Filed under: Community, Green Observations, News & Stuff, Sustainable Practices
My home city of San Francisco just passed the toughest recycling laws in the U.S., mandating that citizens recycle and compost or face fines of up to $1,000 for large businesses and multi-unit buildings. All residents will be given three bins: black for trash, blue for recycle and green for compost. The law empowers garbage collectors to leave reminder notices and eventually fines for people whose bins are not properly separated.
According to the New York Times, we San Franciscans already recycle and compost an impressive 72 percent of our waste, though our goal is zero waste by the year 2020.
There has been a lot of criticism of the new laws, saying it oversteps government boundaries and is too “Big Brother” in its approach to encouraging residents to recycle and compost. But naysayers said the same thing about sensible safety measures such as seat belt and bike helmet laws when they were first introduced. In my view, consumption and waste in the United States has reached such extreme levels, we should start thinking of it as a major health and safety issue, (even bigger than seat belts and helmets). We’re depleting our resources and over-filling our landfills. We need more far-reaching action to curb our impact. There’s absolutely no reason why people can’t throw coffee grinds in one bin and cans in another. And it only makes sense for local governments to step in and facilitate the kind of progress needed.
San Francisco also announced today the EcoFinder iPhone App, which helps residents locate places to dispose of and recycle various materials, including old electronics and furniture. Mayor Gavin Newsom calls “the open data philosophy behind the app… Government 2.0 at work.”
I applaud San Francisco for making big changes and going in bold new directions. Some people make fun of San Francisco’s progressive nature, but this kind of leadership and foresight makes me very proud of my city – and (since my building never had the green bins) I’m actually excited to compost!
I’ve been trying to decide my feelings on the Pickens Plan since T. Boone Pickens announced it last summer. At the CleanTech Investor Summit in January, Pickens further evangelized the plan, calling for the U.S. government to invest billions in large-scale wind development through a federally funded loan program or “bank.” Started in July, the program calls for miles of wind turbines from Texas to Canada as well as converting American cars, trucks and fleet vehicles to run on natural gas to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I agree with most of the “pillars” of the plan — creating millions of jobs in the renewable energy sector, updating the electrical grid to handle a transition to renewables, and providing incentives for homeowners and the owners of commercial buildings to enhance their energy efficiency. But Pickens also advocates “using America’s natural gas to replace imported oil as a transportation fuel,” calling natural gas the “clean, cheap, domestic gas.”
But natural gas, in spite of its eco-friendly-sounding name, is a nonrenewable fossil fuel that produces carbon dioxide and consists primarily of methane — which also contributes to global warming — butane and propane. Drilling for natural gas, while thought to be safe since the EPA’s 2004 study (PDF) found that it posed no risk to drinking water, has since been linked to over 1,000 cases of serious water contamination, as reported by ProPublica in this great investigative article (which I highly recommend reading).
Photo courtesy of Kirk Johnson and the Pennsylvania Sierra Club
The Pickens Plan suggests that natural gas be used as a transitional energy source, “Natural gas is not a permanent or complete solution to imported oil. It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace fossil transportation fuels.” The problem is that during a transition that promotes the use of natural gas, more drilling will occur — the effects of which are not entirely known, but are potentially dangerous to our already endangered water supply — and carbon dioxide emissions will continue to pollute our atmosphere.
It’s good to see an oil-tycoon and political conservative embracing renewable energy in this way (not the typical resume of the environmentally-minded, though that’s changing). But, of all the benefits to come from the plan, Pickens stands to benefit the most from his heavy investments in both wind and natural gas development.
I’d like to see Pickens and his plan place more emphasis on conservation by encouraging energy efficiency. As stated on the Pickens Plan site, the U.S. is responsible for 25% of the world’s oil demand with just 4% of the world’s population. That’s the energy gap we should focus on bridging.
Last week, I attended the AlwaysOn Going Green conference in Boston; in the midst of the economic meltdown and corresponding malaise, it was very refreshing to hear from and about a new generation of entrepreneurs and innovators that are focused on, well, changing the world. Hearing about how coal can be efficiently converted into cleaner energy (see Great Point Energy and CoalTek), wastewater can be quickly transformed into clean drinking water (Oasys Water and Hydropoint Data Systems), or biomass can cheaply produce high quality ethanol (Zymetis), really gets one excited about a profoundly different future for ourselves and the planet.
I’ve worked with a handful of upstart green and clean technology companies recently (this is a relatively new market of course), but most of our clients over the years have been of the more conventional computer technology variety. Software, hardware, networking, Internet and the like.
The conference got me thinking about The Next Big Thing, and how the world of technology and innovation are likely to shake out in the coming decades (I lost track of how many times someone at the event mentioned a year like 2030 or even 2050). The last 30 years or so have been dominated first by the computer/PC and then the Internet revolutions, which affected pretty much everything and have had a huge impact on our lives. Consider what things were like before we had a computer at work (or home), a mobile phone, or web sites that sell you anything you want or give you access to any piece of information in a moment.
Those revolutions were spurned and driven by folks like Bill Joy, Steve Wozniak and Bill Gates, who were at their core engineers and programmers, aka Computer Geeks. They were brilliant people at the right time and place who used their science and math-based minds to create world-changing technologies.
But in this new wave that is upon us, we’re talking about a whole different kind of geek. The people behind the new ideas and companies that will spark the green/clean tech revolution are for the most part not electrical engineers and computer scientists. Instead, they are of the more traditional (and I guess original) geek variety. We’re talking about biologists, chemists, geologists and other ists most of us have never heard of. Just your everyday, straight-on scientists.
And to be sure this is quite a different breed. These are people that aren’t naturally inclined to sit in front of a computer screen for weeks at a time writing code and loving every minute of it. These folks like to play in the sand and get dirty. They wonder at nature and all its various elements and nuances. They like to mix things together and make explosions. They look at the sky and ponder what’s out there to be found.
It’ll be very interesting to see how this coming revolution evolves, and how the different traits and skills among this set of geeks manifests itself.
– Jason Mandell, Partner, LaunchSquad
This post can also be found on LaunchSquad’s Exclamation blog.
With so much regular buzz about solar power, I thought I’d provide a quick rundown on the available technologies. There are two main types of solar power technology: photovoltaics (PV) and solar thermal.
Photovoltaics are the most common form of solar energy today. This technology converts energy from the sun directly into electricity. PV projects are typically distributed solar rooftop projects. Pros of this type of solar power are that it can be up and running quickly, it doesn’t require long transmission lines to remote desert locations, and it’s not dependent on large amounts of water. Cons are that there’s a high cost of deployment because each system is a separate project, and the distributed nature of the projects are slow to scale.
Solar PV "Tree" in Styria, Austria
Solar thermal energy is a technology for harnessing solar energy for thermal energy, or heat. There are three types of solar thermal energy collectors: low-, medium- and high-temperature. Currently, distributed (or singular) solar thermal projects are considered low- and medium-temperature, only useful for hot water systems.
Concentrated solar power plant using parabolic trough design.
High-temperature solar thermal collectors, on the other hand, use concentrated solar power from a Solar Thermal Plant. These are large-scale desert projects that use concentrated solar radiation to achieve higher temperatures and create heat, which can then be stored, and later turned into electricity. The pros of solar thermal technology are lower prices because of the economy of scale, higher efficiency, and less intermittencies because the energy storage technology is better. The cons are that solar thermal plants in the desert depend on transmission lines to transmit power back to the grid, which are costly and difficult to build, they require a lot of water, which also adds cost and requires permits, and the large land needed also requires extensive permitting and long approval processes.
Earth2Tech also did a great summary of these pros and cons.
President Obama announced this morning that the U.S. would work to be a world leader in the fight against global warming, no longer “dragging its heels” over climate change — a long overdue move the Bush administration refused to make — saying, “It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs.”
Obama took action to make American cars more efficient and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by instructing the EPA to reconsider whether to allow California and 16 other states to limit automobile emissions beyond the restrictions of the federal government (such efforts were blocked by the Bush Administration in December 2007). In addition, Obama asked that the Transportation Department ensure America’s cars reach an average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 or sooner.
These comments come after an announcement over the weekend that Obama was setting up a temporary $100 billion program for new renewable energy projects, including the modernization of 3,000 miles of electrical transmission lines and his support for the installation of 40 million smart meters in American homes.
After eight years of appalling environmental policy and legislation, and zero leadership from Washington, Obama’s commitment to clean energy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is very encouraging for the green tech industry and will surely spur investment and innovation, as well as create more accountability for automakers, energy companies and the federal government.
There’s been some interesting discussion around the Web in the last few weeks about the past, present and future of clean tech investments, including this piece on New York Times‘ Freakonomics blog. The debate includes insights from George Tolley, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago and president of RCF Inc.; John Whitehead, professor in the Department of Economics at Appalachian State University and contributor to the blog Environmental Economics; and Ethan Zindler, head of North American research at New Energy Finance. It’s a long read, but a well-rounded discussion on where the industry could be headed.
A few more stories of interest on green technology investments:
- San Jose Mercury News, “Clean-tech VC investments double to nearly $8 billion in 2008, but could drop in ‘09“
- Green Chip Stock, “Smart Grid: One of 2009’s Hottest Sectors“
- Wall Street Journal, “Investment in Clean Technology Suffers Steep Quarterly Decline“
- Financial Times, “Solar and biofuel projects score early 09 investments“
The City of Angels and eternal sunshine announced one of the most ambitious solar plans of any city to date, with a commitment to get 10 percent of its energy from solar sources by 2020 through a combination of solar farms just outside the city and small-scale solar rooftop installations. Los Angeles will provide incentives for these rooftop installations and promises to subsidise solar for low income households.
The goal of the Solar L.A. plan is to reduce fossil fuels and the city’s impact on global warming (as a former resident, I can attest to the great need to clean up the air) and to create a thriving clean technology industry. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has made several announcements recently about plans for a greener L.A., including attempts to attract clean technology companies and investing city pensions in eco-friendly businesses.
The development of Solar L.A. will be interesting to watch as the challenges presented will likely be similar to those faced by other cities, as well as on a national level — unknown costs and financial impact, regulatory hurdles such as opposition to building a solar plant in the desert, and the logistical/technological effects of shoving more energy onto an already ailing power grid. Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog discusses some of these challenges. In spite of the difficulties, I commend L.A. for being the guinea pig.
Filed under: Green Observations, News & Stuff, Sustainable Practices | Tags: Add new tag
One of the most dramatic – if not immediate – changes we’ll see in this country as a result of the changing government, will be America’s shifting attitude toward climate change and this country’s role in global climate issues.
Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama said that his administration would move quickly to cap greenhouse gas emissions and would join the world-wide fight against climate change – something the Bush Administration had been hesitant to do during the last eight years. While this is obviously encouraging news for those of us who are concerned about climate change and the potential damage it can do, there’s good reason to be skeptical as well. Obama will undoubtedly face enormous opposition to his plans, both from inside and outside the government, and it remains to be seen just exactly how committed to climate change the Obama Administration is.
Capping greenhouse gasses is a great start, and a great first step, but in order to effectively combat warming, America’s policies must do more than just scratch the surface. Here are a few lesser known, but essential steps to fighting global warming:
- Different ways to incent utilities: Utilities need to dramatically change the way they operate and create power – problem is, they would go out of business if forced to do so right away. They need to change their ways, but the government needs to partner with utilities and – under strict legislative oversight – encourage new ways to create clean power. These types of public/private partnerships are essential to turning around global warming.
- Making buildings more efficient: Buildings account for 48 percent of greenhouse gas emissions – more than cars, or any other sources. Mandating clean and low-use requirements for new buildings and at least encouraging retrofitting of old buildings should be at the top of the list.
- Conservation: Though it’s a simple concept, teaching Americans to be conservation minded will be incredibly difficult. Conservation needs to become ingrained into American culture, not just a simple practice that we pay attention to every now and then. This isn’t necessarily a job for the federal government, but it should actively dole out funding to advocacy groups to push this idea.
The New York Times’ Dot Earth blog had a great post today, in which readers sent in their suggestions on where they would start. However we decide to attack global warming, it’s going to be a group effort, and the race starts on January 20th. Better start warming up.
Additional reporting by Corey Lewis.
Myself and fellow LaunchSquadder Sunshine Mugrabi attended the Dow Jones Alternative Energy Innovations conference held at the Sofitel in Redwood City last week. The show had a great line-up of speakers with a panel of heavy hitters to kick off the event, including Ajit Nazre, partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and former California controller and manager of the Westly Group, Steve Westly. Not surprisingly, the economy and fears of a “green tech bubble” dominated conversations. No one seemed to agree on smart green technology investments right now, but everyone was aware that the future is murky.
A lot of the talk was about looking beyond areas of green tech that are already saturated, such as solar and wind power, to sectors of clean tech that have actually been under-funded, such as water technologies and manufacturing companies throughout the green tech supply chain.
My take: I found Wall Street Journal reporter Rebecca Smith’s interview with Michael Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, a particularly intelligent and enlightening discussion of California’s green initiatives in light of the economic downturn and the federal governments “don’t call it a bailout” bill. Smith asked if California was at risk of an energy shortage given the efforts to push renewable resources before traditional power in spite of a bad economy increasing the chances of green companies not getting the funding they need to meet energy production and growth goals. Peevey asserted that we have every reason to be optimistic about California’s renewable energy future. He’s also confident that government incentives will provide more opportunities for smaller companies (as opposed to getting pushed out by the big utilities) because incentives have been in place for some time and larger energy companies haven’t taken advantage of them to date and are often slow to change.
Given the universal agreement on the need for immediate improvements in energy efficiency, I left the conference feeling even more confident that LaunchSquad client Optimal Technologies is in a unique position to be a leader in the green energy movement with its AEMPFAST platform, which can optimize the electrical grid now. AEMPFAST serves as a central “brain” for the electrical grid, providing unprecedented visibility into all parts of the system and has been proven to improve energy efficiency by at least 10 percent. The technology has the potential to completely eradicate blackouts, significantly reduce costs for energy producers and end-users, create more reliable and efficient power and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The company is funded by Goldman Sachs and I’m looking forward to seeing the impact their technology will make.
Sunshine’s take: What a difference a month makes. Back in September, the mood at another similar conference – West Coast Green – was one of near euphoria. At that event, crowds packed the San Jose Convention Center to rub shoulders with Al Gore, David Suzuki and other luminaries, and there was a sense that, as Al Gore so eloquently told the assembled crowd, “Instead of a financial bailout … we need to bail in renewable energy and green building.”
Yet, by the time the Dow Jones conference came around last week, it was clear that fatigue had set in as the reality of the financial meltdown has begun to hit home for green technology companies. While the federal bailout contained tax credits and other major incentives to help push forward the move toward renewables, there is also a sense that the pipeline of cash from venture investors for start-ups that are in this risky space is starting to slow down.
Still, there is plenty to suggest that the green technology boom is going strong. Speaking to the assembled crowd, Kaj den Daas, Chairman of Philips Lighting North America, said he believes that the future in his industry belongs to green innovations like energy efficient LEDs, promising that his company is very much on the lookout for companies to acquire.
Even more to the point, there were dozens of start-ups giving presentations to showcase their innovations in just about every area of green technology, from fuel cells to thin film solar to tidal tech. Every seminar room I poked my head into had was close to full, with potential investors and acquirers scribbling away on notepads and asking pointed questions. All of which, to me, bodes well for the continued greenification of clean tech.
This post was co-written by Amy Neal and Sunshine Mugrabi and is also posted on the LaunchSquad Exclamation blog.
This may be cheesy, but I’m constantly thinking of small things people can do to be more environmentally friendly, so I thought I’d share one every Tuesday (you know, cause then it’s an alliteration) and see how it goes.
Our first tiny piece of enlightenment is about saving water and energy. When adjusting the water temperature in your sink or shower, instead of turning water flow up to the desired temperature, try turning it down. So, if the water is too hot, turn down the hot valve rather than turning up the cold. This small action saves water by keeping the flow at minimal levels and can save energy by limiting the load on hot water heaters.
