For anyone who didn’t watch 60 Minutes this last Sunday, I’ll explain why you should watch the video.

The Bloom Box is a fuel cell designed to provide homes electricity from a box the size of a stack of 15 cd/dvds that costs about $3000.  The fuel cell does emit CO2 when fueled by carbon based fuels, but it creates twice as much electricity as traditional natural gas generators. This means that substituting these methane powered fuel cells for coal power plants could cut CO2 emissions by 75%. Deploying small, off grid Bloom devices further reduces transmission loses and grid costs associated with delivering power.  A successful Bloom Box, could have a huge impact on on a world increasingly run on electricity.

Will it work? Well they’ve got systems running at Google, eBay and FedEx in northern California and they’re funded by Kleiner Perkins, et. al. for $400 Million. That makes it seem like it’s coming soon. If this works, my only question is could we capture enough methane, from bio sources to power society without continuing to add CO2 from burning “mined” fuels?

Check out this video:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Is a ‘Smart Grid’ a good idea?  While some people wonder about benefits of this new technology, most of us just want to know what they are talking about.  Simply put, the Smart Grid is a power system that is more computer controlled. The Smart Grid connects computerized appliances, computerized meters, power generation and transmission networks together to optimize the production and use of electricity. This Smart Grid would allow the power companies to see where the use is highest, to increase rates or use interrupting services to manage demand.  In fact it would allow power companies to alow the pricing of power according to demand and discounting use in order to reduce the need to build reserve capacity.

Imagine a USA with only rechargeable cars, every family needing to recharge a couple of cars everyday.  Well during hot summer days we already seen demand outstripping supply in California a few days every  summer.  Government research labs say that off-peak generation capacity can power 73% of the vehicles in a world of electric cars.  When you put this all together it means the smart grid would let you plug in the car when you come home and let the smart meter decide when to charge it based on how much you are willing to pay. Your washer and dryer can wait to run at offpeak times to get the lowest rate. Plus this opens up the idea of ’whole home”  back up battery technology that would allow us to store up power during off peak hours to reduce the need to buy power off the grid during peak times. But the smart grid goes beyond that, it allows the electrical companies to sell more electricity with fewer plants by optimizing supply and demand.  Fewer power plants being built saves the industry billions of dollars. that’s money that can be spent on newer, greener power generating technology. 

So let’s teach our grid some new tricks, it’s conservation, optimization via automation.

As we head toward Earth Hour here in the Americas, i’m asking why?  Why bother with an earth hour, why set it up for saturday night, local time, when most people are out socializing and enjoying their weekend.  The idea, is to “vote” for a fight against global warming by shutting off your lights for the hour .  While i’m all for consciousness raising and spreading the word, but these cute little events also tend to make people feel that they’ve done something hard, when they’re really done very little.

While i’m good with helping people take the first step, i think having a billion people sign petition/oath to strengthen the fight against global warming would be an incredible feat and would send a much louder message.  This earth hour gets “support” by abandoned buildings around the world not using power, while the lights that aren’t extinguished, most likely because they are controlled by timers or the available light will be judged as protests.   So whether you’re city is too bright or nice and dark, it’s won’t be easy to measure “the vote”.  30+ years ago, April 22nd was established as Earth Day as a way to raise conciousness and advocate for the environment.  Instead of finding more ways to make statements, how about something that focuses on making real, long term changes in the way we live.

Some of the best arguments against the US capping CO2 can be summed in a single word.  These words are: India, China, Brazil and Indonesia.  The long winded version of these arguments go something like this:

Even if the US and Europe cut emissions by 100% there are still 3+ billion people, half the world living in the in those countries and they are increasing their CO2 at a stagering pace.  The cost of “green energy” is so much higher than carbon based energy that these and other developing countries will chose the cheaper carbon choice.

So, what can be done about this?  Should we subsidize these developing countries so they go with green power? Should we give up?  The short answer is that we (North America, Europe, Japan, Korea) need to push for deployment and development of wind, sun and hydropower solutions at home, now.  We need to help reduce the cost of these technologies, by supporting this young industry. 

Yes, the old rules of the marketplace work here, the more solar and wind generation is deployed, the faster the cost of these power sources decline.  The early affect of Germany’s efforts to encourage solar and wind power has helped to both reduce the cost of solar panels and wind turbines with increased the demand for these technologies. Much in the way that VCRs, PCs, microchips and Flat Panels have dropped in pricing as a result of increased demand and sales, economies of scale and competition, solar and wind technologies have followed that model.  When the cost of these new technologies create power for less than the cost of fossil fuels, we’ll see developing countries choose green.

So if you want to keep the developing world from building 1000s of fossil fuel power plants, tens of millions of gas powered vehicles and 100s of millions of carbon burning homes, it’s best to encourage the developed world to increase the speed of green energy deployments here.  Let’s hope the US either leads the way, or follows germany’s lead.  Fortunately with the exit of the Bush administration, the US has gotten out of the way.

First off, my disclosure, i’ve lived my whole life within 50 miles of the headquarters of each of the Big 3, now the Detroit 3, first in Michigan and now in Ontario.  So, i have a vested interest in the US auto companies surviving, while at the same time, i want to solve global warming.  There is an inherent conflict between the goal of saving the planet and gasoline powered cars and trucks. The only way to achieve an environmentally friendly vehicle is to create only non-emitting vehicles, most likely the electric vehicles that are starting to be launched and announced over the last year.  The transition to electric vehicles is expected to take 20 years, in the mean time, governments are increasing fleet mileage requirments to help reduce emissions.

Higher mileage requirements are on the way, the state of California has legislated it, others states have joined the standard and President Obama has weighed in with his support of the same.  Is it any surprise that the Detroit 3, Michigan’s govenor, senators and congressional deligation are less receptive to these tougher standards.  Whenever it’s come to high mileage (translate that to small) cars, Detroit has repeatedly failed to succeed in the marketplace, so the reaction in auto country is understood.  But what if we can help put Detroit in (dare i say ‘The Driver’s Seat’) an adventageous position through legislation that helps auto makers meet these standards by rewarding them for alternative energy vehicles.

My proposal is simple, reward automakers for selling rechargeable electric cars, that can run at least 40 miles without charging, whether a 100% electric or a plug-chargeable hybrid.  The idea would be to take the EPA mileage rating of a plug-in hybrid on a single tank tank of gas and let automakers double it for the purpose of calculating an overall average fleet fuel mileage.  Say the new Chevy volt can be charged up, filled with 10 gallons of gas and driven 500 miles for a average of 50 miles per gallon of gas, GM could add the sale of 1 car with a 100 mpg (50 miles x 2) to their overal fleet.  If a car was fully electric, with no gas engine, the manufacturer could take the range of the vehicle, per charge and triple it. For a 100% electric car that had a 100 mile range, the auto manufacturer who sold it could count it as a 300 mpg vehicle.  This incentivizes all auto manufactures, not only the Detroit 3, to introduce electric cars to help reach higher mileage standards, without limiting the range of hydrocarbon fueled vehicles they offer.  In short, this let’s Detroit sell SUVs and Pickups, if they can sell enough green vehicles to keep their fleet averages about the government’s minimum.

Electric vehicles are inherently more efficient than the internal combustion engine, so less CO2 is generated for each mile driven.  Electricity can be generated from large traditional power plants which are efficent to operate and limits the number of pollution sources compared to 100s of millions of gasoline powered vehicle.  Finally electric has number sources of generation including a growing number non-emitting, renewable sources.

If you watch television you’ve seen the ads with oilman Boone Pickens promoting switching our vehicles to run on natural gas/renewable fuels.  If not, the plan is based on 1 fundamental point: that relying on foreign oil is dangerous to the US economy and it’s position in the world.  In short, we should switch to natural guess to power vehicles instead of using oil.  The plan itself is under attack for substituting one carbon based fuel for another, when CO2 levels need to be reduced.  Further the is under attack because it’s creator/backer, 80 year old oilman T. Boone Pickens, has substantial investments in the various components of the plan.

The Good

The plan is about reducing dependence on oil and the transfer of wealth from the US to oil producing countries.  Keeping our energy spend at/near home is something that i support with my environmental, nationalist and capitalist values.  Environmentally the plan calls on substituting natural gas for gasoline that is mainly made from imported oil and substituting the electricity that is generated by natural gas, with wind power. This is a net gain for the environment. First, natural gas generates 30%+ less CO2, per mile than gasoline.  Further switching to wind from natural gas power plants eliminates the emissions from 16%+ of the power generation and about 11% of overall emissions for electrical generation (nat gas generates 33% of the CO2 of coal plants) due to it’s cleaner burn.

The Bad

The Pickens’ Plan encourage changing the entire US truck fleet to natural gas, since trucks use 25% of all gasoline.  Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels corp. a company that runs natural gas filling stations.  Pickens’ plan calls for wind power to replace natural gas generated power, to make the fuel available for transportation.  Pickens has ordered over $2 Billion worth of wind turbines to help produce that electricity.  The plan calls for the government allow emergency use of eminent domain to create right of ways for high voltage links between wind farms and electric users; Pickens is seeking to have power lines built to his wind farm.  While the plan may help the country, it is Pickens, more than any other individual, who will benefit from his plan.

The Ugly

Boone Pickens has been around for years and has acquired a number of friends and enemies.  Many enemies in the environmental movement base their stand on the effects of his business on the environment.  We all know about the environmental issues of an oil based economy and as a the ultimate Texas wildcatter, Mr. Pickens has made his fortune(and lost it and made it back) in the Oil and Gas industry.  More recently, Mr. Pickens has acquired the majority of water rights, for his Mesa Water, in his county in texas and intends to pump ground water for sale to Dallas, which is over 200 miles away.  Not only does he intend to pump water to sell, he intends to do so at a rate which empty the aquifer in 20 to 30 years.  In June he manage to get his ranch declared a public water district which gives him considerable power in using eminent domain to take property need for his 200+ mile pipeline.  Finally is you are a democrat and/or some one angry over the Swift Boat ads directed at John Kerry in 2004, it was Boone Pickens that spent over $7 million to bankroll the activity.

The Conclusion?

I think it’s a good idea to switch transportation to natural gas, from oil, but to put a bunch of government subsidies to make this switch when we are just a few years from plug-in rechargeables with reasonable cost and range isn’t wise.  Better we should subsidize, non-carbon technology with government money or tax credits.

Anthony Rubenstein discusses the plan and California Prop 10 at his site www.AnthonyRubenstein

Andy Grove former chairman and CEO of Intel and one of the pioneers in the semiconducter industry spoke out today on the need for electric transportation and the widespread awareness of this coming up thru society.  Grove spoke recently with AP reporter Ken Thomas where he expressed his view of society needing to shift its focus to electric transport as a way of dealing with ever increasing oil prices.

Grove explained his goal. “The most important thing I would like to do is light that almost half-assumed truth up in neon lights: Electricity in transportation has to be done. It is urgent. It is important that everything else is secondary”.  Grove continued to explain, “The drumbeat of the electrical transportation is accelerating like nothing I’ve ever seen in my life”.  That is a pretty powerful statement by the man who helped intel control the CPU market much like microsoft has done with software.  Grove is banging the drum on the development of these new electric transport technologies as a way of rescuing our economy from the affects of oil price increases.

Grove pushes for government support/incentives to support the electric car movement, with a particular eye on retrofiting existing gasoline cars.  He continued to expand on his point when he compared the emergence of the PC with the current electrical transport industry.  “The personal computer … went to individuals first before it went to corporations. The conversion goes to individuals,” Grove said. “Electric cars … the corporations are sitting, wishing this whole friggin’ thing to go away. Which is exactly what the computer companies’ attitude was to personal computers.”

According to an article in The New Zealand Herald of 12/04/07, “Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5 billion ($13.5 billion) on a string of giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert in northern Africa and the Middle East. More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to EU member nations. Billions of watts of power could be generated, enough to provide Europe with a sixth of its electricity needs and to allow it to make significant cuts in its carbon emissions. At the same time, the stations would be used as desalination plants to provide desert countries with desperately needed supplies of fresh water.”  The technique used will be the CSP or “concentrating solar power” model which has a hollow water-filled metal tower surrounded by mirrors which focus the sun’s rays on it. Water is turned to steam and powers turbines which make electricity.

This is a similar but slightly different approach to the one being taken by Ausra Inc, which is set to begin construction on giant solar thermal power plants in the US. With backing from venture capitalists, Ray Lane of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems Inc. (JAVA ), Pacific Gas and Electric and Florida Light and Power. The utilities have committed to solar plants that will produce 1,000MW within the decade. Starting with a 10MW Florida plant, the group’s plan is to go to 300MW for FLP. For the Pacific Group, Ausra will start with a 175MW plant. The reason the investors and utilities are willing to invest in this project is because of the technology that Ausra believes will take the cost down below ten cents per KW.

Khosla is so impressed that he predicts that the technology, which uses flat mirrors instead of parabolic mirrors, will revolutionize renewable energy both in the US and developing countries like China and India. Johh O’Donnell, the man responsible for bringing the investors together became interested in the design while reading a paper by University of Sydney professor David Mills. Unlike the nine power stations built in the 1980’s by Israeli company Luz Corp, Mill’s plan uses flat not parabolic mirrors. The Israeli power plants in the Mojave Desert are still generating 354 MW of electricity but costs never fell below 16 cents a KW, which didn’t impress investors. Mill’s design uses the heat of the sun, directly, to make steam from the water instead of oil as Luz did. Mill’s mirrors are cheaper to build and rugged enough to withstand hurricane force winds,
according to an article in Business Week, in October of 2007.