Energy efficiency upgrades with already available technology is critical to do....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-9-2010
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:
Energy efficiency upgrades with already available technology is critical to do....
In the important and very well researched book, Addicted to Energy, by Elton Sherwin, Jr, he makes the point that simply retrofitting existing technologies or replacing things with the existing technologies to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy in the United States would save more energy than all the oil we now import.
The book should have been titled something like, “Massive savings from energy efficiency using already available technologies.” Addicted to Energy is shorter but both misrepresents the content and is a bit negative.
His book, by contrast is quite positive. He points out that the work needed to make these energy efficiency upgrades will both create jobs and improve the economy from energy savings and less need for new electric power generation plants.
Yesterday, I found out the United States may be on its way to being behind the economy of the EU countries and left with increasing energy costs while they are NOT so burdened.
They actually have an EU plan to make these upgrades in every part of Europe.
AP ran a story yesterday titled, “EU plan to double energy efficiency by 2020.” Arthur Max wrote it.
The EU plans to boost energy efficiency dramatically by producing better household appliances, renovating public buildings and private homes, and driving more energy efficient cars. The plan to do this was adopted yesterday, Tuesday, 3-8, according to the article.
The EU aims to cut greenhouse gases 25 % below 1990 levels by 2020, outperforming its original 20 % target, with the resulting increase in energy efficiency in transportation, buildings, construction, and agriculture.
“"The good news is we don't need to wait for technological breakthroughs," said European climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, because existing technologies are enough. "We need to start the transition toward a competitive low carbon economy now," she said….”
The principal goal is to cut emissions 80 % by 2050. This new plan also sets milestones of 40 % by 2030 & 60 by 2040.
The plan, called Roadmap 2050, will be presented to the European Parliament and member countries for creating legislation to implement the plan.
Environmentalists criticized the plan for not being even more ambitious. That’s unfortunate since implementing the plan can be accelerated later and an even more ambitious plan might be rejected as undoable. (The United States and the EU should both have done this 20 years ago too! I think the environmentalists should support this now; and find ways to add doable upgrades later once it is actually happening. That actually might get to the goals they seek. Getting in the way of putting this plan in motion now will jeopardize those goals.)
The plan targets investments of 270 billion Euros a year, or 1.5 percent of the EU's economic output.
That sounds like a huge amount of money and one that might slow their economy.
But that is totally misleading. It may save their economy and give them a significant economic advantage instead!
In the most important point in the article, it explained why that’s so!
Initially most of that will return and later all of it will return from the savings due to lower oil and gas imports. (If they also switch to plug-in hybrids and all electric cars and trucks as a part of this plan, they may do even better.)
The long term projection shows this plan reaping returns that would please a venture capitalist!
Check out this quote.:
“Over the next 40 years, fuel costs could fall by euro175 billion to euro320 billion a year, the commission said, but without action those bills will more than double.”
This means the investments of 270 billion Euros a year will begin to save 670 billion Euros a year or more. Their imported fuel bill will be 320 billion Euros a year or less instead of 990 billion Euros a year or more – and rising!
If the United States fails to do likewise, Europe will have a massive economic advantage.
They will prosper while we go broke!
The current good news is that the Silicon Valley and California have more knowledgeable people about science, technology, and the real energy situation, and the world economy than most of the members of the current congress.
If they succeed in doing as the EU is doing which they are working to do, eventually the rest of the country will follow along – if we are lucky.
If so, our economy will improve too instead of getting far worse!
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids headed for the mainstream....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-2-2010
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:
Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids headed for the mainstream....
Even if we are not yet at peak oil or it’s more than 3 years off, relying on it for transport is becoming dramatically riskier.
The oil it is inexpensive to extract is mostly gone. And, as the population grows and the economies of the world’s countries improve, the demand for transport will continue to increase. While most transport has been powered by oil, that increase in demand has led to increased oil prices.
But now that we have added political turmoil in the oil producing countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, supply of oil may drop or suddenly be less available.
Five to ten dollar a gallon prices for gasoline and for diesel fuel in the United States are on their way.
Even without global warming considerations, that means that depending on oil to power transport is a very bad idea because it threatens sudden and continuing cost increases for transport throughout the world’s economy. It can even lead to rationing of fuel and periodic shut downs of fuel.
This will be economically disastrous if when that happens we have too little ability to power transport by other means.
Further, since the United States imports a huge percentage of its oil supply – and mostly from areas increasingly unstable politically, if we can manage to cut our use of oil in half or more by using other power sources for transport, our national security and economic stability will be dramatically better.
Lastly, the billions of dollars now leaving the United States to pay for imported oil will stop leaving.
The combination of these literally means that the future health of the economy of the United States quite literally depends on switching away from oil as a way to power transport.
All-electric cars and plug-in hybrids – and hopefully soon trucks as well – are rapidly on their way to becoming a solution to this and entering the mainstream.
Soon gasoline only or diesel only vehicles will become a tiny minority of those sold.
Increasingly, major car makers all over the world are well on their way to introducing practical all electric cars and plug-in hybrids. This has become so much the case that developments in this area are hard to keep up with as they are increasing and picking up speed and momentum. Tesla is leading the way. But nearly every other car manufacturer in the world is racing to follow on if not will all electric cars with plug-in hybrids. As this rolls out, the added costs for such cars will gradually decrease due to the increasing volume and economies of scale.
Technology to make such cars go farther and cost less with lower weight batteries and increases in efficiency in electric power grids and uses are in rapid development.
And, most of what were thought to be problems for deploying such vehicles are not serious or rapidly being solved.
Here are some examples:
Envia Systems Inc of Newark, California has a new joint venture deal with GM. (GM Ventures Makes Strategic Investment in Envia Systems Jan 26, 2011 This was part of a funding round of $17 million.) "Envia's advanced cathode technology uses inexpensive materials that store more energy per unit of mass than current cathode materials. Since the cathode is a key driver for the overall battery cost, the more energy the cathode delivers, the lower the battery cost because fewer cells are needed." Their website also notes this will allow for lighter weight battery packs.
D r. Yi Cui of Stanford University discovered that silicon nanowires could form a potent and reliable lithium-ion anode material with the ability to improve anode capacity by up to 10X. His breakthrough was published in Nature Nanotechnology and is one of very few readily implementable lithium-ion battery technologies. Use of silicon nanowires can immediately increase the energy capacity of batteries by 40% and more thus increasing the range of electric vehicles by a similar amount. "
Amprius Inc of Menlo Park, California is a development stage company working to turn this discovery into usable products to achieve this result.
This literally could mean battery packs providing a 20% longer range and nearly a 15% drop in battery pack weight at the same time.
What if we could suddenly add such dramatic increases in efficiency in transporting electricity and changing from alternating current to direct current or the reverse that we would add the equivalent of 300 new coal fired power plants without adding new plants to generate electricity of any kind?
That would certainly allow for powering a lot of electric and plug in hybrids!
Transphorm in Goleta, California near Santa Barbara is developing a technology to do just that.
"Transphorm is redefining power conversion. Leveraging breakthroughs in modern materials and unmatched expertise, Transphorm's ultra-efficient power modules eliminate up to 90% of all electric conversion losses. From HVACs to hybrids; servers to solar panels - Transphorm enables significant energy savings across the grid."
GreenTech Media's coverage of Transphorm notes that there are several steps not yet done that would be needed to move this technology into large scale use enough to achieve this result.
But since the technology works, the money to be made by doing so and the need to do it are such that I think these steps will be taken successfully.
What about other problems?
Here’s a recent article from the Sierra club and my comments on each of their points.:
Electric Vehicles: Myths vs. Reality
Myth 1: Switching to an electric vehicle will just mean that the same amount of pollution comes from the electricity generation rather than from the tailpipe — I'll just be switching from oil to coal.
Reality: According to a range of studies, an electric car leads to 35 to 60% less carbon dioxide pollution from electricity than the CO2 pollution from the oil of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine.[1][2][3]
In some areas, like many on the West Coast that rely largely on wind or hydro power, the emissions are significantly lower for EVs. And that's today. As we retire more coal plants and bring cleaner sources of power online, the emissions from electric vehicle charging drop even further. Additionally, in some areas, night-time charging will increase the opportunity to take advantage of wind power -- another way to reduce emissions.
A caveat to consider, according to some studies, is that when coal plants supply the majority of the power mix in a given area, electric vehicles may emit more CO2 and SO2….
(My comments on this point: That’s an air pollution and CO2 release objection which is valid in and of itself. But they leave out some key points. This still means moving away from oil to powering transport with other sources. And, although increased costs of operating coal fired plants due to regulation and the need to install less polluting systems to retrofit these plants will occur, it will be far more predictable and slower than the price run up in oil. And, the United States HAS enough coal and need not send money out of the country as it is now doing by importing oil. We can afford the regulations and these upgrades with the money electric cars and hybrids will save us in paying higher and higher prices to import oil that we no longer will need to pay.)
Myth 2: Plug-in cars will lead to the production of more coal and nuclear plants.
Reality: Even if the majority of drivers switched to electric, the existing electrical grid's off-peak/nighttime capacity for power generation is sufficient without building a single new power plant.
Studies have shown that electric vehicle owners will largely charge their vehicles at night when there is plenty of capacity on the grid. In some areas, new "smart charging" allows you and the utility to set up a system by which you and other electricity users distribute the load evenly during charging so that the system is not overwhelmed by increased demand.
(My comment: Mid-day charging also lends itself to using solar power for the source of the electricity and will be used to do so in my view. So much of the potential need for more coal and nuclear plants will be removed by this.)
Myth 3: Electric car batteries pose a recycling problem.
Reality: Internal combustion engine vehicles use lead-acid batteries, and their recycle rate is about 98% in the US.
The newer batteries for electric vehicles, such as those made of lithium-ion, include even more valuable and recyclable metals and will have a life well beyond the vehicle. In fact, a Belgian company plans to use Tesla Motor's electric vehicle battery pack material to produce an alloy it can further refine into cobalt, nickel, and other valuable metals as well as special grades of concrete. Technology will soon allow for EV batteries to store energy produced by solar or wind power.
Myth 4: My electricity bill will go way up.
Reality: While you'll spend more on electricity, the savings on gas will more than cover it. If you drive a pure battery electric vehicle 12,000 miles a year at current electricity rates (assuming $.12 per kilowatt hour though rates vary throughout the country), you'll pay about $389 per year for the electricity to charge your battery, but you'll save about $1200 in gas (assuming $3 per gallon, a 30 miles per gallon vehicle, and 12,000 miles driven). So $1200 minus $389 equals $811 in savings -a 68% reduction in fueling costs. Some utilities are offering EV owners lower off-peak/nighttime rates. The more we successfully advocate for these off-peak incentives, the lower your electricity payments will go.
(Gasoline is already headed to $5 a gallon and soon after that we may see $10 a gallon. That means the savings per month will begin to approach the monthly payment needed to by an electric or plug-in hybrid car!)
Myth 5: Electric vehicles will just fail again like they did before.
Reality: Manufacturers are serious this time -- rolling out more than a dozen new plug-in models in the next couple of years, starting now. With higher gas prices and climate change worrying many consumers, stricter fuel economy standards for new vehicles required of auto manufacturers, and billions of public and corporate dollars being spent on an EV infrastructure and research in the US, EVs are here to stay.
Myth 6: My battery will run out of juice.
Reality: The majority of drivers in the US drive less than 35 miles each day, sufficient for a fully charged pure electric vehicle (most can go 80 to 140 miles on one charge), and an extended range electric vehicle (that drives about 35 miles on electric and then the gasoline power kicks in).
Using a 220-volt outlet and charging station, a plug-in hybrid recharges in about 100 minutes, an extended range plug-in electric in about four hours, and a pure electric in six to eight hours. A regular 110-volt outlet will mean significantly longer charging times, but for plug-in hybrids and extended range electrics, this outlet may be sufficient. Most of the time, the battery will not be empty when you plug in, thus reducing charging time.
Most people will charge at home. However, some businesses and public entities are beginning to install 220-volt public chargers. Some are installing fast-charging stations along highways and in public places that can re-charge a car to 80% of battery capacity in less than 30 minutes.
(Increases in range compared with these numbers due to better battery technology and customer demand are also quite likely in my opinion – for both all electric and plug-in hybrid cars. And, for plug-in hybrids as gasoline prices go much higher or begin to be erratic in supply on occasion, the demand for increased range will also go up as well.)
Myth 7: Electric vehicles are much more expensive than traditional vehicles.
Reality: While the initial sticker price of EVs is higher than traditional vehicles, you need to do the math to account for a variety of factors. For individual consumers, there is currently a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle, as well as a partial federal credit for the charging unit. Several states have additional tax credits on top of the federal ones. Additionally, the average EV driver will save more than $800 a year in fuel (the cost of electricity compared to gasoline).
Due to a cleaner, more streamlined system under the hood, an EV may save the average driver about 46% in annual maintenance costs, according to one federal government study.[5]
(Larger and larger savings for oil base fuel and less time and money spent each year in the shop, will begin to give “EV’s” a net cost ADVANTAGE. Meanwhile, they will begin to cost less!)
Myth 8: Electric vehicles are only available in California.
Reality: While EVs are not yet available for purchase in every state, they are quickly becoming available in many. The fully electric Nissan Leaf is being sold to customers in California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Tennessee. The Chevy Volt, an extended range plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, is currently being sold at select dealerships in California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington, DC. Customers in nearly all states are expected to be able to purchase or lease a Leaf, Volt, or plug-in Toyota Prius by late 2011 or early 2012. The Tesla Roadster, a fully electric luxury sportscar, is available in several locations throughout the country. By 2012, many other models will become available nationwide, including the Ford Focus EV, Tesla Model S, and the Mitsubishi iMiev.
Myth 9: Charging an EV on solar power is a futuristic dream.
Reality: The technology to power your EV with solar power is already available. The investment in solar panels pays off faster when the solar power is not only replacing grid electricity, but replacing much more expensive gasoline.
According to Plug-In America, EVs typically travel three to four miles (or more) per kWh (kilowatt hour) of electricity. If you drive 12,000 miles per year, you will need 3,000-4,000 kWh. Depending on where you live, you will need a 1.5kW-3kW photovoltaic (PV) system to generate that much power using about 150 to 300 square feet of space on your roof. Utility credits for the daytime solar power can offset the cost of charging the car at night. If solar PV isn't feasible at your home, find out if your utility offers a green energy option.
(Here in the Silicon Valley, electrical engineers have already begun to retrofit existing cars to become all electric and powering them from solar arrays on their homes!
When gasoline prices recently spiked to over $4.60 a gallon they had no increased costs at all!
And, as solar and premade EV’s drop in cost, this will become a very popular option. 300 square feet (or even 600 square feet for two cars) is NOT that big a collector. 20 feet by 15 feet or 20 feet by 30 feet will fit on most roofs with space left over!)
It all adds up to an interesting ride as EV’s become the mainstream kind of cars and trucks people buy and drive!
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-2-2010
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:
Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids headed for the mainstream....
Even if we are not yet at peak oil or it’s more than 3 years off, relying on it for transport is becoming dramatically riskier.
The oil it is inexpensive to extract is mostly gone. And, as the population grows and the economies of the world’s countries improve, the demand for transport will continue to increase. While most transport has been powered by oil, that increase in demand has led to increased oil prices.
But now that we have added political turmoil in the oil producing countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, supply of oil may drop or suddenly be less available.
Five to ten dollar a gallon prices for gasoline and for diesel fuel in the United States are on their way.
Even without global warming considerations, that means that depending on oil to power transport is a very bad idea because it threatens sudden and continuing cost increases for transport throughout the world’s economy. It can even lead to rationing of fuel and periodic shut downs of fuel.
This will be economically disastrous if when that happens we have too little ability to power transport by other means.
Further, since the United States imports a huge percentage of its oil supply – and mostly from areas increasingly unstable politically, if we can manage to cut our use of oil in half or more by using other power sources for transport, our national security and economic stability will be dramatically better.
Lastly, the billions of dollars now leaving the United States to pay for imported oil will stop leaving.
The combination of these literally means that the future health of the economy of the United States quite literally depends on switching away from oil as a way to power transport.
All-electric cars and plug-in hybrids – and hopefully soon trucks as well – are rapidly on their way to becoming a solution to this and entering the mainstream.
Soon gasoline only or diesel only vehicles will become a tiny minority of those sold.
Increasingly, major car makers all over the world are well on their way to introducing practical all electric cars and plug-in hybrids. This has become so much the case that developments in this area are hard to keep up with as they are increasing and picking up speed and momentum. Tesla is leading the way. But nearly every other car manufacturer in the world is racing to follow on if not will all electric cars with plug-in hybrids. As this rolls out, the added costs for such cars will gradually decrease due to the increasing volume and economies of scale.
Technology to make such cars go farther and cost less with lower weight batteries and increases in efficiency in electric power grids and uses are in rapid development.
And, most of what were thought to be problems for deploying such vehicles are not serious or rapidly being solved.
Here are some examples:
Envia Systems Inc of Newark, California has a new joint venture deal with GM. (GM Ventures Makes Strategic Investment in Envia Systems Jan 26, 2011 This was part of a funding round of $17 million.) "Envia's advanced cathode technology uses inexpensive materials that store more energy per unit of mass than current cathode materials. Since the cathode is a key driver for the overall battery cost, the more energy the cathode delivers, the lower the battery cost because fewer cells are needed." Their website also notes this will allow for lighter weight battery packs.
D r. Yi Cui of Stanford University discovered that silicon nanowires could form a potent and reliable lithium-ion anode material with the ability to improve anode capacity by up to 10X. His breakthrough was published in Nature Nanotechnology and is one of very few readily implementable lithium-ion battery technologies. Use of silicon nanowires can immediately increase the energy capacity of batteries by 40% and more thus increasing the range of electric vehicles by a similar amount. "
Amprius Inc of Menlo Park, California is a development stage company working to turn this discovery into usable products to achieve this result.
This literally could mean battery packs providing a 20% longer range and nearly a 15% drop in battery pack weight at the same time.
What if we could suddenly add such dramatic increases in efficiency in transporting electricity and changing from alternating current to direct current or the reverse that we would add the equivalent of 300 new coal fired power plants without adding new plants to generate electricity of any kind?
That would certainly allow for powering a lot of electric and plug in hybrids!
Transphorm in Goleta, California near Santa Barbara is developing a technology to do just that.
"Transphorm is redefining power conversion. Leveraging breakthroughs in modern materials and unmatched expertise, Transphorm's ultra-efficient power modules eliminate up to 90% of all electric conversion losses. From HVACs to hybrids; servers to solar panels - Transphorm enables significant energy savings across the grid."
GreenTech Media's coverage of Transphorm notes that there are several steps not yet done that would be needed to move this technology into large scale use enough to achieve this result.
But since the technology works, the money to be made by doing so and the need to do it are such that I think these steps will be taken successfully.
What about other problems?
Here’s a recent article from the Sierra club and my comments on each of their points.:
Electric Vehicles: Myths vs. Reality
Myth 1: Switching to an electric vehicle will just mean that the same amount of pollution comes from the electricity generation rather than from the tailpipe — I'll just be switching from oil to coal.
Reality: According to a range of studies, an electric car leads to 35 to 60% less carbon dioxide pollution from electricity than the CO2 pollution from the oil of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine.[1][2][3]
In some areas, like many on the West Coast that rely largely on wind or hydro power, the emissions are significantly lower for EVs. And that's today. As we retire more coal plants and bring cleaner sources of power online, the emissions from electric vehicle charging drop even further. Additionally, in some areas, night-time charging will increase the opportunity to take advantage of wind power -- another way to reduce emissions.
A caveat to consider, according to some studies, is that when coal plants supply the majority of the power mix in a given area, electric vehicles may emit more CO2 and SO2….
(My comments on this point: That’s an air pollution and CO2 release objection which is valid in and of itself. But they leave out some key points. This still means moving away from oil to powering transport with other sources. And, although increased costs of operating coal fired plants due to regulation and the need to install less polluting systems to retrofit these plants will occur, it will be far more predictable and slower than the price run up in oil. And, the United States HAS enough coal and need not send money out of the country as it is now doing by importing oil. We can afford the regulations and these upgrades with the money electric cars and hybrids will save us in paying higher and higher prices to import oil that we no longer will need to pay.)
Myth 2: Plug-in cars will lead to the production of more coal and nuclear plants.
Reality: Even if the majority of drivers switched to electric, the existing electrical grid's off-peak/nighttime capacity for power generation is sufficient without building a single new power plant.
Studies have shown that electric vehicle owners will largely charge their vehicles at night when there is plenty of capacity on the grid. In some areas, new "smart charging" allows you and the utility to set up a system by which you and other electricity users distribute the load evenly during charging so that the system is not overwhelmed by increased demand.
(My comment: Mid-day charging also lends itself to using solar power for the source of the electricity and will be used to do so in my view. So much of the potential need for more coal and nuclear plants will be removed by this.)
Myth 3: Electric car batteries pose a recycling problem.
Reality: Internal combustion engine vehicles use lead-acid batteries, and their recycle rate is about 98% in the US.
The newer batteries for electric vehicles, such as those made of lithium-ion, include even more valuable and recyclable metals and will have a life well beyond the vehicle. In fact, a Belgian company plans to use Tesla Motor's electric vehicle battery pack material to produce an alloy it can further refine into cobalt, nickel, and other valuable metals as well as special grades of concrete. Technology will soon allow for EV batteries to store energy produced by solar or wind power.
Myth 4: My electricity bill will go way up.
Reality: While you'll spend more on electricity, the savings on gas will more than cover it. If you drive a pure battery electric vehicle 12,000 miles a year at current electricity rates (assuming $.12 per kilowatt hour though rates vary throughout the country), you'll pay about $389 per year for the electricity to charge your battery, but you'll save about $1200 in gas (assuming $3 per gallon, a 30 miles per gallon vehicle, and 12,000 miles driven). So $1200 minus $389 equals $811 in savings -a 68% reduction in fueling costs. Some utilities are offering EV owners lower off-peak/nighttime rates. The more we successfully advocate for these off-peak incentives, the lower your electricity payments will go.
(Gasoline is already headed to $5 a gallon and soon after that we may see $10 a gallon. That means the savings per month will begin to approach the monthly payment needed to by an electric or plug-in hybrid car!)
Myth 5: Electric vehicles will just fail again like they did before.
Reality: Manufacturers are serious this time -- rolling out more than a dozen new plug-in models in the next couple of years, starting now. With higher gas prices and climate change worrying many consumers, stricter fuel economy standards for new vehicles required of auto manufacturers, and billions of public and corporate dollars being spent on an EV infrastructure and research in the US, EVs are here to stay.
Myth 6: My battery will run out of juice.
Reality: The majority of drivers in the US drive less than 35 miles each day, sufficient for a fully charged pure electric vehicle (most can go 80 to 140 miles on one charge), and an extended range electric vehicle (that drives about 35 miles on electric and then the gasoline power kicks in).
Using a 220-volt outlet and charging station, a plug-in hybrid recharges in about 100 minutes, an extended range plug-in electric in about four hours, and a pure electric in six to eight hours. A regular 110-volt outlet will mean significantly longer charging times, but for plug-in hybrids and extended range electrics, this outlet may be sufficient. Most of the time, the battery will not be empty when you plug in, thus reducing charging time.
Most people will charge at home. However, some businesses and public entities are beginning to install 220-volt public chargers. Some are installing fast-charging stations along highways and in public places that can re-charge a car to 80% of battery capacity in less than 30 minutes.
(Increases in range compared with these numbers due to better battery technology and customer demand are also quite likely in my opinion – for both all electric and plug-in hybrid cars. And, for plug-in hybrids as gasoline prices go much higher or begin to be erratic in supply on occasion, the demand for increased range will also go up as well.)
Myth 7: Electric vehicles are much more expensive than traditional vehicles.
Reality: While the initial sticker price of EVs is higher than traditional vehicles, you need to do the math to account for a variety of factors. For individual consumers, there is currently a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle, as well as a partial federal credit for the charging unit. Several states have additional tax credits on top of the federal ones. Additionally, the average EV driver will save more than $800 a year in fuel (the cost of electricity compared to gasoline).
Due to a cleaner, more streamlined system under the hood, an EV may save the average driver about 46% in annual maintenance costs, according to one federal government study.[5]
(Larger and larger savings for oil base fuel and less time and money spent each year in the shop, will begin to give “EV’s” a net cost ADVANTAGE. Meanwhile, they will begin to cost less!)
Myth 8: Electric vehicles are only available in California.
Reality: While EVs are not yet available for purchase in every state, they are quickly becoming available in many. The fully electric Nissan Leaf is being sold to customers in California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Tennessee. The Chevy Volt, an extended range plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, is currently being sold at select dealerships in California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington, DC. Customers in nearly all states are expected to be able to purchase or lease a Leaf, Volt, or plug-in Toyota Prius by late 2011 or early 2012. The Tesla Roadster, a fully electric luxury sportscar, is available in several locations throughout the country. By 2012, many other models will become available nationwide, including the Ford Focus EV, Tesla Model S, and the Mitsubishi iMiev.
Myth 9: Charging an EV on solar power is a futuristic dream.
Reality: The technology to power your EV with solar power is already available. The investment in solar panels pays off faster when the solar power is not only replacing grid electricity, but replacing much more expensive gasoline.
According to Plug-In America, EVs typically travel three to four miles (or more) per kWh (kilowatt hour) of electricity. If you drive 12,000 miles per year, you will need 3,000-4,000 kWh. Depending on where you live, you will need a 1.5kW-3kW photovoltaic (PV) system to generate that much power using about 150 to 300 square feet of space on your roof. Utility credits for the daytime solar power can offset the cost of charging the car at night. If solar PV isn't feasible at your home, find out if your utility offers a green energy option.
(Here in the Silicon Valley, electrical engineers have already begun to retrofit existing cars to become all electric and powering them from solar arrays on their homes!
When gasoline prices recently spiked to over $4.60 a gallon they had no increased costs at all!
And, as solar and premade EV’s drop in cost, this will become a very popular option. 300 square feet (or even 600 square feet for two cars) is NOT that big a collector. 20 feet by 15 feet or 20 feet by 30 feet will fit on most roofs with space left over!)
It all adds up to an interesting ride as EV’s become the mainstream kind of cars and trucks people buy and drive!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)