State seeks clean tech ideas

There's money and interest out there. One of the big issues is called out in the article:

"California has traditionally had a hard time getting venture capital companies involved with such committees because of the numerous meetings, legal requirements and piles of paperwork associated with the government, Nichols said."

Amen. Entrepreneurs don't like bureaucracy.

State seeks clean tech ideas to back - Sacramento Business Journal:

A committee tasked with increasing renewable energy sources in California is looking for a few good clean technology projects.

The Economic and Technology Advancement Advisory Committee wants green energy innovators in California to submit plans and products to increase renewable energy sources, said Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California State Air Resources Board, Wednesday at Santa Clara University at the "Clean and Green" community forum held by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

Nichols said proposals will be considered for potential inclusion in a draft plan submitted to her at the end of the year by the committee. "We will spend hundreds of thousands of staff hours combing through the ideas," she said.

The major benefit of such a group is that it compiles the best ideas from competing technology firms to the best public use -- and the companies can still profit, she said.

One idea out of the six-month-old group, headed by Alan Lloyd and Bob Epstein, is to create a clean-energy park, Nichols said.

Data now shows where solar, wind and other alternative sources of energy exist, but she said the group needs to find overlaps so a park can be created where several sources work at once to make a constant energy source. The state also needs to find better forms of energy storage, she said.

About 18 percent of the state's energy comes from renewable sources today, she said. The goal is 50 percent.

California has traditionally had a hard time getting venture capital companies involved with such committees because of the numerous meetings, legal requirements and piles of paperwork associated with the government, Nichols said.

"That's the opposite of what these industries tend to do," she said. "We need new ways of partnering that have not been tried before. They can help us think through what are the most effective ways to help us that still helps them make money."

Report: VC investments in clean tech surge - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal:

Report: VC investments in clean tech surge - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal:: "Report: VC investments in clean tech surge Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal

Global venture capital investments in clean technology companies surged to $1.1 billion in the first six months of 2007, according to a report released Wednesday. The mid-year research by Ernst & Young and Dow Jones VentureOne predicted that venture capital investments in clean technology companies are now on track to increase by more than 35 percent in 2007 as compared to 2006. The largest number of investments was in the U.S., with 71 deals closed in the first six months of 2007 raising more than $893 million. European investments are set to reach or even exceed 2006 levels, with 19 deals and $80 million invested in the first six months of 2007, the report said. 'Although venture capital investments in clean technology companies in China and Israel are still nascent, we expect that they will continue to accelerate,' said Jessica Canning, Director of Global Research with Dow Jones VentureOne. In terms of segment focus, solar is dominant in the U.S. and alternative fuels are on the rise. The report said that in the U.S., solar investments accounted for 15 of 26 deals and $305 million of $458 million raised in the energy generation segment."

This sounds somewhat like what we are seeing in the region. Hey, here's an idea, see a lot of these companies at the upcoming Sacramento Region Clean Energy Showcase on October 11 at UC Davis. Register by going to cleanstart.org.

Can green living and the HOA live in harmony?

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal, here, on a situation where a homeowners association threatened legal action against a resident for drying he laundry outside on a clothesline. According to the article washing/drying clothes is the #3 consumer of energy in a home after refrigerators and lights.

Wonder how Sacramento HOA's would feel about this. Any want to weigh in? Would be great to see some HOA's that are helping make the neighborhood a better place and helping home values that way. Hmmm....I live in an area, Serrano, with a particularly strong HOA, I think I might have to have a talk with them.

Might be interesting to have someone from the California Association of Homeowners Associations, at the Sacramento Region Clean Energy Showcase on October 11 at UC Davis.

Lots of media coverage of the big Green event in Davis!

This week, AlwaysOn is putting on a huge GoingGreen event in Davis. Hundreds of companies, thousands of people and almost no companies from the Sacramento area, other than Synapsense which just announced a solid new funding round and its very cool Wireless Green Data Center and Jadoo Power. Why? Clint Swett has an article here, that covers that.

My take is that this was a Silicon Valley event that used UC Davis' reputation as an innovator as a backdrop without actually engaging the community here.

CNET has a full wrapup of news and coverage from the event here.

For an event about Green tech with a Sacramento region focus, check out the Clean Energy Showcase at UC Davis, on October 11. Tickets available here.

Gary Simon, Dalian Day Three

The main theme today was biofuels and their conflict with food production. The most searing moment was the collage of pictures of starving children with the caption “Why do you need my food for your fuel?” The conflict between food and biofuel is simply assumed at this point. It doesn't need to be that way. Everyone is focused on variations of ethanol as the only biofuel worth consideration. This is of course madness. There are many other, better biofuels involving microbes that will make liquids similar to gasoline instead of ethanol, plus purely thermochemical techniques that will take any biomass and make liquid fuels. All of these have higher energy efficiencies and greater biofuel yields than ethanol production from corn, whether the grain or the stalk.


I made the comment at one session that ethanol was not chosen as a biofuel solution after careful screening. It was just an idea hatched to aid corn farmers and then it just grew and grew. Ethanol is not a particularly good fuel. It sucks moisture from the air and rusts ordinary steel containers and distribution pipelines, so needs special transport. It makes rubber seals on existing vehicles swell and fail prematurely, requiring rebuilding of engines and fuel tanks. And of course on a net energy basis it is no great winner. In contrast taking wastes to gasification and then to synthesis of liquid fuels is much better. Those products can blend with existing fuels and no infrastructure would need to be changed or protected. If the US and other countries want a rational biofuel solution, they need to start with a rational selection process. And many feedstocks for the biofuel can be chosen which avoid the conflict with food production, and many conversion processes can be chosen that have superior yields of liquid fuels per Btu of feedstock.



So in essence, the US promotion of ethanol is like seeking to improve public health by subsidizing cigarettes because it helps tobacco farmers. There is as little connection in that case between the policy and the goal as there is in the case of ethanol and reducing imports and greenhouse gases. And now with the opposition of cattle ranchers and chicken ranchers to a policy which has dramatically increased their price of feed corn, it is clear that the US ethanol subsidy is being exposed as a bad idea.



Unfortunately, the rest of the world is swayed toward ethanol because the US is doing it. And several hundred ethanol plants are in operation or being built in the US, making it difficult now to end the ethanol subsidy without huge disruptions to workers, investors, and companies. So there is a need for a broad dialog on what to do about biofuels and the many issues it raises. That dialog may conclude there is a need to phase out of the ethanol subsidies quickly.



The discussion identified ten issues that were central to the biofuel debate: GHG policy, water use, soil degradation, biodiversity, technology R&D, local and national laws, economic development, rural incomes, air quality, and of course the conflict with food production. The one area on which the group felt progress could be made quickest and with the least need for finding a new consensus among firmly entrenched interests was in accelerating biofuel R&D. Not just any R&D, but that which focuses on approaches with high yields, high energy efficiencies and which favor non-food feedstocks and wastes.



These conclusions fit extremely well with the agenda for action in the Sacramento region, which has excellent R&D resources and groups already pushing for the non-food-based biofuels.



The final session of the day considered where the tipping points are in our energy future—things that will trigger an avalanche of change and are perceivable on the horizon. On the list were (1) more effective delivery of energy efficiency (having your incandescent bulbs changed to CFLs for you, rather than giving you rebates to buy CFLs and install them yourself; putting wireless controls on all refrigerators and air conditioners in homes and offices when built, rather than back-fitting them); (2) confirmation that carbon dioxide sequestration in deep geologic formations works and is economical and safe; (3) empowering individuals to make a difference through ways to purchase credits for renewable energy and carbon reductions directly and at small scale; and (4) significant reductions in the cost of solar PV.

Day 2 from Gary Simon at Dalian, World Economic Forum

Today was a session on the world economy, not specifically on energy like Day One. One big topic of discussion was where the engine of growth is in the US economy would be in the future. The feeling was that the economy had been growing by people leveraging existing assets and then selling those assets at a higher value to pay off the debt. This is the whole story in commercial and residential real estate. Clearly there now is a shrinkage in the amount of debt available to sustain this scheme because of the sub-prime loan debacle. This is not likely to abate any time soon, meaning in the next two years.

Therefore, the only other major engines of growth are (1) importing jobs through things like opening Toyota manufacturing plants in Kentucky, or (2) constant innovation--most likely in clean tech and life sciences, with computer/software tech about at a plateau. In fact, the peak in computer & software VC investment was in 1995 with $4B in VC money invested. In 2007, clean tech VC investment will equal or exceed this amount. That's a huge shift. The feeling here is that the loss of opportunity in leveraging existing real estate estates will in fact accelerate the trend to invest in clean tech and life sciences. Very interesting positive trend for us.



It also is a great validation of the push for the region to invest in clean energy and clean tech in general. However, big problem. To fuel a high-tech economy we need a lot of scientists and engineers. The US is graduating 60,000 engineers per year. China and India combined are graduating 600,000 engineers. Guess where the innovation economy is going to move. And because of tightened immigration since 9/11, we are forcing out the science and engineering students who come here from overseas and want to stay, but cannot meet the new rules. As a result they are deported. This is a really stupid result.



The afternoon was spent hearing about the new economy based on on-line communities. I had no idea. There are over 5000 sites like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. And thousands more are being created every day. Increasingly this trend is being harnessed for business. I am not sure I fully understand how, but I do understand a lot of people are beginning to think about it and do it. Our challenge is to use this new tool to promote clean energy in Sacramento. At a minimum getting our own "Sac Clean Tech Wiki" seems like what we need to do. Harness it to create a directory of clean tech in the region, and resources useful to clean tech. We need a 14 year old to help us do this. I can barely comprehend what was being discussed.


About the context here, "The East is Red" used to be the refrain from this land. Now it must be that "The Sky is Brown." Wow, they need to discover cleaner diesel buses, and CNG buses as well. The diesel exhaust mixed with the coal smoke creates a pretty powerful brew. Interestingly, hardly any Chinese smoke cigarettes. Probably a good thing. They are inhaling quite a dose as it is. Apparently the government said it was very bad for health, so don't do it. And people listened. The big contrast is with Japan, where everyone smokes. I think I prefer the coal smoke over the cigarette smoke.

There will be more energy discussion on Day Three, so stay tuned.

Gary Simon in Dalian for World Economic Forum

Gary Simon, chair of CleanStart, is sending us dispatches from his experience in Dalian, China where he is presenting at an event put on by the World Economic Forum.

His full text is below. Very, very interesting stuff!
--------
When you get off the airplane in Dalian, a large coastal city, you can smell the economy in the air. It smells like smoke from uncontrolled coal power plants. That story is repeated all over China, where one large coal power plant is completed every two weeks. That's no exaggeration.



China is facing a bit of a crisis. Every time they remove a restriction on the economy, wealth increases and the people buy more stuff. And a lot of what they want requires POWER. Every dollar in added GNP is adding 5 times the amount of energy demand that it does in the US and Europe, because of two things: One, they have a lot of catching up to do in an economy that was chronically short on power; and two, they are not using the energy very efficiently. There is a lot of waste.



Previous to this year, the goal of this still-central-planned economy was GDP growth. Now this year the Premier has added energy efficiency as a goal, and mayors of big cities and provincial governors faced being sacked if they don't reduce energy waste. Now there's an incentive to do better. But oops that is an about-face from the goals of just a few months ago. No point growing an economy if the people choke on the air, though.



The World Economic Forum, the sponsor of this conference, has as its goal "Committed to Improving the State of the World". Pretty ambitious goal. And they are darn serious about it.



Today's session of "Davos in Dalian" was about two things--China and Energy, and The Individual and Energy. Both were wildly interesting. China is quickly outgrowing its energy resources, and that's not a good thing. It makes them want to strike unilateral deals where ever necessary to get more oil and gas. They have lots of coal...but, gag.... So they are not choosy about where to get the "cleaner" oil and gas. Or what they have to promise in order to get it. Not a good thing for cooperation among nations.



China had the opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the West in wasting energy, just as it had the opportunity to build a modern wireless phone network and skip all the poles and wires. It has seized on the latter and done well. Cellphones work better here than in the US. But it missed the first. Now they are trying to catch up on that as well. Now they understand why that was important. Researchers from UC Berkeley's Lawrence Lab spent many years over here teaching the benefits of energy efficiency. Didn't get it. Until now.



So there is now tremendous opportunity for those who provide energy efficiency services or who have efficient energy devices. It is the local government that likely will be the driving force behind making the switch.



The marvelous hotel in which this conference is being held was built a decade ago. It is not particularly energy efficient, but it is stunning. Compact fluorescent lamps are in the rooms, but hundreds of incandescents are the rule in the big ballrooms. When asked why not CFLs everywhere, the answer was they didn't have time to respecify the standard design for these chain hotels they got from the West. They needed the hotel space ASAP. Hmmm. We in the West gave them some of our bad habits. Shame on us.



Same answer on why not build coal plants with at least minimal controls. Nice idea, but no time to waste. Needed the plant on line. Emission controls, even minimal ones, just delayed the plant start-up. Hmmm. Why the big rush? The revolution of rising expectations. People demanded the power. To keep the peace, they got the power....and the pollution.



But now there seems to be an emerging balance between considering new supply and looking to reduce waste. That's a big change and it has lots of consequences, even in geopolitics.



The subject of The Individual and Energy was all about how the determination of the energy future is more being determined by local and personal decisions than by national governments. This was worldwide, not just in China. All national governments seem to be in policy gridlock. The first discussion was on the role of cities in going green, and bypassing the national policy stalemate. A compelling case was made that in order to "improve the state of the world" on energy, it may be more productive to encourage cities (being closer to the individual) to become more energy efficient and clean and green, than debating national leaders. The formula is basically that efficient, clean, and green energy makes a more sustainable city and a sustainable city is a more prosperous city in the long run. There is by this logic a direct connection between clean, green, efficient energy to quality of life to quality of work. It is in cities' best interests to pay attention to this logic. That was a novel thought.



To match with that insight, the World Economic Forum is creating the Slim Cities Project (read it carefully--not Sim City, the game, but Slim City with an "L"). The idea is to give cities the tools, the ideas, the examples to "slim down" their energy use, their carbon footprint, and their environmental impact in general. Then their progress would be measured and they would be awarded status as a Silver, Gold or Platinum Slim City. If the public buys the idea of a Slim City as the High Quality City, then the residents of a city would push to become the best Slim City possible. Interesting concept.



Then today I read in the Bee on-line that Sacramento wants to be among the cleanest cities. Interesting convergence of ideas. Becoming a World Economic Forum Platinum Slim City would give Sacramento (and the region if other cities join in) a much taller platform from which to shout its achievements and display is commitment. In the upcoming October 11 Clean Energy Showcase, it would be good to consider the idea of the cities in the region joining the WEF Slim Cities Project. We would be joining the city of Xi'an (the city of the Terra Cotta Warriors fame) whose Mayor made an impassioned argument in favor of the Slim City as the High Quality City, Stockholm and others. Pretty good company in which to find ourselves as a pioneer and a way for Sacramento to differentiate itself from the other Clean Energy Cities.



The next topic was how information technology could be empowering individuals directly to create the energy future they want. Through the ability now to purchase "green credits" for renewable energy, "white credits" for improving energy efficiency, and "carbon credits" for reducing CO2 emissions, individuals can actually direct money to the projects that increase renewable energy, increase energy efficiency, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Individuals no longer need to wait for governments to act. They have the power themselves. That was an important message and pretty powerful. It is all possible because these credits have been created, can be traded by Wall Street types, and actually are meaningful--so long as there are some basic standards for determining what qualifies for the credits.



But how do individuals buy these credits? They are not something you can pick up at the grocery---at least not yet. But that is possible. And here is an even more intriguing idea: Ever pull into a gas station, insert your credit card, and have a question pop-up "Add Car Wash?". Sure you have. What if a second option popped up: "Want to offset the carbon dioxide emissions your tankful will create?" On the order of $1 extra would offset the CO2 impact of a 15 gallon fill-up. Where would your money go? It would pay for projects, maybe even in China, to decrease carbon dioxide emissions that are occuring now. Pretty cool. Sure, someone would have to market the heck out of that to get people to actually press "Yes", but maybe that is something the Sacramento regional governments could ask the big oil companies to install. BP had a presentation showing the first station in LA that did exactly that. And it was a beautiful station, powered by solar and with a gorgeous bath room. Now people drive extra miles just to fill up there and use the 'loo.



So, come on Sacramento, let's get BP to put a Helios station in our area like the one in LA...and reprogram all those pumps to add a dollar for stopping climate change. And then let's get Shell and Chevron to do the same. Let's get a marketing campaign. We have had "Get Change Back from your Dollar at McDonald's". How about "Stop Climate Change with your Dollar"? That would put Sacramento on the map in a meaningful way. The cleanest, greenest city in the world? Why not go for it?



Three more days of Dalian this week, but not all on energy, regrettably. More tomorrow.

CleanStart Chair Presenting to World Economic Forum in China! Right now!

Gary Simon, the chairman of Sacramento's own CleanStart and Acumentrics, is right now on his way to China to present to the World Economic Forum. The current meeting is in Dalian, China.

This is a big deal for the Sacramento area’s push to be recognized as a world leader in clean technology. The World Economic Forum is held each year in Davos, Switzerland and attracts world leaders to discuss pressing issues.

Mr. Simon is going to be talking about his company and Sacramento’s efforts to encourage the growth of companies that promote and create green energy and technology. He will also be talking about the upcoming Sacramento Region Clean Energy Showcase, scheduled for October 11 at UC Davis.

If youa re interested in attending or sponsoring the event, please send an email to Ingrid Rosten at info@cleanstart.org.