Archive for November, 2008

As posted on CleanTechBlog.com

For a long time, I hadn’t heard much about Dean Kamen. He was last in the news, a lot, in 2001 when he unveiled the Segway.

You probably remember the Segway. Kamen was quoted in an article in Time upon the Segway’s release that it “will be to the car what the car was to the horse and buggy.” No less a force than Kleiner Perkins bought into the hype, making Segway one of its portfolio companies. The Segway hardly revolutionized transportation, and Kamen faded from view (at least from my view) for quite awhile. But as recent reportage shows, Kamen clearly continues to think big, and is becoming increasingly visible again.

Kamen’s company DEKA Research and Development is now reported to be working on a car called the Revolt, a Think car modified to employ a hybrid-electric vehicle with a Stirling (in lieu of internal combustion) engine that can theoretically be powered by virtually anything that burns.

Meanwhile, Kamen is reported to be hosting visitors to North Dumpling Island, an island he owns off the coast of Connecticut, which he is turning into a showcase of how it’s possible to create a self-sufficient, zero-carbon economy.

Kamen must have tremendous self-confidence to rebound from what surely must have been painfully discouraging – maybe even humiliating – in the Segway’s failure to achieve its claims, to now sticking his neck out yet again in such exposed ways.

If we are to make real progress on our energy and environmental challenges, especially in a world whose economies are in disarray, we will need courage – some might even say recklessness – from many bold thinkers and doers to overcome long odds and formidable obstacles.

So today I offer a tip of the hat to Mr. Kamen. I admire his strength of vision. I don’t know that I’d necessarily invest my ever-dwindling personal capital in his ventures, but I hope for his sake and for the planet’s that he’s onto something more substantial this time than he was with the Segway seven years ago.

As posted on CleanTechBlog.com

For years, the utopian vision for powering humankind’s energy requirements has been based on hydrogen, produced by decomposing, ever-abundant water, via renewable sources of power (e.g., sunlight). When hydrogen is used in fuel cells to produce electricity on demand, the only byproducts of the chemical reaction are water vapor and pure oxygen. In other words, an energy cycle that is infinitely sustainable (at least as long as we have a sun).

Of course, there are a number of well-documented challenges to achieving the so-called hydrogen economy. Producing, transporting and storing the hydrogen are all expensive relative to the current conventional energy approaches - and they require a major change-out of infrastructure, which would entail a massive societal investment. Fuel cells also remain expensive because of high materials costs and short lifetimes, until further engineering obstacles are overcome.

With this as backdrop, it’s interesting to read “Sun + Water = Fuel,” an article in the current Technology Review. The article profiles the work of Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at MIT who claims to have discovered a catalyst that facilitates a reaction in which oxygen is generated from water by sunlight - making, in effect, an artificial leaf.  Of course, if one produces oxygen from water, one is also producing free hydrogen.

Therefore, Professor Nocera is suggesting that he is on the verge of discovering how to produce hydrogen from water via sunlight. If true, this would be a major breakthrough toward the hydrogen economy, dramatically simplifying the hydrogen production, storage and transportation issues, because water and sunlight are respectively inexpensive and free - not to mention almost ubiquitous.

That being said, we must be cautious to avoid getting prematurely overexcited. To illustrate, let’s not forget the promising claims of cold fusion made in 1989 by Pons and Fleischmann. Twenty years hence, and other than lots of controversy, not much to show for it. And even if Professor Nocera is really on to something, there’s still the little issue of repairing hydrogen’s public reputation in the wake of the Hindenburg disaster: 70 years later and many urban legends about hydrogen’s dangers still linger, as in this recent satire.

This reveals a constant occupational hazard for those of us who work in the cleantech field: things just don’t change as fast as we often would like for them to change. In the case of hydrogen, many things must change, and some of the changes - technical, institutional and cultural - must be profound for hydrogen to become a major actor in the world’s energy economy. I hope that day comes far sooner than I frankly expect it will.

In a recent story, CNN profiled the new home of Bill and Sharon Kastrinos.

154 square feet. That’s right, 154 square feet. Actually, it’s 98 square feet downstairs plus a 56 square foot loft upstairs. The closet – well, that’s inside the car.

Why would the Kastrinos live in such a miniscule dwelling? Apparently, it’s driven by economics. Mr. Kastrinos wants to live on $15,000 per year, but he also wants to live in a nice place, California wine country (specifically Calistoga), where real estate costs are astronomical. With this home, costing $15,000 and with a utility bill of $15 per month, he and his wife can make it work. And when they get the urge to go elsewhere, they can tow their home, which has wheels and a chassis on the bottom, making it essentially an RV.

The small pre-fab home market has become a bit of a “cottage industry” (sorry, couldn’t resist). Mr. Kastrinos himself has made and sold 11 of them in the last half-year. In nearby Sebastopol, Jay Shafer’s Tumbleweed Tiny House Company offers a full range of home designs between 65(!) and 774 square feet.

The common theme of the customers is a desire to downsize their lives and their consumption patterns, the equivalent of a colonic cleansing. It’s a bit extreme for me. I couldn’t imagine making such a big change in lifestyle in one fell swoop. But there’s little doubt in my mind:  unAmerican as it may be, if we as a society are to achieve significant reductions in energy consumption and emissions output, some degree of downsizing will occur. The question is going to be: Will it be by choice, or will it be forced?

As posted on CleanTechBlog.com

I consider myself an equal opportunity offender. Many people in the energy industry or those who for some reason don’t believe in climate change think I’m somewhat of a radical. On the other hand, many ardent environmentalists think I’m too apologetic, conservative or pessimistic about what carbon reductions can realistically be achieved in what time frames and at what costs.

Therefore, I appreciate it when I find someone who makes well-argued, nuanced and balanced statements like those I would attempt to make. A recent example: a September speech at the Metropolitan Club in Washington by David J. O’Reilly, chairman and CEO of Chevron.

I was particularly pleased by his comments on renewable energy and climate change. O’Reilly was quite clear and blunt: “Renewable energy is very real. We need it. It will be an essential part of the future I envision.” His only caveat, which I agree with: “It’s not realistic to suppose that it can replace conventional energy in a timeframe that some suggest,” referring to Al Gore’s well-intentioned but wishful-thinking goal of 100 percent U.S. electricity supply from renewable energy by 2018.

As for climate change, his comments were also measured and reasonable: “There is no doubt that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased. And although there is uncertainty about the future impacts on climate, most people agree that it’s not a good idea to continue unrestricted hydrocarbon combustion. And I agree.” This line acknowledges that climate science is still subject to considerable uncertainty (see, as one example, a recent paper published in Geophysical Review Letters by two MIT earth and planetary sciences professors), while at the same insisting that it’s very worthwhile to move concertedly toward lower carbon intensity in the likely case that the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to unfavorable impacts on the planet.

O’Reilly closes by noting the importance for the next president to mobilize the public in a sustained commitment for change: “We need collaboration to achieve real progress. Businesses and consumers need affordable energy. Young and old want renewable energy. Republicans and Democrats seek reduced emissions…Today, public sentiment supports action on energy policy. That action should lead to a future of greater energy efficiency, enhanced supplies of all forms of energy, and reduced emissions. While I am concerned about the urgency of the situation today, I’m also optimistic. I believe that, by the time my grandchildren are my age, our energy system will look much different. But we must get started now.”

Wise words, in my humble opinion. Let’s hope our new president can pull us together, in the face of declining oil prices and weakening economic conditions, toward a new resolve on energy.

A good start for the president-elect would be to read an open letter written by Ernest Moniz, director of the MIT Energy Initiative, in this month’s Technology Review. Moniz’s four-pronged recommendation for a major step-up in Federal commitment:

1. Implement carbon dioxide emissions pricing, presumably through a cap-and-trade system

2. Add a surcharge on energy to generate $10 billion to $15 billion annually for the next 10 to 15 years to spend on development and deployment of new low-carbon energy technologies

3. Establish a mechanism spanning the various bureaucracies of the federal government that will lead to a truly coherent energy policy – perhaps by appointing an energy advisor to the president

4. Commit to implementing a “smart grid” within 10 years

When one considers that the federal government now allocates less than 3 percent of its research dollars to energy, down from 10 percent in 1980, it seems pretty clear that the U.S. doesn’t put its money where its mouth used to be, and needs to get much more serious. Step one will be a president who himself is serious and doesn’t fall prey to cheap populism or get swayed by protecting the interests of a select set of constituencies.�

We need to stop the dogma and hyberbole from both sides, buckle down, and get on with it. I hope our new president can lead the way.