Cleantech Blog

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Give Me Your (Recycled) Heart

by Cristina Foung

My favorite green product of the week: pretty much anything from Fire & Light, but specifically the glass heart.

What is it?
This post is really in the spirit of Mother’s Day (if you’ve forgotten, it’s not too late – it’s this Sunday, May 11^th). So if you’re looking for something beautiful and green to show your mom/grandmother/aunt/wife that you love her and you love the planet, Fire & Light makes beautiful stuff. The glass heart is a piece from their giftware collection (for the more practical moms, you can call it a paper weight or you could opt for something from their dinnerware collection).

Why is it better?
Fire & Light makes their hand-poured colored glassware in conjunction with a partnership with the Arcata Community Recycling Center (and just for those of you who have never heard of Arcata, it’s one of the greenest spots in the country). They take recycled glass, turn it into a raw material by crushing it, and re-make it into something absolutely beautiful. As their tag line says, they "have recycling down to an art."

Where can you find it?
You can have something shipped directly from Fire & Light or you can check out their retailer locator. The large heart retails for approximately $32.

And if glassware isn’t your mom’s thing, here’s a wiki about other green Mother’s Day gifts that might have something more fitting.

Besides her green products column on Cleantech Blog, Cristina is a passionate advocate for green living at the Green Home Huddle at Huddler.com, which focuses on electric cars, energy efficient appliances, and other green products.

Labels: cleantech, Fire and Light, gifts, green tech, recycled materials

Monday, May 05, 2008

The Status of Carbon Sequestration

by Richard T. Stuebi

At a recent symposium on climate change solutions at Oberlin College, I heard a presentation by David Ball, who leads the Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) at Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus.

His presentation was a fascinating collage of facts and observations about the status and prospects for in-situ sequestration of carbon emissions from coal powerplants and other large point sources. To wit:

CO2 must be sequestered deep underground to avoid cross-contamination with water aquifers, and also to find the low-density “spongy” strata underneath the impermeable “caprock” strata. This tends to be on the order of several thousand feet below the surface. In order to keep the CO2 underground at these depths, given the high hydrostatic pressures that pertain so far below the surface, the CO2 must be compressed to approximately 100 atmospheres before injection. No wonder the energy/capacity penalty associated with carbon capture/sequestration is so significant!

The average coal powerplant emits about 24,000 tons per day of CO2. Meanwhile, the largest pilot project attempted to date in the U.S. for carbon sequestration has only dealt with a volume of 10,000 tons per day. In the North Sea off of Norway, the carbon sequestration effort led by StatoilHydro (NYSE: STO) at Sleipner has been sequestering about 2800 tonnes per day since 1996. In other words, carbon sequestration has not yet been performed in anywhere near the volumes associated with powerplant emissions.

Notwithstanding the significant volumes of CO2 emitted in the upper Midwest from our fleet of coal generation and large industrial facilities, there is enough regional underground sequestration capacity to hold “hundreds of years’” worth of CO2 emissions. This was news to me: I had heard concerns that the carrying capacity of the deep underground reservoirs suitable for sequestration would be small relative to our current emissions.

As with many of the cleantech challenges, carbon sequestration is not a question of if something can be technically done. Rather, it’s a question if it can be done at an out-of-pocket cost that will be acceptable to politicians and their constituents.

Recent conversations I've had with a Norwegian company named Sargas, which is developing a 95% carbon capture technology applicable to pressurized fluidized bed boiler combined cycle power generation facilities, indicates all-in costs (including capital recovery and returns) of under 10 cents/kwh, perhaps to as low as 7-8 cents/kwh. This isn't too bad, but I suspect that the costs will have to proven at lower levels (or energy prices are otherwise going to have to rise much further) before many in the U.S. are assured that the potential economic impact of climate legislation won't be severe.

And, of course, sequestration doesn’t address any of the concerns associated with mining the coal to begin with. For some ardent environmentalists, that makes coal unacceptable, even with cost-effective carbon sequestration. That said, practically speaking for voters and officials alike, it’s hard to overlook such an inexpensive and domestically abundant fuel.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.

Labels: carbon sequestration, clean coal, cleantech, fluidized bed, green tech

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Only Renewables Gain Again (Week Ending 5/2)

Author: Mark Henwood

Broad market indices (Emerging Markets, EAFA, S&P500) all rose this week. Camino’s PurePlay™ indices were mixed.

The Solar index, comprised of 34 companies, followed last week's 0.2% loss with a 2.0% decline. 15 stocks increased and 19 stocks declined. In contrast to most weeks, no stock increased or declined by over 20% and nothing caught our attention to report here. The solar ETFs both declined, 3.5% in one case and 2.2% in the other. With a 74% overlap I suspect this much difference is more random than a sustained trend

The Renewable Electricity index managed a 0.4% increase with 8 stocks climbing and 15 retreating. Most notable on the increasing side was Energy Developments (ENE.AX) advancing 11.8%, continuing to recover from the 30% sell-off on April 14th. I discussed this sell-off in the Week Ending 4/18 summary and noted that some traders, myself included, saw the 30% move as a significant over-correction.

Biofuels followed last week’s loss with a 0.4% loss. There were 5 advancing stocks to 10 stocks falling. On the plus side Aventine (AVR) posted an impressive 22.0% increase for the week as a result of its first quarter results. In my view some of the key factors cited by Aventine for its improved operating performance included (1) wider spreads (fuel revenue – corn cost), (2) decreased conversion costs, and (3) benefits of the wet milling process on by-product production.

On the negative side the company reported a significant USD 21.6 million mark-down for its student loan ARS position. Considering that the company engages in significant long and short derivative transactions to hedge its physical and contract positions, I trust management is focusing sufficient attention on crucial risk management controls. I hope there are no similarities between investing in ARS student loan notes and commodity derivatives.

In contrast, Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) had a rough week in the market declining 11.7% despite an appearance by the CEO on Fast Money on the 25th and the start-up of the 60 million gallon per year Burley, Idaho plant. In defense of corn based ethanol Mr. Koehler noted that ethanol is the only significant alternative to petroleum based transportation fuels. More on this below.

Fuel Cells posted a smaller 0.7% decline this week with 4 stocks advancing and 3 stocks declining. YTD the index is down 31.3% for the year. This technology continues to struggle with product, fuel source, and profitability issues. Another view of the fuel cell industry discusses the sector in more detail.

Ethanol’s significance: How significant are the ethanol companies? Let’s take a look at Aventine. In their 1st quarter release the company reported producing 47.7 million gallons of ethanol. That’s roughly equivalent to 12,000 barrels of oil per day. In 2006 that would have ranked Aventine as the 50th largest oil producer in the US (EIA 2006 Annual Report). Granted, while that’s only 2% of the production of the largest US crude oil producer, it’s still pretty significant.

Mark is the founder of Camino Energy, an information provider specializing in globally traded sustainable energy stocks. All index computations and constituent changes cited above are available at Camino. He also is an investor in sustainable energy stocks. Mark has a position in ENE.AX

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Cleantech Blog "Power 10" Ranking Vol. I

I spend most of my day meeting and talking to companies in the cleantech sector. And those of you who know me know I have opinions on who is doing it right, and who is doing it wrong. So I thought it was about time to initiate the Cleantech Blog Power 10 Ranking of cleantech companies doing it right. Eligibility for inclusion in the ranking requires meeting a 6 point test. Suggestions for inclusions in future volumes are welcome. The 6 point test:

1. The company is energy or environmental technology related
2. I like their products
3. The market needs them
4. The company is smart about building their business
5. I’d like to own the company if I could (for the right price, of course!)
6. It is not already one of mine (my apologies to my friends Zenergy Power)

I have included cleantech companies big and small. Volume I surprisingly ended up with a lot more solar companies than I would have guessed, and no biofuels. Perhaps I really am a closet solar fanatic.

Sharp Electronics – In solar, still the biggest, and still growing. Enough said.
Det Norske Veritas – DNV is a massive 150 year old risk management firm. Their auditors underpin roughly half of the carbon markets. In carbon, audit and verification is everything. I could not leave them off.
IBM (NYSE:IBM) – What IBM is doing in smart grid is very exciting. They are part of a large proportion of the smart grid implementations that are in process, and a huge proponent of open standards. Smart grid is to electricity what fiber is to telecom. It underpins everything.
Applied Materials (NYSE:AMAT) – The future of photovoltaics lies in scaling thin film manufacturing process. Who better to do this than the dean of semiconductor capital equipment. I broke the story of Applied’s entry to solar in the blogosphere in 2006, and if anything underestimated how hard they were pushing. The whisper mill has been whirring that the installations of their plants are not on track. Not only do I have faith they will get there, I think it is critical to the industry that they do.
Fuel Tech (NASDAQ:FTEK) – I wrote about them in 2007. The CEO John Norris is a long time friend and an excellent operator. Cleaning up coal is a huge business that needs to be done, and they do it well.
Fat Spaniel – Distributed power, solar included, is a ticking time bomb without independent monitoring. Fat Spaniel does it the best.
Smart Fuel Cells (XETRA:F3C.DE) – I wrote about them recently. I helped create a fuel cell business in 2002. This is the first fuel cell company in 5 years that has intrigued me. They actually ship product with solid gross margins. That is a start.
First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) – Lowest cost producer in the photovoltaic business. Guaranteed to make the list until dethroned.
Global Solar – I have been following this company for a long time. CIGS is very hard and has broken (or is currently breaking) hundreds of millions or billions of dollars worth of wannabes. This management team, led by Mike Gering, respects how hard it is. And since they have actually been running a pilot plant shipping product for 3 years, so we need to take note when they say they have cracked the manufacturing scale nut.
Schott – Long a major player in crystalline silicon photovoltaics, amorphous silicon photovoltaics and concentrated solar thermal, where they are one of the top manufacturers of solar thermal receivers. That balance is unique, and exciting.

Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, Chairman of Cleantech.org, and a blogger for CNET's Greentech blog.

Labels: Applied Materials, cleantech, DNV, Fat Spaniel, First Solar, Fuel Tech, Global Solar, greentech, IBM, Schott, Sharp, Smart Fuel Cell

Liquid (Green) Goodness for the 21 and Over

by Cristina Foung

My favorite green product of the week: VeeV Açaí Spirit

What is it?
VeeV is a liqueur (yep, in the US you have to be 21+ to drink it) made from açaí berries – these berries come from the Amazon and are known as a superfood full of nutrients and antioxidents (far higher than levels found in pomegranates or blueberries, although those are delicious too).

Why is it better?
First of all, if you’re going to drink, you might as well drink right. VeeV is made from 100% all natural ingredients (besides açaí, it’s got prickly pear and acerola cherry in there). It’s quite tasty straight up or mixed with other liquid organic treats (I’m a fan of adding a little lime juice and a few mint leaves, myself).

But more importantly, from berry to bottle, VeeV is green. The company ensures sustainable harvesting of the berries through the Sustainable Açaí Project (founded by the Sambazon, the makers of a delicious açaí smoothie). VeeV donates $1 from every bottle to the organization which goes to the farming communities, organic certification, and ensuring “wild harvesting” to preserve the surrounding rainforest biodiversity.

VeeV also offsets their carbon footprint with Climate Clean. VeeV’s distillery (which also distills Square One vodka) is the only one in the United States to be powered in part with renewable wind energy, not to mention VeeV’s distillation process uses 200% less energy than a traditional pot still. The company is also a member of a variety of social responsibility organizations, including Business for Social Responsibility and Co-op America, and they utilize a variety of recycled materials such as glass for their bottles and post-consumer waste for their shipping boxes.

Where can you find it?
Check out the VeeV website to find a retailer in Los Angeles, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Napa Valley. If you’re outside of California, you can order it online for $34.99 from Mel and Rose or for $68 from 1-877 Spirits.

And if beer or wine (or juice) is more your thing, check out “Organic, Local, Solar Powered Booze” over at the Green Home Huddle.

Besides her green products column on Cleantech Blog, Cristina is a passionate advocate for green living at the Green Home Huddle at Huddler.com, which focuses on electric cars, energy efficient appliances, and other green products.

Labels: cleantech, green tech, VeeV Acai Spirits, wind energy

The Secrets of Curitiba

By John Addison (4/30/08). Talking with the former Mayor of Curitiba and architect, Jamie Lerner, is like talking with Santiago Calatrava about designing buildings or having an imagined conversation with Frederick Olmsted about designing parks. Jamie Lerner designs cities. More accurately, he helps all create a strategic vision of cities for people, not cities for cars.

I talked with Jamie Lerner at the EcoCity World Summit after he delivered his keynote speech to political leaders and urban planners from over seventy countries.

As one of Brazil’s most popular mayors, Lerner was elected three times. He helped transform Curitiba from collection of shanty towns to a beautiful and sustainable city of about two million. At a time when many Latin Americans were disenchanted with their politicians, Jamie Lerner had a 92% approval rating. Following his success as mayor, he served as governor of the state of Parana for 8 years.

In the late sixties, Curitiba had a contest for the best urban design for their city’s future. In 1968, the city incorporated many of the ideas of young architect Lerner into the Curitiba Master Plan. In 1971, he was appointed mayor of Curitiba.

Facing a budget crisis, he had to search for big ideas that could be implemented with little money. He greened the city by involving citizens in planting 1.5 million trees. He solved the city’s flood problems by diverting water into lakes in newly created parks. He lifted some children from poverty by paying teenagers to keep the parks clean.

Educating and involving children are at the heart of solving most problems, from poverty to transportation, observes Governor Lerner.

Any leader will tell you that change is likely to be met with strong resistance. Thinking like an architect, Jamie Lerner wanted to beautify the city with pedestrian boulevards that were car-free. Shop owners were up in arms, fearing that the change would destroy them. Then Mayor Lerner convinced some to take part in a thirty day trial. Shoppers loved it. Before the trial ended, the merchants asked that the pedestrian zone be expanded to include more streets.

Like most cities, Mayor Lerner saw a city with clogged roads that divided where people lived from where they worked. Jamie’s wisdom sparkles with humor, “A car is like a mother-in-law, you must get along but not have her run your life.” He envisioned solidarity. Ecocity Videos

Lerner got the city moving. Curitiba could not afford the light-rail systems of Europe and the U.S. which often cost more than $20 million per mile. Curitiba invented rapid transit using buses.

Bus rapid transit is successful for many reasons. Payment is simple, fixed price regardless of distance traveled. For those without prepaid passes, payment is made when entering bus shelters not while boarding the bus. Curitiba’s shelters are inviting transparent tubes with LED lighting that allow all to wait in safety. Express buses travel on dedicated lanes on major streets. The buses are double articulated to carry up to 300 people per bus, and up to 50,000 per day. Buses arrive frequently. Inviting pedestrian walkways and bikeways bring people to the stations.

Since implementing bus rapid transit, Curitiba’s population of people has tripled, yet its population of cars has declined thirty percent. Governor Lerner explained that there were only 25,000 daily passenger rides on Curitiba buses in 1974. By 2008, there are more than 2.4 million passenger rides daily. In Curitiba, bus rapid transit is far more popular than cars. 85% of the systems use the rapid transit.

Jamie Lerner, the inspiring architect and governor, has been invited around the world to help with new urban design and transportation solutions.

Transit is getting more popular in the United States, with gasoline now at record prices in all fifty states. Increasingly the United States is adopting the secrets of Curitiba. In Los Angeles, when Richard Hunt, Executive Vice President of LAMTA, showed me the Orange Line, the lessons of Curitiba were everywhere. Stations were safe and inviting. Electronic signs displayed minutes until the arrival of the next bus. Fares were paid before boarding the bus, so that there would be no cue delays as people paid drivers. Articulated buses use dedicated bus pathways. During peak hours, buses arrive every three to seven minutes.

The Orange Line has been so popular that ridership not expected until 2020 was achieved in seven months. Soon LAMTA’s bus rapid transit system will cover 35 southern California cities and cover 420 miles.

Bus rapid transit invites millions in U.S. cities such as Las Vegas, Pittsburgh, Boston, Orlando, Miami, Oakland and Kansas City. As America falls into a recession while oil and gasoline prices soar, rapid transit and smart growth urban development provide solutions.

Jamie Lerner has an answer, “cidade não é problema; cidade é solucão.” The city is not a problem; the city is a solution. Cities like Curitiba are model solutions from driving less and enjoying life more.

Labels: bus rapid transit, clean fleet, cleantech, smart growth, urban development

Monday, April 28, 2008

The Other Solar Energy

by Richard T. Stuebi

Ten days ago, I attended a one-day symposium on climate change solutions at Oberlin College. Speaking at the symposium was John O’Donnell of Ausra.

Ausra is a leading player in the field of concentrating solar power (CSP), which utilizes mirrors to focus sunlight on a heating element containing a fluid to produce a steam that drives a turbine to generate electricity. In other words, solar thermal electricity – a field that was highly active in the 1980’s only to experience a 15+ year hiatus – is now coming back with a vengeance. Ausra claims that its CSP technology will soon be able to enable electricity production (in sunny desert climates, such as the southwestern U.S.) for about 8-10 cents/kwh.

Moreover, Mr. O'Donnell discussed how Ausra was working on integrating its CSP generation technology with thermal energy storage approaches, so that Ausra's powerplants would be able to produce electricity not just when the sun is high in the sky -- from 7 am to 6 pm -- but over a time window more closely aligned to utility peak loads, which stretch from about 10 am to 8 pm. He made the interesting observation that thermal energy storage, using oils and molten salts, is many times more efficient and cost-effective than large-scale energy storage with batteries.

With all of the hype (much of which deserved) for solar photovoltaics (PV), it's easy to forget about solar thermal approaches, and CSP particularly. Although not as universally applicable as PV, CSP can make a big dent in national energy supply, exploiting only a relatively small fraction of otherwise unusable desert land. In many cases, the gating factor for CSP deployment -- just as has been the case for wind energy -- will be the availability (or lack thereof) of transmission capacity to electricity load centers.

Mr. O'Donnell made the point that building roads in the U.S. was a local phenomenon subject to a patchwork of regulations and constraints -- until President Eisenhower broke down the barriers with the creation of the Interstate Highway System in the 1950's. He further noted that high-voltage DC technologies now readily available -- such as those offered by ABB (NYSE: ABB) -- could transmit large blocks of power across the whole continent with losses of only about 11% (excluding the conversion facilities at each terminal).

We in the cleantech community haven't talked much about it, instead focusing on the sexy/cool generation/storage/consumption technologies, but maybe it's time to ratchet the discussion about the so-called "smart grid" up to another level.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.

Labels: cleantech, concentrated solar power, green tech, smart grid, solar energy, transmission

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Only Renewables Gain (Week Ending 4/25) + Solar ETFs

Author: Mark Henwood

Broad market indices were mixed this week and so were Camino’s PurePlay™ indices.

The Solar index followed last week's 7.0% gain with a small 0.2% decline. The index members were also mixed with 15 stocks increasing and 19 stocks declining. Most notable in the group was Centrosolar (C3O.DE) which gained 26.2% for the week. The stock jumped on the 23rd after the company announced provisional results that were above expectations. Sales for the quarter were up 86% over the previous year and EBITDA almost tripled. One analyst suggested the stock was undervalued.

Camino’s Renewable Electricity index managed a small 0.1% increase with 8 stocks climbing and 15 retreating.

Biofuels reversed last week’s 1.5% gain with a 1.9% loss. There were 7 advancing stocks to 8 stocks falling. Several of the ethanol stocks (AVR, PEIX, VSE) seemed to benefit from coverage by Oppenheimer whose analyst believes that overcapacity in the sector will resolve itself in the next 12 to 18 months.

Fuel Cells slumped 5.1% on 1 stock advancing and 6 stocks declining. FuelCell Energy (FCEL) reported a sale to Posco which was well received by the market resulting in a 11% price increase for the week. The sale involved delivering 25.6 MW at a contact value of USD 70 million, or over USD 2,700 / kW. Analysts believe this number is below cost but will help the company reduce its cost. After years of losses FuelCell needs to get it right and get its costs down so it can compete in a very competitive natural gas fired electric generation market.

Solar ETFs It came as no surprise that solar ETFs have been launched by Claymore (TAN) and VanEck (KWT). These two providers worked hard to differentiate their products by using slightly different company selections and weighting schemes. Unfortunately they didn’t decide to compete on cost coming out at an identical 65 basis points.

The result is indices that have a 74% overlap in their 27 constituents. Between the two indices the only company not included in Camino’s Solar index (34 constituents) is MEMC Electronics (WFR). By our computation in 2007 at most MEMC has a 25% exposure to solar so we’re not sure why Claymore included them. We don’t think they currently belong in our PurePlay™ index.

Going forward we expect these ETFs will have comparable performance and very high volatility. We routinely calculate Sharp ratios for our indices in an effort to assess the risk/reward profile of the sector. Over the last 365 days our solar index’s Sharpe ratio was 0.8 and over the last two years the ratio was 0.48, both periods measured against the 13wk T-Bill. Traditional fund managers would probably not find these values attractive particularly considering their high beta. That said, we think there are plenty of opportunities in the sustainable energy sector.

Mark is the founder of Camino Energy, an information provider specializing in globally traded sustainable energy stocks. He also is an investor in sustainable energy stocks. Mark has no positions in solar.

Labels: AVR, biofuels, C3O.DE, cleantech, FCEL, fuel cell, green tech, KWT, PEIX, renewable electricity, solar, TAN, VSE

Thursday, April 24, 2008

The Answer May Be Blowing in the Wind

by Cristina Foung

My favorite green product of the week: Southwest Windpower Skystream 3.7 Wind Turbine

What is it?
The Skystream 3.7 is a residential wind generator that hooks into grid-tied homes. It has an estimated energy production of 400 kWh per month (at 12 MPH or 5.4 m/s). Its rotor measures 12 feet and towers are available ranging from 34 to 70 feet.

Why is it better?
The wind industry, ranging from offshore wind projects to residential turbines, has been steadily growing. Southwest Windpower manufactures the Skystream 3.7 which is the first all-inclusive wind generator with controls and an inverter built right in.

For the average single family home, it can produce about half of all electricity needs (or course that depends both on how much electricity you use and the average wind speeds in your area). But that’s not too shabby in terms of reducing your carbon footprint.

I also hear Skystreams are quiet, easy to install (or easy to work with dealers to get them installed), run in very low winds, and are easy to maintain. All good things, for sure. I can’t wait to stop by Robin Wilson’s house in San Francisco to see hers in action.

Where can you find it?
Southwest Windpower has a network of dealers worldwide that retail the Skystream 3.7. See the website for information on where to buy. A complete ready-to-install package with a 34 foot tower costs $8,725.00.

Labels: cleantech, green power, green tech, Southwest Windpower, wind energy, wind turbine

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

California High-Speed Rail

By John Addison (Earth Day 2008). Fiona Ma was nervous about getting on a train that was about to set a world speed record. Just before Easter 2007 in the countryside outside Paris, she saw the people lining the green and flowered route. The French were flying flags, waving, and cheering. Less reassuring were those of faith who crossed themselves as the new train accelerated past 200 miles per hour. The people blurred into a collage of spring time colors. The train vibrated much as when a jet plane roars down the runway and starts to ascend. Fiona hoped that this train would not leave the tracks.

At three hundred miles per hour, the train was still on the tracks, accelerating. Out the window, only one image was distinct. A plane that was filming the historic event flew along side the train. Surrealistically, Fiona and the eleven other dignitaries could see what was filmed from the plane on a screen inside the train. Another LCD displayed their world record - 357 miles per hour on a train. Everyone cheered. The train slowed over the next few miles. Fiona took a deep breath, exhaled, and smiled; she took part in history.

These days, Fiona Ma, needs to find new courage every day. As California Majority Whip, she takes on the tough issues and is a force in making things better. For every important issue, there are vested interests on all sides whether it is better health care, better transportation, stopping global warming, or keeping California’s $1.7 trillion economy moving forward. Among her many responsibilities, Assemblywoman Ma chairs the Legislative High Speed Rail Caucus.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) believe they just may have the answer — an 800 mile statewide high-speed rail system that would serve more than 32 million passengers per year by 2020. Because the rail will be powered by electricity, and because of the efficiency of moving up to 1,200 people per train, CO2 emissions may be reduced by 12 billion pounds per year by 2020, and 18 billion pounds by 2030.

If you have ever been stuck in gridlock trying to get to work between Orange County and LA, or between San Jose and San Francisco, you will appreciate that the high-speed rail would add the equivalent of a 12-lane superhighway. Express high-speed trains will take one hour and fifteen minutes between San Diego and Los Angeles, and a little over two and one-half hours from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

CHSRA is upgrading their 2020 forecast to 68 million, from 32 million, and 94 to 117 million passengers by 2030. As Hall of Fame baseball great Yogi Berra observed, "It is difficult to forecast, especially about the future." 2020 annual passengers will depend on California voters approving the November bond, matching funding, and regulatory approval. CHSRA forecasts are achievable. By comparison, Europe already provides 250 million annual rides, and Japan over 300 million.

High-speed rail systems, using the new grade-separated high speed lines planned for California have not had one fatality in 41 years. Neither automobiles nor airplanes can match the safety of high speed rail.

California high-speed rail addresses a number of goals. Our current highways cannot support the planned growth to 50 million people. Only the USA and China use more oil than California. If there are more price hikes, or if supply is disrupted by war or terrorism, where will California get its needed billions of gallons of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel? Draughts, likely caused by climate change, are already hurting California agriculture and industry. California is unlikely to meet its targeted reduction of greenhouse gases without high-speed rail. Especially damaging are the greenhouse gas emissions from short-haul air travel. The per passenger greenhouse gas emissions of flying from LA to SF are equivalent of each person driving solo in a large SUV. Carbon Calculator

Although California faces rush-hour gridlock without high-speed rail, a project with a starting price north of $33 billion is certain to face some opposition.

With HSR, it’s about money. Proposed is that Californians approve a bond of $10 billion for one-third of the cost. One-third would be matched by federal funds and one-third by private investment. Although some anticipate cost overruns, more are worried that the price of not acting will be much higher. Because California is implementing AB32, the high-speed rail may be able to sell carbon credits to help finance the project and operations.

Since high-speed rail will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18 billion pounds per year, you would think that all environment groups would support the measure. While there has been some support, the Sierra Club opposed disrupting environmentally sensitive areas and areas of wildlife migration, specifically in the Los Banos area. Beyond some local opposition, however, the national Sierra Club strongly supports high-speed rail.

Southwest Airlines successfully sued and stopped high-speed rail in Texas in the 1990s. Texas is now staring at a $183 billion price for the Trans Texas Corridor as a 4,000-mile-long stretch of 10 auto lanes and six railroad tracks for high-speed freight and commuter trains. This is over twenty times higher than if they had not been stopped from implementing high-speed rail years ago. Opponents of high-speed rail carefully follow Mark Twain’s advice, “Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.”

Airlines may not oppose high-speed rail. Today, Southwest cannot get the expanded gates and routes in California due to lack of airport expansion everywhere from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco. Some airlines may support high-speed rail as it will more easily bring people to SFO and be part of bringing passengers to other airports more quickly.

Most are optimistic that voters will approve a bond issue for high-speed rail. Voters are faced with record gasoline prices and concern about California’s economic future. More people are commuting longer distances as they are unable to sell their homes in today’s difficult real estate market.

The major concerns are addressed in new legislation proposed by Assemblywomen Cathleen Galgiani and Fiona Ma - AB 3034 “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.” The governor wanted more private funding of the rail. The new bill allows for private rail funding provided by law. The Sierra Club does not want a Los Banos station. The new bill provides: “Preserving wildlife corridors and mitigating impacts to wildlife movement, where feasible as determined by the authority…” Also the bill, “Prohibits a high-speed train station between Gilroy and Merced.”

On April 14, the legislative committee approved the bill with 10 voting yes and no one opposing. It is expected to get the approval of the full Assembly and Senate and the Governor. Read the Bill and Post your Comment

Even if voters approve the bond, high-speed rail will not move forward unless there are matching federal funds. Congressman Jim Costa believes that will happen. As he states in his op-ed: “Congress has begun to take action to help make the idea of high-speed rail in California a reality. Two bills I introduced, HR 4122 the American Investment in Safe, Reliable High Speed Rail Act and HR 4123, the High-Speed Rail Authority Development and Formation Act, will help bring federal dollars to California to invest in the proposed high-speed rail system. The Senate also passed S. 294, which will help high-speed rail development in America…. Overall, for every dollar invested in this system, we will see two dollars in return.” Capitol Weekly Article

Will Californians park their cars and ride the rails? Last year, LAMTA carried 64 million riders. In the Bay Area, BART carried 47 million riders. With gasoline prices rocketing, Amtrak ridership on the Capitol Corridor is up 16% this March over a year ago; on the San Joaquins it has jumped 27%. Although Californians will not exclusively ride rails and rapid transit, but they will ride more and drive less. In fact, high speed rail will integrate with public transportation. All 25 HSR stations will be multi-modal. For example, to get to Sacramento I currently take BART to Richmond, then get on Amtrak in the same station.

As a manager covering several states, I used to travel weekly on airplanes. Point-to-point always required at least four hours to get to the airport, get thru security, taxi in the runway, fly, taxi in the runway, then rent a car. In contrast, when taking a train from Washington D.C. to New York, I found that train travel was faster than airlines and better integrated with public transportation. With high-speed rail, airline travel to cover a few hundred miles would never be a personal option.

Travel between Washington D.C. and Boston is now even faster with speeds of up to 150 miles per hour on Amtrak’s Acela, the only high-speed rail in the United States. Now you can get from the nation’s capital to downtown Manhattan in less than three hours; an impossibility with airline travel and the fastest taxi driver in New York history. Over ten million passengers road this Northeast Corridor in 2007, making it the most popular train route in the U.S. Acela is now profitable.

In 12 years, 32 to 68 million passengers may be riding on an even faster system in California. The high-speed rail will keep California’s economy moving forward, with more jobs, more energy security and far less emissions.

Copyright (c) 2008 John Addison. This article may be reproduced if it preserves this copyright notice. John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report.

Labels: California transportation, carbon emissions trading, clean fleet, cleantech, high-speed rail

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The Best Fuel Cell Company You've Never Seen

I had a chat with Dr. Peter Podessor this week. He is the CEO of Smart Fuel Cells (XETRA: F3C.DE), the best fuel cell company that most Americans have never heard of. Cleantech Blog did an article on the problems with micro fuel cells last year, but we have never written much on the larger size methanol fuel cells that Smart Fuel Cell is developing. SFC is one of the longest running direct methanol fuel cell companies in Europe, but never has made much press in the US, despite the fact that the US is one of their largest markets.

It has been nearly five years since I last had the chance to speak with Smart Fuel Cell founder and then CEO Dr. Manfred Stefener, and a lot has changed. That is to say, unlike almost every other fuel cell company I know of, they have actually done what they said they would five years ago.

The technology is direct methanol, where methanol mixed with water is fed directly into the fuel cell. Their products are medium power range systems, mainly for APU type applications. An interesting tidbit on the technology, the classic problem in DMFC has always been the crossover problem, where methanol seeps through the membrane, reducing efficiency and performance, among other things. SFC uses a patented water management and active control system that has permitted them to deliver commercial products using membranes from a range of suppliers, including Johnson Matthey, DuPont and Cabot Industries, apparently relatively indiscriminant of the membrane itself.

These results (the combination of good performance, long life, and a range of membranes) are certainly interesting enough that I asked them after the interview to comment in more detail on what they mean by active crossover control, and share what they can about how it works:

“SFC has patented a method of converting energy using fuel cells that allows for miniaturization by focusing on simplified fuel intake, sealing and electrical configuration. We have also used low-cost materials and mass production techniques to lower the cost of manufacturing fuel cells. "Active Crossover Control" by SFC permits active monitoring and minimization of the negative methanol crossover effect, thus upping the fuel cell’s performance. The result is an extremely short startup time and highly efficient fuel cells by SFC. A mixture of methanol and water is introduced to the anode side by a patented internal water-management system. This enables us to employ 100% pure methanol in our fuel cartridges.”

Our technology is an “active” style DMFC with water and air management by pumps and crossover control permitting the use of various types of membranes. The fuel cell uses 100% methanol supplied in convenient, safety-tested and certified cartridges and dilutes it to the mix ratio required for power production.

Is there a simple summary on how the water management & active crossover control works? Active crossover control means advanced algorithms that manage fuel crossover and adapt it to the particular situation’s needs. When fuel crossover is not desired, it is reduced to about 2 per cent. In situations when fuel crossover is beneficial to the product, it is deliberately increased. – SFC’s water management submodule regulates the water balance of the product by matching water emissions and water recirculation. This process and the device performing the functions work reliably in a very wide window of operating conditions and are protected by several patents.”

They have over 7,500 fuel cell units sold. The products range from 600 to 1,600 watt hours per day in size (25 to 65 watt nominal power), with prices ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 euros. The system efficiencies are rate at 30%. A bit over 40% of revenues are from the recreational market, predominantly including APUs for RVs, including major manufacturer names like Hymer and Concorde, and 40% of the total revenues are into the US and European military customers for remote power systems and mobile power packs. Among the other intriguing applications they have developed include solar / battery / fuel cell hybrid power systems for off grid power solutions. They have also begun making initial inroads into the EV and hybrid vehicle market for light vehicles as well. SFC warranties a 3,000 hour life of the system (they estimate roughly 6 year life expectancy in a typical recreational vehicle application), though they cautioned me that many of the systems see several times that in practice.

SFC’s private equity backers included leading European private equity group 3i, strategic investor DuPont, and institutional backing from Deutsche Bank. SFC is publicly traded now, and after a fairly fast run up from 37 euros to north of 50 euros when it first went public in 2006, the stock has dipped back into the low to mid teens. That gives it a current market capitalization of around 100 mm euros, with around 50 mm euros of cash and 14 mm euros in revenues (including 70% from product sales) with a loss in 2007 of less than 5 mm euros. Possibly even more impressive, according to Dr. Podessor they have given guidance that they expect to break even in 2008. Aside from the technology, at an enterprise value to trailing revenues of 3.5x, plenty of cash, and projecting a near term breakeven, it is hard to see how SFC is not one of the cheapest fuel cell stocks out there, as well as with 7,500 units sold, one of the most mature. For someone who has been a long time skeptic of fuel cell companies, Smart Fuel Cell is a refreshing story.

Neal Dikeman is a founding partner at Jane Capital Partners LLC, a boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech. He is founding contributor of Cleantech Blog, a Contributing Editor to Alt Energy Stocks, Chairman of Cleantech.org, and a blogger for CNET's Greentech blog.

Labels: cleantech, dmfc, F3C.DE, fuel cell, green tech, methanol, Smart Fuel Cell

Monday, April 21, 2008

Battery Breakthrough?

by Richard T. Stuebi

I recently was sent an article about electric cars. It profiles the Lightning GT, a 700 hp electric sports car that can accelerate to sixty mph in four seconds. To me, the news is not so much about the Lightning GT as it is about the batteries being used in the car.

The claim is that the battery, a Lithium-ion (Li-ion) type called Nanosafe being developed by a company called Altairnano, is able to provide a useful operating range of 250 miles, a full recharge time of 10 minutes, and a useful life of 12-20 years through 15,000 charge/discharge cycles.

If a battery can produce this kind of performance, and if large-scale production can enable the battery pack to be profitably sold at a few thousand dollars, mass adoption of electric vehicles cannot be far behind. This is because recharging an electric car from an socket produces a “fuel” that costs about the equivalent of $0.60 per gallon -- about 1/6th the current cost of gasoline at the pump.

That’s a game-changer that could end our addiction to oil. While potentially a big threat to the big petro-companies, such a development would be a huge boon to electric utilities, which all of a sudden would have a major overnight load to soak up off-peak excess capacity.

And, the big long-term winner would be the environment. Even if the electricity comes from coal, the emissions profile of an all-electric car is much better than even a highly-efficient gasoline or diesel car. If the electricity is produced by renewables such as solar and wind, then we’re talking about virtually a zero-carbon car.

Richard T. Stuebi is the BP Fellow for Energy and Environmental Advancement at The Cleveland Foundation, and is also the Founder and President of NextWave Energy, Inc.

Labels: Batteries, cleantech, electric vehicles, green tech, Lithium ion

Sunday, April 20, 2008

All Ships Floated (Week Ending 4/18)

Author: Mark Henwood

All broad market indices rose this week. All of Camino’s PurePlay™ indices rose also.

The Solar index followed last week's 4.7% decline with a solid 7.0% increase. The advance was broad-based with 28 stocks increasing and 6 stocks declining. ReneSola Ltd (SOLA.L) led all gains increasing 32.1% for the week. On April 17 the company announced it was increasing its 2008 guidance for revenue and production. It now expects wafer production to be between 310 – 320 MW and sales to be between USD 530 - 550 million. With silicon at about 75% of the COGS for panels, ReneSola’s sales/production numbers translate into a panel cost to installers of over USD 3,000 /kW. This doesn’t represent any improvement in the grid-parity equation and signals continuing industry dependence on regulatory incentives and “friendly” tariffs. I’ll talk more about what I mean by “friendly” tariffs in another post.

In the Renewable Electricity sector Camino’s index advanced 2.0% with 15 stocks climbing and 8 retreating. Most notable in the group was the 17.0% decline suffered by Energy Developments (ENE.AX). On April 14 the company announced it had difficulty with a capacity test for its Broome plant and that, in combination with some other adjustments, cause it to lower its EBITDA guidance AUD 7 million to between AUD 100 – 105 million. The market reaction to this 7% lowering was an immediate 30% price reduction wiping out AUD 100 million of market cap. Some traders saw this as a significant over-correction and bid the stock back up 18% by the end of the week.

Biofuels reversed last week’s 7.5% decline with a 1.5% gain. There were 9 advancing stocks to 6 stocks falling. In the US ethanol group, Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) continued its downward trend with a 9.5% decline. With 100 MGY of operational capacity and 100 MGY coming on line this year the company is valued at USD 0.74 per gallon of production capacity, in line with VersSun (VSE). These stock prices are very sensitive to margins and are being valued on earnings, not growth.

Fuel Cells also reversed last weeks decline with the index rising 3.2% on 4 stocks advancing and 2 stocks declining.

Why are so many of the companies mentioned in these posts traded outside the United States? First, the sustainable energy business is global. With the US a declining percentage of world market cap investors need to be looking at all markets. Every advisor that I know recommends investors put at least a portion of their equity holdings in international markets. Sustainable energy is no exception and the Camino database covers all markets.

The companies selected for the PurePlay™ indices have to meet a series of screens ranging from minimum sustainable energy activity, market cap, liquidity, exhange, and several others. So the companies in the indices are real businesses pursuing real strategies consistent with the definition of sustainable energy. Of the 79 companies currently in our four indices, 31 are traded on US exchanges representing 39% of the index market cap. With 61% of the index outside the US it’s no surprise that many of our comments are about companies from other countries.

Mark is the founder of Camino Energy, an information provider specializing in globally traded sustainable energy stocks. He also is an investor in sustainable energy stocks. Mark has a position in ENE.AX

Labels: cleantech, green tech

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Biokleen: Makes the 3-Second Rule Obsolete

by Cristina Foung

My favorite green product of the week: Biokleen All Purpose Spray and Wipe Cleaner

What is it?
Biokleen Spray and Wipe is a concentrated cleaner made with surfactants, wetting agents, and degreasers from coconut and/or corn, grapefruit seed, and pulp extracts, cold-pressed Valencia orange oil, linear sulfonate, and filtered water. It works on any water safe surface, including stainless steel, desks, kid toys, and more.

Why is it better?
First of all, it’s a solid cleaner – I’ve tried it on a variety of surfaces, including my desk, the inside and outside of a microwave, the top of the toilet tank, my car trunk and window (and my car's pretty dirty). In comparison to conventional cleaners, it doesn’t have any noxious smell (in fact, it doesn’t smell like much at all except for a hint of citrus).

But beyond those cleaning basics, it’s biodegradable and non-toxic. There’s no animal testing involved (and no animal ingredients). And as it says on the bottle, “concentrated = fewer fillers = less waste = less packaging = less energy used in shipping = more value for everyone.” And that equation rocks my socks.

Also, in terms of human/plant/animal/environmental health, it contains no phosphate, cholorine, ammonia, petroleum solvents, alcohol, butyl, glycol ether, SLS or SLES, EDTA, DEA, SARA Title III/CA 65/EPA priority pollutants, or materials listed by the ACGIH as hazardous. I don't quite know what all of those acronyms stand for...but I sure like not having them around!

Where can you find it?
Check out the Biokleen website for a store locator. One 32 oz. bottle costs $5.50.

But you can get it for free! (Once again, here’s a little shameless self-promotion to start your day.) If you head on over to the Green Home Huddle, you can enter a contest to win Biokleen Spray and Wipe plus a bunch of other cool stuff, by sharing your green product knowledge with the world!

Labels: Biokleen, cleantech, green cleaning products, green tech, household cleaners

General Motors Looks Beyond Oil

By John Addison. “One of the most serious business issues currently facing General Motors is our product’s near total dependence on petroleum as a source of energy. To address this issue, we have been implementing a strategy to displace petroleum through energy diversity and efficiency,” explained Dr. Larry Burns, Vice-President of Research and Development for General Motors, during his keynote speech on April 2 at the National Hydrogen Association (NHA) Conference.

When Dr. Burns speaks, the industry listens because he directly influences the future of General Motors and of the auto industry. March was one of the worst in years for all vehicle makers. GM and Chrysler saw a 19% drop in sales; Honda a more modest 3% drop. There was a direct correlation in sales loss and fuel efficiency. GM and Chrysler fleets gulp oil refined fuels; Honda’s takes large sips.

Make no mistake, GM is determined to be less dependent on oil as Larry Burns clearly stated, “We view renewable biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen as the most promising alternative energy carriers for automobiles. We are working very hard and fast on all three fronts to develop and implement meaningful technology solutions that provide our customers with a range of choices from “gas-friendly to gas-free” vehicles.” Next generation biofuels, however, will likely take years to get from labs to large scale production. When available, they will primarily be blended with gasoline and diesel, rather than requiring new stations. GM, and other auto makers, is frustrated to see hydrogen in only a few dozen stations globally.

Electricity is the most promising alternative fuel for GM and most auto makers. Electric motors are far more efficient than gasoline engines. Electric motors are used in hybrids, plug-in hybrids, battery electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. In late 2010, General Motors will start selling the Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in hybrid that will give many drivers 100 miles per gallon of gasoline, because it will primarily run on electricity. In three years, consumers may have multiple plug-in choices including Toyota’s planned offering.

The Volt is an implementation of E-Flex. GM’s E-Flex is an electric drive system centered on advanced batteries delivering power to an electric motor. Additional electricity can be delivered by a small engine coupled to a generator, or by a hydrogen fuel cell. In the future GM could elect to implement E-Flex in a pure battery-electric vehicle.

Over two million vehicles now use electric motors and advanced batteries, thanks to the early success of hybrids. Electric drive systems will continue their strong growth as they are implemented in battery electric vehicles, hybrids, plug-in hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

The plug-in hybrids’ big competition will be battery electric vehicles (EV). London’s congestion tax is cascading into a growing number of cities that will require zero-emission vehicles. Announced EV offerings are coming by 2010 from Nissan, Renault, Mitsubishi, Subaru, and emerging players such as Smart, Think, Tesla, Miles, and a host of Asian companies that will display at the upcoming China Auto Show. With the average U.S. household having two vehicles, these EVs would be perfect for the 80% of U.S. driving requires far less than 100 miles per day.

Where does this leave hydrogen? Fleets. Hydrogen’s fleet use continues to grow, especially in public transportation. Three factors are contributing to the growth of hydrogen vehicles: energy security, success of natural gas vehicles, and the growth of electric vehicles.

Hydrogen delivers energy security by being available from a wide range of sources including waste hydrogen from industrial processes, electrolysis of water, biosources, and steam reformation of natural gas. Where truck delivery is avoided, all of these approaches significantly reduce greenhouse gases, source-to-wheels, in comparison to diesel, gasoline, and current biofuel alternatives. Emission Comparisons from LCFS

In transportation, hydrogen may be the long-term successor to natural gas. There are about five million natural gas vehicles in operation globally. Over 90% of the natural gas used in the USA is from North America. Transportation use of natural gas has doubled in only five years. Natural gas vehicles are popular in fleets that carry lots of people: buses, shuttles, and taxis.

Natural gas is primarily hydrogen. The molecule is four hydrogen atoms and one carbon. Steam reformation makes hydrogen from CH4 and H2O. Hydrogen is used in fuel cell electric vehicles with far better fuel economy than the natural gas engine vehicles that they replace. For example, at Sunline Transit, their hydrogen fuel cell bus is achieving 2.5 times the fuel economy of a similar CNG bus on the same route. Specifically 7.37GGE to the CNG vehicle's 2.95GGE. Sunline has a new fuel cell bus on order with even great expected gains. NREL Report

Most early adapters of hydrogen vehicles are natural gas fleet owners with vehicles that use compressed natural gas. Some fleets are mixing hydrogen with natural gas and running it in the existing CNG vehicles. A common approach is a 20% blend with minor changes such as timing in existing engines.

Public transportation is hydrogen’s biggest success. The San Francisco Bay Area is now upgrading from six hydrogen fuel cell buses to twelve. The area will grow from carrying two thousand passengers a day on hydrogen, to five thousand, using lighter next generation drive systems with fuel cells whose warranties have expanded from 1,000 hours to 12,000 hours.

For the 2010 Winter Olympics, Whistler will use twenty hydrogen fuel cell buses which will transport over 100,000 visitors during the games, then continue as the majority of Whistler’s fleet.

Although hydrogen will grow in fleets that can install the fueling and the vehicles, it will be many years before average consumers consider hydrogen vehicles. Outside of Southern California there is a lack of public infrastructure. To achieve a range of 300 miles, most auto makers want high pressure (700 bar). In California, only Irvine offers the higher pressure. GM is putting nine temporary 700 bar fuelers in Southern California. GM is also putting another 100 hydrogen vehicles on the road. Project Driveway Article

Honda is ahead of all other hydrogen vehicle makers in offering its acclaimed FCX Clarity for $600 per month. It does fine with the 350 bar pressure offered at California’s 24 hydrogen stations and delivers a 270 mile range. The vehicle will probably only be offered to select individuals in California communities where public stations are available such as Irvine, Torrance and Santa Monica. Even for Honda, Fuel Cell Marketing Manager Steve Ellis observes that “Success with hydrogen is more like a marathon than a sprint.”

To succeed, all businesses must monitor their industry, looking for points of inflection that lead to a new paradigm. In talking with Larry Burns at the NHA conference he told me that he has seen the signs since 2001. 9/11, Katrina, and oil prices have signaled major changes. All the world’s major economies from the USA to China are highly dependent on imported oil. Dr. Burns now concludes that in 2008 we are at a tipping point.

He stated, “We truly are at a defining point in the development of the technology. What and how we execute over the next 5 years will shape the next 50 years!...Together, we must act rather than debate, create the future rather than try to predict it, and solve the challenges we face now rather than handing these challenges off to future generations.”

John Addison publishes the Clean Fleet Report. He will be leading a panel about PHEV and EV at the FRA Renewable Energy Conference and presenting “The Great Fuel Race�