Kiplinger's 5 Pillars of Renewable Energy +1- Distributed Efficiency Technology

SOLAR

• Size of industry:Worldwide: $29.6 billion U.S.: $3 billion, accounting for 0.4% of the nation's electricity
• Major players: First Solar, SunPower, China Sunergy (China), Suntech Power (China)
• Potential: Could provide 10% of the nation's electricity by 2025. Worldwide sales could grow to $81 billion by 2018.
• Problems: Solar energy wonÕt be cost-competitive with other forms of energy until 2015Ñtoday it relies heavily on subsidies. Also, growth depends heavily on the development of nationwide power grids.
  

WIND

• Size of industry:Worldwide: $51 billion- U.S.: $17 billion, accounting for 1.3% of the nation's electricity
• Major players: General Electric, Vestas (Denmark), Gamesa (Spain), Siemens (Germany), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan)
• Potential: The industry seeks to produce 20% of U.S. electricity by 2030. Sales could hit $35 billion a year in a few years. Worldwide: $139 billion by 2018.
• Problems: Getting the electricity to major cities from remote wind farms will require billions for expanding the electrical grid.
  

GEOTHERMAL

• Size of industry:U.S.: $3 billion, accounting for 0.4% of the nation's electricity
• Major players: Ormat Technologies, Calpine, Siemens (Germany), Sierra Geothermal Power (Canada)
• Potential: The industry says it will double capacity in the U.S. in the next few years, perhaps aided by $440 million set aside for geothermal projects in the Obama administration's stimulus plan.
• Problems: Discovering heat sources is expensive, and industry infrastructure is still in development.
  

SOLID WASTE

• Size of industry:U.S.: 0.3% of power generation
• Major players: VeoliaEnvironnement (France), Waste Management, Covanta
• Potential: The industry, with 89 facilities in the U.S., is mature. Growth will be slow.
• Problems: Businesses -- which burn trash and generate methane gas from landfills -- must contend with "not in my backyard" resistance to new plants.
  

BIOFUELS

• Size of industry:Worldwide: $40 billionU.S.: $14 billion
• Major players: Poet,* Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill,* Valero Energy, Cosan (Brazil)
• Potential: Some analysts estimate that the industry will grow to more than $80 billion worldwide by 2017. The industry is on the verge of breakthroughs that will allow the use of many other biofuel sources beyond corn and sugar.
• Problems: Critics say biofuels put too much demand on food sources and do little or nothing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
  

Note: Figures are for 2008. *Privately held. Sources: American Wind Energy Association, Clean Edge, Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert, Geothermal Energy Association, Integrated Waste Services Association.

The Rest @ Kiplinger

I want to add a Sixth Pillar:

DETech

Distributed Efficiency Technology ( DETech)

DETech - is the reduction of power demand for doing the same things we are doing now. There are a number of Energy Service Companies ( ESCOs ) that take existing commercial enrterprises, which use more than a third of US energy requirements, and implementing technology that reduces demand, including distributed power generation, which saves power lost in transmitting power from producer to user. It can be solar or Cleatech generation.

-Editor

Kiplinger Writes on Green Energy Investing

From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, June 2009

Business isn't so sunny these days for SolarCity, the country's largest installer of residential solar-power systems. But Lyndon Rive, chief executive of the Foster City, Cal., firm, says it's an absence of financing, rather than a lack of demand, that has caused the slowdown. "Once you address that bottleneck," he says, "solar power will boom." So, too, will the entire spectrum of renewable-energy stocks, which lately have generated as much sizzle as a solar panel in an eclipse.

A year ago, alternative energy shone brightly. Then came the financial crisis, which starved the industry of its lifeblood: capital. Lack of it caused demand to tumble and inventories to grow. Says Gregory Wetstone, of the American Wind Energy Association: "Our astronomical growth came to a screeching halt in late 2008." As a result, alternative-energy stocks crumbled. The WilderHill Clean Energy Index, which tracks 51 companies around the world, lost 60% over the past year through April 9.

Enter President Obama. His stimulus package, enacted in February, represents a Herculean effort to reinvigorate the renewable-energy industry. The White House sees a trifecta of benefits from alternative energy: New jobs, a reduction in our dependence on foreign oil, and the beginning of the end of global warming.


Washington is sparing no expense. It plans to spend $150 billion on renewable energy over the next ten years. Consider a typical solar-energy system installed by Rive's SolarCity. Uncle Sam used to pay for 30% of the cost, with a $2,000 cap. But installing solar panels on your roof that produce 5 kilowatts—enough to power an average-size house in some areas—costs $40,000. Under the new program, the feds will still pay for 30% of the system, but there is no longer a cap. If you add in subsidies from state governments, the cost of a home solar system could drop to $20,000.

Big businesses will also benefit from Uncle Sam's largess. Federal incentives will help pay for large renewable-energy projects that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and generate thousands of megawatts of power. And those incentives will take the form of outright payments, not the generous tax credits the government once offered for such pro-jects. "Tax credits are great, but you need profits to use tax credits, and in this economy nobody's making profits," says Christopher O'Brien, a U.S.-based executive of Oerlikon Solar, a Swiss company.
Guarantees in action

To further spur financing, the Department of Energy is finally guaranteeing loans for renewable-energy projects. The operative word is finally, given that the guarantee program became law in 2005.

The Obama administration has lit a fire under the department, which recently announced its first guarantee—on a $535-million loan to Solyndra, a solar-energy company in Fremont, Cal. The loan, from the U.S. Treasury, will be used to expand Solyndra's solar-panel factory in California. That's right, one branch of the government is making a loan that another one is guaranteeing; the feds aren't leaving anything to chance.

But the ultimate government stimulus for alternative energy may yet be an energy bill that sets renewable-energy goals for all 50 states. Currently, 28 states have their own renewable-energy standards. "We're in a window where renewable energy is a policy-driven market," says O'Brien.
Despite the Obama administration's efforts, spending on renewable energy hasn't yet exploded. The short-term holdup is that applicants must wait for the government to produce new forms and guidelines that detail how to tap stimulus dollars; they should be ready soon.

Regarding large projects, the rules essentially state that if you start building a project before the end of 2010 and it comes online before 2017, you can expect to get a check from the Treasury.
Uncle Sam is willing, but getting private capital still isn't easy. Says Fred Morse, senior adviser to Spain's Abengoa Solar: "

You could take your federal guarantee to your bank and they'd say, ‘I'm not worried about you defaulting; I don't have money to lend.'"

Venture capitalists seem more eager to back renewable energy. In 2008, they invested $4.1 billion in alternative-energy projects, from research and development to construction of solar farms. That's a 54% hike from 2007, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers. That's despite an 8% drop to $28.3 billion in overall venture-capital financing from 2007.

At the moment, says Pricewaterhouse's Tim Carey, venture capitalists' favorite alternative-energy technology is solar. Last year, 45% of the money went to solar projects, compared with 23% in 2007.

Much of the money is being used to finance the move by solar companies from development to full production, Carey says. Still, the financial crisis dampened even venture capitalists' ardor for renewable energy, he says. Funding fell 14% from the third quarter of 2008 to the fourth.

The second major constraint on the expanded use of alternative energy is the power grid, or lack thereof. Massive wind farms in the Midwest and solar farms in the Southwest aren't much use if they aren't connected to major cities. Says Morse: "It's not enough to build a car factory. You have to build some roads." Wetstone, the wind-energy association official, says the extent to which the power grid is developed will ultimately determine whether wind meets 3% to 4% of the nation's energy needs, or as much as 20%.


Utilities build and own most of the grid, and they've stepped up funding. However, experts say the federal government may have to step in with a "national transmission policy" to spur grid development if it expects solar and wind generation to thrive.

These problems make the timing of a renewable-energy boom tough to call. Investors say they're ready when it does come, though. According to a study by Allianz Global Investors, 78% of investors believe green technology could be the "next great American industry," and nearly all investors (97%) say exploring alternative fuel sources will remain important even if oil prices remain low. Says Steven Berexa, managing director of research for RCM Informed, an Allianz subsidiary: "Alternative energy's rise isn't going to be smooth, but it's going to be one of the great new growth industries."

Stocks that will survive

Renewable-energy bulls like to say that if you think the dot-com boom was big, just wait for the watt-com explosion. That may be wishful thinking. But you can bet that the dot-com and watt-com booms will be similar in one respect: Just as many Internet companies fell by the wayside, many alternative-energy firms will disappear in the coming shakeout (for a look at individual alternative-energy sectors and their prospects, see 5 Pillars of Renewable Energy).

So if you want to buy individual stocks, invest in companies that are already profitable and likely to survive. The standout in the solar sector is First Solar (symbol FSLR). "As other competitors suck wind, First Solar will be getting their market share," says Morningstar analyst Rick Hanna.

First Solar's strengths and the shortcomings of its rivals became evident in March, when the Tempe, Ariz., company bought the solar-power assets of rival OptiSolar for $400 million worth of stock.

OptiSolar had landed a contract to build the world's largest photovoltaic solar farm for PG&E, a huge California utility, but it couldn't handle the project.

"It's becoming pretty clear that some of these companies can't produce power at the cost they said they could," says Hanna.

First Solar's technology produces electricity at the lowest cost-per-watt in the industry. Most solar cells use silicon wafers to generate electricity from sunlight. Silicon wafers are also the basic component of semiconductors, which makes solar-cell firms compete with chip makers for materials.

But by using cadmium telluride to make its thin-film panels, First Solar is immune to silicon supply problems.

When it comes to alternative-energy stock prices, profitability and viability don't necessarily add up to stability.

First Solar went public in November 2006 at $20 per share, skyrocketed to $317 by May 2008, then cratered to $85 last November. The stock closed at $142 on April 9. At that price, it trades at 22 times estimated 2009 profits. But given the vagaries of the market, earnings estimates for alternative-energy companies turn on a dime.

Although solar and wind generate the most renewable-energy buzz, geothermal energy is cheaper and more dependable (it works rain or shine).

The go-to company in this area is Ormat Technologies (ORA). Some geothermal companies are larger, but they're privately held, and the stocks of smaller public firms are riskier than Ormat.

That makes Ormat "the only blue-chip geothermal company you can invest in," says Brian Yerger, head of research for AERCA Advisors, a Wilmington, Del., consulting firm. Ormat's scarcity value translates into a premium price. At $31, the stock trades at 23 times 2009 earnings of $1.35 per share. (Ormat was a member of the original Kiplinger Green 25; see the table below.)

Ormat, headquartered in Reno, Nev., is a soup-to-nuts supplier. Its plants turn hot water and steam from the earth into electricity. In its simplest design, water and steam are pumped from underground to a heat exchanger, which boils a fluid that drives an electricity-producing turbine. The water is then returned to the earth.

Ormat's electricity unit, which accounts for three-fourths of sales, sells power from plants it builds and owns. The rest of the company's business is building power plants for others.

Financing is an issue: The money behind some of Ormat's biggest projects sounds like a who's who of beleaguered Wall Street firms (think American International Group). Still, notes Yerger, the company expects $120 million in project sales this year, and revenues should hit $405 million, up 17% from last year.

A $4.5-billion piece of the White House's renewable-energy plan will help utilities convert to "smart grid" technologies. And the key player in smart grid is Itron (ITRI), which makes automated meters that collect and analyze data on resource use. Of the 2.6 billion meters in operation at U.S. utilities, only about 6% are of the automated variety that Itron sells, and the company supplies half the market.

Automated meters help utilities increase efficiency by better monitoring how electricity, gas and water are used. "A lot of the stimulus money is going to upgrade government buildings, and Itron equipment will logically be included in that," says John Rubino, author of Clean Money: Picking Winners in the Green-Tech Boom (Wiley, $27).

Rubino says Itron will also be a major player in "smart metering," which lets utilities turn off appliances in customers' homes in exchange for lower rates. Florida Power & Light, a subsidiary of FPL Group, already has a half-million customers who allow partial control over certain appliances at certain times. That lets the utility shift demand from peak to off-peak hours, improving its efficiency.

When the financial crisis hit home last September, Itron's stock plunged, falling from $99 in mid September to $34 in mid November. At $47, it trades at 14 times estimated 2009 earnings of $3.41 per share. That's a tiny bump up from last year's profits, but analysts see earnings jumping 22% in 2010.

Conservative choice

Speaking of FPL Group (FPL), what has long been considered a traditional electric utility may be the best domestic play on wind energy. In addition to owning Florida Power & Light, a regulated utility, FPL also owns NextEra Energy Resources, which has operations (mostly wind farms) in 25 states and Canada.

In 2008, 55% of FPL's profits came from NextEra, marking the first time the lion's share of FPL's profits came from the unregulated side of the company. And NextEra is aggressively adding wind capacity. As more states—and perhaps the federal government—start mandating renewable energy, FPL will be ready to rake in contracts.

Because of its regulated utility business, FPL is clearly the most staid stock on this list. At $52, it trades at 13 times estimated 2009 earnings of $4.06 per share, which would be a 6% increase over last year's earnings. But analysts may be underestimating the impact of the pending green-energy boom. In a move that separates FPL from most of corporate America, the Juno Beach, Fla., company raised its dividend earlier this year, marking the 14th consecutive year of higher payouts. The stock yields 3.6%.

Smart-metering systems, geothermal plants and solar farms cost millions. But you can buy a cutting-edge bit of green tech at your local hardware store for $20. That's the price of a flashlight that uses a light-emitting diode (LED) instead of a standard incandescent bulb. Kind of expensive for a flashlight, you say? True, but consider that the LED will shine for 50,000 hours—almost six years—before burning out. It also uses 85% less power than an incandescent bulb, and half as much as a fluorescent bulb.

A leader in LEDs is Cree (CREE), which supplies illumination for electronic devices and the lighting market. Because LEDs cost many times more than incandescent or fluorescent bulbs, you won't be lighting your home with them anytime soon. But LED products can be a smart choice for commercial buildings. Already, about 1,000 facilities in the U.S. use Cree's suspended ceiling lighting unit, the LR24. Cree will benefit directly from White House energy-efficiency goals -- a point underscored by the use of Cree products in renovations at the Pentagon and the Federal Reserve.


Impressive results

Cree's business has exhibited resilience in the face of recession. Sales of LED products, which account for 84% of its revenues, increased 28% in the second fiscal quarter, which ended December 24, from the same period in 2007. The Durham, N.C., firm is also developing a reputation for bucking trends. For example, although analysts expect personal-computer sales to fall in 2009, they see Cree selling more LEDs to backlight laptop screens.

Cree's shares recently fetched $27, or 45 times estimated earnings of 60 cents a share for the fiscal year that ends June 28. Analysts see earnings growth of 18% annually over the next three to five years. If Cree's earnings do grow that fast, the lofty price-earnings ratio may be justifiable.

By Bob Frick, Kiplinger Senior Editor

The Rest @ Kiplinger

Solar Shake Out- Who Will Survive?

Until the big chill, the solar energy was red-hot, tearing along with a decade-long growth rate that averaged 50 percent a year.

Then the global recession hit – and the fizzling of subsidies in Spain and a credit crunch – which squeezed financing for many solar projects. Production slowed at plants making panels that turned sun into electricity. Prices fell sharply.

So now, despite climate-change legislation in the United States and a push for cleaner energy worldwide, a global industry shakeout looms, many analysts predict. And not a small shudder. They anticipate an earthquake of consolidation likely to leave only strong competitors standing.

Currently, some 250 companies around the world make solar photovoltaic modules.

• “In five years, there probably can be only a couple of dozen of them,” says Travis Bradford, president of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development in Chicago. “At most.”
  
  Which companies will be the winners? The ones with deep pockets, cutting-edge technology, and a rigorous focus on cutting costs.

They’ll need to be big enough to build a brand name and demonstrate staying power. As close observers explain, customers want to know that the solar-energy companies they buy from today will be around to honor their warranties in the future.

Although opinions differ on who the winners will be, four names keep popping up:

• First Solar Inc.
• SunPower Corp., both based in the US;
• Sharp Corp., headquartered in Japan; and
• SunTech Power Holdings in China.
  
  In their own way, these firms have already distinguished themselves in a crowded field. If they do emerge as winners, their host countries can probably bank on building networks of solar-energy related suppliers around them, analysts say.
  
  Various kinds of solar technologies exist – from simple hot-water heaters for homes and pools to multiacre installations that can generate electricity on a utility scale. But it is photovoltaic (PV) technology, which turns sunlight directly into electricity, that’s the fastest-growing technology – and is already the largest component of the solar market in the US, according to the American Solar Energy Society, in Boulder, Colo.
  
  Here’s a look at the four potential winners in the coming shakeout.
  
  Leader in thin films
  
  
  Within the PV industry, First Solar has been the model for how to succeed with innovation, many observers hold.
  
  “There’s no doubt in my mind that First Solar offers the industry’s best quality management and the best quality product at the best relative value,” says Matthew Patsky, portfolio manager of Winslow Green Mutual Funds, in Boston.
  
  Formed in 1999, the Tempe, Ariz., solar company burst onto the scene with a type of thin-film technology called cadmium telluride. Although less efficient than traditional silicon-based PV panels, thin-film modules cost substantially less to produce.
• Last year, First Solar had $1.2 billion of sales and a $348.3 million profit. (That 2008 profit level was more than double the prior year’s earnings.)
  
  “Thin films came into production during the boom period in the industry’s growth, which allowed for higher-risk new technology. But First Solar was the only one to establish itself successfully during that boom,” says Ken Zweibel, director of the George Washington University Solar Institute in Washington, D.C.
  
  While competition has been rising in the thin-film sector, First Solar has continued to sustain its leadership, analysts say. It “is the only company in the world that’s been able to produce solar modules at less than $1 per watt,” says Shyam Mehta, senior solar analyst at GTM Research, a market-research firm based in Cambridge, Mass. “And [it] is on its way to producing solar electricity at rates competitive with electricity from fossil fuels.”
  
  
• First Solar has reported that in this year’s first quarter, its manufacturing cost had fallen to an industry-leading 93 cents per watt.
• All the while, it’s been enjoying eye-popping profit margins and is operating at full capacity.
  
  Efficiency, efficiency
  
  
  If First Solar can boast about cost, SunPower Corp. offers efficiency. Its products have the industry’s highest degree of “conversion efficiency,” meaning how much sunlight they convert into electricity. Incorporated in 1985, the San Jose, Calif., company claims its solar panels are up to 50 percent more efficient than conventional solar panels and 100 to 300 percent more efficient than thin-film modules. That means its installations require “substantially less room on a roof to get the same amount of electricity,” says Julie Blunden, SunPower’s vice president of public policy and corporate communications.
  
  Starting next year, the company plans to offer a “Generation 3” solar cell with a 23.4 percent efficiency, reports GTM Research.
  
  To be sure, the company did post a roughly $4.8 million net income loss on $214 million of sales in this year’s first quarter. That was a “tough” period “for everybody because prices came down so fast,” says Brion Tanous, solar energy industry analyst at Merriman Curhan Ford, an investment firm in San Francisco. However, he notes that the bulk of analysts expect SunPower to bounce back to profitability soon. (It was due to release its second-quarter results on July 23.)
  
  “We have made commitments to our investors and customers that we would lower our cost of solar-system installation 50 percent between 2006 and 2012,” Ms. Blunden says. “By 2010, we’ll be two-thirds of the way” toward that goal.
  
  A solar giant
  
  Sharp Corp., based in Osaka, Japan, is relying on its size and experience to survive in the business long term. It began mass-producing solar cells 46 years ago, initially to electrify Japanese lighthouses. For most of this decade, it claimed to be the world’s biggest producer of crystalline silicon cells and, by 2007, to have produced 2 gigawatts’ worth (1 million kilowatts) of solar cells – one-quarter of the world’s total PV output.
  
  Clearly, Sharp benefits from the overall corporation’s mega size.
  
  “From its parent, it has an extraordinary amount of resources,” says Mr. Bradford of Prometheus. The electronics giant “can deploy engineers and process capital on a scale that none of the rest of these companies can.”
  
  Expanding beyond more traditional solar offerings, Sharp is pushing aggressively into thin films.
• According to published reports, it aims to secure a bigger than 50 percent market share of this sector by 2012.
• Already, it has an annual production capacity of 160 megawatts of amorphous silicon-based thin-film panels and is scheduled to open a new 480-megawatt-per-year plant in Sakai City, Japan, next March.
  
  A low-cost leader
  
  Based in Wuxi, China, the $1.9 billion SunTech Power Holdings Co. Ltd. enjoys some indisputable advantages: a huge supply of low-cost labor and a supportive banking system. “Our real strength is our ability to deliver products at very low cost that are also very high quality,” says Steve Chadima, SunTech’s vice president for external affairs.
  
• Founded in 2001, it has grown with lightning speed, it says, to become the “largest supplier of solar panels in the world” with 1 gigawatt of PV cells and module production capacity.

• Taking on the high-efficiency market, the company is steadily converting to the use of a new technology it calls Pluto. The technology allows solar panels to convert 19 percent of sunlight hitting its monocrystalline panels, and 17 percent of sunlight with the polycrystalline panels, into energy.
  
  To be sure, SunTech has incurred substantial debt used to fund its rapid expansion. But observers believe that issue shouldn’t dim SunTech’s long-term prospects: Looking into the future, China’s domestic demand for solar energy is widely expected to surge. If so, SunTech could be well-positioned to capture market share in China.

The Rest @ the Christian Science Monitor

Summer 09 The State of Renewable Energy Finance

Summer 09 The State of Renewable Energy Finanace




Video from the European Venture Capital Forum specficially focused on CleanTech

McKinsey Projects US Energy Efficiency Savings

New report suggests the United States could save $1.2 trillion by investing $50 billion a year through 2020.

Management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. released a report today suggesting the U.S. could reduce its non-transportation related energy consumption by as much as 23 percent by 2020 if
it invests enough political and financial capital.

The report indicates that reducing energy consumption by 23 percent by 2020 could eliminate more than $1.2 trillion in waste (at a rate of $130 billion annually), which would dramatically exceed the $520 billion investment required, i.e. $50 billion each a year over the next decade, plus program costs that would be required to put such energy efficiencies in place.
“If we do nothing we will waste $1.2 trillion of energy,” said Ken Ostrowski, a senior partner from McKinsey’s Atlanta office, in a briefing at the U.S. National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
But the report’s authors caution that these energy savings can only be realized if the United States adopts a comprehensive strategy to overcoming significant barriers. Solutions should include information and education, incentives and financing, codes and standards, and third-party involvement, the report said.
“The awareness levels aren’t there today, and that’s one of the barriers we have to overcome,” Ostrowski said.

“It’s not that we haven’t been making progress,” said Ostrowski. “We haven’t been making progress fast enough relative to the magnitude that’s out there.”
Ostrowski said today’s report builds on a previous McKinsey study released in 2007 on U.S. greenhouse gas abatement. Today's report includes a GHG abatement cost curve through 2030, showing the potential costs and benefits of using various means to reduce GHG emissions.
McKinsey is known for its abatement cost curves—calculations showing how much it will cost or generate for the economy to take emission cuts from particular sectors or using certain technologies. The curve shows that much of the energy efficiencies can be achieved through residential and commercial devices, such as Energy Star appliances (see Saving energy at the U.S. DOE).

Today’s report only looks at stationary energy uses across residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, including combined heat and power. It also focuses on existing and readily available technologies that can be deployed, rather than those in development, Ostrowski said.
“We identified the potential for energy efficiency, not how much will actually be achieved,” he said. “How much is out there, how much gets captured will be decided by policymakers and business leaders.”

The report’s authors include Hannah Choi Granade, Jon Creyts, Anton Derkach, Philip Farese, Scott Nyquist, and Ken Ostrowski. The team said it modeled more than 650 technologies and analyzed more than 20,000 micro-segments of energy consumption.

The United States, including utilities and private companies, is currently spending between $10 billion to $12 billion on energy efficiency programs, said Choi Granade, a partner in McKinsey’s Stamford, Conn., office. But that doesn’t include $13 billion in additional stimulus funds (see Smart grid could be early winner in U.S. stimulus package). She said the U.S. government would need a four-to-five fold scale up in stimulus funding to achieve the potential outlined in the report.

If executed at scale, a comprehensive energy savings strategy could reduce the annual non-transportation energy consumption addressed in the report from 36.9 quadrillion BTUs in 2008 to 30.8 quadrillion BTUs in 2020—saving 9.1 quadrillion BTUs relative to a business-as-usual baseline, according to McKinsey estimates. The energy use reduction could also result in the abatement of 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions annually.

Read a full copy of McKinsey's new report, Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy, here.

The investment community is already indicating it is backing some of the report’s goals. One week in May alone, five startups pulled in $32 million in venture capital financing for energy efficiency plays in manufacturing, lighting and solar (see Energy efficiency rules week's cleantech roost).

The report’s focus on energy efficiency is also what Cleantech Group’s Executive Chairman Nicholas Parker picked in December, 2008 as the top trend to watch in 2009 (see Nine clean technology predictions for 2009).

AWEA Calls for a National Renewable Electricity Standard (RES)

The US wind energy industry installed 1,210MW of new power generating capacity in the second quarter of this year, bringing the total added this year to just over 4,000MW, an increase from the 2,900MW added in the first six months of 2008, the American Wind Energy Association said in its second quarter market report.

While the number of completed wind farm installations was solid, AWEA said it is seeing a reduced number of orders and lower level of activity in manufacturing of wind turbines and their components, a development it termed troubling in view of the fact that the US industry was previously on track for much larger growth and the global wind power industry is continuing to expand.

‘The numbers are in, and while they show the industry has been swimming upstream, adding some 4,000MW over the past six months, the fact is that we could be delivering so much more,’ said AWEA CEO Denise Bode. ‘Our challenge now is to seize the historic opportunity before us to unleash this entrepreneurial force and build up an entire new industry here in the U.S. that will create jobs, avoid carbon, and strengthen our energy security. To achieve that, Congress and the Administration must pass a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) with strong early targets.’

During the second quarter, the US wind energy industry completed a total of 1,210MW in ten states. These new installations nudge total US wind power generating capacity to 29,440MW, according to the report.

The state posting the fastest growth in the 2nd quarter was Missouri, where wind power installations expanded by 90 per cent, according to the report.

‘Missourians know that in order for us to grow our state’s economy and create the jobs of the twenty-first century, we must embrace new technology and advances like the ones presented to us through renewable wind energy,’ said Missouri Governor Jay Nixon. ‘So I’m proud that the American Wind Energy Association’s quarterly report shows no state has capitalised on these growth opportunities more aggressively over the last three months than Missouri has. But that isn’t enough. Missouri will continue to look for ways to enhance our energy supply and independence by using common-sense and cost effective expansions of clean, renewable wind power.’

Pennsylvania and South Dakota ranked second and third in terms of growth rate in the second quarter, expanding by 28 per cent and 21 per cent respectively.

Iowa passed the 3,000MW mark with a cumulative total of 3,043MW installed and consolidated its position as second, behind Texas, with 8,361MW and ahead of California, with 2,787MW.

‘Manufacturing investment is the canary in the mine, and shows that the future of wind power in this country is very bright but still far from certain,’ said Bode. ‘The reality is that if the nation doesn’t have a firm, long-term renewable energy policy in place, large global companies and small businesses alike will hold back on their manufacturing investment decisions or invest overseas, in countries like China that are soaring ahead.

The instances where manufacturing investment is moving forward in the US are in states like Kansas that have demonstrated a commitment to renewable energy and passed a renewable electricity standard.

This type of commitment now needs to be made at the national level.’

The Rest @ Newnet

Originoil Videos

Here is a video of their process in Action from their website

Originoil is only obne of several companies researching algea as biofuel.

Venture Capital for Clean Tech After the Market Meltdon

After a two-quarter period of falling venture capital investments in the cleantech space, the industry is finally picking back up again. But the prospects for early-stage companies and entrepreneurs looking for funding is mixed.

"It's a challenge for the venture community to have the conviction to truly invest in the kind of venture-backed profile deals that we need and not invest in another 'me-too' deal that is defining today."-- Ira Ehrenpreis, General Partner, Technology Partners

Despite the recent declines in investment, the macro-trends for cleantech venture capital are very positive — funds are getting bigger, the market for clean energy has grown to a respectable size and long-term signals from government are coming together.

“This is a renaissance time for the cleantech sector,” said Ira Ehrenpreis, a general partner with the firm Technology Partners, at a recent panel discussion in New York City. “This is not an obscure area of investment anymore.”

Last week, the Cleantech Group released a report on the state of venture capital, which showed that venture investments in the cleantech space were up 12 percent from the first quarter of this year.

Total investments reached US $1.2 billion globally. That is still down over 40 percent from this time last year, but a rebound certainly seems to be underway.

The characteristics of this growth are different than in the past.

• Many venture capital firms are opting to re-invest with their portfolio companies rather than dig for new opportunities. As a result, series A rounds dropped by half in 2008, according to figures from New Energy Finance.
• While the average size of those rounds has grown from approximately $6 million to $8 million, smaller companies are not getting as much attention, making it more difficult for undiscovered, game-changing technologies and business models to get funding.
• “I'm actually highly concerned about the risk aversion and incrementalism that I'm seeing in the venture asset class,” said Ehrenpreis. “We're seeing people not swinging for the fences the way that venture capitalists ought to be swinging.”This trend is a reflection of the broader economy, not necessarily a change in venture capital culture, said Ehrenpreis.

But some believe that venture capital culture is taking on a new form as the cleantech sector sees explosive growth. One would think that interest in this sector would make it easier for entrepreneurs to get a business off the ground. But the opposite is often the case, said author and entrepreneurial consultant Sramana Mitra.“Increasingly, the VC model is more of a banking model,” said Mitra in an interview. “If they're only going to do late-stage financing, it's no longer a venture capital model. That is surely something that cleantech entrepreneurs need to address.”

The massive funds and large rounds of financing are creating unprecedented opportunities for clean energy companies. Funds of $250 million and above for renewable energy-related investments are not uncommon. However, as the figures from New Energy Finance show, most of those companies are in later stages of development.Venture capital used to be about taking big risks by investing in early-stage companies; increasingly the venture capital community is going the other way, said Mitra.

Mitra does not believe that entrepreneurs should be frustrated by these trends. Instead, they should see them as an opportunity. Quite often, people get sidetracked trying to raise venture capital rather than focusing on “mentor capital” from smaller angel investors like colleagues, friends and family.

Given how capital intensive the clean energy industry is, relying on this type of funding can be more difficult. But it can also make an entrepreneur more successful by forcing them to be frugal and focused as they bootstrap their way through early-stage growth.

Venture capitalists are typically looking for returns within a seven-year time frame. In many cases, getting an idea off the ground can take longer, especially in the energy sector. Without having to rely on this more "impatient" model, said Mitra, entrepreneurs can take the time needed to develop their idea — assuming they can keep smaller investors on board that long.
In addition, more project finance opportunities will become available when the new clean renewable energy bond program, loan guarantee program and grant program are rolled out through the stimulus package over the next year.

It will be crucial for entrepreneurs to understand these options, said Mitra.“There are all sorts of other non-venture capital types of financing models out there, which entrepreneurs have to get incredibly savvy about in order to get their cleantech ventures off the ground,” she said.

The venture capital community may be focusing on later-stage companies, but that doesn't mean that things are easier for those players either. According to a recent study from the Clean Energy Group and New Energy Finance, the so-called “valley of death” has widened for new clean energy technologies.

The valley of death refers to the difficult period between proof-of-concept for a technology and large-scale deployment.At a certain point, technologies become too capital-intensive for a venture capital firm to develop; however, the technological risk is sometimes too high for private equity investors and project financiers. This makes it difficult to deploy new energy technologies.

This recent report shows that average commercialization rounds of funding have risen by about $15 million, but the number of such rounds has dropped. That has stretched out this difficult period for many companies ready to bring their product to market.

“The valley of death looms large no matter how you measure it,” said Dan Reicher, Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives at Google.org in an interview.

“With the economic crisis...so many technologies brought to commercial scale by the venture capital community are dying on the vine. This is quite a critical issue.”The renewable energy industry faces a particularly expansive valley of death.

Google has recognized that problem and made some high profile investments in order to stimulate the market for capital intensive technologies. Over the last year, the company invested about $10 million dollars in advanced geothermal companies, $130 million in a concentrating solar power company and millions more in electric-vehicle and smart-grid technologies.

Industries like advanced geothermal, in which companies drill miles beneath the earth to access temperatures over 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, are currently very high risk.

But Google sees the potential and continues to heavily promote the industry.“We're very bullish about these various technologies,” said Reicher. “We have to build a few big plants to prove to the finance community that this is a viable technology.”With high-profile firms like Google backing clean energy in a big way, early-stage companies in the space have a lot to be excited about.

The issue now, said Technology Partners' Ehrenpreis, is whether the venture capital community will continue to take the risks needed to harness innovation from entrepreneurs and new start-ups.“We're trying to find things that have such game-changing characteristics,” he said

“It's a challenge for the venture community to have the conviction to truly invest in the kind of venture-backed profile deals that we need and not invest in another 'me-too' deal that is defining today.”

The Rest @ Renewable Energy World.com

A Chicago Net Zero New Home

Michael Yannell's ComEd bill is almost surely less than yours.

Yannell, 44, lives in a new Chicago home that is designed to be net zero energy, which means it will produce as much energy as it consumes -- or more. The $1.6 million, 2,675-square-foot house is the first of its kind in Chicago, which already has achieved green sheen with its energy-saving public buildings and scores of planted roofs.

Yet the Yannell House, which has four bedrooms, two bathrooms and three occupants (the owner and his two cats), is more than a mere technical feat. Clean-lined outside and light-filled within, it issues an elegant rebuttal to the supersize, decoration-slathered McMansions that exemplify the pre-crash age of excess.

"I wanted to make a big, splashy statement to the city that that was the wrong direction," said Yannell, standing next to a kitchen countertop partly made of recycled newspapers. He's lived in the house since April.

A pharmacist at Rush University Medical Center, he is the ideal client for this sort of thing, possessing both ample funds and a zealous level of commitment. By his own calculation, he spent 40 hours researching energy-saving appliances.

At first, he simply wanted to build an energy-efficient house.

He went to Farr Associates, one of the city's top green firms. When the architects introduced him to the more ambitious net zero concept, he said "yes" to the upgrade.

"We thought this was a gift from God," Jonathan Boyer, a Farr principal and the house's chief designer, said with a laugh.

It can be argued, of course, that there's something excessive about a man spending this much money on a big house for himself and his two cats. But in taking aim at the custom-home market, Yannell is posing an iconoclastic challenge, saying, in effect, to the architects and developers of McMansions: My model is greener than your model.

If nothing else, the house (its south garden above) should shatter stereotypes, proving that hyper-green construction is as possible in frequently cloudy Chicago as in sun-drenched Colorado. "It can be done in pretty much any climate," said Ren Anderson of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.

In truth, though, it costs more here than there and, besides, defining exactly what constitutes net zero can be illusive.

• In addition, net zero houses tend to require net zero occupants.
• Forget it if you're going to flood your trees in outdoor lights or stick energy-sucking plasma TVs on walls. Yannell, as you might expect, has two energy-saving LCD TVs. "They have kill switches, so they draw no power in the off mode," he said.

However they're defined, net zero houses offer the tantalizing prospect of off-the-grid living, where each house serves as its own power plant.

Though it gets some electricity from ComEd at night, the Yannell House takes a major step down this road. Just don't expect a net zero revolution any time soon. The house's green features added 10 percent to 15 percent in upfront costs, and it could take years to recoup that premium, Boyer said.

That helps explain why there are only about 100 net zero houses scattered around the U.S.

Still, the Yannell House is a statement house, not a model for mass production, and the statement it makes along the Metra tracks at 4895 N. Ravenswood Ave. is exactly right: A well-designed net zero house should be about more than slapping a huge array of photovoltaic panels on a roof.

The design begins with Boyer's well-conceived floor plan -- a U shape that consists of two non-identical wings joined by a foyer. This arrangement nicely breaks down the house's mass. It looks like two houses, not a small museum, as some big modern houses do these days.

Each wing has broad bands of triple-paned windows facing southward, drawing in lots of natural light, except when the roof's carefully calculated overhangs block the high summer sun. The south wing, which houses the kitchen as well as living and dining areas, is about 10 feet shorter than the north wing, home to bedrooms, an office and a music room. That's so light can filter into the second-story bedrooms and their views aren't blocked.
The house is equally good at projecting its identity outward.

Its exuberant "butterfly" roof folds upward with sculptural verve, even as it cleverly hides the house's 48 photovoltaic panels and doubles as a rainwater collector. Coming closer, you encounter a delicate "rain screen" facade (left), consisting of an outer layer of warm cedar panels and cool, fiber-cement board panels. An inner layer provides thermal insulation. The rain screen seems to breathe like a skin.

"Environmental expressionism," Boyer calls it.
The interior is remarkably light-filled and airy, fully taking advantage of the house's unencumbered views to the south.

In the expansive south wing (below) the underside of the butterfly roof seems to alight on a long steel beam that allows the combined kitchen-living-dining area to be column-free. Yet the beam comes down low enough to give the expansive room a sense of intimacy. That impression is furthered by the presence of such tactile details as wall tiles made of recycled green-glass bottles.

Only the passing Metra trains interrupt the serenity, and their sound is muffled by the triple-paned glass.

The north wing offers pleasures of its own: views back across the courtyard, plus a master bedroom and guest bedroom that feel like treehouses.

While construction joints are expressed, in keeping with Chicago's architectural tradition, many of the house's energy-saving features are concealed.

In the basement, you find geothermal heating and cooling machines linked to three wells dug 250 feet down. Also in the basement (below) are multiple filters for the house's gray water system, which converts spent water from the house's washing machine to clean water that can be used in its toilets. It's believed to be the first gray water system in a Chicago single-family home.

Boyer projects that the array of photovoltaic and solar-thermal panels will generate 18,000 kilowatt hours a year, exceeding the house's projected energy use by 40 percent. "So far, we're doing great," he said, but he's cautious because it's summer and there's been plenty of sunshine.
To date, Yannell had paid one ComEd bill of $29.57, despite feeding his surplus energy into the grid. "ComEd hasn't set up my meter to credit me," he said. Even when it does, he expects to pay a basic monthly fee of about $20.

Future finances aside, the most important lesson of the Yannell House is clear: This net zero house is about more than generating surplus energy. It's about offering a model for a new way of building -- and living.

For a complete slide show on the Yannell House, go the following link. To sign up for a tour of the Yannell House, go to the following link at Michael Yannell's Web site for the house. You must send him an email in advance to arrange a tour.

The Rest @ The Chicago Tribune

Commercial Load Demand Estimator

OGE ( An Oklahoma Power Utility) has a very useful Energy use calculator for commercial buildings. A clean tech Engineer I know uses it for a very quick load demand estimation at the begining of an energy audit.

-Editor.

SmartMeters to Grow by 400% in Two Years

The number of smart electricity meters with two-way communications is poised to mushroom in the next two years, according to a study.

Research company Park Associates this week released figures for smart-meter installations in the U.S., saying that there are 8 million units installed, or about 6 percent of all meters.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)

As utilities upgrade equipment as part of smart-grid trials, the number of smart meters is forecast to grow to 13.6 million installed next year and to over 33 million in 2011.

Having a method to broker regular communications between a utility and a customer will set the foundation for a widening array of home-energy management tools, said Bill Ablondi, Park Associates' director of home systems.

Home energy management systems can be relatively simple displays or Web-based programs that show how much electricity a home is using. More high-end systems can be built around home-area networks where consumers can program smart appliances and lighting to cut power consumption.

The enabling technology for the more sophisticated home-energy management systems includes various wireless communications options for within the home and for smart meters. But even though many of the technology components are now available, there are a number of barriers to widespread adoption of the smart grid, even with billions of stimulus dollars targeted for smart-grid programs.

Upgrading the electricity distribution system is expensive and variable pricing structures that reflect the cost of peak-time electricity could take a long time to be implemented, Ablondi said in a recent presentation. Also, consumer interest in managing energy, which is high right now, could wane, he added.

Previous smart-grid coverage

FAQ: What the smart grid means to youThere are many definitions and technologies under the smart grid banner. What's the goal and why all the attention?

Images: The many faces of the smart grid - CNET NewsThere are many technologies that go into making the smart grid, a grid that is more efficient and reliable as a whole.

Are consumers ready for the smart grid?Smart meters and in-home energy displays are trickling out into people's homes. But there's still some question whether the technology is consumer-friendly enough.

GE: Smart grid yields net-zero energy home At its research labs, GE says it has the smart-grid technology, including solar panels and efficient appliances, to build a home that has a net-zero energy consumption.

Photos: GE's smart-grid kitchen of the futureAt its research labs, GE shows off demand-response appliances that can take advantage of cheaper electricity rates automatically.

Control4 adds energy monitoring to home networkBest known for its home entertainment controllers, Control4 gets funds to expand into smart-grid products to monitor and control home energy use.

GE appliances to connect to smart grid via TendrilSmart-grid start-up Tendril Networks and GE will test a system in which home appliances share data with utilities to cut electricity consumption.

Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.

The Rest @ CNET

We Need Onsite Energy Storage and Smaller Transmission Lines

Ill Wind Blows Over Storage Market
When it comes to discussing the "need" for storage to supplement intermittent wind energy, industry professionals are of two very different minds.

The majority of wind energy development companies we've spoken with say there's no need for storage; any limitations in the ability to distribute wind power are due to a lack of transmission infrastructure. By contrast, many energy insiders say storage could make the business case for wind even stronger. Objective analysis indicates that while need may be too strong of a word, in many cases storage would greatly benefit wind.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), has taken a firm position against storage, especially onsite at wind generation facilities. According to the recent Pike Research report by David Link entitled Energy Storage Technology Markets, "...The association’s official position is that storage systems are not required to integrate wind energy into electric power systems.... AWEA’s reticence comes down to simple economics, as developers do not want to bear the additional cost of storage, on top of the cost they ars to already bearing to deploy core wind generation assets.

This posture is understandable, if not exactly correct. After decades of development, wind power is now approaching the cost of fossil fuel energy in many locations (grid parity), so wind developers don't want to scare investors or lending institutions into thinking that storage is required. That much is true in some cases, especially if you don't care about unutilized power generation that's well, gone with the wind.

At the Storage Week conference, we heard many stories about wind projects that are only harnessing a fraction of the available wind because of low demand at night or insufficient transmission capabilities.

Brett Perlman, a former Commissioner from the Texas PUC and now Vice President of Strategy and Development at Atreides Capital, said wind farms in West Texas have a 9 gigawatt capacity, but 4 gigawatts of the wind can't get back to the grid.

Just imagine all that energy being wasted, while during the day natural gas and coal plants are in full effect to meet peak demand.

An analogy that springs to mind since it's July -- you don't "need" a bathing suit to cool off in a fountain on the way home from work, but isn't it preferable to walking or riding the rest of the way in a soggy suit?

Perlman says the problem in Texas is insufficient transmission -- an easy argument to make because while sometimes true, power producers usually don't foot the bill and have a strong aversion to even mouthing the world "storage" when they are looking for project funding. Negotations often require transmission commitments to match the wind project before going forward.

Conversely, Dr. Imre Gyuk the DOE's Program Manager for Energy Storage Research (hence a self interest in promoting storage) told of Japanese wind farms that don't put any of their power on the grid at night, instead storing it all and selling the power during peak hours. And they're profitable.

Stephen Byrd, the Chief Economic Officer of Energy Storage and Power, gave another indirect example of why wind companies may be down on storage: its growth could also help to delay the end of some coal power production.

Byrd cited instances that in places where wind energy is plentiful during off-peak hours, coal plants (because of CO2 emissions) are being spun down or even mothballed at great cost to their operators so that the maximum amount of wind power is consumed. If storage were available, then the excess energy could be stored and used at peak, with a very low CO2 footprint.
Rather than looking for a yes or no answer, it's best to ask the economic questions to see if they add up. What is the model for cheap and abundant off-peak wind to be stored and sold during peak times? What can be paid per megawatt of storage capacity to turn a profit?

An even more challenging question is: at what point is it better to invest in storage as an alternative to adding transmission lines?

In simplistic terms, if you build the transmission line to meet the maximum wind output, you've overbuilt for what you need during the vast majority of the day. But if you build smaller lines and add some storage, you might get greater efficiency.

The biggest related question of them all has yet to be studied: how does the cost per megawatt of storage equate to cost per megawatt per mile of transmission lines, and what's the relative energy efficiency when including losses? Several attendees of the conference asked questions around the periphery, and all agreed that no one -- EPRI, DOE, AWEA, etc, has tried to tackle it, partially because of the complexity of the model due to a plethora of variables.

I spoke with Gary Tarplee, Managing Director of Edison Mission Energy, which develops wind and solar projects around the country. He admitted that "Wind needs storage... but developers don't want to pay for it. They don't want its cost to be associated with their cost."

So if the wind industry is afraid to ask the question, perhaps third party storage companies will. Tarplee agreed that there may be a business case for third-party companies to buy excess wind at night, store it, and sell it during the day. Which leads to questions for another day: Where should the storage be located? At the wind farm? At substations? Closer to the edge?

John Gartner is the editor in chief of Matter Network and an industry analyst for Pike Research

The Rest @ Featured Matter Network

Manure Growing Energy Algae

Algae Power
Bridport, Vermont - July 13, 2009

The cows at the Blue Spruce Farm in Bridport make more than milk. Their manure also produces power through the digester at the south side of the barns. But for the last nine months some of that liquid manure has also been sent over to a mini greenhouse where it's being investigated as another source of alternative energy.

"Algae's been around from day one of the world," said Gail Busch of Algepower.
That's right-- they're growing algae from manure. Busch is the inventor of Algeponics, a patented photobioreactor-- what she calls a vertical stream. She says it's the only indoor, controlled system in the world.

Here's how it works: Once the liquid manure gets pumped over and diluted with water it runs from top to bottom, the manure serving as the host.

"Half of the volume of that tray runs into the tray below and all the way through. Also, if you look at the system you can see that the bottom trays are much greener than the top. That's because the algae is growing as it moves down through the system," explained Mark Hoffman of Algepower.
"Once it's grown and it's nice and creamy we turn it into separate products such as oil for biodiesel, you could actually eat it if it were not on manure and the paste which can be turned into animal feed, fertilizer," said Busch.

But before they can begin making that energy, they must first fine tune this process. And Central Vermont Public Service is looking to help fund that next step.

"We've always tried to look at renewable energy ideas that were a little off the mainstream and weren't getting a lot of attention from other places-- to put our efforts into," said Steve Costello of Central Vermont Public Service. "Cow power is the perfect example. When we started that people looked at us askew and that we were a little bit out of it and now it's proven to be a very successful program and it's continuing to grow. This has the same type of potential we think."

Algepower expects to expand the algae growing operation here in coming months and begin producing power sometime next year. Another clean energy innovation right here in the Green Mountain State.

Bridget Barry Caswell - WCAX News

1 In 5 New Homes EnergyStar: Tougher 2011 Standards

Energy Star Could Get Tougher
Source: BUILDER OnlinePublication date: July 9, 2009

By Teresa Burney

Qualifying for the Energy Star label on homes is likely to become much more difficult in 2011. The Department of Energy is seeking comments now on proposed significant increases in Energy Star specifications.

"They are much stricter, intentionally," said Sam Rashkin, national director of Energy Star for homes, of the new specs. "It should be a bit of a stretch for builders."

While adding between $2,000 and $4,000 to a home's cost, roughly $10 to $20 a month more in mortgage costs, the changes should save homeowners between $30 and $50 a month on their utility bills, said Rashkin.

In the long run, the change in specs will be good for builders of new homes because it "substantially increases the differential between the new product and their competition, a used home."

That angle has not escaped the notice of builders who have been signing up for the program in droves since the market deteriorated, said Rashkin. "Since the market went soft and the downturn has occurred, the number of builders joining is up a thousand percent, from 30 a month (19 to 20 months ago) to 300, plus or minus. So timing for the spec changes is pretty good."

That increased participation has already begun to show in the numbers of homes that qualify under the program.

In 2008, 17% of new homes built qualified for the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, a 5% jump over 2007. There have been nearly 940,000 Energy Star-qualified homes built to-date, with more than 100,000 built in 2008.

And those numbers look to climb dramatically in 2009.

This year, roughly one in every five houses is expected to be built with the Energy Star rating, said Rashkin. In 2008, the Energy Star market share was already 20% or greater in 15 states: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Vermont.

The proposed changes include:

--Completing the thermal envelope system by making sure that everything from the windows to the insulation, to the caulking and other barriers, form a completely sealed envelope sound enough to stand up to an infrared camera test.

--Treating the heating and cooling elements as a system where all the components are designed and sized to work together efficiently and are installed correctly.

--A more comprehensive set of measures to manage water to make sure it stays out of the home's envelope.

--More energy efficiency requirements for the appliances in the home such as fans and lighting.
More details on the proposed changes can be found here.

Comments are being accepted until Friday, July 10. Depending on the comments, the new specifications should be finalized either in late August or late October and will go into effect Jan. 1, 2011.

The Rest @ Big Builder Online

Radiant Barrier Effective in Study

Source: BIG BUILDER NewsPublication date: July 15, 2009

A university study of Centex Corp.'s (NYSE:CTX) Energy Advantage homes released Wednesday determined that radiant barrier insulation installed on roof systems reduces heat build up and signficantly improves the efficiency of HVAC systems.

The study, performed last summer by the Energy Center of Appalachian State University, compared a pair of adjacent four-bedroom Centex model homes in Charlotte using a total of 61 senors installed in and outside of the houses. It found:

* A 23-degree drop in the peak attic temperature in the home outfitted with radiant heat barrier versus the similar home without the barrier;

* A 20% reduction in the run-time of the air conditioning unit during the seven hours of peak attic temperatures;

* A 57% improvement in the efficiency of cooled air delivered through the air ducts during the same period.

"This particular study showed the installation of a radiant barrier in an attic can make it easier for your air conditioner to do its job in the summer heat," said Jeff Tiller, P.E., chair of the ASU Technology department.
"That translates to lower electricity usage, which also impacts the carbon footprint of homes."

"Radiant barriers are a key feature of our Centex Energy Advantage suite of energy efficiency features," said Clayton Traylor who heads environmental affairs for Centex. "We're very pleased that this study validates the significant energy saving benefits our customers can expect from owning a Centex Energy Advantage home."

Centex began building its homes with radiant barrier roof decking in January of 2009 as part of its Centex Energy Advantage suite of energy-efficient features. According to the company, homes with Centex Energy Advantage features have been shown to have an overall energy efficiency gain of up to 22% over comparable homes built to the most widely used energy efficiency code, according to the NAHB Research Center.

The study was funded by a U.S. Department of Energy Building America grant provided through the North Carolina Energy Office.

The Rest @ Big Builder Online

Negawatt - A Measure of Energy Saved Through Efficiency Gains

Negawatt power is the idea of creating incentives to reduce demand for electricity to ease the load at peak times or alleviate the need to build more generation plants. In theory, these negawatts can be aggregated and an arbitrage market could be created to trade these.


The term was coined by Amory Lovins, who saw a typo — "negawatt" instead of "megawatt" — in a Colorado Public Utilities Commission report. He adopted the term to describe electricity that wasn't created due to energy efficiency.[1]


An electricity supplier that needs more electricity can invite suppliers to bid to supply it and invite customers to bid to reduce demand. The electricity supplier can then compare these quotations to establish the most economic alternative. This comparison can refer to peak load management - how much per additional kW to get the power company through the peak load due to air conditioning on an unusually hot day - or may refer to longer-term investments - comparing the cost of building a new power station with the cost of, for instance, providing customers with low energy light bulbs.


A genuine market for negawatts requires regulatory failure elsewhere: the price of electricity at peak times must be lower than the marginal cost of supplying additional peak demand, or there must be constraints on the installation of new capacity.


Establishing a market may require legislation and cooperation between primary producers, distributors, traders and consumers. For instance, generators' income is commonly derived from selling electricity and their cash flow may be reduced by trade in efficiencies, but increasing supply by raising consumption efficiency is often less expensive than building new powerplants.
New markets have developed in several regions across the United States to allow "demand side resources" to participate in wholesale energy markets. These markets are commonly referred to as demand response.


The naming concept could be expanded; cf. negajoules or negawatt-hours. [2]



The Rest @ Wikipedia

Half of Europe's Biodiesal Plants Lie Dormant

By Sybille de La Hamaide

PARIS (Reuters) - Production of biodiesel in the European Union rose by more than 35 percent in 2008 and capacity will grow again this year although half the plants are idle due to poor demand, the EU producers group said on Wednesday.

The Brussels-based European Biodiesel Board (EBB) said the European production of biodiesel, by far the main biofuel made in the bloc, had reached 7.76 million tonnes last year putting the EU's global market share close to 65 percent.

However, the EBB qualified the 2008 rise as "moderate" compared to the jump of 65 percent in 2005 and 54 percent in 2006 but the rise was only at 17 percent in 2007.
"In line with the trend initiated in 2007, the year 2008 saw a relatively small increase in EU biodiesel production, and even a reduction in two major producing Member States, Germany and Austria," the EBB said in a statement.

For detailed statistics of biodiesel output per country and estimates for the 2009 capacity, please click on

"This situation has to be understood primarily against the background of unfair international trade competition which has severely affected the profitability of EU biodiesel producers since early 2007," it added.

The EU last week endorsed a proposal by the Commission, the 27-member bloc's executive arm, to extend for five years its anti-dumping tariffs against cheap U.S. biodiesel imports. The move was welcomed by the EBB, which had complained that EU producers were being hammered by U.S. subsidies.

"This decision will help re-establishing EU producer's legitimate right to operate in a level-playing field," it said.

HALF EU PLANTS IDLE

In addition to a fall in demand mainly linked to strong U.S. competition, EU producers have also suffered from slumping margins as the fall in crude oil prices over the past year was not compensated by a similar drop in vegetable oils prices.

Even if the EU will have total biodiesel production capacity of close to 21 million tonnes this year -- a rise of 31 percent on the year -- the EBB said 2008 and 2009 statistics showed that at least 50 percent of existing plants remain idle.

"Unfair international competition has been the main driver of this trend, while the political discussions in 2008 on adoption of the Renewable Energy Directive have added to market uncertainty," it said.

In an interview with Reuters late May, the EU's largest biodiesel maker, France's Diester Industrie, said it was pausing in its investments until it knew the details, expected next year, of the implementation of the EU's target of 10 percent renewable energies in transport by 2020.
The share that will be allocated to biofuels to reach this target is still unclear.

The Rest @ Reuters
(Editing by Peter Blackburn)

Microturbine on Coal Gas Runs Industrial Water Purification

This is a Capstone Press Release but the application is is interesting: using coal seam gas to run a microturbine that powers reverse osmosis water purification to clean industrial water in Australia.

-Editor

CHATSWORTH, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Capstone Turbine Corporation (www.microturbine.com) (NASDAQ:CPST), the world's leading clean technology manufacturer of microturbine energy systems, today announced that it received a follow on order for three C1000 systems from Aquatec-Maxcon Pty Ltd, its distributor for the Australian market. The order is for Capstone C1000 MicroTurbine(R) systems to be installed by a coal seem gas producer in a reverse osmosis water system application in Australia.

"Australia is proving to be a strong market for both green building and oil & gas applications. This project is to power a reverse osmosis plant that cleans contaminated water that is a byproduct of coal seem gas extraction. The clean water is made available to local towns as potable water," said Jim Crouse, Capstone's Executive Vice President, Sales & Marketing.
Commenting on this new order, Capstone President and CEO Darren Jamison added, "We were very pleased with the $4.7 million order from Aquatec-Maxcon in July for our C30 microturbines. It is encouraging to see the momentum continue with this latest order for

C1000's from the same end-user as our C30 microturbines."

Aquatec-Maxcon is Australia's leading provider of water and wastewater technology and equipment. It is headquartered in Ipswich, Queensland, Australia and has offices in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and now a newly acquired property in New Zealand. Through its sister company, PT Aquatec-Maxcon Indonesia, it also has offices in Jakarta and Surabaya.
The C1000 is a robust megawatt power system, based on Capstone's C200 microturbine product line.

It will be configured in a single ISO container and will provide the same low emissions and low maintenance benefits of Capstone's products in a compact footprint.

Capstone Turbine Corporation (www.microturbine.com) (NASDAQ:CPST) is the world's leading producer of low-emission microturbine systems, and was the first to market commercially viable microturbine energy products.

• Capstone Turbine has shipped over 4,000 Capstone MicroTurbine(R) systems to customers worldwide. These award-winning systems have logged millions of documented runtime operating hours.
• Capstone Turbine is a member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Combined Heat and Power Partnership, which is committed to improving the efficiency of the nation's energy infrastructure and reducing emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases.

A UL-Certified ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 14001:2004 certified company; Capstone Turbine is headquartered in the Los Angeles area with sales and/or service centers in New Jersey, New York, Mexico City, Milan, Nottingham, Shanghai and Tokyo.

"Capstone Turbine Corporation" and "Capstone MicroTurbine" are registered trademarks of Capstone Turbine Corporation. All other trademarks mentioned are the property of their respective owners.

Source: Capstone Turbine Corporation

Cogeneration: a Part of the Energy Solution

In the late 1970s, John Gofman, co-inventor of plutonium, had second thoughts about his work with nuclear power over the years. He authored a book entitled Irrevy, in which he argued that the use of nuclear power for electrical production amounted to a bad tradeoff of inefficient and expensive power generation for an insoluble toxic waste problem and generations upon generations of unknown cancers and genetic defects.

While the portion of domestic electricity currently produced by nuclear energy is marginal, at that time there were quite a few more nuclear power plants and nuclear energy production. A perfect storm of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl together with movies such as The China Syndrome gave impetus to an anti-nuclear movement, of which, Gofman was a pre-eminent spokesman, which changed all of that.

Now, as the nation faces an energy crisis, not just of gas lines, but of all energy production, the idea of re-introducing nuclear energy with a vengeance has emerged. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Republican candidate John McCain proposed building 50 new nuclear plants. As the electorate starts to forget why the moratorium on nuclear plants in the US went into effect in the first place and embraces the simplistic argument that 80% of France’s electricity is produced by nuclear plants, it becomes more imperative that we not only examine Gofman’s objections to the ‘nuclear option,’ but take a look at some of the alternatives he proposed.


One alternative he proposed was cogeneration, an energy source that Gofman estimated could supply as much as 40% of domestic energy needs. While cogeneration is not a well known concept in the United States, whole cities in Europe were designed with cogeneration in mind.
Cogeneration is the process of using otherwise wasted energy (mostly heat energy) to produce electricity or for other useful purposes. Cogeneration is more of an energy conservation strategy than a source of renewable energy, since it is basically using energy that has already been created more efficiently. Currently cogeneration is estimated to be producing 10% of the nation’s electricity.


Cogeneration is sometimes called Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and is a proven technology that has been around a long time. The first cogeneration plant was also the nation’s first commercial power plant, built by Thomas Edison in New York in 1882.


In most heat engines between slightly more than half to two thirds of the total energy produced by the engine is wasted excess heat. Cogeneration.net estimates that the average efficiency of fossil fueled power plants in the US is between 30 and 33 percent. Using cogeneration the efficiency of conventional power plants can be dramatically increased, for example from between 40 and 50% to between 80-90%.


Conventional power plants emit the heat created as a byproduct of electrical generation through cooling towers or other means. Cogeneration captures the byproduct heat either close to the plant or, as in some European nations, distributed through pipes for home heating uses. According to Wikipedia, the steam system in the world, Con Edison, produces 30 billion pounds of steam each year at its seven cogeneration plants and pumps it to 100,000 buildings in Manhattan.


Because there is a substantial variety of industrial processes that create heat there is no one typical cogeneration facility. Examples of different cogeneration facilities are therefore, quite extensive.


For example a thermally enhanced oil recovery plant in Kern County, California produces enough excess electricity that it produces more than enough for local use and transmits the surplus to Los Angeles. Other cogeneration plants are fueled by biomass and/or municipal and industrial waste.


A number of universities have initiated cogeneration projects, most notably MIT. The MIT project is a 10-year $40 million project that MIT hopes will enable it to generate all of its own electricity and heat using the waste heat of a gas turbine. MIT estimates it will also reduce greenhouse emissions by 45% over the technology it replaces.


On a smaller scale “micro-congeneration” is gaining popularity. Consisting of a small cogeneration plant located in either a home or small business (or both for home businesses), the

technology can be adapted to almost any situation.


Basically instead of burning fuel solely for heating purposes, a portion of that energy is also used to generate electricity. Generators that can be used for micro-cogeneration can run the gamut from microturbines and internal combustion engines, to Stirling engines, closed cycle steam engines and fuel cells.

Clean Fuel for Vehicles - Louisiana Increases Tax Credit to 50%

Governor Bobby Jindal recently announced that he signed Louisiana House Bill 110, legislation that increases personal and corporate income tax credits for use of alternative fuel for motor vehicles, including the use of compressed natural gas (CNG.)

The legislation, authored by Louisiana State Representative Jane Smith (R-Bossier City) and led by Louisiana Senator Nick Gautreaux (D-Abbeville) in the Senate, will increase economic development and investment in Louisiana by encouraging companies to use a fuel source that is clean, abundant, affordable and American.

"Now with proper incentives in place, Louisiana retailers can offer CNG as an alternative fuel to consumers who take advantage of the ability to convert their car or truck or purchase a new vehicle," said Smith.

The new legislation includes provisions to:

• Increase the existing personal or corporate income tax credit from 20% to 50% for purchase of qualified clean burning motor vehicle fuel property, including equipment installed on a motor vehicle and property directly related to the delivery of an alternative fuel.
  
• Increase the existing personal or corporate income tax credit for the purchase of a motor vehicle with qualified clean burning motor vehicle fuel property installed by the manufacturer of such vehicle to 10% of the cost of the vehicle or $3,000, whichever is less.
  
• Establish the existing credit as a refundable income tax credit if no taxes are owed and notes that the tax credits are retroactive to January 1, 2009.
  
• Repeal provisions under current law that prohibit a company or individual who qualifies for Louisiana's Quality Jobs Program from taking advantage of the existing income tax credits for alternative fueled vehicles and equipment.
  
• Gautreaux said, "With potentially the largest natural gas field in the United States, Louisiana is poised to support an energy policy that enhances our national security and promotes a cleaner environment in our country and state. Louisiana now has some of the most aggressive incentives in the country for both consumers and companies to use clean buring, truly American natural gas as transportation fuel."
  
• The legislation was broadly supported with 67 co-authors in the House and 23 co-authors in the Senate. Additionally, a total of 24 entities and organizations passed Resolutions supporting HB 110. They ranged from local governments, chambers of commerce, economic development organizations and environmental groups that represent literally thousands of Louisiana citizens interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building our nation's energy security.

The Rest @KATC

Three Approaches to Biomass Fuel Production

March 9, 2009

Bio-mass : will that be filtering, pyrolysis or gasification?

• “Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Zero Emission Energy Plants, Inc. Sign Gasification Licensing Agreement”,
• “Vegawatt plugs in grease-fired restaurant generator”, and
• “Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and AERI Collaborate to Develop Gasification Technology”;

are but three headlines that have appeared over the last several months regarding systems and/ or methods for processing a carbon-containing feedstock into some type of fuel. There are a myriad of techniques for the above processing, each having a different set of pressure, atmosphere and reaction conditions.

The particular combination of reaction conditions being dictated by at least the nature of the feedstock and the desired end product.

• With consideration to the second headline, the Vegawatt system is designed to use waste vegetable oil to generate on-site electricity. It is indicated on the Vegawatt website that a four-stage cleaning process is used to process the waste cooking oil for use as a fuel. In this case the original hydrocarbon chain is most likely still intact. Such a process is quite different from that of the Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) technology.

• A flavour for the PWR gasification technology emerges from visible patent documents. In general PWR appears to have developed a high temperature, high pressure system, similar to a so-called entrained flow gasifier. Published US patent application 2008/0141913 describes a dump cooled gasifier. In particular it describes structures around a slag-based regenerative liner. Published US patent application 2008/0060914 and issued US patent 7,303,597 describe feed systems for use with a gasification system. A common theme emerging from these and other PWR documents is the development of technology around providing for a continuous gasification process.
  

While the above two approaches appear quite different on the surface there is a least one common thread, the use of what would have been once considered waste as a source of energy. Both processes also discuss the implementation of “waste” heat to further improve the overall energy captured from the fuel.

The Rest @ Getting Technolology Right

Hydrogen-HCNG Car from Norway

FYK is a Norwegian sports car designed to run on a blend of hydrogen and natural gas. It was developed by a Norwegian company named Aetek and received backing from Statoil, the largest petroleum company in the Nordic countries and Norway's largest company in all categories.

FYK was launched in 2006 as a technology demonstrator and there are currently no plans on putting it into series production.

FYK was launched in august 2006, at the same time as Statoil opened up the first filling station in Norway for hydrogen, Natural Hy and natural gas.

• This filling station can be found in Forus, Stavanger. F


• YK is powered on NaturalHy (HCNG), a blend consisting of 8-20% hydrogen and 92-80% compressed natural gas.


• The car is built almost entirely in aluminium in order to reduce weight and the car is fitted with cutting edge wireless communications solutions from Norway.


• Not only body and chassis, but suspension, motor, wheels and the entire has been made from recyclable aluminium and exterior as well as interior is formidable display of various aluminium-shaping techniques and surface treatments.


• Critics has put forward that just like gasoline, natural gas is a fossil fuel that contributes to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Natural gas is found in oil fields, natural gas fields and coal beds. (There is another type of methane-rich gas that can be produced by non-fossil organic materials as they decay, but this type of gas is commonly referred to as biogas, not natural gas.)

According to Statoil and Aetec, FYK should however only be seen as the first step towards future hydrogen powered cars. Aetec, the company behind the ground-breaking FYK is a Norwegian design- and prototype development company focused on the development of environmentally friendly concepts for the transport sector.

According to Aetec, they wish to combine environmentally friendly designs with excitement, and it therefore comes as no surprise that they are behind innovative creations like a hydrogen/natural gas powered sports car.

The Rest @ XM3 CArs

Is The Loopwing Wind Turbine Coming to the US?

The Loopwing Wind Turbine

This loopy looking item is a striking wind turbine design with some interesting features. A Japanese company is offering this small-scale wind turbine that touts an amazingly low 1.6m/sec (3.5 mph) minimum generation speed (compared with 8-11 mph for many turbines.)
The company claims a number of benefits for the Loopwing turbine attributed to the unusual configuration of the blades. Because there are no blade tips, the Loopwing doesn't have tip vortex effects, and is therefore much quieter. This also reduces vibration, which helps with both noise and extending the life of the turbine and generator. The blade configuration is also responsible for its low start speed.
Check out this awesome broken-english press material:
People witnessing a test model in operation gave high evaluation saying that there is no noise at all. The unique-shaped blade has self-stalling capability and it can avoid over-speeding. Loopwing’s rotation has globular trajectory and it can deflect smoothly even in gust, for example in a place on the roof of a building where the strong wind blows.There you have it...it's all about the globular trajectory avoiding over-speeding.
The Loopwing turbine appears to making the rounds of Japanese trade shows, and they have secured a US patent. So it's possible that it will be coming, but as yet there doesn't seem to be a North American distributor.

The Rest @ Ecogeek

Via: Metaefficient

11kW machines were installed in the hospital. (http://www.yahagi-seikei.com/)
(diameter 6.67m, rated power 11kW) was installed in a hospital near the windmill.

Wind speed of 2m / s wind from the start only, the estimated annual energy production is 5234kWh (annual average wind speed of 4m / s time).

Google Translation from the website in Japanese