The seeds of a humble weed could lower a jet fuel’s cradle-to-grave carbon emissions by 84 percent. Camelina sativa is an oilseed crop and it might be used as fuel in aircrafts in the near future. A study conducted at Michigan Technological University claimed that Camelina has shown to be one of the more [...]
Ahead of the post-Kyoto meetings in Copenhagen later this year, a lot has been made of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) -- a United Nations-backed program that would compensate emerging economies for protecting their forests. (For a good overview, check out The Economist's article, and the UN's REDD Web Site). In short, countries that look after their forests would receive carbon dioxide credits, which could then be sold in the world's cap-and-trade CO2 schemes for a profit.
A similar scheme, called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), is already up and running, and has primarily focused on Western companies building renewables projects in the developing world. Many view REDD as a possible replacement for the CDM, which has been plagued by bureaucratic problems and allegations of abuse and corruption. REDD's proponents also believe the forestation program could have a larger -- and, importantly, more cost effective -- impact in the fight against global warming.
Yet for those championing REDD, lessons can be learned from the CDM. In an interesting report, Barclays Capital estimate four countries (Brazil, India, China, and Korea) currently generate 92% of all the credits created through CDM projects. Even more importantly, 75 of the largest projects (from a total of 512 worldwide) represent 90% of the CDM credits, which were subsequently sold in the world's cap-and-trade markets. That's not exactly a large number of countries/projects for the UN-backed CDM -- particularly as it was designed to give as many countries as possible technical expertise and access to foreign direct investment.
For sure, REDD certainly will differ from CDM (apologies for all the acronyms), and you could say focusing investment on large projects offers the highest environmental impact for the cheapest price. But one thing is certain: to get developing countries to accept binding carbon dioxide targets (as the U.S. and other developed countries hope to do), policy-makers will have to show REDD, unlike the current CDM, offers benefits to all -- and not just the largest developing countries.
Fans are much cheaper, easier to install and use 90% less energy than central air-conditioning.
Cleantech investor Sunil Paul doesn't just invest his time and effort into startups, he and a lot of volunteers have also now launched the "Gigaton Throwdown", an effort to answer a huge question:
What would it take to reduce CO2e emissions by a gigaton by 2020?
It's well worth downloading and reading the report at the GT website.
The report looks at nine different technology areas (ones where cleantech VCs have been putting in a lot of dollars, in most cases) to see what it would take to scale up each one to a gigaton of annual emissions reductions by 2020, including an estimate of how much money would need to be invested in order to make that kind of impact.
A couple of surprises here -- I would have thought wind power would have been in a better position, given existing low costs, to make a cost-effective impact on emissions reductions.
But the big winner here in terms of cost-effective impact is, unsurprisingly, energy efficiency (long-time readers of this site will know this is one of my favorite investment areas for this very reason). And the big winners in terms of jobs creation are the service-intensive areas like building efficiency equipment/system installation and solar installation.
A few favorite areas for big venture investment don't end up looking so good, on the other hand. Remember, this is just one (pretty good) report, and it doesn't have a direct bearing on returns potential in these sectors. But it's still interesting to juxtapose which sectors would have the biggest "bang for the buck", versus where the venture bucks are going.
Kudos to the Gigaton Throwdown team for a great and timely report. Hopefully policymakers will read the report -- and hopefully investors will, too.
An environmentally friendly washing machine has been developed by the University of Leeds, Britain. The technology has been developed by Professor Stephen Burkinshaw of the University of Leeds. He has been working on this project for the past thirty years. This project had been funded by IP Group, an intellectual property commercialization group. The [...]
When it comes to renewable energy, Texas has been all about Big Wind. But this week the Lone Star State took on its first Big Solar project when San Antonio utility CPS Energy signed a 27-megawatt deal with Tessera Solar.
Houston-based Tessera is the solar farm developer for Stirling Energy Systems, which makes a Stirling solar dish. Resembling a giant mirrored satellite receiver, the 25-kilowatt solar dish focuses the sun’s rays on a Stirling engine, heating hydrogen gas to drive pistons that generate electricity. (Last year Irish green energy firm NTR pumped $100 million into Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Stirling Energy Systems and created Tessera to develop solar power plants using the Stirling dish, called the SunCatcher.
Stirling Energy Systems previously signed deals with Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) to supply up to 1,750 megawatts of electricity from some 70,000 solar dishes to be planted in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts.
Other solar developers privately have cast doubt on Stirling’s ability to make good on those contracts, arguing the SunCatcher is just too expensive and complex to compete against solar thermal technologies that rely on mirrors to heat liquids to create steam that drives electricity-generating turbines.
But earlier this week, Stirling unveiled the latest generation of the SunCatcher at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M. The new SunCatcher has shed 5,000 pounds and its Stirling hydrogen engine contains 60% fewer parts than the previous version, according to the company.
The SunCatcher also uses a fraction of the water consumed by competing solar thermal technologies being developed by startups like BrightSource Energy and Ausra — no small deal in the desert. Tessera solar farms also can be built in modules, meaning that when a 1.5 megawatt pod of 60 SunCatchers is installed it can immediately begin generating electricity — and cash.
California utility PG&E also went modular Thursday when it signed a 92-megawatt deal with New Jersey’s NRG (NRG) for electricity to be generated by a Southern California solar power plant using eSolar’s technology. Google-backed (GOOG) eSolar’s builds its solar power tower plants in 46-megawatt modules. The power plants take up much less land than competing solar thermal technologies, thanks to eSolar’s use of sophisticated software to control small mirrors that are packed close together.
NRG earlier this month signed a deal to build a 92-megawatt eSolar-powered solar farm in New Mexico near the Texas border.
eSolar CEO Bill Gross says his solar farms will generate electricity cheaper than natural gas-fired power plants, a claim PG&E (PCG) appears to confirm in its submission of the deal to the regulators. (Thanks to Vote Solar for pointing to the document.)
With the U.S. House of Representatives set to vote on the Waxman-Markey climate change bill this week, a report issued Thursday predicts the American Clean Energy and Security Act will create a huge market in carbon offset projects like reforestation.
In its current form, the legislation allows companies to comply with a cap on greenhouse gas emissions in part by purchasing carbon offset credits generated by domestic and international projects that reduce CO2 — such as capturing methane gas leaking from landfills. According to an analysis by research firm New Energy Finance, demand — for up to 5.7 billion tons of offsets — will far outstrip supply, with domestic projects contributing fewer than 30% of the offsets.
“Waxman-Markey will induce cumulative production…of offsets until 2020 to satisfy demand for reductions,” wrote the report’s authors. “We estimate that Waxman-Markey’s targets and lenient offset limits will create high levels of offset project development – both domestic and international.”
In other words, U.S. climate change legislation could goose a global market for offsets. In the U.S. alone, New Energy Finance estimates that the offset market will grow 27-fold by 2015, becoming a $46.7 billion business by 2020.
Some environmentalists have slammed Waxman-Markey for its generous use of offsets, arguing that U.S. companies could actually increase their carbon pollution while meeting the cap by buying other people’s emissions reductions. Relying on overseas projects to supply the majority of offsets also raises questions about how those efforts will be verified and overseen, especially if a carbon boom develops.
On the plus side, New Energy Finance expects tree projects to “play a pivotal role” in the offset market, which could slow the rapid rate of deforestation afflicting the planet.
In a classic case of 'whatever you can do, I can do better,' Scotland has announced the world's most ambitious greenhouse gas targets -- the home of Braveheart, kilts, and haggis plans to cut its emissions by a staggering 42% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. That outdoes the previous record, set by Germany which had promised a 40% reduction. Overall, the European Union has set a 20% cut by 2020, while the U.S. Congress is still bartering over a 17% cut over the same period -- but based on 2005 levels.
Call me a cynic, but I'm not sure Scotland will be able to meet its 'world-breaking' target. Sure, the country (which although part of Britain -- which plans a 34% reduction by 2020 -- has autonomy to set stricter limits) has ample scope for wind power, and maybe marine energy in the coming years. But the Scots (and fellow Brits and Europeans, for that matter) are struggling to meet the European Union's existing targets. You have to ask yourself how policymakers in Edinburgh expect to more than double the '20% by 2020' reduction already mandated by their Brussels-based counterparts.
Aircrafts are notorious for adding carbon content into the atmosphere because more and more people are choosing this mode of travel. We are trying to reduce carbon emissions on the ground. But we are not giving enough thought to reducing carbon content by aircrafts. Environmentalists are concerned that the figures are bound to reach [...]
There's a fascinating, deep-dive on one home owner's experience with solar energy over at ExtremeTech.com (see link below).
Loyd Case installed about 6 kw or about 27 panels on his rooftop in northern California. He writes about the installation process and what the power bill looks like: after about three weeks, it totals $11.34 and is likely to end the month at $16. If so, that will be just 5% of his $300 bill from a year before.
I get scores of questions from readers and friends in New York asking about the process of installing solar panels and what the finances look like. This write up answers a lot of those questions well. Admittedly, it's California -- one of the most aggressive markets in terms of incentives such as time of day pricing for solar. But many states including New Jersey, New York and in the South West are adopting similar policies.
Are you thinking about installing solar? If so, what's the biggest barrier preventing you from doing so: A lack of information? Or a lack of skilled installers? Or is it the high upfront costs?
