You are currently browsing articles tagged renewable energy.
Mount Hood, Oregon (image by Tony the Misfit, CC 2.0 licensed)
The New York Times on Sunday about 's new solar panel plant in Oregon. The Germany company is making a big ($300 million) bet that the United States is the place to be if you are a solar panel manufacturer.
The message for solar companies, Mr. Pichel says, is “get your butt over to the U.S. if you want to participate and get some of that stimulus package money.”
Blaze (image by Nicholas T, CC 2.0 license)
Oh Snap! Now some German scientists have (in effect) taken a swing at Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson, who concluded in a recent paper that biofuels are a bad policy direction (see summary post here).
In their paper , Prof. Jürgen O. Metzger from Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg in Germany and Prof. Aloys Huettermann from the University of Goettingen in Germany say that growing and using biofuels for all the earth's energy needs is not only possible without jeopardizing the global food supply, but also economically feasible.
Available: Home with free electric (photo by Kainet, CC 2.0 Sharealike license)
From MIT's Technology Review comes , about a recent report from Deutsche Bank on the economic benefits of investing in new energy projects:
It argues that it's possible to address challenges related to climate change, energy security, and the financial crisis at the same time by investing in four specific areas: energy-efficient buildings, electric power grids, renewable power, and public transportation. The report cites figures that suggest investing in these areas creates more jobs than investing in conventional energy sources because much of the old energy infrastructure is already in place. It says that "a $100 billion investment in energy and efficiency would result in 2 million new jobs, whereas a similar investment in old energy [such as coal or natural gas] would only create around 540,000 jobs."
Image via Wikipedia
In details the silver lining of the hurricane cloud that is the bailout bill.
No news was bigger than the $18 billion package for renewable energy that was slipped into the $700 billion Wall Street financial bailout (H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008)
In particular, the future of a number of large projects was contingent on the renewal of the investment tax credit, such as the PG&E 550MW solar farm. Now, with the ITC safe for eight years, those projects can go ahead.
Top Five Stories
August was a great month for energy storage breakthroughs! In addition, a big talking head talks big, and a business-of-green-energy announcement make my list of top stories.
1. Hydrogen from water
2. Fuel cell breakthrough #1: cheap catalyst
3. Fuel cell breakthrough #2: better cathode
4. Al Gore's call to action: The U.S. should "produce all electricity from carbon-free sources by 2018." (Actually from late July, but my blog didn't start until August!)
5. Green energy investment up 60% YoY in 2007, on target for 60% YoY growth in 2008
Wicked Barrel, by batintherain (Creative Commons license)
My very basic analysis of Al Gore's call to action for "100% carbon free electricity" yesterday had the virtue of being dead simple. of did back in July, based on wind energy generation, that reaches a similar conclusion to mine:
The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it's not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a LOT of sense economically.
This is a great example that aligns perfectly with the topic of this blog, "Keeping the lights on."
In its most recent ", Monica Sanford and Maria Stamas of the describe "passive design," the techniques for building structures that work for humans within the natural constraints of the environment. Buildings sited for optimal use of daylight, equipped with to keep them cool in summer and warm in winter, using passive ventilation systems, and so on, can use significantly less energy than "normal" buildings.
The Economist magazine earlier this week, on the proposition "We can solve our energy problems with existing technologies today, without the need for breakthrough innovations."? Speaking in favor of the proposition was Joseph J. Romm, Senior Fellow at the Centre for American Progress. Speaking against was Peter Meisen, President, .
In my opinion, although Meisen had some good observations of some non-"business as usual" innovations that are needed, the proposition was well-defended by Romm. He argued that not only do we not have time to wait for new breakthroughs in alternative energy, we have enough technology now - solar thermal, efficiency, wind, etc. - that we can address climate change with our current capabilities. He agrees that innovations will be welcome, but they are not required.
I attended the tonight. The topic was "Where's the Money?" Five panelists, representing a VC firm, a bank, an angel funding group, a bridge-financing firm, and an entrepreneur who has raised his money independently, discussed the various sources of funding for clean tech companies. i took extensive notes, and will provide more details later, but for now some of the highlights were:
