By Kathleen Petrich
On February 1st, there is a Washington Clean Tech Alliance meeting on electric vehicles. I hope to attend (jury duty notwithstanding). But I saw an interesting article in the February 6th edition of Time Magazine* that caught my eye that discussed the “Plug-In Surge” and in a handy-dandy chart, analyzed seven auto offerings in the U.S. (Honda CR-Z, Mitsubishi MiEV, Hyundai Sonata Hybrid, Chevrolet Volt, Toyota Prius Plug-In, Nissan Leaf, and Chevrolet Silverado). The chart included price, range, and cost to drive the vehicle.
Obviously, the chart was not inclusive of all plug-in options available in the U.S.—followers of our blog and those on the West Coast will notice that the Tesla offerings are not mentioned. According to Time, the selection of the seven makes/models listed above was “the hottest new models”—a subjective analysis to be sure. Nonetheless, the Honda CR-Z (a hybrid, versus a pure EV) at a mere $19,545 MSRP was by and far away the least costly of all options by over $7,000 and it has a range of a respectable 392 miles. The estimated cost (according to Time) was a mere $0.29/mile based on an assumption of a 100,000 mile car life, the cost of an in-home charger for electric vehicles, and gas price of $3.38/gallon for hybrids. This was in comparison to the Nissan Leaf, which is all electric, having a MSRP of $35,200, a range of 100 miles, and a cost of $0.41/mile. The Toyota Prius Plug-in (plug-in EV/gas hybrid), having an MSRP of $32,500, has a range of 519 miles (15 miles on charge and the rest on gasoline) with a cost of $0.35/mile. The other much touted product offering—the Chevy Volt, also a plug-in EV/gas hybrid, had a range of 394 miles (35 miles on charge, the rest on gas) for a per mile cost of $0.35.
So for those who want bragging rights to the most fuel efficient based/and least costly, the Honda CR-Z was by far the best value of the seven models (if somewhat short on some passenger options) and based on my very unscientific study (my college-age son)-- the most attractive to key younger demographic buyers. While the Northwest is starting to fill up with Nissan Leafs (they are no longer the rare exception any more), I have only seen one Chevy Volt out and about. And I must say it was a looker.
For us lucky folks in the Northwest, our electricity costs are anywhere from 1/3 to more than ½ less than folks in other parts of the U.S. Much of our electricity is generated by clean hydro (as opposed to dirty fuel). But our gasoline prices at the pumps are a bit higher than the national average. So, the Time analysis rates, which were based on national cost averages, may not be quite so accurate here. But the exciting news is that there are growing attractive options. With crude oil costs currently at a little under $100/barrel, but estimated to much higher in the near future, plug-ins and hybrids will continue to gain in popularity. The many options (size, shape, carrying capacity for passengers and even loads) are welcome.
On Wednesday, I hope to hear more about the status of charging infrastructure in the Northwest. In the end, plug-ins will only gain popularity as a true gasoline alternative when one can drive them in a wide area and know that you won’t be stranded along the highway without a spark of electric charge and the costs are closer to gasoline alternatives. If I hear anything electrifying, I’ll be happy to provide a quick update.
*The Time link will only get you to the general article. You have to have a Time subscription to see the chart online or buy or borrow the February 6th news stand edition (page 13) to see the chart.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
On Disappointment
By Russ Weed
Very early in the morning on November 17, 2011, long before the sun came up, the president of smart grid company GridMobility and I drove from San Jose to SFO for a first flight back to Seattle. The prior two days, the CleanTech Open had held its national business competition.
The vehicle was thick with disappointment, because after advancing from nearly 300 entries to be among 120 regional semifinalists and then further advancing to be one of the 21 national finalists, GridMobility had won the Smart Grid category (and therefore in the top 5 nationally) but not the entire competition.
There were good reasons to be disappointed. The top prize was $250,000, which would have been handy for a start-up that has bootstrapped for over two years. (But last year had not indecent revenues from projects and pilots.) Without that funding, the entrepreneur would now take on some engineering consulting work. There was a feeling the presentation could have gone better. Subjectively, I agreed, but easy for me to say as I mentored and collaborated off-stage with the GridMobility team, including president Jim Holbery, VP operations Fred Barrett, and fellow mentors Dave Watts and Denis DuBois. Objectively, it was not helpful that in the midst of the filled ballroom, the order of the five final presentations was changed on the fly so GridMobility went first, the microphone then malfunctioned, the “times almost up” warning rang out several times halfway through the allotted time, and there was a judge on the some 20 person panel who at the onset of Q & A immediately took a distinctly partisan approach that resulted in the panel moderator shutting the judge down (that was not the end of the story, but it is for here).
But so go business competitions.
There were also good reasons NOT to be disappointed. Winning the Smart Grid category at the national level of the CleanTech Open rightfully caught the attention of the Washington cleantech community. (For another link, go to here). GridMobility is now gaining broader exposure and been identified as among the 12 Smart Grid startups to watch in 2012.
At the investment level, energy storage/smart grid was the top cleantech sector in Q3 2011 with the largest amount of capital invested, while energy efficiency was the most active sector in terms of number of deals. Large companies continue to show they will fill their product and service pipeline through acquisitions, such as Siemens’ acquisition of meter data management software company eMeter in December, and they will build vast global channels to market, such as the Global Intelligent Utility Network Coalition formed by IBM.
The smart integration of renewable energy into the grid is the subject of global attention from industry and government (see also here), and the move of Smart Grid services to the cloud is underway in earnest.
None of this is to say looking on the bright side was helpful during that very early morning drive, the air thick with disappointment. It most certainly was not. But after a time, the size and intensity of the opportunity shines through and dissipates the disappointment . . . until the next one arises and must be vanquished.
Very early in the morning on November 17, 2011, long before the sun came up, the president of smart grid company GridMobility and I drove from San Jose to SFO for a first flight back to Seattle. The prior two days, the CleanTech Open had held its national business competition.
The vehicle was thick with disappointment, because after advancing from nearly 300 entries to be among 120 regional semifinalists and then further advancing to be one of the 21 national finalists, GridMobility had won the Smart Grid category (and therefore in the top 5 nationally) but not the entire competition.
There were good reasons to be disappointed. The top prize was $250,000, which would have been handy for a start-up that has bootstrapped for over two years. (But last year had not indecent revenues from projects and pilots.) Without that funding, the entrepreneur would now take on some engineering consulting work. There was a feeling the presentation could have gone better. Subjectively, I agreed, but easy for me to say as I mentored and collaborated off-stage with the GridMobility team, including president Jim Holbery, VP operations Fred Barrett, and fellow mentors Dave Watts and Denis DuBois. Objectively, it was not helpful that in the midst of the filled ballroom, the order of the five final presentations was changed on the fly so GridMobility went first, the microphone then malfunctioned, the “times almost up” warning rang out several times halfway through the allotted time, and there was a judge on the some 20 person panel who at the onset of Q & A immediately took a distinctly partisan approach that resulted in the panel moderator shutting the judge down (that was not the end of the story, but it is for here).
But so go business competitions.
There were also good reasons NOT to be disappointed. Winning the Smart Grid category at the national level of the CleanTech Open rightfully caught the attention of the Washington cleantech community. (For another link, go to here). GridMobility is now gaining broader exposure and been identified as among the 12 Smart Grid startups to watch in 2012.
At the investment level, energy storage/smart grid was the top cleantech sector in Q3 2011 with the largest amount of capital invested, while energy efficiency was the most active sector in terms of number of deals. Large companies continue to show they will fill their product and service pipeline through acquisitions, such as Siemens’ acquisition of meter data management software company eMeter in December, and they will build vast global channels to market, such as the Global Intelligent Utility Network Coalition formed by IBM.
The smart integration of renewable energy into the grid is the subject of global attention from industry and government (see also here), and the move of Smart Grid services to the cloud is underway in earnest.
None of this is to say looking on the bright side was helpful during that very early morning drive, the air thick with disappointment. It most certainly was not. But after a time, the size and intensity of the opportunity shines through and dissipates the disappointment . . . until the next one arises and must be vanquished.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Washington’s State Energy Strategy
By Elaine Spencer
Pundits, at least pundits of a certain stripe, have long decried the fact that the United States has no energy strategy. Without a strategy, the argument goes, we are left at the whim of forces we cannot control and that will whipsaw the economy and the nation.
And so, one has to be a bit surprised, and pleased, that Washington State now has an energy strategy. Mandated by the 2010 Legislature in E2SHB 2658, on December 9, 2011, the Washington Department of Commerce submitted it to Governor Gregoire and the Legislature.
The Strategy is directed at three goals: to maintain competitive energy prices, foster a clean energy economy and jobs, and meet obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emission. It then goes on to say that it is also based on nine principles. Meaning no disrespect – but three goals and nine principles may be more words about motherhood and apple pie than are particularly useful. But turning to the Strategy itself, it focuses on three areas: transportation, buildings and distributed energy.
The choice of transportation is obvious. Transportation accounts for about half of the energy used in the state. The transportation strategy is a three-part strategy – encouraging the conversion to better vehicles, building urban and suburban areas to reduce travel, and better pricing of trips.
The most concrete and achievable part of that strategy is promoting the conversion to better vehicles. With its abundant hydropower available to charge cars all night, when the water still has to flow over the dam even if demand for electricity is greatly reduced, Washington is uniquely able to power electric cars at very little cost. The biggest deterrent to electric cars is what their makers call “battery anxiety.” Knowing that if you “run out of battery,” you can’t walk to the nearest filling station and come back with a gallon of gasoline to solve the problem seems to terrify too many people. Until people know that they can plug in their car and recharge at their destination, that fear will continue to be a major reason to stick with gasoline-powered cars. And so, Washington can make a material difference in how quickly electric cars are adopted by increasing the availability of public charging stations.
Building cities and suburbs to reduce travel demand is a longer-term and more difficult problem. It involves encouraging greater density, which is essential to making transit viable, building bike and pedestrian facilities so that there are alternatives to getting in a car for a lot of trips, pricing parking to make walking, biking or transit more attractive, increasing brownfield redevelopment rather than sending new development outward, and developing integrated multi-modal systems, so that it is easier to take transit when you need to switch between modes of travel.
“Better pricing of trips” is in part code for tolls. It also starts to get at a central problem of our transportation financing system in Washington, which is that it relies very heavily on the gas tax, which is collected by the gallon. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, they travel further per gallon. The whole point of electric cars is that they don’t use any gallons at all. And yet the demands on the roadways are the same whether a mile of travel used a tenth of a gallon of gas or a fiftieth of a gallon of gas, or no gas at all. Ultimately the state will have to develop a revenue source based on how much its roads are used, rather than how much gasoline was used by the traveling public.
Turning to buildings, residential buildings are the second largest user of energy in the state. The Strategy focuses on three issues. The first is to attempt to get people to value energy efficiency. One way to do that is to make energy efficiency of a building visible to buyers, tenants and lenders, all of whom presumably will not attach value to energy efficiency if they have no way of understanding it when they are making purchase, loan and rental decisions. That strategy would broaden the scope and reach of requirements such as the City of Seattle adopted that require building owners to perform energy audits of their buildings and disclose the outcome of the audits to buyers, lenders and tenants (Oct 27, 2011 post). The building strategy also recognizes, however, that even when a building owner knows that energy improvements could be made, without financing it is less likely that the improvements will be made. Finally, it recognizes that low-income dwellings are both likely to have the greatest potential for energy improvement and least likely to actually have those improvements made. Thus it seeks to elevate the priority of low-income weatherization programs and subsidies.
Finally, the Strategy discusses distributed energy. As explained in two earlier posts (Nov 28, 2011 post and Dec 2, 2011 post), distributed energy is both potentially a huge source of energy, and mind-numbingly difficult to implement on a broad scale because it collides with a wide variety of entrenched competing interests. The Strategy promises to address the complexities, but for obvious reasons, doesn’t do so at this point.
What to say about Washington’s Energy Strategy? First, there is a pretty good argument that having a strategy is like starting a journey with a map in hand – if you just start the journey without a map, you will end up somewhere; but you are more likely to end up where you wanted to be if you have a map. So, in that sense, the Energy Strategy is good to have. But, the journey to a sensible and sustainable energy future is not like most journeys. It has a lot more bumps in the road; it is a lot more like a maze than a highway, and will depend on the consistent political will to follow the roadmap over a longer period than the political process can usually remain focused. Thus it is good to have the Strategy in place. But its ultimate utility will be determined by how consistently it is used over the next several decades.
Pundits, at least pundits of a certain stripe, have long decried the fact that the United States has no energy strategy. Without a strategy, the argument goes, we are left at the whim of forces we cannot control and that will whipsaw the economy and the nation.
And so, one has to be a bit surprised, and pleased, that Washington State now has an energy strategy. Mandated by the 2010 Legislature in E2SHB 2658, on December 9, 2011, the Washington Department of Commerce submitted it to Governor Gregoire and the Legislature.
The Strategy is directed at three goals: to maintain competitive energy prices, foster a clean energy economy and jobs, and meet obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emission. It then goes on to say that it is also based on nine principles. Meaning no disrespect – but three goals and nine principles may be more words about motherhood and apple pie than are particularly useful. But turning to the Strategy itself, it focuses on three areas: transportation, buildings and distributed energy.
The choice of transportation is obvious. Transportation accounts for about half of the energy used in the state. The transportation strategy is a three-part strategy – encouraging the conversion to better vehicles, building urban and suburban areas to reduce travel, and better pricing of trips.
The most concrete and achievable part of that strategy is promoting the conversion to better vehicles. With its abundant hydropower available to charge cars all night, when the water still has to flow over the dam even if demand for electricity is greatly reduced, Washington is uniquely able to power electric cars at very little cost. The biggest deterrent to electric cars is what their makers call “battery anxiety.” Knowing that if you “run out of battery,” you can’t walk to the nearest filling station and come back with a gallon of gasoline to solve the problem seems to terrify too many people. Until people know that they can plug in their car and recharge at their destination, that fear will continue to be a major reason to stick with gasoline-powered cars. And so, Washington can make a material difference in how quickly electric cars are adopted by increasing the availability of public charging stations.
Building cities and suburbs to reduce travel demand is a longer-term and more difficult problem. It involves encouraging greater density, which is essential to making transit viable, building bike and pedestrian facilities so that there are alternatives to getting in a car for a lot of trips, pricing parking to make walking, biking or transit more attractive, increasing brownfield redevelopment rather than sending new development outward, and developing integrated multi-modal systems, so that it is easier to take transit when you need to switch between modes of travel.
“Better pricing of trips” is in part code for tolls. It also starts to get at a central problem of our transportation financing system in Washington, which is that it relies very heavily on the gas tax, which is collected by the gallon. As vehicles become more fuel efficient, they travel further per gallon. The whole point of electric cars is that they don’t use any gallons at all. And yet the demands on the roadways are the same whether a mile of travel used a tenth of a gallon of gas or a fiftieth of a gallon of gas, or no gas at all. Ultimately the state will have to develop a revenue source based on how much its roads are used, rather than how much gasoline was used by the traveling public.
Turning to buildings, residential buildings are the second largest user of energy in the state. The Strategy focuses on three issues. The first is to attempt to get people to value energy efficiency. One way to do that is to make energy efficiency of a building visible to buyers, tenants and lenders, all of whom presumably will not attach value to energy efficiency if they have no way of understanding it when they are making purchase, loan and rental decisions. That strategy would broaden the scope and reach of requirements such as the City of Seattle adopted that require building owners to perform energy audits of their buildings and disclose the outcome of the audits to buyers, lenders and tenants (Oct 27, 2011 post). The building strategy also recognizes, however, that even when a building owner knows that energy improvements could be made, without financing it is less likely that the improvements will be made. Finally, it recognizes that low-income dwellings are both likely to have the greatest potential for energy improvement and least likely to actually have those improvements made. Thus it seeks to elevate the priority of low-income weatherization programs and subsidies.
Finally, the Strategy discusses distributed energy. As explained in two earlier posts (Nov 28, 2011 post and Dec 2, 2011 post), distributed energy is both potentially a huge source of energy, and mind-numbingly difficult to implement on a broad scale because it collides with a wide variety of entrenched competing interests. The Strategy promises to address the complexities, but for obvious reasons, doesn’t do so at this point.
What to say about Washington’s Energy Strategy? First, there is a pretty good argument that having a strategy is like starting a journey with a map in hand – if you just start the journey without a map, you will end up somewhere; but you are more likely to end up where you wanted to be if you have a map. So, in that sense, the Energy Strategy is good to have. But, the journey to a sensible and sustainable energy future is not like most journeys. It has a lot more bumps in the road; it is a lot more like a maze than a highway, and will depend on the consistent political will to follow the roadmap over a longer period than the political process can usually remain focused. Thus it is good to have the Strategy in place. But its ultimate utility will be determined by how consistently it is used over the next several decades.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The Top Five Cleantech Stories of 2011, Part III
By Denny Wong
Finally, we come to the number one cleantech story of 2011. And the honor goes to - drum roll, please - Solyndra. If you did not follow this story in 2011, don’t worry. You will have plenty of opportunities to do so in 2012. Solyndra is a story that will continue to be in the news until at least the presidential elections in November.
Solyndra is the manufacturer of industrial solar panels that filed for bankruptcy protection in early September of 2011. Since the company had a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, the bankruptcy filing means that taxpayers are the ones who will have to repay most, if not all, of the guaranteed loan.
Solyndra’s original application to participate in the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program was denied in January of 2009, before President Obama formally took office. The reason given for the denial was that there were “several areas where the information presented did not thoroughly support a finding that the project is ready to be approved at this time.” The application was returned, without prejudice, “for further development of information.” In March of 2009, however, shortly after President Obama took office, the Department of Energy made a conditional commitment to guarantee a $535 million loan that would enable the company to construct a solar panel manufacturing facility. In 2010, as construction of the facility neared completion, President Obama made a highly publicized visit to the company to tout it as an example of the new green economy. A little more than a year after the visit, the company announced that it was filing for bankruptcy protection. When Solyndra’s executives were summoned to appear before a Congressional committee investigating what happened, they repeatedly invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions that were put to them.
Critics of the current administration note that several of the company’s shareholders and executives made substantial contributions to President Obama’s campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money lobbying, and that the company’s executives had many meetings with White House officials. Moreover, they note that a number of President Obama’s own advisors had serious doubts about the financial viability of Solyndra, even as he was holding it up as a shining example of his energy policies.
All of this provides plenty of fodder for the President’s critics. In fact, just a few days ago former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, to make the point that he would be a better steward of the economy, contrasted his purported successes as a venture capitalist with “the President’s investment in Solyndra.” There will be more of that to come once the Republicans pick their presidential candidate and the two parties truly join battle.
While the Solyndra story alone will not decide the 2012 presidential election, it will receive more than a few mentions in the upcoming presidential debates. Because of this, we have chosen it as the number one cleantech story of 2011.
Finally, we come to the number one cleantech story of 2011. And the honor goes to - drum roll, please - Solyndra. If you did not follow this story in 2011, don’t worry. You will have plenty of opportunities to do so in 2012. Solyndra is a story that will continue to be in the news until at least the presidential elections in November.
Solyndra is the manufacturer of industrial solar panels that filed for bankruptcy protection in early September of 2011. Since the company had a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, the bankruptcy filing means that taxpayers are the ones who will have to repay most, if not all, of the guaranteed loan.
Solyndra’s original application to participate in the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program was denied in January of 2009, before President Obama formally took office. The reason given for the denial was that there were “several areas where the information presented did not thoroughly support a finding that the project is ready to be approved at this time.” The application was returned, without prejudice, “for further development of information.” In March of 2009, however, shortly after President Obama took office, the Department of Energy made a conditional commitment to guarantee a $535 million loan that would enable the company to construct a solar panel manufacturing facility. In 2010, as construction of the facility neared completion, President Obama made a highly publicized visit to the company to tout it as an example of the new green economy. A little more than a year after the visit, the company announced that it was filing for bankruptcy protection. When Solyndra’s executives were summoned to appear before a Congressional committee investigating what happened, they repeatedly invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions that were put to them.
Critics of the current administration note that several of the company’s shareholders and executives made substantial contributions to President Obama’s campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money lobbying, and that the company’s executives had many meetings with White House officials. Moreover, they note that a number of President Obama’s own advisors had serious doubts about the financial viability of Solyndra, even as he was holding it up as a shining example of his energy policies.
All of this provides plenty of fodder for the President’s critics. In fact, just a few days ago former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, to make the point that he would be a better steward of the economy, contrasted his purported successes as a venture capitalist with “the President’s investment in Solyndra.” There will be more of that to come once the Republicans pick their presidential candidate and the two parties truly join battle.
While the Solyndra story alone will not decide the 2012 presidential election, it will receive more than a few mentions in the upcoming presidential debates. Because of this, we have chosen it as the number one cleantech story of 2011.
Friday, January 6, 2012
The Top Five Cleantech Stories of 2011, Part II
By Zach Hiatt
Continuing with our countdown of the Top Five Cleantech Stories from 2011, here are entries number 3 and 2:
Number 3: The Resurgence of Bio Fuels in the Pacific Northwest
Several years ago, the city of Portland, Oregon mandated that all diesel fuel sold within the city limits contain at least 5% biodiesel (also known as B5). Portland was the first city in the nation to impose such a mandate. Portland officials have since hailed the mandate as a “raging success,” and claim it has created new jobs and businesses in Oregon. Following Portland’s lead, Oregon imposed a state-wide 2% biodiesel (B2) mandate in 2010. Although Washington does not require that all diesel sold be at least B2, it has required for several years that biodiesel sales amount at least 2% of all diesel sold in the state. See RCW 19.112.110.
These government mandates, and others like them in British Columbia, have provided a needed shot in the arm to the Pacific Northwest’s biofuels industry, which experienced a resurgence in 2011. This resurgence may be best exemplified by Imperium Renewables, a Seattle-based company recently profiled in the Seattle Times. Back in 2007, Imperium became one of the nation’s largest biodiesel producers when it opened a plant in Grays Harbor, Washington capable of producing more than 100 million gallons of biodiesel per year. But by 2009, the Grays Harbor plant had fallen on tough economic times and laid off most of its workers. Another two years later, Imperium has turned things around, thanks in part to increased demand for biodiesel right here in the Northwest. The company posted record profits in 2011, and its founder and CEO, John Plaza, expects 2012 to be even better. The biodiesel mandates in Oregon and Washington, along with a similar federal mandate in 2012 and beyond, appear to be securing the future of the Northwest’s biofuels industry.
Number 2: What Climate Change?!
If climate change is one of the most important global issues in a generation, you might not have guessed it in 2011. As a result, entry #2 on our Top 5 list is not so much a story as it is a non-story. That’s not to say there weren’t any developments on the climate change front in 2011, because there certainly were. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continued to take steps in 2011 to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. And on the international front, delegates of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) met in Durban, South Africa in November/December to continue negotiating an international climate agreement. Unfortunately, the UNFCCC talks failed once again to yield an international agreement, and the biggest news out of Durban was Canada’s decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. In perhaps an unwitting commentary on the difficulties on this front in 2011, the UFCCC nonetheless hailed the Durban conference a “breakthough” by virtue of the fact that the delegates at least agreed to enter into an agreement at a later time.
Here in the U.S., cap-and-trade climate change legislation was pronounced officially d-e-a-d in 2011 (just kidding, but not really) thanks in large part to a weak economy and a divided, dysfunctional Congress. And just when cap-and-trade proponents thought things couldn’t get any worse, major presidential candidates started making news by reverting back to questing the science behind anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, 2011 was a far cry from the “old days” of 2009 when the House of Representatives passed a comprehensive climate change bill, and President Obama himself was showing up at UNFCCC meetings to hammer out international agreements. With an election cycle coming up in November, we can probably expect more non-stories on climate change in 2012…
Please stay tuned next week for our #1 Cleantech Story of 2011!
Continuing with our countdown of the Top Five Cleantech Stories from 2011, here are entries number 3 and 2:
Number 3: The Resurgence of Bio Fuels in the Pacific Northwest
Several years ago, the city of Portland, Oregon mandated that all diesel fuel sold within the city limits contain at least 5% biodiesel (also known as B5). Portland was the first city in the nation to impose such a mandate. Portland officials have since hailed the mandate as a “raging success,” and claim it has created new jobs and businesses in Oregon. Following Portland’s lead, Oregon imposed a state-wide 2% biodiesel (B2) mandate in 2010. Although Washington does not require that all diesel sold be at least B2, it has required for several years that biodiesel sales amount at least 2% of all diesel sold in the state. See RCW 19.112.110.
These government mandates, and others like them in British Columbia, have provided a needed shot in the arm to the Pacific Northwest’s biofuels industry, which experienced a resurgence in 2011. This resurgence may be best exemplified by Imperium Renewables, a Seattle-based company recently profiled in the Seattle Times. Back in 2007, Imperium became one of the nation’s largest biodiesel producers when it opened a plant in Grays Harbor, Washington capable of producing more than 100 million gallons of biodiesel per year. But by 2009, the Grays Harbor plant had fallen on tough economic times and laid off most of its workers. Another two years later, Imperium has turned things around, thanks in part to increased demand for biodiesel right here in the Northwest. The company posted record profits in 2011, and its founder and CEO, John Plaza, expects 2012 to be even better. The biodiesel mandates in Oregon and Washington, along with a similar federal mandate in 2012 and beyond, appear to be securing the future of the Northwest’s biofuels industry.
Number 2: What Climate Change?!
If climate change is one of the most important global issues in a generation, you might not have guessed it in 2011. As a result, entry #2 on our Top 5 list is not so much a story as it is a non-story. That’s not to say there weren’t any developments on the climate change front in 2011, because there certainly were. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continued to take steps in 2011 to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. And on the international front, delegates of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) met in Durban, South Africa in November/December to continue negotiating an international climate agreement. Unfortunately, the UNFCCC talks failed once again to yield an international agreement, and the biggest news out of Durban was Canada’s decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. In perhaps an unwitting commentary on the difficulties on this front in 2011, the UFCCC nonetheless hailed the Durban conference a “breakthough” by virtue of the fact that the delegates at least agreed to enter into an agreement at a later time.
Here in the U.S., cap-and-trade climate change legislation was pronounced officially d-e-a-d in 2011 (just kidding, but not really) thanks in large part to a weak economy and a divided, dysfunctional Congress. And just when cap-and-trade proponents thought things couldn’t get any worse, major presidential candidates started making news by reverting back to questing the science behind anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, 2011 was a far cry from the “old days” of 2009 when the House of Representatives passed a comprehensive climate change bill, and President Obama himself was showing up at UNFCCC meetings to hammer out international agreements. With an election cycle coming up in November, we can probably expect more non-stories on climate change in 2012…
Please stay tuned next week for our #1 Cleantech Story of 2011!
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The Top Five Cleantech Stories of 2011, Part I
By Zach Hiatt
The end-of-year holidays are all about family gatherings, religious celebration, retail mania, and of course, lots and lots of calories! But they are also a time to pause and take stock of the year gone by—to reflect upon our successes and failures, and then “resolve” to improve ourselves in the year to come. As our Cleantech practice team counts down the final days until the New Year, we’ve attempted to reflect upon the year that was by recounting the Top Five Cleantech Stories of 2011. These five stories (themes, really) are not intended to be a comprehensive list of everything that happened in the Cleantech/Greentech sector in 2011, but are simply our impression of the major events and themes from 2011.
Without further ado, here’s Part I of the list, counting down from 5th to 1st:
Number 5: Venture Capital Continues to Flow into Cleantech as Sector Matures
According to investment statistics contained in the Q3 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree report, 2011 is shaping up to be another strong year for venture capital investment in CleanTech. Through the first three quarters of 2011, the Cleantech sector (which crosses several traditional MoneyTree industries and includes alternative energy, pollution and recycling, power supplies and conservation) was the third leading sector for venture capital investment, behind only software and biotech. After surging in 2008, venture capital investment in Cleantech slowed in 2009 and then rebounded to near-2008 levels in 2010. Assuming the 4th quarter of 2011 is generally on par with the first three quarters, this year will see slightly more venture capital flowing to Cleantech than in 2010. Through the first three quarters of 2011, $3.073 billion in venture capital has been directed to Cleantech investments. By comparison, $3.755 billion in venture capital went to Cleantech ventures in all of 2010. Although it appears 2011 will still outpace 2010, Cleantech investments were down 13% from Q2 to Q3 this year, potentially signaling a softening in this sector. This 3rd quarter downturn, combined with the relatively steady level of venture capital investment from 2010 to 2011, has led at least one analyst to call the trend for the Cleantech sector “flat” to slightly down.
Number 4: The (Continued) Emergence of China as a Cleantech Force
China has long been considered an important player in the Cleantech sector, if for no other reason than because China is one of the world’s foremost polluters (along with the United States) and presents a potentially-huge market for cleaner, greener technologies. And of course, China is a major manufacturing center for various industries, including Cleantech. In 2011, China has emerged as more than just a market and manufacturing hub for green technologies; it is also becoming a major source of capital investment in Cleantech, including both private and government-backed investments. According to the Cleantech Group, China-based Cleantech start-ups raised $176 million in Q2 2011 and $138 million in Q3 2011, which was far more than they had raised in previous quarters. From this, a recent article in Forbes notes that at the same time investment firms worldwide are committing more capital to China, Chinese venture capital firms appear to be investing more in Cleantech. One of the primary reasons for this increased private investment appears to be the Chinese government’s pro-Cleantech policies, which include everything from government-backed financing to fast-tracking permits for Cleantech projects. During the next decade, China is predicted to spend between $440 and $660 billion on Cleantech investments – that’s roughly $50 billion per year, or about 12 times the amount of venture capital coming from U.S. firms (discussed above) during the banner year of 2008!
Stay tuned as we “venture” into our Top 3 Cleantech stories of 2011…
The end-of-year holidays are all about family gatherings, religious celebration, retail mania, and of course, lots and lots of calories! But they are also a time to pause and take stock of the year gone by—to reflect upon our successes and failures, and then “resolve” to improve ourselves in the year to come. As our Cleantech practice team counts down the final days until the New Year, we’ve attempted to reflect upon the year that was by recounting the Top Five Cleantech Stories of 2011. These five stories (themes, really) are not intended to be a comprehensive list of everything that happened in the Cleantech/Greentech sector in 2011, but are simply our impression of the major events and themes from 2011.
Without further ado, here’s Part I of the list, counting down from 5th to 1st:
Number 5: Venture Capital Continues to Flow into Cleantech as Sector Matures
According to investment statistics contained in the Q3 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers/National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree report, 2011 is shaping up to be another strong year for venture capital investment in CleanTech. Through the first three quarters of 2011, the Cleantech sector (which crosses several traditional MoneyTree industries and includes alternative energy, pollution and recycling, power supplies and conservation) was the third leading sector for venture capital investment, behind only software and biotech. After surging in 2008, venture capital investment in Cleantech slowed in 2009 and then rebounded to near-2008 levels in 2010. Assuming the 4th quarter of 2011 is generally on par with the first three quarters, this year will see slightly more venture capital flowing to Cleantech than in 2010. Through the first three quarters of 2011, $3.073 billion in venture capital has been directed to Cleantech investments. By comparison, $3.755 billion in venture capital went to Cleantech ventures in all of 2010. Although it appears 2011 will still outpace 2010, Cleantech investments were down 13% from Q2 to Q3 this year, potentially signaling a softening in this sector. This 3rd quarter downturn, combined with the relatively steady level of venture capital investment from 2010 to 2011, has led at least one analyst to call the trend for the Cleantech sector “flat” to slightly down.
Number 4: The (Continued) Emergence of China as a Cleantech Force
China has long been considered an important player in the Cleantech sector, if for no other reason than because China is one of the world’s foremost polluters (along with the United States) and presents a potentially-huge market for cleaner, greener technologies. And of course, China is a major manufacturing center for various industries, including Cleantech. In 2011, China has emerged as more than just a market and manufacturing hub for green technologies; it is also becoming a major source of capital investment in Cleantech, including both private and government-backed investments. According to the Cleantech Group, China-based Cleantech start-ups raised $176 million in Q2 2011 and $138 million in Q3 2011, which was far more than they had raised in previous quarters. From this, a recent article in Forbes notes that at the same time investment firms worldwide are committing more capital to China, Chinese venture capital firms appear to be investing more in Cleantech. One of the primary reasons for this increased private investment appears to be the Chinese government’s pro-Cleantech policies, which include everything from government-backed financing to fast-tracking permits for Cleantech projects. During the next decade, China is predicted to spend between $440 and $660 billion on Cleantech investments – that’s roughly $50 billion per year, or about 12 times the amount of venture capital coming from U.S. firms (discussed above) during the banner year of 2008!
Stay tuned as we “venture” into our Top 3 Cleantech stories of 2011…
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Washington Team Gets Funding to Push Solar Power
By Judy Endejan
Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) awarded a Washington team $520,000 to accelerate the use of solar power in Washington. This money is to be used to target the “soft costs” of solar energy. Soft costs include permitting, installation, design and maintenance and they make up 40 to 50 percent of the total cost of installed rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems in the U.S.
The Washington team includes the cities of Seattle, Bellevue, Edmonds and Ellensburg; Seattle City Light; Snohomish Public Utilities District; Puget Sound Energy; Northwest SEED; Solar WA; Thurston Energy and Sustainable Connections. The team’s goal is to streamline processes involved in solar power such as permitting, zoning, net metering and interconnection. Contemplated projects include developing an online permitting system and shorter permitting turnaround times.
Currently, over 18,000 local jurisdictions in the U.S. have their own PV permitting requirements, land use codes and zoning ordinances. Furthermore, states and utilities have their own standards for connecting and selling energy back to the energy grid.
The $520,000 grant is part of the DOE’s “Sunshot Initiative” that has four components, one of which is improving the efficiency of installation, design and permitting solar energy systems. The Sunshot Initiative’s goal is to bring the total cost of solar energy systems down by about 75 percent to roughly $1.00 a watt by 2020. This would make large-scale solar energy costs competitive with the electricity from fossil fuels. The other three prongs of the Sunshot Initiative include advancing technologies for the solar cells and systems that convert sunlight into energy; optimizing the performance of solar installation and improving the efficiency of the solar system manufacturing processes.
The DOE has invested more than $1 billion over the past ten years in solar energy research and development, including the ill-fated Solyndra Initiative that filed for bankruptcy earlier in 2011.
In the energy community, PV electricity has long been viewed as a highly promising energy alternative to traditional high carbon electrical sources. However, PV electricity costs much more at the current time than traditional energy sources. The next blog will examine further PV costs and why they are so high.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) awarded a Washington team $520,000 to accelerate the use of solar power in Washington. This money is to be used to target the “soft costs” of solar energy. Soft costs include permitting, installation, design and maintenance and they make up 40 to 50 percent of the total cost of installed rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems in the U.S.
The Washington team includes the cities of Seattle, Bellevue, Edmonds and Ellensburg; Seattle City Light; Snohomish Public Utilities District; Puget Sound Energy; Northwest SEED; Solar WA; Thurston Energy and Sustainable Connections. The team’s goal is to streamline processes involved in solar power such as permitting, zoning, net metering and interconnection. Contemplated projects include developing an online permitting system and shorter permitting turnaround times.
Currently, over 18,000 local jurisdictions in the U.S. have their own PV permitting requirements, land use codes and zoning ordinances. Furthermore, states and utilities have their own standards for connecting and selling energy back to the energy grid.
The $520,000 grant is part of the DOE’s “Sunshot Initiative” that has four components, one of which is improving the efficiency of installation, design and permitting solar energy systems. The Sunshot Initiative’s goal is to bring the total cost of solar energy systems down by about 75 percent to roughly $1.00 a watt by 2020. This would make large-scale solar energy costs competitive with the electricity from fossil fuels. The other three prongs of the Sunshot Initiative include advancing technologies for the solar cells and systems that convert sunlight into energy; optimizing the performance of solar installation and improving the efficiency of the solar system manufacturing processes.
The DOE has invested more than $1 billion over the past ten years in solar energy research and development, including the ill-fated Solyndra Initiative that filed for bankruptcy earlier in 2011.
In the energy community, PV electricity has long been viewed as a highly promising energy alternative to traditional high carbon electrical sources. However, PV electricity costs much more at the current time than traditional energy sources. The next blog will examine further PV costs and why they are so high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)