Energy Transition and America's Future: Interview with Gregor MacDonald

Gregor MacDonald

For those of you who follow Gregor MacDonald (@gregormacdonald) on Twitter or read his excellent blog, Gregor.us, or were fortunate enough to catch his subscription-only newsletter and weekly web-TV program while it lasted on StockTwits, you know Gregor represents a thoughtful, studied voice on energy transition and possesses a macroview of the global economy.   

Currently, he's turning his attention to long-form journalism and is working on a piece addressing the global transition back to coal, which should be an important work.

I interviewed Gregor to get his insights on energy (especially renewables, coal, and nuclear) and our future.

GS: You recently expressed the opinion that renewables are going to replace nuclear. How far down the path are we towards a real energy transition?

One has to hold two competing ideas at the same time, here in the midst of our difficult journey through energy transition.  First, the world is tipping back towards coal as oil supply peaks and the five billion people in the developing world reach for the fossil fuel still growing in supply: coal.  And yet, from an extremely low level, renewables like solar and wind are starting to grow at an astonishing annual rate. 

One has to be cognizant and sober about scale, here.  Yes, power supply from solar and wind globally are tiny compared to coal and natural gas generation, but it is no longer out of the question that the first threshold -- matching the power generated by nuclear -- will be achieved by wind and solar.

GS: And what about nuclear?  In the wake of Fukushima, what are its prospects?

GM:  Fukushima does not alter the course of nuclear so much as it merely perfects the trajectory already seen in the past few decades: the slow decline of the nuclear industry. 

Growth in nuclear the past few decades has slowed progressively, the industry no longer attracts young people, and most important of all: the complexity of the technology has only served to increase costs -- at prohibitive rate.  The result?  Private industry has little or no interest in building nuclear power.  The energy return on investment is low, and also in decline; the liabilities are too great and can only be covered by governments.

What we will see in this coming decade, therefore, is that the return on investment for both solar and wind -- both in capital and energy terms -- will not only accelerate but will also pull away from the comparative proposition in nuclear and possibly even natural gas or coal power generation.  The speed of construction, the lack of complexity especially in solar, and the much reduced community opposition both in the OECD and Non-OECD mean that new power generation from solar and wind will come on line quickly, blowing past the hurdles that plague fossil fuels. 

Again, this does not mean renewables will "replace" coal and natural gas.  Not this decade -- and not the next either.  But the growth rates will diverge in a massive way, and the career opportunities for young people will swing hard in this direction.

GS: You've long expressed the opinion (one that I share) that coal is going to be with us for a long time to come. What does that mean for the future of energy?  What do you think needs to be done to ameliorate some of the environmental damages caused by fossil fuels?

GM:  I hope to articulate the large trends, in both supply and demand terms, which dictate why coal will be humanity's primary energy source over the next 20+ years, in my pending essay on coal.  That said, starting in 2006 when I realized that a second coal age was likely, I was also struck by another, obvious realization: that coal would create problems requiring solutions.  At the ASPO meeting in Washington last year, I suggested that technologies which mitigated coal emissions and which also burned coal efficiently in-situ would see enormous growth -- and would be enormously profitable.  

If I recall, a number of these have started to sprout and while this will not assuage environmentalists (who are correct that "clean coal" is little more than a mirage) I do think that given the poor emissions level now seen in the developing world is a standard worth raising.  And, I do believe China and India will eventually reach hard for new emissions technology.

GS:  You recently wrote than "Energy, not financial capital, holds primacy for the economy’s future."  Are we heading into a new era of constrained supply? What does this mean for the US economy?

GM:  In my view, the reason that at least 15 if not 20 million Americans are either underemployed or simply unemployed is that the economic system can no longer access enough cheap energy to create profitable output.  Sadly, this is why labor has been shifting hard to the developing world, where very low wages offset high energy input costs, thus securing profits for corporations.  But all is not lost.  

Over the past few years I've studied the US capability in exports, and also the potential rebirth of local economies.  In short, the US, despite the problems, decent infrastructure and low electricity rates that can be utilized for niche manufacturing.  Port cities such as Philadelphia, Seattle, Boston, and Portland, OR, also offer easy direct routes to world markets.  

Indeed, I would encourage interested readers to look at economic data from the late 19th century and notice the thriving cities in America during that time.  While it's true that many of the "price" levels that the US enjoyed in the 1980-2005 period--whether in houses or wages--will not be seen again, it's also true that reorganizing the US economy to remove a lot of the discretionary waste will bring revival.

In other words, America is now on course to become "poorer" in materialistic terms and the terms we came to understand in the post-war era.  However, in terms of life quality, America may very well be on course to finally reach a better destination.  We are still very rich in natural resources in an otherwise resource constrained world.  And, we are still risk-taking innovators.  Once we drop the project of Empire, with its excessive military waste and reinvest in ourselves again, a lot of these nascent trends will start to unfold.

Why We Deserve to Lose (The Race for a New Green Economy)

No offenths, as the 4-year-old son of a friend used to say before offering a critical observation, but we suck.

And we deserve to lose the race for a new green economy to China. Why?  Because we have systematically destroyed our opportunity to lead through bad decisions and illusion, sold ourselves to China, and blanketed ourselves with cheap and toxic products bought from China.

(No wonder the Chinese are laughing at us in this political ad Joshua Brown wrote about on The ReformedBroker.com this weekend. Of course, as Josh pointed out in his post, China needs us as much as we need them.)

Then there is this disturbing item from an editorial in the New York Times this morning: "Until a little over three weeks ago, the Interior Department had approved more than 73,000 oil and gas leases since 2005, but only one offshore wind energy project and not a single solar project."

Don't get me wrong, I support domestic oil and gas development -- both offshore and on land -- as long as it is conducted using the highest environmental standards and safeguards.

But why has it so long to approve a project like Cape Wind off the coast of Massachusetts while oil and gas leasing has accelerated?

Two things have been happening since 2005 when Congress directed the US Department of the Interior "to approve enough wind, solar and other projects on public land to produce 10,000 megawatts by 2015 — enough to heat, cool and light five million homes."

The first is the so-called "Haliburton loophole," which exempted natural gas drilling companies from the Clean Water Act after the companies raised a "frackas" over having to disclose chemicals used in their fracking process.  They claimed it would endanger their proprietary formulas.

A September 2009 report issued by the General Accountability Office (GAO) found that 28 percent of drilling permits issued from 2006 to 2008 (about 6,100 applications) were expedited by the Bureau of Land Management through this categorical exclusion.

Here's an interesting list of exemptions the oil and gas industry currently enjoys from the Federal government compiled by the Environmental Working Group.  Any one of these can help accelerate the approval process.

By comparison, the Cape Wind project was subject to meeting a plethora of state and federal agency standards and required almost nine years to get a final permit.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, to his credit, has approved six large-scale solar power projects on public lands in California and Nevada, and has moved to close the loophole and reform the process for reviewing all projects on lands under Federal management.

But renewables also continue to be subjected to unclear and inconsistent signals in terms of subsidies and tax credits, which makes investors and project developers wary of going too deep.

As the Times editorial asserts, "When the production tax credit expired at the end of 2003, development of newly installed wind capacity fell from 1,687 megawatts to less than 400 the following year."

Meanwhile, as an Environmental Law Institute study last year illustrated, fossil fuel development benefited from approximately $72 billion in subsidies and tax credits over a seven-year period (2002-2008), while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion overt the same period.

This kind of unlevel playing field and unfair advantage is just another reason why we have already lost the race with China and others on renewables. 

In fact, we better stop thinking about it as a race at all and begin thinking about how best to cooperate with our competitors before we are left out of this new economic opportunity altogether.

Two Coasts Tell Tale of Where We Are

What happened on two coasts in the US the past two weeks speaks to our energy reality. The two coasts tell us where we are.

Both events illustrate the conundrum in which we find ourselves early in the 21st Century and very early in the transition from one primary fuel source to the next.

First the good news: Consent was given by US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar on Wednesday for Cape Wind, the long-stalled 468 MW wind farm project off the coast of Massachusetts. The project was held up by local interests concerned about the appearance of a line of 130 wind turbines located miles off the coast in the Horseshoe Shoal area of Nantucket Sound.

The second was the explosion, sinking, and subsequent leaking of a deep water oil facility last week, which by some estimates is now spewing 5,000 barrels (200,000 gallons) a day into the Gulf of Mexico from below the ocean floor. This spill is set to threaten the Gulf Coast, just five years after Hurricane Katrina devastated that region.

One of these events represents the future of our energy production: Cleaner, renewable, and with a free resource feed stock (the wind). The other represents a variation on the past: Dirty, dangerous, and dependent upon a dwindling feed stock (fossil fuels).

What people forget, however, whether celebrating the victory or decrying the disaster, is that we are not in a position to switch from the old to the new like a light switch in the kitchen.

We are very likely going to need the old to help foster the development of the new -- and our dependence upon the old isn't going away any time soon. Furthermore, because oil is running out, we are likely to see more risky and dangerous ventures to access what's left in the immediate future.

Extracting fossil fuels is a risky and dangerous business, as we've seen with this drilling disaster and last month's coal mine disaster in West Virginia. The sooner we can foster the transition off fossil fuels and to cleaner, renewable source the better off we will be.

But let's not forget where we are in that transition: we are just at the very beginning.

Energy Expert Sees a Perfect Storm of Opportunity in US Mid-Atlantic Region

Tom Tuffey, an energy expert with 35 years in the environmental field, spoke to a rapt crowd of 225 clean energy enthusiasts at the REBN, Mid-Atlantic's second event last night.

Tuffey, who runs the energy and environment practice at PennFuture, talked about a perfect storm of opportunity, incentives, and capital coming into the region's burgeoning clean tech sector.

The crowd, gathered in the upstairs room of Maia Restaurant in Villanova, PA, consisted of entrepreneurs, investors, and service providers who hope to benefit from the scenario Tuffey described.

"You need to be vigilant," Tuffey cautioned. "Lest your boat spring a leak or get swamped by the sea of competitors in this storm."

As an example of what Tuffey sees in terms of opportunity is the region's nascent solar development.

"We're behind on solar," Tuffey said. "But I believe solar installations in the state will grow from the current 600-700 to 13,000-14,000 in the next few years."

State legislation passed last year, designed to reduce electricity demand in Pennsylvania will also contribute to alternative energy development in the state.

"It's just coming fast and furious from every side," Tuffey said. "The opportunity is tremendous and you need to figure out your piece of it, concentrate on that, and be diligent."

Those who do, Tuffey suggested, will thrive.

Many in the crowd hope to be among those who thrive. And their excitement was palpable as Tuffey reported a litany of numbers that grew to upwards of a billion dollars in alternative-energy and efficiency investments he expects to pour into the state over the next few years.

This is a perfect storm that stands to raise all boats, according to Tuffey, from the entrepreneurs in the room to the guys with hammers and caulking guns Tuffey met with earlier in the day.

"It's a terrific opportunity for the region and a great thing to see," Tuffey concluded.

The Renewable Energy Business Network (REBN), Mid-Atlantic Chapter, was launched in February to help build networking opportunities and build momentum for the clean tech sector throughout the region. (For more info, visit http://rebn.org/mid-atlantic)

[Disclosure: The author is the co-Chair/founder of the REBN, Mid-Atlantic Chapter and serves on its board.]

What is the New Green Economy?

Tonight, I was asked what does the New Green Economy look like?

My answer was in part that last week the old economy finaly died after an incredible run.

Now it is time for an economy that is built on sustainability, inclusiveness; about high quality green collar jobs -- real jobs here in the US, the kinds of jobs that can't be exported overseas. (That means installation, efficiency, and greater R&D.)

It's about prosperity as much as it is about the health of the people and the planet.

The new green economy is, ultimately, about investing in our future.

What does the New Green Economy mean to you?

Clean Tech: Wind Breaker; It's All About the Grid

The New York Times has a good piece this morning examining the major obstacle in switching to wind power: the outmoded electricity grid.

What's needed is an electricity transmission superhighway, says one Federal Energy Commission rep.

Read the full article:
http://tinyurl.com/5rjzkl

Clean Tech: WSJ-NBC News Poll Suggests Americans Want it All When it Comes to Energy

US voters want solar and wind energy, but that doesn't mean they are against drilling for more oil, according to a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll released this week. 

According to a WSJ article by Stephen Power on Thursday, "72% of respondents said developing alternative energy sources could 'accomplish a great deal.'

"When the question was asked another way, 61% of respondents chose 'developing alternative energy sources' as the step that should receive the most emphasis from policy makers."

And yet, "twenty-five percent responded that 'exploring and drilling for oil' in the U.S. should get the most emphasis, and 12% picked 'having Americans conserve and use less oil.' 

"When asked whether expanding areas for drilling for oil off coastal states was a step in the right direction, 63% said it was, with 44% saying it would accomplish 'a great deal.' Only 27% said that allowing more drilling off coastal states was a step in 'the wrong direction.' 

"Asked about building more nuclear plants, 53% said it was a step in the right direction. Thirty-one percent said it was a step 'in the wrong direction.'" 

Congress will come back to Washington in a few weeks and head into a debate about continuing alternative-energy tax credits and lifting the 27-year drilling ban off US coasts.

The poll suggests a need for a balanced approach. Hope Congress is listening.

For more on the poll: http://tinyurl.com/5cf6go

(Composed on BlackBerry; links to come; updated 8/30)

Clean Tech: Village Green Energy and Wineries Team Up to Promote Renewables Through Facebook

Four Sonoma and Napa County, California, wineries are trying to power their operations with renewable energy.

Now you can help them by loading the "Green My Vino" application on Facebook.

"Green My Vino" allows Facebook users to promote environmental change in the wine business. The application, developed by Village Green Energy, creates three free gifts in Facebook, representing 1, 5, and 10 minutes of renewable energy.

When a user gives the gift, Village Green Energy purchases an equivalent amount of renewable electricity from a wind farm or solar array on the Facebook user's behalf, according to Village Green. If Facebook users pass 10,000 minutes, the first winery will convert to green power.

Seems like a tall order, but it is based upon the success of other applications with high volume of use and effectiveness, such as the Lil' Green Patch, which helps save rainforest as friends give each other cartoon plants.

To date, according to the application developers, the Lil' Green Patch community has saved 29,259,567 square feet of Rainforest by using sponsorship revenue from advertisers to make donations to the Nature Conservancy's Adopt an Acre program.

The first four wineries to participate in Green My Vino are Iron Horse Vineyards, Girard Winery, Windsor Vineyards, and Windsor Sonoma. Village Green intends to recruit additional wineries once the original four have converted.

"We jumped at the opportunity to participate in the application," said Pat Roney of Windsor Vineyards. "'Green My Vino' gives the community the opportunity to interact with businesses and make their voices heard. When people participate in the application, they're telling us that clean energy is a priority for them, and we'll make supporting renewable energy a part of our commitment as a business."

Village Green Energy enables households and businesses to purchase renewable energy from wind farms, solar arrays, and other renewable technologies through the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), the legal rights to renewable power.

Clean Tech: Pennsylvania Gets $650M+ Alternative and Renewable Energy Fund

Let's here it for the home state!

When Kathleen McGinty, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, told to me a few weeks ago that Pennsylvania was "actually now leading the country in manufacturing renewable energy technology, housing the world's leading companies in renewables," I remained skeptical, if hopeful.

Secretary McGinty backed up her statement by listing the companies: Gamesa, Iberdrola, Conergy, AE Polysilicon, Solar Power Industries, Axion, and Bionol, among others, have all become PA companies and major investors in the Commonwealth in the last 3 years.

"We are first in the country now in growth in manufacturing and first in job creation in venture-backed enterprises," Katie said. But, she added, there was a still a long way to go.

Key, she thought, was Governor Ed Rendell's Energy Independence Strategy (EIS) to spur further growth and development in the Commonwealth.

Now, Pennsylvania is making a $665.9 million investment to spur the development of alternative and renewable energy technologies and help customers and small businesses take steps to reduce their electricity consumption and save money.

Together the Alternative Energy Investment Fund and the Alternative Fuels Investment Fund will target $237.5 million specifically toward helping consumers conserve electricity and manage higher energy prices, and $428.4 million to spur the development of alternative energy resources and create good-paying, skilled jobs for Pennsylvania’s hard-working men and women.

Included among the new $650 million fund is $500 million that provides:

* $165 million for loans and grants to spur the development of alternative and renewable energy projects (except solar) among businesses and local governments;
* $100 million to provide loans, grants and rebates that cover up to 35 percent of the costs residential consumers and small businesses incur for installing for solar energy technology;
* $80 million in grants and loans for economic development projects in the solar sector;
* $40 million to the Ben Franklin Technology Development Authority to support early stage activities, such as incubator support services, translational and early stage research in startup businesses that develop and implement energy efficiency technologies;
* $25 million for wind energy and geothermal projects;
* $25 million for green buildings. Homeowners and small businesses will benefit from grants and loans to build energy efficient structures or renovate an existing building to improve its energy efficiency;
* $40 million ($10 million annually for four years) to support LIHEAP so the commonwealth can help low-income customers manage higher energy prices, severe weather conditions, or disasters; and
* $25 million for pollution control technology to help energy generators meet state and federal standards.

Under the alternative fuels law, every gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel sold in Pennsylvania must contain a percentage of biofuels, ramping up to 20 percent biodiesel and 10 percent ethanol once in-state production reaches certain levels.

"This new investment fund will strategically target new resources to leverage as much as $3.5 billion in private investment and create at least 13,000 new, good-paying jobs in an industry that is sure to be to the 21st century what information technology and biosciences were to the later 20th century," the Governor said in a press statement.

Makes me proud to say I live in Pennsylvania, the State of Independence and perhaps the new green economy.

Congratulations, Governor Rendell and Secretary McGinty -- and all Pennsylvanians.

Watch Governor Rendell's announcement of the Fund here

Clean Tech: Alternative Energy Execs Dream Of Oil Crunch (Reuters)

Gerard Wynn of REUTERS NEWS SERVICE writes from London that "while most companies are watching soaring oil prices with an eye on rising costs some renewable energy executives are licking their lips at the prospect of 'spectacular' growth."

Here's the article:

"Oil sped above $135 to a new record for a third straight day on Thursday. That and new forecasts of a higher floor price has some alternative energy suppliers dreaming of an era of peak oil when global crude output starts to fall.

"'Our time is very definitely coming,' said Jeremy Leggett, chairman of British solar power company Solar Century and former environmental campaigner. 'The world is going to be beating a path to our doors ... The oil crunch is coming soon. The drivers are going to be spectacular.'

"Thursday's record oil price knocked world stocks to a one-month low as concerns grew that rising raw material costs would hit companies and consumers in an economic slowdown.

"In their latest rally since May 1 oil prices have risen 20 percent. In that time the MSCI index of the world's biggest stocks is up 1.5 percent, while a ABN AMRO index of renewable energy stocks has climbed 9.5 percent.

"But support for renewables has been jittery after months of hype helped fuel valuations at a time of tight credit.

"In particular, solar power stocks dived as much as 50 percent in January as investors feared that a credit crunch would make 'big ticket' solar panels unaffordable and that over-capacity in the sector could swamp demand.

"'There's obviously been underlying concern in the renewable energy markets that valuations are inflated, (asking) are we in the middle of a green technology bubble,' said Merrill's head of carbon emissions trading Abyd Karmali.

"'Drivers in the oil market leading to higher oil prices, as well as expected more sustained carbon pricing... lead us to suggest that actually alternative energy is going to be commercially viable sooner than people anticipated.'

WIND GOOD, SOLAR BAD

"But even $135 oil is not enough to make all alternatives competitive, said the Chief Economist to the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, on Thursday -- using the example of electricity production from the sun called solar PV.

"'We need to see a lot of reduction in the cost of PV.'

"Solar power executives said at a conference hosted by Greenpower on Wednesday that an expected glut in capacity -- to 29 gigawatts of solar module production in 2012 from 3 GW in 2007 according to consultants McKinsey -- would slash prices.

"The solar power industry uses expected year on year increases in power prices -- as a result of soaring oil and gas prices -- to try and plot when solar power without subsidies will be the same price as conventional electricity.

"McKinsey's Christer Tryggestad said such grid parity may be reached as early as 2010 or 2011 in Italy and California.

"But at current oil prices wind has already reached that point, said the IEA's Birol.

"'Many many projects which are on good sites become profitable versus gas,' he said.

"Ad van Wijk, chief executive of Netherlands-based renewable energy project developer Econcern, said wholesale power prices had trebled in the past two years -- as a result of soaring oil prices -- making his on-shore wind projects competitive with natural gas on windy sites, without subsidies.

"'It's the high oil price and especially the outlook that they will not go down,' which means he can get high wholesale prices now, said van Wijk.

"Analysts and industry officials have predicted for decades that the world's oil output may soon plateau but oil companies have downplayed the 'peak oil' theory. BP data suggest the world has proven oil reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels, enough to sustain current output for 40 years.

"Nevertheless, oil firms are using higher price assumptions to plan their businesses, in a sign the forecast floor price is moving up, oil analysts say. BP is using $60 a barrel, for example, while just a few years ago companies assumed long-run prices of $25."

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: Solar Thermal Gets Boost From US$105M Investment in Solel

Venture Beat reports this morning about a solar thermal company gaining "significant traction: Solel, a manufacturer and installer of solar thermal energy generators, has taken in US$105 million from London-based investment firm Ecofin.

"In the space of the past couple years, the 20 year old Israeli company has taken flight, accumulating contracts and equipment orders and signing agreements to build major generation projects in California and Spain.

"In California and Nevada, Ausra and Brightsource are also competing for attention, scaling up operations as rapidly as possible. At least for the moment, solar thermal looks like a safer bet than photovoltaics, based on the economics.

"However, that story may be changing, as solar PV manufacturers bring down costs over the next few years."

Global Climate Change: Google's Conversation with Thomas Friedman

Google's Larry, Sergei, and Curly, er, Larry B on climate change in conversation with Thomas Friedman. Amazing that the poverty and climate change agendas are coming together; something we've written about at length on The Green Skeptic.

Connect these conversations with Gates's "Creative Capitalism" and Muhammad Yunus's call for social business and perhaps we can get a new triple bottom line: new energy jobs, poverty elimination, and lessen the impacts of global warming.



You've got to applaud the hubris of the Google guys -- and hubris is what it's going to take to push progress. Push on!

Economic Stimulus or Styptic Pencil? Invest My 600 Bucks in New Clean Economy, Mr. Bush

With all due respect to Messrs Bush, Paulson, and...well, Bernanke too, I suppose, this economic stimulus seems more like a styptic pencil. You know, those things used to temporarily stop bleeding from shaving cuts and the like? If BPB really wanted to stop the bleeding, US leaders would accelerate investments into creating a new, clean economy.

I'm not alone in this thinking. The National Hydropower Association, Geothermal Energy Association, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), and American Wind Energy Association issued a joint statement earlier this week calling for an extension of long-term renewable energy tax credits as part of the US economic stimulus package.

The current stimulus package does not extend the renewable energy incentives, which expire at the end of this year. And that is too bad. Letting these incentives expire will potentially eliminate thousands of jobs and derail billions of dollars in future investments, according to sources close to the situation. All this when we're experiencing record private investment in alternative energy.

"2007 was a record year for renewable energy in the U.S. Almost 6,000 megawatts of new renewable energy came on line in 2007, infusing over $20 billion of investment into our economy," Rhone Resch, president of SEIA, told a packed house at the National Press Club the other day. "And along with this investment came jobs. In 2007, the renewable energy industries put Americans back to work, creating tens of thousands of high quality jobs in all 50 states. Jobs like electricians and plumbers, line workers, roofers, engineers, and high-paying manufacturing jobs. These jobs are the backbone of our economy in the U.S.

"But already these jobs and many more are at risk. The 2007 energy bill was passed in December with much fanfare, but without an extension of the renewable energy tax credits. Already we are seeing sales and new project announcements drop off. Large scale solar and wind projects take longer than a year to site, permit and construct. And with only 11 months to go before the credits expire, these projects have started drying up. Even larger concentrating solar, geothermal and hydro projects take many years to construct and will not get built without a long-term extension of the tax credits. If the renewable energy tax credits are allowed to expire, we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the US."

"As leaders of four major renewable energy trade associations, we respectfully urge bipartisan Congressional Leadership and the President to work together to include renewable energy tax provisions in any economic stimulus legislation currently being developed," said Resch. "Renewable energy will put Americans back to work, provide reliable and domestic energy for homes and businesses, and spur billions of dollars of economic investment but only if Congress and the Administration take immediate action to extend the renewable energy tax credits."

I agree with Mr. Resch and his colleagues: If you're serious about stimulating the economy, Messrs BPB, perhaps it's time to seriously invest in a new, clean economy.


(Photo credit: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, left, and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke on Capitol Hill, September 20, 2007. AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke)

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.