transformative energy research, and that's exactly what we are seeing."
She then added: “Modeled after DARPA, the Defense Department program credited with helping to create the Internet, the stealth fighter plane and the M16 assault rifle, ARPA-E, or Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, was first funded in 2009 to provide money for "pie in the sky" and "moonshot" clean-energy technologies that venture capitalists typically avoid. Its competitive grants are relatively small, averaging about $3 million.
Envia Systems, a Newark startup that received $4 million from ARPA-E in December 2009 to develop advanced lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, announced last week that it had raised an additional $17 million in venture capital from General Motors Ventures, Bay Partners, Redpoint and Pangaea Ventures.
"ARPA-E stepped into the chasm and made an investment when VCs could not," Envia CEO Atul Kapadia said Wednesday.
ARPA-E has just over 20 employees, but many regularly travel to meet with grantees. Kapadia said ARPA-E performs a level of technological diligence beyond that of most venture capital firms.
"The guys at ARPA-E are incredibly smart, and they go head to head with our scientists," Kapadia said.
Arun Majumdar left his job at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in October 2009 to direct ARPA-E and has recruited high-caliber talent to work with him. He notes that several ARPA-E grantees beyond the six highlighted also have gone on to raise money from the private sector.
"It's good to see that VC investment has been unleashed," Majumdar said. "We're really looking for ideas that are game-changing and will make today's technology obsolete."
The second annual ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, designed to showcase ARPA-E grantees as well as finalists, will be Feb. 28-March 2 in Washington. Several cleantech leaders from Silicon Valley, including Laura Ipsen of Cisco Systems, Will Coleman of Mohr Davidow Ventures and Codexis CEO Alan Shaw, are among those scheduled to speak.”
You can contact Dana Hull at 408-920-2706. O r email her at dhull@mercurynews.com .
She often writes stories about clean energy and the venture firms and companies in the field that for the local newspaper that is one of the two local papers read in the Silicon Valley. (David Baker writes similar stories for the San Francisco Chronicle.)
And, looking up her article online at the Mercury News I also found this.:
“Acorns to seedlings
Six cleantech startups that got new funding after getting seed money from the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program:
1. Envia Systems, Newark: Envia received $4 million from ARPA-E in December 2009 to develop lithium-ion batteries and raised an additional $17 million in venture capital funds.
2. 1366 Technologies, Lexington, Mass.: It's developing a new way to make silicon wafers for 20 percent of the current cost. The company received $4 million from ARPA-E and an additional $33.4 million from investors.
3. FloDesign, Wilbraham, Mass: The company, which is developing a new wind turbine, received $8.3 million from ARPA-E and raised an additional $27 million.
4. Sun Catalytix, Cambridge, Mass.: A startup spun out of MIT, it received $4 million from ARPA-E to develop technologies for combining sunlight and water to provide affordable solar energy. It has received an additional $9.5 million in venture capital.
5. General Compression, Newton, Mass.: The company is developing energy storage technologies for power grids and received an ARPA-E grant of $750,000. It then raised an additional $12 million in private funding.
6. 24M, Cambridge, Mass.: The startup was spun out of MIT and A123 Systems after getting $2.55 million from ARPA-E. It then raised $10 million in venture capital.”
Note that the majority of these companies are for allowing power grids or homes or businesses to take energy as electricity from solar or wind as it is available and to store it until it’s needed.
The more that becomes doable and cost effective and installed, the less fossil fuel or geothermal or nuclear power we will need and the more we can rely on wind and solar for our energy and electricity.
This is particularly true for wind as it varies even more than solar power does. And, in the United States, many states have abundant wind more than they have abundant sunny days. Iowa is a prime example. Of course some have both as Texas does.
These include: “1. Envia Systems” & “4. Sun Catalytix” & “5. General Compression” & “6. 24M” which has the real name of 24M Technologies I found out.:
“CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Aug. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- 24M Technologies launched today as a new venture focused on commercializing next-generation energy storage systems based on technology out of A123 Systems, a developer and manufacturer of advanced Nanophosphate™ lithium ion batteries and systems, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).”
With wind, the more efficiently you can tap it when it is available, the less space you need for the turbines, if you can avoid killing birds with them, the quieter their operation, & the lower the cost to make, install and operate them, the more we can install and benefit from. That’s particularly true if we add the storage for the electricity generated so we can tap wind generated electricity on demand.
“3. FloDesign” is a contract engineering firm that applies aerospace technology to new and needed applications. Their wind turbine work has a website with contact phone numbers and the email: inquiries@fdwt.com . But it has no information listed as yet as to which of these aspects of improving wind generation for which they have found a solution or are working on one or more.
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-9-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
US Government seed investments in energy technology are working....
Last week the San Jose Mercury News had this story:
“Cleantech companies off to a good start By Dana Hull dhull@mercurynews.com “
Here is her main point:
“Six cleantech companies that received a total of $23.6 million in seed funding from the Department of Energy's highly regarded ARPA-E program have, a year later, attracted more than $100 million in private capital investment.”
She noted that this announcement highlighted ARPA-E's success in making early and strategic investments in potentially game-changing clean-energy technologies.
She then quotes Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
"This amount of private capital support indicates that the business community is hungry to invest in truly innovative solutions to the country's energy challenges."
& "The goal of the ARPA-E program is to swing for the fences, to focus on truly transformative energy research, and that's exactly what we are seeing."
She then added: “Modeled after DARPA, the Defense Department program credited with helping to create the Internet, the stealth fighter plane and the M16 assault rifle, ARPA-E, or Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, was first funded in 2009 to provide money for "pie in the sky" and "moonshot" clean-energy technologies that venture capitalists typically avoid. Its competitive grants are relatively small, averaging about $3 million.
Envia Systems, a Newark startup that received $4 million from ARPA-E in December 2009 to develop advanced lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, announced last week that it had raised an additional $17 million in venture capital from General Motors Ventures, Bay Partners, Redpoint and Pangaea Ventures.
"ARPA-E stepped into the chasm and made an investment when VCs could not," Envia CEO Atul Kapadia said Wednesday.
ARPA-E has just over 20 employees, but many regularly travel to meet with grantees. Kapadia said ARPA-E performs a level of technological diligence beyond that of most venture capital firms.
"The guys at ARPA-E are incredibly smart, and they go head to head with our scientists," Kapadia said.
Arun Majumdar left his job at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in October 2009 to direct ARPA-E and has recruited high-caliber talent to work with him. He notes that several ARPA-E grantees beyond the six highlighted also have gone on to raise money from the private sector.
"It's good to see that VC investment has been unleashed," Majumdar said. "We're really looking for ideas that are game-changing and will make today's technology obsolete."
The second annual ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, designed to showcase ARPA-E grantees as well as finalists, will be Feb. 28-March 2 in Washington. Several cleantech leaders from Silicon Valley, including Laura Ipsen of Cisco Systems, Will Coleman of Mohr Davidow Ventures and Codexis CEO Alan Shaw, are among those scheduled to speak.”
You can contact Dana Hull at 408-920-2706. O r email her at dhull@mercurynews.com .
She often writes stories about clean energy and the venture firms and companies in the field that for the local newspaper that is one of the two local papers read in the Silicon Valley. (David Baker writes similar stories for the San Francisco Chronicle.)
And, looking up her article online at the Mercury News I also found this.:
“Acorns to seedlings
Six cleantech startups that got new funding after getting seed money from the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program:
1. Envia Systems, Newark: Envia received $4 million from ARPA-E in December 2009 to develop lithium-ion batteries and raised an additional $17 million in venture capital funds.
2. 1366 Technologies, Lexington, Mass.: It's developing a new way to make silicon wafers for 20 percent of the current cost. The company received $4 million from ARPA-E and an additional $33.4 million from investors.
3. FloDesign, Wilbraham, Mass: The company, which is developing a new wind turbine, received $8.3 million from ARPA-E and raised an additional $27 million.
4. Sun Catalytix, Cambridge, Mass.: A startup spun out of MIT, it received $4 million from ARPA-E to develop technologies for combining sunlight and water to provide affordable solar energy. It has received an additional $9.5 million in venture capital.
5. General Compression, Newton, Mass.: The company is developing energy storage technologies for power grids and received an ARPA-E grant of $750,000. It then raised an additional $12 million in private funding.
6. 24M, Cambridge, Mass.: The startup was spun out of MIT and A123 Systems after getting $2.55 million from ARPA-E. It then raised $10 million in venture capital.”
Note that the majority of these companies are for allowing power grids or homes or businesses to take energy as electricity from solar or wind as it is available and to store it until it’s needed.
The more that becomes doable and cost effective and installed, the less fossil fuel or geothermal or nuclear power we will need and the more we can rely on wind and solar for our energy and electricity.
This is particularly true for wind as it varies even more than solar power does. And, in the United States, many states have abundant wind more than they have abundant sunny days. Iowa is a prime example. Of course some have both as Texas does.
These include: “1. Envia Systems” & “4. Sun Catalytix” & “5. General Compression” & “6. 24M” which has the real name of 24M Technologies I found out.:
“CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Aug. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- 24M Technologies launched today as a new venture focused on commercializing next-generation energy storage systems based on technology out of A123 Systems, a developer and manufacturer of advanced Nanophosphate™ lithium ion batteries and systems, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).”
With wind, the more efficiently you can tap it when it is available, the less space you need for the turbines, if you can avoid killing birds with them, the quieter their operation, & the lower the cost to make, install and operate them, the more we can install and benefit from. That’s particularly true if we add the storage for the electricity generated so we can tap wind generated electricity on demand.
“3. FloDesign” is a contract engineering firm that applies aerospace technology to new and needed applications. Their wind turbine work has a website with contact phone numbers and the email: inquiries@fdwt.com . But it has no information listed as yet as to which of these aspects of improving wind generation for which they have found a solution or are working on one or more.
US Government seed investments in energy technology are working....
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-9-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
US Government seed investments in energy technology are working....
Last week the San Jose Mercury News had this story:
“Cleantech companies off to a good start By Dana Hull dhull@mercurynews.com “
Here is her main point:
“Six cleantech companies that received a total of $23.6 million in seed funding from the Department of Energy's highly regarded ARPA-E program have, a year later, attracted more than $100 million in private capital investment.”
She noted that this announcement highlighted ARPA-E's success in making early and strategic investments in potentially game-changing clean-energy technologies.
She then quotes Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
"This amount of private capital support indicates that the business community is hungry to invest in truly innovative solutions to the country's energy challenges."
& "The goal of the ARPA-E program is to swing for the fences, to focus on truly transformative energy research, and that's exactly what we are seeing."
She then added: “Modeled after DARPA, the Defense Department program credited with helping to create the Internet, the stealth fighter plane and the M16 assault rifle, ARPA-E, or Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, was first funded in 2009 to provide money for "pie in the sky" and "moonshot" clean-energy technologies that venture capitalists typically avoid. Its competitive grants are relatively small, averaging about $3 million.
Envia Systems, a Newark startup that received $4 million from ARPA-E in December 2009 to develop advanced lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, announced last week that it had raised an additional $17 million in venture capital from General Motors Ventures, Bay Partners, Redpoint and Pangaea Ventures.
"ARPA-E stepped into the chasm and made an investment when VCs could not," Envia CEO Atul Kapadia said Wednesday.
ARPA-E has just over 20 employees, but many regularly travel to meet with grantees. Kapadia said ARPA-E performs a level of technological diligence beyond that of most venture capital firms.
"The guys at ARPA-E are incredibly smart, and they go head to head with our scientists," Kapadia said.
Arun Majumdar left his job at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in October 2009 to direct ARPA-E and has recruited high-caliber talent to work with him. He notes that several ARPA-E grantees beyond the six highlighted also have gone on to raise money from the private sector.
"It's good to see that VC investment has been unleashed," Majumdar said. "We're really looking for ideas that are game-changing and will make today's technology obsolete."
The second annual ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, designed to showcase ARPA-E grantees as well as finalists, will be Feb. 28-March 2 in Washington. Several cleantech leaders from Silicon Valley, including Laura Ipsen of Cisco Systems, Will Coleman of Mohr Davidow Ventures and Codexis CEO Alan Shaw, are among those scheduled to speak.”
You can contact Dana Hull at 408-920-2706. O r email her at dhull@mercurynews.com .
She often writes stories about clean energy and the venture firms and companies in the field that for the local newspaper that is one of the two local papers read in the Silicon Valley. (David Baker writes similar stories for the San Francisco Chronicle.)
And, looking up her article online at the Mercury News I also found this.:
“Acorns to seedlings
Six cleantech startups that got new funding after getting seed money from the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program:
1. Envia Systems, Newark: Envia received $4 million from ARPA-E in December 2009 to develop lithium-ion batteries and raised an additional $17 million in venture capital funds.
2. 1366 Technologies, Lexington, Mass.: It's developing a new way to make silicon wafers for 20 percent of the current cost. The company received $4 million from ARPA-E and an additional $33.4 million from investors.
3. FloDesign, Wilbraham, Mass: The company, which is developing a new wind turbine, received $8.3 million from ARPA-E and raised an additional $27 million.
4. Sun Catalytix, Cambridge, Mass.: A startup spun out of MIT, it received $4 million from ARPA-E to develop technologies for combining sunlight and water to provide affordable solar energy. It has received an additional $9.5 million in venture capital.
5. General Compression, Newton, Mass.: The company is developing energy storage technologies for power grids and received an ARPA-E grant of $750,000. It then raised an additional $12 million in private funding.
6. 24M, Cambridge, Mass.: The startup was spun out of MIT and A123 Systems after getting $2.55 million from ARPA-E. It then raised $10 million in venture capital.”
Note that the majority of these companies are for allowing power grids or homes or businesses to take energy as electricity from solar or wind as it is available and to store it until it’s needed.
The more that becomes doable and cost effective and installed, the less fossil fuel or geothermal or nuclear power we will need and the more we can rely on wind and solar for our energy and electricity.
This is particularly true for wind as it varies even more than solar power does. And, in the United States, many states have abundant wind more than they have abundant sunny days. Iowa is a prime example. Of course some have both as Texas does.
These include: “1. Envia Systems” & “4. Sun Catalytix” & “5. General Compression” & “6. 24M” which has the real name of 24M Technologies I found out.:
“CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Aug. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- 24M Technologies launched today as a new venture focused on commercializing next-generation energy storage systems based on technology out of A123 Systems, a developer and manufacturer of advanced Nanophosphate™ lithium ion batteries and systems, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).”
With wind, the more efficiently you can tap it when it is available, the less space you need for the turbines, if you can avoid killing birds with them, the quieter their operation, & the lower the cost to make, install and operate them, the more we can install and benefit from. That’s particularly true if we add the storage for the electricity generated so we can tap wind generated electricity on demand.
“3. FloDesign” is a contract engineering firm that applies aerospace technology to new and needed applications. Their wind turbine work has a website with contact phone numbers and the email: inquiries@fdwt.com . But it has no information listed as yet as to which of these aspects of improving wind generation for which they have found a solution or are working on one or more.
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-9-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
US Government seed investments in energy technology are working....
Last week the San Jose Mercury News had this story:
“Cleantech companies off to a good start By Dana Hull dhull@mercurynews.com “
Here is her main point:
“Six cleantech companies that received a total of $23.6 million in seed funding from the Department of Energy's highly regarded ARPA-E program have, a year later, attracted more than $100 million in private capital investment.”
She noted that this announcement highlighted ARPA-E's success in making early and strategic investments in potentially game-changing clean-energy technologies.
She then quotes Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
"This amount of private capital support indicates that the business community is hungry to invest in truly innovative solutions to the country's energy challenges."
& "The goal of the ARPA-E program is to swing for the fences, to focus on truly transformative energy research, and that's exactly what we are seeing."
She then added: “Modeled after DARPA, the Defense Department program credited with helping to create the Internet, the stealth fighter plane and the M16 assault rifle, ARPA-E, or Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, was first funded in 2009 to provide money for "pie in the sky" and "moonshot" clean-energy technologies that venture capitalists typically avoid. Its competitive grants are relatively small, averaging about $3 million.
Envia Systems, a Newark startup that received $4 million from ARPA-E in December 2009 to develop advanced lithium-ion batteries for electric cars, announced last week that it had raised an additional $17 million in venture capital from General Motors Ventures, Bay Partners, Redpoint and Pangaea Ventures.
"ARPA-E stepped into the chasm and made an investment when VCs could not," Envia CEO Atul Kapadia said Wednesday.
ARPA-E has just over 20 employees, but many regularly travel to meet with grantees. Kapadia said ARPA-E performs a level of technological diligence beyond that of most venture capital firms.
"The guys at ARPA-E are incredibly smart, and they go head to head with our scientists," Kapadia said.
Arun Majumdar left his job at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in October 2009 to direct ARPA-E and has recruited high-caliber talent to work with him. He notes that several ARPA-E grantees beyond the six highlighted also have gone on to raise money from the private sector.
"It's good to see that VC investment has been unleashed," Majumdar said. "We're really looking for ideas that are game-changing and will make today's technology obsolete."
The second annual ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, designed to showcase ARPA-E grantees as well as finalists, will be Feb. 28-March 2 in Washington. Several cleantech leaders from Silicon Valley, including Laura Ipsen of Cisco Systems, Will Coleman of Mohr Davidow Ventures and Codexis CEO Alan Shaw, are among those scheduled to speak.”
You can contact Dana Hull at 408-920-2706. O r email her at dhull@mercurynews.com .
She often writes stories about clean energy and the venture firms and companies in the field that for the local newspaper that is one of the two local papers read in the Silicon Valley. (David Baker writes similar stories for the San Francisco Chronicle.)
And, looking up her article online at the Mercury News I also found this.:
“Acorns to seedlings
Six cleantech startups that got new funding after getting seed money from the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program:
1. Envia Systems, Newark: Envia received $4 million from ARPA-E in December 2009 to develop lithium-ion batteries and raised an additional $17 million in venture capital funds.
2. 1366 Technologies, Lexington, Mass.: It's developing a new way to make silicon wafers for 20 percent of the current cost. The company received $4 million from ARPA-E and an additional $33.4 million from investors.
3. FloDesign, Wilbraham, Mass: The company, which is developing a new wind turbine, received $8.3 million from ARPA-E and raised an additional $27 million.
4. Sun Catalytix, Cambridge, Mass.: A startup spun out of MIT, it received $4 million from ARPA-E to develop technologies for combining sunlight and water to provide affordable solar energy. It has received an additional $9.5 million in venture capital.
5. General Compression, Newton, Mass.: The company is developing energy storage technologies for power grids and received an ARPA-E grant of $750,000. It then raised an additional $12 million in private funding.
6. 24M, Cambridge, Mass.: The startup was spun out of MIT and A123 Systems after getting $2.55 million from ARPA-E. It then raised $10 million in venture capital.”
Note that the majority of these companies are for allowing power grids or homes or businesses to take energy as electricity from solar or wind as it is available and to store it until it’s needed.
The more that becomes doable and cost effective and installed, the less fossil fuel or geothermal or nuclear power we will need and the more we can rely on wind and solar for our energy and electricity.
This is particularly true for wind as it varies even more than solar power does. And, in the United States, many states have abundant wind more than they have abundant sunny days. Iowa is a prime example. Of course some have both as Texas does.
These include: “1. Envia Systems” & “4. Sun Catalytix” & “5. General Compression” & “6. 24M” which has the real name of 24M Technologies I found out.:
“CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Aug. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- 24M Technologies launched today as a new venture focused on commercializing next-generation energy storage systems based on technology out of A123 Systems, a developer and manufacturer of advanced Nanophosphate™ lithium ion batteries and systems, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).”
With wind, the more efficiently you can tap it when it is available, the less space you need for the turbines, if you can avoid killing birds with them, the quieter their operation, & the lower the cost to make, install and operate them, the more we can install and benefit from. That’s particularly true if we add the storage for the electricity generated so we can tap wind generated electricity on demand.
“3. FloDesign” is a contract engineering firm that applies aerospace technology to new and needed applications. Their wind turbine work has a website with contact phone numbers and the email: inquiries@fdwt.com . But it has no information listed as yet as to which of these aspects of improving wind generation for which they have found a solution or are working on one or more.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Good information on many clean energy topics....
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-2-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Good information on many clean energy topics....
The information I posted earlier on Skyonic’s process to remove CO2, and other pollutants, from the exhaust from coal fired plants was from a clean tech media company called GreentechMedia.
To see all their current articles, go to http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ .
The article I just read on that site, described a company that made carbon based biofuels from CO2 and water as a way to store or use wind power during those times when the wind generated electricity was in excess of demand.
Since generating electricity by burning carbon based fuels, or using a Bloom Energy fuel cell produces both CO2 and water, locating a wind power generating location to a nearby plant making electricity from coal or natural gas might be worth checking out as one example of how this might be used.
Since this process also can remove CO2 from the air, locating such a wind-powered facility near a river or lake or ocean, might also be a way to remove CO2 and provide carbon based fuels that do NOT come from oil -- and which at some point do so such that these fuels cost less than those from oil.
I’m short on time today. But, if you want a large and regular amount of thought provoking ideas on clean energy and actual companies working in the field from startups to huge companies, check the articles on this site.
Today's post: Wednesday, 2-2-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Good information on many clean energy topics....
The information I posted earlier on Skyonic’s process to remove CO2, and other pollutants, from the exhaust from coal fired plants was from a clean tech media company called GreentechMedia.
To see all their current articles, go to http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/ .
The article I just read on that site, described a company that made carbon based biofuels from CO2 and water as a way to store or use wind power during those times when the wind generated electricity was in excess of demand.
Since generating electricity by burning carbon based fuels, or using a Bloom Energy fuel cell produces both CO2 and water, locating a wind power generating location to a nearby plant making electricity from coal or natural gas might be worth checking out as one example of how this might be used.
Since this process also can remove CO2 from the air, locating such a wind-powered facility near a river or lake or ocean, might also be a way to remove CO2 and provide carbon based fuels that do NOT come from oil -- and which at some point do so such that these fuels cost less than those from oil.
I’m short on time today. But, if you want a large and regular amount of thought provoking ideas on clean energy and actual companies working in the field from startups to huge companies, check the articles on this site.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Dramatically increase electricity from renewable sources....
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-26-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Dramatically increase electricity from renewable sources....
In providing electricity, there are several renewable sources we can dramatically increase. To some degree, many countries are finally beginning to do so. And, if it can be done at all and done safely, electricity from nuclear power at least does not release CO2. We can also make our use of electricity much more efficient in virtually all uses. We can gradually go to almost exclusively LED lights for lighting, for example.
We can use Bloom Energy fuel cells to generate electricity from natural gas and we may develop ways to make biogas from coal and do the same. We can then send the CO2 released to algae to make biofuels. And, we may be able to turn some CO2 from existing coal fired plants to minerals that are usable (Skyonic does that.); and we may feed the remainder to algae to make biofuels.
But the faster and more massive our build up of renewable sources for generating electricity, the safer we will be and the stronger our economy will be.
Similarly, adding to the grid and adding to our ability to use it to match demand and supply will help make renewably produced electricity deliverable on demand and when needed. So will advances in battery technology.
In an email based on his comments last night in the State of Union speech. President Barack Obama said this in part:
“Moving forward, America's economic growth at home is inextricably connected to our competitiveness in the global community. The more products American companies can export, the more jobs we can create at home.
This vision for the future starts with innovation, tapping into the creativity and imagination of our people to create the jobs and industries of the future. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. It's why I challenged Congress to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.
Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist.
But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets. We unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.
This is our generation's Sputnik moment.
That’s what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo projects of our time.
We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.
Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.”
Here are my comments.
Clean coal IS becoming more doable from gasifying it where it is mined, moving it through pipelines, and then using Bloom energy fuel cells to generate electricity to gradually retrofitting existing plants that stay running to remove 100 % of the CO2 before it’s released and approaching removing 100 % of the other pollution. But this technology will cost money to install and will increase the cost of electricity from coal.
Nuclear power from breeder reactors maximizes the energy from the uranium that is used and largely solves the waste storage and transport problem since most of the radioactive material never leaves. But you can make nuclear bombs from the contents. So, providing close to fail safe security needs to be added to the cost. Nuclear from non-breeder reactors if used in volume will use up our uranium making it NOT a renewable energy source and does create waste that is potentially unstorable in any safe way. And nuclear is unfinanceable without government guarantees. I think we can build more and likely will do so. But if we do it and even approach doing it safely, it will be expensive.
Oil is likely to jump dramatically in cost as we approach and pass peak oil and it becomes more and more expensive to extract. In the near term while we still over-rely on oil for transport, demand will also increase driving up prices even more. Lastly, as J Paul Getty foresaw years ago, petroleum will gradually be more valuable as a petrochemical feedstock to the point that value will be greater than burning it. So, it should totally be discontinued as a way to generate electricity.
Meanwhile our economy depends on transport that now uses oil almost exclusively. Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and biofuels more and more together will gradually change that. But for this reason to some degree it may be too soon to stop the tax breaks for the oil companies. The oil companies will and have been spending megabucks on lobbying and on manipulating public opinion to prevent that from happening as well. Their subsidies clearly should be ended but this is clearly NOT the right time to do that and is likely undoable now anyway.
The one fossil fuel that does make some sense to use is natural gas. This is particularly the case now that there is a no to very low pollution and efficient way to use it to generate electricity using Bloom Energy’s fuel cells. The lower temperature and fewer pollutants from this process also will make it easier to capture the CO2 released and power plants can be built set up to do so which will lower the cost of doing it. We likely should be making this a short term priority as it will cost less than clean coal and nuclear and will provide a way to generate electricity on demand that will go well with more sporadic renewable sources.
Next, the one renewable energy that also generates electricity on demand that goes well with wind and solar is geothermal. It won’t be cheap. And, we need to find our more about how to tap it without triggering earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. But enough potential is there, we should do far more than we have to bring more of it online. And, if we can go deep enough and do it safely, there is a LOT of it available.
Meanwhile, it is clear that we only have about 1 or 2 % of the solar installed both photovoltaic and thermal and perhaps 4 to 7 % of the wind generation that we can clearly get to.
To the extent that we can get to 100 % on both by 2035 or by 2050 at least, it will pay us to do so. When you factor in safety and real cost per unit of electricity generated it may even be the cheapest in the long run.
So, we need to dramatically increase our electricity from renewable sources, particularly solar and wind.
Paying for it by ending oil company tax breaks and other subsidies may not be advisable or even doable right away.
But every bit of the rest of the quote by President Obama is right on the mark.:
“Moving forward, America's economic growth at home is inextricably connected to our competitiveness in the global community. The more products American companies can export, the more jobs we can create at home.
This vision for the future starts with innovation, tapping into the creativity and imagination of our people to create the jobs and industries of the future. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. It's why I challenged Congress to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.
Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist.
But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets. We unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.
This is our generation's Sputnik moment.“
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-26-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Dramatically increase electricity from renewable sources....
In providing electricity, there are several renewable sources we can dramatically increase. To some degree, many countries are finally beginning to do so. And, if it can be done at all and done safely, electricity from nuclear power at least does not release CO2. We can also make our use of electricity much more efficient in virtually all uses. We can gradually go to almost exclusively LED lights for lighting, for example.
We can use Bloom Energy fuel cells to generate electricity from natural gas and we may develop ways to make biogas from coal and do the same. We can then send the CO2 released to algae to make biofuels. And, we may be able to turn some CO2 from existing coal fired plants to minerals that are usable (Skyonic does that.); and we may feed the remainder to algae to make biofuels.
But the faster and more massive our build up of renewable sources for generating electricity, the safer we will be and the stronger our economy will be.
Similarly, adding to the grid and adding to our ability to use it to match demand and supply will help make renewably produced electricity deliverable on demand and when needed. So will advances in battery technology.
In an email based on his comments last night in the State of Union speech. President Barack Obama said this in part:
“Moving forward, America's economic growth at home is inextricably connected to our competitiveness in the global community. The more products American companies can export, the more jobs we can create at home.
This vision for the future starts with innovation, tapping into the creativity and imagination of our people to create the jobs and industries of the future. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. It's why I challenged Congress to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.
Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist.
But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets. We unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.
This is our generation's Sputnik moment.
That’s what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo projects of our time.
We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.
Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.”
Here are my comments.
Clean coal IS becoming more doable from gasifying it where it is mined, moving it through pipelines, and then using Bloom energy fuel cells to generate electricity to gradually retrofitting existing plants that stay running to remove 100 % of the CO2 before it’s released and approaching removing 100 % of the other pollution. But this technology will cost money to install and will increase the cost of electricity from coal.
Nuclear power from breeder reactors maximizes the energy from the uranium that is used and largely solves the waste storage and transport problem since most of the radioactive material never leaves. But you can make nuclear bombs from the contents. So, providing close to fail safe security needs to be added to the cost. Nuclear from non-breeder reactors if used in volume will use up our uranium making it NOT a renewable energy source and does create waste that is potentially unstorable in any safe way. And nuclear is unfinanceable without government guarantees. I think we can build more and likely will do so. But if we do it and even approach doing it safely, it will be expensive.
Oil is likely to jump dramatically in cost as we approach and pass peak oil and it becomes more and more expensive to extract. In the near term while we still over-rely on oil for transport, demand will also increase driving up prices even more. Lastly, as J Paul Getty foresaw years ago, petroleum will gradually be more valuable as a petrochemical feedstock to the point that value will be greater than burning it. So, it should totally be discontinued as a way to generate electricity.
Meanwhile our economy depends on transport that now uses oil almost exclusively. Electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and biofuels more and more together will gradually change that. But for this reason to some degree it may be too soon to stop the tax breaks for the oil companies. The oil companies will and have been spending megabucks on lobbying and on manipulating public opinion to prevent that from happening as well. Their subsidies clearly should be ended but this is clearly NOT the right time to do that and is likely undoable now anyway.
The one fossil fuel that does make some sense to use is natural gas. This is particularly the case now that there is a no to very low pollution and efficient way to use it to generate electricity using Bloom Energy’s fuel cells. The lower temperature and fewer pollutants from this process also will make it easier to capture the CO2 released and power plants can be built set up to do so which will lower the cost of doing it. We likely should be making this a short term priority as it will cost less than clean coal and nuclear and will provide a way to generate electricity on demand that will go well with more sporadic renewable sources.
Next, the one renewable energy that also generates electricity on demand that goes well with wind and solar is geothermal. It won’t be cheap. And, we need to find our more about how to tap it without triggering earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. But enough potential is there, we should do far more than we have to bring more of it online. And, if we can go deep enough and do it safely, there is a LOT of it available.
Meanwhile, it is clear that we only have about 1 or 2 % of the solar installed both photovoltaic and thermal and perhaps 4 to 7 % of the wind generation that we can clearly get to.
To the extent that we can get to 100 % on both by 2035 or by 2050 at least, it will pay us to do so. When you factor in safety and real cost per unit of electricity generated it may even be the cheapest in the long run.
So, we need to dramatically increase our electricity from renewable sources, particularly solar and wind.
Paying for it by ending oil company tax breaks and other subsidies may not be advisable or even doable right away.
But every bit of the rest of the quote by President Obama is right on the mark.:
“Moving forward, America's economic growth at home is inextricably connected to our competitiveness in the global community. The more products American companies can export, the more jobs we can create at home.
This vision for the future starts with innovation, tapping into the creativity and imagination of our people to create the jobs and industries of the future. Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. It's why I challenged Congress to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources.
Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon. The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist.
But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets. We unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.
This is our generation's Sputnik moment.“
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Heating with less fossil fuels....
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-19-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Heating with less fossil fuels....
In providing electricity, there are several renewable sources we can dramatically increase. To some degree, many countries are finally beginning to do so. And, if it can be done at all and done safely, electricity from nuclear power at least does not release CO2. We can also make our use of electricity much more efficient in virtually all uses. We can gradually go to almost exclusively LED lights for lighting, for example.
We can use Bloom Energy fuel cells to generate electricity from natural gas and we may develop ways to make biogas from coal and do the same. We can then send the CO2 released to algae to make biofuels. And, we may be able to turn some CO2 from existing coal fired plants to minerals that are usable (Skyonic does that.); and we may feed the remainder to algae to make biofuels.
We can move to transport with all electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. We can make biofuels from algae and cellulosic alcohol from weeds and agricultural wastes in ways that preserve croplands for food and use less energy to make than they deliver.
We can make the plug-in hybrids with super-efficient diesel engines that run on biodiesel, turbines that run on biofuels, and maybe fuel cells from Bloom Energy that run on natural gas to make the electricity in plug-in hybrids.
So, if we do a good job with each of those, we can use less coal; stop using more coal; & we can use coal with less net CO2 and pollution released when we do use it.
We can use the same or less natural gas to make electricity and use what we do use more efficiently with less net CO2 and pollution released.
Doing all that successfully will slash the amount of oil we are using dramatically.
And, we can slash air conditioning use by doing more to prevent heat from entering buildings in the summer and getting access to local solar power for the remaining use.
But heating homes and businesses now often depend on burning natural gas, oil, or coal or firewood.
We can become dramatically more energy efficient to use less of these fuels by insulating homes and businesses better. We can retrofit their windows with Soladigm windows in double pane styles to both keep heat inside in winter AND to help keep heat out in the summer.
In some applications, we can retrofit heat pumps that run on electricity from renewable or clean or cleaner sources.
And, in new construction, we can design in “passive solar” designs to use more solar heating in winter and insulate dramatically better than we have done.
But for the rest, to stop burning natural gas, oil, or coal or firewood, we need more efficient ways to heat rooms with electricity than we now have.
Ways to do that will be developed or existing but little known ways will become more used. But we need to speed up both processes at lot and find ways to keep the cost down to get the job done.
Today's post: Wednesday, 1-19-2011
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Heating with less fossil fuels....
In providing electricity, there are several renewable sources we can dramatically increase. To some degree, many countries are finally beginning to do so. And, if it can be done at all and done safely, electricity from nuclear power at least does not release CO2. We can also make our use of electricity much more efficient in virtually all uses. We can gradually go to almost exclusively LED lights for lighting, for example.
We can use Bloom Energy fuel cells to generate electricity from natural gas and we may develop ways to make biogas from coal and do the same. We can then send the CO2 released to algae to make biofuels. And, we may be able to turn some CO2 from existing coal fired plants to minerals that are usable (Skyonic does that.); and we may feed the remainder to algae to make biofuels.
We can move to transport with all electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. We can make biofuels from algae and cellulosic alcohol from weeds and agricultural wastes in ways that preserve croplands for food and use less energy to make than they deliver.
We can make the plug-in hybrids with super-efficient diesel engines that run on biodiesel, turbines that run on biofuels, and maybe fuel cells from Bloom Energy that run on natural gas to make the electricity in plug-in hybrids.
So, if we do a good job with each of those, we can use less coal; stop using more coal; & we can use coal with less net CO2 and pollution released when we do use it.
We can use the same or less natural gas to make electricity and use what we do use more efficiently with less net CO2 and pollution released.
Doing all that successfully will slash the amount of oil we are using dramatically.
And, we can slash air conditioning use by doing more to prevent heat from entering buildings in the summer and getting access to local solar power for the remaining use.
But heating homes and businesses now often depend on burning natural gas, oil, or coal or firewood.
We can become dramatically more energy efficient to use less of these fuels by insulating homes and businesses better. We can retrofit their windows with Soladigm windows in double pane styles to both keep heat inside in winter AND to help keep heat out in the summer.
In some applications, we can retrofit heat pumps that run on electricity from renewable or clean or cleaner sources.
And, in new construction, we can design in “passive solar” designs to use more solar heating in winter and insulate dramatically better than we have done.
But for the rest, to stop burning natural gas, oil, or coal or firewood, we need more efficient ways to heat rooms with electricity than we now have.
Ways to do that will be developed or existing but little known ways will become more used. But we need to speed up both processes at lot and find ways to keep the cost down to get the job done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)