In Davos, talk of linking clean tech and economy

Posted by Martin LaMonica

The World Economic Forum calculates that $515 billion in yearly investment is required between now and 2030 to transition the world to cleaner sources of energy production.

At its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum released a report (click for PDF) on Thursday urging policy makers to make clean-technology incentives and investments part of government stimulus plans to revive flagging economies.

Economists who authored the report said alternative-energy technologies have the potential to address two pressing global problems--energy security and climate change--while generating good financial returns.

"It is essential that this stimulus also build our capacity to solve the longer-term climate crisis. Well-meaning but short-sighted economic stimulus programs could lock us into a predominately fossil fuel-based world economy for decades," according to the report.

A number of initiatives related to clean-energy, such as retrofitting government buildings to be energy-efficient, can create jobs and lay the foundation for longer-term economic growth, according to the World Economic Forum.

The report identified eight "large-scale clean-energy sectors" that government policies should seek to promote. They include: onshore wind, offshore wind, solar-photovoltaic energy, solar-thermal electricity generation, municipal solar energy, waste-to-energy generation, sugar-based ethanol, cellulosic and next-generation biofuels, and geothermal power.

In the United States, the Obama administration has made clear that it trying to tie economic development to clean technology. There are a number of provisions related to clean energy in a stimulus plan, which just passed the House of Representatives and could be voted on by the Senate next week.

The World Economic Forum's call for massive investments in clean energy echoes the International Energy Agency's 2008 annual report. Because of growing energy demand and climate change, the IEA said the world's energy consumption is "patently unsustainable. Its report concluded that trillions of dollars are needed to "decarbonize" the energy infrastructure and curb greenhouse gas emissions growth.

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.

Better Place Raises Financing for Denmark Electric Car Project

from Earth2Tech by David Ehrlich

Cisco to manage energy of tech gear and buildings

Ed: Cisco, Google, Intel, IBM announced moves to energy field. Good news for energy start-ups focused on enterprise energy solutions - another out for early stage investors.

Martin LaMonica

Cisco Systems on Tuesday introduced software for controlling energy use in networked computing equipment as well as building heating and cooling systems.

Called EnergyWise, the software is a free upgrade to Cisco Catalyst switches that can monitor and manage how energy is used on IP-connected devices, including phones and wireless routers. This summer Cisco will release a version, based on Verdiem's Surveyor PC management software, that reduces energy levels of PC.

With EnergyWise, a company can set policies on energy use, allowing PCs or networking to go into sleep mode after work hours, for example.

(Credit: Cisco)

Cisco's longer-term plan is to get beyond tech gear and into building-automation systems.

Early next year, EnergyWise will be able to manage building assets, including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, and employee badge systems.

On Tuesday, Cisco said it bought a company called Richards-Zeta Building Intelligence which makes software that translates information from building equipment, such as heating and cooling systems, into a format that can be read by EnergyWise and other software applications.

Other large IT vendors, like IBM, are making similar efforts to manage both IT equipment and building management systems.

Cisco is also working with Schneider Electric to tie its building management system to the EnergyWise software. But William Choe, director of Cisco's Ethernet switching technology group told Light Reading that many of the energy savings for companies will occur by installing the software on smaller routers in a business.

"The majority of these switches in this application are in the wiring closet, touching the endpoints -- the APs (access points) and the IP phones," Choe said.

E.U. Appeals to U.S. to Join Common Carbon Trading Market

January 23, 2009, 2:46 PM

By JAMES KANTER

The E.U.’s environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, is expected to present a formal proposal on cap-and-trade cooperation on Wednesday. (Photo: EPA)

The European Commission was preparing an appeal on Friday to wealthy countries – and to the United States in particular – to adopt carbon trading as the main system for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Europeans are drafting their proposal (PDF) as the United States enters into a period of intense debate over the wisdom of adopting such market-based systems following the inauguration of Barack Obama as president.

Mr. Obama endorsed a system to cap and trade carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, during his election campaign. The main alternative to a cap-and-trade system is a tax on emissions. Many analysts say such a tax would be a more straightforward way of limiting planet-warming gases from industry.

So far, Europe has created the largest single market for trading permits to emit carbon while Australia and some groups of American states have begun their own initiatives. But the European system also has come under fire for doing too little to stop pollution and for creating vast windfall profits for some industries, like coal-burning utilities.

European officials have acknowledged that the E.U. Emissions Trading System has had a rocky start. But they say it has become more effective following a pilot phase, which ran from 2005 to 2007. E.U. governments approved further measures late last year aimed at reducing the scope for lobbying by governments and industry that diluted the effectiveness of the system during the pilot phase.

The Commission’s proposals, which could change over the weekend ahead of their official presentation on Wednesday by E.U. Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, are meant to lay out Europe’s stance as nations prepare for international talks in December in Copenhagen to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto climate treaty.

The first phase of the Kyoto treaty expires in 2012.

Among the Commission’s proposals are “strategic bilateral partnerships” with the United States “to create a transatlantic carbon market,” according to the proposals, seen on Friday by The New York Times.

The proposals also envision member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based think tank for rich-world nations, forming a single carbon market by 2015.

Shipping and aviation — industries that were not part of the earlier Kyoto climate treaty — should be included in any successor treaty agreed at Copenhagen, according to the Europeans.

The proposals also seek ways of promoting agreement by developing nations to participate in binding measures by helping them fund ways of adapting to climate change and cutting emissions.

One suggestion is that rich nations would raise billions of euros each year for aid to the developing world through a levy on air and ship transportation or by using part of the proceeds from sales by governments of pollution permits, among other possibilities.

In the past, efforts at reaching global coordinated action on climate change has been undermined in large part because the United States insisted on binding emissions limits for countries like India and China. Those countries resisted mandatory rules, saying they have right to industrialize and improve their citizens’ standards of living.

Policymakers now are devising ways of helping to fund efforts by developing world as a way of persuading them to accept binding targets.

Some of the businesses that regard climate regulation favorably because it could promote new investment opportunities welcomed the initiative.

Adam Nathan, a spokesman for the Carbon Markets and Investors Association, a trade association, praised “the central role for the carbon market set out by the Commission. But he warned that support from the United States and other nations would be critical to the success of the European strategy.

“Cooperation with the Obama administration must focus on leveraging comparable action from the United States and supporting developing countries in their efforts,” said Mr. Nathan.

Can Cleantech Save the Economy While Saving the Planet?

Can Cleantech Save the Economy While Saving the Planet? Friday, February 27 6:30 pm California Academy of Sciences About the Program The Stanford Law School Alumni Association would like to invite Stanford GSB alumni to join fellow alums from across Stanford University for a very special evening at the California Academy of Sciences. Professor Barton "Buzz" Thompson, Jr., AB '73, MBA '75, JD '76, Paradise Professor of Natural Resources Law and McCarty Director of the Woods Institute for the Environment, will be moderating a panel to discuss the very timely issue of Cleantech and its potential in the current economic climate. The panel will be comprised of alumni and faculty from across Stanford University who will represent the different ways in which our graduate schools of law, business, engineering and earth sciences are approaching Clean Technology – and how their combined efforts may help save the economy while saving the planet. Location California Academy of Sciences 55 Music Concourse Drive Golden Gate Park San Francisco, CA 94118 Cost/Event Registration $45 per person. $35 per person for alumni from the classes of 1998-2008. Guests are welcome. Light appetizers will be provided. Please register byFebruary 22 on the Bay Area Chapter website. Questions? Contact the Stanford Law School Alumni Office at +1-650-723-2730.

150 Solar Startups Revisited

Eric Wesoff

January 17, 2009 at 11:42 PM

Would you believe 200 Solar Startups?

A few months ago, I told the Greentech Media Braintrust that I had a list of about 100 solar startups.  Their response, not surprisingly, was “blog it.” 

So I started categorizing the list and the list kept growing until I was able to publish a six-part blog piece called “150 Solar Startups.”

• Part 1: Wafered Silicon, Installers, Financiers, Balance of Systems
• Part 2: CPV
• Part 3: Next-Gen PV
• Part 4: Thin Film
• Part 5: Solar AC and CHP
• Part 6: CSP

But the thing took on a life of its’ own — a Google search yields a thousand hits for “150 Solar Startups” and all of a sudden I started hearing from people I didn’t know — they’d ask, “Did you know there were more than 150 solar startups?” 

Of course I know — I wrote the flipping article.

Anyway, I’ve spent the last few weeks updating the list and updating it again and we’re up to more than 200 solar startups.  Note that this list is devoted to VC funded and pre-VC firms, not OTC firms, not publicly traded firms.  Of course the list will never be complete — there are stealth firms and science projects being liberated from labs every day...

Big Hoopla Over Climate Change Proposal by Big Business and Environmental Groups

Ucilia Wang

January 15, 2009 at 7:45 PM

The climate change policy debate is heating up as nicely as the Earth’s surface temperatures.

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a consortium of big businesses and environmental groups, on Thursday unveiled its recommendations on what Congress and the new White House should include in a climate change bill. The proposal, which took two years to conceive, outlines what a carbon emissions cap-and-trade system should look like, including targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions over time.

Plenty of special interest groups have offered their takes on what the legislation should include, including one presented by an industry group for electric utilities yesterday. But the proposal by the USCAP seems to have drawn a lot more attention (criticism) from politicians and environmental groups, noted the WSJ’s Environmental Capital blog.

Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy in Charlotte, N.C., helped to present the USCAP’s proposal before the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing.

The Republicans on the committee were miffed that they were given little time to review the USCAP proposal before the hearing, the first held by the new committee chairman, Henry Waxman of California. The Republicans also don’t like the cap-and-trade program to begin with.

A cap-and-trade program would (ideally) set strict emission limits and requires any polluters that can’t meet the emission requirements to buy credits from those that pollute much less than allowed. The European Union has run a cap-and-trade program since 2005.

The goal of a cap-and-trade is to nudge companies into cutting emissions, or else they will have to pay. They might have to pay to get those credits in the first place, something that Barack Obama has advocated during the election campaign (in Europe, companies get their first allowances mostly for free, although that might change). Some critics say a cap-and-trade system would be too costly for businesses, especially during an economic downturn.

Obama wants to use the cap-and-trade program to raise billions of dollars over time to pay for a variety of initiatives, including greentech research and business developments.

The USCAP wants the government to give away a big portion of the emission allowances for free, and that doesn’t sound right for some lawmakers and environmental groups. Its schedule for reducing emissions over time also drew ire from groups such as the Union for Concerned Scientists, which wants to see tougher targets.

---

The 2008 Greentech Market Taxonomy

(Click on a technology in it's circle to see more information.)

Source: Greentech Media

What the New DOE Chief Steven Chu Means for Clean Technology

from Earth2Tech by Josie Garthwaite

Steven Chu established himself as a well-known scientist and administrator years ago, running the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and winning a Nobel Prize. He has called for urgent action on climate change and (now famously) described coal as his “worst nightmare,” so cheers from environmental groups were unsurprising when President-elect Barack Obama named the physicist as his pick for energy secretary.

But what does Chu’s entry into politics really mean for emerging industries such as smart grid technology, alternative vehicles, and renewable energy (assuming the energy committee approves his nomination)? Today’s confirmation hearing suggests a Chu-led DOE will ramp up energy-efficiency programs and support R&D for biofuels that work in existing pipelines and car engines. But coal and gas-powered vehicles aren’t going anywhere just yet.

In a nutshell, the incoming energy chief sees “the age of fossil fuels” (petroleum for transportation, coal for electricity) as far from over, according to an interview with the Heritage Foundation published yesterday. He backpedaled on the nightmare line (now he says continuing status-quo coal burning in the U.S., Russia, India and China is “a pretty bad dream”), declared gas tax hikes “off the table,” and offered a tepid embrace of cap-and-trade as a system for limiting greenhouse gas emissions today — apparent concessions to political interests on Capitol Hill. He also described nuclear energy as a key piece of future electricity generation in the U.S. — which could mean new opportunities fornuclear-in-a-box startup Hyperion.

Overseeing billions in spending (current energy secretary Samuel Bodman has a budget of $23 billion) and the operation of 24 research labs and facilities, Chu could push Uncle Sam to support technologies like algal biofuels and smart metering the way the feds have in recent years backed corn ethanol — which could mean access to new capital for startups like Positive Energy, which makes software and analytics systems for utilities with smart metering services, and power management hardware and software developer EnergyHub.

What Chu won’t have is a blank check — Congress still makes appropriations. But the DOE sets rules for awarding approved funds. With more and more companies lining up for the agency’s growing pot of cash for vehicle technology R&D and manufacturing (Tesla Motors, A123Systems and 3M, to name a few), and the upcoming stimulus package expected to include a big chunk for electric vehicles, hybrids, and EV battery technology — that’s where Chu may end up having the biggest impact. “These first electric hybrid cars don’t have the energy capacity and the battery lifetime we need,” he said today. “Let’s push hard towards more fuel-efficient personal vehicles.”

Are We Killing The Planet One Google Search At A Time?

Right now the top stories on Techmeme revolve around a new piece in The Times of London that focuses on The Environmental Impact of Google Searches. In it, physicist Alex Wissner-Gross (a star MIT graduate who is now at Harvard) posits that a single Google search generates 7g of CO2, versus around 15g for a tea kettle - something he calls a “definite environmental impact.”

That sounds bad, right?

There’s no doubt that Google consumes a massive amount of energy, with hundreds of millions of searches conducted every day and data centers scattered across the globe. But let’s try to shed a little perspective on things.

A single book runs around 2,500 grams of CO2, or more than 350 times a Google search. By some estimates, a single cheeseburger has a carbon footprint of around 3,600 grams - over 500 times larger than a Google search. Granted, meat in general has a notoriously large carbon footprint, but if you’re genuinely concerned about your environmental impact then try cutting a burger from your diet every week and search guilt-free (you may even lose a few pounds).

And isn’t it possible that Google may actually be helping the environment in some ways? I can’t count how many times I’ve been able to use Google in lieu of driving to the library to look up a fact (each car trip would have had carbon costs orders of magnitude larger than that Google search). I’ve used Google Transit dozens of times to figure out train and bus schedules so that I wouldn’t have to drive my car. And surely the search engine has helped countless green-minded folk find a website where they could purchase carbon credits.

My issue with the article isn’t that it is factually incorrect - it’s that it paints Google as a malevolent force shrouded in secrecy, and that every time you use it (or one of the other mentioned companies like Twitter), you’re adding to the problem. In a word, it’s alarmist. Google could probably become more energy efficient, but I fear that articles like this will lead people to shy away from the Internet. Unlike gas guzzling SUVs, the web helps connect and enrich humanity. By all means encourage web companies to become as carbon neutral as possible, but don’t make energy-conscious consumers afraid of their browsers.

And finally, one last bit that is more concerned with the journalistic practices of The Times than Google. Alex Wissner-Gross co-founded an interesting startup called CO2Stats that we’ve covered a few times in the past (it was also a finalist in The Crunchies). The site helps websites stay as green as possible by offering carbon credits as well as badges to help promote the cause. The Times article only mentions the site in passing, and fails to acknowledge that CO2Stats is a company that earns money, not just an informative website. I sincerely doubt there is anything sinister going on, but such a major potential source of bias seems worthy of more than just a mention.

Update: Google has responded to The Times article, stating that a single search is actually equivalent to a mere 0.2 grams of CO2. The blog post also details some of Google’s efforts to further green technology as well as the energy efficiency of its own data centers.

---

Why Pick On Google? How Green Are We The People?

Did you know that breathing for about 12 minutes emits roughly 7 grams of carbon dioxide into the air? According to a recent study conducted by Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist, that’s the same amount of carbon dioxide that’s emitted when you type in a search on Google. So, if you didn’t search, you could be just a little bit nicer to the planet. Or, you could hold your breath while you’re searching, as Kevin Marks suggests.

By now, you must be wondering, what has gotten into Om? Nothing, really – I just wanted to give some context to Wissner-Gross’ research, which was reported in today’s Sunday Times and points out that every time you search on Google, it has an environmental impact.

“Google are very efficient but their primary concern is to make searches fast and that means they have a lot of extra capacity that burns energy,” Wissner-Gross told the Sunday Times. (Wissner-Gross, by the way, is going to be speaking at our upcoming Green:Net conference slated to be held in San Francisco on March 24, 2009, where we will explore the carbon emissions impact of networking infrastructure, as well as various other topics.) As Katie over at Earth2Tech points out, Google’s business depends on its search being the best, which means cutting carbon emissions can’t come at the cost of speed.

I am not an expert on energy, but all I can say is, if Google is a polluter, at least its doing something about it. Google is investing heavily into clean technologies and alternative energy, and is experimenting with new data center architectures that use wave power, for example.  Google also happens to be one of the most energy-efficient Internet companies. It recently released a report that boasted the energy efficiency of its data centers compared to typical data centers, though there were some doubts about the veracity of its claims.

Regardless, the point of the matter is that our increasingly digital lives do have an impact on our environment. As we have pointed out on Earth2Tech, everything from bad code to inefficient data centers adds to its ecological footprint.  Seven grams of Co2 might not seem like much — after all, a small car emits .59 pounds (or about 268 grams) per person, per mile. But consider how often you do a Google search. Personally, I don’t think twice about it. I don’t bookmark anything — I just search for it on Google. And I’m sure many of you do exactly the same. 

In a blog post today, Urs Hölzle, Senior Vice President, Operations at Google responded to the charges by pointing out that “your own personal computer will use more energy than Google uses to answer your query.” 

As Nick Carr says, it’s not about Google, “It’s about us.” The fact of the matter is that we waste a lot of energy – especially those of us who lead very digital lives.

In Silicon Valley, it is de rigueur to get a Toyota Pirius (or if you are rich enough, a Tesla) — after all, you want to do something good for the environment! But at the same time, we are constantly using computers that are energy hogs. Our music systems, televisions, our endless tweets, our emails and our phone calls – everything has an impact. We are blissfully ignorant of the waste we create.

Why blame others? There have been times when I have forgotten to turn off my iMac, only to come home in the evening to see it still giving me a happy smile. That is not energy efficient. I am trying to be better every single day about my energy consumption. Every time I go to the gym, I see banks of monitors showing inane shows without a single person watching them. Sometimes I get angry enough and go around shutting off each one of them. Of course, the next day it is the same situation. I will keep trying till I get better about energy conservation. 

Next time you quip that you can’t live without your computer, consider that maybe, you — and the planet — can’t live with it, either.

Green gadgets get middling report card at CES

Posted by Martin LaMonica

Consumers are increasingly demanding better environmental attributes in their digital gadgets, but the consumer electronics industry can go a lot further to make gadgets "green."

Environmental watchdog Greenpeace held a press conference at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Friday to announce results of its second annual survey called "Green Electronics: the Search Continues."

(Credit: Greenpeace)

The good news is that manufacturers are using fewer hazardous chemicals, such as PVC plastic, and are running more electronic take-back programs. Another positive trend is the use of LED screens for notebooks, which are relatively energy efficient and use less mercury than other technologies.

But many manufacturers are slow in adopting EnergyStar energy-efficiency standards or using recycled materials. Consumer electronics companies should also take more responsibility for recycling, according to Greenpeace. (Click here for a PDF of the study.)

The assessment, which follows Greenpeace's ratings of individual vendors issued in November, comes at perhaps the most environmentally themed CES so far.

The show organizer, the Consumer Electronics Association, earlier this week issued results of a survey that found that consumers are increasingly looking for green attributes, as are manufacturers looking to differentiate products.

"Green is becoming a purchasing factor," Steve Koening, director of industry analysts at the CEA, told the BBC.

More than half of consumers are willing to pay a little more for products designed with the environment in mind, while 22 percent said that they are willing to pay 15 percent more.

Also telling were consumers' responses to what is considered "green." Over half of those surveyed said they didn't know what the environmental attributes of high-tech products were and 38 percent said they were confused by the "green" label.

That's not surprising given the explosion in green claims in the past few years. And when you consider the diversity of what's considered green tech at CES alone--from power strips that eliminate vampire loads to cell phones made from recycled material--it hints at the many aspects of "going green."

The CES show also hosted a Greener Gadgets Tech Zone and had a "Technology and Environment" session track with panels on electronics recycling and energy use.

Before the conference began, the organizers used a carbon emissions-management software application in an effort to lower the environmental impact of the event.

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.