Krugman on public transport

Taking from where the Nytimes suggested the increase in public transport usage in America, Krugman says that:

But … as of 2005, only 4.7 percent of American workers took mass transit to work. So even a 10% surge in mass transit ridership would take only around half a percent of drivers off the road.

The point isn’t that nothing can be done — it’s just that serious reductions in driving would require a lot of long-term rearrangement of the way we live. It will come — but not quickly.

More on comparisons between, US, Canada and Europe,

A tale of three cities

What’s more, as far as I can make out from the data, a lot more Canadians than Americans (as a percentage of the population) have switched to public transit over the past year; because the system is there, they have more flexibility.

INSERT DESCRIPTION

All in all, this comparison is a reason not to believe apocalyptic warnings about the long-run effects of energy scarcity: there’s a lot of substitution possible. America’s main problem is that we have a capital stock — cars, public infrastructure, and housing — designed for dirt-cheap oil. And the transition may be nasty.

Decentralized profits

Business Pundit asks the question, Will Products That Enable Energy Independence Be Big Business?

While the Micro Fueler product certainly isn’t cheap, and may or may not succeed, it does raise an interesting question: do products like this one, which would help to decentralize the source of energy in the US, have the potential to generate big profits? micro fuel ethnaol

A real interesting one. Past experience shows that centralization provides economies of scale, efficient production and better utilization of resources for providing energy. However, the downsides are flexibility, costs and the possibility of a large breakdown in case of any downtime.

Decentralization can be helpful to check out new products, can work in remote areas where the grid is not available. The other possibility is “non-consumers” like villages in India. Now, the question is of profitability.

I think that decentralization is a phase that will be strong between now and the clean energy future. How long is that? we do not know. Depending on the market needs, the cost of implementation and the break-even number for the products, these decentralized energy products may be profitable. But, there are lots of variables to work with.

Economic incentives for public transport

The Nytimes writes that:

With the price of gas approaching $4 a gallon, more commuters are abandoning their cars and taking the train or bus instead.

Kleiner Perkins Green Funds

Kleiner Perkins going greener | Cleantech.com

Kleiner Perkins said the $500 million Green Growth Fund is intended to help speed mass market adoption of solutions to the world’s climate crisis.

John Denniston, a partner at Kleiner Perkins, will co-manage the new fund along with Ben Kortlang, plucked from Goldman Sachs where he previously co-directed alternative energy investments.
[...]

The VC firm also announced the formation of KPCB XIII, a $700
million fund that will invest in cleantech, information technology and
life sciences ventures.

Kleiner Perkins said within the cleantech sector, KPCB XIII would
mainly back early-stage entrepreneurs, while the Green Growth Fund
would support companies that have already entered their growth phase.

$100 million worth X-Prizes for Clean tech, bio fuel, water, electricity

X Prize: $100 Million for Clean Fuels

In its richest and largest competition yet, the foundation will divvy up some $100 million for transformations in biofuels, clean aviation fuel, energy storage, the provision of basic utilities for developing nations, and other categories.
[...]
The X Prize Foundation has previously launched competitions for breakthroughs in private space travel, genome mapping, and high-mileage cars. In 2004 aerospace entrepreneur Burt Rutan won the Ansari X Prize by sending his rocket-powered SpaceShipOne to an altitude of more than 367,000 feet with a pilot and the weight equivalents of two passengers. More recently, Google ( GOOG) has backed an X Prize of $30 million for the first team to send a robot to the moon, travel 500 meters, and transmit video, images, and data back to Earth.

Google Lunar X Prize Team Announcement
[...]
He says one prize will be for innovation in providing water, broadband, and clean electricity to villages in the developing world. Other energy categories will be for innovation in energy transmission and the construction of energy-efficient houses and commercial facilities.

More details on their website (PDF). The incentives of X Prize has proved before to be powerful enough to solve issues never before solved like non-government space flights.

The New money in clean tech

V.C.’s Clean Energy Investments - National Business News - Portfolio.com

“You start to see this rise in enormous appetite for energy, and someone’s got to feed that mouth,” says Erik Straser, general partner at Mohr Davidow Ventures, a V.C. firm that has invested more than $400 million in clean energy ventures.
[...]
“The primary difference between what is happening now and what has
happened in prior market cycles is it’s now economically feasible and
desirable to pursue these types of solutions,”
says John Balbach,
managing partner at Cleantech Group, a network of clean technology
investors and companies. “If the outcome is less pollution or reduced
carbon or some impact on climate change, that can benefit in a positive
way, but the primary [concern] is return on investment.”

Solar Thermal Electricity, humanity’s saviour?

Slashdot points to an article by Joe Romm, who is considered “one of the world’s leading experts on clean energy, advanced vehicles, energy security, and greenhouse gas mitigation” discussing the merits of solar thermal energy.

Frankly, I have never seen a better article on this and is an eye opener to me.

Mr. Romm understands the issue very clearly because the title of the article is “The technology that will save humanity” and not the other way round of saving the Earth. As Atanu Dey pointed out to me sometime back, it is us; humans; who need saving and not the Earth.

Romm after the excellent start, goes on to explain the constraints of a good carbon free source of energy.

This electricity must meet a number of important criteria. It must be affordable: New electricity generation should cost at most about 10 cents per kilowatt hour, a price that would probably beat nuclear power and would certainly beat coal with carbon capture and storage, if the latter even proves practical on a large scale. The electricity cannot be intermittent and hard to store, as is energy from wind power and solar photovoltaics. We need power that either stays constant day and night or, even better, matches electricity demand, which typically rises in the morning, peaks in the late afternoon, and lasts late into the evening.

This carbon-free electricity must provide thousands of gigawatts of power and make use of a low-cost fuel that has huge reserves accessible to both industrialized and developing countries. It should not make use of much freshwater or arable land, which are likely to be scarce in a climate-changed world with 3 billion more people.

Solar electric thermal, also known as concentrated solar power (CSP), meets all these criteria. A technology that has the beauty of simplicity, it has proved effective for generations. As the Web site of CSP company Ausra illustrates, solar thermal has a long and fascinating history.

He then goes on to provide a good history of the technology and its use in the last century and the developments in this century.

The key attribute of CSP is that it generates primary energy in the form of heat, which can be stored 20 to 100 times more cheaply than electricity — and with far greater efficiency. Commercial projects have already demonstrated that CSP systems can store energy by heating oil or molten salt, which can retain the heat for hours. Ausra and other companies are working on storing the heat directly with water in the tubes, which would significantly lower cost and avoid the need for heat exchangers.
[...]
Since all three remaining presidential candidates endorse a cap on carbon dioxide emissions coupled with a system for trading emissions permits, carbon dioxide will likely have a significant price within a few years. And that means the economics of carbon-free CSP will only get better. Improvements in manufacturing and design, along with the possibility of higher temperature operation, could easily bring the price down to 6 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour.
[...]
CSP makes use of the most abundant and free fuel there is, sunlight, and key countries have a vast resource. Solar thermal plants covering the equivalent of a 92-by-92-mile square grid in the Southwest could generate electricity for the entire United States. Mexico has an equally enormous solar resource. China, India, southern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Australia also have huge resources.

Solar has the biggest potential of all and looks like thermal electricity is better than PV.

Anticipating the food vs fuel debate

Sreenivas Ghatty points me to a interview with Thomas M. Connelly, Executive Vice President & Chief Innovation Officer of DuPont. The main important part of the interview is the discussion on the food vs fuel debate in bio fuels.

But how is it that DuPont, which thinks much ahead of others, was caught on the wrong foot on this issue of using food crops?

It is not a question we did not recognise. We thought the timescale on which we will move there would be different. Keep in mind, for example, that certain other agricultural commodities were trading at low prices for decades. And frankly, many farmers were looking for additional markets for their products.

So while we recognised that in time the supply trends would become a limiting factor, that the grand plan would accelerate in a matter of five years we never anticipated. We thought it would be at least ten years. The pace at which this has been progressing has been surprising to us.

I think it is because of the global emphasis on climate change, run up in the prices of petroleum. All these are pushing us to non-food crop sources of carbon material for the production of fuel.

I should say we anticipated the direction but not the speed at which we would reach there.

This is the interesting part. How fast the food prices have gone up and the increasing ban on exports from various countries. In some cases, countries like India are ready to sacrifice growth to curb food inflation.

Climate Change Opportunity

The Wall Street Journal chimes in on the climate change opportunity. (Hat tip: Crikey)

…If you’re worried that stopping global warming will wreck the economy, you’re looking at this all wrong. Solving global warming will be an added cost, yes – but a bargain compared with the economic cost of unchecked climate change. And fixing this problem will create an historic economic opportunity.

Energy is the biggest business in the world, “the mother of all markets,” says venture capitalist John Doerr, Google’s first funder. The winners of the race to reinvent energy will not only save the planet, but will also make megafortunes.

[...]

A Silicon Valley firm, Innovalight, has figured out a way to harvest solar energy much more cheaply than present technology allows by dissolving silicon nanocrystals in ink, which will ultimately be printed onto roof panels like we print ink onto paper. Using a platform they developed as postdoctoral students at Berkeley, the founding scientists of a company called Amyris have re-engineered yeast to ferment sugar into pure hydrocarbon fuels. Unlike ethanol, the fuel has the energy density of gasoline (or jet fuel, if that’s what they program the yeast to produce) and can be shipped through existing pipelines and pumped into any car now on the road.

[...]

Under a cap-and-trade regime, Congress will set limits on greenhouse gas pollution, and ratchet down those limits over time. Congress won’t dictate to business which technologies to use – the marketplace will determine the ones that work best at the lowest cost. Cap-and-trade is a proven approach. When applied to acid rain pollution in the 1980s, it solved the problem faster and cheaper than anyone thought possible.

Global warming skeptics notwithstanding, fixing global warming won’t be a drain on the economy. On the contrary, it will unleash one of the greatest floods of new wealth in history. When Congress finally acts, America’s entrepreneurs and inventors will find the capital they need to solve global warming – and a lot of people will make a killing.

Green datacenter opportunity

This is the new blue ocean strategy. Find a business/service/product which uses environmental resources (electricity being the biggest one), figure out a way to create new solutions to decrease their resource use and then add the green tag for branding. As an addition, if you can provide measuring systems, you have another revenue source.

The greening of data centers seems to go the same way.

ZdNet Australia has a new article on this space.

Being green, in terms of IT and datacentres, only very superficially has anything to do with saving the environment. In reality it is about cold, hard cash — and how to spend less of it.

CIOs are facing a challenge. There is a relentless demand for more powerful datacentres and the cost of power is increasing. Combine this with increasingly strict environmental laws and the issue becomes clear — IT needs to do more with less electricity.
[...]
In order to meet these energy efficiency challenges, a series of innovations has sprung up, centred on hardware, software and datacentre design. The champion of these innovations is virtualisation.
[...]

Sun Black box project

Kumar describes a scenario in which a virtualised server moved from performing at 10 to 20 percent of its capacity to more than 80 percent capacity.

“In real power terms, a 300 Watt server which was running at 20 Watts is actually now running at 280 Watts. You are reducing the footprint but putting in more processing power, so the power per footprint has gone up,” Kumar said.

[...]

The sudden rise in green IT has created opportunities for vendors and business to profit from this blossoming market. Recent research from analyst firm Forrester has predicted that the global market for green IT will peak at US$4.8 billion in 2013, and then decline thereafter — as businesses reach peak efficiency.

Analyst group S2 intelligence predicts a potential market in “green accounting“, where firms pay to accurately measure their environmental impact. Such measurement would likely be software based, and would help to satisfy government regulation, customers and trading partners.

New opportunities beckon.

« Previous entries