Feeds:
Posts
Comments

NEW YORK – T. Boone Pickens dropped by Fortune’s offices last Thursday, and not surprisingly the billionaire oilman had oil on his mind as gas prices hit yet another new high.

“The only way you’re going to kill demand is with price increases,” Pickens, 80, told a group of editors and writers. “But demand is not as easy to kill as you think.”

The legendary Dallas wildcatter and corporate dealmaker believes the world is approaching “peak oil” – meaning we’ve pumped out more oil than remains in the ground – and he’s looking beyond the petroleum age by placing some big bets on wind. His $12 billion Pampa Wind Project in Texas will generate enough electricity to power some 1.3 million homes when completed in 2014. (Last week Pickens’ Mesa Power placed an order for 667 turbines with General Electric (GE) for the project’s $2 billion first phase.)

For Pickens, wind is key to weaning the U.S. from the petrol pump. “The only transportation fuel we have in the U.S. to replace oil is natural gas,” he said.

Here’s how it would work, according to Pickens. Replace the natural gas power plants that generate about a quarter of the electricity in the United States with wind farms. Use the freed-up natural gas to power cars, trucks and other vehicles. “We could reduce oil imports by 38 percent,” Pickens declared.

The U.S Department of Energy earlier this month released a report estimating that wind power could supply up to 20 percent of the nation’s electricity by 2030. Huge hurdles stand in the way of achieving that target, such as the need for a massive upgrade to the transmission system and the fact that the wind blows intermittently. And natural gas-powered cars won’t be as clean as, say, electric vehicles powered from solar.

Wind isn’t the only green energy source on Pickens’ horizon. I ask him about large-scale solar and he pulls out a map illustrating the best spots for solar power plants in the U.S. “I like it,” he says. “We’re looking at all renewable energy.”

As he put it earlier in the conversation, “I’ve been too early on a lot of things, but now I have enough money to be as early as I want.”

For some on the right coast, the current renewable energy craze seems like a rerun of that ’70s show, the province of California dreamers and pie-in-the-sky Silicon Valley techies. But increasingly it’s all about Big Business, a point driven home Thursday by a deal struck by two decidedly non-crunchy granola types: billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens and General Electric chief Jeffrey Immelt.

Pickens’ Mesa Power placed an order for 667 GE (GE) wind turbines for the first phase of a massive 4,000-megawatt, 400,000-acre West Texas wind farm called the Pampa Wind Project. When completed in 2014, Pampa is expected to produce enough clean green energy to light up 1.3 million homes, according to Mesa. Each of those 667 turbines alone can generate 1.5 megawatts of electricity. The first phase of the project will cost $2 billion, with a good chunk of the cash going to GE.

That a legendary wildcatter like Pickens sees big money to be made from renewable energy in an oil state like Texas is just another sign that green is not a fad but the future. “You find an oilfield, it peaks and starts declining, and you’ve got to find another one to replace it,” Pickens said in a statement. “It can drive you crazy. With wind, there’s no decline curve.” (Just how much money Pickens will make off wind will depend on whether Congress extends a production tax credit that makes such projects viable.)

When it comes to energy, Texas is literally its own country, as the Lone Star State is not plugged into the national power grid and must generate nearly all its electricity within its borders. Aggressive efforts by Texas regulators and entrepreneurs to make the state energy independent by upgrading its transmission system and tapping wind power are models for the rest of the country.

The souring economy hasn’t dissuaded green tech investors from making big bets on renewable energy. On Wednesday, solar power plant builder BrightSource Energy announced it had raised $115 million from a group of investors that include Google.org, the search giant’s philanthropic arm, and oil giants Chevron and BP.

The investment in the Oakland, Calif.-based startup is Google’s (GOOG) second big solar energy play in the past two months. In April, Google.org joined a $130 million round for eSolar, a Pasadena solar power plant company whose chairman is Idealab founder Bill Gross.

BrightSource Energy, started by American-Israeli solar pioneer Arnold Goldman, has contracts to supply California utility PG&E (PCG) with up to 900 megawatts of solar electricity from power plants to be built in the Mojave Desert on the California-Nevada border. BrightSource has developed a new solar technology, dubbed distributed power tower, that focuses fields of sun-tracking mirrors called heliostats on a tower containing a water-filled boiler. The sun’s rays superheat the water and the resulting steam drives an electricity-generating turbine. (Artist rendering of BrightSource’s planned Ivanpah plant above.)

Given that a 500-megawatt solar power plant can cost more than $1 billion to build, $115 million is but a drop in the bucket. But it will allow BrightSource, which previously raised $45 million, to proceed with the development of its technology as it seeks project financing for construction of its first power plants.

And it can’t hurt to have such high-profile backers when you negotiate power purchase agreements with utilities. Besides Google, BP Alternative Energy (BP) and Chevron Technology Ventures (CVX), previous investors participating in the new round include Morgan Stanley (MS), VantagePoint Venture Partners, Draper Fisher Jurvetson and DBL Investors.

Another new BrightSource investor is Norweigan oil and gas behemoth StatoilHydro (STO). Apparently, even Big Oil has seen the light when it comes to hedging its bets with green energy.

Monday night, Green Wombat swung by SF Green, one of a growing number of green tech networking events sprouting up around San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The draw – beyond drinks with a standing-room-only crowd of bright-eyed twenty-and-thirtysomethings in a San Francisco art gallery – was the appearance of leading venture capitalist Ray Lane of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Darryl Siry of Tesla Motors, maker of the Roadster electric supercar.

Despite the fact that Tesla has sued a Kleiner company, Fisker Automotive – which is producing an electric hybrid sports sedan – for alleged intellectual property theft, no sparks flew. (Though at Fortune’s recent Brainstorm Green conference, Lane couldn’t resist taking a jab at allegations that Fisker founder Henrik Fisker appropriated Tesla technology when he did design work for the Silicon Valley startup: “It’s ridiculous,” Lane said. “Henry Fisker wouldn’t know a drive train from a glass of water. He’s a designer.)

Siry, Tesla’s vp of sales, marketing & service, said five of the $100,000 Roadsters have rolled off the assembly line so far with one car tooling around Los Angeles, and others in the Bay Area and London. By year’s end, Tesla, which has been wrestling with drive train problems, should have more than 100 cars on Bay Area roads, home to many the company’s tech titan customers.

Tesla has raised $145 million, Siry noted, and will do another round before an IPO. The Roadster will always be a limited production marquee car but to mass produce its next vehicle, a five-seat sports sedan code-named White Star, Tesla will need that IPO or project financing. Siry also sketched a future where Tesla might supply electric drive trains to automakers in exchange for project financing.

“Tesla is a tech company wrapped in an automotive brand,” he said at the event co-sponsored by VentureBeat.

Lane and Kleiner Perkins have gone beyond investing in electric car companies to running one. Lane is chairman of Think North America, the U.S. arm of Norwegian electric carmaker Think Global. Kleiner and Rockport Capital took a 50 percent stake in the North American operation, which launched last month.

The Think and Fisker investments are emblematic of a new direction for VCs who have jumped into the green tech game. Unlike the first dot-com era or even the current Web 2.0 age, there’s no quick exit on the horizon for investments in green tech companies that may be years away from producing a product and require hundreds of millions, if not billions, in project financing to build car factories or solar energy power plants.

Lane compared investing in green tech to the long-term horizon needed for investing in biotech startups, where the key is to hit milestones that allow investors to calculate valuations.

Still, it’s a big gamble, given rising commodity prices and global economic upheaval.

Kleiner is also an investor in solar power plant startup Ausra. “Steel prices are killing us,” Lane said. Ausra’s power plants consist of hundred of acres of mirrors mounted on steel frames. “With Ausra, we [calculate] we could deliver solar thermal electricity at 12 cents a kilowatt-hour. But with steel prices, who knows?”

A shortage of qualified green tech workers has become an issue, according to Lane. The nascent solar power plant business relies on recruiting engineers and project developers from the carbon-based industry. “Talented people in project development at companies like Bechtel are maxed out for years on building projects,” he said.

“Years ago we came to the conclusion that global warming was a problem, it was an urgent problem and the need for action is now. The problem appears to be worse and more imminent today, and the need to take action sooner and take more significant action is greater than ever before” — PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee

The head of one of the nation’s largest utilities seemed to be channeling Al Gore on Tuesday when he met with a half-dozen environmental business writers, including Green Wombat, in the PG&E (PCG) boardroom in downtown San Francisco. While a lot of top executives talk green these days, for Darbee green has become the business model, one that represents the future of the utility industry in a carbon-constrained age.

As Katherine Ellison wrote in a feature story on PG&E that appeared in the final issue of Business 2.0 magazine last September, California’s large utilities — including Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) — are uniquely positioned to make the transition to renewable energy and profit from green power.

First of all, they have no choice. State regulators have mandated that California’s investor-owned utilities obtain 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 with a 33 percent target by 2020. Regulators have also prohibited the utilities from signing long-term contracts for dirty power – i.e. with the out-of-state coal-fired plants that currently supply 20 percent of California’s electricity. Second, PG&E and other California utilities profit when they sells less energy and thus emit fewer greenhouse gases. That’s because California regulators “decouple” utility profits from sales, setting their rate of return based on things like how well they encourage energy efficiency or promote green power.

Still, few utility CEOs have made green a corporate crusade like Darbee has since taking the top job in 2005. And the idea of a staid regulated monopoly embracing technological change and collaborating with the likes of Google (GOOG) and electric car company Tesla Motors on green tech initiatives still seems strange, if not slightly suspicious, to some Northern Californians, especially in left-leaning San Francisco where PG&E-bashing is local sport.

In a wide-ranging conversation, Darbee, 54, sketched sketched a future where being a successful utility is less about building big centralized power plants that sit idle until demand spikes and more about data management – tapping diverse sources of energy — from solar, wind and waves to electric cars — and balancing supply and demand through a smart grid that monitors everything from your home appliances to where you plugged in your car. “I love change, I love innovation,” says Darbee, who came to PG&E after a career in telecommunications and investment banking.

Renewable energy

“On renewable energy what we’ve seen is the market is thin,” says Darbee. “Demand just from ourselves is greater than supply in terms of reliable, well-funded companies that can provide the service.”

PG&E so far has signed power purchase agreements with three solar startups — Ausra, BrightSource Energy and Solel — for up to 1.6 gigawatts of electricity to be produced by massive solar power plants. Each company is deploying a different solar thermal technology and uncertainty over whether the billion-dollar solar power stations will ultimately be built has prompted PG&E to consider jumping into the Big Solar game itself.

“We’re looking hard at the question of whether we can get into the business ourselves in order to do solar and other forms of renewables on a larger scale,” Darbee says. “Let’s take some of the work that’s been done around solar thermal and see if we can partner with one of the vendors and own larger solar installations on a farm rather than on a rooftop.”

“I like the idea of bringing the balance sheet of a utility, $35 billion in assets, to bear on this problem,” he adds.

It’s an approach taken by the renewable energy arm of Florida-based utility FPL (FPL), which has applied to build a 250-megawatt solar power plant on the edge of the Mojave Desert in California.

For now, PG&E is placing its biggest green bets on solar and wind. The utility has also signed a 2-megawatt deal with Finavera Renewables for a pilot wave energy project off the Northern California coast. Given the power unleashed by the ocean 24/7, wave energy holds great promise, Darbee noted, but the technology is in its infancy. “How does this technology hold up against the tremendous power of the of the Pacific Ocean?”

Electric cars

Darbee is an auto enthusiast and is especially enthusiastic about electric vehicles and their potential to change the business models of both the utility and car industries. (At Fortune’s recent Brainstorm Green conference, Darbee took Think Global’s all-electric Think City coupe for a spin and participated in panels on solar energy and the electric car.)

California utilities look at electric cars and plug-in hybrids as mobile generators whose batteries can be tapped to supply electricity during peak demand to avoid firing up expensive and carbon-spewing power plants. If thousands of electric cars are charged at night they also offer a possible solution to the conundrum of wind power in California, where the breeze blows most strongly in the late evenings when electricity demand falls, leaving electrons twisting in the wind as it were.

“If these cars are plugged in we would be able to shift the load from wind at night to using wind energy during the day through batteries in the car,” Darbee says.

The car owner, in other words, uses wind power to “fill up” at night and then plugs back into the grid during the day at work so PG&E can tap the battery when temperatures rise and everyone cranks up their air conditioners.

Darbee envisions an electricity auction market emerging when demand spikes. “You might plug your car in and say, ‘I’m available and I’m watching the market and you bid me on the spot-market and I’ll punch in I’m ready to sell at 17 cents a kilowatt-hour,” he says. “PG&E would take all the information into its computers and then as temperatures come up there would be a type of Dutch auction and we start to draw upon the power that is most economical.”

That presents a tremendous data management challenge, of course, as every car would need a unique ID so it can be tracked and the driver appropriately charged or credited wherever the vehicle is plugged in. Which is one reason PG&E is working with Google on vehicle-to-grid technology.

“One of the beneficiaries of really having substantial numbers of plug-in hybrid cars is that the cost for electric utility users could go down,” says Darbee. “We have a lot of plants out there standing by for much of the year, sort of like the Maytag repairman, waiting to be called on for those super peak days. And so it’s a large investment of fixed capital not being utilized.” In other words, more electric and plug-in cars on the road mean fewer fossil-fuel peaking power plants would need to be built. (And to answer a question that always comes up, studies show that California currently has electric generating capacity to charge millions of electric cars.)

Nuclear power

Nuclear power is one of the hotter hot-button issues in the global warming debate. Left for dead following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters, the nuclear power industry got a new lease on life as proponents pushed its ability to produce huge amounts of carbon-free electricity.

“The most pressing problem that we have in the United States and across the globe is global warming and I think for the United States as a whole, nuclear needs to be on the table to be evaluated,” says Darbee.

That’s unlikely to happen, however in California. The state in the late 1970s banned new nuclear power plant construction until a solution to the disposal of radioactive waste is found. PG&E operates the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, a project that was mired in controversy for years in the ’70s as the anti-nuke movement protested its location near several earthquake faults.

“It’s a treasure for the state of California – It’s producing electricity at about 4 cents a kilowatt hour,” Darbee says of Diablo Canyon. “I have concerns about the lack of consensus in California around nuclear and therefore even if the California Energy Commission said, `Okay, we feel nuclear should play a role,’ I’m not sure we ought to move ahead. I’d rather push on energy efficiency and renewables in California.”

The utility industry

No surprise that Darbee’s peers among coal-dependent utilities haven’t quite embraced the green way. “I spent Saturday in Chicago meeting with utility executives from around the country and we’re trying to see if we can come to consensus on this very issue,” he says diplomatically. “There’s a genuine concern on the part of the industry about this issue but there are undoubtedly different views about how to proceed and what time frames to proceed on.”

For Darbee one of the keys to reducing utility carbon emissions is not so much green technology as green policy that replicates the California approach of decoupling utility profits from sales. “If you’re a utility CEO you’ve got to deliver earnings per share and you’ve got to grow them,” he says. “But if selling less energy is contradictory to that you’re not going to get a lot of performance on energy efficiency out of utilities.”

“This is a war,” Darbee adds, “In fact, some people describe [global warming] as the greatest challenge mankind has ever faced — therefore what we ought to do is look at what are the most cost-effective solutions.”

California startup Amyris engineers microbes to transform them into molecular oil refineries, digesting sugar to produce low-carbon equivalents of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Now in a bid to commercialize its technology, Amryis has struck a deal to create a joint venture with Brazilian ethanol giant Crystalev to produce biodiesel from sugarcane.

Some three-quarters of Brazil’s cars run on ethanol made from domestic sugarcane but the country imports diesel. “This is a game changer,” Amyris co-founder Jack Newman told Green Wombat this week at Fortune’s Brainstorm Green conference in Pasadena. “It gives us the ability to make a difference in terms of scale by tapping into existing agricultural land and Brazil’s ethanol infrastructure. It’s a great step forward for Amyris, and Brazil gets the option of producing ethanol or diesel from same resources.”

Most biodiesel today is made from soybeans or recycled vegetable oil and does not offer the same performance as petroleum-based diesel. The biodiesel produced by Amyris’ custom-designed microbes matches that performance and can be used in existing engines while cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 percent, according to Newman, a microbiologist who is Amyris’ senior vice president of research.

If Amyris, an Emeryville-based company backed by marquee venture capitalists Khosla Ventures and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, can replicate its laboratory success in the field the environmental benefits could substantial.

For Brazil to become self-sufficient in diesel it would otherwise have to plant more soy, which means cutting down more of the Amazon rainforest that already is being destroyed to plant soy destined for North American dinner tables. Sugarcane grown on reclaimed pasture land and distilled with Amyris technology can produce ten times as much diesel per acre as soy. “You won’t have to displace crops into the rainforest area,” Newman says.

Production of the Brazilian biodiesel is expected to begin in 2010 if all goes according to plan and the necessary regulatory approvals are obtained.

“One of the reasons Brazil is so excited about the technology is that this gives them a biodiesel option with this great infrasture they already have,” Newman says. “It could provide them with 90 billion gallons a year without having to reclaim new land.”

Stealth Bay Area solar startup OptiSolar has quietly revealed plans to build the world’s largest photovoltaic solar farm on the central California coast — a $1 billion, 550-megawatt monster that would be nearly 40 times as large as the biggest such power plant operating today.

PV solar power plants essentially take solar panels similar to those found on suburban rooftops and put them on the ground. Unlike solar thermal power plants that use mirrors to heat a liquid to produce steam that drives an electricity-generating turbine, photovoltaic power stations generate power directly when the sun strikes the panel’s semiconducting cells. That means there’s virtually no moving parts or need for industrial infrastructure like power blocks, turbines and piping. (A photo of a PV solar farm in Serpa, Portugal, is above.)

But because photovoltaic solar is less efficient at converting sunlight into electricity than solar thermal and requires big swaths of land, it has not been considered economical to build large-scale PV power plants in the United States. (Unlike in Portugal, Spain and other European countries where utilities pay a premium rate for green energy.)

Furthermore, OptiSolar makes thin-film solar cells, which are even less efficient than traditional solar panels. The hoped for advantage of thin-film solar is that the cells can be printed on rolls of metal much more cheaply than bulky conventional solar cells. They also use far less polysilicon –an expensive semiconducting material — than standard solar cells.

Still, hardly any thin-film solar companies in the U.S. have begun mass production, let alone tried to build a huge power plant. OptiSolar intends to both produce solar panels and build and operate solar power plants. It currently has deals to build more than 20 solar farms representing more than 200 megawatts in Canada, which pays higher rates for electricity generated from renewable sources.

“We have propriety technology and a business approach that we’re convinced will let us deploy PV at large scale and be competitive with other forms of renewable energy,” OptiSolar executive vice president Phil Rettger told Green Wombat recently in an interview about the Hayward, Calif.-based company’s plans.

Says Reese Tisdale, a solar energy analyst with Emerging Energy Research: “At this point I see it as an announcement with plenty to prove.” He says the benefits of a large-scale photovoltaic plants are low operation and maintenance costs and the fact that thin-film prices are falling. But he notes that thin-film solar’s low efficiency and inability to store the electricity generated — solar thermal plants can store heat in water or molten salt to create steam when the sun sets — puts such power plants at a disadvantage.

And the large tracts of land needed for such solar farm could create conflicts, particularly when threatened or endangered animals and plants are present. “Environmental groups will go crazy,” Tisdale says.

OptiSolar has kept a low profile and has said little about its technology or how efficent it is, other than that it uses just 1% of the silicon needed in conventional solar cells. Many thin-film solar cells have efficiencies of five to six percent though Global Solar Energy CEO Mike Gering recently told Green Wombat that his company has achieved 10 percent efficiency in production runs.

Founded by veterans of the carbon-intensive Canadian oil sands industry, OptiSolar has a factory in Hayward and just signed a deal to build another manufacturing facility in Sacramento.

The company’s Topaz solar farm would be constructed on nine-and-a-half square miles of ranch land in San Luis Obispo County near the site of the 177-megawatt Carizzo Plains solar thermal power plant planned by Silicon Valley startup Ausra. Optisolar spokesman Jeff Lettes told Green Wombat that the company has taken options to buy the 6,080 acres of land from farming families if the county approves the project.

Who would buy Topaz’s electricity remains to be seen. The plant would be in PG&E’s (PCG) territory and Rettger acknowledged that the company has been in talks with big California utilities such as Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE). Lettes says the company is currently negotiating a power purchase agreement for Topaz but could not comment further.

OptiSolar says its solar farm would generate electricity for about 190,000 homes. Unlike other PV power plants, OptiSolar will not place its panels on trackers that follow the sun throughout the day. That will lower the cost of the plant but also reduce its efficiency. If approved by the county, construction would begin in 2010. Unlike solar thermal plants, photovoltaic power stations do not need to be licensed by the California Energy Commission, a process that can take a year or two to complete.

Still, OptiSolar will face challenges. Some residents have objected to the size and environmental impact of Ausra’s project and the prospect of another large-scale solar facility in their backyard will raise new concerns. The OptiSolar site is also habitat for the protected California kit fox.

PASADENA, Calif. — Green tech guru Vinod Khosla probably didn’t win many friends among the chardonnay-and-carbon-offsets crowd Tuesday during an appearance at Fortune’s Brainstorm Green conference, where he castigated well-heeled enviros for thinking that driving a Toyota (TM) Prius and other “feel-good solutions” will save the planet

“The Prius is more greenwash than green,” the venture capitalist said on stage during a conversation with Fortune senior writer Adam Lashinsky. “Priuses sell a lot but so do Gucci bags. The hybridization of cars is the most expensive way to reduce carbon.”

“We do a lot of feel-good things like put solar panels up in foggy San Francisco so a few middle-class and upper-middle-class people feel good about themselves,” he added.

Ouch.

If Khosla was typically on the offensive, he’s been on the defensive a bit of late over early investments in corn-based biofuels. Alarm has escalated over the past year about the impact of taking food crops out of production to grow a gasoline substitute.

After Lashinsky read a recent quote from the Indian finance minister – “food-based biofuels are a crime against humanity,” Khosla agreed that “food-based biofuels are the wrong way to go. We have much better alternatives.” He has long championed cellulosic biofuels that can be produced from non-food plants like switchgrass or from wood waste and characterized his ethanol investments as a way to get the lay of the biofuels landscape.

Never shy about stirring the pot, he declared that, “People’s views on green are obsolete.” The way to fight climate, according to Khosla, is not to focus on putting solar panels on roofs or building electric cars but increasing the efficiency of things like engines and the operations of mainstream businesses.

Worried about the high price of oil? Don’t. “My forecast for 2030 is that price of oil will be below $25 a barrel,” Khosla said. No matter, he added, because by then biofuels will be cheaper.

So stick that in your Prius.

PASADENA, Calif. — If you wanted a snapshot of the emerging alliance between utilities and automakers, the car park of the Langham hotel here was the place to be Tuesday morning. There was the CEO of one of the largest utilities in the United States putting the pedal to the metal of the battery-powered Think City with Think Global CEO Jan-Olaf Willums riding shotgun.

“I liked it a lot,” PG&E (PCG) Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee told Green Wombat after a few spins around the hotel in the electric coupe. “The acceleration was fast, it handled well and it has a European feel.”

We had just finished a Fortune Brainstorm Green session on electric cars (along General Motors’ (GM) executive Beth Lowery), where Darbee declared, “We want to replace the oil industry” as the fuel supplier to the automakers. Fuel in this case is electricity, though unlike Big Oil, regulated utilities such as PG&E and Southern California Edison (EIX) will not make windfall profits no matter how many electrons they push into Chevy Volts.

The topic at hand was the potential for vehicle-to-grid, or V2G, if electric cars go mass market. The big idea: electric cars are essentially mobile generators and rolling energy storage devices. When hundreds of thousands of them are plugged in, they can not only download electricity but return power to the grid from their batteries, allowing utilities to meet peak demand without firing up expensive fossil fuel power plants that often sit idle until everyone cranks up their air conditioners.

PG&E is working with Google (GOOG) to develop technology to allow a smart power grid to detect where an electric car is plugged in so the owner can be charged or credited with consuming electricity or returning it to the grid. The smart grid would also be able to detect power demand spikes and then tap the appropriate number of car batteries to smooth out the electricity supply.

Utilities like PG&E are eager to forge alliances with electric carmakers for other reasons. In California, electric cars could be charged at night when greenhouse gas-free power sources like wind farms tend to produce the most electricity but when demand otherwise falls off. Utilities are also interested in buying used electric car batteries (which retain 80 percent of their capacity even after they’re no longer good for transportation) to store renewable energy that can be released when electricity demand spikes.

Lowery, GM’s vice president for environment, energy and safety policy, said such interest from utilities is prompting the automaker to think how electric cars could spawn new markets. “We’re definitely looking at different business models for batteries,” she said.

On Monday, Think Global and venture capital powerhouses Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Rockport Capital Partners announced the formation of Think North America as a joint venture between the Norwegian company and the VCs that will bring the Think City to California next year.

Rockport managing general partner and acting Think North America president Wilber James was at the panel and suggested Think supply some cars to PG&E. As the session ended, Darbee, James and Willums headed to the parking lot where Willums showed off the car’s Internet-enabled interactive features, including a video screen with a button already labeled “vehicle-to-grid.”

Fortune senior editor David Kirkpatrick reports from Fortune’s Brainstorm Green conference:

PASADENA, Calif — One of the more interesting observations I’ve heard at Fortune’s Brainstorm Green conference concerned genetically-modified foods and nuclear power. Someone commented that these two things — historically the object of huge vituperation from environmentally-minded critics — are both seeing a modulation of criticism.

The world is undergoing a food crisis caused, at least in part, by an undue emphasis on biofuels and in any case closely connected to the dramatically increased price of oil. (I certainly hope the issue of biofuels and food comes up when Adam Lashinsky interviews biofuel’s crown prince Vinod Khosla.) In the face of this food crisis, the antipathy toward GMOs may be starting to fade. The recent moves by Korea to allow in American beef after long resisting it, and by Japan to allow American rice, may just be early signs, this guy said. I’d speculate also that if it’s a question of starvation or survival, the southern African nations which have so adamantly opposed GMOs will almost certainly rethink their positions. (Aside from Zimbabwe’s Mugabe, of course, from whom rationality cannot be presumed.)

In a session on the topic of nuclear power, Fortune’s David Whitford asked the audience how many were unalterably opposed to increasing nuclear power in the U.S. for any reason. In this room of perhaps 300 environmentally-minded Americans, only about 20 raised their hands. With oil at $116 and global warming an ever-more urgent concern, minds are opening. Not that most of those in the room wouldn’t add substantial caveats to their unwillingness to rule nuclear out.

That said, the advocacy of nuclear power shown by Alex Flint of the Nuclear Energy Institute on Whitford’s panel drifted to some absurd extremes. For instance, he said that he would be willing to have a nuclear waste facility in his backyard, and that the location of a nuclear power plant “as close as possible” to his house “would be good for land values.” What is this guy smoking?

In answer to my question — one also raised by his co-panelist David Lockbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists — about what happens if a jet piloted by a terrorist plows into a nuclear plant, Flint was unconvincing. He claims that studies show that plants’ containment vessels are strong enough to prevent any release of radiation. To which Lockbaum replied that all the studies pre-9/11 found that even if that were the case, the shaking that would be inevitable in such a scenario would sever essentially all pipes and cables in and out of a plant, making a meltdown likely. Studies since 9/11 are classified, he noted, adding “but the laws of physics did not change that day.”

In the random interesting comments category, I was struck by an amazing statistic proffered by IBM’s (IBM) Rich Lechner in a session on Greening the IT industry. There were plenty of convincing arguments being made in the room that IT and the intelligence bequeathed by computing can have a major impact on reducing energy use and carbon releases.

But Lechner noted that a virtual person in Second Life has a larger carbon footprint than the average person in Brazil. His point, presumably, was that as people enter a developed economy, their carbon footprint goes way up along with their increasing use of tech.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started