Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Exxonmobil_refineryphoto originally uploaded by tjean314

Nobody will accuse ExxonMobil (XOM) of greenwashing. The world’s largest oil company released its energy forecast for the year 2030 yesterday and, in contrast to the sunflowers-and-bears imagery promoted by competitors BP (BP) and Chevron (CVX), ExxonMobil predicted a fossil-fuel future marked by skyrocketing oil and gas consumption and soaring greenhouse gases emissions. Dependence on Middle East oil will grow. Not that there’s anything wrong with that: "The progress of people around the world is driving demand for more
energy," the report states. "We are a world on the move and liquid fuels are essential to meet those demands….By 2030, energy demand will increase by about 60 percent, compared to 2000. The global energy mix will look very similar 25 years from now. Oil, gas and coal will be predominant." ExxonMobil argues that solar, wind and other renewable energy sources will only provide 1 percent of the word’s needs by 2030 – about the same as today – despite the hundreds of millions of dollars being pumped into renewable energy companies and projects as well as state and national mandates to sharply increase the Exxonmobil_enerry_outlook_report_1
use of alternative energies. While the oil giant correctly points out that China and India’s growing middle classes will lead to an explosion of demand for cars, it assumes the vast majority of them will run on gasoline. (Meanwhile, the United Nations  warned today that deaths from air pollution are likely to spiral as car ownership increases in Asia. Some 600,000 people in Asia die prematurely each year from air pollution, according to the UN report.)  ExxonMobil’s forecast report predicts that technological fixes – like capturing emissions from coal-fired power plants and higher efficiency vehicles – will reduce the impact on global warming. But it’s curious that in an increasingly carbon constrained world, with efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions snowballing, that ExxonMobil would so baldly stake its future on the status quo. Will it be a matter of time before Wall Street decides that such a strategy is just too risky and punish companies accordingly? Not just yet, apparently. ExxonMobil’s stock is up 1.46 percent today.

Heliovoltlogo_1
Green Wombat recently sat down with John Langdon of HelioVolt, a thin-film solar company based in Austin, Texas. Thin-film solar promises to be the next big thing in solar technology. At the risk of oversimplifying, the technology prints solar cells on rolls of flexible metal foil. The payoff: relatively inexpensive solar film that could be incorporated into the roofs and walls of homes and office towers and, eventually, even windows so that a skyscraper, for instance, might generate half of the electricity it needs. A passel of thin-film startups are racing to be first to market, including Silicon Valley’s Miasole, Innovalight and Nanosolar, which the San Jose Mercury News’ Katherine Conrad reports today, will open one of the world’s largest solar cell manufacturing plants in South San Jose by mid-2007.

Given that most of the companies use basically the same underlying technology, the key is how quickly and cheaply they can manufacture thin-film solar. HelioVolt exec Langdon contends that’s where his company has the edge with FASST (Field Assisted Heliovolt_circular_cell
Simultaneous Synthesis and Transfer), its patented nanotechnology printing process. Without going into the technical details, FASST allows solar cells to be printed directly on metal, glass and other building materials. "We can turn a knob and make different form factors" on the fly, says Langdon, HelioVolt’s marketing vp and a Texas Instruments veteran. "We use less energy and have less inventory. When you have a plant that costs $50 million, it all comes down to how many units you can make at what cost."

The five-year-old company plans to break ground on a manufacturing plant next year and begin shipping products by late 2008. As interesting as its manufacturing process is the company’s distribution strategy and take on the market.

Continue Reading »

Peter_garrett
photo originally uploaded  by mrs lala

Peter Garrett, the Midnight Oil front man turned Australian Labor Party politico, has moved to the frontbench in Parliament as the opposition’s shadow minister for climate change and the environment.  The post gives Garrett, a veteran greenie, a high-profile perch as global warming becomes a key campaign issue in the upcoming 2007 Australian federal elections. One of Green Wombat’s favorite bands, Midnight Oil’s in-your-face post-punk agitprop kept the Peter_garrett_parliament
beat on environmental destruction, nuclear disarmament and Aboriginal rights for 26 years. Garrett, the former head of the Australian Conservation Foundation, left the band to run
for Parliament and was elected in 2004 to represent Sydney’s eastern beach suburbs, including Green Wombat’s old stomping grounds in Coogee. Garrett’s rapid rise owes to a shake-up last week in the Labor Party’s leadership. It should be an interesting ride. As a political activist, Garrett was hardcore on enviro issues. But now the man who once sang "Sometimes you’ve got to take the hardest line," and "It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees," has to toe the party line. Still, Garrett isn’t one to back down. At the closing ceremonies for the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, Midnight Oil performed "Beds are Burning," their Aboriginal land-rights anthem. Sitting in the audience was conservative Prime Minister John Howard, whose steadfast refusal to apologize to Australia’s Aborigines for the genocidal polices of the past had become a hot political issue. As the Oils took the stage before a worldwide television audience, they ripped off jumpsuits to reveal shirts emblazoned with "Sorry." The video is below.

Prius_montagephotos originally uploaded by xwelhamite

The United States could replace 180 million cars and trucks – 84 percent of its fleet – with plug-in hybrids without taxing the existing power grid, according to a new U.S. Department of Energy study released today. That could mean a substantial cut in greenhouse gas emissions, even with a big increase in electricity production from coal-fired power plants. That’s because eliminating global warming emissions from individual power plants is far easier and cheaper to do than from hundreds of millions of vehicles, concluded the report’s authors at the energy department’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richmond, Washington.  The report did not consider electricity generated from nuclear, hydro or renewable energy sources when calculating the grid’s capacity to support plug-in hybrids. But if the U.S. made a push to switch to plug-in hybrid vehicles, the authors predicted the jump in electricity demand would promote the construction of solar power stations and wind farms to replace aging coal plants. Another big benefit: smog levels in cities like Los Angeles would drop dramatically if the nation plugged in. To create a plug-in hybrid you swap out the car’s battery for a bigger rechargeable lithium ion version so it relies much less on its gas engine. "Since gasoline consumption accounts for 73 percent of imported oil, it is intriguing to think of the trade and national security benefits if our vehicles switched from oil to electrons," PNNL energy researcher Rob Pratt said in a statement. The researchers said that adding "smart grid" technology would allow utilities to detect when hybrid cars are plugged in so they could be charged only in off-peak hours. Pacific Gas & Electric, one of the nation’s largest utilities,  is working on such a system. See Green Wombat’s A Plug-In Prius that Powers Your House.

Consumersguidetocarbonoffsets_2
Before you give your sweetie a holiday gift of carbon credits to make up for that global-warming flight to Fiji and all those unncessary greenhouse gas-emitting trips to Starbucks in the Subaru, it would be best to read a new report on the burgeoning carbon offset market to make sure your money is not going up in smoke. Responding to people’s desire to do something on a personal level about climate change, nearly three dozen companies and non-profits now offer services to neutralize your contributions to global warming. That’s done by selling an array of "carbon offsets" that are supposed to result in a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. But the report commissioned by the Portsmouth, New Hampshire-based non-profit Clean Air Cool Planet found that there’s no guarantee that buying offsets will do anything more than assuage your green guilt. "Achievement of personal carbon neutrality is certainly laudable. But pursuing carbon neutrality at the individual level will not solve global warming, or even mitigate it to any significant extent," the report’s authors wrote. "Indeed, the potential for the retail offset market to inform and influence the public regarding global warming is almost certainly as important, if not more important, than its role in reducing actual (greenhouse gas) emissions."

Their conclusion after surveying 30 carbon offset services: "While we can identify top-tier providers based on currently available information, we cannot categorically state that purchasing offsets from them will render you carbon neutral." The reason for that is that offsetting greenhouse gases with personal carbon credits is an incredibly complicated endeavor. To be effective, the offsets purchased must result in additional greenhouse gas reductions that would not have otherwise occurred because of planned projects, government mandates or voluntary programs. For instance, buying credits attributed to Company X’s previous commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a certain amount would not make the world cooler. On the other hand, the report says that buying credits purchased on the European carbon trading market – a service Green Wombat wrote about last week – would have an impact on global warming. That’s because the EU Emissions Trading Scheme limits total emissions among participating countries and by purchasing carbon credits you’re taking off the market someone else’s right to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, forcing actual reductions.

Continue Reading »

Lobbyistphoto uploaded by Phil Ming

On Sand Hill Road in Silicon Valley it’s the "S word," mumbled apologetically whenever green tech VCs and entrepreneurs gather to confab about the solar energy boom. "I don’t like subsidies," declared  Innovalight CEO Conrad Burke at yesterday’s ThinkEquity Greentech Summit in the now-ritual denunciation of government incentives that have helped jump-start solar and other renewable energy businesses. Part of the enduring mythology of Silicon Valley is that world-changing technology sprang sui generis from Palo Alto garages, Washington’s creation of, say, the Internet  a minor detail.  But as was apparent Thursday at the green tech event, there seems to be a realization, increasingly vocalized, that when it comes to competing against Big Oil, Big Nuclear and Big Coal, perhaps it’s not quite such a free market after all. "I see as our main competition as the brown rate, the electricity rate we get from dirty coal in places like Texas," said Martin Roscheisen, CEO of solar startup Nanosolar. "It’s an uneven playing field. They utilize an existing infrastructure other people created for them and are harmful to the environment." Later in the afternoon, SunPower president Richard Swanson had this to say: "Do yourself a favor one day and study the oil and gas depletion allowance. Be sure to have a (barf) bag nearby." He was referring, of course, to the multi billion-dollar tax
Home_greentech_sm_1
break that allows the oil industry to basically write off much of the cost of drilling for oil. It’s hard to imagine ExxonMobil’s chief appearing at a fossil fuels conference and expressing remorse about the fact that Congress last year granted his industry more $6 billion in tax breaks for oil exploration or that the oil and gas industry has avoided paying billions in royalties for drilling on public lands. "Once we’re bigger, we’re going to pay more for lobbying," joked Roscheisen. But a Greentech Summit audience member suggested during the Q&A that waiting until then would be too late. The time is now, she said, for green energy proponents on Sand Hill Road to head to K Street in Washington and start an alt energy lobby to get actively involved in the policy debate – especially given that the Democrats are now setting the energy agenda.

Solfocus2
Palo Alto startup SolFocus has yet to release its high-efficiency solar concentrator technology but the company is already expanding overseas, said co-founder Steve Horne this afternoon at the ThinkEquity Greentech confab. He said in 2007 SolFocus will operate test sites in California, India and Hawaii and has signed a deal to produce half a megawatt of solar power in Spain.
The company also inked an agreement with an Indian manufacturer. Altogether, SolFocus will install 2 megawatts of solar power next year, according to Horne, the
company’s
chief scientist. Solfocus03_1_1
"It’s a global business," he said. "In 2007 we’ll be turning our design into a full-fledged product."  SolFocus initially plans to build small-scale power plants that will feature fields of solar concentrator panels. The photovoltaic technology uses small lenses and curved mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays on solar modules made by Spectrolab, the Boeing subsidiary that just set a world’s record for wringing a 40.7 percent efficiency rate from its solar cells. Horne said SolFocus is currently working on a second
generation version of its technology, which should be ready for market in two to three years.  Going global was a theme of the day. Ira Ehrenpreis, a cleantech venture capitalist with Technology Partners, told the standing-room-only audience that investors need to be prepared to travel away from Sand Hill Road as renewable energy technology, research and markets are found far afield from Silicon Valley.

Pg_main_1 Silicon Valley’s solar energy startups are grappling with a shortage of engineering talent, several solar executives said today at ThinkEquity’s Greentech Summit in San Francisco. "We are going to invest in an European operation because, in part, it balances the talent pool available and the market access," said Martin Roscheisen, CEO of Nanosolar, a Palo Alto thin-film solar company. Dave Pearce, chief executive of Santa Clara, Calif.-based Miasole, another thin-film company, said he’s opened a 25-person facility in Shanghai. "We’ve been very successful in attracting executives with good Western language and management skills and who also understand the Chinese market," he said.  Part of the problem, according to the solar execs, is that some of the best engineers work in countries with big solar industries. Echoing their counterparts in Silicon Valley’s tech industry, they complained that U.S. immigration laws make it difficult to bring those engineers to California. "I think it’s ridiculous that we’re going into 2007 with all the H1Bs already taken," said Conrad Burke, CEO of Santa Clara’s Innovalight, referring to the visa program for tech workers. "We found a lot of very talented individuals in Germany and other countries that have experience in solar that we couldn’t hire because of immigration problems with H1B visas, green cards."

Img_2079_1Boeing (BA) subsidiary Spectrolab subsidiary has created a concentrator solar cell that achieved 40.7 percent efficiency – a new record that could finally make solar energy  competitive with coal and other fossil fuels, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, which
helped fund the company’s work. Standard solar cells like those used in rooftop panels have efficiency rates of 12 to 18 percent.  Spectrolab, based in Sylmar, California, achieved the world-record efficiency in a multi-junction solar cell.  Multi-junction cells are being used in  solar dish arrays like the one pictured above at a Solar Systems power station in Australia.

Chinese_factoryphoto uploaded by daechang

At a recent panel discussion on China’s green tech boom, it was noted that in a few years China will overtake the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. That led San Francisco venture capitalist Bryant Tong to repeat a provocative point he had read in a Beijing newspaper: If the West relies on China to be the world’s factory, churning out cheap goods that promote our economic prosperity, doesn’t it also bear responsibility for helping China reduce its contribution to global warming from the two coal-fired power plants it brings online every week, in part, to satisfy our consumerist desires?  It’s worth putting down your iPod (made in Shenzhen) and closing your Dell laptop (assembled in Xiamen) to ponder. Open a bedroom closet or kitchen cabinet and try to find something not made in China. Remove all the China-produced products from your local Wal-Mart hypermart and you probably could squeeze the rest of the merchandise into a 7-Eleven. With discussions beginning on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and the need to include China in any future accord, it’s sure to be a topic of growing debate.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started