The Green Skeptic on FOX Business: Is Algae the Answer?

I sat down this morning with Charles Payne of Varney & Co on FOX Business to talk aboiut algae biofuels and if such alternative fuels provide a solution to our fossil fuel constrained future.


Here is the video:




And here is a link in case your browser doesn't support the video format: The Green Skeptic on FOX Business

The Future of Biofuels: What's Hot, Hype, and Possible

Renmatix Super Converter

What is the future of BioFuels?

From algae to switchgrass and wood waste to sewer grease, many advances in next generation biofuels are being made today. But what is realistic and how do you cut through the hope and hype to get at viable solutions?

The US military is one of the largest investors in advanced biofuels development and is in a position to make the market ripe for commercialization on a massive scale. Can it do for biofuels what it did for GPS and the Internet?

I'll be moderating an informative and lively dialogue with industry experts, entrepreneurs and investors on the current state and future potential of this emerging growth sector.

Featuring:
Mike Hamilton, CEO, Renmatix, Inc.
Sam Gabbita, Partner, Element Partners
Steve McCracken, Director of Strategic Marketing & Sales, AMERIgreen Energy

A Philadelphia Alliance for Capital and Technology & Cleantech Alliance Mid-Atlantic event, it takes place Thursday, February 16, 2012, at the offices of Morgan Lewis in Philadelphia.

You can register today at: The Future of Biofuels


(Full disclosure: I am a co-founder and board member of the Cleantech Alliance Mid-Atlantic, a business network for cleantech entrepreneurs, investors, and service providers.)

Alaska and United Make For Greener Friendly Skies

This Eskimo has reason to smile.

As one of the worst storms in the last 40 years heads for the Alaska coast, Alaska Airlines prepares to storm the future by launching the first of 75 scheduled biofuels-powered flights.

The first will depart from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEATAC) heading for Washington Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC.

The second will head from SEATAC to Portland, OR. Both will be powered by a blend of jet fuel and 20 percent biofuel derived from used cooking oil.

Using social media to promote this flight, Alaska will host a Twitter-based discussion onboard the first flight, which the airline is calling "#FlyGreen Chat," to talk about the future of aviation, sustainability, and environmental awareness.

United Continental made history on Monday when the first commercial biofuels-powered flight completed a trip from Houston to Chicago's O'Hare Airport.

United announced Monday that it signed a letter of intent with Solazyme Inc., which provided the biofuel for Monday's Continental flight, to buy 20 million gallons of algae-derived biofuel annually.

Solazyme is one of the US Navy's partners supplying jet and other fuels for its fleets in the air and water, as I wrote about in The Energy Collective in September.

You can learn more about Alaska Airlines Greener Skies Initiative and its biofuels program at Greener Skies Initiative and join the conversation on Twitter by following #FlyGreen.

Algae Away! US Navy Invests In Alternative Fuels | The Energy Collective

Thomas Hicks speaking at Clinton Global Initative

For every 50 fuel convoys deployed by the US military, one soldier dies or get injured.

An astounding figure shared by Thomas Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of the US Navy for energy, at the Clinton Global Initiative meetings in New York Tuesday on a panel about innovations in green technology.

The Navy, along with other branches of the military, recognizes the need to switch to alternative fuels both to reduce the risks in getting fuel into theaters of war and to reduce its exposure to price volatility.

Last year, the Navy spent over $11 billion on fossil fuels and intends to reduce petroleum use by half by 2020, which could mean replacing it with as much as 8 millions barrels of biofuels a year.

Read my full post in The Energy Collective

Energy: On the Way to $200 Oil?

Just a couple of months ago, I heard T. Boone Pickens, Jr. call for $150 oil by the end of the year, but now that we're approaching that mark by mid-year, it may be time to revise the target.

Is $200 a possibility? Indeed, it may be too late to avoid it, says Jerome a Paris over at The Oil Drum.

Jerome cites an International Energy Agency (IEA) study released last week that claims the "oil market will remain tight during the next five years as production from non-OPEC countries stalls and demand growth remains relatively strong."

"This is one of the most important trends in current oil markets: the depletion of existing fields, and the decline in their production," Jerome adds. "It's long been discussed in specialised sites like this one but it's been ignored in the 'serious' media for too long. and yet, discussions of new fields coming into production cannot paint a correct picture of future production trends if these declines are not deducted to get net production increases.

"And the stark truth is that in most of the world, the declines are bigger than the new capacity additions. This is particularly true in 'friendly' production zones like the North Sea, Mexico or even Russia, where overall decline rates are dizzying and actually impact global production numbers significantly."

The comments are nearly as interesting as the post. In one SamuM makes the following observations after watching the presentation (embedded below):

* No obvious sign speculators behind high prices
* Global oil demand growth still 1.3% in 2007
* Producers operating close to flat out
* Global net decline 5% p.a. (2008-2013 avg?)
* OPEC mature field decline >10% p.a.
* More spare capacity by 2009, but then dip again, recovery by 2013?
* Non-OPEC supply slows to 2012, then picks up in 2013 [???]
* 48% of gobal demand growth in distillate
* Biofuels 2.8 Mb/d by 2013 (max capacity potential 3.3Mbpd), big downside risks remain
* OPEC condensates to grow from c. 3Mbpd to c. 5Mbpd by 2013
* OPEC NGL growth to be used by petrochemical industry
* Remaining GTL insignificant
* Increasing fuel oil demand from Middle East for power generation
* Non-OECD demand to oustrip OECD by 2015

Here is the presentation from the IEA:

| View | Upload your own

Worth a look at the full presentation. (Thanks to Paul Kedrosky of Infectious Greed for the SlideShare link.)

Environment: U.N. Expert Calls Food Crisis "a silent tsunami"

CNN reports that a U.N. expert calls the current global food crisis "a silent tsunami."

"Those battling global warming by promoting biofuels may unintentionally be adding to skyrocketing world food prices, creating what one expert calls 'a silent tsunami' in developing nations.

"Josette Sheeran, the U.N. World Food Program executive director, illustrates the food ration for children.

"The rising prices are 'threatening to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger,' Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations' World Food Program, said on the agency's Web site Tuesday.

"Sheeran is one of the experts attending a Food summit hosted Tuesday by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, aimed at determining ways to boost food supplies and identify deterrents. Also attending the meeting are scientists and representatives from the European Union and Africa.

"On the Web site, Sheeran said the increase in food prices is 'a silent tsunami that respects no borders.'

"'The world's misery index is rising ... as soaring food and fuel prices roll through the lives of the most vulnerable,' she said Friday.

"The crisis is forcing the organization to look for cuts in aid to some of its recipients, she said.

"Soaring food prices have triggered violence in some developing countries, and biofuels are bearing at least part of the blame."

Read the full article: Food Crisis

Read the Economist cover story on the issue: Silent Tsunami

Social Entrepreneurs: Kalyan Paul and Grassroots, Integrated Solutions in the Indian Himalayas

I spent last weekend with Ashoka Fellow Kalyan Paul and his group Grassroots in Ranikhet, Uttarakhand, one of the northernmost states in India, bordering Nepal and China.

Kalyan and Anita Paul moved to the "hill country" -- Ranikhet is 1829 meters above sea level -- in 1987. Originally from Calcutta, Kalyan met his future wife and partner in social change, Anita, while both studied for a Masters in Social Work at Delhi University.

After facing numerous challenges and frustrations in urban settings and with more traditional development approaches, the Pauls decided to work with mountain communities. "Kalyan always wanted to live and work with hill folks," according to a source familiar with the situation. "Anita, a Himachali who grew up in the plains, egged him on."

Less than 20,000 people live in the area in and around Ranikhet, a high percentage of whom live in small hamlets and rely on natural resources for their livelihoods and sustenance.

"We got a grant from the Ford Foundation to literally just 'walk around,' and that's what we did," Kalyan says. "At first the local people were skeptical; they'd check us out and see what we were doing. When they saw us walking around like them -- and we walked all over, man -- they decided, 'He's probably okay.'"

That walking around gave the Pauls a clear sense of the integrated nature of the issues facing mountain people.

"They live totally off of what nature provides," says Kalyan. "If there's no water, they can't grow their food. If there are no trees, there is no water. It affects everything in their lives and some leave the mountains for more urban areas. That kind of life can be hard, man."

Enter Grassroots, which the Pauls founded in this area 16 years ago. They started by looking for the root causes of the mountain peoples' poverty: their lives and livelihoods are tied to the land and its natural resources.

Those resources have been dwindling as a result of changes to the landscape that started under British rule and continue in the Indian forestry bureau today. Basically, the foresters promoted non-native pine plantations and eucalyptus over native broadleaf deciduous trees.

Sounds like a simple thing, but it had two major impacts: the pines didn't help recharge the water sources, especially after harvesting, and the dead leaf litter was gone, which the farmers spread on their fields. Leaf litter is a natural top-soil maker. In contrast, the more acidic pine needles form a thick mat on the forest floor, preventing rainwater from seeping into the soils.

You can figure out what happened next. The water table, that feeds the springs that nourishes the crops that feed the people, kept dropping. Today, at winter's end, there is very little water in the aquifer and the springs are extremely low.

The Pauls, and the people who work with them, are addressing it by promoting native plant nurseries, replanting saplings from those nurseries, and developing rain water catchments to help regenerate the water supply.

That would be fine as a standard environment project, but Kalyan hasn't stopped there.

Grassroots determined that another factor in the forest decline was the villagers' own needs for firewood used for cooking in their homes. This use was not only denuding the forests, but was having health impacts as well: women cook with open wood fires in their homes (breathing in the smoke all day) and they have to walk farther and farther each day to find firewood, which they carry on their heads.

So, Grassroots introduced biogas stoves to their homes. The villagers now burn the methane generated by animal waste (cow and goat dung -- one thing of which they have plenty!) instead of firewood, and they use the slurry on their fields as an excellent fertilizer.


They also formed an artisan's guild to train local villagers as masons to build these stoves, thereby accomplishing three things in one: reducing forest cutting, improving the health of women, and providing jobs for at least 30 men in the area; at least 50 men have been trained as masons.

The Kumaon Artisans Guild promotes and builds appropriate technologies for rural development, including the biogas wells, twin pit outhouses, and infiltration wells for drinking water. (The infiltration well technology, developed by Dr. Tim Rees, is worth another post of its own.)

Members of the Guild, who are known as "Barefoot Engineers," told me they are now installing 300 biogas units annually, 60 water pumps a year, and 400 toilets.

In addition, Grassroots has organized a women's cooperative, called Umang, which means "inner strength" or "self-confidence." Umang now comprises a network of 2000 women spread over hundreds of villages and governed by reps from participating women’s "self-help" groups, with day-to-day functions managed by a group of women from the surrounding area.

Umang’s work includes savings and credit, but also enterprise development. They produce knitwear worth more than Rs.1.5 million each year, about a third of which accrues to the women as wages, according to sources familiar with the situation.

In addition, the Umang women engage in food processing, producing about 10 tons of product annually, especially pickled condiments made from local produce such as chilies, ginger, and garlic, along with fruit preserves and jams. (Their plum chutney is fantastic!) Umang also has an apiculture program that produces about 3 tons of honey every year.

To better understand the impact watershed-wide, Grassroots, together with UNESCO, is conducting a study of the hydrology of the Gagas River Basin, which covers 500 square kilometers and includes 360 villages.

Faisal K. Zaidi, a Post Doctoral Researcher in Hydrogeology who works with UNESCO in New Delhi, on the study says that the Gargas has been included in UNESCO's Hydrology for Environment, Life, and Policy (HELP) program. HELP, according to its website, "is creating a new approach to integrated catchment management through the creation of a framework for water law and policy experts, water resource managers and water scientists to work together on water-related problems."

Zaidi says that by the end of the monsoon season this year, likely around September, they should have the first water budget for the Gagas River Basin, based upon the data collected from this study. To date, they have set up rainfall and stream flow monitoring stations in almost 20 locations, and at least a half-dozen weather monitoring stations in the basin.


The true innovation in Kalyan Paul's work is the holistic approach to the root problems. I have seen plenty of economic development and environmental projects that are limited in their scope. Most projects, indeed most organizations attack one problem, and not always the root of a problem. It's often an either/or dilemma: either economic development or conservation; either livelihood or watershed protection. The Grassroots approach is integrated, holistic and more effective as a result.

Not bad for a guy who started out "walking around" 20 years ago.


(Disclosure: The author is a vice president of Ashoka, which selected Kalyan Paul as an Ashoka Fellow in 1992, preceding the author's employment.)

Clean Tech: In Defense of Biofuels, Tyler Hamilton Weighs In

On the day that Richard Branson launched the first biofueled airliner, one of my favorite Canadians, the Toronto Star's clean tech writer Tyler Hamilton comes to the defense of the beleagured alternative energy source. It's such a good piece, I have to reblog it in full:

I'm getting tired of the doomsday views being spouted about biofuels lately, as much as there's an element of truth to them. Yes, biofuels from food or dedicated crops aren't a sustainable strategy, and yes, biofuels from cellulosic ethanol may be years away before they become economical, but is this reason to completely abandon the idea? To call it a scam? I'm also a little perplexed that people talk about biofuel like we're pinning the climate's hopes on it, rather than as part of a much larger solution.

Yes, we're seeing the hunt for palm oil sources devastating the rainforests of Indonesian. Bad. Bad. Bad. Makes for a great headline, eh? Does this suggest biofuels per se are bad or that we need to pay greater attention to how and where we get them? Is it not the government of Indonesia that's responsible for strictly regulating this domestic market? It's like saying we shouldn't use solar power because factories in China are using child labour. Solar isn't the problem -- it's the factory owners. Perhaps OECD countries should impose trade sanctions on any country that doesn't comply with strict environmental standards, as a recent BBC article suggests. A New York Times editorial at least sees the potential for biofuels, pointing out that it can be done if done responsibly.

The same reasoning goes for the energy balance of biofuels. We've seen report after report saying that producing ethanol from corn takes more energy than what you get out of it, and that changing lands to biofuel crops releases carbon into the air. This might be the case in some circumstances, but there are some huge assumptions here about irrigation (water use), fertilizer use, transportation, and they are often analyzed out of context -- that is, not compared apples-to-apples to the way we go about exploring, producing, refinining and transporting oil. Again, regulation can deal with these issues.

You think there isn't an army of scientists out there not trying to catalogue the best raw materials for producing biofuels, the best enzymes and bacteria for breaking them down, the best methods of transporting them, ways of growing on depleted lands, etc...? These are early days in the middle of a dramatic transition, and there are going to be some mistakes -- and much trial and error along the way. To suggest this isn't going to happen, and never happened in the early days of oil and coal, is simply naive.

So let's stop demonizing biofuels. It's at times like these that I'm ashamed of my own industry for oversimplifying the debate with sensational headlines. But I digress.

On a related note, I'd like to say I'm happy to see Richard Branson -- media stunts aside -- trying biofuels in airplanes. Virgin Fuels launched the world's first commercial flight powered by biofuel today and the company appears serious about studying the benefits and, based on that outcome, pursuing the biofuel option. Virgin contends biofuels could be a commercial reality in the airline industry within five years. Personally, I think this is an area we must aggressively pursue. In fact, I think we should devote most of our research and development on biofuels to their use in the airline sector.

Here's my reason: We can't run planes on batteries, so electric planes aren't in the cards. We can run vehicles on electricity, starting with plug-in hybrids as a transition, and there is great momentum at the moment toward this goal. It's my belief that a biofuel industry devoted strictly to fuelling air travel could be done sustainably without having an impact on food prices and, as cellulosic approaches become more affordable, by depending heavily on agricultural and forest waste.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but it seems to me it makes more sense to target particular approaches to particular problems rather than have all approaches try to be all things to all industries.

I hope Tyler doesn't mind my reblogging his post from Clean Break. It's such a Green Skeptic viewpoint, I thought my readers would appreciate it.

Clean Tech: A Mighty Wind Grows 45 Percent in '07

I realized today that I've been giving a lot of space to solar on this blog -- okay, I confess, my obsession with First Solar has been getting out of hand, especially in the first month of 2008! But as long as it holds above my initial position, I'll try to ignore those additional shares I bought before the tumble.

Then it came to my attention (thanks to Triple Pundit) that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) last week reported record growth in wind power generation with 5,244 megawatts of capacity installed in 2007 – a 45 percent increase reflecting US$9 billion in investment and 30 percent of all new power generating capacity in 2007.

But not so fast. The same report notes that 2008 "will likely show growing pains as there is a current shortage of wind turbines, a situation that the AWEA sees as a big opportunity for manufacturers and entrepreneurs wishing to get in on a growing market. There’s always a better mouse trap – wind energy technology is ripe for imaginative innovators to not only fill the current need for parts, but to continually make those parts better."

TP adds: "It is also time for government to step up to the plate and push forward in support of alternative energy in a big way. Congress is debating this week the future of alternative energy tax credits set to expire this year with no current provision for renewal.

"While the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 recently signed in Congress does provide $2 billion dollars in research for alternative energy, it still pales in comparison to subsidies given the fossil fuel industry.

"Farmers also have a great opportunity to capitalize on wind power generation, 'growing' energy from wind and leaving their corn for food instead of ethanol. After all, not all alternative energy is created equal."

Okay, I feel better now. It's not all solar and I'll try to give equal time to the other alternatives. (Thanks, TP)

Pass the sunscreen someone...anyone.

Clean Tech: New Energy Finance Reports New Clean Energy Investments in 2007 Totaled US $117.2 Billion

Source: Clean Edge News

The clean energy sector powered ahead in 2007, according to analysts New Energy Finance. In spite of difficult conditions on the credit markets, the amount of new money invested in the sector grew to $117.2 billion, up 41% from 2006's $83.0 billion*, and more than $20 billion ahead of predictions.

The clean energy sector weathered last summer's credit crunch well, partly because nonfinancial drivers such as regulation, political will and fears over energy supplies remain strong. It was also helped by a shift in focus from more mature wind and biofuels markets in Western Europe and the US towards Asia, Brazil and other developing countries. Wind power continued to lead the way, but the year also saw strong growth in solar power and energy efficiency. Investments in biofuels fell back from 2006's record year, hampered by surging feedstock costs.

*The biggest portion of investment funds went to asset financing, up 40% on 2006, at $54.5 billion.

*The highest growth rate was in public markets, where investment was 80% higher than in 2006, at $18.9 billion, the biggest portion being the $6.6 billion flotation of Iberdrola Renovables (Iberenova). If this IPO is excluded, public market new investment grew by a more sedate 17%.

*Venture capital and private equity new investment grew by 27% to $8.5 billion. Investors retreated from later stage investments and returned to early stage deals, as their familiarity with the sector and technologies grew and the pipeline of commercialisationready opportunities dried up.

*The year was marked by the launch of clean energy funds by several high street asset management companies, including HSBC, F&C, Schroeders, Virgin and DWS.

Michael Liebreich, Chairman and CEO of New Energy Finance commented: "At the start of 2007 we said that the clean energy industry had to deliver clean, cost-effective power and fuels in large volume in order to justify investors' enthusiasm. That remains just as true today: investors' enthusiasm still outstrips the industry's current contribution to solving the world's environmental and energy security problems. However, progress is being made on scaling up a number of sectors, particularly wind, solar, biomass and energy efficiency. The wave of liquidity washing through the sector shows no signs of abating and, despite the dark clouds still massed over the world's credit markets, 2008 looks set to be another banner year."

Asset financing

Clean energy asset financing was resilient in 2007 in the face of turmoil on the world's debt markets, with a record $54.5 billion invested. Investors were forced to shift their emphasis from project finance deals to on-balance-sheet financings, which made up 64% of total asset financing activity, up from 44% in 2006. Much of this came from the South American biofuels industry and wind, biomass and waste-to-energy deals in China.

Wind investment accounted for nearly half of the total new investment in projects, or $24.8 billion. Much of the growth in wind investment in 2007 took place in Asia and Oceania, whose $8.4 billion of deals outstripped the Americas ($6.6 billion) while investment in the EMEA region grew to $9.8 billion after falling by $1.5 billion in 2006. The remaining $29.7 billion investment was largely in biofuels projects ($14.5 billion); biomass & waste ($7.1 billion); and solar ($5.9 billion).

The 30% increase in investment in biofuel assets contrasted with 2006's 171% growth, which was driven by the US's love affair with corn-based ethanol. In 2007, much of the activity took place in South America, chiefly in Brazil, while the US ethanol industry stalled under difficult market conditions, with many producers shelving plans for capacity expansion. The ratification in December of the US energy bill, with its ambitious renewable fuels standard that calls for 36 billion gallons of alternative fuels by 2022, should considerably improve the outlook for US ethanol. New investment in biomass & waste grew by 51% from $4.7 billion in 2006. As with wind, most of the surge took place in China, where the government has great hopes for biomass.

Solar project investment of $5.9 billion was 82% higher than 2006, as Spain and Italy continued their drive for larger photovoltaic projects. Spain has seen a great rush as investors tried to push their projects to qualify for the a 400MW subsidy cap. Greece and France are largely markets-in-waiting, constrained by bureaucracy and the lack of mature building-integrated photovoltaic products.

Public markets

In 2007, $18.9 billion of new money was raised by clean energy companies on the public markets, up 80% from $10.5 billion last year. Much of the increase was driven by one deal: the landmark flotation of Iberdrola Renovables, which raised $6.6 billion, six times more than the previous record deal, REC of Norway's $1.1 billion IPO last May. Although the IPO was priced at the bottom end of its lead coordinators' price range at €5.30 per share, it represented a hefty market capitalisation of €22.4 billion ($33 billion) at the start of trading on 13 December.

Solar companies raised $5.8 billion of new equity on the public markets during 2007, once again chiefly Chinese cell and module makers listing on US markets. Biofuels groups managed to raise $1.0 billion, almost $2 billion less than in 2006, and energy efficiency groups caused excitement,by raising $0.8 billion, led by EnerNOC and Comverge, as policy makers and investors realised the potential of the sector.

The WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index (NEX), which tracks the fortunes of 88 clean energy companies worldwide, rose nearly 60% in 2007, taking its increase over the past two years to over 110%.

Venture Capital / Private Equity

In 2007, venture capital and private equity investment increased to $8.5 billion, up 27% from 2006. Early-stage VC made strong gains, increasing to $1.8 billion from $0.8 billion in 2006 as investors found it harder to find value in later stage deals due to greater competition and were driven to make earlier-stage bets. Late stage VC was the only investment stage to attract less money than last year, falling by a little over $100m to $1.1 billion. Solar became the leading sector for VC and PE, attracting $3.0 billion of new equity, and biofuels decreased slightly on last year to $2.0 billion. The two other leading sectors were wind ($1.8 billion) and energy efficiency companies ($1.2 billion).

Much of the increase in solar investment was down to young US solar companies attracting early-stage VC investment. In 2006, just $181m was invested in such firms, in 2007 this increased to $702m. In Europe, where the solar industry is more mature, a meagre $59m of early-stage VC found its way to solar companies. Some of bigger solar investments worldwide were in thin-film technology, which offers a way around the currently limited supply of solar silicon. HelioVolt raised $101m, while Solyndra raised $80m and SoloPower attracted $30m. Solar installation companies also featured prominently, pushed into the spotlight by Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Solar Initiative. Early stage venture investment in energy efficiency companies more than doubled in both North America and Europe, to $316m and $96m respectively.

* Note: The previously reported figures of $71 billion to $75 billion for 2006 excluded certain categories of investment such as solar water heating, which are now included – hence the restated 2006 figure of $83.0 billion.

[Green Skeptic note: as you know, I like to hyperlink to companies listed in my posts; but since this is a straight pull from Clean Edge, I will try to do so later...)

Clean Tech: The Clean Tech Revolution, Reviewed

"Remember President Jimmy Carter by the fireside in his cardigan sweater in 1978, urging Americans to turn down their thermostats?" asks Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder in Clean Tech Revolution: The Next Big Growth and Investment Opportunity, published last month by Collins. "Wipe that image from your memory banks."

Today's clean tech is not about "cutting back and 'going without'," but about "doing everything we already do, but doing it cleaner, smarter, better," argue the authors, who also write the popular Clean Edge web site and manage the leading research and publishing firm of the same name. They argue that this revolution is less about going green than about building the biggest potential multi-billion dollar industry on the horizon.

The book is a resource for gap investors (if you're not into clean tech already, you're behind the curve), potential entrepreneurs, recent business school grads, and consumers who want a quick study of what's been going on in this space.

While the audience is broad, Pernick and Wilder do a good job explaining the basics and setting the stage for what they see as the most promising ideas and businesses out there.

The trouble with a book like this, however, is that the industry is moving at the light speed and printer's ink still runs slow as molasses. The clean tech landscape is changing so fast that a traditional book quickly goes out of date. The authors' Clean Edge and Clean Tech Revolution sites, along with Tyler Hamilton's Clean Break blog, will continue to be essential. They are closely watching this space and have learned how to spot the trends and pitfalls.

Pernick and Wilder have an easy, engaging style that has adapted well from web to print. While at times it seems their enthusiasm for this space gets the better of them -- my "booster" alarm went off more than once -- in the end, the book is well organized and useful for its insights.

The various sectors in the clean tech space -- wind, solar, biofuels, etc. -- are given their own chapters and companies to watch are listed at the end of each, which proves a handy reference.

In addition, the authors identify what they see as "Breakthrough Opportunities" throughout, such as "Building-integrated Wind," "Integrated Photovoltaics," "LED Lighting," and "Automated Meter Readers." And each chapter ends with a consumer-focused sidebar highlighting a couple of next stage products or services to watch.

"We'll look back at the beginning of the 21st Century and see it as the tipping point for clean technology," the authors write Let's hope the authors are right.

Meanwhile, if you're looking for a primer on the clean tech space, look no further than Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder's Clean Tech Revolution.

Global Climate Change: IPCC Report - No One Will Escape Impacts

The IPCC report last week was indeed grim, which is probably why I've avoided commenting on it thus far. It's too damned depressing to wrap my head around while I'm on vacation. The sobering fact is that billions of the world's poorest citizens are at risk of hardship and disease as a result of climate change.

But that's not all: everyone is at risk; everyone will feel the impact. Those most vulnerable live at or near sea level, many of whom are crowded into coastal cities already in danger. And say goodbye to those luxury coastal properties. You may want to start buying land along the "new coast," the perimeter of sea level rise to come.

Still, you can run, but you can't hide. You may move away from the areas of direct impact, only to be chased by drought, disease and extreme weather. All of this combines, in the IPCC future to threaten the livelihoods and the very lives of maybe millions more.

Depressing? Indeed. Too late to do anything about it? Not if we can finally put the science to rest and get to work reducing the impacts, adapting to the changes, and investing in the technologies and systems that will help us survive, if not thrive, in the world of change ahead.

Global Climate Change: ConocoPhillips Joins Coalition

UPI reported this morning that ConocoPhillips Co. became the first major U.S. oil company to call for a federal global-warming-emissions cap.

The Houston-based oil company said it had joined the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a group of corporations outlining broad principles they propose for a U.S. emissions cap.

"We recognize that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate," Chairman and Chief Executive Jim Mulva said.

Britain's BP PLC has also endorsed a U.S. global-warming emissions cap and is in USCAP, along with industrial products and media conglomerate General Electric Co. while supermajors ExxonMobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Total SA and Chevron Corp. are not.

Mulva said ConocoPhillips believed "a mandatory national regulatory framework that links to international programs is most likely to achieve meaningful impact on global greenhouse gas emissions."

ConocoPhillips and other companies are endorsing a single nationwide cap because they believe it will be less onerous than a patchwork of state rules, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Clean Tech: CNN reports on "Dirty side to clean energy investing"

Steve Hargreaves writes on CNNMoney.com about the increase in venture capital investments in the Clean Tech sector, which The Green Skeptic reported on last week: Investors. Hargreaves asks whether this is a good thing.

"Venture capital is sexy: The glamour of bringing a new business to market, the promise of big returns, the risk of losing it all," writes Hargreaves. "There's no doubt this fast money plays a big role in building the businesses of tomorrow - especially those in the burgeoning alternative energy sector, which has seen funding triple over the past four years.

"But venture capital investors often bank on a relatively quick payback, and have high expectations for the firms they back. Those expectations have sparked debate among renewable energy financiers: Is too much venture capital money a bad thing?" Hargreaves writes:

Venture capital flowing to renewable energy firms has surged to almost $3 billion last year from just over $1 billion in 2002, according to the data tracking firm Cleantech Venture Network.

"There's just a ton of money trying to invest in companies," said Matt Cheney, head of MMA Renewable Ventures, a San Francisco-based renewable energy finance company.

That's good for startups looking for cash, so long as they can become profitable relatively quickly.

The typical time frame for venture capital firms - which provide cash and provide management expertise usually in exchange for part ownership - is three to five years, according to one venture capitalist.

"Money doesn't have a lot of patience in general," said Cheney. "I'd say eight out of 10 of these operations don't go anywhere. And for those eight, it gets pretty ugly."

Read the full article here: CNNMoney

Global Climate Change: Gore's Proposal Makes Sense, says Washington Post

The Washington Post's Warren Brown, writing in his column to be published in tomorrow, says that former veep Al Gore's proposal to Congress earlier this week "actually made sense, especially on the matter of fuel economy and its relationship to global warming." And he offers a challenge to Congressional leaders on the issue, include Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

"Don't single out cars and trucks," Gore said, adding that carbon emissions from motor vehicles constitute "a slice of the problem," and not the biggest slice at that.

He went on to suggest that Congress abandon its habitual blame-shifting, responsibility-dodging approach to energy conservation. He asked his former colleagues to draft legislation that would require contributions from all Americans -- industrialists and retailers, politicians and consumers. Yikes! Gore even called for increased taxes on fuels via taxation of carbon content.

"That's gutsy and smart," Brown writes. "Gore's proposal embraces the reality that energy conservation is a two-part problem involving industries and their consumers. It recognizes that trying to solve the problem by working only one side of the equation, the industrial side, is doomed to ultimate failure."

The challenge, according to Brown, is for Congress to get beyond its usual wishy-washy encouragement of energy conservation and stop pretending that you can put the burden of carbon reduction -- or paying for the right to pollute -- on industry. He observes that Gore, as a "free man" not a candidate, can suggest such things as higher energy taxes, because he's no longer in anybody's pocket. This isn't the case for Boxer and others who, Brown asserts, practice a sort of "voodoo environmentalism."

By turning a blind eye on the consumer responsibility, in other words, Congress neglects to remember what their mothers taught them, that a burden shared is a lighter load.

Read Warren Brown's commentary in the Washington Post.

Global Climate Change: Gore on the Hill, Will He Hurt the Cause?

No one has brought more attention to the issue of global climate change than former veep Al Gore. He has been doing so for 15 years. His film garnered the attention of Americans and scooped up an Oscar for best documentary. His efforts even earned him a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. And people have listened.

But on this, the first day of spring, as Mr. Gore prepares to testify before Congress, the skeptic in me is beginning to wonder whether he is the best spokesperson for the issue now, as we hit the tipping point.

Of course, I've said it before: it's hard to separate Gore the climate spokesman from Gore the Democrat. Indeed, I've complained that much of An Inconvenient Truth seemed like a disingenuous bid for a presidential candidacy. (I know he denied it at the Academy Awards, but there are many with a sneaking suspicion he will run again.)

And with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and now once skeptical Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-MI), leading the charge on the issue, it's beginning to take on a troublesome partisan patina. Troublesome, in part, because such partisan posturing could engender a backlash.

A recent National Journal poll found that only 13 percent of congressional Republicans say they believe that human activity is causing global warming, compared to 95 percent of congressional Democrats. Moreover, the number of Republicans who believe in human-induced global warming has actually dropped since April 2006, when the number was 23 percent.

This is troublesome indeed for those of us who believe that the science is confirmed and who want to turn the debate to solutions, especially economic opportunities that address the potential impacts.

Where is the Republican leadership on this issue? Sure there's the Governator, but I also think of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD). Then there is Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who went to Alaska with McCain a couple of years ago and underwent a Saul/Paul conversion.

Arguably, there are many facets of climate policy that appeal to Republicans, such as increasing security through diversifying our energy supply and realizing the potential impacts of a new economy based around energy technologies.

What we need is for a bipartisan or non-partisan spokesperson to emerge and take the torch from Mr. Gore. Any takers?

Global Climate Change: Investors Press Congress in Wake of Warmest Winter

NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reported last Thursday that the combined global land and ocean surface temperature from December through February was the highest since records began in 1880. January's record warmth was primarily responsible for putting the combined winter temperature over the top.

Sources at NOAA confirm that the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1995. After this winter, the next-warmest was in 2004, and the third was in 1998.

The combined temperature for the December-February period was more than 1 degree Fahrenheit above the mean 20th century temperature.

Such warming trends are heating up the debate around mandatory greenhouse gas emissions cuts and increasing the anxiety among investors, as we've reported in The Green Skeptic before. Some don't want their investments to be blind-sided by regulations that may be on the horizon, while other investors see opportunities developing in clean-tech and alternative energy.

Today, dozens of institutional investors, including Merrill Lynch, The Capital Group, and the largest US pension fund, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) are calling on Congress to adopt strong legislation with tangible greenhouse gas reduction targets, according to Ceres, the coalition of investors and environmentalists.

The coalition asserts that setting mandatory emissions cuts will give investors confidence to invest more in low-carbon technologies, and other so called "clean tech" alternatives.

Cuts could also stimulate a cap-and-trade market for greenhouse gases, which investors see as an opportunity just waiting to be developed.

Last January, 10 companies that would find themselves regulated under such legislation, including Duke Energy Corp. and General Electric Co., called on Congress and President Bush to set a national limit on emissions that could potentially lead to as much as a 30 percent reductions over the next 15 years.

Investments in the clean tech category are showing signs of strength. In February, the Cleantech Venture Network reported that North American and European venture capital investment in totaled a record US$3.6 billion for 2006. This was a 45 percent increase over 2005 (US$2.5 billion) and double the 2004 investment of US$1.7 billion.

Companies asking to be regulated, hungry investors smelling opportunity, and venture capitalists willing to sink serious money into the arena. Clearly it's time to adopt mandatory cuts and stimulate this investment climate.

Global Climate Change: Gore Energy Consumption Flak

Much has been made about the Drudge Report on Monday about Al Gore's energy consumption.

From the report: "Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

"In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average."

Brian Doherty, in Reason Magazine's Hit & Run blog, writes

"Is this sort of hypocrisy too cheap to meter, um, to take note of? Mmmaybe....Since [sic] Gore's whole deal is that civilization-saving absolutely and vitally requires an action on everyone's part that he seems to refuse to do himself, it leads one to wonder about how this whole global warming thing is going to play out with the public and with the government. (Unless Gore's house is powered completely or partially off a conventional coal-burning grid, which doesn't seem to be true based on Drudge's piece.)"

Jim Henley comes to Gore's defense (and the defense of Libertarian, free market principles) in Unqualified Offerings,

"Al Gore uses a lot of electricity. Al Gore buys carbon offsets. Libertarians who take anthropogenic global warming seriously - count me among them - generally favor markets in emissions over hard regulatory targets for individual homes and businesses. That way people and companies can decide to conserve or offset or buy unused capacity as they see fit, minimizing emissions while maximizing utility.

"Curiously, the 'free market' think tank that gives us our first link declares that Gore's free choice to use his own money to offset his family's carbon output makes him a 'hypocrite,' since he thinks global warming is bad."

An editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal jumps on Gore, saying that he "is rich and fortunate enough to be able to afford the "carbon offset" for his energy indulgences. The middle-class parents who need a gas-guzzling SUV to haul the kids to soccer practice might not be so lucky. They might even settle for an unheated pool."

WSJ, which also features a good overview of carbon-offset options in its Personal Journal section today, has some nifty jibes, such as this one, which I will quote in full (because it'll cost you to read it online otherwise, even for us subscribers to the print edition):

We don't begrudge Mr. Gore his Tennessee spread or his pool, but his energetic energy use does underscore the complicated nature of modern economic life and the real costs of "doing something" about global warming. The pleasures of affluence take energy, whether they be relaxing in a hot tub after a long day of predicting the end of the Greenland ice sheet, or flying in a private jet to talk political strategy with Leo DiCaprio. You never know where you're going to leave your next carbon footprint.

God, that's brilliant writing. It's one of the things I love about the WSJ. (I wish I had the luxury of anonymity to be so pointed, barbed and tailored!) The truth is we free marketers love the concept of selling carbon credits and buying offsets. Why shouldn't the wealthy have the option to buy off their guilt? That's what surprises me about the WSJ editorial; the pot-shots at Gore are not the issue, it's not taking the concept to heart or the wallet.

Contrast this with apologists, such as David Roberts, who publishes some defensive "Talking points on the Gore pseudo-scandal" in Grist.

*It's nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.
*The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research," which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It's run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore's electricity use at face value?
*The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.
Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.
*Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway.

But what the detractors and apologists alike seem to be missing is that Gore needs to be leading by example. Buying offsets and contributing to "green electricity" purchases by Nashville Electric Service is not enough for Mr. Global Warming. He needs to walk the talk and do more than offset his carbon.

Having never been to the Gore's Belle Meade home, I don't know whether wind or solar is a better option, but it seems to me that one or both should be installed at his estate. And what about geothermal? Is that an option outside of Nashville?

(WSJ also reports today about entrepreneurs in Hong Kong who have installed converters on exercise equipment to capture the energy units generated. Mr. Gore may want to talk to those fellows. It could have a dual benefit: he can generate energy for his PowerBook, while shedding some of the pounds he's put on eating on the road.)

Not sure what Gore can do about the private jet. I understand that flying in coach or even business class may not be an option for a former veep. But let's see him calculate his miles and buy some credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange!

Perhaps Mr. Gore needs to do a full carbon output analysis and disclose that publicly along with a plan for how he will relieve his carbon footprint. Lead by example, Mr. Gore.

Clean Tech: Venture Investments in Clean Tech Doubles

Eric Auchard reports in Reuters/Planet Ark that "venture capital funding for environmental technologies nearly doubled to US$1.28 billion in 2006, amid surging interest in tackling the threat of climate change, according to a report to be issued Tuesday."

The survey by market researcher Dow Jones VentureOne and consulting firm Ernst & Young found that venture capitalists in the United States, China, Europe and Israel boosted investments by 93.5 percent over the US$664.1 million spent in 2005.
More than two-thirds, or US$883.6 million, of all "clean technology" investments in 2006 were made by US investors, VentureOne data showed.

China bumped out Europe as the second largest market, with 12 deals attracting US$221.8 million, up from US$85.5 million in 2005. Europe attracted only US$157 million in 2006, but three times as many deals, reflecting smaller average deal sizes.

"Global climate change, high oil prices, accelerated growth in emerging markets, energy security and the finite nature of resources are some of the key drivers," Gil Forer, director of Ernst & Young's venture capital practice, said in a statement.

The largest clean tech investments in 2006 were US$75 million in solar panel maker NanoSolar of Palo Alto, California and US$50 million in ethanol and biodiesel producer Altra Inc. of Los Angeles, VentureOne analyst Josh Grove said in an interview.

The third largest venture financing was US$40 million invested in solar cell maker Trina Solar Ltd. ahead of its initial public offering late in 2006.

The category, called "clean technology" by its supporters, includes renewable energy and also water, agriculture, transportation, and manufacturing where the technology creates less waste or toxicity.

Read full story: Clean Tech Venture

Global Climate Change: A New Global Treaty in the Works & Oil Chiefs Discuss Energy Issues

According to Reuters/Planet Ark, diplomatic efforts have begun to accelerate toward a framework for a new global climate change treaty. A European official close to the negotiations claims that the "tone of the debate has changed in the United States and Australia -- key nations which rejected the Kyoto Protocol on curbing greenhouse gas emissions -- and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made it a top target of her G8 presidency this year."

A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday, "We need to work for agreement by the G8 plus five on the elements of a post-Kyoto framework including a global stabilisation goal and a cap and trade system, a framework that includes not just the US but also India and China."

Meanwhile, in Houston, oil industry heads are meeting to discuss global energy challenges, including ways to find more effective soultions to produce oil and gas, as well as alternatives to fossil fuels.

According to the Associated Press, we can "expect to see industry leaders, including the chiefs of ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell PLC's U.S. division, speaking across America in an unprecedented campaign to educate consumers on energy-related issues and discuss topics such as ethanol and renewable fuels. It's also an opportunity for the companies to polish their images."

"There's never been as much effort going into technological innovation across the whole energy industry as we're seeing today," Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consultancy, and author of "The Prize," the Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the oil industry, told AP.