By John Addison – June 3, 2010

Ford is promoting smart charging as it now takes orders for the Ford Transit Connect, next year for the 2011 Ford Focus EV, and in 2012 the Ford Plug-in Hybrid. Ford is partnering with Coulomb Technologies to provide nearly 5,000 free wall-installed charging stations for some of the automaker’s first electric car and electric delivery van customers.

Under the Ford Blue Oval ChargePoint Program, fleets and residents in nine designated markets could receive a free ChargePoint® Networked Charging Station with the purchase of a Ford Transit Connect Electric vehicle. The nine markets designated by Coulomb Technologies include Austin, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Orlando, Sacramento, the San Jose/San Francisco Bay Area, Redmond, Wash., and Washington D.C. The installation of ChargePoint charging stations will begin immediately.

Ford plans to introduce five new electrified vehicles in North America by 2012, providing a range of products to meet a variety of customer needs. These include:

• A Transit Connect Electric small commercial van. Test Drive Report
• A Ford Focus Electric passenger car debuting in 2011. Test Drive Report
• Two next-generation lithium-ion battery hybrid-electric vehicles and a plug-in hybrid by 2012

If 5,000 Transit Connect Electrics are sold in the target cities prior to Focus EV sales, then charging units may all go to those customers. This will help accelerate early adoption of electric vans in fleets such as utilities, universities, goods delivery, and contractors.

New USA Jobs for Plug-in Cars and Advanced Batteries

Ford’s increased use of lithium-ion batteries is also increasing jobs in the United States. Ford will make its own battery packs in Michigan, using Focus EV cells from nearby Compact Power, an LG Chem company. The plug-in hybrid cells will be made in Wisconsin by Johnson-Controls Saft. The U.S. made new lithium-ion batteries will be used instead of the currently Mexican made nickel metal hydride batteries. Over 6,000 new jobs are coming to Michigan just for advanced batteries. “Michigan will be the place where the electric vehicle and battery-powered vehicle will be researched, developed, produced, manufactured and assembled,” said Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

The Ford Blue Oval ChargePoint Program is part of Coulomb Technologies’ $37 million ChargePoint America charging station infrastructure project made possible by a grant funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through the Transportation Electrification Initiative administered by the Department of Energy.

Coulomb Technologies Leads in Smart Charging Build-Out

Coulomb Technologies is a fast-growing venture capital backed firm headquartered in California. Coulomb’s ChargePoint® Network, is open to all plug-in electric vehicle drivers and provides authentication, management and real-time control for the networked electric vehicle charging stations. The network of electric vehicle charging stations is accessible to all plug-in drivers by making a toll-free call to the 24/7 number on each charging station, or signing up for a ChargePoint Network monthly access plan and obtaining a ChargePass™ smart card. Other future payment options include using any smart (RFID) credit/debit card to authorize a session or using a standard credit or debit card at a remote payment station (RPS) to pay for charging sessions. To locate available charging stations, visit mychargepoint.net and click “Find Stations.”

As electric cars start to ship with the new J1772 smart charging capability, Coulomb has taken the lead in installing a smart charging infrastructure with over 700 networked charging stations worldwide shipped to more than 130 customers in 2009. The ChargePoint Network provides multiple web-based portals for Hosts, Fleet managers, Drivers, and Utilities, and ChargePoint Networked Charging Stations ranging in capability from 120 Volt to 240 Volt AC charging and up to 500 Volt DC charging.

Smart charging will allow customers to save money by charging off-peak when rates are low. Major utilities also plan to inform smart charging station customers that excess renewable energy is available if that is their charging preference. Electric Utilities Facilitate Smart Grid
ChargePoint America will offer home and public charging stations to individuals and businesses. Businesses interested in applying for free public charging stations or consumers exploring an electric vehicle purchase can visit www.chargepointamerica.com for more information.

Three automakers have committed to deliver electric vehicles in designated US regions. The Chevrolet Volt, the Ford Transit Connect Electric and Ford Focus Electric through the “Ford Blue Oval ChargePoint Program”, and the smart fortwo electric drive will be introduced along with this program. ChargePoint America plans to provide 4,600 public and private ChargePoint Networked Charging Stations by October 2011.

Clean Fleet Reports about Electric Cars

Top 10 Electric Car Makers for 2010 & 2011

By John Addison, Publisher of the Clean Fleet Report and conference speaker.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

by Richard T. Stuebi


On behalf of the President of the Cleveland Foundation Ronn Richard, I was privileged to attend an all-day bull session on May 7 hosted by the White House on energy innovation. With support from the Kauffman Foundation, the White House convened this meeting to spur brainstorming among people who participate across the cleantech spectrum, presumably to surface actions that can dramatically increase the velocity and success of energy innovation.

Alas, I can’t say that I saw evidence of any concrete next steps, but I did hear a number of interesting comments from the morning sessions at the meeting:

Diana Farrell, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council: Throughout U.S. history, major acts can actually spawn and renew markets, rather than thwart them. We are at that point today with energy: energy and environmental debates have grown stale and a new policy paradigm is necessary to cut through them. Oil price spikes have preceded 10 of the last 11 U.S. recessions, so we need to eliminate this vulnerability. The history of great nations shows an ability to anticipate crises before they become too critical. But, as important as policy reforms are, it is not enough for economic robustness: entrepreneurs and innovation are essential.

Dan Reicher, Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives at Google (NASDAQ: GOOG): Google is working on all three critical dimensions of cleantech: capital, technology and policy. While Google’s actions on capital and technology for cleantech are well-known, their work on policy is aimed at accumulating and providing more and better information for policy-makers to set better policies.

Desh Deshpande, serial entrepreneur, including Chairman of A123 Systems (NASDAQ: AONE): In cleantech, the center of gravity for innovation is not at the national laboratories, and is reverting away from the private sector, instead focusing in the universities. The big challenge is not so much inadequate amount of funding on cleantech innovation, but rather inefficient commercial capture of the innovation that actually happens.

Carl Schramm, President of the Kauffman Foundation: Lots of challenges ahead for cleantech entrepreneurship. Angel investors as well as venture firms stand to be severely punished by proposed regulations aiming to "reform" hedge funds. Businesses of all sizes are becoming too reliant on the government, blunting their intimacy with actual market needs. The link between university and commercialization is broken and needs to be reset, as the rate of new business spin-outs from universities is plummeting. To help combat these challenges, Kauffman is sponsoring an Energy Innovation Network, which aims to help "connect the dots" in faciliating entrepreneurship in the cleantech sector.

Tom Baruch, Managing Director at CMEA: Universities (not corporations) will be the center of innovation for the foreseeable future. Successful cleantech business models will need to be much more capital efficient than many of the most prominent cases to date. Cleantech entrepreneurs cannot assume any “green premium”: their products/services must stand on their own to deliver real economic value to paying customers.

Dr. Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University: Universities can no longer afford to suffer from the delusion that being smarter is sufficient to be the best. University excellence in the future will be defined by five mantras: (1) local relevance, (2) speed, (3) connectivity, both within university and to outside, (4) entrepreneurship, and (5) intellectual innovation.

Dr. Yet-Ming Chiang, Founder of A123 Systems and Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT: True freedom to innovate at a university only occurs after professors gain tenure. To dramatically increase innovation, universities must restructure how they evaluate professors for tenure: at MIT, new products/services are now part of the review, but jobs created should also be a criterion. Fast-tracking of green cards for promising talent is also critical: over the past 5 years, 86% of foreign graduate students at MIT indicated a desire to stay in the U.S., but only 56% have stayed – and the 44% that left departed mainly because of an inability to stay, not because they didn't want to stay, in the U.S.

As interesting as these comments from the morning discussions were, the workshop in the afternoon got bogged down in very wonky policy topics that frankly bored me.

And, also interesting was who was NOT at the workshop: little or no representation from big energy companies (petroleum or utilities). Is the White House (along with Kauffman) saying that incumbent energy players are not viewed as part of the cleantech solution?



Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of NorTech Energy Enterprise, the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

By John Addison (5/27/10)


Toyota agreed to purchase $50 million of Tesla’s common stock subsequent to the closing of Tesla’s currently planned initial public offering, giving Toyota over 2 percent of Tesla. The investment was negotiated with Tesla's purchase of the former NUMMI factory in Fremont, California, that once employed over 4,000 workers in a Toyota-General Motors JV plant. Tesla and Toyota intend to cooperate on the development of electric vehicles, parts, and production system and engineering support. Neal Dikeman reported on Friday the significance of this for Tesla, Toyota, and California jobs.



In 2012, new Tesla S sedan will roll-out of the plant with electric range that remarkably matches the range of many gasoline cars. Tesla is developing a roomy Model S hatchback that starts at $57,400, about half the price of the Roadster. Tesla will start delivering the Model S in 2012 from its new factory in California. The Model S will have up to a 300 mile range, far beyond the Nissan Leaf 100 mile range the Chevy Volt 40-mile electric range, and current ambitions of other electric car makers. Top 10 Electric Car Makers


Tesla will compete with other sedan makers by also offering more passenger space, more cargo space, and a premium cache. With seating for five adults and two children, plus an additional trunk under the hood, Model S has passenger carrying capacity and versatility rivaling SUVs and minivans. Rear seats fold flat, and the hatch gives way to a roomy opening.


With a range up to 300 miles and 45-minute QuickCharge, the Model S can carry five adults and two children in quiet comfort. The roomy electric car starts at a base price of $57,400, before the $7,500 federal EV tax credit and additional tax credits in many states. Yes, it will be more expensive than sedans from Nissan, Ford, and GM but with more battery storage for more range with 3 battery pack options offer a range of 160, 230 or 300 miles per charge.
Don’t pull-up to the Model S in your sedan and try to race. The Model S goes from 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds with 120 mph top speed, and the promise of sporty handling in the chassis and suspension.


Panasonic Lithium Batteries and Tesla Packs


Tesla touts its expertise and intellectual property in a proprietary electric powertrain that incorporates four key components—an advanced battery pack, power electronics module, high-efficiency motor and extensive control software.

Tesla delivers more range per charge than other electric vehicles by including more lithium batteries. Tesla’s relationship with battery supplier Panasonic is critical. The Roadster uses 6,800 Panasonic lithium-nickel consumer-sized batteries integrated into a Tesla designed battery-pack with unique energy management and thermal management. The new Tesla Model S will use up to 5,500 Panasonic batteries.


Tesla has been skillful in developing strategic partnerships. Tesla also has a relationship with Daimler to supply technology, battery packs and chargers for Daimler’s Smart fortwo electric drive. Daimler holds more than 5% of Tesla’s capital stock. Daimler has orders for Tesla to supply it with up to 1,500 battery packs and chargers to support a trial of the Smart fortwo electric drive in at least five European cities. Tesla delivered the first of these battery packs and chargers in November 2009. Daimler also engaged Tesla to assist with the development and production of a battery pack and charger for a pilot fleet of its A-Class electric vehicles to be introduced in Europe during 2011. Tesla has ambitions to supply other vehicle makers.



By John Addison, Publisher of the Clean Fleet Report and conference speaker.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

by Richard T. Stuebi



The concept of an "audit" is something that is inherently, well, unsettling. The word itself implies that you might have done something wrong, and someone is coming to catch you and punish you. For sure, no-one wants to face the prospect of an IRS audit.

Of course, that's not the sole or even main reason that I've never undertaken an energy audit for my house. It's not an excuse, but an explanation to say that I've simply been too preoccupied with other matters to go through the effort of finding a qualified firm to perform an energy audit. And, frankly, I had no idea whether an audit would cost $100 (easily acceptable) or $1000 (too much!).

So, it was with a bit of relief actually that a firm called GreenStreet Solutions sent me a mailer offering an energy audit for $199. No longer burdened with finding a firm to do the work, and knowing that the price was one I could afford, I gave them a call to schedule a visit.

I was very pleased. A two-man team from GreenStreet came to my 1978-era house for a 3-hour tour (sing along: "a 3-hour tour"), and found some pretty interesting results. I wasn't surprised to discover that certain of the walls and ceilings were underinsulated. However, I was shocked to see that the biggest source of thermal leakage was out of my basement, through the front stoop.

Armed with a host of data collected from the building envelope, thermal images from scanning, and my prior year's gas and electric bills, the GreenStreet team went off to prepare an assessment . A couple weeks later, the lead analyst returned for an evening debrief with me and my wife, handing us a bound report summarizing the findings and suggesting measures to implement.

The results: at 50 Pascals of pressure, 5135 cubic feet of air per minute were leaking through the building shell of my home, relative to a target of 2299 for a reference home of comparable size. To combat this, GreenStreet proposed three packages of solutions -- Bronze, Silver and Gold -- to reduce the leaks. To my wife and me, the Silver package looked the best -- the most bang for the buck -- entailing $9738 of outlays to save an estimated $2288 annual heating costs (surprisingly, savings on air conditioning expenses are not calculated), for a projected average payback of 4.3 years.

In addition, GreenStreet provided a bag full of goodies to further help reduce energy. For instance, we were given a Kill-A-Watt meter to measure appliance consumption rates and phantom loads. Though I haven't yet gone around the house to develop a list, it sounds like a pretty fun project some rainy afternoon.

Also, GreenStreet gave us a bunch of thermal insulating gaskets for outlets and light switches. I installed these the other day, and in removing the covers, it's really amazing to see how much thermal leakage is likely to occur through these huge uninsulated gaps. Parents: installing these gaskets would be an excellent project to give to your teenager to undertake.

As for implementing the audit results, we were prepared to authorize a go-ahead -- until the GreenStreet salesperson noted that a bill was winding its way through Congress to reimburse up to $8000 (with no ceiling on income levels) for weatherization efforts, and since the bill wouldn't be retroactive, we would be better off waiting for the bill to pass (expected this summer). We thanked him for his divulging this important opportunity, and asked him to have GreenStreet call us when the bill passed.

He further noted that a bill was moving through the Ohio legislature to reimburse the $199 we paid for the energy audit too, and informed us that we would be notified if this were to pass as well.

I was really impressed with the audit by GreenStreet -- very professional, and not pushy. The GreenStreet agent noted that their parent company was Vectren (NYSE: VVC) -- a gas and electric utility based in Southern Indiana -- which leads me to wonder if all energy audits should be performed by companies that have a corporate parent that is a utility possessing sufficient financial wherewithal and expertise on energy-related issues.

However, unless the utility has revenue/profit decoupling mechanisms in place, it's clear in my mind that an audit can't effectively be done by the local utility, who may be subject to conflicts of interest by threatening to cannibalizing their core business from reducing energy consumption.

In all respects, my wife and I actually enjoyed this audit, and recommend a similar type of audit for anyone who wants to make their personal contribution to the cleantech challenge.


Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of NorTech Energy Enterprise, the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Most of my friends know I’m not a huge fan of EV startups. They take massive amounts of capital, the end customer (i.e. you and I) tends to be very sophisticated, demanding, and a pain in the neck, the technology is extremely challenging and I don’t believe the startups understand their long term costs as well as they think they do. But worse than that, the competition is very, very good and well entrenched. So while I love the concept of EVs and more specifically Plug in Hybrid EVs, I’ve been a huge skeptic of EV venture deals.

But . . .

• Go Tesla! The Toyota tie up is an exciting move. Toyota gets access to the EV business as a hedge against the possibility that GM's Chevrolet Volt and the Nissan Leaf cleaning its clock and take the mantle of most green car company away, plus they get a massive much needed dose of positive PR that’s worth their $50 mm investment all by its lonesome to counteract the legions of recent “Toyota’s quality just went to hell” articles and the latest “let’s grill the Toyota executives” push in Washington. This is good.

• Toyota gets a great use for the recently shut down NUMMI plant in California, making them look like the hero in that story without having to actually operate a high cost union plant again (apparently a large part of the reason they got out of it). For those that missed that story – NUMMI was a GM – Toyota JV in Fremont, the last auto plant west of the Mississippi, and apparently Toyota’s only union facility. When GM went bust (sorry when you and I decided we liked losing money in the car business), Toyota took the opportunity to back out of the JV, leaving a huge hole in the local economy (it was just about the only customer for a number of local manufacturers). California’s political bosses get a brief reprieve from their shellacking by helping with big tax breaks to ink a deal that may bring back 10% of the lost jobs (about 10 of the top legislators and administrators joined the Governator to announce it).  Part of the deal here is that Tesla Motors is buying the plant with heavy tax breaks and plans to build its still to be launched mass market sedan there.

• The venture capitalists who backed Tesla get a new investor to pony up a chunk of the massive cash that will be required at good valuations. Even better, the backing of Toyota in my mind drastically increases the chances that a Tesla IPO can get done, despite the huge questions analysts have had on their near term revenue prospects since they filed the prospectus earlier this year.

• You and I, who are funding a big chunk of Tesla anyway with the massive $400 mm+ DOE loan guarantee, now get a foreign auto company to invest underneath us. (Of note this will be our second multi-hundred million investment into that part of the San Francisco Bay Area, since we are doing the same thing for the solar start-up Solyndra a couple of miles down the road.)

• Tesla gets much needed cash, a cheap ready to go plant without union labor requirements, and access (if they are smart enough to leverage it) to the considerable manufacturing , marketing , and distribution talents of what has been up until recently the best run auto manufacturer in history. With it comes the automotive street cred that they are sorely lacking.

Filed under the “what’s the real story” side – a couple of questions have been raised by various analysts in the press.

1) Why is Toyota not doing this as a JV or operating partner? Which would make even more perfect sense from both parties perspective. There’s been no mention of Toyota helping on marketing/distribution and service, areas that Tesla will sorely need if they get rolling. But maybe it’s just early days.

2) How many of the local jobs are actively coming back? Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla was quoted as saying 1,000 jobs were planned (there were many, many, many times that many jobs lost when NUMMI shut down), and he was apparently very ambivalent on the subject of union or non-union.
But regardless, there is a lot to like about a Tesla Toyota Tie up.

Neal Dikeman is a partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a cleantech merchant bank, and the editor of Cleantechblog.comContent provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

National Research Council (5/19/10)

The National Research Council issued new three reports emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable impacts of climate change. The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five studies known as America’s Climate Choices.

“These reports show that the state of climate change science is strong,” said Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “But the nation also needs the scientific community to expand upon its understanding of why climate change is happening, and focus also on when and where the most severe impacts will occur and what we can do to respond.”
The report suggests a range of emissions from 170 to 200 gigatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent for the period 2012 through 2050 as a reasonable goal, a goal that is roughly in line with the range of emission reduction targets proposed recently by the Obama administration and members of Congress. Even at the higher end of this range, meeting the target will require a major departure from “business-as-usual” emission trends. The report notes that with the exception of the recent economic downtown, domestic emissions have been rising for most of the past three decades. The U.S. emitted approximately 7 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2008 (the most current year for which such data were available). If emissions continue at that rate, the proposed budget range would be used up well before 2050, the report says.

A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. Either cap-and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a combination of the two could provide the needed incentives. While the report does not specifically recommend a cap-and-trade system, it notes that cap-and-trade is generally more compatible with the concept of an emissions budget.
Carbon pricing alone, however, is not enough to sufficiently reduce domestic emissions, the

report warns. Strategically chosen, complementary policies are necessary to assure rapid progress in key areas such as: increasing energy efficiency; accelerating the development of renewable energy sources; advancing full-scale development of new-generation nuclear power and carbon capture and storage systems; and retrofitting, retiring, or replacing existing emissions-intensive energy infrastructure. Research and development of new technologies that could help reduce emissions more cost effectively than current options also should be strongly supported.

NRC Reports and Free Summaries

Clean Fleet Climate Action Reports

The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never “closed,” the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems,” the report concludes. It calls for a new era of climate change science where an emphasis is placed on “fundamental, use-inspired” research, which not only improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change but also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional, national, and international levels acting to limit and adapt to climate change.

The report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given the authority and resources to coordinate a national, multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both understanding and responses to climate change. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, established in 1990, could fulfill this role, but it would need to form partnerships with action-oriented programs and address weaknesses that in the past have led to research gaps, particularly in the critical area of research that supports decisions about responding to climate change.

Substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require prompt and sustained efforts to promote major technological and behavioral changes, says Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, another of the new reports. Although limiting emissions must be a global effort to be effective, strong U.S. actions to reduce emissions will help encourage other countries to do the same. In addition, the U.S. could establish itself as a leader in developing and deploying the technologies necessary to limit and adapt to climate change.

An inclusive national policy framework is needed to ensure that all levels of government, the private sector, and millions of households and individuals are contributing to shared national goals. Toward that end, the U.S. should establish a greenhouse gas emissions “budget” that sets a limit on total domestic emissions over a set period of time and provides a clear, directly measurable goal. However, the report warns, the longer the nation waits to begin reducing emissions, the harder and more expensive it will likely be to reach any given emissions target.
We must manage and minimize the risks of climate change, says the third report, Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change. Some impacts – such as rising sea levels, disappearing sea ice, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves – are already being observed across the country. The report notes that policymakers need to anticipate a range of possible climate conditions and that uncertainty about the exact timing and magnitude of impacts is not a reason to wait to act. In fact, it says boosting U.S. adaptive capacity now can be viewed as “an insurance policy against an uncertain future,” while inaction could increase risks, especially if the rate of climate change is particularly large.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

by Richard T. Stuebi

While it is increasingly recognized that subsidies for corn-based ethanol are bad policy, a nod must be given to C. Ford Runge, a professor at the University of Minnesota, for his pithy and merciless analysis in his note "Biofuel Backlash" published in the May/June issue of Technology Review.

In the space of just a few short paragraphs, Prof. Runge cites the work of Earth Track (a firm dedicated to exposing subsidies detrimental to the environment) projecting $400 billion of U.S. subsidies to ethanol between 2008-2022, notes a recent estimate by the Earth Policy Institute that the 2008 U.S. corn crop diverted for ethanol production would have been sufficient to feed 330 million people for a year, and provides a reference to modelling that indicates a near-doubling of greenhouse gas emissions due to changes in land-use patterns associated with corn-for-ethanol production.

It's amazing that such awful policies, which are so adverse on so many dimensions, can survive. But, in the gameboard that is U.S. energy, environmental, and agricultural policy, only grand compromises supported by the big boys can get enacted -- which are then extremely difficult to overturn when they are seen to be nothing more than gifts to their well-positioned and deep-pocketed sponsors and supporters.

Reiterating a point I've made before: I have nothing against ethanol per se. Cellulosic ethanol, if it can be accomplished cost-effectively, is a promising prospect for reducing greenhouse gases and reliance on Middle Eastern petroleum without chewing up valuable foodstuffs. But corn-based ethanol plainly sucks. And, the notion of using corn-based ethanol as a bridge to cellulosic ethanol is dubious at best.

The old adage says that a camel is a horse designed by committee. Would it were that U.S. biofuels policies were as lovely as a camel.

Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of NorTech Energy Enterprise, the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

It's been a big week in Greenhouse Gas regulation land.  Huge boost for cleantech sales executives and afficianados everywhere.

EPA announces a slightly delayed and somewhat more limited GHG regulation rule.

Starting in July 2011, all facilities greater than 75,000 tons per year in emissions will have to get GHG permits.

And John Kerry and Joe Leiberman push ahead in the Senate with cap and trade and climate saving legislation.

Lots of good in here:

- Power sector gets capped early on
- Industrial/manufacturing gets phased in
- Transport included down the road as well
- Domestic offsets included (think massive cashflows to the ag belt)
- International offsets included
- International linkages included
- Phased in border tax for non participating countries

And then:

- Riddled with subsidies and wealth transfer and buy-offs, but isn't that just par for the course with Washington? 
- Price collar ($12-$25/ton) - guts the heart of compliance (market based mechanism to set a "real" carbon price, but the Senate should tell the market what the right price should be?  Joe? John? You do actually WANT emissions reductions, right?)
- And no Republican support - guts the odds of passage.

All in all a good week, even though the EPA will get sued six ways to Sunday and without Republican support Kerry-Leiberman has zero chance of passage, we'll give it a two thumbs up.  This is a drastic improvement.

Neal Dikeman is the editor of www.CleantechBlog.com, a partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, and the Chairman of Carbonflow.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

U.S. DOT April 2010 Report to Congress

A wealth of potential solutions, from electric cars, to better transit, to reduced VMT, are detailed in the recent Department of Transportation’s report to Congress. Not only is the report rich with promising climate action, solutions are detailed to address U.S. energy security, with 97 percent of our transportation coming from one source – petroleum.

STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TRANSPORTATION GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

The DOT report offers a wealth of data and tactics supporting these four strategies:

1. Low-carbon fuels
2. Fuel economy
3. Transportation system efficiency
4. Reduce carbon-intensive travel

The report also details cross-cutting policies that facilitate the above strategies:
• Align transportation planning and investments to GHG reduction objectives
• Price carbon

Low-Carbon Fuels

The alternative fuels evaluated in this report include ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, synthetic fuels, hydrogen, and electricity. Considering scalability, the potential to follow a favorable cost reduction curve, and lifecycle emissions, electricity, hydrogen, and advanced biofuels have the most promise. Report summary:

If significant advances were to occur in battery technology and the use of low-carbon energy sources for electricity generation, battery-electric vehicle could reduce transportation GHG emissions by 80 percent or more per vehicle in the long term (25 years or more). Aggressive deployment could reduce total transportation emissions by 26-to-30 percent in 2050 if a 56 percent light-duty vehicle (LDV) market penetration could be achieved.

The estimates for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles depend on reductions in the GHG emissions intensity of U.S. electricity production. The estimates were calculated using GHG emission intensity modeled by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The input is 379 to 606 g/kWhr in 2030, and 240 to 421 g/kWhr in 2050. This compares to a 618 g/kWh national average today and would require increased use of low carbon electricity production technologies such as wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro-electric power. However, even under a very high GHG intensity scenario relying on coal generation using older technology (1,014 g/kWhr), at a low battery efficiency of 0.4 kWhr/mile,
PHEVs operating in a charge depleting mode would still result in 12 percent lower GHG emissions than corresponding conventional gasoline vehicle operation, on a per mile basis. However, under these extreme circumstances, PHEV operation will not provide benefits relative to an HEV baseline.

In the long-term, if technical successes in fuel cell development and low-carbon hydrogen production, distribution, and onboard storage can be achieved, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could reduce per vehicle GHG emissions by 80 percent or more. Aggressive deployment could reduce total transportation emissions by 18-to-22 percent in 2050.

Fuel Economy

Fuel use per light duty vehicle averages 578 gallons per year. In addition, average new vehicle fuel economy improved from 2005 to 2007 as the market share of passenger cars increased compared to light-duty trucks.

Vehicle and fuel efficiency strategies include developing and bringing to market advanced engine and transmission designs, lighter-weight materials, improved vehicle aerodynamics, and reduced rolling resistance. Many of these technological improvements (such as hybrid-electric powertrains, truck aerodynamic improvements, and more efficient gasoline engines) are well developed and could be further incorporated into new vehicles in the near future. In the long-term, propulsion systems relying on more efficient power conversion and low- or zero-carbon fuels.

Fuel economy benefits are limited by the turnover time of the fleet. Passenger cars and light trucks last about 16 years on average before retirement, compared to 20 years or more for trucks, up to 40 years for locomotives and marine vessels, and about 30 years for aircraft.

• Increased fuel economy in light-duty vehicles could reduce GHG emissions significantly. On a per vehicle basis, compared to a conventional vehicle, GHG reductions are 8-to-30 percent for advanced gasoline vehicles; about 16 percent for diesel vehicles; 26-to-54 percent for hybrid electrics; and 46-to-75 percent for plug-in hybrid electrics.

• Retrofits can be used to expedite improvements. Heavy-duty trucks retrofitted to use aerodynamic fairings, trailer side skirts, low-rolling resistance tires, aluminum wheels, and planar boat tails can reduce per truck GHG emissions by 10-to-15 percent. For new trucks, combined powertrain and resistance reduction technologies are estimated to reduce per vehicle emissions by 10 to 30 percent in 2030.

Reduce Carbon-Intensive Travel

These strategies would reduce on-road vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) by reducing the need for travel, increasing vehicle occupancies, and shifting travel to more energy-efficient options. The collective impact of these strategies on total U.S. transportation GHG emissions could range from 5-to-17 percent in 2030, or 6-to-21 percent in 2050.

• Transportation pricing strategies, such as a fee per vehicle-mile of travel (VMT) of about 5 cents per mile, an increase in the motor fuel tax of about $1.00 per gallon, or pay-as-you-drive insurance—if applied widely—could reduce transportation GHG emissions by 3 percent or more within 5-to- 10 years. Lower fee or tax levels would result in proportionately lower GHG reductions.

• Significant expansion of urban transit services, in conjunction with land use changes and pedestrian and bicycle improvements, could generate moderate reductions of 2 to 5 percent of transportation GHG by 2030. The benefits would grow over time as urban patterns evolve, increasing to 3-to-10 percent in 2050. These strategies can also increase mobility, lower household transportation costs, strengthen local economies, and provide health benefits.

Recent trends indicate that light duty vehicle emissions are leveling off as VMT growth slows and fuel economy improves. Growth in passenger vehicle VMT slowed from an annual rate of 2.6 percent from 1990 to 2004 to an average annual rate of 0.6 percent from 2004 to 2007. In 2008, VMT on all streets and roads in the United States decreased for the first time since 1980, likely due to a combination of high fuel prices and a weakening economy. Light-duty vehicles average 1.6 persons per vehicle.

Land use changes — such as density, diversity of land uses, neighborhood design, street connectivity, destination accessibility, distance to activity centers, and proximity to transit — reduce trip lengths and support travel by transit, walking, and bicycling.

Transportation and land use are interdependent. Decisions on the locations and densities of housing, retail, offices, and commercial properties impact travel patterns to these destinations. Similarly, the geographic placement of roads, public transportation, airports, and rail lines influences where homes and businesses are built. Areas of lower density tend to have higher levels of automobile use per capita.

Over the past several decades, housing densities have decreased and the amount of developed land in the country has grown faster than population. Land use strategies yields a reduction of U.S. transportation GHG emissions of 1 to 4 percent in 2030 and 3 to 8 percent in 2050.93 The Moving Cooler study assumptions, which fall in the middle of the range, rely on 43 to 90 percent of new urban development occurring in areas of roughly greater than five residential units per acre, which accommodates single family and multifamily homes.

TCRP Report 128: Effects of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) on Housing, Parking, and Travel, surveyed 17 housing projects that combined compact land use with transit access and found that these projects averaged 44 percent fewer vehicle trips per weekday than that estimated by the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual for a typical housing development.

Commuter/worksite trip reduction programs have modest potential for GHG reductions—0.2 to 0.6 percent of all transportation sector emissions in 2030. The most effective actions from a policy perspective are trip reduction requirements combined with supporting activities such as regional rideshare and vanpool programs and financial incentives for the use of alternative modes.

Investing in transit sufficiently enough to nearly double the average annual ridership growth rate from the current 2.4 percent to 4.6 percent and expanded urban transit could reduce GHG emissions from 0.2 to 0.9 percent of transportation GHG by 2030, or 0.4 to 1.5 percent in 2050.
Buses have the lowest emissions per PMT because of their high occupancy rateaveraging 21 people per bus. Transit buses have a lower occupancy rate of 10 people per bus averaged across the U.S. However, transit buses only account for 15 percent of all bus passenger-miles traveled. Intercity passenger rail averages about 20 passengers per car, while rail transit averages 23, and commuter rail averages 31.

Price Carbon

Mechanisms to price carbon emissions include:
• Federal motor fuels tax
• Cap and trade system, in which GHG emissions allowances are traded in the market to cap overall emissions
• Carbon tax

Transportation GHG emissions are 29 percent of total U.S. emissions. The report provides detailed data on sources of transportation greenhouse and air quality emissions. For GHG, the new GREET 1.8b model is used to measure emissions from source to wheels. Emissions from on-road vehicles accounted for 79 percent of transportation GHG emissions.

• Emissions from light-duty vehicles, which include passenger cars and light duty trucks (e.g., sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans) accounted for 59 percent of emissions
• Emissions from freight trucks accounted for 19 percent
• Emissions from commercial aircraft (domestic and international) for 12 percent
• Emissions from all other modes accounted for 10 percent of total emissions

The United States is starting to reduce its total consumption of oil, become a bit more energy secure, and to implement promising strategies. By eliminating some of the biggest subsidies to oil and widening of highways, with some positive policy shifts, and with a modest carbon price, we could achieve significant reduction of oil use and reduce damaging emissions. Individuals, fleets, and regions have a wealth of options to use low-carbon fuels such as renewable energy, improve fuel economy including implementing electric cars, improve system efficiency, and reduce VMT.

DOT 600 Page Report PDF

Climate Action Scenario 26-Page for SF Bay AreaContent provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

by Richard T. Stuebi

The oil spill in the Gulf continues to astound. It's now reported that BP (NYSE: BP) has spent $350 million so far on clean-up, and that the total tab will run $2-14 billion.

Maybe BP can make up the billions in lost shareholder value via other dubious means: Bookmaker.com is running odds on whether the containment strategy being attempted will decrease or increase spill rates.

In this ecological disaster, a lot of dollars and not much sense is involved.

Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of NorTech Energy Enterprise, the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

I am watching the Chris Matthews show. There was a comment about American's being nostalgic for their childhood when families stayed together and there were no global problems.
The problem with that point of view is that it is not true today, it may never have been true. We are in a situation now where the weak economy feeds this nostalgia. We have to move as fast as possible away from the solutions of the past which bind us to a weak economy. Coal, Oil, and Gas do not create jobs, they spend the savings on our balance sheet -- exploit our natural resources for short term gain. Do we need to continue to do this to tie us over, absolutely. But real job growth and wealth creation comes from innovation. Alternative energy, efficient cars, advanced agriculture, zero-energy buildings, next generation radar systems, and much more will create millions of jobs which reducing the impact on our planet -- borrowing from our balance sheet as necessary but not consuming from it like a drunken sailor.
I am optimistic about the future. We can do this, but we have to start with leaving our nostalgia behind.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Barrons had an interesting take on biofuels from garbage: http://online.barrons.com/article/SB127327100968888619.html
I have been following this movement for some time and there does seem to be an extraordinary amount of capital and brainpower going into this space. People talk a lot about ethanol and I am a big of ethanol, mostly because I like the constiuency and channel to market it creates. More importantly, I am big fan of all of the other alternatives such as biofuels to garbage which has big proponents from Waste Management to others and Barrons claims that we might be able to get as much as 600,000 barrels a day of oil equivalent from this source. Not much compared to the almost 20,000,000 barrels a day that we use in the US alone.
Efficiency within existing ICE engines is another area we should focus on:http://www.fiafoundation.org/50by50/Pages/homepage.aspxMy friends at BP think that for an extra $4K per car you could reduce fuel usage by 50% within the next 4 years (typical auto planning cycle).
Electric Vehicles are a good choice as well:http://www.electrificationcoalition.org/For many applications, if you can put together the right financing you can achieve a lower cost per mile than diesel powered delivery vehicles today.
T Boone Pickens and others have talked about Natural Gas. With gas prices so low right now, there is some financial justification for this approach, particularly for heavy trucks -- where less incremental infrastructure is required.http://www.ngvc.org/pdfs/PotentialNGVs.pdfhttp://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=70055
What the idea above show is that this will be a tough nut to crack, but on diversification arguments alone we should start the task of moving away from a largely oil based fuel future to one that diversifies away from oil.
Oh and it will be cheap and pay for itself in lower fuel and oil prices!
Jigar ShahCarbon War Room
Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

By John Addison (5/4/10)

National Tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico

Two hundred thousand gallons of oil spill daily into the Gulf of Mexico, destroying the beaches of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. News viewers witness oil explosions, fires, and destruction. Containment chemicals are dumped where fish were caught for our dinner tables. Billions of dollars of damage is done. Major ports of our nation’s commerce are threatened. We are again reminded of the damage that oil can do to our environment. United States Response to Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

Oil addiction also hurts our economy. In 2008, oil prices dipped to $32 per barrel. Now oil prices are over $80 per barrel, on the way to being triple the 2008 low. While oil companies argue that we are not running out of oil, they should be admitting that we can no longer find cheap oil. Instead, it is now billion-dollar deep-drilling ocean platforms, the highly destructive strip mining of Canada for tar sands, and unconventional sources with high greenhouse gas emissions that brings us our incremental oil that we convert into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and asphalt to widen roads for more cars.

And we continue sending trillions of dollars to parts of the world where people want to do us harm. With rising oil prices we are sending more money for less oil.

To the rescue, since 2005, Americans have used less oil by riding clean, riding together, and riding less. In 2005, we consumed 20,802,000 barrels per day; by 2008, 19,498,000 daily barrels (EIA Data). Consumption continues to drop.

Ten Solutions to Save at the Pump

1. Employer Commute and Flexwork Programs. Major employers are saving employees billions in travel costs. Employers sponsor ride sharing, last mile shuttles from transit, and guaranteed ride homes. Some employers have web sites and lunch-and-learns to help employees in the same zip codes match-up for car pooling. 57 million Americans work at home, at least part-time, with the help of flexwork programs. Employer programs have helped with reduced car ownership.
2. Public Transit. Americans made 11 billion trips on U.S. transit in 2008, a 50-year record. Use has dropped some due to transit operators being forced to cut some routes and remove buses as the recession drove down local sales tax revenues needed for public transit. Americans are eager for more and better transit.
3. Walk. On an average we take 4 car trips daily, compared to 2 in Europe. Sometimes 1 of those 4 trips can be a pleasant walk to market, neighbors, or school event.
4. Safe Routes. Thousands of communities across the nation are showing us how to safely walk to school, community centers, and to public transit. Route maps go on line, pot holes get fixed, sidewalks repaired, danger spots eliminated, and signs displayed. Walk to School Days are on the increase.
5. One Car Households. The average suburban U.S. household has two vehicles. Some more. The average urban U.S. household has one vehicle. More American families and roommates are going from three cars to two cars to one car.
6. Sharing the Gas Miser. Households with 2 or more vehicles increasingly share cars, putting the most miles on the fuel miser as the gas guzzler stays parked more often. My wife and I share the hybrid, when not using transit, and leave the other car parked 6 days per week.
7. Make your next Car a Fuel Miser. You now have a wide-range of car choices that get over 30 miles per gallon. There is no reason to settle for less when you buy or lease a fuel-efficient sedan, hatchback, even SUV, turbo diesel, CNG, or hybrid car. Top 10 Cars With Lowest Carbon Footprint
8. Order an Electric Car which is ideal for many who live in a city where 100-mile range is rarely an issue, and where transit, car sharing, and car rental are also available. The average U.S. suburban household has two vehicles, so the EV could be ideal as one of those two. Top 10 Electric Car Makers
9. Car Sharing. In 600 global cities, cars can be used by the hour. Car sharing is popular with individuals and fleets. At many university and colleges, students with good grades can participate at age 18. Add transit and bicycling and many students live car free.
10. Smart Apps for Smart Travel. Internet savvy people now use Google Maps, 511, car share apps, and smart phone GPS apps to compare car directions and time with public transit directions and time. With a few clicks on a social network a shared ride is arranged, or a shared car reserved. In the old millennium we got everywhere by solo driving in gridlock. In the new millennium we plan and use a mix of car driving, transit, and other modes to save time and money.There are hundreds of ways to save at the pump, or avoid it all together. The above are a just a few as people shift from their only choice being driving a gas guzzler, to options that include ride sharing, car sharing, walking, bicycling, buses, and rail for some of their trips.

Waiting for Responsible Government

We can all make a big difference without waiting for responsible government action, but it would help. The cheapest way to end highway gridlock is to invest in public transportation. Instead government cuts funds for transit and spends billions widening highways. For oil companies, we allow them to drill off our invaluable shores, fight wars to protect their oil, and then put oil companies on welfare. As Forbes Magazine discussed on April 5, the most profitable company in the United States, Exxon, paid zero U.S. income tax in 2009.

At a time when the average U.S. tax payer is hurting, we need to end oil tax loopholes and ensure that the 4 million vehicles in government fleets are gas misers or electric. While a minority in Congress block all attempts at progress, local communities are taking action across the nation by making cities vibrant, with work, services, and play close at hand. Portland, Oregon, is a role model in creating urban density and great public transportation. California with SB375 is requiring regional plans that integrate development, transportation, and greenhouse gas reduction.

In the United States, we embarrassingly have more vehicles than people with driver’s licenses. We have 246 million vehicles. AAA estimates that it costs $8,000 per year for each car owned, which creates a financial burden on cash-strapped Americans. You can help your pocketbook and help the nation by riding clean, riding together, and riding less.

John Addison is author of Save Gas, Save the Planet and Publisher of the Clean Fleet Report. (c) Copyright John Addison. Permission to repost up to a 200 word summary if a link is included to the original article at Clean Fleet Report. Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

by Richard T. Stuebi


In the past month, we've witnessed two major catastrophes associated with U.S. production of fossil fuels -- the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion killing 11 workers in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Massey Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion claiming 29 lives in West Virginia.


It's easy to vilify energy companies like BP (NYSE: BP) and Massey (NYSE: MEE) for being reckless at these operations. No doubt, there will be lots of investigation in the months to come, and tighter regulations and legal action in the years to come. Scrutiny is definitely deserved, new requirements may be forthcoming, and severe punishments may well be in the offing.


Rather than focus on the obvious human cost of these tragedies, and the truly frightening ecological disaster currently unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, I choose to comment herein on the profound implications of our long-followed energy policy, which I term as "cheap energy at any price".


For the most part, our problems do not lie with fossil fuel producers. Certainly, they must be held to meet safety and environmental standards -- and in these two cases, these standards do not appear to have been met. But that does not mean that all oil and coal companies are led by evil people, and that their employees are complicit conspirators in misdeeds against humanity and the planet.


No, it's far too easy to take that oversimplistic but misguided position.

Pretty much every reader of this post will willingly use fossil fuels today -- in the coal burned to generate the electricity to power your computer, in the petroleum burned to move you to your place of work.


Let's not forget that fossil fuels have been an instrumental factor in the huge leaps in quality of life over the past 100 years. It is this utter reliance by all of us on these fossil fuels that compels companies and people to supply these fuels. And, of course, to try to make a profit in doing so. After all, that is the American way.


These two disasters are the exception, not the rule. More fundamentally, the problem is not on the supply side, but on the demand side.


Fossil fuel companies are not the bad guys -- they supply a product that will remain vital for years to come.

We have met the enemy, and it is us.


It is time for us to dedicate ourselves to putting virtually all of our incremental attention, money and efforts towards an energy system not nearly so dependent upon fossil fuels. And, we need to accept imposing such a discipline upon ourselves -- for instance, by being willing to establish stronger price signals in the energy markets to drive our society in that direction.

In other words, we must stop the "cheap energy at all costs" mentality that has pervaded our thinking for decades.


As Albert Einstein once noted, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In the case of energy, if we keep putting all of our eggs in the fossil fuel basket, all we can expect are more human and ecological tragedies.


Only a few of these tragedies will be very visible and instantaneous as in these two explosions. The worse tragedies are long-term and hidden: climate change, depletion of finite and irreplaceable resources, continued reliance on supplies from objectionable sources, and increasing geopolitical conflict leading to resource wars.


Think about the deceased of the Deepwater Horizon and Upper Big Branch, working on an offshore oil rig or underground in a coal mine. Are these the jobs we want to see for the 22nd Century? Did these people want their children to be earning a wage in the same way they were?

The best way to honor the dead would be by taking these recent tragedies to increase our resolve to move us from the fossil fuel past to a new and better future that need not rely so desperately on fossil fuels.


It won't be easy, quick or cheap to create a new energy system, but we need to start working much harder to sever the link between fossil fuels and human life. Because escalating reliance on fossil fuels can only be harmful to our long-term social and planetary health.



Richard T. Stuebi is a founding principal of NorTech Energy Enterprise, the advanced energy initiative at NorTech, where he is on loan from The Cleveland Foundation as its Fellow of Energy and Environmental Advancement. He is also a Managing Director in charge of cleantech investment activities at Early Stage Partners, a Cleveland-based venture capital firm.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

By John Addison (4/29/10)

The United States now has a new source of clean electricity for homes, buildings, and industrial stationary power and also for the growing use of electricity in rail and electric cars. Wind power is especially available at night when we hope to eventually charge millions of vehicles.

Global wind energy capacity is increasing by 160% over the coming five years from 155 GW to 409 GW, according to the annual industry forecast presented by the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). A growing part of the renewable energy (RE) mix is off-shore wind, popular in Europe for 20 years, but stopped in the U.S. by not-in-my-backyard opposition, or more accurately “not in the view of my expensive ocean front property.”

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar showed political courage on April 28 by approving the Cape Wind renewable energy project on federal submerged lands in Nantucket Sound. He will require the developer of the $1 billion wind farm to agree to additional binding measures to minimize the potential adverse impacts of construction and operation of the facility. Salazar said,” With this decision we are beginning a new direction in our Nation’s energy future, ushering in America’s first offshore wind energy facility and opening a new chapter in the history of this region.”

The project is a big win for Siemens who will supply 130 3.6 MW towers, outbidding GE, Vestas, and other competitors. Siemens has already sold over 1,000 of these large off-shore turbines. The Cape Wind facility will generate a maximum electric output of 468 megawatts with an average anticipated output of 182 megawatts. At average expected production, Cape Wind could produce enough energy to power more than 200,000 homes in Massachusetts, or charge 200,000 electric cars.

One-fifth of the offshore wind energy potential of the East Coast is located off the New England coast and Nantucket Sound receives strong, steady Atlantic winds year round. The project includes a 66.5-mile buried submarine transmission cable system, an electric service platform and two 115-kilovolt lines connecting to the mainland power grid. The project would create several hundred construction jobs and be one of the largest greenhouse gas reduction initiatives in the nation, cutting carbon dioxide emissions from conventional power plants by 700,000 tons annually.

Over one GW of off-shore wind is proposed for other Eastern coastal states, eager to catch-up with the renewable energy use of Western and Central states. For example, due to California’s abundance of wind, solar, and geothermal power, my California utility does not use coal.
To overcome years of opposition, the number of turbines at Cape Wind has been reduced from 170 to 130, minimizing the visibility of turbines from the Kennedy Compound National Historic Landmark; reconfiguring the array to move it farther away from Nantucket Island; and reducing its breadth to mitigate visibility from the Nantucket Historic District. Translation is that from shore it will take Superman vision to notice the wind turbines 5.2 miles from the mainland shoreline, 13.8 miles from Nantucket Island and 9 miles from Martha’s Vineyard.

A number of tall structures, including broadcast towers, cellular base station towers, local public safety communications towers and towers for industrial and business uses are already located around the area. Three submarine transmission cable systems already traverse the seabed to connect mainland energy sources to Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket Island.

“After almost a decade of exhaustive study and analyses, I believe that this undertaking can be developed responsibly and with consideration to the historic and cultural resources in the project area,” Salazar said. “Impacts to the historic properties can and will be minimized and mitigated and we will ensure that cultural resources will not be harmed or destroyed during the construction, maintenance, and decommissioning of the project.”
Renewable Energy Reports and Articles

By John Addison, Publisher of the Clean Fleet Report and conference speaker.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

A couple weeks ago, I took the liberty on this blog to write a open letter in support of my good friend, Christiana Figueres to be the next Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC.

While that selection process is ongoing for another couple weeks it appears, it's been inspiring in its own right to see the grass roots Facebook upwelling for this truly remarkable woman. When everybody from market profiteers to left of left civil society to diplomats and bureaucrats trying to do implausible jobs in impossible situations are all consistently singing your praises, it has to mean something.

In any event, I was recently passed along a note from one of the creators of that testimonial FB page. I'm taking some liberties and copying it below because its quite inspiring in its own right. Eugene, I look forward to our paths crossing at some point soon - you have a great head on your shoulders.



Eugene Jinyoung Nho

I’m a college student who, like many others, has long felt passionate about tackling the climate change problem. To that end, I have been learning about climate change policy at school and involved myself in various sustainability initiatives. Last December at COP15, however, amid much frustration, I realized that as much as my small contribution might be valuable in the long run, what we needed the most at this moment to have a realistic shot at solving the climate crisis was a strong and effective leadership in the UNFCCC that could bring nations together.

I chose to start the campaign to reach out to youth and civil society in support of Chirstiana because I have been truly inspired by her. There is no question about her incredible professional achievement and qualifications, but what really inspired me was the genuine care she showed for youth and civil society. I met Christiana as a youth delegate at COP15. In the midst of the craziness of the COP second week, she still spent an hour with students to help us understand the issues and hear our thoughts. She is the kind of person who replies to a random student’s email asking about the Clean Development Mechanism with loads of helpful information and guidance faster than the student himself. It was after talking with my friends who received help from her similarly that I realized my case was not an isolated incident. How far she went to help each of us was incredible, and I believe it shows her dedication to youth development and her belief in the significance of a sound civil society.

The Facebook group in support of Christiana has attracted almost 2,500 members within a month since its start in mid March. Hundreds of people have left messages of support, encouragement and endorsement on the page. As the creator of the page, it was extraordinary to watch the group grow—reaching out to people from all walks of life from all corners of the world. Students from the U.S. and Latin America joined the group at first, but since then, students, youth activists and civil society members from all around the world have joined in.

One particular quote I found inspiring was from a student at Norwalk Community College. He said, “Christiana’s inspiring talk to over 400 students energized and mobilized our campus in a way that had seemed impossible before… At every step of their struggle to make the building green, Christiana was there offering astute advice and support.” This is exactly how my friends and I felt about her enduring help and support in our research endeavors. It takes true passion and dedication in the cause of fighting climate change to help people you barely know on a daily basis, and that is why I find Christiana simply inspiring.

The most incredible aspect has been the way this movement reached out to people around the world like a wild fire. People say the best innovations don’t need any additional effort to make them work because those innovations have a way of getting work done themselves. The youth/civil society movement to support Christiana happened in a similar way. The way it spread through different social networks and across different continents—with little effort from the center—has been truly remarkable, and I believe it is the testimony to the respect and hope people have for Christiana.

Last week, I had a chance to speak with Dr. Nafis Sadik, whose work in organizing Cairo Conference in 1994 marked a milestone in the empowerment of women and championing of family planning. I was curious how she was able to bring nations together to support this cause despite the existence of strong conservative lobbying forces, and she replied in one word “civil society.” Having civil society present in negotiations and recognizing their role in the process, she said, kept negotiations on track and moving forward. Having witnessed the frustration at COP15 in person, I sincerely hope to see the UNFCCC that recognizes the important role of civil society, and hope that the civil society’s support for Christiana is heard at the highest ranks within the UN.

If you would like to take a look at the Christiana Figueres Facebook group, please visit and join


Eugene Jinyoung Nho

Stanford University, Class of 2010 (senior), major in Economics, minor
in Environmental Engineering. Study focus on climate change and energy
policy.

Co-founder & Co-executive director of IDEAS, an environmental
non-profit working with college students in the developing world to
tackle environmental/sustainability problems in their communities.

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

First Sarah Palin, now Robert Bryce taking pot shots around things they barely understand: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042302220.html
1) Solar and Wind take up too much land: If you just focus on rooftop solar and buffer land at airports, brownfields, wastewater treatment facilities, and military bases you could power the US almost 2 times over with just solar power. Wind turbines on the top of light posts are being tested by Wal-mart and that market alone could power 10% of the country. Everyone wants to extrapolate from today's large scale projects instead of using their brain -- Bryce is no different: http://www.ef.org/documents/EF-Final-Final2.pdf
2) Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes: this is true that there are some elements from copper to rare earth metals that we will have to import. But the dirty secret Robert won't tell you is that business as usual also uses rare earth metals so we are not worse off than we would be otherwise. http://seekingalpha.com/article/103972-rare-earth-metals-not-so-rare-but-valuablePlus we save gargantuan amounts of water, over 1 gallon per kWh of fossil fuels offset.
3) A green American economy will create green American jobs: In this case, Robert goes off the deep end again. First, he shows that he doesn't actually understand how jobs are created in our country. What the green economy does is create mostly short-term service jobs (some manufacturing). But more importantly, it takes money away from inefficient job creators like utility companies and shifts that money to the general marketplace where it can be used to buy new iphones, kitchen remodeling, or new cars for that matter. It doesn't matter. The point is that we need to take money away from low growth industries like utilities and shift that money to the innovative parts of our economy -- green technologies do that in electricity, water, natural gas, etc.http://www.nicholasgcarr.com/digital_renderings/archives/conservative_innovation.shtml
4) Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil: His argument here is that he just doesn't think that anyone will buy electric cars. So you are a downer, I get that but make a real argument. Not just that you don't believe in global innovation -- from the Manhattan Institute of all places. BTW, it may not be electric cars, it might be electric bicycles and mopeds. It will certainly take 20 years to replace existing vehicles, but Robert wants instant gratification. This is infrastructure, 20 years is a short period of time.http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/sep/23/electric-van-viable-cleantech-alternative
5) The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green: Here is the one place I agree with you. America doesn't get credit for what it has accomplished and the extraordinary growth trajectory it is on in these areas. Maybe I like Robert afterall :)
For the record, I don't know Robert and he is I am sure a brilliant senior fellow, but I needed a foil. Happy Earth Day!
Jigar ShahCEOCarbon War Roomwww.carbonwarroom.com/ccw

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

To those you who missed it, below is the link to a web panel on the state of climate change policies and developments that I participated in for Brightalk today.


The panelists:

- Emilie Mazzacurati, Manager, Carbon Market Research North America, Point Carbon
- Chris Busch, Policy Director, Center for Resource Solutions
- Nicholas Bianco, Senior Associate, World Resources Institute
- Neal Dikeman, Jane Capital Partners

Enjoy and post any thoughts in the comments section back on this blog for the rest of us to read.

http://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/20657Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

Every year since we launched Cleantech Blog this week marks a massive inflow of green press releases, phone calls, announcements and interview requests.  It always seems oddly out of place, and anything important we have to say always just seems lost in the press of Earth Day.

In reality this week is a week for remembrance, introspection, and then a pause before looking forward to an always brighter future. 

My remembrance always starts a day earlier.  Yesterday, April 21st was Aggie Muster, the day that thousands of Aggies around the world hold the roll call for the absent, where a family member answers"here" for those former students who have died in the previous year and cannot answer for themselves.  The roots of Muster date back over a hundred years, and we have formally held Muster since 1922 all around the world. 

Softly call the muster, softly call the roll.  We do remember.

And today, the day after is Earth Day, now 40 years old, the day we remember our planet, think about what we should be doing better, and recently, make our New Earth Year's resolutions for what we will do better.

We will remember, we will do better.

And in both cases, look forward to the next year and a bright future standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before.

Here's hoping that when we are gone, future generations will hold both their history and their planet dear, will have a reason to mark what we did with our time on Earth with reverence, and will still be working and looking forward to an even brighter, cleaner future for the generations to follow them.

Neal Dikeman is a partner at Jane Capital Partners, Chairman of Carbonflow and Cleantech.org, and a 3rd generation Texas Aggie Class of '98.Content provided by and all rights reserved to CleantechBlog.com. Also check out http://www.cleantech.org

So, with recent changes in my professional life, my family and I made the decision to relocate to the Bay Area. There were a lot of reasons, but the main one is my general perception that my world (carbon trading) and their world (cleantech and information technology) rarely meet. Indeed, the maestro of this blog, Neal Dikeman, is one of the only folks I’ve met who keeps a foot firmly planted in both camps. And despite the slap yourself in the forehead, Homer Simpson “Doh” sensation that cleantech and carbon should not only converse they should be actually be singing harmonies together, there is utterly no doubt that the two camps ogle each other over the picket fence with a mixture of curiosity and bewilderment. So, to make a long story short, I’m hoping to advance a few pawns a couple squares.

But enough about macro issues. Let’s talk real life. Like buying a house. Given the circumstances that we found ourselves in (having spun the wheel of capitalism and, somewhat to our surprise, won), we were in the privileged position to actually be able to afford Bay Area real estate. And, to be blunt, a fair bit of Bay Area real estate at that. One thing led to another and we made a rapid fire bid on a house that reminded me of a better version of the battered 1890’s New Jersey quasi Tudor my parents plunked $50,000 down for in 1970 and I grew up in. And, lo and behold, we own it. It’s utterly lovely, but certainly planted in the larger end of the US housing spectrum. To borrow Warren Buffet’s reference to the Berkshire Hathaway corporate jet, it’s Indefensible. But you only live once and with Treasuries paying a nice solid 20 basis points, well – you gotta put it somewhere.

Now, considering myself an environmentalist (market variety) I want to make it as green as possible. I knew it needed a lot of work in that direction – though inspections showed the house was actually in very good shape and I could observe niceties like double glazed windows, I also know what I don’t know. The sheer armada of AC units along the back of the garage gave me pause. And after experiencing PG&E’s first billing cycle while still uninhabited, I can honestly say I was a motivated participant in that greening process– tiered energy pricing to $0.45/kwh truly does grab your attention.

Solar is the default greening step in California – it's ground zero of the million solar roofs initiative and there are piles of federal and state incentives to plop them up there. Unfortunately, a cursory examination showed it was not a particularly viable option – the roof is mainly angled to the Northwest and is comprised of a bunch of steep, fragmented gables and windows. Moreover, it’s real slate tiles and – to be frank – stunningly gorgeous. The idea of slapping down a couple hundred square feet of First Solar's finest seemed aesthetically criminal. The next idea - a geothermal heat pump – also went by the wayside pretty quickly, when I came to the conclusion that setting up a drilling rig in the Oakland hills for a couple weeks was not the way to endear our family unit to our exceedingly close neighbors.

Which left us with a final intriguing option on the energy production side – a fuel cell. And yes, my eyes got that addictive glint of the early adopter that is usually reserved for talismans that emanate from Steve Jobs skunk works. So I bought one of the suckers – the ClearEdge 5kw version. And future updates of this blog will talk about that - installing it has been a fascinating process and one that deserves some attention.

But at the outset, I’m going to focus on the first – and doubtless more relevant– part of my energy project . Making the house it the most efficient it can be, given its overall inherent footprint. To start off, I brought in a crew of energy efficiency gurus to give it their best once over. 60 man hours on-site, a 70 page report, two CD-ROMs and a whole lot of data later, I know a heck of a lot more about my living quarters. To say it was illuminating to get a holistic view of the space we’ll inhabit the next decade or so is an understatement.

Which brings me to a broader theme I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about the last few months– the interface between technology, expertise and execution. And the tendency we tend to have to think that use – or even simply creation – of the former can blithely substitute for the latter. I fall into the trap myself all the time – I buy stuff with features that I never really use because I cannot seem to be bothered to learn how to operate them.

What I’m in the process of doing on my house feels like a microcosm of that balance between technology and capability. Extrapolate that to the multi-trillion dollar global effort to decarbonize the global economy through accelerated deployment of a raft of both new and old technologies and you can see the potential gaps. Or gapes is probably more accurate. Capability doesn’t scale as logarithmically as technology – but it’s an equal part of the overall equation. So, while I truly appreciate the tidal wave of forthcoming cleantech widgets, I worry that without with right kind of execution platforms – on the front end and throughout productive lifespan - we’ll end up with lots of stranded assets that over promise and under deliver.

My idea for these next couple contributions to Cleantechblog over the coming weeks is to try to explore that interface in my real life situation and try to do some hypothesizing on how cleantech delivery is going to work across key markets. It may or may not work, but hope you enjoy it.

Marc Stuart was one of the founders of EcoSecurities, where he worked for 13 years prior to its integration into JP Morgan in early 2010. His new firm, Allotrope Ventures, seeks out early stage private equity opportunities in technology and execution platforms that are positioned to thrive in the transition to the low carbon economy.



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