AT&T Tech Support 360
July 19, 2007 11:41 AM PDT
Perspective: Five dirty truths about clean technology
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Tech vets making leap to green tech
May 29, 2007 -
Keeping clean tech down-to-earth
April 16, 2007 -
Studying the hydrogen energy chain
April 4, 2007 -
MIT: To keep coal, carbon needs to go underground
March 14, 2007 -
Breaking the mold in solar power
February 21, 2007 -
FAQ: Guide to alternative fuels
February 1, 2007 -
Why it's not easy being green
January 24, 2007 -
New York: Will pay for bacteria
December 20, 2006 -
Cashing in on carbon guilt
December 13, 2006 -
Alternative fuels still in first gear
October 30, 2006 -
Clean energy is a marathon, not a sprint
August 23, 2006 -
Smart money eyes climate change
July 10, 2006 -
The next big thing in clean tech?
March 23, 2006 -
Solar industry chases a cheaper kilowatt
March 9, 2006 -
Shell, Exxon Mobil tout a cleaner fuel for megacities
November 23, 2005 -
Start-up zeros in on hydrogen fuel cells
July 11, 2005 - Related Blogs
-
Wind blows away competition among renewable energy investors
June 20, 2007 -
Scary oil statistics from the U.S. Treasury
February 20, 2007 -
Rising corn costs raise ethanol concerns
May 8, 2007
And--after more than two centuries of hydrocarbon use and 150 years of extracting oil--history is changing as a growing number of companies and public-sector entities try to transform the fossil-fuel era in real time.
The clock is clearly ticking as we confront these critical issues, but we should keep the hours, minutes and seconds in perspective. The economic and environmental consequences stemming from our poor energy choices have been building since the Industrial Revolution. So it's unrealistic to think that we can scrub the skies overnight.
We can't. And we won't.
Most meaningful technology transformations usually take up to 100 years, which is why it may already be too late to solve our current energy problems, especially given the growing evidence that production in the world's largest oil fields may be peaking. The long lag time to fruition is generally due to a lack of workable innovation and perspective; it's hard to understand the future when you've never been there.
Misperceptions certainly have punctuated major industrial and information technology changes--and I believe they've taken hold today, as a clean-energy revolution starts to gain currency in companies and communities all over the world.
Progress in a postpetroleum society
In seeking to constrain carbon use and combat climate change, we need to keep in mind five dirty truths about clean technology if we are going to make real progress in a postpetroleum society.
• The first truth is that clean tech is a puzzle that is not easily solved. There are a number of complex pieces that have to fit together, including cost, efficiency, emissions and, ultimately, sustainability.
There is no magic energy elixir.
Solar photovoltaic systems have low emissions, adequate efficiency and reasonable sustainability, but they are too costly to compete with fossil fuels. Coal-fired generation is low-cost and has acceptable efficiency, but its emissions are severe, and it is not sustainable.
Transportation fuel is most vexing. First, it was hydrogen--hydrogen from methanol, then hydrogen from gasoline, then hydrogen from electricity.
Next, it was ethanol--ethanol from corn, then ethanol from biomass, then ethanol from switch grass. Ethanol has low emissions and is close to being cost-effective. But it is inefficient and has a negative EROEI (energy return on energy invested), so is not sustainable.
• The second truth--that clean technology may reverse rampant globalization--could make the puzzle even more complicated. Indeed, as the cost of transporting certain forms of energy across vast distances becomes prohibitive, energy use will undoubtedly become more local and make better use of indigenous sources.
This is not to say that we'll miss the global standardization imposed by a petroleum-based economy. It is only to point out that we need to be prepared for balkanized energy consumption and all that this means.
• The third truth also keeps it real. We are probably offering false hope when we suggest that there is another generation of Edisons and Hewletts working in garages around America to fix our unprecedented environmental problems. In the end, this clean-technology revolution, unlike that for IT, may not be driven by venture capital-backed start-up companies.
New forms of mass energy supply will be needed over the next century as oil and natural gas reach peak production and begin their slow decline. Wind and solar power will help, but if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine, there is no electricity. And electricity won't do anything for cars, trucks, ships and aircraft.
We have to face facts: despite whether we like it, the distribution channels for much of our energy supply are still controlled by large incumbents.
This is why the Exxon Mobils, Royal Dutch Shells and BPs of the world remain relevant and must lead. It may be heresy to say this, but in the future, we will probably look to these behemoths for clean mass-produced transportation fuels other than ethanol and biodiesel, which can't replace more than a third of our oil consumption.
Biography
Kirk Washington is a founder of Vancouver-based
See more CNET content tagged:
hydrogen,
emission,
truth,
energy,
efficiency
I think the growth of the global economy is to be blamed. with much outsourcing and production far from market, it creates huge efficiencies. for example, a tanker ship crossing the Pacific will consume an incredible amount of fuel. We have hundreds, no thousands of tankers crossing our seas and oceans. remember the good old days, when people ate fruits and vegetables in season? People lived reasonable lives. Now, we expect things on the table from all year round. Thanksgiving used to be a special day with a special meal ... which can be had at any buffet across the country, any time of year.
We need a more efficient transporatation backbone, or perhaps think more about what we transport. Certain things probably can't be given up ... like driving to work, I'm sure. but, that is the world we live in.
BTW, the impending energy crunch will be more severe than most people seem to realize. Even if oil production "slowly declines" as this article's author wrote, demand will continue to rise barring a severe and lasting economic downturn. This will cause rising prices for fuel. In addition, global oil production will almost certainly follow a bell curve as it did in the United States. This means production will precipitously drop before leveling off, rather than the other way around.
Since then oil companies have suppressed inventions to bring cleaner tech to the auto industry by buying out the inventors invention and shelving it.
People's fear of change suppresses wide spread adoption of the technology. Hatred of losing their lands looks has stagnated wind power for quite sometime, recently folks are suing one man for having a wind turbine 8 ft higher than allowed.
People's fear of losing jobs somehow to clean technology, I tell them this technology will make jobs and they will not listen.
The 7th truth is Apathy
there are lots of people who just do not care one way or another. As long as they can fill up their tanks, go out to have fun they will not care one iota about the environment, economy, and people.
An example Live Earth I know of about 25 people i asked them if they knew of the 24hr concert called live earth? Then i explained to them what it was and what it is about they said cool i told them they might be able to catch it on TV, not one person other than me did out of 25 people.
I submitted the Live earth pledge to 4 people
liveearthpledge.org Only one responded.
The 8th Dirty truth is some alternative energy technology being passed off as "green" technology when it isn't. Coal to fuel is one such tech as well as ethanol. The amount of energy used to produce these is not equal to the amount acquired for use. Ethanol done right can be done wrong can never be. This is the third coming of ethanol it was rejected by Henry Ford shortly after making his first car, it was rejected in the 70's chrysler was the only one making a car to run it and to buy the fuel you had to hunt around for a pump throughly.
It makes me truly sad to see people only reading the hypes and not doing their own homework on it and seeing the way to save the environment and our future for generations to come.
The earth is our only home and we need to protect it at all cost.
D~W
In this and many areas were are only beginning to see the damage that corporate control of the world has done.
Serious alternative fuel research should have become a priority in the 70's at the latest. The problems should have warned us of the dangers of reliance on oil.
Yes, there was some research back then, but it was generally considered wacko fringe research, much like SETI used to be.
The problem today is that corporations are still shortsighted. They will try alternatives if and only if it is cheaper. This is very wrongheaded. No credible studies(ie not funded by people with a interest in maintaining the status quo) show that we have no negative impact on this earth.
This goes far beyond corporate profits and the supposed sanctity of them. If profits drop 10, 20 or even 50%, so be it. This is more important then money. Granted, unless the business is a flagrant violator of environmental laws, moves towards greener solutions shouldn't put them out of business. A reduction of profits is hardly the same as losing money.
There should be serious rewards for real innovation. $1 billion dollar prize to meet challenging and worthwhile goals would not be out of order.
As long as the oil companies own governments nothing will really change. Perhaps when this earth becomes close to uninhabitable then perhaps these greedy people will realize what they have done, and how truly pointless the pursuit of more and more money is.
Wise up, people. We need energy, and the only viable alternative to oil is nuclear. Everything else is just academic crap that will never work.
http://www.smartfish.ch/
http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/
http://www.hydratus.com/
and tell me that there is no room for smart start-ups that will rapidly change the face of the energy industry (this is only a few examples of many emerging technologies). All we need is the will to make it happen politically and economically (ie invest in these companies rather than the oil/coal companies!)
Then Washington repeats the entirely untrue claim (originated from the oil industry, when the price of oil made all forms of ethanol economically viable) that ethanol has a negative EROEI. I won't call him a liar, just seriously misinformed. Maybe he read one of those "executive summaries" that was prepared using data from major news websites, which is never vetted. You couldn't make ethanol for $1.40 per gallon if it had a negative energy return.
Washington then implies that some people claim clean technology may reverse rampant globalization. I have not read of this claim being made by any of the proponents of clean energy. The big reasons for investing in clean energy are reduced carbon emissions, reduced oil imports, reduced dependence on imports from unfriendly countries, more jobs in America, and a healthier economy. I have never heard anybody say clean energy will reverse gloablization.
His last piece of insanity is that the incumbent energy suppliers must lead the charge to new energy. He is crazy. That would be nice, if they were truly energy companies, that would be happening already. However, they are not energy companies, they are natural resource extraction and marketing companies. They have a huge investment in energy in the ground, and they are incentivized to sell as much as that stuff as they can. They don't want to sell ethanol or biodiesel, they want to sell oil, coal, and natural gas. When the government gives out grants to study hydrogen based energy, these companies spend it on research to convert fossil fuels into hydrogen, which defeats the whole purpose of a hydrogen based economy.
The mindset of the technology world is so different than the mature "energy" industry. In computers, consumer electronics, communciations, and other tech markets, the mantra is "we must have a new product". Most companies turn over their product lines in 2 or 3 years. Chip vendors build new $3 billion factories every 3 or 4 years. In the oil industry, there is no progress. When faced with competition, the industry has always relied on lobbying for legislative protection and subsidies. Washington wants to keep people with those philosophies in charge of New Energy. If they are, we're doomed.
Our energy needs are increasing and led's, compact fluorescent bulbs and energy efficent appliances just are not gonna cut it.
So if we can't conserve our way out of this problem what do we do...
We either invent very cheap high efficency solar panels and fuelcell's or we will have to build nuclear plants it is that simple.
It is always easier when the oil is right under your feet, but it will be gone soon... Likely in my life time (my current age being 25)
One lesson we should have learned from Toyota's hybrid is that decrying the limitation of any one technology may keep negative people busy while true innovators figure out how to combine every smart move available to create new form factors and a total energy-efficient system.
Borrowed from Scott Aaronsen's blog: If you?re going to make skeptical pronouncements, you?d better distinguish clearly between the provably impossible, the presumably impossible, and the merely difficult and not yet achieved. . . . If you?re going to claim something?s impossible, you?d better have an argument, and you?d better understand what assumptions it rests on.
The EV1 case history is just one example of the many omissions that where left out of the author's article for readers to consider. When there are so many important, relevant facts that have been omitted from such an article it leaves the reader wondering why there was such omissions.
cars/ two wheelers of all makes in India have been sucessfully modified by Mr Singh including a few diesel driven buses. Car enthusiasts in US and other countres have modified their cars and are saving gas. Detalis are available in Mr Singh's web site www.somender-singh.com and he can be oontacted at garudarad1@rediffmail.com.
This invention if incorporated in the engine manufacturing stage may cost very little, and the resulting benefits will save gas/diesel,reduce pollution/global warming and save cash for the car owners.
Hopefully car manufacturers will seriouly consider using this invention to manufacture more efficient cars/vehicles to save the environment and prolong the life of the depleting crude reserves.
batteries only need their casing replaced as the electrolyte lasts
for a long time. Advances in steam and electric cars and the
inventions of energy efficient water heaters and air/water
extractors (see waterunlimited.com.au) based on reverse fridge
technology make all of the above sustainable. Most of the
technologies are being used today on a small scale and have
been used for the past 20 years. And most of these items were
invented in Australia and ignored by corporate governments and
media. The Pritchard steam car, The vanadium battery, The
Quantum hot water system and the Engineair motor. These
things can give us a sustainable future and only Fusion energy
would replace this.
Wind - installed capacity doubles every 3.5 years
(25% Compound Annual Growth Rate CAGR)
Solar - installed capacity doubles every 2 years
(>40% CAGR)
Wind - Currently ~1.0% of global energy
Solar - Currently ~0.1% of global energy
Wind - Price diff. from grid = 1.7 cents/kWh
Price diff is not due to production cost but to finance charges for perceived risk, subsidies close the gap to parity. Subsidies are only renewed on a 1-2 year basis currently.
Far off shore wind via MIT/GE large rotors on floating/anchored oil-drilling-like platform will harvest wind 2X as strong and 2X as frequent (blowing 50% of the time).
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/16801/
An example of one company commercializing:
http://www.bluewaterwind.com/
Stanford/U Delaware mapped continental shelfs
and found 7X total global energy available
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/windpower/ResourceMap/index-world.html
20 year projection for wind at CURRENT prices and at current growth rates:
2011 2%
2014.5 4%
2018 8%
2021.5 16%
2025 32%
2027 50%
Larger wind grids ensure that wind is blowing somewhere ALL THE TIME.
Prices for wind will head downward significantly with far offshore wind. With a combined 4X efficiency improvement with but with less than 2X additional cost (rig and long cable), leads to a 50% reduction in cost.
Coal and Nuke Plants have doubled and tripled in price. Now cost $2,000-$3,000/kW capacity http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/business/worldbusiness/10energy.html?ref=business
Currently, a new Wind plant is the cheapest source for new energy. Wind costs $1,700/kW capacity for turbine farms of 650MW and larger.
Solar installed capacity has been DOUBLING every 2 years even at today's high price of $4,800/kW for the last 16 years!
Plethora of trends will drive the price of solar to waaay below coal, nukes, and even wind.
- Lower silicon - thin film, amorphous silicon, and solar concentrators
- Higher efficiencies - multi-junction, thin film, quantum dot, organic and plastic all are rapidly increasing efficiencies
- Big boys are in the game - Boeing, Applied Materials, GE, Hitachi, Honda, and many others
- Enormous numbers of start ups - Nanosolar, NanoSys, Konarka, Miasole, CoolEarthSolar, SolFocus, just to name a few off the top of my head
- Over $1 Billion of venture capital worldwide went into clean tech this year
20 year Solar projection at current prices and doubling rate:
2009 0.2%
2011 0.4%
2013 0.8%
2015 1.6%
2017 3.2%
2019 6.4%
2021 12.8%
2023 25.6%
2025 51.2%
Plug-In Hybrids are inevitable and will serve as batteries to use and store renewables in the short run.
This is called Vehicle-2-Grid
http://www.udel.edu/V2G/
Long run (by 2030): Inter-Continental, Lossless High temperature Superconducting Cables
New York city will be testing this early 2008.
They are connecting two substations a 1000 meters apart.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18790/
http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1195
Both DOE and EU discuss their Grid 2030 visions in depth:
https://www.ferc.gov/eventcalendar/Files/20050608125055-grid-2030.pdf
The Wind is always blowing somewhere on Earth.
The Sun is always shining somewhere on Earth.
The future is renewable and it is coming much faster than the King CONG companies (Coal Oil Nuke and Gas) think, and faster than Kirk Washington or Al Gore or Monbiot or Pearce or Lovelock or Hansen think.
Those of us in tech industry who have witnessed close up the impact of exponential growth through rapid doublings are very aware of how things can go from being barely visible and dismissed, to being the dominant paradigm with just a decade or two of relentless doublings.
Just watch the developing nations that are building their own nuclear weapons. Eventually one of them will start a nuclear war and cause nuclear winter. Then it will get cold, but due to the CO2 in the air, it will warm up, causing global lukewarming and then global spring.
In addition to this, I've been telling people on my blog pages (here for example: www.cyberwolfman.com/blog_2006.htm#new_electric_cars and no, it's not a real commercial site, not a single ad on it anywhere) that there are electric cars out right now that can go from 0 to 60 MPH in about four seconds, have a top speed of 130 MPH, and can go 250 miles on a single charge. They take from between 3 to 5 hours to charge, but they can be charged up from regular outlets. The cost of these cars are reported to be around $90,000, but they intend to make a four-door, four-seat car in a few years that'll sell for less than $50,000, and one after that which will be even cheaper. One of these is the Tesla Motors' Roadster, which this site itself did at least one story on.
Perhaps these technologies can be combined to save on the electric bill as well as increase the range of the cars?
There may be hope, yet . . .
as for meaningful technology takes up to 100 years. well drop the years old man-the computer was about 50 years old and most modern medical devices has been developed within the last 30 years i assume. so the time to introduce a new technology is getting shorter. with advances in chemistry and physics i bet someone can invent a sky scrubber, it probably wouldnt be by a human thats what i believe.
clean technology doesnt reverse globalization, its the laws that limit globalization.
as for false hopes, you are hell giving alot of them out.
- Biased article?
-
by jdbwar07
July 23, 2007 12:46 PM PDT
- I could be wrong, but it sounds like this article is much too biased towards the oil industry. It suggests we need to rely on the large established oil companies to solve our problems, and supposedly no one else can (without their assistance at least).
-
Reply to this comment
View
reply
-
-
See all 60 Comments >>However anyone who's been paying attention knows these companies have been actively fighting AGAINST any form of alternative energy. They pay millions for lobbyists to prevent any serious government funding for renewable energy, run ads saying how we have nothing to worry about regarding things like global warming. Sadly he may be right that oil is running out, and when we start working on this problem it'll be too late, but lobbying money, think tanks, and propaganda funded by them is a large part for this.
The author writes, regarding solar and wind power:
"...And electricity won't do anything for cars, trucks, ships and aircraft."
Maybe not aircraft and ships, but hasn't he heard of electric cars? Electric-powered vehicles might not be ready for prime time, but they're far more plausible to implement soon than hydrogen, ethanol, so some wished-for energy source that will replace oil if we just trust Exxon-Mobil to save us.
Any significant work on alternative energy such as electric cars, new solar panel technology, and the like is being developed by other companies, often small start-ups like Tesla Motors.