New York City’s iconic Empire State Building, once the world’s tallest building, has been undergoing a multi-million dollar green renovation that will now extend to the power that’s used by the 102-story Art deco landmark’s tenants.

Malkin Holdings, which operates and maintains the 2.85 million square-foot office building has announced it will buy 100 percent of its power from a wind farm owned by Green Mountain Energy Company.

“It was a natural fit for us to combine 100 percent clean energy with our nearly completed, groundbreaking energy efficiency retrofit work,” said Anthony E. Malkin, President of Malkin Holdings, which runs the building, said in the announcement.

“Clean energy and our nearly 40% reduced consumption of watts and BTUs gives us a competitive advantage in attracting the best credit tenants at the best rents,” he said.

The two-year contract for 55 million kWh of renewable energy annually will prevent nearly 100 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions each year, the firm said.

Officials at Green Mountain Energy said that number is equal to the reduction that would be achieved if the lights were turned off in every house in New York State for a week or planting 150,000 trees.

The purchase is also more than double the amount of renewable power that any other commercial customer in New York City is currently buying

“We are extremely pleased that an icon like the world-famous Empire State Building made this important commitment to support renewable energy,” said Paul Thomas, CEO of Green Mountain Energy Company.
“This announcement is historic for many reasons. In addition to being the largest commercial consumer of green power in New York City, the Empire State Building’s renewable power purchase is now the largest purchase in our company’s 13-year history,” he said. “This demonstrates that Green Mountain can serve all sizes of commercial customers with renewable energy at a price they can afford, and that going green doesn’t have to be a trade-off.”

As part of its green retrofit of the Empire State Building, Malkin Holdings has hired Serious Materials to remove, retrofit and replace each of its 6,514 double-hung, dual-pane windows. It’s also adding insulation and other upgrades.

By: Todd Woody

The anemic economic recovery may have hit the dog days of summer with consumer spending and factory orders slowing, but the new energy economy continues to surge, according to a report released Tuesday by Ernst & Young.

Venture capital (VC) investment in renewable energy, electric cars, energy efficiency, and other green technology jumped to $1.5 billion in the United States in the second quarter of 2010, a nearly 64 percent spike over the second quarter of last year. Green tech investment now has returned to the record levels of the third quarter of 2008, before the global economic collapse shut down the VC’s ATM.

So where’s the money going? Between March and June, at least, investors hitched a ride with startups developing electric cars and the infrastructure to support them. Better Place, the Palo Alto company building electric vehicle charging networks around the world, snagged $350 million. Fisker Automotive, a Southern California startup building a sexy and pricy plug-in hybrid sports sedan called the Karma, scored $35 million, according to the report.

Solar remains a hot opportunity for venture capitalists, with nearly $439 million invested in the second quarter, a 183 percent increase from the year-ago quarter.

It’s no coincidence that the beneficiaries of investors’ largesse are also those startups that received federal loan guarantees to build big solar power plants. (Raising additional capital usually is a requirement for obtaining such federal loan guarantees.)

BrightSource Energy, for instance, secured a $1.37 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy to build its first solar power plant, now undergoing licensing in California. It then quickly raised $180 million from investors.

VCs also continue to pour cash — nearly $200 million in the second quarter — into energy efficiency startups, which tend to be far less capital-intensive than renewable energy companies.

So it’s a good time to go pitch that great green tech idea you’ve been kicking around, right?

Not necessarily. Ernst & Young notes that nearly 59 percent of investment in the second quarter went to so-called later-stage startups that are well on their way to rolling out products.

In other words, venture capitalists seem to be more interested in priming the pipeline for an initial public offering or acquisition that will produce a big pay day than in financing what green tech investor Vinod Khosla calls “science experiments.”

By: Brian Keane

As we near the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, what better time to take the pulse of the American people on solar energy?

For decades solar has been marketed to the American people as a product that is “good for the environment.” And indeed, it is good for the environment. The problem is, as a marketing and sales technique, simply being good for the environment won’t get you a lot of customers.

Fortunately, like Earth Day, the solar industry is growing up! We’re learning just how vital strong consumer research, solid messaging and aggressive marketing campaigns are to creating a vibrant solar market.

New consumer market research by my organization, SmartPower, shows that reducing one’s long-term energy costs is often more compelling to consumers than the obvious environmental benefits. In the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, this really shouldn’t surprise anyone — least of all President Obama, who clearly understands our country’s energy’s challenges. (His pledge of $3.4 billion in Recovery Act funds to modernize America’s electric grid seems to be just a first step toward modernizing our energy infrastructure.) But these good policies must be driven by a solid understanding of how to market solar energy to the American consumer.

So, in true David Letterman style, here’s our “Top Ten” list of solar findings:

10. Buying solar is seen as buying into a lifestyle — and it’s not an urban one.

Successful consumer brand products fit easily into your lifestyle — no matter what your lifestyle is. Coca-Cola is “the real thing” whether you’re single, married, young or old. Not so with solar power. Too often consumers feel that when they buy solar power they must also buy into — or change — their lifestyle. The thinking goes: “If I buy solar power, I must also have to buy organic . . . and start wearing hemp . . . ” In short, it conjures up every caricature of the environmental movement.

Furthermore, when asked to sketch their image of a “solar world,” survey respondents were more likely to draw a small house or cabin with solar panels in a woodsy, rural area, not a towering glass skyscraper covered in solar cells. And when asked to describe this drawing with words, variations on “quiet simplicity” were the norm. These quiet images reflect a concern that consumers do not see solar as up to the task of powering their energy-filled lives. “Sure,” they reason, “it could work way out in the middle of nowhere — but not where I live; not where I work.”

9. Where you live has a lot to do with your reasons for adopting solar.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there are regional differences in customer motivation. While 61 percent of Oregon residents surveyed said they were most motivated by environmental concerns — global warming, reducing fossil fuels, good stewardship of the planet — only 25 percent were most motivated by financial concerns. Conversely, only 23 percent of Arizona residents surveyed said the environment was their biggest motivator. 52 percent said they were most concerned with lowering monthly energy costs and reducing their energy costs over time.

8. Consumers are confused about solar power.

What happens on cloudy days? How do I measure how I’m doing once my solar panels are installed? How does billing work? What is net metering? These are among the many questions inspired by the prospect of committing to solar, although many survey respondents considered themselves “early adopters” who are comfortable with technology. Estimating monthly cost savings and understanding the applicable tax incentives are significant challenges for consumers, and many questions remain about the installation process — how to find an installer, for example, or how to select the right product for their needs (solar water heaters versus solar PV, or photovoltaic, panels).

7. There’s a lack of trusted experts and brands in the solar industry.

Where’s the Nike or Xerox of solar? Consumers need a guide — not just a recognizable household name, but also a respected resource who can answer their many questions. Most prospective solar buyers don’t know where to start the process and have few guideposts for evaluating installers. And in the absence of a trusted brand — or even a trusted friend — the consumer’s first action is to do nothing.

6. Upfront costs are a significant barrier.

Surprisingly, most people who have already bought solar laid out cash for their installations. Obviously, that’s not a possibility for most of us — and thus, the slow adoption rate of residential solar power. The good news: financing options do exist – 30 percent of those surveyed used home equity or loans from installers — and some installers now lease out solar panels. It remains unclear how much consumers know about these options, however.

5. Buying solar can be a long decision-making process.

Let’s not kid ourselves. No one wakes up on a given morning and decides to buy solar. Rather, a third of solar PV customers said it took a year or more of thinking about installing before they actually did it. Indeed, this is an improvement over three years ago, when 38 percent said the decision-making process took more than two years. The bottom line: It takes American consumers a long time to finally go ahead and purchase solar power. The industry needs to be patient and persistent!

4. Installers are key players in this process.

Solar customers like their installers: 86 percent said they would definitely or probably recommend their installer to someone else. And customers depend on installers for vital information: 62 percent of respondents in Arizona said they had heard about the utility company’s solar rebate from their installer. Only 24 percent said they had heard about the rebate through the power company, either by visiting its website or receiving a letter in the mail.

3. The Internet is a solar customer’s best friend.

Our solar customer is a web-savvy consumer, comfortable with using the Internet to find information. 68 percent of respondents used the Internet to learn about solar and installation issues. For solar PV customers, it was 78 percent. Furthermore, Americans are now living “in community,” both in their neighborhoods and on the Web. The online community is a real and valuable avenue to consumers.

2. In messaging, common sense trumps environmentalism.

This is a big one. Of five positioning statements tested with 12 focus groups, no one picked “Solar is good for the environment.” The clear favorites were “Solar makes energy sense” and “Solar is a good investment,” these being the messages that spoke most to consumers. In today’s society, consumers already understand the environmental benefits of solar power. We need to give them other messages that are more compelling.

And the number 1 surprising fact about solar energy today:

1. Most solar customers are older and financially stable.

Yep! The biggest purchasers of solar power today are rapidly becoming AARP members! It stands to reason — the kids are grown up, and what better legacy to leave than clean air, a healthy community and a strong solar market? AARP aside, 85 percent of solar PV customers are over 45 years old and 46 percent have household income that exceeds $100,000. And 38 percent of solar water heater customers have household income that exceeds $100,000. These demographics help sharpen target marketing efforts and give clarity to who makes up the solar customer base.

And there you have it: the Top Ten tools to breaking down barriers to solar power. Now, we have work to do. As you celebrate Earth Day this year, keep in mind that solar energy constitutes only .01 percent of today’s American energy market. .01 percent! We can — and must — do better. Let’s start building a robust solar market today.

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

By: Andre Amado

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently granted sugarcane ethanol the status of “advanced biofuel” after recognizing — based on scientific studies — that it reduces the emission of greenhouse gases by 61% when compared to gasoline.

The world’s top economy is justifiably concerned about climate change, which increasingly threatens the quality of life on our planet. We all know that without energy, there can be no development, but the production and use of energy and industrial activity are large carbon emitters. The greatest challenge of our times is precisely to try to reverse the current trend of environmental degradation without disrupting economic growth in its role of generating employment, particularly in developing countries where the most shameful pollution is poverty.

Brazil has much to say in this debate. In the 1970s, the response we gave to the sudden increase in oil prices, when the country imported about 80% of our fuel, came in the form of the Pro-Alcohol Program. With ups and downs, government, businesses and research centers engaged in developing a competitive fuel — sugarcane ethanol — which quickly proved to be the product with higher agricultural productivity, higher energy efficiency, and more opportunity for socially-inclusive development, as wages paid in the sugar-alcohol industry are the highest in farming.

At the same time, the adoption of flex-fuel technologies ignited the process that enabled Brazil not only to develop the world’s cleanest energy matrix — with a 46% share of renewable energy against a world average of 13% and just 6% in industrialized countries — but also to prevent releasing carbon emissions to the tune of 850 million tons since the Pro-Alcohol program was enacted. It is worth stressing that Brazil is now the only country in the world where gasoline — not ethanol — is the alternative fuel.

Therefore, the recognition sugarcane ethanol received by the EPA is not a surprise for us, and filled us with satisfaction.

But some analysts in the United States and Europe support the thesis that the production of sugarcane, accelerated by the success of ethanol, was displacing the growth of other food crops. This growth, they argue, pushed cattle ranching into extractive areas that, in this indirect land use change (ILUC), caused areas of native vegetation to be deforested. Of course, in the case of Brazil, they refer to the Amazon. This is an essential element in the current debate on the sustainability of biofuels.

The EPA’s announcement shows that Brazil is not the only one to say that — despite the theoretical ILUC possibility — sugarcane ethanol does reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, and acclaim it as an invaluable ally in the fight against climate change.

On August 19, 2009, in a major milestone for the scientific debate on biofuels, a meeting was held in Brasilia under the Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Cooperation on Biofuels between Brazil and the USA. The event was attended by about 50 experts in biofuels from both countries, who discussed aspects of the new U.S. legislation. Assisted by relevant ministries and government agencies, the private sector, Brazil’s Sugar Cane Industry Association (UNICA), and the academic community (including several universities and the Institute for International Trade Negotiations), it was clearly demonstrated that the new areas of sugarcane production in Brazil are located in areas that became underutilized due to the increased productivity in cattle ranching.

Last December, in a side event at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, the Brazilian Ministry of External Relations organized a seminar to highlight the contribution of sugarcane ethanol to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in cooperation with the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the National Institute for Space Research and UNICA. In the opening ceremony, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated the EPA’s keen interest in the Brazilian case, which we interpreted later as an indication of the direction their studies were taking.

The EPA’s announcement has opened up huge economic and commercial opportunities. The U.S. Congress has set a target for U.S. energy consumption to include 80 billion liters of “advanced biofuels” by 2022. Of these, 15 billion liters could come from sugarcane ethanol. Today, Brazil exports only 1.5 billion liters of this product to the United States.

Unlike oil, sugarcane is not pumped as needed. One has to prepare the land, plant the cane, harvest it and turn it into ethanol in a mill that takes three years to become operational. In spite of the recent financial crisis, which has affected investment, domestic and foreign entrepreneurs decided to bet on ethanol, even before the EPA’s announcement, as illustrated by the many joint ventures and acquisitions that have occurred in Brazil over the last few months.

These developments all provide much to celebrate, especially since, from now on, Brazilian ethanol will be recognized as the most competitive and cleanest global fuel option. New global opportunities for sugarcane ethanol also reinforce a fundamental principle of Brazilian foreign policy: that of socially-inclusive development. How many shortcuts could we have taken in the past in our efforts to fight social inequality and poverty, if developed countries were willing to share the technological advances they had achieved? Now, Brazil is determined to share our expertise in sugarcane ethanol production technology, installation, regulatory frameworks, and project management with other developing countries. We believe that the resulting reduction in oil consumption, increased local production of raw materials, bioelectricity generation from bagasse, job generation in poor societies, and the possibility of additional income from the export of surplus production generated by sharing this knowledge all translate Brazil’s diplomatic mission toward developing countries.

The announcement of this positive final position of the U.S. government on Brazilian ethanol is proof that the combination of serious scientific and entrepreneurial work and coordinated action from the government, private sector and scientific community is an unbeatable recipe. We succeeded through the unprecedented cooperation of institutions and private sector partners who worked toward the common goal of defending Brazilian interests abroad. This joint governmental and private sector effort was essential to generate awareness and understanding of the sustainability of ethanol produced and consumed in our country. In the three years since the Memorandum of Understanding was established, the close cooperation between Brazil and the United States has been able to generate positive results in order to materialize a shared vision by the two largest producers and consumers of biofuels in the world: the creation of an international market for ethanol and biodiesel.

By: Sean Casten

The smart grid conversation is stupid. Policies to encourage smart grids are at best minor distractions, and at worst contrary to the public interest. Smart grids are also the key to cleaning up and modernizing the electric system.

These sentences are not in conflict with one another.

The smart grid is the cart, not the horse. There is no doubt that better access to real time data could facilitate a much more rational use of our electric infrastructure, shifting usage patterns (both in time and in space) to reduce the costs of grid construction and operation. But we don’t need new technologies.

Don’t get me wrong — new technologies are great, and they’ll keep getting greater. But since when do we need to invent a way to share real time data? The internet is here — get used to it! I installed a biomass-CHP plant at a lumber mill in northern Vermont four years ago that included a $1000 bit of communication hardware to remotely monitor and control the unit through the ethernet. In so doing, that generator could participate in ISO-New England’s Forward Capacity Market, getting paid for avoiding new central generation and transmission assets. In other words, that system did everything that the Smart Grid is promised to do, with pretty cheap, off-the-shelf technology.

So why don’t I do that on every generator I build? Because there’s no money in it. ISO-NE created a regulatory structure where small loads had an economic incentive to reduce their peak demand, and folks like me went to Radio Shack, got the necessary bits and pieces installed and (pretty cheaply) provided a nice new service to the grid. You could cut the cost of that hardware package to $10 and I still wouldn’t do it on most of my installations, for the same reason I don’t send unsolicited $10 bills to utility executives. There’s no money in it.

That, then, is the conversation we ought to be having. Not about communication protocols, data-by-wire and sophisticated new grid switching technologies, but about reforming the policies to make it economically beneficial for consumers to manage their load. As Lynne Kiesling has consistently pointed out, the challenges for Smart Grid policy are transactional, not technological. Other than Lynne, no one talks about that. Which means we’re all talking about the wrong thing.

Some of this is the usual challenge of utility regulation — we don’t have a very good paradigm for electricity users to take on (however partially) grid management responsibilities. ISO-NE has shown the way, but it’s not coincidental that they are in one of the more deregulated parts of the electric system.

But the larger challenge is at the consumer level. Alfred Kahn has noted that we create regulated monopolies in order to create subsidies. And therefore, the political challenges to deregulation relate primarily to the process of subsidy removal (and associated wealth-transfers).

We create electric monopolies because we know that without them, the farmer at the end of the road is never going to be able to pay for grid access — so the monopoly builds the wire and recovers the cost across all rate payers. Fixing the transactional problems necessary to unleash Smart Grids requires first sailing into that problem. If I want you to buy a dryer with a chip that shuts off when power prices are high, I have to first change your tariff so that you pay more for power during certain times of day. Consumers with high mid-day loads won’t like that, for rather obvious reasons. Similarly, if I want to encourage load curtailment on a particularly congested part of the grid, I have to first charge more for power at that point.

Which brings me back to my little project in Northern Vermont. ISO-NE’s program was originally conceived as the Locational Installed Capacity (or “LICAP”) program. They were going to create a charge for peak capacity at every node on the New England power grid so that folks like me would make investments and shift their load accordingly. That would have massively raised power prices in southwest Connecticut — far and away the most congested part of the New England power grid. Connecticut politicians didn’t much like that, and fought back. Hard. The ultimate compromise was the current program, where anyone in New England gets paid the same amount to reduce a kW of demand during peak periods, be they in Stamford, Conn. or the nether corners of Maine. In other words, that generator I put in Vermont probably doesn’t deserve the benefits it’s getting. Call that a political compromise, call that a good first step … but don’t call it Smart.

By: Erich Pica

On Feb. 16, while President Obama was in Maryland announcing an $8.3 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantee for Southern Company to build two new nuclear reactors in Georgia, inspectors at the Vermont Yankee reactor were finding dangerously high levels of tritium, a radioactive cancer-causing chemical, in the groundwater near the plant.

The next week, the Vermont state Senate voted overwhelmingly to shut down Vermont Yankee when its current license expires in 2012.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas (R) called the timing of the nuclear loan guarantee announcement and the Vermont Senate’s decision “ironic.” More than just some coincidence, though, the Vermont Yankee situation demonstrates that from the mining of uranium ore to the storage of radioactive waste, nuclear reactors remain as dirty, risky, and as costly as they ever were. If President Obama’s recent enthusiasm for nuclear reactors has led you to believe otherwise, you’ve bought in to the administration’s greenwashing of nuclear.

President Obama has justified his proposed $55 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors by misrepresenting nuclear reactors as the largest “carbon-free” energy source in the United States. That’s like saying McDonald’s should be put in charge of a nationwide obesity campaign because it’s the largest restaurant in the U.S. that sells salads.

The argument that nuclear is “carbon-free” conveniently omits the entire process of mining uranium, which produces greenhouse gases, along with other pollutants. In Virginia, where a study has just been commissioned to determine its safety, uranium is mined in open pits. This destroys topsoil and increases runoff, which contaminates drinking water with cancer-causing toxins.

The uranium-enrichment process also emits greenhouse gases and is highly wasteful. Eighty percent of the ore that goes through the enrichment process ends up as waste. And this is to say nothing of the lye, sulfuric acid, and other caustic agents that must be used to turn the uranium into reactor-ready fuel.

While on the surface, the steam billowing from the cooling tower of a nuclear reactor is less harmful than the toxic smoke that spews from a coal plant, nuclear reactors still create byproducts that are dangerous to human health and welfare. There’s also the huge problem of radioactive nuclear waste, which can stay hot for hundreds of thousands of years. Storing the radioactive waste isn’t just a security threat; there’s potential for radioactive chemicals to leak, as they are in Vermont and at other aging reactors around the country.

Spent radioactive waste continues to sit at reactor sites and wait for a scientific breakthrough that is 50 years overdue. But a long-term waste storage solution doesn’t exist. The Yucca Mountain facility, the government’s radioactive waste repository project in Nevada, was marked by billions of wasted dollars, numerous legal challenges, and fundamental infeasibility. President Obama recognized Yucca Mountain’s failure and cut the funding for it in 2009. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu followed up by issuing a request last week to revoke Yucca Mountain’s application to be licensed as a waste repository.

In Maryland last month, President Obama told us the United States needs to build new nuclear reactors to keep up with France’s nuclear investments. But France has had its own problems with radioactive waste contamination. The government has had to close down entire rivers because of leaks.

In the same speech, President Obama also used China’s nuclear growth to greenwash his administration’s push for more nuclear reactors. But his argument doesn’t stand up. The United States already gets a greater percentage of its energy from nuclear reactors than China will after it reaches its target for nuclear growth, and China has pledged to invest even more toward increasing its solar and wind output. The goal of the United States should not be to build more nuclear reactors, but to make them irrelevant through our own investment in truly clean, renewable sources of energy.

In another inapt comparison, President Obama contrasted the emissions from a nuclear reactor with the emissions from a coal plant. But that false dichotomy ignores the cleaner and safer forms of renewable energy that exist and will do more to reduce greenhouse gases. Worldwide, renewables have actually outpaced nuclear reactors in energy capacity and fossil fuels in investment.

The $55 billion in taxpayer money the Obama administration wants to risk on more nuclear reactors would produce a far greater return if spent on truly clean, renewable energy. Building new nuclear reactors would be the most ineffectual method to reducing greenhouse gases, whereas building more wind turbines or installing more photovoltaic solar panels would not only do a better job at mitigating climate change, but would create more jobs. President Obama’s nuclear industry bailout instead pushes us back to the energy future of the 1950s and gives cover to the nuclear industry to continue to be lax on safety enforcement and lethargic in technological advancement.

President Obama has said that “environmentalists and entrepreneurs” should no longer retread the same arguments about nuclear energy. But Vermont Yankee shows us that there’s nothing new in nuclear that merits revisiting; clean and safe nuclear energy remains an “Atoms for Peace” pipedream. There may be a shiny green coat of paint on the cooling tower, but dangerous chemicals still leak from the pipes.

By: Ashley Braun

The internet loves mysterious product unveilings, especially those promising to revolutionize the world and how we live in it. (Think Apple’s iPhone.) But few (except for maybe the iPhone) actually live up to the hype. (Or so I hear. Anyone wanna get me an iPhone?)

CEO K.R. Sridhar is starting to peel back the layers of secrecy from his magic boxes like a Bloomin’ onion.

Now, after nearly a decade of secrecy, Bloom Energy CEO K.R. Sridhar is coming out of the shadows to tell the world how his “Bloom Box” will do all of this and more as a “zero-emissions” mini-power plant. Bloom Energy debuted its heady energy dreams in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes this past Sunday, with the company’s official launch to come on Wednesday at early customer eBay’s California headquarters. Google, Wal-Mart, and FedEx have also been quietly testing these heavily-subsidized magic boxes on their premises, with encouraging energy and cost savings thus far.

But, zero emissions? A backyard power plant-in-a-box? Sounds fancy, but what is a Bloom Box and is it really the next “energy breakthrough”?

The Bloom Box is a fuel cell, not an energy source.

According to CBS, it’s “a new kind of fuel cell, which is like a very skinny battery that always runs. Sridhar feeds oxygen to it on one side, and fuel on the other. The two combine within the cell to create a chemical reaction that produces electricity. There’s no need for burning or combustion, and no need for power lines from an outside source.”

But the box still requires a fuel source, which 60 Minutes interviewer Lesley Stahl glosses over in a few sentences:

To make power, you’d still need fuel. Many past fuel cells failed because they needed expensive pure hydrogen. Not this box.

“Our system can use fossil fuels like natural gas. Our system can use renewable fuels like landfill gas, bio-gas,” Sridhar told Stahl. “We can use solar.”

CNN’s Fortune Brainstorm blog explains things a little better:

“Hydrocarbons such as natural gas or biofuel (stored in an adjacent tank) are pumped into the Bloom Box—ceramic plates stacked atop each other to form modules that can be assembled into a unit of any size—and out comes abundant, reliable, cleaner electricity.”

(Take a look here for a few reasons natural gas isn’t always the “cleaner electricity” it’s made out to be.)

The Christian Science Monitor breaks down the “zero emissions” claims floating around:

“[Fuel] could come from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, or from traditional fossil fuels. In the latter case, CO2 is still being emitted by whatever power plant is feeding the Bloom Box. Rather than calling this new device “zero emission energy,” maybe it’s better to think of it as a booster pack for already-green sources and as an impressive new filter for dirty ones.”

Venture capitol blog VentureBeat hones in on some of the more interesting points about this invention:

“Right now, it’s available on a large scale, with each box costing as much as $800,000. In the next five to ten years, Bloom says it will release smaller boxes for individual households costing less than $3,000. If this happens, there is a chance that Bloom Boxes could [supplant] utilities and long-distance transmission lines—not to mention capital intensive wind farms and solar arrays.”

I could imagine these boxes perhaps replacing million-dollar-a-mile transmission lines, but I doubt the Bloom Box will electrify the power industry if it’s supposedly replacing many of the clean energy sources it would require for fuel.

And with this list of 10 Fuel Cell Startups Hot On Bloom Energy’s Trail, Earth2Tech emphasizes that Bloom isn’t the only company out there trying to master fuel cell technology: “In fact, stationary fuel cells—devices that chemically convert hydrogen into electricity and water, or hydrogen-containing fuels into power, water and various byproducts—are already a highly-populated industry.”

Here’s the best analogy I’ve come up with for the potential of the Bloom Box: It isn’t the internet; that would be the fuel, which may or may not be renewable. The Bloom Box is more akin to the wireless router—rather than the dial-up modem—that gets the internet to your laptop (aka your house). But right now it’s one heck of a pricey router.

This is the amount of investment Pike Research estimates could be generated by smart grid infrastructure worldwide between 2008 and 2015. Technologies for grid automation upgrades and smart metering will all represent a huge market opportunity over the next decade.

While electricity grids still remain a marvel of the 20th century, they are highly complex with millions of miles of distribution lines. However, unlike IT and communications networks, they still lack intelligence.

The need for improved reliability, security, and operating efficiencies, lower costs, a better balance between power supply and demand, and a reduction in the electrical system’s impact on the climate, are all factors that are contributing to the build-out of intelligent electricity networks or smart grids.

While significant technical, economic and regulatory barriers to this roll-out remain, government and industry bodies are coming together with urgency to drive the industry forward, and Pike Research forecasts that smart grid infrastructure will attract $200 billion in worldwide investment between 2008 and 2015.

Pike Research’s latest report entitled “Smart Grid Technologies: Networking and Communications, Energy Management, Grid Automation, and Advanced Metering Infrastructure” analyses the global market for smart grid technologies and applications, including advanced metering infrastructure, transmission upgrades, substation automation, distribution automation, energy management systems, and electric vehicle management, among others. The report examines utility business models, regulatory factors, technology issues related to smart grid networking and other areas, and the dynamics of end-user demand. It includes profiles and analysis of 70 key players in the rapidly evolving smart grid industry ecosystem, as well as detailed global market forecasts by 2015, segmented by region and application.

“Smart meters are currently the highest-profile component of the Smart Grid, but they are really just the tip of the iceberg,” says Pike Research’s Managing Director, Clint Wheelock. “Our analysis shows that utilities will find the best return on investment, and therefore will devote the majority of their capital budgets, to grid infrastructure projects including transmission upgrades, substation automation, and distribution automation.”

Pike Research forecasts that these grid automation initiatives will capture 84% of global smart grid investment by 2015, compared to just 14% for advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and 2% for electric vehicle management systems. The clean tech market intelligence firm also anticipates that smart grid revenues will peak in 2013 after several years of investments by key governments, and will thereafter tail off. Nonetheless, Pike forecasts, the smart grid market will still remain very substantial.

by Bruce Mulliken

Anyone in Washington who’s gearing up to promote a new energy package or climate change policy to the American people should read the BBC news story “Why do people often vote against their own interests?“

Anyone among the public who’s concerned about the log jam in Washington, how nothing can ever get done, should read the article as well.

The news story looks at the health care debate in the US, but an energy and climate change debate could get just as ugly. For instance, the story asks “Why are so many American voters enraged by attempts to change a horribly inefficient system that leaves them with premiums they often cannot afford?” and “Why are they manning the barricades to defend insurance companies that routinely deny claims and cancel policies?”

Similar questions could be asked about energy and climate. Why do people buy oil from nations that are opposed to American ideals? Why aren’t people concerned about long term changes in the weather when an unprecedented storm can ruin their lives?

In summary, the authors quoted in the story say that people generally don’t trust politicians, they don’t trust facts, figures and policy wonks, and they prefer a straightforward, folksy , funny story even if it’s wrong.

The message has to change, if any progress is to be made mitigating climate change or weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, oil and coal in particular.

At the top, from Washington, energy and climate bills have to be rethought that benefit everyone. That is, if people and businesses can’t either save or make money from cutting carbon emissions, the legislation is doomed for failure. It was a mistake for Obama to say that cap and trade would increase people’s utility bills. (Or whatever the exact quote was.) He can always do a complete flip and say cutting emissions can help save people money. (It can, by the way.)

But since Washington is generally mistrusted, selling the American public on a plan to cut fossil fuels and emissions has to come from organizations, businesses, pundits as well as person-to-person. Face-to-face, friend-to-friend is probably the best way.

Sometimes a quick quip in passing conversation with a friend or colleague is more effective than a long dialogue. Any conversation can turn to energy and climate at any time. Believers need to be ready to answer skeptics with a with swift but effective response:

— On buying imported oil: “I don’t like the idea of supporting countries that don’t share our ideals.”

— On buying imported oil: “I’d rather see the $800 million a day sent overseas for imported oil stay at home creating jobs.”

— On cutting electricity consumption: “I’d rather keep my money than give it to utilities.”

— On home renewable energy: “I’d like the independence of generating my own juice.”

— On driving small, efficient cars: “At least little cars can be fun to drive, easy to park.”

— On not driving a fuel hog: “I don’t need that much car.” (or truck or SUV)

— On adding insulation at home: “I like a warm, snug house. The more insulation the better.”

— On using mass transit: “Like they say, let someone else do the driving.”

— On driving a hybrid: ”Cutting edge!”

— On the buildup of greenhouse gases: “Well, it doesn’t surprise me. The atmosphere is so thin.”

— On global warming in general: “You know, a degree warmer doesn’t sound like much, but it makes the difference between ice and water, glaciers or running water.”

— On radio and TV pundit comments: “I’d rather read what people have to say. I wish they’d back up their remarks in print.”

— On stronger hurricanes: “I hope that isn’t true. Unfortunately only time will tell.”

— On rising oceans: “Me, I prefer not to live too close to the water, just in case.”

— On climate mitigation: “We need a good dose of good ol’ American ingenuity to figure this one out. I think we can.”

— On emissions in general: “Where does all that stuff from tailpipes and smokestacks go, anyway?

— On new energy technologies: “You’ve gotta love the entrepreneurial spirit.”

The above may stop the conversation in its tracks. Or not. Be ready.

Both energy and climate are complicated issues that need to be dealt with. But people seem to want simple answers. “Why now?” they asked on health care. “Why now?” they’ll ask on energy and climate. On those questions the message needs to change. It needs to tell a better story. And soon.

It is a criticism frequently leveled at those promoting wind or solar power as an alternative to fossil fuels: what happens when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine?

Well, now there is a smart answer, at least in Europe — we’ll simply and instantly switch to another source of clean, green power.

Plans for a massive electricity grid dedicated to uniting the varied sources of renewable energy available in northern Europe have taken a step forward in January as nine countries formally agreed to work together on the project.

Using thousands of miles of high-tech undersea cables the ’supergrid’ will unite wind farms on blustery British coasts with Dutch and Belgian tidal power, the vast hydroelectric potential of Norway fjords and Germany’s massive solar arrays.

Read The Rest Of This Post