EBay, Google, Walmart among customers for fuel cell system
Hundreds of fuel cells are stacked inside each of the Bloom Energy Servers seen at eBay's corporate campus in San Jose, Calif.
Bloom Energy
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 12:40 p.m. ET, Wed., Feb. 24, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO - A secretive Silicon Valley startup on Wednesday took the wraps off its cleaner energy product: a fuel cell "server" the size of a parking space that it hopes will allow homes and businesses to generate their own electricity.
Bloom Energy introduced its devices at eBay Inc. headquarters in San Jose, Calif., joined by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and several of its early customers.
"We believe that we can have the same kind of impact on energy that the mobile phone had on communications," CEO K.R. Sridhar, a former NASA scientist, said in a statement. "Just as cell phones circumvented landlines to proliferate telephony, Bloom Energy will enable the adoption of distributed power as a smarter, localized energy source.
"Our customers are the cornerstone of that vision," he added, "and we are thrilled to be working with industry leading companies to lower their energy costs, reduce their carbon footprint, improve their energy security, and showcase their commitment to a better future."
EBay as well as Google, Inc., have been testing the server at their corporate campuses, and other customers announced Wednesday include Bank of America, Coca-Cola, FedEx Express, Staples and Walmart.
The technology had been the subject of intense anticipation because it promises to produce more power — with less environmental damage — than other fuel cells on the market.
"Each system generates enough power to meet the needs of approximately 100 average U.S. homes or a small office building," Bloom Energy stated. "For more power, customers simply deploy multiple Energy Servers side by side."
The company said its patented technology "is fundamentally different from the legacy 'hydrogen' fuel cells most people are familiar with" in four primary ways:
it uses lower cost materials;
is more efficient in converting fuel to electricity;
can run on a wide range of renewable or traditional fuels; and
is more easily set up and maintained.
Customers "can expect a 3-5 year payback on their capital investment from the energy cost savings." Bloom Energy stated. "Depending on whether they are using a fossil or renewable fuel, they can also achieve a 40-100 percent reduction in their carbon footprint as compared with the U.S. grid."
"Even running on a fossil fuel," it added, "the systems are approximately 67 percent cleaner than a typical coal-fired power plant. When powered by a renewable fuel, they can be 100 percent cleaner."
Niche areas for now?
Yet analysts warn that the technology has yet to be widely proven.
"Fuel cells have always held the promise that they're going to be this huge thing, but so far it hasn't really materialized," said Shu Sun, an energy technologies analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance. "What we are seeing is some of these fuel cell companies are making inroads into niche industries."
A 2008 study by his firm found that the fuel cell market would reach $1.5 billion by 2015, primarily in wireless telecommunications, recreational vehicles and midsize "distributed generation," which refers to fuel cells that would power, say, a block of apartments rather than individual homes.
Fuel cells themselves aren't new. Scientists have been working on them since the 1800s, and they are used today in the space program, telecommunications and the military. They haven't caught on widely for residential use largely because of costs.
Even in Japan, where fuel cells are more common, their use is limited to powering smaller devices because those cells don't generate a lot of energy, said Dallas Kachan, managing director of the Cleantech Group, a research and consulting firm.
Kachan said Bloom Energy's product offers a "glimpse at this possible nirvana" of placing cells that can generate huge amounts of power closer to where the power is being used. Large technology companies could attach them to their computing centers, which can be energy hogs.
Google cites payoff
For instance, Google said Bloom Energy's fuel cells are helping to power some of the facilities at the company's headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. In 18 months, those cells produced 3.8 million kilowatt-hours of electricity — many more times the 16,500 kWh the average U.S. household consumes over that same period.
Kachan said Bloom Energy's technology is exciting because of the amount of power it can produce and its ability to run on a variety of fuels, including renewable energy sources.
Fuel cells make power through chemical reactions, but they need fuel themselves to work. Instead of only being able to use hydrogen, Bloom Energy cells can use natural gas, wind, solar power and whatever else is available, which could vary from community to community.
Kachan also was drawn to the cells' relatively low cost. The boxes that businesses are buying currently cost $700,000 or more, but the company hopes to have the price down to just a few thousand dollars for residential customers.
Bloom Energy, which is based in Sunnyvale, has lured a high amount of venture capital — around $400 million, its co-founder and CEO, K.R. Sridhar, told the "60 Minutes" news show in a segment that aired last Sunday.
Kachan said he is "cautiously optimistic."
"With $400 million having gone to this company, there are some exciting claims, but like everything else out of Silicon Valley, the market will separate fact from fiction, and will prove claims versus reality," he said.
CEO Sridhar, who earlier worked on fuel cells while at NASA's Mars space program, says his goal is nothing short of this: "making clean, reliable energy affordable for everyone in the world."
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
AT&T's Alternative Fuel Fleet is 1,000 Strong
GOOD Blog > Mother Nature Network on February 23, 2010 at 12:30 pm PST
Recently, the Environmental Defense Fund launched a campaign to encourage business owners to improve their corporate fleet efficiency. Telecommunications giant AT&T is already ahead of the game in this arena. Last week, the company announced that it had placed its 1,000th alternative-fuel vehicle into service. This milestone vehicle is a van that operates on compressed natural gas (CNG) in the Oakland, Calif., market.
According to Jerome Webber, vice president of AT&T Fleet Operations, “The deployment of our 1,000th alternative-fuel vehicle signals a demand for cleaner alternative fuels that are less volatile in cost and that can be tapped here in America, right now.”
AT&T has more than 77,000 vehicles in its fleet but is in the middle of a 10-year, $565 million project that will replace more than 15,000 of these vehicles with more fuel-efficient models. This new project began in 2009 and will be complete in 2018.
The company plans to spend about $350 million for 8,000 compressed natural gas vehicles. The vehicles will be sourced from a domestic automaker and then a U.S.-based third party will convert the vehicles to run on CNG. In addition, AT&T will work with natural gas companies in the construction of up to 40 new CNG fueling stations.
AT&T is also planning to spend $215 million for 7,100 alternative-fuel passenger vehicles. The initial phase will consist of the fleet’s current passenger vehicles being replaced with hybrid vehicles. As electric vehicles and other alternative fuel options become available, AT&T will reassess their plans.
These fleet changes will save 49 million gallons of gasoline during the 10-year program period and reduce carbon emissions by 211,000 metric tons. For comparison, this would be the same as removing more than 38,000 passenger vehicles from the road for one year.
The program may also create or save nearly 1,000 jobs in the first five years alone. AT&T’s research shows that these 1,000 jobs will have an average annual compensation of $55 million and generate nearly $9 million in annual tax revenue. At a time when unemployment is hovering near record highs, anything that can create new jobs while reducing a company’s environmental footprint is welcome
Read more: http://www.good.is/post/at-t-s-alternative-fuel-fleet-is-1-000-strong/#ixzz0gZIklz1V
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Recently, the Environmental Defense Fund launched a campaign to encourage business owners to improve their corporate fleet efficiency. Telecommunications giant AT&T is already ahead of the game in this arena. Last week, the company announced that it had placed its 1,000th alternative-fuel vehicle into service. This milestone vehicle is a van that operates on compressed natural gas (CNG) in the Oakland, Calif., market.
According to Jerome Webber, vice president of AT&T Fleet Operations, “The deployment of our 1,000th alternative-fuel vehicle signals a demand for cleaner alternative fuels that are less volatile in cost and that can be tapped here in America, right now.”
AT&T has more than 77,000 vehicles in its fleet but is in the middle of a 10-year, $565 million project that will replace more than 15,000 of these vehicles with more fuel-efficient models. This new project began in 2009 and will be complete in 2018.
The company plans to spend about $350 million for 8,000 compressed natural gas vehicles. The vehicles will be sourced from a domestic automaker and then a U.S.-based third party will convert the vehicles to run on CNG. In addition, AT&T will work with natural gas companies in the construction of up to 40 new CNG fueling stations.
AT&T is also planning to spend $215 million for 7,100 alternative-fuel passenger vehicles. The initial phase will consist of the fleet’s current passenger vehicles being replaced with hybrid vehicles. As electric vehicles and other alternative fuel options become available, AT&T will reassess their plans.
These fleet changes will save 49 million gallons of gasoline during the 10-year program period and reduce carbon emissions by 211,000 metric tons. For comparison, this would be the same as removing more than 38,000 passenger vehicles from the road for one year.
The program may also create or save nearly 1,000 jobs in the first five years alone. AT&T’s research shows that these 1,000 jobs will have an average annual compensation of $55 million and generate nearly $9 million in annual tax revenue. At a time when unemployment is hovering near record highs, anything that can create new jobs while reducing a company’s environmental footprint is welcome
Read more: http://www.good.is/post/at-t-s-alternative-fuel-fleet-is-1-000-strong/#ixzz0gZIklz1V
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
In Wyoming, Debate Swirls on Taxing Wind Industry
In Wyoming, Debate Swirls on Taxing Wind Industry
By DAN FROSCH
Published: February 20, 2010
With currents of powerful wind gusts whipping across its plains and plateaus, Wyoming has become a new frontier for the wind industry — the latest energy development for a state that only recently experienced a natural gas boom.
Associated Press
Turbines in Wyoming, where a bill under consideration in the Legislature would levy an excise tax on wind energy production.
But in a place that is both cautious about such growth and interested in the potential benefits, some believe that those behind the wave of wind farms and turbines need to pay their fair share.
A new bill being pushed by Gov. Dave Freudenthal would change the state’s renewable energy landscape by levying an excise tax on wind energy production, the first tax of its kind in the United States, energy experts say.
The proposal, which was approved by the Wyoming House of Representatives on Thursday and is headed to the State Senate for a vote, would impose a $1-per-megawatt-hour tax on wind energy production. Revenue from the tax is projected at a minimum of $4 million annually, to be divided between the counties where the wind projects are located and the state. The tax would go into effect in 2012.
“We want to make sure that wind developers pay their way in Wyoming and that the tax burden isn’t shifted to the taxpayers,” said Ryan Lance, deputy chief of staff for Mr. Freudenthal, a Democrat. “These guys are making a lot of money, and we get all the impact — environmental and socioeconomic.”
But wind energy industry leaders in Wyoming worry that the tax will scare off developers at a critical time in the industry’s genesis, particularly when other states are taking the opposite tack and creating incentives to lure wind projects and jobs.
“We’re very much against this,” said Cheryl Riley, executive director of the Wyoming Power Producers Coalition, a group of 15 wind and transmission developers. “We think this sends a negative message that Wyoming may not want wind development.”
“I think there’s great potential for wind energy development here, but until some of these issues, specifically that of taxation, are worked out, Wyoming won’t see its full potential reached,” Ms. Riley said.
Wyoming is the eighth-windiest state in the country — Texas is the windiest — and gusts here are renowned for their strength and duration. According to the American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, Wyoming ranks 12th nationally in wind power installations, and the electricity it generated from wind projects in 2009 was nearly double that of the previous year.
But with the recent sunset of a sales tax exemption for the industry and no property tax exemptions, the excise tax could cripple Wyoming’s competitiveness for wind energy projects, Ms. Riley said.
“Putting a tax on the air really makes Wyoming an unfriendly state for wind energy,” said Denise Bode, chief executive for AWEA. “We urge them to take some time to work with the industry to try and address any concerns. Being No. 1 in something is not necessarily the best way to go, particularly when it comes to increasing taxes in a promising new industry.”
But State Senator Jim Anderson, a Republican from Converse and Platte Counties who was chairman of a state legislative task force on wind energy, said the tax could be imposed at a low level and could always be adjusted later.
“We recognize that Wyoming has some of the best wind in the world,” said Mr. Anderson, who supports the legislation. “We feel in comparison with the way we’ve taxed the petroleum and extractive industries, the wind industry needs to pay its fair share.”
Other supporters have said the tax offers a rare opportunity to diversify Wyoming’s tax base. Mr. Lance, of Mr. Freudenthal’s office, said the governor was particularly swayed by constituents who spoke of the potential impacts of wind development on the state’s economy.
“You have the governor going to Home Depot and people coming up to him saying: ‘You’re darn right you better tax those guys. They need to pay their own way,’ ” Mr. Lance said.
By DAN FROSCH
Published: February 20, 2010
With currents of powerful wind gusts whipping across its plains and plateaus, Wyoming has become a new frontier for the wind industry — the latest energy development for a state that only recently experienced a natural gas boom.
Associated Press
Turbines in Wyoming, where a bill under consideration in the Legislature would levy an excise tax on wind energy production.
But in a place that is both cautious about such growth and interested in the potential benefits, some believe that those behind the wave of wind farms and turbines need to pay their fair share.
A new bill being pushed by Gov. Dave Freudenthal would change the state’s renewable energy landscape by levying an excise tax on wind energy production, the first tax of its kind in the United States, energy experts say.
The proposal, which was approved by the Wyoming House of Representatives on Thursday and is headed to the State Senate for a vote, would impose a $1-per-megawatt-hour tax on wind energy production. Revenue from the tax is projected at a minimum of $4 million annually, to be divided between the counties where the wind projects are located and the state. The tax would go into effect in 2012.
“We want to make sure that wind developers pay their way in Wyoming and that the tax burden isn’t shifted to the taxpayers,” said Ryan Lance, deputy chief of staff for Mr. Freudenthal, a Democrat. “These guys are making a lot of money, and we get all the impact — environmental and socioeconomic.”
But wind energy industry leaders in Wyoming worry that the tax will scare off developers at a critical time in the industry’s genesis, particularly when other states are taking the opposite tack and creating incentives to lure wind projects and jobs.
“We’re very much against this,” said Cheryl Riley, executive director of the Wyoming Power Producers Coalition, a group of 15 wind and transmission developers. “We think this sends a negative message that Wyoming may not want wind development.”
“I think there’s great potential for wind energy development here, but until some of these issues, specifically that of taxation, are worked out, Wyoming won’t see its full potential reached,” Ms. Riley said.
Wyoming is the eighth-windiest state in the country — Texas is the windiest — and gusts here are renowned for their strength and duration. According to the American Wind Energy Association, or AWEA, Wyoming ranks 12th nationally in wind power installations, and the electricity it generated from wind projects in 2009 was nearly double that of the previous year.
But with the recent sunset of a sales tax exemption for the industry and no property tax exemptions, the excise tax could cripple Wyoming’s competitiveness for wind energy projects, Ms. Riley said.
“Putting a tax on the air really makes Wyoming an unfriendly state for wind energy,” said Denise Bode, chief executive for AWEA. “We urge them to take some time to work with the industry to try and address any concerns. Being No. 1 in something is not necessarily the best way to go, particularly when it comes to increasing taxes in a promising new industry.”
But State Senator Jim Anderson, a Republican from Converse and Platte Counties who was chairman of a state legislative task force on wind energy, said the tax could be imposed at a low level and could always be adjusted later.
“We recognize that Wyoming has some of the best wind in the world,” said Mr. Anderson, who supports the legislation. “We feel in comparison with the way we’ve taxed the petroleum and extractive industries, the wind industry needs to pay its fair share.”
Other supporters have said the tax offers a rare opportunity to diversify Wyoming’s tax base. Mr. Lance, of Mr. Freudenthal’s office, said the governor was particularly swayed by constituents who spoke of the potential impacts of wind development on the state’s economy.
“You have the governor going to Home Depot and people coming up to him saying: ‘You’re darn right you better tax those guys. They need to pay their own way,’ ” Mr. Lance said.
Leaving the Trash Behind
Leaving the Trash Behind
By CHRISTINE NEGRONI
Published: February 22, 2010
The aviation industry is often criticized for contributing to global warming through airplane exhaust. But waste of a different kind also has the potential to create environmental problems.
Noah Berger for The New York Times
Darrell Halsell, a custodian, checked recycling chutes at Oakland International Airport in California.
A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.
Even before they board, air travelers throw away trash of all sorts — including paper, plastic and food waste — and airports and airlines recycle only a small portion of it.
An estimated 7.5 million pounds of trash is generated every day. While the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, says that 75 percent of that trash is recyclable, it has found that only 20 percent reaches a recycling center.
“It does not make sense to acquire oil from the Middle East or the north slope of Alaska and turn it into a plastic bottle, use it once and throw it away,” said Allen Hershkowitz, a scientist at the council.
The council’s figures are from 2006, but are the most recent. The lack of current data was one concern of the Air Transport Association and the Airports Council International. They persuaded the Transportation Research Board, an adviser to the federal government, last November to determine what prevented airports from embracing recycling since travelers seemed to want it.
Recycling procedures vary by airline and airport. Environmental programs involve many entities: airports, municipalities, private waste companies and federal security agencies. As a result, each of the nation’s 552 commercial airports has its own way of handling waste.
“The issue is very local,” said Nancy Young, the transport association’s vice president of environmental affairs. Continental Airlines has been recycling oil, antifreeze and other aircraft maintenance products for two or three years. Recently it began onboard collection of bottles, aluminum cans and cardboard boxes. Leah Raney, managing director of global environmental affairs for Continental, said it was recycling these items through kitchens it owns at hub airports.
“We had so many employees that wanted to recycle,” Ms. Raney said. “We heard it from customers and from our employees, and that’s why we are determined to set it up.”
Oakland International Airport in California began separating paper, cardboard and bottles from airport trash in 2003. Since adding food scraps to the list in 2004, it handles 455 tons a year, diverting 37 percent of its waste from landfills, said Rosemary Barnes, the airport spokeswoman. The airport has also cut in half the number of trash pickups each month, helped in small part by the Silver Dragon Cafe, a new restaurant tenant that uses compostable food containers.
“I recognize to make a difference, it comes from the top down,” said Lilly Mar-Chee, the restaurant’s owner, who acknowledged it was difficult to decide to spend 10 to 20 percent more for the containers, made from potato starch, while opening a business during the economic downturn. “We are committed to using resources in a sustainable way.”
Even when recycling is available, airport procedures can sometimes make it hard for travelers to use it properly. At Portland International Airport in Oregon, officials discovered that 48,000 to 78,000 recyclable bottles ended up in the trash annually because they had been discarded at security checkpoints.
“The public does a really good job in general, but when we came to the checkpoints there’s all kinds of liquids in the trash,” said Stan Jones, the environmental compliance manager at the airport. The airport installed liquid dumping stations at the checkpoints, allowing travelers to pour out unused liquids and reuse or recycle the bottles. Mr. Jones said liquid collection was an environmental decision with an economic benefit. With more bottles being recycled, trash containers are lighter and fewer custodians are needed to remove them.
“There’s a number of benefits,” he said. “People can empty their bottle and take it through security. The other is we’re getting liquids out of recycling and out of the garbage.”
While a few airports have contacted Portland about following its lead, many more are establishing or refining recycling programs. At Newark Liberty International Airport, all tenants must recycle basic materials, according to Susan M. Baer, director of aviation for the airport’s operator, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
“How you achieve it?” Ms. Baer asked about getting people to think about the environment. “By growing generations of people who want to recycle and making it possible for them to do so.”
This month, Green America, an environmental group, started a campaign to get air travelers to pay attention to how trash is handled and to report what they find at the organization’s Web site.
“We can pressure them into doing more recycling and ramping up their programs,” said Victoria Kreha, coordinator of Green America’s responsible shopper program, who also wrote a report grading airline recycling efforts.
A few passengers take things into their own hands, among them Beth Terry, 44, an accountant from Oakland. When Ms. Terry flies, she brings bamboo eating utensils, a cloth napkin and a glass straw.
“I don’t want to waste another plastic cup or another plastic chip bag,” Ms. Terry said. She blogs about her personal campaign to reduce consumption of plastic at fakeplasticfish.com.
By CHRISTINE NEGRONI
Published: February 22, 2010
The aviation industry is often criticized for contributing to global warming through airplane exhaust. But waste of a different kind also has the potential to create environmental problems.
Noah Berger for The New York Times
Darrell Halsell, a custodian, checked recycling chutes at Oakland International Airport in California.
A blog about energy, the environment and the bottom line.
Even before they board, air travelers throw away trash of all sorts — including paper, plastic and food waste — and airports and airlines recycle only a small portion of it.
An estimated 7.5 million pounds of trash is generated every day. While the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, says that 75 percent of that trash is recyclable, it has found that only 20 percent reaches a recycling center.
“It does not make sense to acquire oil from the Middle East or the north slope of Alaska and turn it into a plastic bottle, use it once and throw it away,” said Allen Hershkowitz, a scientist at the council.
The council’s figures are from 2006, but are the most recent. The lack of current data was one concern of the Air Transport Association and the Airports Council International. They persuaded the Transportation Research Board, an adviser to the federal government, last November to determine what prevented airports from embracing recycling since travelers seemed to want it.
Recycling procedures vary by airline and airport. Environmental programs involve many entities: airports, municipalities, private waste companies and federal security agencies. As a result, each of the nation’s 552 commercial airports has its own way of handling waste.
“The issue is very local,” said Nancy Young, the transport association’s vice president of environmental affairs. Continental Airlines has been recycling oil, antifreeze and other aircraft maintenance products for two or three years. Recently it began onboard collection of bottles, aluminum cans and cardboard boxes. Leah Raney, managing director of global environmental affairs for Continental, said it was recycling these items through kitchens it owns at hub airports.
“We had so many employees that wanted to recycle,” Ms. Raney said. “We heard it from customers and from our employees, and that’s why we are determined to set it up.”
Oakland International Airport in California began separating paper, cardboard and bottles from airport trash in 2003. Since adding food scraps to the list in 2004, it handles 455 tons a year, diverting 37 percent of its waste from landfills, said Rosemary Barnes, the airport spokeswoman. The airport has also cut in half the number of trash pickups each month, helped in small part by the Silver Dragon Cafe, a new restaurant tenant that uses compostable food containers.
“I recognize to make a difference, it comes from the top down,” said Lilly Mar-Chee, the restaurant’s owner, who acknowledged it was difficult to decide to spend 10 to 20 percent more for the containers, made from potato starch, while opening a business during the economic downturn. “We are committed to using resources in a sustainable way.”
Even when recycling is available, airport procedures can sometimes make it hard for travelers to use it properly. At Portland International Airport in Oregon, officials discovered that 48,000 to 78,000 recyclable bottles ended up in the trash annually because they had been discarded at security checkpoints.
“The public does a really good job in general, but when we came to the checkpoints there’s all kinds of liquids in the trash,” said Stan Jones, the environmental compliance manager at the airport. The airport installed liquid dumping stations at the checkpoints, allowing travelers to pour out unused liquids and reuse or recycle the bottles. Mr. Jones said liquid collection was an environmental decision with an economic benefit. With more bottles being recycled, trash containers are lighter and fewer custodians are needed to remove them.
“There’s a number of benefits,” he said. “People can empty their bottle and take it through security. The other is we’re getting liquids out of recycling and out of the garbage.”
While a few airports have contacted Portland about following its lead, many more are establishing or refining recycling programs. At Newark Liberty International Airport, all tenants must recycle basic materials, according to Susan M. Baer, director of aviation for the airport’s operator, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
“How you achieve it?” Ms. Baer asked about getting people to think about the environment. “By growing generations of people who want to recycle and making it possible for them to do so.”
This month, Green America, an environmental group, started a campaign to get air travelers to pay attention to how trash is handled and to report what they find at the organization’s Web site.
“We can pressure them into doing more recycling and ramping up their programs,” said Victoria Kreha, coordinator of Green America’s responsible shopper program, who also wrote a report grading airline recycling efforts.
A few passengers take things into their own hands, among them Beth Terry, 44, an accountant from Oakland. When Ms. Terry flies, she brings bamboo eating utensils, a cloth napkin and a glass straw.
“I don’t want to waste another plastic cup or another plastic chip bag,” Ms. Terry said. She blogs about her personal campaign to reduce consumption of plastic at fakeplasticfish.com.
Google gets go-ahead to buy, sell energy
February 19, 2010 6:38 AM PST
Google gets go-ahead to buy, sell energy
by Candace Lombardi
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has authorized Google Energy to buy and sell electricity in bulk like any other utility.
The FERC, the agency with oversight of the U.S. power grid, signed an order (PDF) on Thursday that grants Google Energy market-based rate authorization. This paves the way for the search giant to not only better manage its own energy costs, but to possibly add electricity marketer to its repertoire of services.
The order specifically grants Google Energy--a subsidiary of Google--the rights "for the sale of energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates" while acknowledging that neither Google Energy nor its affiliates "own or control any generation or transmission" facilities.
Google has expressed a desire for access to larger amounts of renewable energy to help produce the electricity it consumes as part of its vast search-engine empire. Google has long maintained that its goal is to become a carbon-neutral company. As a side note, it's not unusual for large companies to be granted the authority to trade in the wholesale electricity market for the purpose of managing their own energy costs.
As recently as January--after Google Energy made its request to FERC--the company maintained that its expressed immediate wish was for more control over electricity pricing to more effectively gain access to affordable renewable energy.
"Right now, we can't buy affordable, utility-scale, renewable energy in our markets. We want to buy the highest quality, most affordable renewable energy wherever we can and use the green credits," Google representative Niki Fenwick told CNET News at the time.
But it seems that Google may actually enter the energy business. The search giant formed the Delaware-based subsidiary called Google Energy in December and when asked about it, hinted at a future in energy.
"We don't have any concrete plans. We want the ability to buy and sell electricity in case it becomes part of our portfolio," Fenwick told CNET News in January.
Google's escalating interest in energy
Prior to that obvious play, the company has been testing the energy industry waters through green energy technology investment, and research.
In 2007, Google pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help engineers and scientists figure out a way to generate 1 gigawatt of clean electricity and make it cheaper than coal.
In 2008, Google CEO Eric Schmidt presented an energy plan--complete with explicit math calculations--to back up an idea for how the U.S. could eventually get 100 percent of its electric power generation from renewable sources, cut emissions by half, create more jobs, and decrease overall energy costs.
Google has also invested hundred of millions in green energy technology research and start-up companies with projects in wind, solar, solar thermal, and geothermal. It has invested in projects to develop plug-in hybrid cars and has developed with its own "smart charging" software for plug-in electric vehicles.
The company has launched its own energy pilot projects including a 1.6-megawatt solar installation for its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, thought to be the largest corporate-owned installation in the U.S.
Google has even developed a smart metering software platform for monitoring and regulating home electricity use from any Web-enabled phone. Google Power has been testing the software in the U.K., as well as unveiling a U.S. version for smart phones.
Its most notable electricity investment success story might be eSolar, a start-up that grew out of the Google Idealab and offers "turnkey" thermal solar energy plants using software-controlled heliostats. The company has already garnered over 500 megawatts worth of projects for Southern California Edison and several utilities in the southwestern U.S., with projects in the pipeline for China, Spain, the Middle East, and South Africa.
Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page were also early investors in the electric car maker Tesla.
And in the lead-up to the recent Copenhagen summit on climate change, Google hosted its own energy conference in November that included leading energy experts and the U.S. undersecretary of energy.
Google could not immediately be reached for comment.
Google gets go-ahead to buy, sell energy
by Candace Lombardi
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has authorized Google Energy to buy and sell electricity in bulk like any other utility.
The FERC, the agency with oversight of the U.S. power grid, signed an order (PDF) on Thursday that grants Google Energy market-based rate authorization. This paves the way for the search giant to not only better manage its own energy costs, but to possibly add electricity marketer to its repertoire of services.
The order specifically grants Google Energy--a subsidiary of Google--the rights "for the sale of energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based rates" while acknowledging that neither Google Energy nor its affiliates "own or control any generation or transmission" facilities.
Google has expressed a desire for access to larger amounts of renewable energy to help produce the electricity it consumes as part of its vast search-engine empire. Google has long maintained that its goal is to become a carbon-neutral company. As a side note, it's not unusual for large companies to be granted the authority to trade in the wholesale electricity market for the purpose of managing their own energy costs.
As recently as January--after Google Energy made its request to FERC--the company maintained that its expressed immediate wish was for more control over electricity pricing to more effectively gain access to affordable renewable energy.
"Right now, we can't buy affordable, utility-scale, renewable energy in our markets. We want to buy the highest quality, most affordable renewable energy wherever we can and use the green credits," Google representative Niki Fenwick told CNET News at the time.
But it seems that Google may actually enter the energy business. The search giant formed the Delaware-based subsidiary called Google Energy in December and when asked about it, hinted at a future in energy.
"We don't have any concrete plans. We want the ability to buy and sell electricity in case it becomes part of our portfolio," Fenwick told CNET News in January.
Google's escalating interest in energy
Prior to that obvious play, the company has been testing the energy industry waters through green energy technology investment, and research.
In 2007, Google pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to help engineers and scientists figure out a way to generate 1 gigawatt of clean electricity and make it cheaper than coal.
In 2008, Google CEO Eric Schmidt presented an energy plan--complete with explicit math calculations--to back up an idea for how the U.S. could eventually get 100 percent of its electric power generation from renewable sources, cut emissions by half, create more jobs, and decrease overall energy costs.
Google has also invested hundred of millions in green energy technology research and start-up companies with projects in wind, solar, solar thermal, and geothermal. It has invested in projects to develop plug-in hybrid cars and has developed with its own "smart charging" software for plug-in electric vehicles.
The company has launched its own energy pilot projects including a 1.6-megawatt solar installation for its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, thought to be the largest corporate-owned installation in the U.S.
Google has even developed a smart metering software platform for monitoring and regulating home electricity use from any Web-enabled phone. Google Power has been testing the software in the U.K., as well as unveiling a U.S. version for smart phones.
Its most notable electricity investment success story might be eSolar, a start-up that grew out of the Google Idealab and offers "turnkey" thermal solar energy plants using software-controlled heliostats. The company has already garnered over 500 megawatts worth of projects for Southern California Edison and several utilities in the southwestern U.S., with projects in the pipeline for China, Spain, the Middle East, and South Africa.
Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page were also early investors in the electric car maker Tesla.
And in the lead-up to the recent Copenhagen summit on climate change, Google hosted its own energy conference in November that included leading energy experts and the U.S. undersecretary of energy.
Google could not immediately be reached for comment.
Bloom's power plant in a box? (FAQ)
February 22, 2010 5:32 PM PST
Bloom's power plant in a box? (FAQ)
by Brooke Crothers
Start-up Bloom Energy says it can deliver a power plant in a box. What is it and how does it work?
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company, which is generating some serious buzz this week, will officially announce on Wednesday what it calls the "Bloom box." In an interview Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," CEO K.R. Sridhar said the goal is to get businesses, and eventually consumers, off the transmission line grid and deliver power at a much lower cost with zero emissions.
What is the Bloom box?
It's a fuel cell. (See photo.) While that's nothing new--as Greentech Media editor Michael Kanellos says, fuel cells have been around since the 1800s--it's Bloom Energy's secret sauce that makes it special. Kanellos said that the solid oxide fuel cell patents point to a "yttria stabilized zirconium" and platinum electrodes. This formula is used to make an ink-coated floppy-disk-size ceramic tile. These are then stacked (see photo) into small blocks, and multiple stacks are housed in a unit about the size of a refrigerator.
(Credit: CBS News)
Oxygen is fed into the fuel cell on one side and fuel on the other, according to the "60 Minutes" segment. The two combine in the cell to create a chemical reaction, which produces electricity. No burning or combustion. No power lines from an outside source. More here.
How much does it cost to "save" money?
In the "60 Minutes" interview, Sridhar said the boxes that companies buy cost between $700,000 and $800,000 and the goal is to make them available to the "average person" for less than $3,000. As an example of how the Bloom box is being used in corporate America today, eBay's five boxes run on landfill waste-based bio-gas and generate more power than the company's 3,000 solar panels, according to eBay CEO John Donahoe, who spoke to "60 Minutes." When averaged out over seven days, the Bloom box generates five times as much power that eBay can use, Donahoe said.
What kind of fuel does it use?
Fossil fuels like natural gas or renewable fuels such as landfill gas, or bio-gas, and solar.
Who is using Bloom boxes right now?
Google, Fedex, Wal-Mart, Staples, the San Francisco Airport, and the CIA, to name some of the most high-profile companies and organizations. A total of 20 companies are testing the box in California today. A four-unit box, using natural gas, has been powering a Google data center for 18 months. Here's a yardstick: a 30,000-square-foot office building would use four of these boxes.
(Credit: CBS News)
And subsidies or tax breaks?
In California, 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state and there's a 30 percent federal tax break, according to "60 Minutes."
Who is investing in Bloom Energy?
There is a total investment of about $400 million. Board members and observers include: John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures, and T.J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. Advisers include former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Floyd Kvamme, a partner emeritus at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
How economically feasible can it be?
"If this works, basically you have a natural gas tube going to your house or neighborhood, it goes into the fuel cell, and, pow, it makes electricity," Kanellos said. "Your power bills will go down." Potentially, consumers, in the future, will be buying natural gas but getting more bang for their gas-bill buck. The challenge is that the device itself costs a lot of money, Kanellos added. "It will take a few years to pay it off," he said
Bloom's power plant in a box? (FAQ)
by Brooke Crothers
Start-up Bloom Energy says it can deliver a power plant in a box. What is it and how does it work?
The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company, which is generating some serious buzz this week, will officially announce on Wednesday what it calls the "Bloom box." In an interview Sunday on CBS News' "60 Minutes," CEO K.R. Sridhar said the goal is to get businesses, and eventually consumers, off the transmission line grid and deliver power at a much lower cost with zero emissions.
What is the Bloom box?
It's a fuel cell. (See photo.) While that's nothing new--as Greentech Media editor Michael Kanellos says, fuel cells have been around since the 1800s--it's Bloom Energy's secret sauce that makes it special. Kanellos said that the solid oxide fuel cell patents point to a "yttria stabilized zirconium" and platinum electrodes. This formula is used to make an ink-coated floppy-disk-size ceramic tile. These are then stacked (see photo) into small blocks, and multiple stacks are housed in a unit about the size of a refrigerator.
(Credit: CBS News)
Oxygen is fed into the fuel cell on one side and fuel on the other, according to the "60 Minutes" segment. The two combine in the cell to create a chemical reaction, which produces electricity. No burning or combustion. No power lines from an outside source. More here.
How much does it cost to "save" money?
In the "60 Minutes" interview, Sridhar said the boxes that companies buy cost between $700,000 and $800,000 and the goal is to make them available to the "average person" for less than $3,000. As an example of how the Bloom box is being used in corporate America today, eBay's five boxes run on landfill waste-based bio-gas and generate more power than the company's 3,000 solar panels, according to eBay CEO John Donahoe, who spoke to "60 Minutes." When averaged out over seven days, the Bloom box generates five times as much power that eBay can use, Donahoe said.
What kind of fuel does it use?
Fossil fuels like natural gas or renewable fuels such as landfill gas, or bio-gas, and solar.
Who is using Bloom boxes right now?
Google, Fedex, Wal-Mart, Staples, the San Francisco Airport, and the CIA, to name some of the most high-profile companies and organizations. A total of 20 companies are testing the box in California today. A four-unit box, using natural gas, has been powering a Google data center for 18 months. Here's a yardstick: a 30,000-square-foot office building would use four of these boxes.
(Credit: CBS News)
And subsidies or tax breaks?
In California, 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state and there's a 30 percent federal tax break, according to "60 Minutes."
Who is investing in Bloom Energy?
There is a total investment of about $400 million. Board members and observers include: John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Vinod Khosla of Khosla Ventures, and T.J. Rodgers, the CEO of Cypress Semiconductor. Advisers include former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Floyd Kvamme, a partner emeritus at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
How economically feasible can it be?
"If this works, basically you have a natural gas tube going to your house or neighborhood, it goes into the fuel cell, and, pow, it makes electricity," Kanellos said. "Your power bills will go down." Potentially, consumers, in the future, will be buying natural gas but getting more bang for their gas-bill buck. The challenge is that the device itself costs a lot of money, Kanellos added. "It will take a few years to pay it off," he said
Harvest Power lands cash for compost, biogas
January 25, 2010 9:11 AM PST
by Martin LaMonica
Trash hauler Waste Management said on Monday it has invested an undisclosed sum in Harvest Power, a Boston-area company developing techniques for turning organic waste into energy or fertilizer.
Existing investors Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers and Munich Venture Partners also increased their investment in the company.
(Credit: Harvest Power) Harvest Power already operates a facility in British Columbia that turns food and yard waste into compost. It also is developing anaerobic digester technology to produce biogas from those same wastes. The biogas can be burned in turbines to make electricity or heat. It can also be converted into compressed or liquefied natural gas, according to Waste Management.
The investment from Waste Management will help Harvest Power build more municipal facilities, company CEO Paul Sellew said in a statement. The city of San Jose, Calif., last year contracted with Harvest Power as part of a renewable-energy program (click for PDF) with a goal of collecting 150,000 tons of household organic waste to produce 900,000 gallons of biogas. It would be the first organic waste-to-biogas facility in the U.S., following a number in Europe.
Waste Management said it invested in the company to reach its corporate sustainability goals of increasing renewable-energy production, boosting recycling, and investing in waste management technologies. Waste Management has also invested in solar trash can maker Big Belly Solar and waste gasification company S4 Energy Solutions.
Comment
What a great idea! Finally coming to fruition.
by Martin LaMonica
Trash hauler Waste Management said on Monday it has invested an undisclosed sum in Harvest Power, a Boston-area company developing techniques for turning organic waste into energy or fertilizer.
Existing investors Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers and Munich Venture Partners also increased their investment in the company.
(Credit: Harvest Power) Harvest Power already operates a facility in British Columbia that turns food and yard waste into compost. It also is developing anaerobic digester technology to produce biogas from those same wastes. The biogas can be burned in turbines to make electricity or heat. It can also be converted into compressed or liquefied natural gas, according to Waste Management.
The investment from Waste Management will help Harvest Power build more municipal facilities, company CEO Paul Sellew said in a statement. The city of San Jose, Calif., last year contracted with Harvest Power as part of a renewable-energy program (click for PDF) with a goal of collecting 150,000 tons of household organic waste to produce 900,000 gallons of biogas. It would be the first organic waste-to-biogas facility in the U.S., following a number in Europe.
Waste Management said it invested in the company to reach its corporate sustainability goals of increasing renewable-energy production, boosting recycling, and investing in waste management technologies. Waste Management has also invested in solar trash can maker Big Belly Solar and waste gasification company S4 Energy Solutions.
Comment
What a great idea! Finally coming to fruition.
Bloom box: An energy breakthrough?
February 22, 2010 6:31 AM PST
by CBS Interactive staff
The following is a snippet of the transcript from a "60 Minutes" segment shown Sunday evening, as an introduction to the full video segment itself.
In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power-plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.
You'll generate your own electricity with the box and it'll be wireless. The idea is to one day replace the big power plants and transmission line grid, the way the laptop moved in on the desktop and cell phones supplanted landlines.
It has a lot of smart people believing and buzzing, even though the company has been unusually secretive--until now.
K.R. Sridhar invited "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl for a first look at the innards of the Bloom box that he has been toiling on for nearly a decade
by CBS Interactive staff
The following is a snippet of the transcript from a "60 Minutes" segment shown Sunday evening, as an introduction to the full video segment itself.
In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power-plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.
You'll generate your own electricity with the box and it'll be wireless. The idea is to one day replace the big power plants and transmission line grid, the way the laptop moved in on the desktop and cell phones supplanted landlines.
It has a lot of smart people believing and buzzing, even though the company has been unusually secretive--until now.
K.R. Sridhar invited "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl for a first look at the innards of the Bloom box that he has been toiling on for nearly a decade
California solar project gets $1.4 billion U.S. guarantee
California solar project gets $1.4 billion U.S. guarantee
by Reuters
The United States on Monday gave its biggest backing yet to a renewable energy project, guaranteeing $1.37 billion in loans for a California development by BrightSource Energy that uses the sun's heat to power a steam turbine.
BrightSource's proposed solar thermal plants are expected to generate about 400 megawatts of electricity and power about 140,000 California homes, giving it the heft to compete with plants fueled by coal and natural gas.
President Obama's administration has touted green energy investments as a way to create jobs and increase international economic competitiveness.
"We're not going to sit on the sidelines while other countries capture the jobs of the future--we're committed to becoming the global leader in the clean energy economy," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
The sector has seen projects being launched and agreements being signed with utilities, who count on solar thermal to meet California clean energy goals, but construction has yet to start on a large scale for the solar thermal industry.
Financing of projects has been a big challenge with the tightening of the credit markets as capital requirements of these green energy companies are very large.
Solar thermal technology is different from its better-known rival, rooftop photovoltaic. Solar thermal companies like BrightSource and rivals Abengoa Solar and eSolar have technology that uses the sun's rays, reflected by thousands of small mirrors, to heat liquids to create steam in turbines and generate electricity.
The conditional loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy, the largest federal loan commitment offered to a renewable energy firm, would help BrightSource build three utility-scale solar thermal plants for its Ivanpah project, which will be located on federally-owned land in the Mojave Desert in southeastern California.
"It's a good beginning for the industry," BrightSource CEO John Woolard said in an interview. "It really allows Ivanpah to be the first (solar thermal) project to be constructed in almost 20 years now" in California.
California and other parts of the world are betting heavily on solar thermal. About a quarter of the clean energy contracts approved in 2009 in California by capacity was solar thermal, according to the Public Utilities Commission.
Construction on the first Ivanpah plant is expected to begin during the second half of this year, with commercial operations beginning in 2012.
All three plants are expected be on line by 2014.
The loan guarantee is conditioned on BrightSource meeting financial and environmental requirements, including local, state and federal regulatory approvals.
BrightSource has run into trouble from environmental groups who are concerned that the construction would harm desert plants and wildlife, including the desert tortoise.
The company earlier this month agreed to reduce the footprint for the Ivanpah project to minimize the environmental impact.
The company, which counts search giant Google and Silicon Valley fund VantagePoint Venture Partners among its investors, already has contracts to deliver more than 2,600 megawatts of power to California utilities PG&E and Edison International's Southern California Edison (SCE).
PG&E will purchase approximately two-thirds of the power generated at Ivanpah and SCE will purchase approximately one-third.
Woolard said that the key value of federal loan guarantees is that it helps strong renewable energy projects get financed, especially since the credit markets have yet to reach normal levels of activity.
It "replaces or helps shore up that component," he said.
Woolard did not reveal the total funding needed for the project but said the company would be raising equity financing from sources such as private investors, energy companies and investment funds.
"There is an equity commitment," Woolard said. "We will be going out to raise equity (financing) in the next four to six months. So that will be the next step in the process."
The loan guarantee is the sixth such offer to renewable energy companies by the Obama administration, which has touted green energy investments as a way to create jobs and increase international economic competitiveness.
Under the program, the Department of Energy issues a conditional commitment to guarantee loans to be provided by the U.S. Treasury's Federal Financing Bank.
Comments
by jaguar717 February 23, 2010 12:49 AM PST
Nice talking point, but all this is is another failed venture being propped up by government favorites and paid for with the earnings of people who don't want to buy their products.
If they were financially viable, they'd compete in the market like every legitimate product. Instead, we're moving to a system of political pull where government picks winners and losers (or simply rewards losers).
I guess the "replaces or helps shore up" is kind of like that imaginary "created or saved" metric for jobs.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by Cold2 February 23, 2010 2:22 AM PST
@ jaguar 717 Its seems that you don't kmow a lot. This is a proven technology whith succes in other countrys around the world including Spain. Just go to this link, it was also coverd by cnet. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10228786-54.html
Like this by solitare_pax February 23, 2010 3:02 AM PST
Many technologies and industries that could be called 'failed ventures' started out as government sponsored programs, or benefited from government stimulus to bloom into major economic powerhouses.
Case in point: The Internet (developed partly for the military to survive a nuclear war) and your computer (microchips were insanely expensive, but government needs for their use in military and space exploration caused makers to ramp up production - and lower the cost for consumers, so now it is self-supporting).
Of course, you probably think the interstate highway on Oahu in Hawaii was a bad use of funds too.
Like this by jaguar717 February 23, 2010 4:30 AM PST
If it were a "proven technology", then it would succeed because people would willingly buy it. Instead, it's being propped up by Billions in unearned subsidies (handouts).
Its "success" in other countries is just the same corrupt government handouts, on a larger level. Citing Spain, where the Socialist Party is currently in power, and which is in danger of default, does not help your case.
Earning your business honestly is now dead, replaced by Chicago-style government dominance and political kickbacks.
Like this by sflocal February 23, 2010 12:34 AM PST
What I don't understand is why butcher pristine land for a solar farm, when that money could be better spent on installing solar panels on the roofs of every home, business complex, etc.? No land wasted, and much more efficient I think.
If a company would install solar panels on my home for free, maintain it, and let me use that electricity at a reduced rate compared to what I normally pay, I'd be game for that. Is that logic bad?
Like this Reply to this comment by jaguar717 February 23, 2010 12:51 AM PST
You'd be willing to let a bunch of other people be forced to pay for the massive costs and all labor in return for artificially cheap power that actually costs 10x market price?
I'm shocked. The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by js555554 February 23, 2010 1:44 AM PST
"BrightSource's proposed solar thermal plants are expected to generate about 400 megawatts of electricity and power about 140,000 California homes..."
What will power those homes at night?
Like this Reply to this comment by jonathan0766 February 23, 2010 2:10 AM PST
Why, desert turtles of course (who live in the "pristine" desert). You see, they're nocturnal, and their movement at night generates heat and static electricity. The solar thermal technology captures the turtle's energy and converts it to grid ready electricity. It's really quite an amazing concept. I think it's terrible we're going to turn poor, endangered turtles into batteries however.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by Cold2 February 23, 2010 2:30 AM PST
The answer is simple, the solar panels reflect the sun's heat and produce steam which in turn propels a turbine to produce electricity. The trick is to store the steam for night use and cloudy days. It is stored in tanks and it's released when needed.
Like this by jaguar717 February 23, 2010 4:32 AM PST
Steam stored in tanks? Isn't that called water?
Or do you heat them to make it stay steam, thus putting in more energy than you hope to take out?
Like this by GreenDem007 February 23, 2010 5:35 AM PST
I love Brightsource and the loan guarantee program, but this is EXTREMELY disappointing in: the use of ARRA funding, the encouragement of multiple technologies, and the leveraging of private investment. Financing ONE project would have been enough, what exactly was the argument for THREE???
This was ALL about jobs for Administration, but at 1,000 construction jobs and 86 permanent jobs, this is valued at $1.26m per job?
Note that Brightsource has entered into multiple PLAs, (Unions are all the rage now at DOE)
Only ONE of the three projects is slated to start this year, the rest AFTER 2013, so much for proper use of ARRA funding?
Finally, The conditional commitments contemplate that the Federal Financing Bank will provide the financing for the project, effectively muting the whole ?encouraging private sector investment? argument
Someone set me straight and explain why DOE needed to give loan guarantees for 3 of Brightsource?s projects?why not just one and give another solar technology a go? There can still be A LOT of winners in this tech game, why triple down so early?
Like this Reply to this comment by iptofar February 23, 2010 6:21 AM PST
There's no reason a bunch of mirrors and a steam generator/turbines should cost so much. Its effectively at least twice if not four times as expensive as nuclear and not nearly as reliable. And why do you need loan guarantees for relatively cheap technology unless they know they will default??? This isn't anything near rocket science.
The problem with green jobs is that they cost a lot more green than they create.
Comment
ALL new technologies cost a lot in the beginning. Look at computers, chips, the Internet, electric cars.
by Reuters
The United States on Monday gave its biggest backing yet to a renewable energy project, guaranteeing $1.37 billion in loans for a California development by BrightSource Energy that uses the sun's heat to power a steam turbine.
BrightSource's proposed solar thermal plants are expected to generate about 400 megawatts of electricity and power about 140,000 California homes, giving it the heft to compete with plants fueled by coal and natural gas.
President Obama's administration has touted green energy investments as a way to create jobs and increase international economic competitiveness.
"We're not going to sit on the sidelines while other countries capture the jobs of the future--we're committed to becoming the global leader in the clean energy economy," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.
The sector has seen projects being launched and agreements being signed with utilities, who count on solar thermal to meet California clean energy goals, but construction has yet to start on a large scale for the solar thermal industry.
Financing of projects has been a big challenge with the tightening of the credit markets as capital requirements of these green energy companies are very large.
Solar thermal technology is different from its better-known rival, rooftop photovoltaic. Solar thermal companies like BrightSource and rivals Abengoa Solar and eSolar have technology that uses the sun's rays, reflected by thousands of small mirrors, to heat liquids to create steam in turbines and generate electricity.
The conditional loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy, the largest federal loan commitment offered to a renewable energy firm, would help BrightSource build three utility-scale solar thermal plants for its Ivanpah project, which will be located on federally-owned land in the Mojave Desert in southeastern California.
"It's a good beginning for the industry," BrightSource CEO John Woolard said in an interview. "It really allows Ivanpah to be the first (solar thermal) project to be constructed in almost 20 years now" in California.
California and other parts of the world are betting heavily on solar thermal. About a quarter of the clean energy contracts approved in 2009 in California by capacity was solar thermal, according to the Public Utilities Commission.
Construction on the first Ivanpah plant is expected to begin during the second half of this year, with commercial operations beginning in 2012.
All three plants are expected be on line by 2014.
The loan guarantee is conditioned on BrightSource meeting financial and environmental requirements, including local, state and federal regulatory approvals.
BrightSource has run into trouble from environmental groups who are concerned that the construction would harm desert plants and wildlife, including the desert tortoise.
The company earlier this month agreed to reduce the footprint for the Ivanpah project to minimize the environmental impact.
The company, which counts search giant Google and Silicon Valley fund VantagePoint Venture Partners among its investors, already has contracts to deliver more than 2,600 megawatts of power to California utilities PG&E and Edison International's Southern California Edison (SCE).
PG&E will purchase approximately two-thirds of the power generated at Ivanpah and SCE will purchase approximately one-third.
Woolard said that the key value of federal loan guarantees is that it helps strong renewable energy projects get financed, especially since the credit markets have yet to reach normal levels of activity.
It "replaces or helps shore up that component," he said.
Woolard did not reveal the total funding needed for the project but said the company would be raising equity financing from sources such as private investors, energy companies and investment funds.
"There is an equity commitment," Woolard said. "We will be going out to raise equity (financing) in the next four to six months. So that will be the next step in the process."
The loan guarantee is the sixth such offer to renewable energy companies by the Obama administration, which has touted green energy investments as a way to create jobs and increase international economic competitiveness.
Under the program, the Department of Energy issues a conditional commitment to guarantee loans to be provided by the U.S. Treasury's Federal Financing Bank.
Comments
by jaguar717 February 23, 2010 12:49 AM PST
Nice talking point, but all this is is another failed venture being propped up by government favorites and paid for with the earnings of people who don't want to buy their products.
If they were financially viable, they'd compete in the market like every legitimate product. Instead, we're moving to a system of political pull where government picks winners and losers (or simply rewards losers).
I guess the "replaces or helps shore up" is kind of like that imaginary "created or saved" metric for jobs.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by Cold2 February 23, 2010 2:22 AM PST
@ jaguar 717 Its seems that you don't kmow a lot. This is a proven technology whith succes in other countrys around the world including Spain. Just go to this link, it was also coverd by cnet. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10228786-54.html
Like this by solitare_pax February 23, 2010 3:02 AM PST
Many technologies and industries that could be called 'failed ventures' started out as government sponsored programs, or benefited from government stimulus to bloom into major economic powerhouses.
Case in point: The Internet (developed partly for the military to survive a nuclear war) and your computer (microchips were insanely expensive, but government needs for their use in military and space exploration caused makers to ramp up production - and lower the cost for consumers, so now it is self-supporting).
Of course, you probably think the interstate highway on Oahu in Hawaii was a bad use of funds too.
Like this by jaguar717 February 23, 2010 4:30 AM PST
If it were a "proven technology", then it would succeed because people would willingly buy it. Instead, it's being propped up by Billions in unearned subsidies (handouts).
Its "success" in other countries is just the same corrupt government handouts, on a larger level. Citing Spain, where the Socialist Party is currently in power, and which is in danger of default, does not help your case.
Earning your business honestly is now dead, replaced by Chicago-style government dominance and political kickbacks.
Like this by sflocal February 23, 2010 12:34 AM PST
What I don't understand is why butcher pristine land for a solar farm, when that money could be better spent on installing solar panels on the roofs of every home, business complex, etc.? No land wasted, and much more efficient I think.
If a company would install solar panels on my home for free, maintain it, and let me use that electricity at a reduced rate compared to what I normally pay, I'd be game for that. Is that logic bad?
Like this Reply to this comment by jaguar717 February 23, 2010 12:51 AM PST
You'd be willing to let a bunch of other people be forced to pay for the massive costs and all labor in return for artificially cheap power that actually costs 10x market price?
I'm shocked. The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.
Like this 1 person likes this comment
by js555554 February 23, 2010 1:44 AM PST
"BrightSource's proposed solar thermal plants are expected to generate about 400 megawatts of electricity and power about 140,000 California homes..."
What will power those homes at night?
Like this Reply to this comment by jonathan0766 February 23, 2010 2:10 AM PST
Why, desert turtles of course (who live in the "pristine" desert). You see, they're nocturnal, and their movement at night generates heat and static electricity. The solar thermal technology captures the turtle's energy and converts it to grid ready electricity. It's really quite an amazing concept. I think it's terrible we're going to turn poor, endangered turtles into batteries however.
Like this 2 people like this comment
by Cold2 February 23, 2010 2:30 AM PST
The answer is simple, the solar panels reflect the sun's heat and produce steam which in turn propels a turbine to produce electricity. The trick is to store the steam for night use and cloudy days. It is stored in tanks and it's released when needed.
Like this by jaguar717 February 23, 2010 4:32 AM PST
Steam stored in tanks? Isn't that called water?
Or do you heat them to make it stay steam, thus putting in more energy than you hope to take out?
Like this by GreenDem007 February 23, 2010 5:35 AM PST
I love Brightsource and the loan guarantee program, but this is EXTREMELY disappointing in: the use of ARRA funding, the encouragement of multiple technologies, and the leveraging of private investment. Financing ONE project would have been enough, what exactly was the argument for THREE???
This was ALL about jobs for Administration, but at 1,000 construction jobs and 86 permanent jobs, this is valued at $1.26m per job?
Note that Brightsource has entered into multiple PLAs, (Unions are all the rage now at DOE)
Only ONE of the three projects is slated to start this year, the rest AFTER 2013, so much for proper use of ARRA funding?
Finally, The conditional commitments contemplate that the Federal Financing Bank will provide the financing for the project, effectively muting the whole ?encouraging private sector investment? argument
Someone set me straight and explain why DOE needed to give loan guarantees for 3 of Brightsource?s projects?why not just one and give another solar technology a go? There can still be A LOT of winners in this tech game, why triple down so early?
Like this Reply to this comment by iptofar February 23, 2010 6:21 AM PST
There's no reason a bunch of mirrors and a steam generator/turbines should cost so much. Its effectively at least twice if not four times as expensive as nuclear and not nearly as reliable. And why do you need loan guarantees for relatively cheap technology unless they know they will default??? This isn't anything near rocket science.
The problem with green jobs is that they cost a lot more green than they create.
Comment
ALL new technologies cost a lot in the beginning. Look at computers, chips, the Internet, electric cars.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A new wire twist on silicon solar cells
February 14, 2010 1:07 PM PST
by Reuters
CHICAGO--U.S. researchers have devised a way to make flexible solar cells with silicon wires that use just 1 percent of the material needed to make conventional solar cells.
The eventual hope is to make thin, light solar cells that could be incorporated into clothing, for instance but the immediate benefit is cheaper and easier-to-install solar panels, the researchers said.
The new material, reported on Sunday in Nature Materials, uses conventional silicon configured into micron-sized wires (a micron is one-millionth of a meter) instead of brittle wafers and encases them in a flexible polymer that can be rolled or bent.
"The idea is it would be lower-cost and easier to work with by being more flexible than conventional silicon solar cells," Michael Kelzenberg of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.
Solar cells, which convert solar energy into electricity, are in high demand because of higher oil prices and concerns over climate change.
Many companies, including Japanese consumer electronics maker Sharp and Germany's Q-Cells SE, are making thin-film solar cells using organic materials such as polymers, but they typically are less efficient at converting solar energy into electricity than conventional cells using silicon.
The study is among the latest to combine the flexibility of the new organic or carbon-containing films with the high efficiency of silicon, which is heavy and stiff.
Kelzenberg said the material uses about 1/100th as much silicon per cell area as a silicon wafer.
"It is potentially a route to bypass many of the costs associated with producing solar cells," he said.
He said a big problem with working with silicon wafers is they are fragile.
More testing is needed but Kelzenberg said the material would be about 15 percent to 20 percent efficient, about the same level as solar cells used on roofs to heat homes.
A similar effort is under way in the lab of John Rogers, a professor of materials science at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Campaign, who is working on ways to make inorganic materials more flexible.
While many companies are investing in organic solar cells--basically materials like plastic that contain carbon--Rogers said these materials have relatively low performance, less long-term reliability and an unproven cost structure.
"We like the inorganics--trying to adapt them and use them in nonstandard ways," Rogers said in a telephone interview.
Last year, his team reported on a new manufacturing process that creates thin arrays of solar cells that are flexible enough to be rolled around a pencil and transparent enough to be used to tint windows on buildings or cars.
"We can make them stretch like a rubber band or bendable like a sheet of plastic," he said.
He is founder of a start-up semiconductor company called Semprius in Durham, N.C., that last month announced a joint effort with Siemens to develop large systems for utility-scale power generation.
"The same technology they are using to make these rigid utility-scale modules could be used for flexible devices as well," he said.
Rogers said that the company has funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and the CIA.
Story Copyright (c) 2010 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Additional stories from Reuters
Obama steps up nuclear investment
Business challenges how gases to be curbed
GM seeking more U.S. ethanol fueling stations
Houston aims to be electric car capital
Topics: Solar, Energy efficiencyTags: silicon solar cells,solar cells,Nature MaterialsShare: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Yahoo! BuzzFacebook Twitter
Recent posts from Green Tech
A new wire twist on silicon solar cells
Effort to trace 'conflict minerals' in electronics
Nissan to take Leaf reservations in April
SunPower to acquire SunRay for $277 million
Porsche revs up 911 hybrid
IBM boosts solar cell made of abundant materials
Peering beyond the meter in the smart grid
One Block Off the Grid: Bulk solar, tell your friends Related
IBM boosts solar cell made of abundant materials
Areva buys solar-thermal start-up Ausra
Apple eyes gadgets with built-in solar panels
In clean energy, U.S. needs more steel in ground
Bill Gates thinks big on energy and climate
Hints of a bubble in green-tech IPOs
Obama lauds green tech, Web site for earmarks
One Block Off the Grid: Bulk solar, tell your friends Add a Comment (Log in or register) (22 Comments) prev next by monkeyfun14 February 14, 2010 2:10 PM PST
Now how much cheaper are we talking?
Like this Reply to this comment by codynews February 14, 2010 2:48 PM PST
I have a few apartment buildings with big flat roofs that I'd LOVE to put solar panels on. Each time I've looked at them ("now cheaper", "we'll finance!" "tax rebate available!") the numbers don't work.
It's a simple binary decision for me: If they have a life span of x years, I want to be able to finance them over x years, where my monthly payment is equal to or less than the electric savings they provide (or rather, the electric $ they generate as from what I've been told you don't actually use the power they produce directly, rather it feeds the grid to go against your own consumption).
I can't pay $300k for something that'll produce much less than that in savings :(
I'll keep looking...
Like this Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by Bakkster February 15, 2010 6:45 AM PST
You're half right in that you don't use the energy they produce directly. Firstly, solar photovoltaics produce Direct Current power, while the grid uses AC. This DC must be converted to AC (with a loss) before it can be used in your house.
However, if you are using power while your panels are operating, you do use that power directly. Any leftovers go back to the grid and your meter runs backwards, crediting you for the electricity supplied. If you are using more power than the panels supply, though, you will be using both your panel power and grid power.
However, you are correct that it's a binary decision on cost. The biggest factor is where you live: how much available sunlight you have and how direct it is. It is much more likely to be cost-effective at southern latitudes with little cloud cover, and highly unlikely at northern latitudes with little sunlight.
Like this by ColeSlaw82 February 15, 2010 12:05 PM PST
@Bakkster - I believe that codynews may be correct that he isn't directly using the energy his solar cells are producing. Some utility companies use a system with two meters on a structure. One of the electricity being used, and one for the electricity being generated. Both are read and then the generated is subtracted from the used electricty and that is your bill. The energy you generate all goes back onto the grid, and round-a-bouts may come back to you. The kind of metering you are thinking of is a true "net metering" where the meter on your structure can measure electricity in both directions so you are truely using your own power before generating back on to the grid.
Truely, it is semantics. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages but either way you are generating electricity and saving money (or not saving, as in cody's case)
Like this by mike_ekim February 16, 2010 11:57 AM PST
@ Bakkster and ColeSlaw - you both have missed his point - he doesn't care that he may not be directly using the power he produces. He cares that over the life of the investment he will be loosing money.
codynews - you raise good points, but keep in mind that a solar investment is much like other investments. you will be paying a fixed proce to pay off the panels, and the cost of electricity will continue to increase. Much like real estate (which you are obviously educated in) - if you have enough tenants to pay off the morgatge, and only 'break even', then in the end you have an apartment building you own. Likewise, if you take a small loss every month because you went to solar, but in (say) 10 years you own the solar system free and clear, you will begin enjoying 'free' power. And have an improvement to your property, should you look at selling.
But then again, why take on an investment where you loose every month and then profit at the end, when you could invest elsewhere and break even every month or maybe even make a couple of bucks, then profit at the end.
Like this by tech_crazy February 14, 2010 4:08 PM PST
While I am sure that this may be a radical improvement but is too good to believe. I looked at the abstract of the paper (needs paid access for the full paper) and it says, "with a peak external quantum efficiency of 0.89". If pure planar Si (or some other chemistry e.g. SunPower solar cells) is 29% efficient ), this is at most 3 times as efficient. So, the article seems misleading. Reducing the area to 1% would also reduce the corresponding output of the cells.
If Martin has more information, it would help putting it here.
Like this Reply to this comment by richard993 February 14, 2010 6:14 PM PST
What are we saying here exactly? Are we saying that for the same output of a typical solar cell at 20% efficiency, we achieve the same output with only 1% of the material used? or are we saying that the cell has the same efficiency but because it has less surface area, it's output is lower?
If it is the latter, it's too bad, because the research article is very misleading and hardly considered a breakthrough.
Think about it this way... if you achieve the same efficiency and output using 1% of the material, then using the same amount of material of a normal cell, you would increase the amount of electricity generated by a factor of 100. This would be considered to be the breakthrough of the century and would make solar cells an ultimate energy source.
But this is not what the misleading researcher is actually saying... but he has achieved his purpose: to get everybody's attention!
Like this Reply to this comment by drfillgood February 14, 2010 7:44 PM PST
Efficiency of solar cells means the percentage of the sunlight's energy that is converted to electrical energy for any surface area exposed to light, under ideal circumstances. So it's not trying to say how efficient it is per amount of material used. The article doesn't explain how it calculates solar cell efficiency, but this is pretty standard stuff in the solar cell industry.
Like this by USDecliningDollar February 15, 2010 9:27 AM PST
I agree with what you are saying, seems like this is basically a press release to generate interest - basically nothing really new and nothing really ground breaking. Seems like a lot of PR spin.
Like this by zyxxy February 16, 2010 6:31 AM PST
I think the material usage is because they are depending on the polymer for physical support. The silicon is just there to convert the sunlight to electricity. In a standard silicon panel, a large portion of the physical silicon consumed is so you can physically process and handle the cells. The sun only strikes the top surface, the active area is very thin. The remainder of the material is just to provide a reliable structure underneath. They are encapsulating silicon 'wires' inside a polymer sheet. Completely different structure and process.
Like this by drfillgood February 14, 2010 7:38 PM PST
The CIA is funding solar energy now? How does that make any sense?
Like this Reply to this comment by artistjoh February 15, 2010 3:37 AM PST
You think that the CIA doesn't use devices that use energy and that many of those devices are located in remote areas without reliable power supplies? Imagine an operative in a barren waste where foreign secret facilities are often located and he needs to use GPS to accurately pinpoint the location and satellite links for communications and potentially guiding in military strikes.
Such a person relying on conventional batteries can only be there for a very short time, someone with a solar array can easily be spotted but a flexible solar panel that can be draped over rocks etc and worn will be very portable and much easier to disguise.
The CIA and Defence departments would have a significant interest in developing this kind of technology.
Like this by drfillgood February 15, 2010 9:14 AM PST
I'm not arguing that the CIA or DoD have uses for solar cells, but at this point, solar cells already exist, present research is only likely to yield marginal improvements, and it isn't a technology that would give either of those agencies (but specially the CIA) a serious increase in operational ability. I guess they were sold on the flexible, "it could be woven into your clothing" part of the technology, so it could recharge the increasing amounts of electronics worn by soldiers and operatives. Still, it's a stretch.
Like this by zyxxy February 16, 2010 6:33 AM PST
Or you could roll up a huge sheet into a shipping tube for transport. Lots of area in a small container. Plus these are supposed to be more durable, less fragile, in handling. Both good factors for air drops.
Like this by freedomlovr February 15, 2010 7:36 AM PST
I like this. There are many applications I can see. This would be perfect for an aftermarket mod for electric cars. Just think, a solar charged car, never need to buy gas or plug it in...
Like this Reply to this comment by TogetherinParis February 15, 2010 9:27 AM PST
CIA? Forget about it. This company isn't real. CIA is just transferring tax funds to Cuban death squadders again. The same Cubans who stood with George H.W. Bush on Dealy Plaza over the body of JFK have received millions in CIA training, funding, special scholarship opportunities, car dealerships, beer dealerships, port jobs, you name it. It is a national disgrace to reward out of tax-payer funds the very same people who drew Vince Foster out of the White House and murdered him in a public park, the people who drugged up assassins to shoot Ronald Reagan and to shoot at Jerry Ford (because they were in George Bush's way) to murder LBJ, MLK, RFK, Wallace, and JFK.
Like this Reply to this comment by Mr_fleabite February 16, 2010 7:57 AM PST
WHOA, don't spend all your crazy in one place. Sprinkle that around it'll last longer.
Like this by mattie121 February 15, 2010 6:06 PM PST
A lot of you a missing a very important point. Most thin film photovoltaics rely on bulk properties of the materials in their photoconversion. Nanowires have another effect: the geometric constraints of the nanowire geometery mean that the electronics properties are not the same as the bulk properties. So this paper is saying that by using this effect, they can create greater efficiency with lower material content. This is good.
Also, many don't seem to be aware that a lot of the silicon in conventional photovoltaics is not active in the photo conversion process. So a large amount of the Si used in solar cells could be thrown away if there were ways to get the Si crystals to grow properly, sadly, this is not the case. Many have worked on getting Si films to grow on things like glass (much cheaper substrate) but it's not working out too well.
This is very promising indeed.
Matt
Like this Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by zyxxy February 16, 2010 6:36 AM PST
Exactly. Save the material for the active layer and use something else for physical support.
Like this by ac5501 February 16, 2010 8:57 AM PST
Vapor ware? Just one more energy "wonder" product we will never see. I'm still waiting for ethanol from switch grass. They said we would have that in 3 years... back in 2005. How about bio diesel from algae. I've been hearing about that one since 04, and back then it was only a couple years away.
How about the high/room temperature super conductors. I'm seeing a pattern here.
Like this Reply to this comment by brewster_13 February 16, 2010 9:30 AM PST
"15 percent to 20 percent efficient, about the same level as solar cells used on roofs to heat homes"
.
FYI, solar photovoltaic cells are not used to heat homes, they are used to create electricity. They are, generally in the 15 - 20% efficient at converting sunlight into electricity
by Reuters
CHICAGO--U.S. researchers have devised a way to make flexible solar cells with silicon wires that use just 1 percent of the material needed to make conventional solar cells.
The eventual hope is to make thin, light solar cells that could be incorporated into clothing, for instance but the immediate benefit is cheaper and easier-to-install solar panels, the researchers said.
The new material, reported on Sunday in Nature Materials, uses conventional silicon configured into micron-sized wires (a micron is one-millionth of a meter) instead of brittle wafers and encases them in a flexible polymer that can be rolled or bent.
"The idea is it would be lower-cost and easier to work with by being more flexible than conventional silicon solar cells," Michael Kelzenberg of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, who worked on the study, said in a telephone interview.
Solar cells, which convert solar energy into electricity, are in high demand because of higher oil prices and concerns over climate change.
Many companies, including Japanese consumer electronics maker Sharp and Germany's Q-Cells SE, are making thin-film solar cells using organic materials such as polymers, but they typically are less efficient at converting solar energy into electricity than conventional cells using silicon.
The study is among the latest to combine the flexibility of the new organic or carbon-containing films with the high efficiency of silicon, which is heavy and stiff.
Kelzenberg said the material uses about 1/100th as much silicon per cell area as a silicon wafer.
"It is potentially a route to bypass many of the costs associated with producing solar cells," he said.
He said a big problem with working with silicon wafers is they are fragile.
More testing is needed but Kelzenberg said the material would be about 15 percent to 20 percent efficient, about the same level as solar cells used on roofs to heat homes.
A similar effort is under way in the lab of John Rogers, a professor of materials science at the University of Illinois-Urbana-Campaign, who is working on ways to make inorganic materials more flexible.
While many companies are investing in organic solar cells--basically materials like plastic that contain carbon--Rogers said these materials have relatively low performance, less long-term reliability and an unproven cost structure.
"We like the inorganics--trying to adapt them and use them in nonstandard ways," Rogers said in a telephone interview.
Last year, his team reported on a new manufacturing process that creates thin arrays of solar cells that are flexible enough to be rolled around a pencil and transparent enough to be used to tint windows on buildings or cars.
"We can make them stretch like a rubber band or bendable like a sheet of plastic," he said.
He is founder of a start-up semiconductor company called Semprius in Durham, N.C., that last month announced a joint effort with Siemens to develop large systems for utility-scale power generation.
"The same technology they are using to make these rigid utility-scale modules could be used for flexible devices as well," he said.
Rogers said that the company has funding from the U.S. Department of Defense and the CIA.
Story Copyright (c) 2010 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Additional stories from Reuters
Obama steps up nuclear investment
Business challenges how gases to be curbed
GM seeking more U.S. ethanol fueling stations
Houston aims to be electric car capital
Topics: Solar, Energy efficiencyTags: silicon solar cells,solar cells,Nature MaterialsShare: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Yahoo! BuzzFacebook Twitter
Recent posts from Green Tech
A new wire twist on silicon solar cells
Effort to trace 'conflict minerals' in electronics
Nissan to take Leaf reservations in April
SunPower to acquire SunRay for $277 million
Porsche revs up 911 hybrid
IBM boosts solar cell made of abundant materials
Peering beyond the meter in the smart grid
One Block Off the Grid: Bulk solar, tell your friends Related
IBM boosts solar cell made of abundant materials
Areva buys solar-thermal start-up Ausra
Apple eyes gadgets with built-in solar panels
In clean energy, U.S. needs more steel in ground
Bill Gates thinks big on energy and climate
Hints of a bubble in green-tech IPOs
Obama lauds green tech, Web site for earmarks
One Block Off the Grid: Bulk solar, tell your friends Add a Comment (Log in or register) (22 Comments) prev next by monkeyfun14 February 14, 2010 2:10 PM PST
Now how much cheaper are we talking?
Like this Reply to this comment by codynews February 14, 2010 2:48 PM PST
I have a few apartment buildings with big flat roofs that I'd LOVE to put solar panels on. Each time I've looked at them ("now cheaper", "we'll finance!" "tax rebate available!") the numbers don't work.
It's a simple binary decision for me: If they have a life span of x years, I want to be able to finance them over x years, where my monthly payment is equal to or less than the electric savings they provide (or rather, the electric $ they generate as from what I've been told you don't actually use the power they produce directly, rather it feeds the grid to go against your own consumption).
I can't pay $300k for something that'll produce much less than that in savings :(
I'll keep looking...
Like this Reply to this comment 3 people like this comment
by Bakkster February 15, 2010 6:45 AM PST
You're half right in that you don't use the energy they produce directly. Firstly, solar photovoltaics produce Direct Current power, while the grid uses AC. This DC must be converted to AC (with a loss) before it can be used in your house.
However, if you are using power while your panels are operating, you do use that power directly. Any leftovers go back to the grid and your meter runs backwards, crediting you for the electricity supplied. If you are using more power than the panels supply, though, you will be using both your panel power and grid power.
However, you are correct that it's a binary decision on cost. The biggest factor is where you live: how much available sunlight you have and how direct it is. It is much more likely to be cost-effective at southern latitudes with little cloud cover, and highly unlikely at northern latitudes with little sunlight.
Like this by ColeSlaw82 February 15, 2010 12:05 PM PST
@Bakkster - I believe that codynews may be correct that he isn't directly using the energy his solar cells are producing. Some utility companies use a system with two meters on a structure. One of the electricity being used, and one for the electricity being generated. Both are read and then the generated is subtracted from the used electricty and that is your bill. The energy you generate all goes back onto the grid, and round-a-bouts may come back to you. The kind of metering you are thinking of is a true "net metering" where the meter on your structure can measure electricity in both directions so you are truely using your own power before generating back on to the grid.
Truely, it is semantics. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages but either way you are generating electricity and saving money (or not saving, as in cody's case)
Like this by mike_ekim February 16, 2010 11:57 AM PST
@ Bakkster and ColeSlaw - you both have missed his point - he doesn't care that he may not be directly using the power he produces. He cares that over the life of the investment he will be loosing money.
codynews - you raise good points, but keep in mind that a solar investment is much like other investments. you will be paying a fixed proce to pay off the panels, and the cost of electricity will continue to increase. Much like real estate (which you are obviously educated in) - if you have enough tenants to pay off the morgatge, and only 'break even', then in the end you have an apartment building you own. Likewise, if you take a small loss every month because you went to solar, but in (say) 10 years you own the solar system free and clear, you will begin enjoying 'free' power. And have an improvement to your property, should you look at selling.
But then again, why take on an investment where you loose every month and then profit at the end, when you could invest elsewhere and break even every month or maybe even make a couple of bucks, then profit at the end.
Like this by tech_crazy February 14, 2010 4:08 PM PST
While I am sure that this may be a radical improvement but is too good to believe. I looked at the abstract of the paper (needs paid access for the full paper) and it says, "with a peak external quantum efficiency of 0.89". If pure planar Si (or some other chemistry e.g. SunPower solar cells) is 29% efficient ), this is at most 3 times as efficient. So, the article seems misleading. Reducing the area to 1% would also reduce the corresponding output of the cells.
If Martin has more information, it would help putting it here.
Like this Reply to this comment by richard993 February 14, 2010 6:14 PM PST
What are we saying here exactly? Are we saying that for the same output of a typical solar cell at 20% efficiency, we achieve the same output with only 1% of the material used? or are we saying that the cell has the same efficiency but because it has less surface area, it's output is lower?
If it is the latter, it's too bad, because the research article is very misleading and hardly considered a breakthrough.
Think about it this way... if you achieve the same efficiency and output using 1% of the material, then using the same amount of material of a normal cell, you would increase the amount of electricity generated by a factor of 100. This would be considered to be the breakthrough of the century and would make solar cells an ultimate energy source.
But this is not what the misleading researcher is actually saying... but he has achieved his purpose: to get everybody's attention!
Like this Reply to this comment by drfillgood February 14, 2010 7:44 PM PST
Efficiency of solar cells means the percentage of the sunlight's energy that is converted to electrical energy for any surface area exposed to light, under ideal circumstances. So it's not trying to say how efficient it is per amount of material used. The article doesn't explain how it calculates solar cell efficiency, but this is pretty standard stuff in the solar cell industry.
Like this by USDecliningDollar February 15, 2010 9:27 AM PST
I agree with what you are saying, seems like this is basically a press release to generate interest - basically nothing really new and nothing really ground breaking. Seems like a lot of PR spin.
Like this by zyxxy February 16, 2010 6:31 AM PST
I think the material usage is because they are depending on the polymer for physical support. The silicon is just there to convert the sunlight to electricity. In a standard silicon panel, a large portion of the physical silicon consumed is so you can physically process and handle the cells. The sun only strikes the top surface, the active area is very thin. The remainder of the material is just to provide a reliable structure underneath. They are encapsulating silicon 'wires' inside a polymer sheet. Completely different structure and process.
Like this by drfillgood February 14, 2010 7:38 PM PST
The CIA is funding solar energy now? How does that make any sense?
Like this Reply to this comment by artistjoh February 15, 2010 3:37 AM PST
You think that the CIA doesn't use devices that use energy and that many of those devices are located in remote areas without reliable power supplies? Imagine an operative in a barren waste where foreign secret facilities are often located and he needs to use GPS to accurately pinpoint the location and satellite links for communications and potentially guiding in military strikes.
Such a person relying on conventional batteries can only be there for a very short time, someone with a solar array can easily be spotted but a flexible solar panel that can be draped over rocks etc and worn will be very portable and much easier to disguise.
The CIA and Defence departments would have a significant interest in developing this kind of technology.
Like this by drfillgood February 15, 2010 9:14 AM PST
I'm not arguing that the CIA or DoD have uses for solar cells, but at this point, solar cells already exist, present research is only likely to yield marginal improvements, and it isn't a technology that would give either of those agencies (but specially the CIA) a serious increase in operational ability. I guess they were sold on the flexible, "it could be woven into your clothing" part of the technology, so it could recharge the increasing amounts of electronics worn by soldiers and operatives. Still, it's a stretch.
Like this by zyxxy February 16, 2010 6:33 AM PST
Or you could roll up a huge sheet into a shipping tube for transport. Lots of area in a small container. Plus these are supposed to be more durable, less fragile, in handling. Both good factors for air drops.
Like this by freedomlovr February 15, 2010 7:36 AM PST
I like this. There are many applications I can see. This would be perfect for an aftermarket mod for electric cars. Just think, a solar charged car, never need to buy gas or plug it in...
Like this Reply to this comment by TogetherinParis February 15, 2010 9:27 AM PST
CIA? Forget about it. This company isn't real. CIA is just transferring tax funds to Cuban death squadders again. The same Cubans who stood with George H.W. Bush on Dealy Plaza over the body of JFK have received millions in CIA training, funding, special scholarship opportunities, car dealerships, beer dealerships, port jobs, you name it. It is a national disgrace to reward out of tax-payer funds the very same people who drew Vince Foster out of the White House and murdered him in a public park, the people who drugged up assassins to shoot Ronald Reagan and to shoot at Jerry Ford (because they were in George Bush's way) to murder LBJ, MLK, RFK, Wallace, and JFK.
Like this Reply to this comment by Mr_fleabite February 16, 2010 7:57 AM PST
WHOA, don't spend all your crazy in one place. Sprinkle that around it'll last longer.
Like this by mattie121 February 15, 2010 6:06 PM PST
A lot of you a missing a very important point. Most thin film photovoltaics rely on bulk properties of the materials in their photoconversion. Nanowires have another effect: the geometric constraints of the nanowire geometery mean that the electronics properties are not the same as the bulk properties. So this paper is saying that by using this effect, they can create greater efficiency with lower material content. This is good.
Also, many don't seem to be aware that a lot of the silicon in conventional photovoltaics is not active in the photo conversion process. So a large amount of the Si used in solar cells could be thrown away if there were ways to get the Si crystals to grow properly, sadly, this is not the case. Many have worked on getting Si films to grow on things like glass (much cheaper substrate) but it's not working out too well.
This is very promising indeed.
Matt
Like this Reply to this comment 2 people like this comment
by zyxxy February 16, 2010 6:36 AM PST
Exactly. Save the material for the active layer and use something else for physical support.
Like this by ac5501 February 16, 2010 8:57 AM PST
Vapor ware? Just one more energy "wonder" product we will never see. I'm still waiting for ethanol from switch grass. They said we would have that in 3 years... back in 2005. How about bio diesel from algae. I've been hearing about that one since 04, and back then it was only a couple years away.
How about the high/room temperature super conductors. I'm seeing a pattern here.
Like this Reply to this comment by brewster_13 February 16, 2010 9:30 AM PST
"15 percent to 20 percent efficient, about the same level as solar cells used on roofs to heat homes"
FYI, solar photovoltaic cells are not used to heat homes, they are used to create electricity. They are, generally in the 15 - 20% efficient at converting sunlight into electricity
Military halts cleanup of Florida tire reef
Two wars and earthquake relief in Haiti stretch forces thin, officials say
Wilfredo Lee / AP
Tim Keeney, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, checks out some of the approximately 2 million old tires that were dumped in the 1970s with the intent of creating an artificial reef off the shore of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
updated 4:38 p.m. ET, Wed., Feb. 10, 2010
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - With the job undone, U.S. military divers won't return this summer to Florida to clean up a failed artificial reef made of thousands of old tires.
The Army and Navy crews are just stretched too thin by conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror and earthquake relief in Haiti, a Pentagon official said this week.
About 700,000 tires, some bundled with nylon and steel, were sunk in 1972 a mile off Fort Lauderdale in about 70 feet of water with the good intention of creating an artificial reef.
But it became an ecological blunder: Little sea life formed on them and many tires came loose and scoured a patch of the ocean floor the size of 31 football fields. Thousands have wedged up against the nearby natural reef, stacked several feet high, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life.
Divers from the Army and Navy began cleaning up the mess in 2007, using the project for training at no cost to the state of Florida. But with just about 10 percent of the tires removed, they're not returning likely for at least two years.
"Unfortunately, they're not having a lot of time to train because they're committed, as the whole military is pretty well swamped," said David McGinnis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Can't restart until 2012
The soonest the project could likely resume is 2012, McGinnis said, provided the current schedule holds for withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
He said some divers who were resting after returning from active duty overseas have been sent to Haiti to help repair the port facilities in Port-au-Prince.
"We had to send them because we had no choice," McGinnis said. "We didn't have anybody else."
The tire cleanup was initially organized by Coastal America, a Washington-based conglomeration of employees from multiple government agencies that tackle marine problems. Last year, the Army's 86th Engineer Dive Team was presented a letter of congratulations from President Barack Obama, who hailed the project as "a significant contribution to the health of our living ocean resources."
It's an expensive operation that can only be conducted on calm summer days. Using two-man teams, the divers spend about 40 minutes at a time underwater, pulling the tires from the sand, stringing them together and raising them with inflatable bags. A crane hoists the tires into containers on a ship for recycling on land.
Without the military's help, the state can't afford to do it alone, said Pat Quinn, a Broward County marine biologist who has been coordinating with the military on the effort.
"It would add up very quickly," Quinn said. "Even in the best of economic times, I don't think it would be an option."
No details on cost
The Department of Defense wasn't able to immediately provide details on how much the project has cost the military.
The state of Florida has allocated $2 million to ship the tires for recycling at a Georgia facility. About $246,000 has been spent so far, according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The remaining money would likely be gone in a month without the military's help, Quinn said.
About 73,000 tires were removed the last three summers. Quinn said the initial target is to remove about 300,000 of the tires that are piled up against the natural reef. He had hoped to see some 50,000 removed this summer.
"I wouldn't call the project dead or gone," said Mary Jean Yon, director of FDEP's waste management division. "It's a bump in the road."
The effort's original coordinator, William Nuckols, a former member of Coastal America, was disappointed by the delay.
"As the person who conceived of the project and brought all the players together, the news it's stalled is disturbing," Nuckols said. "We've made progress but the coral habitat still needs restoring."
Wilfredo Lee / AP
Tim Keeney, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, checks out some of the approximately 2 million old tires that were dumped in the 1970s with the intent of creating an artificial reef off the shore of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
updated 4:38 p.m. ET, Wed., Feb. 10, 2010
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - With the job undone, U.S. military divers won't return this summer to Florida to clean up a failed artificial reef made of thousands of old tires.
The Army and Navy crews are just stretched too thin by conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror and earthquake relief in Haiti, a Pentagon official said this week.
About 700,000 tires, some bundled with nylon and steel, were sunk in 1972 a mile off Fort Lauderdale in about 70 feet of water with the good intention of creating an artificial reef.
But it became an ecological blunder: Little sea life formed on them and many tires came loose and scoured a patch of the ocean floor the size of 31 football fields. Thousands have wedged up against the nearby natural reef, stacked several feet high, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life.
Divers from the Army and Navy began cleaning up the mess in 2007, using the project for training at no cost to the state of Florida. But with just about 10 percent of the tires removed, they're not returning likely for at least two years.
"Unfortunately, they're not having a lot of time to train because they're committed, as the whole military is pretty well swamped," said David McGinnis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Can't restart until 2012
The soonest the project could likely resume is 2012, McGinnis said, provided the current schedule holds for withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
He said some divers who were resting after returning from active duty overseas have been sent to Haiti to help repair the port facilities in Port-au-Prince.
"We had to send them because we had no choice," McGinnis said. "We didn't have anybody else."
The tire cleanup was initially organized by Coastal America, a Washington-based conglomeration of employees from multiple government agencies that tackle marine problems. Last year, the Army's 86th Engineer Dive Team was presented a letter of congratulations from President Barack Obama, who hailed the project as "a significant contribution to the health of our living ocean resources."
It's an expensive operation that can only be conducted on calm summer days. Using two-man teams, the divers spend about 40 minutes at a time underwater, pulling the tires from the sand, stringing them together and raising them with inflatable bags. A crane hoists the tires into containers on a ship for recycling on land.
Without the military's help, the state can't afford to do it alone, said Pat Quinn, a Broward County marine biologist who has been coordinating with the military on the effort.
"It would add up very quickly," Quinn said. "Even in the best of economic times, I don't think it would be an option."
No details on cost
The Department of Defense wasn't able to immediately provide details on how much the project has cost the military.
The state of Florida has allocated $2 million to ship the tires for recycling at a Georgia facility. About $246,000 has been spent so far, according to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The remaining money would likely be gone in a month without the military's help, Quinn said.
About 73,000 tires were removed the last three summers. Quinn said the initial target is to remove about 300,000 of the tires that are piled up against the natural reef. He had hoped to see some 50,000 removed this summer.
"I wouldn't call the project dead or gone," said Mary Jean Yon, director of FDEP's waste management division. "It's a bump in the road."
The effort's original coordinator, William Nuckols, a former member of Coastal America, was disappointed by the delay.
"As the person who conceived of the project and brought all the players together, the news it's stalled is disturbing," Nuckols said. "We've made progress but the coral habitat still needs restoring."
Obama announces loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors
Obama announces loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors
February 16, 2010 12:53 p.m. EST
President Obama speaks during a visit to an IBEW training facility in Lanham, Maryland, on Tuesday.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Nuclear energy critic writes that the power source "remains unsafe and dirty"
The reactors would be part of an expansion of an existing nuclear facility
3,500 on-site construction jobs and 850 permanent operations jobs projected, officials say
Obama's proposed budget triples loan guarantees for nuclear power plants
RELATED TOPICS
Barack Obama
Jobs and Labor
Nuclear Energy
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday for two nuclear reactors to be built in Burke County, Georgia.
No new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in three decades.
The new reactors are to be part of an expansion of an existing nuclear facility near Augusta, Georgia, operated by Atlanta-based Southern Co.
The loan guarantees will help create 3,500 on-site construction jobs and 850 permanent operations jobs, administration officials claimed. The reactors will help provide power to over 550,000 homes and 1.4 million people, it said.
"This is only the beginning," Obama said during a visit to an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers training facility in Lanham, Maryland. "We'll continue to provide financing for clean energy projects ... across America."
The president acknowledged that construction of new nuclear facilities will meet with some political resistance. Nuclear development has traditionally been opposed by more progressive elements of the Democratic Party.
"The fact is, even though we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," Obama said.
"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple."
At the same time, the president argued, traditional Republican proponents of nuclear power should acknowledge that comprehensive energy legislation is needed to help provide incentives making clean energy more profitable.
Any new nuclear facilities, he promised, will "be held to the highest and strictest safety standards."
Nuclear power critics have slammed the administration's decision to back the construction of new reactors.
"The last thing Americans want is another government bailout for a failing industry, but that's exactly what they're getting from the Obama administration," energy analyst Ben Schreiber said in a press release issued this past weekend.
Schreiber works for the progressive group Friends of the Earth, which opposes nuclear power.
"The Department of Energy is putting taxpayers on the hook for bailing out costly and dangerous nuclear reactor projects when the loans used to finance those projects default. This is great news for Wall Street but a bad deal for Main Street."
The risk of default is high, Schreiber argued, while nuclear power "remains unsafe and dirty."
Obama's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget triples loan guarantees for nuclear power plants to over $54 billion, the White House noted.
Comment
I wouldnt be surprised if this isnt a small gesture of cooperation to the Republicans and a part of the political process. France gets around 20% of its energy from nuclear energy and hasnt had an accident in 50 years. If we can find a way to recycle the spent rods, or neutralize them, most of the negatives disappear. The main problem is that they are so expensive to build and take 7 or 8 years to complete. Those being built now had better have strong security built into the plant because they will be perfect targets for terrorists.
February 16, 2010 12:53 p.m. EST
President Obama speaks during a visit to an IBEW training facility in Lanham, Maryland, on Tuesday.STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: Nuclear energy critic writes that the power source "remains unsafe and dirty"
The reactors would be part of an expansion of an existing nuclear facility
3,500 on-site construction jobs and 850 permanent operations jobs projected, officials say
Obama's proposed budget triples loan guarantees for nuclear power plants
RELATED TOPICS
Barack Obama
Jobs and Labor
Nuclear Energy
Washington (CNN) -- President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday for two nuclear reactors to be built in Burke County, Georgia.
No new nuclear power plants have been built in the United States in three decades.
The new reactors are to be part of an expansion of an existing nuclear facility near Augusta, Georgia, operated by Atlanta-based Southern Co.
The loan guarantees will help create 3,500 on-site construction jobs and 850 permanent operations jobs, administration officials claimed. The reactors will help provide power to over 550,000 homes and 1.4 million people, it said.
"This is only the beginning," Obama said during a visit to an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers training facility in Lanham, Maryland. "We'll continue to provide financing for clean energy projects ... across America."
The president acknowledged that construction of new nuclear facilities will meet with some political resistance. Nuclear development has traditionally been opposed by more progressive elements of the Democratic Party.
"The fact is, even though we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions," Obama said.
"To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple."
At the same time, the president argued, traditional Republican proponents of nuclear power should acknowledge that comprehensive energy legislation is needed to help provide incentives making clean energy more profitable.
Any new nuclear facilities, he promised, will "be held to the highest and strictest safety standards."
Nuclear power critics have slammed the administration's decision to back the construction of new reactors.
"The last thing Americans want is another government bailout for a failing industry, but that's exactly what they're getting from the Obama administration," energy analyst Ben Schreiber said in a press release issued this past weekend.
Schreiber works for the progressive group Friends of the Earth, which opposes nuclear power.
"The Department of Energy is putting taxpayers on the hook for bailing out costly and dangerous nuclear reactor projects when the loans used to finance those projects default. This is great news for Wall Street but a bad deal for Main Street."
The risk of default is high, Schreiber argued, while nuclear power "remains unsafe and dirty."
Obama's proposed fiscal year 2011 budget triples loan guarantees for nuclear power plants to over $54 billion, the White House noted.
Comment
I wouldnt be surprised if this isnt a small gesture of cooperation to the Republicans and a part of the political process. France gets around 20% of its energy from nuclear energy and hasnt had an accident in 50 years. If we can find a way to recycle the spent rods, or neutralize them, most of the negatives disappear. The main problem is that they are so expensive to build and take 7 or 8 years to complete. Those being built now had better have strong security built into the plant because they will be perfect targets for terrorists.
Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car
Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car
TODD WOODY and CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: February 14, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — If electric cars have any future in the United States, this may be the city where they arrive first.
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Andrew Utter plugging his converted Toyota Prius into a charging station across the street from City Hall in San Francisco.
Related
Times Topics: Electric Vehicles
Mark Blinch/Reuters
The first wave of electric car buying is expected to begin around December when Nissan introduces the five-passenger Leaf.
The San Francisco building code will soon be revised to require that new structures be wired for car chargers. Across the street from City Hall, some drivers are already plugging converted hybrids into a row of charging stations.
In nearby Silicon Valley, companies are ordering workplace charging stations in the belief that their employees will be first in line when electric cars begin arriving in showrooms. And at the headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric, utility executives are preparing “heat maps” of neighborhoods that they fear may overload the power grid in their exuberance for electric cars.
“There is a huge momentum here,” said Andrew Tang, an executive at P.G.& E.
As automakers prepare to introduce the first mass-market electric cars late this year, it is increasingly evident that the cars will get their most serious tryout in just a handful of places. In cities like San Francisco, Portland, Ore., and San Diego, a combination of green consciousness and enthusiasm for new technology seems to be stirring public interest in the cars.
The first wave of electric car buying is expected to begin around December, when Nissan introduces the Leaf, a five-passenger electric car that will have a range of 100 miles on a fully charged battery and be priced for middle-class families.
Several thousand Leafs made in Japan will be delivered to metropolitan areas in California, Arizona, Washington state, Oregon and Tennessee. Around the same time, General Motors will introduce the Chevrolet Volt, a vehicle able to go 40 miles on electricity before its small gasoline engine kicks in.
“This is the game-changer for our industry,” said Carlos Ghosn, Nissan’s president and chief executive. He predicted that 10 percent of the cars sold would be electric vehicles by 2020.
Utilities are gearing up to cooperate with the automakers, a first for the two industries, and governments on the West Coast are focusing intently on the coming issues. Price and tax incentives need to be worked out. Locations must be found for charging stations. And local electrical grids may need reinforcement.
The California Public Utilities Commission, whose headquarters are in San Francisco, has brought together utilities, automakers and charging station companies in an urgent effort to write the new rules of the road.
Much of the attention on electric cars has been on the vehicles’ design, cost and performance. But success or failure could turn on more mundane matters, like the time it takes car buyers to navigate a municipal bureaucracy to have charging stations installed in their homes.
When the president of the California Public Utilities Commission, Michael R. Peevey, leased an electric Mini Cooper, he said, it took six weeks of visits by installers and inspectors before he could plug in his new car at home.
“It was really drawn out and frustrating and certainly is not workable on a mass basis,” Mr. Peevey said.
Such issues are being hashed out here first. The San Francisco area is home not only to a population of early technology adopters but to companies like Coulomb Technologies and Better Place that are developing the networks and software to allow utilities to manage how cars are charged.
Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley company that makes electric cars, says it has already sold 150 of its $109,000 Roadsters in the Bay Area. One customer bought the sleek sports car on the spot after a test drive.
“We asked him how he heard of Tesla and why he bought the car,” said Rachel Konrad, a Tesla spokeswoman. “He said, ‘Well, three other guys on my block have them.’ ”
In Berkeley, a town known for its environmental sensibility, one out of five cars sold today is a hybrid Prius. If electric cars are adopted that broadly in the next few years, problems could ensue.
“If you just allow willy-nilly random charging, are we going to have neighborhood blackouts?” asked Mr. Tang, the utility executive. He said a single car could consume three times as much electricity as a typical San Francisco home.
Mr. Tang is working to make sure that does not happen by monitoring where electric cars are sold in Northern California. And later this year P.G.&E. will lead a “smart charging” pilot project, connecting 200 cars to special charging stations that let utilities control the electrical demand at a given moment.
Robert Hayden, the clean transportation adviser for San Francisco, said the city hopes to have 60 charging stations installed in public garages by year’s end, with a thousand more available across the Bay Area in 2011. And in Oregon, an advisory group is working on charging stations and related issues.
Mark Finkenstaedt/General Motors, via European Pressphoto Agency
The Chevrolet Volt will be able to go 40 miles on electricity.
Related
Times Topics: Electric Vehicles
To avoid problems in areas with high car concentrations, utility executives said they would encourage people to charge their vehicles at night or to use smarter electric meters that help control demand.
“We are trying to be proactive about how to make sure that the transformers that serve these homes and neighborhoods are robust enough,” said Doug Kim, an executive at Southern California Edison, which serves Los Angeles.
Mr. Kim said the popularity of electric vehicles “will be a function of a lot of different things: the state of the economy, how many people can actually afford to buy the cars and the price of gasoline — how high does it have to be?”
Some transportation experts are skeptical that electric vehicles will catch on anywhere in the country, in large part because the batteries and the installation of home recharging units are expensive.
Dan Sperling, the director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, estimated that a typical electric car battery would cost the automaker $12,000, and a 240-volt charging unit would cost a household at least $1,500.
Without huge subsidies, “the reality is, these electric vehicles are not going to sweep the industry and become a major share of the market for a very long time,” Mr. Sperling said.
Despite such skepticism, Washington is putting considerable money into the effort, including billions of dollars in loans to Ford, Nissan and Tesla Motors.
Under last year’s stimulus package, nearly $200 million will support Nissan’s introduction of the Leaf by permitting the installation of 13,000 charging stations around cities in Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona and Tennessee in the next year or so. (Nissan plans to build the Leaf in Tennessee eventually.)
If electric cars do take off, consumers and society could benefit. Battery-powered motors are more efficient than gasoline engines. They cost drivers on average only 2.5 cents a mile for fuel, less than a third of the cost for a highly efficient gasoline car, according to proponents.
The Energy Department says electric cars produce less of the emissions linked to climate change than traditional vehicles, though how much less depends on the source of power on the local electricity grid.
Before the first Nissan Leafs and Chevrolet Volts reach the show room, an electric car infrastructure is getting a test drive in the Bay Area, in a limited way.
Google, which is talking to automakers about using its PowerMeter energy management software, has already become something of an electric transportation hub. At Google’s Mountain View headquarters, a handful of employees drive to work in Tesla Roadsters, and more drive a fleet of modified Priuses that Google owns. The employees pull into carports that are covered with solar panels and plug their cars into the 100 available charging stations.
Nearby, in downtown San Jose, the city has reserved street parking for electric vehicles and installed charging stations. Nearby, at Adobe Systems’ headquarters, an executive showed off a dozen charging stations in the parking garage. Eighteen more will be installed this year.
“No one wants to be left behind,” said Richard Lowenthal, chief executive of Coulomb Technologies. “We’re preparing for an onslaught of demand.”
TODD WOODY and CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: February 14, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — If electric cars have any future in the United States, this may be the city where they arrive first.
Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Andrew Utter plugging his converted Toyota Prius into a charging station across the street from City Hall in San Francisco.
Related
Times Topics: Electric Vehicles
Mark Blinch/Reuters
The first wave of electric car buying is expected to begin around December when Nissan introduces the five-passenger Leaf.
The San Francisco building code will soon be revised to require that new structures be wired for car chargers. Across the street from City Hall, some drivers are already plugging converted hybrids into a row of charging stations.
In nearby Silicon Valley, companies are ordering workplace charging stations in the belief that their employees will be first in line when electric cars begin arriving in showrooms. And at the headquarters of Pacific Gas and Electric, utility executives are preparing “heat maps” of neighborhoods that they fear may overload the power grid in their exuberance for electric cars.
“There is a huge momentum here,” said Andrew Tang, an executive at P.G.& E.
As automakers prepare to introduce the first mass-market electric cars late this year, it is increasingly evident that the cars will get their most serious tryout in just a handful of places. In cities like San Francisco, Portland, Ore., and San Diego, a combination of green consciousness and enthusiasm for new technology seems to be stirring public interest in the cars.
The first wave of electric car buying is expected to begin around December, when Nissan introduces the Leaf, a five-passenger electric car that will have a range of 100 miles on a fully charged battery and be priced for middle-class families.
Several thousand Leafs made in Japan will be delivered to metropolitan areas in California, Arizona, Washington state, Oregon and Tennessee. Around the same time, General Motors will introduce the Chevrolet Volt, a vehicle able to go 40 miles on electricity before its small gasoline engine kicks in.
“This is the game-changer for our industry,” said Carlos Ghosn, Nissan’s president and chief executive. He predicted that 10 percent of the cars sold would be electric vehicles by 2020.
Utilities are gearing up to cooperate with the automakers, a first for the two industries, and governments on the West Coast are focusing intently on the coming issues. Price and tax incentives need to be worked out. Locations must be found for charging stations. And local electrical grids may need reinforcement.
The California Public Utilities Commission, whose headquarters are in San Francisco, has brought together utilities, automakers and charging station companies in an urgent effort to write the new rules of the road.
Much of the attention on electric cars has been on the vehicles’ design, cost and performance. But success or failure could turn on more mundane matters, like the time it takes car buyers to navigate a municipal bureaucracy to have charging stations installed in their homes.
When the president of the California Public Utilities Commission, Michael R. Peevey, leased an electric Mini Cooper, he said, it took six weeks of visits by installers and inspectors before he could plug in his new car at home.
“It was really drawn out and frustrating and certainly is not workable on a mass basis,” Mr. Peevey said.
Such issues are being hashed out here first. The San Francisco area is home not only to a population of early technology adopters but to companies like Coulomb Technologies and Better Place that are developing the networks and software to allow utilities to manage how cars are charged.
Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley company that makes electric cars, says it has already sold 150 of its $109,000 Roadsters in the Bay Area. One customer bought the sleek sports car on the spot after a test drive.
“We asked him how he heard of Tesla and why he bought the car,” said Rachel Konrad, a Tesla spokeswoman. “He said, ‘Well, three other guys on my block have them.’ ”
In Berkeley, a town known for its environmental sensibility, one out of five cars sold today is a hybrid Prius. If electric cars are adopted that broadly in the next few years, problems could ensue.
“If you just allow willy-nilly random charging, are we going to have neighborhood blackouts?” asked Mr. Tang, the utility executive. He said a single car could consume three times as much electricity as a typical San Francisco home.
Mr. Tang is working to make sure that does not happen by monitoring where electric cars are sold in Northern California. And later this year P.G.&E. will lead a “smart charging” pilot project, connecting 200 cars to special charging stations that let utilities control the electrical demand at a given moment.
Robert Hayden, the clean transportation adviser for San Francisco, said the city hopes to have 60 charging stations installed in public garages by year’s end, with a thousand more available across the Bay Area in 2011. And in Oregon, an advisory group is working on charging stations and related issues.
Mark Finkenstaedt/General Motors, via European Pressphoto Agency
The Chevrolet Volt will be able to go 40 miles on electricity.
Related
Times Topics: Electric Vehicles
To avoid problems in areas with high car concentrations, utility executives said they would encourage people to charge their vehicles at night or to use smarter electric meters that help control demand.
“We are trying to be proactive about how to make sure that the transformers that serve these homes and neighborhoods are robust enough,” said Doug Kim, an executive at Southern California Edison, which serves Los Angeles.
Mr. Kim said the popularity of electric vehicles “will be a function of a lot of different things: the state of the economy, how many people can actually afford to buy the cars and the price of gasoline — how high does it have to be?”
Some transportation experts are skeptical that electric vehicles will catch on anywhere in the country, in large part because the batteries and the installation of home recharging units are expensive.
Dan Sperling, the director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, estimated that a typical electric car battery would cost the automaker $12,000, and a 240-volt charging unit would cost a household at least $1,500.
Without huge subsidies, “the reality is, these electric vehicles are not going to sweep the industry and become a major share of the market for a very long time,” Mr. Sperling said.
Despite such skepticism, Washington is putting considerable money into the effort, including billions of dollars in loans to Ford, Nissan and Tesla Motors.
Under last year’s stimulus package, nearly $200 million will support Nissan’s introduction of the Leaf by permitting the installation of 13,000 charging stations around cities in Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona and Tennessee in the next year or so. (Nissan plans to build the Leaf in Tennessee eventually.)
If electric cars do take off, consumers and society could benefit. Battery-powered motors are more efficient than gasoline engines. They cost drivers on average only 2.5 cents a mile for fuel, less than a third of the cost for a highly efficient gasoline car, according to proponents.
The Energy Department says electric cars produce less of the emissions linked to climate change than traditional vehicles, though how much less depends on the source of power on the local electricity grid.
Before the first Nissan Leafs and Chevrolet Volts reach the show room, an electric car infrastructure is getting a test drive in the Bay Area, in a limited way.
Google, which is talking to automakers about using its PowerMeter energy management software, has already become something of an electric transportation hub. At Google’s Mountain View headquarters, a handful of employees drive to work in Tesla Roadsters, and more drive a fleet of modified Priuses that Google owns. The employees pull into carports that are covered with solar panels and plug their cars into the 100 available charging stations.
Nearby, in downtown San Jose, the city has reserved street parking for electric vehicles and installed charging stations. Nearby, at Adobe Systems’ headquarters, an executive showed off a dozen charging stations in the parking garage. Eighteen more will be installed this year.
“No one wants to be left behind,” said Richard Lowenthal, chief executive of Coulomb Technologies. “We’re preparing for an onslaught of demand.”
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Utility PG and E to finance rooftop solar panels
January 20, 2010 9:44 AM PST
by Martin LaMonica
Pacific Gas & Electric will fund the installation and leasing of solar panels at about 1,000 homes and businesses this year.
Panels installed by SolarCity in the hills of Berkeley, Calif.
(Credit: SolarCity) The California utility on Wednesday announced a deal with SolarCity, a Silicon Valley start-up that will provide PG&E customers the financing to install rooftop solar panels with little upfront money. PG&E subsidiary Pacific Venture Capital will provide $60 million in tax equity to SolarCity for its installation and financing services.
Rather than own solar panels, SolarCity customers pay a monthly fee and a relatively small or no upfront investment. SolarCity, which owns the solar panels, can sell the electricity solar panels generate and take advantage of local and federal tax incentives.
The financing is structured so that customers can lower their monthly electricity rates, according to SolarCity. A contract can be a lease or a power purchase agreement, where the customer purchases the electricity the panels generate at a predetermined rate.
A number of solar installers are starting to offer financing options, which gets around the initial investment of $25,000 to $40,000, depending on the size.
But PG&E said the deal is the first between a utility and a solar financing company. "It enables us to take an initial step toward gaining valuable experience with a technology and a marketplace that may become increasingly important in the future," said Rand Rosenberg, a senior vice president of corporate strategy and development, in a statement. The installations will be in California, with some in Colorado and Arizona.
PG&E, seeking to meet aggressive renewable energy targets for California utilities, is also investing in large-scale solar plants and midsize distributed solar arrays.
by Martin LaMonica
Pacific Gas & Electric will fund the installation and leasing of solar panels at about 1,000 homes and businesses this year.
Panels installed by SolarCity in the hills of Berkeley, Calif.
(Credit: SolarCity) The California utility on Wednesday announced a deal with SolarCity, a Silicon Valley start-up that will provide PG&E customers the financing to install rooftop solar panels with little upfront money. PG&E subsidiary Pacific Venture Capital will provide $60 million in tax equity to SolarCity for its installation and financing services.
Rather than own solar panels, SolarCity customers pay a monthly fee and a relatively small or no upfront investment. SolarCity, which owns the solar panels, can sell the electricity solar panels generate and take advantage of local and federal tax incentives.
The financing is structured so that customers can lower their monthly electricity rates, according to SolarCity. A contract can be a lease or a power purchase agreement, where the customer purchases the electricity the panels generate at a predetermined rate.
A number of solar installers are starting to offer financing options, which gets around the initial investment of $25,000 to $40,000, depending on the size.
But PG&E said the deal is the first between a utility and a solar financing company. "It enables us to take an initial step toward gaining valuable experience with a technology and a marketplace that may become increasingly important in the future," said Rand Rosenberg, a senior vice president of corporate strategy and development, in a statement. The installations will be in California, with some in Colorado and Arizona.
PG&E, seeking to meet aggressive renewable energy targets for California utilities, is also investing in large-scale solar plants and midsize distributed solar arrays.
Solar-driven Stirling engines get to work
January 22, 2010 12:17 PM PST
by Martin LaMonica
(Credit: Salt River Project)
Business and government officials on Friday cut the ribbon on a solar array in Arizona that uses giant parabolic dishes to generate electricity from the sun.
Solar plant developer Tessera Solar installed 60 solar collectors, called the SunCatcher from Stirling Energy Systems, in Peoria, Ariz. Each dish is rated at 25 kilowatts and the entire facility will have a capacity of 1.5-megawatts of generation.
Utilities installing large-scale solar power generation are typically using arrays of flat photovoltaic panels or concentrating solar power systems, where mirrors or reflective troughs create heat to make electricity.
The Stirling Energy Systems technology also captures heat by using a mirrored parabolic dish that moves to track the sun. But instead of heating a liquid to make steam for a turbine, the heat is directed at a hydrogen gas-filled piston, which drives a Stirling engine to make electricity.
The company claims its technology delivers electricity more efficiently and uses less water than other technologies. Inifinia is another company that has built a solar-powered Stirling engine using a parabolic dish, although it is smaller.
Tessera Solar said that it has contracts to install as much as 1,600 megawatts' worth of capacity in California and Texas
by Martin LaMonica
(Credit: Salt River Project)
Business and government officials on Friday cut the ribbon on a solar array in Arizona that uses giant parabolic dishes to generate electricity from the sun.
Solar plant developer Tessera Solar installed 60 solar collectors, called the SunCatcher from Stirling Energy Systems, in Peoria, Ariz. Each dish is rated at 25 kilowatts and the entire facility will have a capacity of 1.5-megawatts of generation.
Utilities installing large-scale solar power generation are typically using arrays of flat photovoltaic panels or concentrating solar power systems, where mirrors or reflective troughs create heat to make electricity.
The Stirling Energy Systems technology also captures heat by using a mirrored parabolic dish that moves to track the sun. But instead of heating a liquid to make steam for a turbine, the heat is directed at a hydrogen gas-filled piston, which drives a Stirling engine to make electricity.
The company claims its technology delivers electricity more efficiently and uses less water than other technologies. Inifinia is another company that has built a solar-powered Stirling engine using a parabolic dish, although it is smaller.
Tessera Solar said that it has contracts to install as much as 1,600 megawatts' worth of capacity in California and Texas
Abu Dhabi to plug in solar air conditioner
January 15, 2010 7:26 AM PST
by Martin LaMonica
Chromasun plans to install a solar-driven air conditioner--a technology with the potential to cut peak-time electricity use--at a commercial building in Abu Dhabi this year.
The company is showcasing the Chromasun solar collector, which concentrates sunlight 25 times, at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi this week, CEO Peter Le Lievre said Thursday.
A solar collector that makes cold air.
(Credit: Chromasun)
Chromasun's collectors use a Fresnel lens made from aluminum to concentrate light and then heat a liquid used in an absorption chiller, an air conditioning system used in some commercial buildings. It's the same basic concentrating-solar technology used by solar thermal company Ausra, of which Le Lievre was a co-founder. But the "micro-concentrator" is designed specifically for existing air conditioners.
A micro-concentrator will not be sufficient to cool an entire building, but its maximum output coincides with the hottest times of the day when air conditioning systems are maxed out. The installation in Abu Dhabi, which is being demonstrated at the Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Authority's stand at the energy summit, can significantly reduce peak-time demand and help stabilize the grid during hot days, Le Lievre said.
In Abu Dhabi, temperatures can break 100 degrees on a daily basis for five months out of each year.
Chromasun also intends to test its system in places that have both good sun and incentives for renewable energy, such as California. Because its solar concentrators are relatively efficient at even high temperatures, the company said that the payback will be quicker than traditional flat-plate or evacuated tube solar collectors or solar electric panels.
Over the course of the day, the solar collectors change their angle for optimum exposure. The installation in Abu Dhabi will require that a two-phase absorption chiller system be installed to supplement the existing air conditioner.
by Martin LaMonica
Chromasun plans to install a solar-driven air conditioner--a technology with the potential to cut peak-time electricity use--at a commercial building in Abu Dhabi this year.
The company is showcasing the Chromasun solar collector, which concentrates sunlight 25 times, at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi this week, CEO Peter Le Lievre said Thursday.
A solar collector that makes cold air.
(Credit: Chromasun)
Chromasun's collectors use a Fresnel lens made from aluminum to concentrate light and then heat a liquid used in an absorption chiller, an air conditioning system used in some commercial buildings. It's the same basic concentrating-solar technology used by solar thermal company Ausra, of which Le Lievre was a co-founder. But the "micro-concentrator" is designed specifically for existing air conditioners.
A micro-concentrator will not be sufficient to cool an entire building, but its maximum output coincides with the hottest times of the day when air conditioning systems are maxed out. The installation in Abu Dhabi, which is being demonstrated at the Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Authority's stand at the energy summit, can significantly reduce peak-time demand and help stabilize the grid during hot days, Le Lievre said.
In Abu Dhabi, temperatures can break 100 degrees on a daily basis for five months out of each year.
Chromasun also intends to test its system in places that have both good sun and incentives for renewable energy, such as California. Because its solar concentrators are relatively efficient at even high temperatures, the company said that the payback will be quicker than traditional flat-plate or evacuated tube solar collectors or solar electric panels.
Over the course of the day, the solar collectors change their angle for optimum exposure. The installation in Abu Dhabi will require that a two-phase absorption chiller system be installed to supplement the existing air conditioner.
One Block Off the Grid: Bulk solar, tell your friends
February 10, 2010 9:01 PM PST
by Martin LaMonica
Just like you need an accountant to navigate the tax code, you need an agent to get a good deal on solar panels, according to One Block Off the Grid.
The San Francisco-based start-up on Thursday announced that it has secured a series A funding round of $5 million from New Enterprise Associations to expand its operations. It follows angel funding it raised a little over one year ago.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET) One Block Off the Grid seeks to make it cheaper and simpler for homeowners to buy solar electric panels by acting as an agent to solar installers. It is able to lower the cost of solar about 15 percent by aggregating hundreds of interested customers to get a group discount, explained CEO Dave Llorens.
At the company Web site, consumers can evaluate how good their location is for solar and get an estimate of the cost, taking into account state and federal subsidies. Once a sizable number of people show interest, One Block Off the Grid will take bids from solar installers. At that point, homeowners can get bids for the work. One Block Off the Grid charges a fee to installers once a job is completed.
The whole goal is to scale up the use of solar energy to power homes, said LLorens. The problem is that even when people show some interest, it's hard to get a good idea of what's entailed in installing panels or the cost. Installers, meanwhile, are reluctant to share pricing information, in part because the price for solar panels is high--anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000 before rebates, depending on the size.
The model has worked so far: there were 600 installations done in 2009 and the company was profitable, said Llorens. This year, its goal is to do another 5,000 to 10,000. The company is now in ten regions cities around the U.S. and hopes to expand to another ten to fifteen this year.
Key to the entire enterprise is the company's social marketing skills, which helps bring down the cost of sales. The company has 300,000 followers on Twitter and uses Facebook and its Web site to sign people up.
One Block Off the Grid isn't just appealing to hard-core environmentalists. Depending on the state incentives, homeowners can get about half of a solar panel installation paid and then make money from renewable energy certificates. "Nobody seems to know it, but the economics of buying solar panels in New Jersey are ridiculous," said Llorens.
The company hopes to offer similar bulk-buying services for solar hot water installations, too, he added.
Comment
This idea needs to be sent to the Sierra Club and all other Green organizations.
by Martin LaMonica
Just like you need an accountant to navigate the tax code, you need an agent to get a good deal on solar panels, according to One Block Off the Grid.
The San Francisco-based start-up on Thursday announced that it has secured a series A funding round of $5 million from New Enterprise Associations to expand its operations. It follows angel funding it raised a little over one year ago.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET) One Block Off the Grid seeks to make it cheaper and simpler for homeowners to buy solar electric panels by acting as an agent to solar installers. It is able to lower the cost of solar about 15 percent by aggregating hundreds of interested customers to get a group discount, explained CEO Dave Llorens.
At the company Web site, consumers can evaluate how good their location is for solar and get an estimate of the cost, taking into account state and federal subsidies. Once a sizable number of people show interest, One Block Off the Grid will take bids from solar installers. At that point, homeowners can get bids for the work. One Block Off the Grid charges a fee to installers once a job is completed.
The whole goal is to scale up the use of solar energy to power homes, said LLorens. The problem is that even when people show some interest, it's hard to get a good idea of what's entailed in installing panels or the cost. Installers, meanwhile, are reluctant to share pricing information, in part because the price for solar panels is high--anywhere from $25,000 to $40,000 before rebates, depending on the size.
The model has worked so far: there were 600 installations done in 2009 and the company was profitable, said Llorens. This year, its goal is to do another 5,000 to 10,000. The company is now in ten regions cities around the U.S. and hopes to expand to another ten to fifteen this year.
Key to the entire enterprise is the company's social marketing skills, which helps bring down the cost of sales. The company has 300,000 followers on Twitter and uses Facebook and its Web site to sign people up.
One Block Off the Grid isn't just appealing to hard-core environmentalists. Depending on the state incentives, homeowners can get about half of a solar panel installation paid and then make money from renewable energy certificates. "Nobody seems to know it, but the economics of buying solar panels in New Jersey are ridiculous," said Llorens.
The company hopes to offer similar bulk-buying services for solar hot water installations, too, he added.
Comment
This idea needs to be sent to the Sierra Club and all other Green organizations.
IBM boosts solar cell made of abundant materials
February 11, 2010 8:16 AM PST
by Martin LaMonica
IBM researchers are developing a solar cell with an eye towards what's in the ground.
Researchers on Wednesday published a technical paper in the journal Advanced Materials that describes a solar cell made of abundant materials with relatively high efficiency. The cell can convert 9.6 percent of solar energy into electrical energy, a 40 percent boost over current methods.
That level of efficiency is already far exceeded in commercial silicon-based cells and even beat by thin-film solar cells, which are cheaper to make than silicon cells but are less efficient. But IBM researchers set out to make a cell that uses materials that are relatively abundant elements--copper, zinc, tin, and sulfur, or selenium (CZTS). The availability of materials for existing solar technologies limits their long-term potential, according to IBM.
Solar cells made of copper, tin, zinc, and sulfur.
(Credit: IBM )
First Solar, which claims to have the lowest cost per watt, makes its thin-film cells from cadmium and tellurium. GE, too, plans to sell solar panels with cadmium telluride cells as early as next year as well. There are also several start-up companies, including Nanosolar, Miasole, and HelioVolt, which make cells using a combination of copper, indium, gallium, and selenide, or CIGS.
The problem with these is the scarcity of materials or the environmental impact, according to IBM researchers Teodor Todorov, Kathleen Reuter, and David Mitz, who authored the paper. That means that other solar cell materials are needed to meet anticipated renewable energy demands, they said.
"Other solar cells which perform at similar efficiency levels are comprised of materials that have been either too costly to produce or contain elements that could limit production capacity, or have poor prospects for further improvements in efficiency, making commercialization and wide usage less likely," said Thomas Theis, director of physical sciences at IBM's T.J. Watson Research Lab, in a blog post.
One of the advantages of thin-film technologies is that that not much material is needed to make a cell, compared to traditional cell manufacturing. CIGS cells can be made using high-speed fabrication techniques, such as roll-to-roll manufacturing. The technique developed by IBM uses a similar "ink-based" method.
Matthew Beard, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratories not involved in the work, called the IBM research a "breakthrough."
The researchers estimate that if the technology can be taken beyond its basic state right now and achieve 12 percent efficiency, it could be an economically viable alternative to current products
by Martin LaMonica
IBM researchers are developing a solar cell with an eye towards what's in the ground.
Researchers on Wednesday published a technical paper in the journal Advanced Materials that describes a solar cell made of abundant materials with relatively high efficiency. The cell can convert 9.6 percent of solar energy into electrical energy, a 40 percent boost over current methods.
That level of efficiency is already far exceeded in commercial silicon-based cells and even beat by thin-film solar cells, which are cheaper to make than silicon cells but are less efficient. But IBM researchers set out to make a cell that uses materials that are relatively abundant elements--copper, zinc, tin, and sulfur, or selenium (CZTS). The availability of materials for existing solar technologies limits their long-term potential, according to IBM.
Solar cells made of copper, tin, zinc, and sulfur.
(Credit: IBM )
First Solar, which claims to have the lowest cost per watt, makes its thin-film cells from cadmium and tellurium. GE, too, plans to sell solar panels with cadmium telluride cells as early as next year as well. There are also several start-up companies, including Nanosolar, Miasole, and HelioVolt, which make cells using a combination of copper, indium, gallium, and selenide, or CIGS.
The problem with these is the scarcity of materials or the environmental impact, according to IBM researchers Teodor Todorov, Kathleen Reuter, and David Mitz, who authored the paper. That means that other solar cell materials are needed to meet anticipated renewable energy demands, they said.
"Other solar cells which perform at similar efficiency levels are comprised of materials that have been either too costly to produce or contain elements that could limit production capacity, or have poor prospects for further improvements in efficiency, making commercialization and wide usage less likely," said Thomas Theis, director of physical sciences at IBM's T.J. Watson Research Lab, in a blog post.
One of the advantages of thin-film technologies is that that not much material is needed to make a cell, compared to traditional cell manufacturing. CIGS cells can be made using high-speed fabrication techniques, such as roll-to-roll manufacturing. The technique developed by IBM uses a similar "ink-based" method.
Matthew Beard, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratories not involved in the work, called the IBM research a "breakthrough."
The researchers estimate that if the technology can be taken beyond its basic state right now and achieve 12 percent efficiency, it could be an economically viable alternative to current products
Peering beyond the meter in the smart grid
February 11, 2010 3:00 AM PST
by Martin LaMonica
BOSTON--Even the most enthusiastic supporter of the smart grid realizes that there's a limit to how much consumers want to actively manage energy use. Instead, most consumers would rather just "set it and forget it," much like they do with programmable thermostats.
Consulting company Accenture on Wednesday here opened the doors to a trailer that serves as a smart-grid demonstration, modeled on the experience of Xcel Energy's SmartGridCity program in Boulder, Colo. Giving consumers more awareness of their energy consumption through an energy monitor or Web site, as is the case with the Boulder pilot, should help people save money and lighten their environmental footprint with relatively simple changes to behavior.
But getting a feel for the nuts and bolts of the grid at the demo reminded me that the smart grid is more than two-way meters and pie charts showing how much appliances consume each day. Equally important is the level of automation that computer technologies can add at the edges of the grid and in people's homes.
A look at the home energy management system used by Xcel Energy's smart grid program in Boulder, Colo. In addition to providing more visibility into utility bills, the system also allows consumers to program and remotely control appliances, lighting, and heating and cooling systems (see control screen on left).
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)
The transmission grid--the long-distance power lines that carry high-voltage current--is pretty smart already since it has sensors and can, in general, automatically react to trouble spots, said Brian Martin, a partner at Accenture's smart-grid services program, during my visit. What needs more automation and computer-aided intelligence is the distribution grid, where electricity goes from substations and pole-mounted transformers and is routed into people's homes.
For example, a drop in voltage on a line, what could be called "low-quality power," could mean flickering lights or that a residence won't be able to run many power-hungry appliances at once. One way to address that problem is through smart meters, which can monitor the voltage and send signals to equipment at substations to boost voltage, Martin explained.
Automation plays out within the home as well in the vision of the smart grid. With smart meters and other energy management devices, some Boulder residents in the pilot can control their homes' appliances and mechanical systems over the Internet. For example, a consumer could decide to put the heat on in the bedrooms from a smartphone while on the way home.
In the long turn, these sorts of control features are what will appeal to consumers, more than providing very detailed information on their usage, said Sander van 't Noordende, group chief executive of Accenture's Resources Operating Group.
"The challenge on the consumer side is consumer behavior. Frankly, I'm not that interested in looking at my utility bill on the computer and watching it very closely--the fun wears off pretty quickly," he said.
In the future, smart-grid tools will be used to create a home energy profile, much the way people buy mobile phone plans to match their usage pattern. Consumers could program heating and cooling as they do now. But smart meters and networked appliances allow for new efficiency services, such as agreeing to turn up the air conditioner thermostat when the grid is stressed in exchange for rebates or cheaper rates.
"So you install it once and the system in your home automatically does what you need it to do," van 't Noordende said. He predicts that smart meters will become like PCs or mobile phones: at first consumers weren't sure they needed them, but over time they have become widespread.
Data overload
For all the technical promise of the smart grid, though, there are serious challenges that have little to do with consumer involvement in managing energy.
The Xcel Energy smart-grid program, in fact, has come under scrutiny from regulators because of ballooning costs. The Boulder Camera newspaper on Saturday reported that the construction costs--largely related to laying the fiber optic cables required to carry more data between utilities and customers--have grown from an anticipated $15.3 million almost two years ago to $42.1 million, raising questions over how the trial will affect utility bills.
Comment
I would imagine that the smart meters would be better utilized by taking the power from the water heater or the refrigerator for short periods if it was needed somewhere else in the house. In addition, as is already the case here in Miami, power from one house can be diverted to another house or area when needed.
by Martin LaMonica
BOSTON--Even the most enthusiastic supporter of the smart grid realizes that there's a limit to how much consumers want to actively manage energy use. Instead, most consumers would rather just "set it and forget it," much like they do with programmable thermostats.
Consulting company Accenture on Wednesday here opened the doors to a trailer that serves as a smart-grid demonstration, modeled on the experience of Xcel Energy's SmartGridCity program in Boulder, Colo. Giving consumers more awareness of their energy consumption through an energy monitor or Web site, as is the case with the Boulder pilot, should help people save money and lighten their environmental footprint with relatively simple changes to behavior.
But getting a feel for the nuts and bolts of the grid at the demo reminded me that the smart grid is more than two-way meters and pie charts showing how much appliances consume each day. Equally important is the level of automation that computer technologies can add at the edges of the grid and in people's homes.
A look at the home energy management system used by Xcel Energy's smart grid program in Boulder, Colo. In addition to providing more visibility into utility bills, the system also allows consumers to program and remotely control appliances, lighting, and heating and cooling systems (see control screen on left).
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)
The transmission grid--the long-distance power lines that carry high-voltage current--is pretty smart already since it has sensors and can, in general, automatically react to trouble spots, said Brian Martin, a partner at Accenture's smart-grid services program, during my visit. What needs more automation and computer-aided intelligence is the distribution grid, where electricity goes from substations and pole-mounted transformers and is routed into people's homes.
For example, a drop in voltage on a line, what could be called "low-quality power," could mean flickering lights or that a residence won't be able to run many power-hungry appliances at once. One way to address that problem is through smart meters, which can monitor the voltage and send signals to equipment at substations to boost voltage, Martin explained.
Automation plays out within the home as well in the vision of the smart grid. With smart meters and other energy management devices, some Boulder residents in the pilot can control their homes' appliances and mechanical systems over the Internet. For example, a consumer could decide to put the heat on in the bedrooms from a smartphone while on the way home.
In the long turn, these sorts of control features are what will appeal to consumers, more than providing very detailed information on their usage, said Sander van 't Noordende, group chief executive of Accenture's Resources Operating Group.
"The challenge on the consumer side is consumer behavior. Frankly, I'm not that interested in looking at my utility bill on the computer and watching it very closely--the fun wears off pretty quickly," he said.
In the future, smart-grid tools will be used to create a home energy profile, much the way people buy mobile phone plans to match their usage pattern. Consumers could program heating and cooling as they do now. But smart meters and networked appliances allow for new efficiency services, such as agreeing to turn up the air conditioner thermostat when the grid is stressed in exchange for rebates or cheaper rates.
"So you install it once and the system in your home automatically does what you need it to do," van 't Noordende said. He predicts that smart meters will become like PCs or mobile phones: at first consumers weren't sure they needed them, but over time they have become widespread.
Data overload
For all the technical promise of the smart grid, though, there are serious challenges that have little to do with consumer involvement in managing energy.
The Xcel Energy smart-grid program, in fact, has come under scrutiny from regulators because of ballooning costs. The Boulder Camera newspaper on Saturday reported that the construction costs--largely related to laying the fiber optic cables required to carry more data between utilities and customers--have grown from an anticipated $15.3 million almost two years ago to $42.1 million, raising questions over how the trial will affect utility bills.
Comment
I would imagine that the smart meters would be better utilized by taking the power from the water heater or the refrigerator for short periods if it was needed somewhere else in the house. In addition, as is already the case here in Miami, power from one house can be diverted to another house or area when needed.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
LED maker Bridgelux targets general lighting
February 3, 2010 5:00 AM PST
by Martin LaMonica
At the current rate of technology development, it's possible that LED replacements for 60-watt incandescent bulbs could drop below $10 by the end of this year, said Mark Swoboda, the president of LED maker Bridgelux.
Although technically feasible, that six- or eight-fold price drop is not likely to happen. Swoboda figures that price could only be reached in the case of a lighting company selling directly to a customer.
One of Bridgelux's coin-size arrays, which are designed for a range of lighting applications.
(Credit: Bridgelux) Still, prices are falling and efficiency is improving. Bridgelux on Wednesday is set to introduce a line of LED arrays which can be used in different applications, such as household lightbulbs, down lights, and street and commercial lighting.
With the new line of LEDs, the amount of light per watt has improved by over 30 percent in the past year and the costs have fallen between 10 percent and 30 percent, Swoboda said.
"Our core technology has improved to the point where it can deliver a light source that makes it very easy for a lamp or luminaire company to meet or exceed requirements to meet EnergyStar or (California's lighting efficiency standard) Title 24," Swoboda said.
Silicon Valley-based Bridgelux, which recruited former Seagate CEO Bill Watkins as chief executive officer earlier this month, makes the lighting components needed to make an LED bulb or lamp. It uses indium gallium nitride treated with phosphorus as its semiconductor material, which Swoboda said offers a good-quality light at relatively low costs.
In terms of energy efficiency, he said that lights using its LED chips exceed the efficiency of compact florescent lighting and have the advantage of lasting longer.
Its latest line of arrays range in output from 240 lumens to over 4,500 lumens, making them suitable for both general consumer lighting and commercial applications, such as retail stores. A 60-watt bulb is about 800 lumens and a 150-watt bulb is about 2,000
by Martin LaMonica
At the current rate of technology development, it's possible that LED replacements for 60-watt incandescent bulbs could drop below $10 by the end of this year, said Mark Swoboda, the president of LED maker Bridgelux.
Although technically feasible, that six- or eight-fold price drop is not likely to happen. Swoboda figures that price could only be reached in the case of a lighting company selling directly to a customer.
One of Bridgelux's coin-size arrays, which are designed for a range of lighting applications.
(Credit: Bridgelux) Still, prices are falling and efficiency is improving. Bridgelux on Wednesday is set to introduce a line of LED arrays which can be used in different applications, such as household lightbulbs, down lights, and street and commercial lighting.
With the new line of LEDs, the amount of light per watt has improved by over 30 percent in the past year and the costs have fallen between 10 percent and 30 percent, Swoboda said.
"Our core technology has improved to the point where it can deliver a light source that makes it very easy for a lamp or luminaire company to meet or exceed requirements to meet EnergyStar or (California's lighting efficiency standard) Title 24," Swoboda said.
Silicon Valley-based Bridgelux, which recruited former Seagate CEO Bill Watkins as chief executive officer earlier this month, makes the lighting components needed to make an LED bulb or lamp. It uses indium gallium nitride treated with phosphorus as its semiconductor material, which Swoboda said offers a good-quality light at relatively low costs.
In terms of energy efficiency, he said that lights using its LED chips exceed the efficiency of compact florescent lighting and have the advantage of lasting longer.
Its latest line of arrays range in output from 240 lumens to over 4,500 lumens, making them suitable for both general consumer lighting and commercial applications, such as retail stores. A 60-watt bulb is about 800 lumens and a 150-watt bulb is about 2,000
Market Prices Compel Us to Recycle when Recycling is Appropriate
About the Author
Donald Boudreaux is chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Globalization. He is the winner of the 2009Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties (general category).
See All Posts by This Author
I Recycle!
Market Prices Compel Us to Recycle when Recycling is Appropriate
By Donald J. Boudreaux • May 2002 • Volume: 52 • Issue: 5
Tags: cost-benefit analysis • environmentalism • morality • natural resources • price system • recycling
I spoke recently to a group of college students on the economics of environmental protection. As I spoke of the market’s amazing ability to conserve natural resources, one young man asked me, “Do you recycle?”
“No,” I answered.
“Well, thanks for the effort,” he replied with bitter sarcasm.
Before I could explain my answer, he gathered his books angrily and marched from the room. While no one else left, I could tell that most of the remaining students shared the sentiments of the student who had left. My talk’s conclusion was awkward and unsuccessful.
Only later did I realize that I’d given the wrong answer. In fact, I recycle every day of my life!
Consider a typical day.
After I awaken, I shower and dry myself with a towel that I’ve had for a few years. I use this towel day after day. I don’t discard it after one use. When it gets dirty, I toss it in the washing machine to clean it for further use. I recycle my towel.
Then I brew coffee and fix breakfast. Each day I use the same coffeemaker that I used the day before. I clean it after each use, recycling it for the next time. My wife and I drink the coffee from mugs that have been used many times in the past. (Actually, one set of our coffee mugs was handed down to us after my wife’s parents used them for several years.) We also eat our breakfasts using dishes and utensils that are recycled from countless past uses. After breakfast, we don’t throw our mugs, dishes, and utensils away; instead we put them in the dishwasher to be recycled for yet another use.
After breakfast, I dress myself in clothes that I’ve worn before and that I will wear again. My underwear, my pants, my shirt, my necktie, my belt, my coat, my shoes, my wristwatch—all are recycled from previous uses. And when I remove these clothes at day’s end, I’ll recycle them again, with the help of our automatic washer and dryer.
When my wife and I drive to work, we drive automobiles that we used the day before and that we’ll drive for the next few years. We don’t junk them after a single use. Instead, we recycle them, day in and day out.
The pots and pans that we use to prepare our meals—our toaster—our refrigerator—our television—our compact discs—our furniture—and, indeed, our house itself are all routinely recycled, use after use after use.
My family and I recycle a lot! And we’re not alone. Everyone recycles a lot.
Real Recycling
If I’d responded in this way to that student he probably would have asserted, “That’s not recycling. Real recycling is re-using things that most of us think of as garbage.”
That student, like most people, thinks of recycling as dealing with a handful of items that are wrongly thought to be semi-precious: cans, bottles, plastic containers, and newspapers.
But why do I treat my clothing and dinner dishes different from my empty beer cans and day-old newspapers? The student who walked out on me sees that as a moral failing. I don’t.
No moral issue turns on recycling per se. It might well be immoral to waste things, but contrary to popular misconception, failure to recycle is not wasteful. Real waste happens when someone recycles for the sake of recycling—that is, recycles without weighing its costs and benefits. If it is immoral to waste, then it is immoral to recycle when the benefits of doing so are less than the costs of doing so, because such recycling is wasteful.
We recycle as much as we do because it makes good sense to do so. It would indeed be wasteful for me to discard my fine china after each use. So I don’t do it. And I don’t do it because the market reliably tells me that it’s wasteful to do so. I’m of no mind to purchase new china after each meal because the price of fine china far exceeds the value to me of the time I must spend cleaning and storing mine for future use. I’d quickly go broke if I refused to recycle most of the things that I regularly recycle. (Incidentally, I’ll bet that even Bill and Melinda Gates recycle their fine china.)
But I do discard paper plates after each use. The reason, at bottom, is no different from the reason I recycle my china rather than discard it: it would be wasteful to do otherwise. After all, I could recycle paper plates. Careful washing would enable my family and me to reuse paper plates a couple or three times. But notice what would be wasted: valuable labor and time. One important reason for using paper plates would be undermined. That reason, of course, is the importance of saving the time and effort that it would take to wash dishes following the meal. Time that I could spend playing with my son, relaxing with my wife, reading a good book, or fixing a leaky faucet would be wasted cleaning paper plates. And to what purpose? None. Paper plates are so expendable precisely because the materials necessary to make them are so abundant. This abundance is reflected accurately in their low price.
The market prices resources accurately enough for us to be confident that if the materials used to make any items that are not now recycled become sufficiently scarce, the prices of those materials will rise. These higher input prices will raise the prices paid by consumers for these items, giving consumers greater incentives to recycle them.
Reflecting on the impressive amount of recycling that actually takes place daily casts doubt on the prevailing misperception that people are naturally wasteful and mindlessly irresponsible. In fact, market prices compel us to recycle when recycling is appropriate—and to not recycle when recycling is inappropriate.
Donald Boudreauxis chairman of the economics department of George Mason University and former president of FEE.
There Are 4 Responses So Far. »
Comment by HAMZA on 11 August 2009:
We can arrange to supply all kinds of recycling papers from USA,if you are interested please contact us.
Comment by guy on 23 October 2009:
You can’t recycle food-contaminated paper, retard.
Comment by Aaron on 16 December 2009:
The student was right to walk out on you. You confuse reUSE with reCYCLE when they are two different concepts, and proceed to list ways in which you reUSE items in your daily life to support your assertions about reCYCLING. This calls into question whether you’re qualified to even discuss recycling at all, since you haven’t even got the fundamental definition right. I’m glad the student was spared your misinformation.
Comment by K-Rod on 26 January 2010:
Aaron, since you have not substantiated why you are even “qualified to even discuss recycling at all” you only show your hypocrisy.
The first question to ask is: Why should I recycle item x?
BTW, Aaron, do you believe in MMGW?
Donald Boudreaux is chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, a former FEE president, and the author of Globalization. He is the winner of the 2009Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties (general category).
See All Posts by This Author
I Recycle!
Market Prices Compel Us to Recycle when Recycling is Appropriate
By Donald J. Boudreaux • May 2002 • Volume: 52 • Issue: 5
Tags: cost-benefit analysis • environmentalism • morality • natural resources • price system • recycling
I spoke recently to a group of college students on the economics of environmental protection. As I spoke of the market’s amazing ability to conserve natural resources, one young man asked me, “Do you recycle?”
“No,” I answered.
“Well, thanks for the effort,” he replied with bitter sarcasm.
Before I could explain my answer, he gathered his books angrily and marched from the room. While no one else left, I could tell that most of the remaining students shared the sentiments of the student who had left. My talk’s conclusion was awkward and unsuccessful.
Only later did I realize that I’d given the wrong answer. In fact, I recycle every day of my life!
Consider a typical day.
After I awaken, I shower and dry myself with a towel that I’ve had for a few years. I use this towel day after day. I don’t discard it after one use. When it gets dirty, I toss it in the washing machine to clean it for further use. I recycle my towel.
Then I brew coffee and fix breakfast. Each day I use the same coffeemaker that I used the day before. I clean it after each use, recycling it for the next time. My wife and I drink the coffee from mugs that have been used many times in the past. (Actually, one set of our coffee mugs was handed down to us after my wife’s parents used them for several years.) We also eat our breakfasts using dishes and utensils that are recycled from countless past uses. After breakfast, we don’t throw our mugs, dishes, and utensils away; instead we put them in the dishwasher to be recycled for yet another use.
After breakfast, I dress myself in clothes that I’ve worn before and that I will wear again. My underwear, my pants, my shirt, my necktie, my belt, my coat, my shoes, my wristwatch—all are recycled from previous uses. And when I remove these clothes at day’s end, I’ll recycle them again, with the help of our automatic washer and dryer.
When my wife and I drive to work, we drive automobiles that we used the day before and that we’ll drive for the next few years. We don’t junk them after a single use. Instead, we recycle them, day in and day out.
The pots and pans that we use to prepare our meals—our toaster—our refrigerator—our television—our compact discs—our furniture—and, indeed, our house itself are all routinely recycled, use after use after use.
My family and I recycle a lot! And we’re not alone. Everyone recycles a lot.
Real Recycling
If I’d responded in this way to that student he probably would have asserted, “That’s not recycling. Real recycling is re-using things that most of us think of as garbage.”
That student, like most people, thinks of recycling as dealing with a handful of items that are wrongly thought to be semi-precious: cans, bottles, plastic containers, and newspapers.
But why do I treat my clothing and dinner dishes different from my empty beer cans and day-old newspapers? The student who walked out on me sees that as a moral failing. I don’t.
No moral issue turns on recycling per se. It might well be immoral to waste things, but contrary to popular misconception, failure to recycle is not wasteful. Real waste happens when someone recycles for the sake of recycling—that is, recycles without weighing its costs and benefits. If it is immoral to waste, then it is immoral to recycle when the benefits of doing so are less than the costs of doing so, because such recycling is wasteful.
We recycle as much as we do because it makes good sense to do so. It would indeed be wasteful for me to discard my fine china after each use. So I don’t do it. And I don’t do it because the market reliably tells me that it’s wasteful to do so. I’m of no mind to purchase new china after each meal because the price of fine china far exceeds the value to me of the time I must spend cleaning and storing mine for future use. I’d quickly go broke if I refused to recycle most of the things that I regularly recycle. (Incidentally, I’ll bet that even Bill and Melinda Gates recycle their fine china.)
But I do discard paper plates after each use. The reason, at bottom, is no different from the reason I recycle my china rather than discard it: it would be wasteful to do otherwise. After all, I could recycle paper plates. Careful washing would enable my family and me to reuse paper plates a couple or three times. But notice what would be wasted: valuable labor and time. One important reason for using paper plates would be undermined. That reason, of course, is the importance of saving the time and effort that it would take to wash dishes following the meal. Time that I could spend playing with my son, relaxing with my wife, reading a good book, or fixing a leaky faucet would be wasted cleaning paper plates. And to what purpose? None. Paper plates are so expendable precisely because the materials necessary to make them are so abundant. This abundance is reflected accurately in their low price.
The market prices resources accurately enough for us to be confident that if the materials used to make any items that are not now recycled become sufficiently scarce, the prices of those materials will rise. These higher input prices will raise the prices paid by consumers for these items, giving consumers greater incentives to recycle them.
Reflecting on the impressive amount of recycling that actually takes place daily casts doubt on the prevailing misperception that people are naturally wasteful and mindlessly irresponsible. In fact, market prices compel us to recycle when recycling is appropriate—and to not recycle when recycling is inappropriate.
Donald Boudreauxis chairman of the economics department of George Mason University and former president of FEE.
There Are 4 Responses So Far. »
Comment by HAMZA on 11 August 2009:
We can arrange to supply all kinds of recycling papers from USA,if you are interested please contact us.
Comment by guy on 23 October 2009:
You can’t recycle food-contaminated paper, retard.
Comment by Aaron on 16 December 2009:
The student was right to walk out on you. You confuse reUSE with reCYCLE when they are two different concepts, and proceed to list ways in which you reUSE items in your daily life to support your assertions about reCYCLING. This calls into question whether you’re qualified to even discuss recycling at all, since you haven’t even got the fundamental definition right. I’m glad the student was spared your misinformation.
Comment by K-Rod on 26 January 2010:
Aaron, since you have not substantiated why you are even “qualified to even discuss recycling at all” you only show your hypocrisy.
The first question to ask is: Why should I recycle item x?
BTW, Aaron, do you believe in MMGW?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)