Why Carbon trading is garbage and the moral imperative

Green Wombat has an interesting blog post on the validity of carbon offsets.

Here's an excerpt:

Carbon offsetting is controversial, slammed by some as a "papal indulgence" that allows consumers to ease their conscience for a pittance without actually changing their behavior. For their part, corporations get to look green without directly reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

This is an interesting perspective on carbon trading. While I understand the economics behind carbon trading, it fundamentally never made sense to me. It leads to no usable endgame.

The theory is that these carbon credits will help fund renewable, carbon-free technologies. What doesn't make sense is that this should eventually be a declining market.

The real failure, then, is the claim that the renewable projects actually reduce carbon emissions. They don't. No where in this equation are we shutting down coal plants and using less gasoline (the primary causes of CO2 emissions). Adding a wind mill and a solar panel just means we're producing more power - not stopping carbon emission. They're claiming an off set when in reality it's just an addition of electrical supply.

This is perfectly fine, but it doesn't make more sense than say, creating a market for reducing emissions. My take on the matter (as I said in my previous post) is to fine companies for polluting - with the eventuality of banning it entirely. This is how we handle all other environmental impact measures. Why should this be different? It creates a financial incentive - effectively increasing the cost of using a particular technology like gasoline or coal burning.

More so it places the burden of the social cost of CO2 pollution on the polluters themselves. That's a completely financially fair way of managing the impact of this. It keeps the cost of the crime at the point of impact - at the polluter - instead of putting it through a program like carbon trading (i.e. inserting inherent organizational friction). Further, if you believe that the overall cost impact of carbon in the future is higher than it is today, then carbon trading allows you to pollute today at today's carbon prices instead of future carbon prices - the price at which the so-called carbon mitigating project is implemented in the future.

I'm not a genius or anything, but that sounds like Wimpy economics ("I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today").

The moral imperative: Carbon guilt
I sound too harsh. My real feelings on the matter are: whatever. Try something. But I have a bigger issue with carbon trading services in general. Fundamentally, they're based on guilt mitigation from customers. This VirginBlue carbon credit, TerraPass, and others are predicated on guilt.

Guilt? We don't buy any other product based on guilt. We buy them on their inherent value. CF light bulbs save me money. That's why I use them. I drive less because gas in California is ridiculously expensive. But why would I pay TerraPass to build a wind mill some where instead of just try to drive less. Driving less would save way more CO2 and way more than $30. So whats' the deal?

The guilt gives us an excuse to not have to change our lifestyle. And that, is the fundamental key in this whole debate about CO2 emissions. We know it's our fault, but we don't want to change. It's too costly, too invasive, too expensive. It's also too important to ignore. And we know it.

Look, we know how this story is going to unfold. Figuring out that CO2 is causing global warming was like when Luke Skywalker found out Darth Vader was his father. It's plainly obvious that Luke has to kill his father, but not without some personal reconciliation first. Carbon trading is not that reconciliation. At some point, we have to admit that we can't emit CO2 anymore and have to shut down / convert all of our emitting sources. Carbon trading serves more as a distraction to this process. As a society we need to come to that realization sooner rather than later. We're almost there.

The ethanol transportation issue

The Financial Times has an interesting article on the transportation issues regarding ethanol.

Here is an excerpts:

All this would take considerable investment: "Building a dedicated ethanol pipeline system from the Midwest to the coasts over such along distances would be prohibitively expensive."

Environmentalists are, nonetheless, eager for such a pipeline to establish a system for when cellulose ethanol will, it is hoped, be developed. Until then, the problem will be finding investors to build it.

This is a bit of an understated issue with ethanol. There are a few core technical reasons why ethanol can't be used in pipelines. Mostly its corrosive and it absorbs water. Those are bad news. Building a new pipeline would require higher quality steel (stainless) and that's costly - even at 'Chinese dumping' prices. So the point made in the article is certainly a valid one.
I personally believe this reason alone should make ethanol a no-go. While I'm sure the railroads would love the business, they're not really capable of handling the loads. We have supply issues now with only 6Billion+ gallons of ethanol. If we double this amount (and then double it again) in the coming years, our rail system may not be able to keep up.

So what should be done?
But all else being equal, the easiest way to roll-out a new fuel base is to use the current pipelines. They're already there. They're paid for. And we have a lot of intellectual knowledge on how to use them. So the problem in my mind is with ethanol, not the distribution infrastructure.

Butanol and synthetic diesel (from coal to liquids) could be placed in the existing pipelines making them better long-term solutions. Biodiesel can also be transported by pipeline, although it has its own set of issues. The implications, however, is what is to happen with all of the ethanol plants. We have made a big bet on an inferior product. That by itself isn't so much a problem as where to go from here.

The hope is that if the oil industry adopts a fuel other than ethanol (even ethanol producers think butanol is a good choice), then can existing facilities be adapted to make butanol? That's a bit of a question now. All the standard biofuels questions apply - feedstock, location, process technologies, etc. I always believe the engineering can be done as long as the technology is sound. So changing over processes might not be any more painful than, say, making a transition from corn to cellulosic ethanol.

But that is a critical part of this dilemma. If butanol, for example, becomes the end-game choice (and let's even say that everybody, including corn farmers are happy about it and get a piece of the action), then at what point will we have spent too much on ethanol? If butanol commercialization is 10 years away, then should we not build out more than, say, 10 Billion gallons of ethanol capacity? At some point, the transitional cost for the industry becomes prohibitively high - just as it has become with our pipelines. A transition, at some scale of the ethanol industry, may not be economically feasible.

That's a risk factor that ethanol producers will ultimately have to face. I think the real market leaders will be those that are able to incorporate these risks into their business plan. ADM, POET, and others seem as though they're fairly knowledgable and capable companies. Some startups like Mascoma and Verenium seem pretty level-headed as well. So barring a disaster, I'd bet that the leaders of this market will be able to manage through the turbulence.

GMC Yukon Hybrid looking good

The San Jose Mercury News reported a successful test drive of the 2008 GMC Yukon (Chevy Tahoe) Hybrid. A Hybrid SUV might sound like an oxymoron, but it will probably have a much bigger impact on reducing gasoline demand than smaller vehicles. It's important to note that while SUVs seem gratuitous, there are people who get a lot of benefit out of them. So a successful big SUV Hybrid

If anything, the driving experience of the GMC Yukon 2-mode hybrid was even more seamless than in other hybrids I've driven. It's all pretty complex, considering that the vehicle also includes GM's Active Fuel Management (AFM) system that cuts out half of the V-8's cylinders when they're not needed.

This report gives me some updated data to add to high level comparison of hybrid cars a few weeks back. In particular, some mileage and pricing data should be helpful. The article notes:

The 2008 2WD GMC Yukon with a 5.3-liter V-8 gets 14 mpg in the city and 20 mpg on the highway, according to the government's www.fueleconomy.gov Web site. Using Bly's numbers, that means the hybrid (which uses a 6.0-liter V-8 for better low-end torque) ought to get 19 to 20 mpg in the city and 21 or 22 mpg on the highway. The vehicle is undergoing certification right now, he says.

and goes on to say:

Prices haven't been announced, but expect the hybrid versions of the Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon to be similar to those of its top-line gasoline trim levels. For Chevy, that's the Tahoe LTZ at $45,680. For GMC, that's somewhere between the $39,890 Yukon SLT and the $49,910 Yukon Denali.

These numbers are slightly worse than anticipated, but are still quite respectable. So its comparison to the entry-level standard models should look something like this:




I should re-iterate that these numbers aren't terribly rigorous. They're merely a way of looking at two variables (mileage and up front cost) to see if hybrids deliver some additional inherent values. While most do just fine, the ones that struggle are the ones that give insight (the Honda Accord Hybrid most notably).

The Yukon/Tahoe's numbers look okay. The additional price could stand to be a little cheaper. But for the narrow perspective of this analysis, it's a good entry for this size SUV.

Jim Cramer comments on the Ag industry

Jim Cramer has critical words about the condition of the agriculture industry.

Click to view video.

And as all things Jim Cramer, you need to hear it direct from his mouth.

Energy Essay 2: Proposal and Ramifications

So if fixing the global climate issue was a McKinsey assignment, what would they do? Well, it turns out they've thought a lot about this issue and have done research on it. (Amory Lovins refers to this research in a series of lectures he gives to Stanford University last Spring).

My own solution is a little simpler (and perhaps a bit on the stupid side): fine polluters.

No, not carbon trading. Not REC purchasing. Stop emitting CO2. Period. No fine print. No details. Ban it. Like steroids in baseball and dodgeball in elementary school.

I'm sure my professors at Stanford are having heart attacks at this very moment. But hear me out.

Why?
The short answer: the social costs are too high and have grave impacts to the future of the world economy (economy in the context of individuals able to create access to necessities to live - not in the context of having the opportunity to make money).

Government policy is supposedly supposed to constructed in the best interest of the people of a particular country/state. Well, this particular climate change issue has really skirted what has been done in the past with similar issues. The U.S. has a long history of companies polluting communities and having to pay to clean them up. There are fines and permitting in place to manage these issues. We've done what I'm suggesting before - but we're not beating on this drum this time. And there's a reason for it.


We've done it before
CO2 emissions have an extreme social cost. It has shown real effects on our planet (that we are measuring today, not sometime in the future). It has serious health effects (if you have any doubt of the potential severity, visit Beijing or Shanghai). These were the same reasons to tackle acid rain, ozone depletion, MTBE, and even child labor. These are all instances when there were non-market, government-related sanctions put in place that addressed these problems. In fact, these are considered big successes in regulatory affairs. And I don't know anyone has noticed that we don't use CFCs anymore. I don't know anyone who isn't happy that we don't create acid rain (SO3 pollution). And most Americans are hopping mad about children actually working anywhere in the world. And lest we forget that we fought our bloodiest war over slavery - primarily over its moral and economic implications to our society.

So what's the problem with CO2 emissions? Why is there such a lack of energy policy for such a critical issue? We've banned things like this before. What's the deal?

There's a lot to say on this point, but let's just sum it up with the word "politics". Or perhaps, the lack of politics. The government is still supposed to reflect the will of the people. And I'm pretty sure the people of the United States (I'm sure any other country can insert their name here) don't want to destroy the environment and create severe health effects. But there are two issues complicating the matter:
1) CO2 pollution is a by product of energy production which is directly correlated with economic growth
2) Industries that pollute (oil & gas, power producers) have a huge vested interest in maintaining the status quo and have strong influence on political representatives

The details of these two realities are that (1) is predicated on the notion that energy use requires pollution (it doesn't really; it's a technological choice) and (2) No company is above the law such that it ought to be legally able to knowingly destroy citizens' environment.

Am I being too radical?
Probably. Fining CO2 emitters could be chaotic. I mean, we really don't have many alternatives. But I'm not much of a doomsdayer. I think we'd all live through it and be better for it.

We're already seeing policy movements towards this end. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the EPA the legal leyway to regulate auto emissions. This was rather underreported by the press (compared to the coverage the iPhone got anyways) and could have far-reaching ends in the hands of a more progressive administration.

In June, the California Energy Commission effectively banned any new power developments that burned coal and emitted CO2 (essentially endorsing a coal-fired gasification process for generating power). That not withstanding we've seen designs from SoCal Edison and BP for similar power-producing designs through gasification of hydrocarbons.

Big bad PG&E - the faceless, monolithic villain of the movie Erin Brochovich - is winning awards for its clean energy development programs (well deserved I think).

So although we probably don't have enough political will to demand that corporations that pollute, there is enough rationale for corporations to stop emitting of their own volition. Fining would just dramatically tip the scales, I think. If that happened, we'd see a real explosion in the adoption of clean tech - not just these small science projects that get so much press.


If the market is moving on this why regulate it through Doug's crazy fines?

There are a couple reasons:

(1) You could argue that the fines are really a right-pricing measure. Essentially the dialogue about global warming/climate change has ramification on the pricing of how much we pay for these resources. So now days we pay for both health effects and electricity. But we don't want to pay for the health effects (and you get into dubious arguments about causation). But the fines would essentially be a form of "right-pricing" these impacts on the environment. Producing electricity without polluting, then, would be a money saver for all involved.

(2) Private industry only has a mild reason - mostly PR - to embrace so-called green technologies. A fine would make it real. "Go clean or go out of business, signed The U.S. Citizens". Any shareholder could respect that. And some are already requiring it. At the moment, we're only tiptoeing down this road. I would argue that we could make more money faster if there were more urgent reasons to develop and adopt new technologies.

(3) Some companies don't really believe global warming is a problem. Neither do many politicians (I can name some if you're interested but I'm not into putting people on blast in my blog). And that's the real insidiousness to all of this. Companies are claiming they're going "green" when they're really not. They're trying to weather bad publicity with adopting facades of green adoption. But much like the Wizard of Oz, they will be uncovered in the long run. My fining strategy would serve mostly to uncover these organizations and expose them. And hopefully put them out of business.

The caveat: The problem is a game of chicken. You can just go shutting down power producers - we need the electricity. But in the end, I'm pretty sure that corporations would back down to politicians. The question is weather or not we have brave enough politicians (I wouldn't be on that at the moment).

Where should the money go?

Down a hole for all I care. The market will make the investments it needs to in order to deal with the imposed fines (or generally high prices or customer outrage). So I don't think it needs to go into energy research programs. There's really enough money floating around right now to do all the development we need (we have $billion hedge fund managers - that's easily evidence that we have too much money). So the government need not necessarily use funds from a funding a program for that. But it could - it wouldn't be a bad thing.

I would endorse putting it in the hands of the communities served by individual polluting facilities. That would seem to re-appropriate the costs to those most directly affected by pollution.

But mostly, however, we should probably put it into schools. Our national curriculum hasn't gotten an upgrade lately. And there's some schools that could really use it. So give it to the kids.

I should also note that fines need not be monetary. In this sense, you could also revoke operating licenses or put in severe compliance restrictions. So the need to collect money need not be a driving force, rather than politically stop polluting.


So I know this is all crazy, but I think it could work. It's elegant and addresses the issue directly. The strong will survive. Although it sounds anti-capitalistic (and it is), I think it would help preserve the capitalist playing field we have developed. Like ejecting basketball players for flagrant fouls. It will make way for some really great things to happen around the world. We're only 150 years into the industrial age and we've almost destroyed the planet. That's stupid. We should stop polluting when we know about it and get on with our business. We have at least 10,000 more years of money-grubbing to do. We shouldn't let pollution get in the way.

NBB CEO on Jay Leno's Garage

Interesting video of NBB CEO Joe Jobe on Jay Leno's Garage:

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/index.shtml?vidID=137222

This interview gives very basic information about biodiesel. What's most interesting to me in this video is that Jay doesn't seem very excited to talk to this guy. I guess he only turns on when there's a large audience and lots of lights.

Nice tractor though.

Dow and Crystalsev to build PE plant

Dow and Brazilian sugarcane ethanol producer Crystalev are to build a plant to produce polyethylene from sugarcane.

From the press release:

The new facility will use ethanol derived from sugar cane, an annually renewable resource, to produce ethylene - the raw material required to make polyethylene, the world's most widely-used plastic. Ethylene is traditionally produced using either naphtha or natural gas liquids, both of which are petroleum products. It is estimated that the new process will produce significantly less CO2 compared to the traditional polyethylene manufacturing process.

"This joint venture will provide Crystalsev with an excellent opportunity to diversify its businesses through the development of value-added products made from ethanol as part of an environmentally sustainable project," said Rui Lacerda Ferraz, president of Crystalsev. "This project will bring the optimization of synergies and the creation of new and professional growth opportunities. For such an important enterprise, we could not have found a better partner than Dow, the global leader in the polyethylene market and a company that works with state-of-the-art technology."

This is a significant for a few reasons.

First, Dow isn't the only big chemical company that is looking for alternative feedstocks for its products. DuPont has also been looking for sustainably-developed products to replace its petroleum-based counterparts. The underlying cause of these developments are the high price of oil. The harbinger of this trend was the sale of GE Plastics. GE's matra has long been that it would not compete in industries where it can be #1 or #2. One could argue that this is a referendum on the profitability of the chemical industry with high oil prices.

Second, it's telling that Dow chose a Brazilian company to partner with. From a cost perspective it's not - Brazilian sugar cane is significantly cheaper than U.S. Corn. But this moves underscores the value of the investment opportunities by developing a low-cost bio-based alternative to food-based products. If this venture is successful, it could mitigate Dow's revenue risk away from the price of oil. That could have some great benefits in the future.

Ford fuel cell vehicle breaks land speed record

Ford broke a land speed record this past week. The vehicle was based on the Ford Fusion model and utilized an advanced hydrogen fuel cell and a 700+ hp motor to reach 200+ mph.


Here's a video of the car:

Good Technology

Cheap catalytic biofuels reactors
Researchers at the University of Minnesota have developed that will gasify biomass into syngas much more efficiently. Essentially, you can use a reactor 1/10th the size in order to get a given amount of syngas. This could have a great impact on the amount of capital investment required to push this technology. Biomass gasification, in my own humble opinion, has a better opportunity to scale and get adopted then using enzyme-based chemistry. While they both can coexist, this technology could put the probability of uptake and success in its favor.

Technology Review Article


Silicon gets a step-up
NREL has discovered a configuration of silicon that drastically improves the potential efficiency of solar cells. Essentially, the crystalline nanostructure will generate two electrons for every photon of light. Current silicon technologies only generate 1. This would extend the thermodynamic limit from 30% efficiency to around 60% efficiency. Further, it should be easy to manufacture, keeping the impact on pricing low. That's a huge impact to this technology and could be a complete game changer on the solar business model. Now, if we could find cheaper ways to install them....

Technology Review Article


Getting closer to hydrogen
Researchers at Penn State have developed a Ti-Fe-O material that facilitates the production of hydrogen from water and light.

GreenCarCongress post
Penn State article

Cosan updates its IPO

Cosan is planning to raise $2 Billion in its NYSE IPO.

From AP article:

Assuming an offering price of $17.04, Cosan expects net proceeds of about $1.62 billion, or $1.86 billion if the underwriters' overallotment option is exercised in full.

The company expects to use the proceeds for an ethanol greenfield project, for the expansion of existing facilities, to purchase equipment and machinery, and for general corporate purposes, including future acquisitions and investments in technology, infrastructure and logistics.

This is a great opportunity for Cosan as it appears to be a big play on this industry. They're already cited to be the second largest ethanol producer in the world (which sounds strange given that ADM and POET claim to have nearly identical capacities - so I'd concede a 3-way tie). But Cosan seems to be trying to be world-wide player ahead of its U.S. counterparts. $2 Billion will certainly help.

Cosan will trade with the symbol CZZ.

SunEthanol gets made

SunEthanol got a shot of investment money. Backers include Battery Ventures, Long River Ventures, AST Capital, and VeraSun.

RedHerring Article
SunEthanol website

This is an interesting scenario of investors. It's not strange to see the small syndicate of VCs - that happens quite a bit. But there are two things that jump out at me. First, the 'name brand' VCs are nowhere to be found. Khosla, Kleiner, TechnologyPartners.... This sounds like exactly what they would invest in. So it's a little strange that they weren't a part of this. Second, VeraSun's participation is intriguing. Big ethanol producers have a big stake in seeing cellulosic ethanol take off. But we have surprisingly not seen them back a lot of companies. VeraSun is the first that I've seen make a big investment in this type of technology deal.

Here's an excerpt from the RedHerring Article:

Mr. Sharp said the microbe-based technology, which is being licensed from the University of Massachusetts, offers several advantages over the enzyme-based processes being developed by other cellulosic ethanol companies. Not only does the process have the potential to be 25 percent cheaper than enzyme-based technologies, it might also work with multiple feedstocks, Mr. Sharp said. Processes that use enzymes to break down biomass into sugars need to be re-engineered or modified for different feedstocks, he said.

While I'm still skeptical of the scalability of microbe-based technologies, this take on that strategy sounds very compelling. There are a lot of moving parts with enzyme-based ethanol production (totally manageable, but not better than...fewer moving parts). So the simplicity of this technology seems very well poised to offer a potentially better outcome. But while they tout a 25% cost improvement, they haven't said anything about limitations of the system. But that's hard to see from a bench process.

The closest thing to this type of process is beer brewing. And the dynamics of the beer industry are a bit different than that of fuel ethanol production. For one thing, you can still charge a lot of money for beer. I'm sure the average beer drinker would love to get $3.00/gallons - they pay closer to the order $15 /gallon. And they don't use as much materials so they don't need to produce as much volume. This translates into lower capital costs needed for them. It's not clear what the CapEx on SunEthanol's venture would end up being. (VeraSun's participation might mean that they would have some interest in attempting to commercialize it using some of their facilities. So the CapEx might not be as extensive).

So this sounds like a good move for SunEthanol. We'll see where they go.

DOE and Chevron fund syngas research

The DOE and Chevron are teaming up with universities to study coal-derived syngas.

GreenCarCongress article.
LSU Article.

The research will focus on catalysis of coal-derived syngas to produce ethanol.

From the LSU article:

“We’re working with our project partners to produce ethanol from a coal-derived syngas, a mixture of primarily carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The United States has tremendous reserves of coal, but converting it to affordable, clean fuels is a challenge – one that we are addressing in this DOE-funded project,” said Spivey. “Because ethanol is a liquid, it can be more easily distributed to the end user than gaseous hydrogen. It can be converted into a hydrogen-rich gas at the point of use, such as a fuel cell. The net result is clean energy produced from a domestic resource.”

It's strange that Chevron would have an interest in funding research into producing ethanol. As I have blogged on before, ethanol has many drawbacks. It's got many features that the U.S. population is in favor of, but as a fuel, it's inferior to other potential products. So it's strange that Chevron hasn't decided to investigate syngas production of some of these alternatives (biobutanol, dmf, or whatever else they're working on these days).

This is important research, however, as its results could make gasification much more pervasive in the U.S. If the goal of the alternative fuels initiative is a level of independence and choices, then having a plethora gasification technologies - catalysts, process models, research papers - would provide dividends for years to come.

Tesla hires former Flextronics CEO

Tesla Motors has hired Michael Marks to be its new - interim - CEO.

See Press Release.

Tesla has been looking for a new CEO for a long time now. Michael Marks is a good choice (he guest taught a few classes of my supply chain course at Stanford). He is very knowledgeable of international parts sourcing and manufacturing. He was part of many technology roll-outs that utilized resources anywhere in the world (think the first Xbox, and a variety of cell phone handsets). In fact, there's probably very few individuals on the planet with as much experience and insight in this area than him.

But being a native Detroiter, you might look at him a little strangely (not as strange as Bob Nardelli, but that's a different story that, frankly, isn't very interesting and probably doesn't have a good ending). Tesla is in a great position to utilize Marks' experience in bringing technologically sophisticated products to market. But selling cars is a lot more than just that. It's as much about meeting customers' needs and expectations as it is about getting the product in the front door. It's about selling. It's about managing dealership expectations. It's about making cool things. Flextronics wasn't about that. It was about building and delivering. Tesla still needs these capabilities to get to where they want to go.

So while this is a great choice for Tesla's short term, they still need to keep a look out for a long-term candidate. That'll be a hard find. But Marks' hire is certainly the right person at the right time. He will have a big impact on that company and you can be sure it'll get them to the next level.

Biomass Gasitication news segment

News segment on Research at Oklahoma State on biomass gasification. Some misuses of the world "distillation" and "fermentation" but otherwise interesting enough.

VCs and Clean Tech

Clean tech has quickly become the investment du jour for venture capitalists. But it's not clear what is driving this investment. Energy has long been dominated by big, slow, politically entrenched companies. This doesn't seem like a breeding ground for new, highly scalable innovations.

But there is a method to the madness. It's just not quite clear that it's a very worthwhile madness. So let's look through some things.

What happened to the internet?
We have seen technology and internet companies get VC money for the last ten years. But Clean Tech has displaced technology in terms of investment dollars. What gives?

Well, there are many reasons for this. But the overarchying dynamic is that the internet has been democratized so much that developing opportunities doesn't require a lot of capital. Building a very functional site can be done virtually for free (certainly enough for self-financing). It's become very easy for ideas to be tested for traction (proof of concept) before big amounts of VC money is added. So internet companies are still getting money - it's just fewer than during the dot com days. So called "Web 2.0" companies don't gain VC attention until they've already got a good batch of users and a clear model for developing a website / application's appeal to its target audience. That's a departure from the old days when even testing an idea required a good chunk of capital. Now days, the coding and technology is secondary to the concept and marketing plan.

The other side of this coin is that there's so much cash out there right now due to the good economic environment that VCs have to put capital to work. If internet companies don't need a lot of money to get going, then where are they going to put their money? Clean tech was there to step in.

What's driving clean tech development?
There are a few drivers for the current clean tech development:
1) Energy is too damn expensive. While oil and oil-based products have been very inexpensive in the past, they are slowly increasing in expense. For many large corporations, it has become a more significant cost to their P&L statement. Any reduction in their usage amounts to big savings to a company.

2) It's a referendum on the global war on terror. Let's face it, ethanol and biodiesel are inferior to their petroleum-based counterparts. Their saving grace is that it reduces the political interest for the U.S. to fight other countries (politically or militarily) for access to petroleum. The high price of petroleum, perception of the loss of American jobs (real or perceived), is making them viable alternatives and popular among the populations of the U.S.

3) A hedge on oil prices. Other countries like Brazil and China are investing in biofuels and electric transportation because they are accessible and easier than fighting for petroleum.

4) The U.S. electrical infrastructure is expensive, old, vulnerable, and dirty. The 2003 blackout showed the grid's vulnerability first hand. The energy crisis in California circa 2000/2001, and the increased awareness of global warming have garnered real attention for smart grid, wind, and solar technologies for mitigating peak demand risks and damaging pollution. Legislation forbidding the building of new coal fired plants in California is evident of the change in perspectives.

5) If economic success = high energy consuption, then the world is in trouble. Essentially, as we get richer, we poison the planet more. So breaking this interrelationship has huge social consequences.


VCs Interests?
VCs generally look for proprietary technologies that have huge scaling implacations. While energy may be old and stodgy, it is predicated on huge scale. Any technology that has real value to it could have a very large uptake. Solar, wind, biofuels, smart grid, and battery/fuel cell technologies all have very far-reaching implacations in industry. So from that perspective, it makes very good sense that VCs are interested in this area.

But there are some built-in issues:

Value proposition
In short, VCs seem to be searching for the next ADM, not the next Microsoft (note, Microsoft has way better cash flow). That's not as exciting. Large industries tend not to be high in cash flow as software or biotech companies. Proprietary technology lends itself to high pricing power. But many of the start-up clean tech companies are building themselves into commodity businesses. Battery companies will eventually become...auto parts suppliers. Biofuels...a chemical company. These are traditionally low margin high asset businesses. I'm sure VCs can make money from it. But it won't be from the cash flow prospects of the business. It will be based mostly on hype (you can see this by the fall-off of biofuels stock values since their IPOs). While I'm sure they can make money on these transactions, it's hard to see a home run the size of a Google, Cisco, Genentch, or Microsoft.

Entrepreneurs?
What is rarely said is that there haven't been a whole lot of entrepreneurs who can take on these types of businesses. Entrepreneurs are perceived as a kind of business mercenary in VC circles. Many clean tech CEOs are off-shoots from the technology industry (see Michael Beebe at Energy Innovations and Martin Tobias at Imperium Renewables). One of my professors at Stanford noted that Vinod Khosla was no energy or agricultural expert when he had him for a student many years ago (Khosla helped start Sun Microsystems). So while there is certainly an advantage to being smart, these industries are much harrier than technology industries. They have different dynamics and moving parts to them.

The alternative, however, is to find people from related industry to inject into this mix. There are certainly examples of this (Patrick Gruber at Gevo has a long Cargill background; John Melo at Amyris was a big wig at BP). But at the moment, these individuals are few and far between. It's also yet to be seen how successful any of these companies could be. So VCs are settling for people they know to run these businesses. That seems a bit tenuous to me (for whatever my opinion is worth).

And in some cases, I don't know where these companies are getting engineers. It's relatively easy to find programmers now days. Microbiologists? Bioprocess engineers? Those are a bit harder to come by - particularly in the valley.

The Technology is harder
It doesn't seem that way, but I think the technology involved with clean tech is significantly harder than other industries. I mean, Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect back in the early 1900's. And we haven't gotten solar hardly anywhere since. Even with all of the movement now, it's still rather paltry. Compare that to recombinant DNA technology. Genentech (my previous employer) was founded in 1976 and is currently earning $10Billion on the sale of 14 drugs. That's *way* faster uptake for biotech when compared to solar. I think solar is just harder to make better.

Nature doesn't naturally create enzymes to break down cellulose (if it did, the earth would be mush). They've been working on enzymes for cellulose for a long time - but enzymes are hard. By comparison the computer was invented in the 1950's and now they're in the palm of my hand. They pathway, I think was much clearer for computers. Steve Wozniac ushered in the home PC revolution through work he did on his own in his house. I don't think that's going to work this time with enzymes - although I could be wrong. So I think clean tech as a whole consists of much harder technical challenges than previously considered.


What's the bottom line here?
While there is certainly enough opportunity to warrant VC interest in clean tech, it's not without its own built-in flaws. It's not clear that the venture community has learned to master the dynamics of an older, more politically entrenched, and technically difficult environment to effectively make big returns for their investors. For every ten investments a VC makes, one of them needs to be a home run (see Google, YouTube, Microsoft). Where is the clean tech homerun? Is it too early? Perhaps. But it's not clear that the VCs will fair very well in this environment, even compared to the dot com era.

Pay to Play: report shows tough capital costs for advanced biofuels

A paper written by Mark Wright and Robert Brown, at the Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies, Iowa State University compares the capital and operating costs involved with biofuels production. Their results showed that advanced biofuels production facilities will require significantly higher production costs than current production methods. However, the operational costs will be competitive with current grain ethanol production. This paper will appear in the launch edition of Biofuels, Bioproducts, and Biorefining.

From the GreenCarCongress Article:

The two researchers showed that the capital costs for 150 million gallon gasoline equivalent capacity range from around $111 million for a conventional grain ethanol plant to $854 million for an advanced (Fischer Tropsch) plant. The difference in the final cost of the fuel, however, was less severe, being $1.74 for grain ethanol when corn costs $3.00 per bushel and $1.80 for cellulosic biofuel when biomass costs $50 per ton.

This is an important analysis as it provides a rigorous look at some of the points that I have brought out in previous blog entries. Essentially, this study says that the capital costs of developing advanced biofuels production facilities (biorefineries or fischer tropsch) could be cost prohibitive and may impede development. However, it also goes on to say that the operational costs of production from any of the studied methods will be comparable to each other. Here's a table from the paper:

As the table above shows, the operating costs for each fuel type is on the order of $1 to $1.80/gallon. This would allow for a more robust pricing of these types of fuels.

This table also implies that ventures based on the high-capital cost biofuels will require a longer time to recover its return on investment. When compared to current grain ethanol methods, the ROI looks better (even at today's corn prices). This is a bit of a conundrum for the development of advanced biofuels. But it shouldn't be seen as a detriment. Sure, there's going to be a higher buy-in. But the ethanol industry needs to switch to a cellulosic biomass feedstock for it to have any legs in the future. This will leave a window open for any company willing to fill it, even at a higher price point.

Further, there is a lot of room for reducing the cost of cellulosic ethanol facilities. It's still a rather young process and there's many innovation that can improve its capital costs (especially in the fermentation yield, energy usage, and purification processes).

I'd also like to note that these operating costs leave a lot of room for making profits. I still argue that even at $3.00/gallon, gasoline isn't unaffordable. More expensive than Americans are accustomed to, yes. But not unaffordable. $3/gallon gas has only leveled the purchased of SUVs, and uptake of public transportation isn't particularly noticeable either. Los Angeles continues to build on new lanes to the 405 freeway. So even at a price point of $3/gallon, these businesses have a great opportunity.

So this is a pretty impactful paper, I think. But while it paints a bit of a gloomy picture for advanced biofuels, it shouldn't be received as a bad omen. It's just highlighting some differences in the economics involved in the roll-out of new technologies (which is completely fair). But it also shows that there's still a lot of opportunity involved in the game.

ALL Fuel & Energy buys Ace Ethanol

All Fuel & Energy buys Ace Ethanol's 46Million gal/yr plant for $102 Million.

Here's a take from the article:

"Ace fits our model and strategically moves us closer to producing our goal of 500 million gallons per year," said ALL Fuel's president Dean Sukowatey.

Last month, ALL Fuels received $121 million in funding, stating at the time that it would use the money for strategic acquisitions of operational ethanol plants.

This is apparently part of a broader roll-up strategy for ALL Fuel (what a horrible name, isn't it? It sounds like "All Fruit" fruit snacks). This isn't exactly unsurprising as so much of the ethanol plants are mom-and-pops.

Virgin Bioverda, a JV of Bioverda and Virgin Fuels, is organized around an ethanol roll-up strategy as well.

The question becomes as to the aggregation of many small facilities offers the joined company a more competitive operating position than competitors. This industry is still so new that it's hard to make any assertions either way. Competing effectively still counts, even with operational cost barriers. But apparently, ALL Fuels is trying to keep up with the big moves we've seen from VeraSun. ADM, and POET.

Ethanol stocks still with uncertanity

This last week, the market saw a huge sell off showing a 800+ point decline in the DJIA. The ethanol stocks, while recovering from said selloff, are still showing some difficulty.

Of all of these stocks, Verenium has shown the most resiliency of the last few months (although, it's performance over the long-haul is what should be its value measurement). Verasun has managed to keep some slow and steady value over the last few months. This is a bit strange given their announcement of their growth plan to get to 1Billion gallons of capacity. However, it is still down over the last year by 50% (June 2006 IPO price of $28). Pacific Ethanol is still a bit choppy but moving along.

Department of Energy Gives some money...pocket change really

The Department of energy announced it is giving $21.5 Million for 11 research projects aimed at developing fuel efficiency technologies.

Here's a note:

These projects, selected for negotiation of awards, will focus on three areas: improving fuel utilization in ethanol-powered engines (engine optimization), developing advanced lubrication systems, and exploring high efficiency, clean combustion engines. Projects announced today will help advance President Bush’s 20-in-10 Initiative, which calls for displacing 20 percent of gasoline usage by 2017 through increased use of clean, renewable fuels, and improved vehicle efficiency.

This seems like a bit of a paltry bone to put up for seemingly important goal. It seems in a bit of a contrast to the DOE's opposition to the Energy Bill that recently passed the House (see previous post).

However, this money is essentially funding partnerships between large companies like GM and Delphi, with research organizations like Michigan State and Wayne State. It's also a lot to give to primarily Michigan-based developments (although, selfishly, Michigan needs the investment). So it's probably okay that the numbers aren't that great.

Here are the projects:

Optimization of Engines for Ethanol Use
Seven of the eleven projects selected total up to $15.3 million in DOE funding and will focus specifically on improving flexible-fuel engines and light-duty vehicles that operate on ethanol-gasoline blends up to 85 percent ethanol by volume (E-85). Research will seek to take advantage of favorable properties of ethanol blends without diminishing gasoline fuel efficiency. Projects selected for negotiation of awards include:

Delphi Automotive Systems LLC in Troy, Michigan, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $2.2 million for a project to demonstrate a vehicle with an E-85 optimized engine, yielding up to 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement. Wayne State University will partner with Delphi.

Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $3.2 million for a project to explore the use of knock-suppression properties of ethanol with increased compression ratios to allow use of smaller, more fuel efficient engines.

General Motors Corporation in Pontiac, Michigan, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $1.9 million for a project to develop a cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) combustion prototype, allowing for smaller engines without loss of engine power; this could result in as much as a 15 percent fuel economy improvement. General Motors will partner with Ricardo Inc. for this effort.

Robert Bosch LLC in Farmington Hills, Michigan, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $1.5 million for a project to implement an integrated hardware-software system, yielding gasoline-like fuel economy when operating on E-85. Robert Bosch will partner with Ricardo and University of Michigan for this effort.

Siemens Government Services, Inc. in Reston, Virginia, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $3 million for a project to investigate the potential of a turbocharged, direct-injection engine operating on E-85 to improve combustion and fuel economy as well as lower exhaust emissions. Siemens will partner with AVL Engineering and Rousch Engineering for this effort.

TIAX LLC in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $1.2 million for a project to develop a novel, high-efficiency engine system for an FFV that not only operates on any blend of ethanol up to E-85, but is projected to exceed the efficiency of a conventional gasoline engine when operated with the highest blends of ethanol (e.g., E85 or higher). TIAX will partner with Monsanto and John Deere for this effort.

Visteon Corporation in Van Buren Township, Michigan, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $2.3 million for a project to achieve gasoline-like fuel economy when using E-85 by minimizing thermal, dynamic, volumetric, and other system efficiency losses. Visteon will partner with DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory, Mahle Powertrain, and Michigan State University for this effort.

Developing Advanced Lubrication Systems
Caterpillar Inc. in Mossville, Illinois, has been selected for negotiation of an award for up to $491,000 to develop an environmentally friendly lubricant additive for enhancing an engine’s fuel efficiency. Caterpillar will partner with DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory, NanoMech LLC, and the University of Arkansas for this effort.

Exploring High Efficiency, Clean Combustion Engines
Three projects have been selected for negotiation of awards up to $5.7 million to develop advanced combustion engines for light-duty vehicles. Selected projects will take advantage of complementary properties among combustion, fuels, and emission control technologies to develop clean, high-efficiency engines. Projects selected for negotiation of awards include:

Cummins Engine Company in Columbus, Indiana, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $2.4 million for a project to improve fuel efficiency of a state-of-the-art light-duty diesel engine by 10.5 percent, while maintaining Tier 2, Bin 5 emission levels. Cummins will partner with Daimler-Chrysler and BP for this effort.

Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $1.3 million for a project to use diesel-boosting technologies to improve efficiency and performance of advanced, low-temperature combustion engines. Ford will partner with ConceptsNREC, Wayne State University, and FEV Global for this effort.

Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan, has been selected for negotiation of an award of up to $2 million for a project to develop advanced, low-temperature combustion designs for diesel engines using biofuel blends optimized for engine performance. Michigan State will partner with Ford Motor Company for this effort.

We'll talk about the 20 in 10 goal next.

Ethanol Bashing

There's been a lot of ethanol bashing in the media lately:

Larry Cudlow Video on CNBC
Rolling Stone article mentioned in above video
CNN Article

Ethanol is an interesting debate (and is clearly worthy of debate). But these articles paint some kind of boondoggle that somehow somebody somewhere is pulling the wool over someone's eyes about Ethanol. "Dangerous, delusional BS". Maybe I'm not as smart as a contributing editor for Rolling Stone Magazine, but I'm pretty sure that ethanol isn't dangerous for me. And I'm pretty sure that I understand all of the supply constraints and technical drawbacks to know if it's really a B.S. solution. While ethanol clearly has drawbacks, it's good enough.

It's true that there's a lot of politics behind ethanol. That's because it touches on reducing dependence on foreign oil, increasing jobs for Americans (esp. farmers), and reducing fuel costs. Those are all hot button issues and being on the wrong side of ethanol is being on the wrong side of the American public. The question I have for the detractors is, since when is this a bad thing? The American people still run this country (even though they can legally be spied upon by the government). And if America wants to run on ethanol so it shall be. Why ought this draw negative feedback from the press?

It's true that ethanol is an inferior product. But most products that are developed are inferior. I mean, in the late 1800's, was a car really better than a horse/buggy in a world where there weren't any roads? But betting against the car would have been foolish in the long-term. The market will work out the future of ethanol. Alarmist rhetoric, while welcome in the overall spectrum, is of little value. Reasonable, evaluation of pros and cons always will.

I think journalists need to remember that there are more engineers in this country than there are journalists. And unlike them, we understand exactly what ethanol is, does, and is good for. It's not a boondoggle any more than what the American people are willing to stand. Like the War in Iraq circa June 2003. Or the second season of LOST.

I point these articles out for two reasons: 1) as a counterpoint to my own rhetoric about biofuels and 2) to emplore whoever reads this blog not to fall prey to sensationalist journalism. They amount to the notions of people who lack the vision and the will to create new things to solve real world problems.

House Passes Energy Bill

The House passed a new energy bill that would extend renewable energy tax credits as well as repeal tax incentives for oil and gas companies. The white house intends to veto the bill.

Excerpt from Dow Jones Article:

The White House said in a policy statement Friday U.S. President George W. Bush would veto the measure if approved, because it would, along with a broad energy package passed earlier by the House, "lead to less domestic oil and gas production, higher energy costs, and higher and higher taxes."

What planet do we live on? What happen to common sense?

Tax incentives are usually provided for industries who have good impact to the country that require additional financial benefits to get off the ground. There are perfectly good reasons to give the oil and gas industry tax incentives. They were in some big trouble during the 90's when oil was $10/barrel. I'm pretty sure that the oil and gas industry can sustain itself at $78/barrel oil and $6/$7+ natural gas without the benefit of tax credits. That's ridiculous. It's completely outside the basic spirit of this federal practice and not in the better interests of the citizens of the U.S.

I'll leave my argument at that. We'll keep an eye on where this goes.

Biotech biofuels

Technology Review has a good article on LS9, Amyris, and other companies that are investigating the manufacture of biofuels using biotechnology methods. There is some great research and development going on in these companies that could have some good benefits. But these are very seminal developments that could lead to many different options down the road.

Here's an excerpt from the TR article:

In some cases, LS9's researchers used standard recombinant DNA techniques to insert genes into the microbes. In other cases, they redesigned known genes with a computer and synthesized them. The resulting modified bacteria make and excrete hydrocarbon molecules that are the length and molecular structure the company desires.

Having said that, it's a bit distressing to hear about a biotech-based process for producing biofuels.

Biotech production doesn't really scale very well. Biotech is most successfully used in the pharmaceutical/drug industry (in full disclosure I previously worked for a large biotech drug manufacturer). Plants are expensive and, on a weight basis, don't produce a lot of product. They make products on the order of KGs. That's quite a bit for a cancer drug. But it's not nearly on the scale needed to really supply our fuel needs at a reasonable price.

There are two main drivers (detractors) of this scalability issue.

One is the fermentation process itself. Fermentation requires a long cycle time (on the order of a couple of hours). It's inherently a batch process which tend to be inherently lower in volume to continuous processes (although not less important). This only means that you need a lot of tanks running a long time to get a high production rate. Continuous processes can be scaled to have high flow rates to accomodate larger feedstocks (this also has drawbacks, however).

Another is the purification process. Biotech drug purification and separation is done by very sophisticated (and by "sophisticated" I mean extremely expensive). Think of it this way. A cell will contain its own "parts" (DNA, cell walls, protein, etc.). The desired product, in this case "biocrude", will be added to this cell system. The end result is a tank with a lot of cell material and end desired biocrude. On a mass basis, the biocrude makes up a small % of the overall contents of a fermentation (low yield).

So this process has two inherent difficulties. First it's is a rather difficult separation. It's generally done with a packed bed process. In the case of drugs, a very expensive and "sophisticated" material is used for the packing and facilitates the purification process). It's usually a very slow and rather energy intensive process (lots of pressure, need for high contact). The second issue is the impact of the low yield. Yields experienced in biotech are considered "good" relative to the desired amount of product needed for treatment. These products are administered on the order of miligrams. So to get the scale needed, you have to have a LOT of fermentation capacity (I couldn't even venture a guess given the wide variability in variables). But let's just say that one biotech plant costs around $400Million. Imagine millions of times that to supply the U.S. for biofuels. Tanks are very expensive as they have to be designed to manage the organisms inside of them. They have to be cleaned properly, monitored, agitated, aerated (if its an aerobic process), and fed very purified utilities. That's a lot of $$$ - so much so it would seem to make a biotech process wouldn't be a good option.

I paint a bit of a gloomy picture. But this shouldn't be a deal-breaker. If biocrude can be produced in a relatively cost effective manner (that's what's important), then it could have some very good uses. One could imagine such a volume could be beneficial in managing supply fluctuations to help mitigate price fluctuations. More likely, it could act as a feedstock for the chemical industry.

But at face value, this seems like a fairly strange way of making a fuel product. But it's certainly not without its merits. It'll be interesting to see where these companies take their research.

Biofuels fire shuts producer down for 30 days

Better Biodiesel shuts its Utah plant down for 30 days due to a fire.

Biofuel Review Article.

Here's an outtake from the article

An inspection concluded that the fire was caused by a mechanical malfunction in a transfer line within the reactor section. The damage from the fire was isolated within the reactor container and no other parts of the fuel production plant were affected. Preliminary indications suggest that the cost to repair the damaged section of the processor is not substantial. The company believes production could resume in as little as 30 days.

This is a bit distressing. First, this fuel processor was a 3 Million gallons/yr capacity processor. This is a very small piece of equipment. I've seen designs for these size fuel processors around half the size of an overseas container.

Second, given the small size of this equipment, this fire couldn't have been very big. If you do the math, 3MM gal/yr at 300 production days/yr is about 7 gallons/minute. That's on par with a home shower. That means that this fire couldn't have been bigger than a kitchen fire (Not to underestimate the significance of kitchen fires). But you can build a new kitchen in less than 30 days. Shutting this fuel processor down for 30 days is a bit strange. There's more to this story than just the fire and replacing equipment.

Third, this explanation of the fire is suspect (or at least incomplete). Transfer lines don't catch fire and pipes don't have mechanical parts to fail. And animal fat, the plant's feedstock, isn't flammable. However, valves can leak and methanol can catch fire. If I had to speculate on this fire's cause (and mind you, I have no idea what really happened), I would suspect that methanol was charged into its reactor from a top inlet, perhaps while the reactor was empty. Methanol (and other flammables), when charged from the top of a vessel, tends to develop a charge from its falling column of liquid. This charge sometimes causes a spark (a discharge to the vessel wall) that can ignite the methanol. This is a good reason why tanks must be grounded properly. A full tank wouldn't allow for charge to build up so I suspect that this occurred when a valve leaked (or was otherwise open) when the reactor was empty. Most vessels are required to charge flammables with either a dip tube (a long tube inside the vessel that will deposit into the bottom of the tank), or from the bottom.

This is all speculation of course. None of this is really an issue. What struck me about this article is the apparent scale of it all. This is generally a "minor" occurrence (in the context of the overall business, not in the risk to employees or the surroundings). I think I've had a fire at every plant (except one) that I've ever worked in. They happen all the time and in much larger scale. For this company to shut down a fuel processor for 30 days is very extreme (I've never been down more than 48 hours from a fire).

This could reflect a lack of experience in the management of this company. Or it could just be subterfuge. Why else would you make your own press release that you were shutting down for 30 days for a relatively small event? There's something more going on. At least, for their investors' sake, I hope there is.

Very strange

Auto X-Prize gets 31 teams

The X-Prize foundation is reporting it has received 31 applications for their Auto X-Prize.

Here's a snippet from the press release:

The independent and technology-neutral AXP competition is open to teams from around the world to prove they can design, build and bring to market 100 MPG or equivalent fuel economy vehicles that people want to buy. Industry experts will scrutinize team plans. Those that qualify will race their vehicles in rigorous cross-country stages that combine speed, distance, urban driving and overall performance. The winners will be the vehicles that exceed 100 MPG equivalent, fall under strict emissions caps and finish in the fastest time.

There's a good batch of teams on their list. But there's a few things that stand out to me.

First, what is Tesla Motors and Zap doing on there? They both already purport to have 100+MPG, commercially available vehicles. And plus, who's going to race a Tesla Roadster after they've demonstrated it going 0 to 60 in 3.5 seconds?

Second, where are the big automotive companies? They're kind of under the gun in terms of adhering to emissions standards. Perhaps they wouldn't be contestants, but I'm sure they could spare a mil or two to fund the contest.

Here's the full list of competitors:

• Aptera Motors - California, USA
• Commuter Cars Corp. - Washington, USA
• Cornell University - New York, USA
• DEHyds - Washington, USA
• Delta Motorsport - Northants, UK
• Desert Fuel - Arizona, USA
• Disruptech - California, USA
• Dragonfly Technology LTD - Northhampton, UK
• Fuel Vapor Technologies - British Columbia, Canada
• GreenIt! - Oregon, USA
• Herf Duo - Berlin, Germany
• HyKinesys - California, USA
• Kinetic Vehicles - Oregon, USA
• Kuttner Doran Inventions - Virginia, USA
• Loremo AG - Munich, Germany
• Maine Automotive X - Maine, USA
• MDI, Inc. & Zero Pollution Motors LLC - New York, USA
• Michigan Vision - Michigan, USA
• MotoTron Corporation - Wisconsin, USA
• Phoenix Motorcars - California, USA
• Porteon Electric Vehicles, Inc. - Oregon, USA
• Prometheus Systems, LLC - Arizona, USA
• Psycho-Active - Georgia, USA
• Roane Inventions - Texas, USA
• Society for Sustainable Mobility - California, USA
• Spirit One - Alberta, Canada
• Valentin Technologies - Wisconsin, USA
• Tesla Motors - California, USA
• Velozzi - California, USA
• X Tracer - Winterthur, Switzerland
• ZAP Motors - California, USA

Good Technology

Northwestern Researchers create graphite-derivative flexible material
Northwestern researcher Rodney Ruoff has developed a flexible graphene material that has possible usages in fuel cell storage or ultra-strong, ultra light materials. This is a compelling product as it represents an opportunity for very strong, ultralight materials, perhaps automotive (fuel cells) or consumer products applications (laptops)
Technology Review Article

DuPont Partners for Genetically engineered feedstocks
DuPont is partnering with Cold Spring Harbor Labs to develop technology to help improve crop yields of corn, soy beans, and other feedstocks. This is an interesting partnership as it gives some indication of DuPont moving (back) into using plants for feedstock purposes instead of petroleum-based ones. This research could prove important as more of the industry look towards using plants for feedstocks again. The genetic modifications could drastically improve the economic differences between agriculture and petroleum.
GreenCarCongress article
Press Release

Scientists at Argonne National Labs develop aerogel
Scientists at ANL have identified a high-surface area aerogel that can be used in a variety of filtering processes. Experimentation showed this material to be extremely effective at dissolving mercury from water samples. It could also have applications in purifying hydrogen for use in fuel cells (and prevent cell contamination).
Press Release
Greencarcongress article