O:9:"MagpieRSS":23:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:12:{i:0;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:35:"Scotland to Pioneer Tidal “Farms”";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/406785944/";s:11:"description";s:2682:"



It seems that Scotland, with its windy coasts and seaside cliffs, is the Saudi Arabia of… tidal power. ScottishPower Renewables wants to turn that power into clean electricity. According to its director, Keith Anderson, Scotland has 25% of Europe’s tidal resources and 10% of its wave potential. By building 20 underwater turbines in various locations off the Scottish coast, ScottishPower Renewables hopes to generate 60 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 40,000 homes or provide at least a third of Scotland’s energy demand.

The tidal farms will be consist of Norwegian-made turbines called “Lànstrøm devices”. These look like underwater turbines (see picture above), and have been extensively tested in Norway. The 20 meter blades will reach no higher than ten meters below the surface; not that anyone will be allowed to travel through the waters above, of course. And the blades move slow enough so as not to endanger the local marine wildlife.

The prognosis is quite good. ScottishPower Renewables says that these farms could be operational by 2011. One of the benefits of tidal power over, say, wind power is that the former is extremely predictable whereas the latter has been oft criticized for its unpredictable nature. However, let’s not forget that tidal power projects sometimes do not work as planned. Take, for example, Verdant Power, the company that tried to put turbines in New York City’s East River. Their turbines broke down, though they are giving it another go.

In other international turbine news, Israeli company S.D.E. Energy has signed a contract to build an undisclosed number of one megawatt wave power stations for China. Check out the rest of that story here.

Via Scotsman
Image via New Energy Focus

";s:6:"author";s:13:"Yoni Levinson";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:56:32 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2166/";}s:7:"summary";s:2682:"



It seems that Scotland, with its windy coasts and seaside cliffs, is the Saudi Arabia of… tidal power. ScottishPower Renewables wants to turn that power into clean electricity. According to its director, Keith Anderson, Scotland has 25% of Europe’s tidal resources and 10% of its wave potential. By building 20 underwater turbines in various locations off the Scottish coast, ScottishPower Renewables hopes to generate 60 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 40,000 homes or provide at least a third of Scotland’s energy demand.

The tidal farms will be consist of Norwegian-made turbines called “Lànstrøm devices”. These look like underwater turbines (see picture above), and have been extensively tested in Norway. The 20 meter blades will reach no higher than ten meters below the surface; not that anyone will be allowed to travel through the waters above, of course. And the blades move slow enough so as not to endanger the local marine wildlife.

The prognosis is quite good. ScottishPower Renewables says that these farms could be operational by 2011. One of the benefits of tidal power over, say, wind power is that the former is extremely predictable whereas the latter has been oft criticized for its unpredictable nature. However, let’s not forget that tidal power projects sometimes do not work as planned. Take, for example, Verdant Power, the company that tried to put turbines in New York City’s East River. Their turbines broke down, though they are giving it another go.

In other international turbine news, Israeli company S.D.E. Energy has signed a contract to build an undisclosed number of one megawatt wave power stations for China. Check out the rest of that story here.

Via Scotsman
Image via New Energy Focus

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222725392;}i:1;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:40:"Failed Bailout Killing Solar Legislation";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/406684386/";s:11:"description";s:2055:"

At the top of my list of dropped stocks today you'd expect the banks. But what comes next...what, would you guess, is the biggest loser outside of the banking industry in my portfolio.

Is it the big corporations like GE who have a huge hand in banking and financing? The luxury stocks like Apple who sell expensive items that might be less appealing in a recession? No and No. It's the solar stocks.

Why? Why on earth would a crisis in the financial sector kill these renewable energy stocks.

Very simply, because it took us two years to get a passable bit of energy legislation through the senate. And now, with it sitting in the stack of bills the House needs to vote on before the session closes, it looks like we're just not going to get to around to it.

These people simply do not understand. The bailout is about preventing disaster...but what about planning for an America that can see beyond damage control to growth and prosperity. K.R. Sridhar said it very well in a recent e-mail to Thomas Friedman:

“As a nation, if we just focus on survival, the demise of our leadership is imminent. We are thrivers. Thrivers are constantly looking for new opportunities to seize and lead and be No. 1.”

But not only are we not greening the bailout, we're not even able to pass a tiny bit of legislation to promote the energy sources of the future. If we can't step up to the plate here...someone else will. And now that this financial crisis is preventing us from passing legislation that should have been passed two years ago, I'm really not sure if we can do it.

";s:6:"author";s:10:"Hank Green";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:37:53 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2165/";}s:7:"summary";s:2055:"

At the top of my list of dropped stocks today you'd expect the banks. But what comes next...what, would you guess, is the biggest loser outside of the banking industry in my portfolio.

Is it the big corporations like GE who have a huge hand in banking and financing? The luxury stocks like Apple who sell expensive items that might be less appealing in a recession? No and No. It's the solar stocks.

Why? Why on earth would a crisis in the financial sector kill these renewable energy stocks.

Very simply, because it took us two years to get a passable bit of energy legislation through the senate. And now, with it sitting in the stack of bills the House needs to vote on before the session closes, it looks like we're just not going to get to around to it.

These people simply do not understand. The bailout is about preventing disaster...but what about planning for an America that can see beyond damage control to growth and prosperity. K.R. Sridhar said it very well in a recent e-mail to Thomas Friedman:

“As a nation, if we just focus on survival, the demise of our leadership is imminent. We are thrivers. Thrivers are constantly looking for new opportunities to seize and lead and be No. 1.”

But not only are we not greening the bailout, we're not even able to pass a tiny bit of legislation to promote the energy sources of the future. If we can't step up to the plate here...someone else will. And now that this financial crisis is preventing us from passing legislation that should have been passed two years ago, I'm really not sure if we can do it.

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222717073;}i:2;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:67:"EPA Data and Google Earth Create Map of Green Potential Across U.S.";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/406502323/";s:11:"description";s:2373:"

Find a renewable site near you!

It seems that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken advantage of Web 2.0. They have recently released an interactive site that uses Google Earth as a platform to map out places across the US that have high potential for renewable energy development. The information for this map comes from EPA databases.

The program allows the user to choose from a sidebar list of renewable energy types – various categories of solar, biomass and wind power. When one or several of these categories are checked, the map displays colored dots indicating locations that have shown high potential to produce the indicated type of energy. The dots are different colors depending on if they represent abandoned mine lands, brownfields, RCRA sites or Superfund sites.

Lands that fall into the above categories are potentially contaminated, and are generally unfit for traditional forms of development. In other words, it’s land that is not in the highest demand. For renewable energy projects, such pieces of real estate are attractive because they allow the renewable energy developers to avoid competing with developers and getting stalled by NIBMY complaints.

It was very exciting to get a visual impression of all the potential we have in this country. Some energy sources, such as utility-scale wind and solar power, are mostly available in the West/Southwest. But community-scale power and biomass power is available all across the country. So what are we waiting for?

Via Cleantechnica
Image Via Google Earth

";s:6:"author";s:13:"Yoni Levinson";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:49:10 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2164/";}s:7:"summary";s:2373:"

Find a renewable site near you!

It seems that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken advantage of Web 2.0. They have recently released an interactive site that uses Google Earth as a platform to map out places across the US that have high potential for renewable energy development. The information for this map comes from EPA databases.

The program allows the user to choose from a sidebar list of renewable energy types – various categories of solar, biomass and wind power. When one or several of these categories are checked, the map displays colored dots indicating locations that have shown high potential to produce the indicated type of energy. The dots are different colors depending on if they represent abandoned mine lands, brownfields, RCRA sites or Superfund sites.

Lands that fall into the above categories are potentially contaminated, and are generally unfit for traditional forms of development. In other words, it’s land that is not in the highest demand. For renewable energy projects, such pieces of real estate are attractive because they allow the renewable energy developers to avoid competing with developers and getting stalled by NIBMY complaints.

It was very exciting to get a visual impression of all the potential we have in this country. Some energy sources, such as utility-scale wind and solar power, are mostly available in the West/Southwest. But community-scale power and biomass power is available all across the country. So what are we waiting for?

Via Cleantechnica
Image Via Google Earth

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222703350;}i:3;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:37:"DRM is Bad for You AND for the Planet";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/406100711/";s:11:"description";s:2903:"

I am primarily an ecogeek, but I can't deny that I'm also just a geek. And so I, of course, love the open source, free software and creative commons movements. Without those powerful forces EcoGeek would absolutely have never existed.

So, yeah, I hate digital rights management. I believe that it's contrary to the spirit of creation and should not exist. But I don't get to talk about it here, because its all geek and no eco.

Or so I thought! When recently reading about Wal-Mart's epic DRM fail at Read Write Web, I realized that DRM is indeed very bad for the environment. So bad, that it could possibly destroy one of the great environmental benefits of technology... digitization.

First, I should point out a less substantial environmental problem with DRM. IT EATS POWER! Devices using DRM have been shown to use up to 25% more power than when they're playing non-managed media...and that's not even counting all the resources consumed by the manger's server farms that keep track of it all.

But, comparatively, that's a tiny problem. The real problem here is that the easiest way to get an MP3 that isn't crippled by some kind of DRM is still to buy the physical CD. What's worse, when DRM systems go offline (as they are at Wal-Mart) people are going to be extremely hesitant to go digital again. Basically, Wal-Mart's servers going offline is like saying "Oh, that song you bought, well, you didn't actually own it because it wasn't really real...sorry."

Wal-Mart's suggestion? Burn it to a CD, that way you'll have it even if after we take your official ownership away. BURN IT TO A CD! I thought the whole point was that we weren't using those clunky petro-disks anymore!

What I'm afraid of is that DRM will effectively remove ownership from non-physical media. Either we will rent the right to access everything for a certain monthly price (already working well for Microsoft) or rent out our eyeballs for the right to watch it (working just fine at Hulu.com.)

But if we want to actually own a song or movie or television show, we will need to buy the real-life, made-of-petroleum, shipped-across-the-world, physical disk. Either that, or we'll have to break the law...our choice. And any way you look at it, when physical media consume up to ten times more resources than non-physical media, DRM isn't just bad for consumers, it's bad for the planet.

";s:6:"author";s:10:"Hank Green";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Mon, 29 Sep 2008 06:19:43 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2163/";}s:7:"summary";s:2903:"

I am primarily an ecogeek, but I can't deny that I'm also just a geek. And so I, of course, love the open source, free software and creative commons movements. Without those powerful forces EcoGeek would absolutely have never existed.

So, yeah, I hate digital rights management. I believe that it's contrary to the spirit of creation and should not exist. But I don't get to talk about it here, because its all geek and no eco.

Or so I thought! When recently reading about Wal-Mart's epic DRM fail at Read Write Web, I realized that DRM is indeed very bad for the environment. So bad, that it could possibly destroy one of the great environmental benefits of technology... digitization.

First, I should point out a less substantial environmental problem with DRM. IT EATS POWER! Devices using DRM have been shown to use up to 25% more power than when they're playing non-managed media...and that's not even counting all the resources consumed by the manger's server farms that keep track of it all.

But, comparatively, that's a tiny problem. The real problem here is that the easiest way to get an MP3 that isn't crippled by some kind of DRM is still to buy the physical CD. What's worse, when DRM systems go offline (as they are at Wal-Mart) people are going to be extremely hesitant to go digital again. Basically, Wal-Mart's servers going offline is like saying "Oh, that song you bought, well, you didn't actually own it because it wasn't really real...sorry."

Wal-Mart's suggestion? Burn it to a CD, that way you'll have it even if after we take your official ownership away. BURN IT TO A CD! I thought the whole point was that we weren't using those clunky petro-disks anymore!

What I'm afraid of is that DRM will effectively remove ownership from non-physical media. Either we will rent the right to access everything for a certain monthly price (already working well for Microsoft) or rent out our eyeballs for the right to watch it (working just fine at Hulu.com.)

But if we want to actually own a song or movie or television show, we will need to buy the real-life, made-of-petroleum, shipped-across-the-world, physical disk. Either that, or we'll have to break the law...our choice. And any way you look at it, when physical media consume up to ten times more resources than non-physical media, DRM isn't just bad for consumers, it's bad for the planet.

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222669183;}i:4;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:41:"10% of U.S. Domestic Energy Now Renewable";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/404289740/";s:11:"description";s:1471:"

That's right, ten percent of the energy produced in America is now renewable! It's certainly good news, but not actually as good as it might seem. We're only talking about American energy here...so while that counts almost all of the coal, it doesn't include a pretty huge chunk of the oil.

But it does point out that renewable energy is already a substantial portion of American's energy production picture. The biggest piece of that 10% is now biomass and biofuels, followed by hydroelectric (a chunk of the renewable energy pie that has not and will not grow any further.) Wind is a different story however. While it's still a tiny piece of domestic production (still less than a percent) it's growing faster than any other energy source, 50% up over last year in the first half of this year alone.

Solar and geothermal finish up the renewable source list with a truly tiny piece of the pie...but both offer even more opportunity for growth than wind power.

Renewables are simply best way to get energy domestically, and now with 10% of our energy (and rising) coming from these sources, the sun is looking that much brighter.

Full Press Release from the SUN DAY Campaign Below

 

";s:6:"author";s:10:"Hank Green";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:33:44 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2161/";}s:7:"summary";s:1471:"

That's right, ten percent of the energy produced in America is now renewable! It's certainly good news, but not actually as good as it might seem. We're only talking about American energy here...so while that counts almost all of the coal, it doesn't include a pretty huge chunk of the oil.

But it does point out that renewable energy is already a substantial portion of American's energy production picture. The biggest piece of that 10% is now biomass and biofuels, followed by hydroelectric (a chunk of the renewable energy pie that has not and will not grow any further.) Wind is a different story however. While it's still a tiny piece of domestic production (still less than a percent) it's growing faster than any other energy source, 50% up over last year in the first half of this year alone.

Solar and geothermal finish up the renewable source list with a truly tiny piece of the pie...but both offer even more opportunity for growth than wind power.

Renewables are simply best way to get energy domestically, and now with 10% of our energy (and rising) coming from these sources, the sun is looking that much brighter.

Full Press Release from the SUN DAY Campaign Below

 

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222468424;}i:5;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:51:"Suzlon Plans $5 Billion of Wind for China and India";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/404250509/";s:11:"description";s:1356:"

Indian Wind turbine manufacturer Suzlon Energy says that they're planning to build 3.5 gigawatts of renewable electricity infrastructure, mostly in China and India at a cost of $5 B. They did not, however, say when the projects would be completed.

The amount of power is certainly substantial, but only a fraction of the growing need in China and India, where the thirst for electrons has been growing by gigawatts per week for the last few years.

That thirst, so far, has been quenched almost exclusively by coal. Suzlon's commitment to attempt to (at least in part) leapfrog coal with renewable energy is certainly admirable. But there's little doubt that these projects will be pretty darned profitable.

Suzlon Energy formerly just built the turbines. But recently they've gotten into the energy production game as well, with 30 wind farms on the ground already, and two that are more than 500 megawatts in size.

Via MarketWatch

";s:6:"author";s:10:"Hank Green";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:09:03 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2160/";}s:7:"summary";s:1356:"

Indian Wind turbine manufacturer Suzlon Energy says that they're planning to build 3.5 gigawatts of renewable electricity infrastructure, mostly in China and India at a cost of $5 B. They did not, however, say when the projects would be completed.

The amount of power is certainly substantial, but only a fraction of the growing need in China and India, where the thirst for electrons has been growing by gigawatts per week for the last few years.

That thirst, so far, has been quenched almost exclusively by coal. Suzlon's commitment to attempt to (at least in part) leapfrog coal with renewable energy is certainly admirable. But there's little doubt that these projects will be pretty darned profitable.

Suzlon Energy formerly just built the turbines. But recently they've gotten into the energy production game as well, with 30 wind farms on the ground already, and two that are more than 500 megawatts in size.

Via MarketWatch

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222466943;}i:6;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:44:"What the Current Turmoil Means for CleanTech";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/404200657/";s:11:"description";s:4690:"

As an EcoGeek, I spend a lot more time thinking about science and technology than savings and loans. But there's no doubt, a strong economy would help the cleantech revolution get a foothold...and a weak economy will hurt it.

So I've been spending the last few days combing through all of my favorite investment resources, trying to figure out exactly what this "worst crash since the great depression" really means. How will it affect this burgeoning revolution...and what does that mean for the planet.

It seems that the news is mixed. Many have speculated that cleantech investments are one of the best places to be right now. And I have indeed seen that in my own portfolio. While there have been losses across the board, my cleantech and energy investments have lost the least. It seems that investors see clean energy as one place that will continue to grow despite an economic downturn.

This has, of course, been helped by the Senates approval (finally) of an energy bill that includes tax incentives for clean technologies (mostly solar and carbon sequestration.)

But there's bad news too. Two articles I read today have got me believing that there simply will not be enough money to go around for the sector to grow as fast as it should. CNET's Greentech blog is saying that talk of a clean technology bubble is, in fact, a red herring distracting us from the true problem of not enough capital to get companies to full scale.

The problem, they say, isn't getting the startups funded initially. In fact, VC investment has never been stronger. The problem is bridging the gap from startup to full commercialization. That requires strong investment in the form of IPOs or acquisitions. And in this climate, investors aren't looking to invest, and even the biggest corporations are having trouble getting loans for big purchases.

My go-to guy for cleantech stock news, Tom Konrad, is also worried. He deals exclusively in stocks, with no venture investments, so his concerns are more more based around current companies than startups. And his prognosis is grim: Sell everything that is going to need a new money. In short, Tom doesn't think that the investment will be easy to procure, so he's unloading stocks in young companies that are going to need capital.

Instead, he suggests buying up established companies with fingers in lots of cleantech pies already. Companies like Johnson Controls, Philips and even good ol' GE who have government contracts or large stakes in wind energy, energy efficiency, or power distribution.

To see all of Tom's top ten, check out his AltEnergyStocks blog.

All of this seems pretty wise to me...and not entirely encouraging. While it's undeniable that cleantech offers the most obvious path toward continued economic growth, there's just no way to get people spending in a significant economic downturn.

The ultra-rich will keep their venture investments going, but they will likely be disappointed when it comes to IPOs or acquisitions in the next couple of years, and the value of little alternative energy companies who's stock prices are based on projected growth, not current revenue, will probably flounder for a few years.

I'm calling this some pretty bad news, especially since we can't afford a delay on a lot of this stuff...as investors yes...but as inhabitants of the planet earth as well. If the government isn't able to take a leadership stance on carbon markets and subsidies because of the current turmoil...that would be a true disaster.

If they do, then I can see clean technology leading us out of this mess a lot sooner than most people are predicting. If they don't, then we're going to have to wait far too long for the rise of clean technology...and it's possible that stronger foreign markets will beat us to that particular punch, possibly making American markets (and a lot of our companies) surprisingly obsolete.

";s:6:"author";s:10:"Hank Green";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:48:59 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2159/";}s:7:"summary";s:4690:"

As an EcoGeek, I spend a lot more time thinking about science and technology than savings and loans. But there's no doubt, a strong economy would help the cleantech revolution get a foothold...and a weak economy will hurt it.

So I've been spending the last few days combing through all of my favorite investment resources, trying to figure out exactly what this "worst crash since the great depression" really means. How will it affect this burgeoning revolution...and what does that mean for the planet.

It seems that the news is mixed. Many have speculated that cleantech investments are one of the best places to be right now. And I have indeed seen that in my own portfolio. While there have been losses across the board, my cleantech and energy investments have lost the least. It seems that investors see clean energy as one place that will continue to grow despite an economic downturn.

This has, of course, been helped by the Senates approval (finally) of an energy bill that includes tax incentives for clean technologies (mostly solar and carbon sequestration.)

But there's bad news too. Two articles I read today have got me believing that there simply will not be enough money to go around for the sector to grow as fast as it should. CNET's Greentech blog is saying that talk of a clean technology bubble is, in fact, a red herring distracting us from the true problem of not enough capital to get companies to full scale.

The problem, they say, isn't getting the startups funded initially. In fact, VC investment has never been stronger. The problem is bridging the gap from startup to full commercialization. That requires strong investment in the form of IPOs or acquisitions. And in this climate, investors aren't looking to invest, and even the biggest corporations are having trouble getting loans for big purchases.

My go-to guy for cleantech stock news, Tom Konrad, is also worried. He deals exclusively in stocks, with no venture investments, so his concerns are more more based around current companies than startups. And his prognosis is grim: Sell everything that is going to need a new money. In short, Tom doesn't think that the investment will be easy to procure, so he's unloading stocks in young companies that are going to need capital.

Instead, he suggests buying up established companies with fingers in lots of cleantech pies already. Companies like Johnson Controls, Philips and even good ol' GE who have government contracts or large stakes in wind energy, energy efficiency, or power distribution.

To see all of Tom's top ten, check out his AltEnergyStocks blog.

All of this seems pretty wise to me...and not entirely encouraging. While it's undeniable that cleantech offers the most obvious path toward continued economic growth, there's just no way to get people spending in a significant economic downturn.

The ultra-rich will keep their venture investments going, but they will likely be disappointed when it comes to IPOs or acquisitions in the next couple of years, and the value of little alternative energy companies who's stock prices are based on projected growth, not current revenue, will probably flounder for a few years.

I'm calling this some pretty bad news, especially since we can't afford a delay on a lot of this stuff...as investors yes...but as inhabitants of the planet earth as well. If the government isn't able to take a leadership stance on carbon markets and subsidies because of the current turmoil...that would be a true disaster.

If they do, then I can see clean technology leading us out of this mess a lot sooner than most people are predicting. If they don't, then we're going to have to wait far too long for the rise of clean technology...and it's possible that stronger foreign markets will beat us to that particular punch, possibly making American markets (and a lot of our companies) surprisingly obsolete.

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222462139;}i:7;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:63:"Iogen Sends First 100,000 Liters of Cellulosic Ethanol to Shell";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/403953422/";s:11:"description";s:1757:"

Looks like some big players are making a push for cellulosic ethanol. This past July, Royal Dutch Shell signed a deal with Iogen, a Canadian biotech company. Iogen has been working on bringing cellulosic ethanol production to scale, using feedstocks such as straw and corn stover (leaves and stalks). They recently shipped the first 100,000 liters of ethanol to Shell.

It makes sense that Shell is looking to ethanol. If I was an oil company, I would be most interested in alternative energy sources that are most compatible with my technology. Ethanol is already blended into gasoline here in the US up to 15%. Combustion engines can be modified, too, in order to run on higher blends of ethanol; in Brazil, most cars run on 100% ethanol. The technology – the combustion engine – is still the same, and it is therefore a natural choice for an oil company looking to expand to new markets.

The fact that Iogen has started to deliver the ethanol is good news. It makes a clear statement that cellulosic ethanol is a real technology, not just a laboratory idea. Hopefully, as more companies bring cellulosic ethanol to scale, we will be able to move away from the first generation of biofuels, which have been extensively criticized due to the fact that they compete with food production.

Via Green Car Congress
Image Courtesy of Iogen

";s:6:"author";s:13:"Yoni Levinson";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:04:46 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2158/";}s:7:"summary";s:1757:"

Looks like some big players are making a push for cellulosic ethanol. This past July, Royal Dutch Shell signed a deal with Iogen, a Canadian biotech company. Iogen has been working on bringing cellulosic ethanol production to scale, using feedstocks such as straw and corn stover (leaves and stalks). They recently shipped the first 100,000 liters of ethanol to Shell.

It makes sense that Shell is looking to ethanol. If I was an oil company, I would be most interested in alternative energy sources that are most compatible with my technology. Ethanol is already blended into gasoline here in the US up to 15%. Combustion engines can be modified, too, in order to run on higher blends of ethanol; in Brazil, most cars run on 100% ethanol. The technology – the combustion engine – is still the same, and it is therefore a natural choice for an oil company looking to expand to new markets.

The fact that Iogen has started to deliver the ethanol is good news. It makes a clear statement that cellulosic ethanol is a real technology, not just a laboratory idea. Hopefully, as more companies bring cellulosic ethanol to scale, we will be able to move away from the first generation of biofuels, which have been extensively criticized due to the fact that they compete with food production.

Via Green Car Congress
Image Courtesy of Iogen

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222437886;}i:8;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:73:"Environmental Defense Fund Offers $10,000 Prize to Explain Carbon Trading";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/403290716/";s:11:"description";s:2108:"

Environmental Defense Action Fund is the lobbying arm of the Environmental Defense Fund, and it seems they are turning to the people to help get their message across, namely: we need a carbon cap and trade system.

The EDAF is offering a $10,000 prize to anyone who can put together a clear, articulate video or graphic explaining how a carbon trading system will reduce our need of foreign oil. The way the EDAF puts it:

“We need your help conveying this concept to the American people in a clear, brief, convincing and memorable way to stick in the public's consciousness—like the well-known shot of an egg frying that depicted ‘your-brain-on-drugs.’”

Hmm. Boiling down a cap-and-trade concept into something as simple as “don’t do drugs?” I suppose anything is possible. However, as someone who took two semesters of economics in college, I remain skeptical.

One nice thing, in my opinion, is that the contest rules make it very clear that the EDAF doesn’t want this to be about global warming, and they don’t want this to be a partisan message, either. I think most people believe that cap-and-trade only makes sense if you DO believe in global warming, so if you can make a convincing argument that cap-and-trade makes additional sense from an energy independence perspective, that could be a powerful educational tool.

Of course, the EDAF leaves no room for opponents of cap-and-trade to make a video about their perspective… or at least win a prize for it.

Via Green Supply Line, edf.org

";s:6:"author";s:13:"Yoni Levinson";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:32:34 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2157/";}s:7:"summary";s:2108:"

Environmental Defense Action Fund is the lobbying arm of the Environmental Defense Fund, and it seems they are turning to the people to help get their message across, namely: we need a carbon cap and trade system.

The EDAF is offering a $10,000 prize to anyone who can put together a clear, articulate video or graphic explaining how a carbon trading system will reduce our need of foreign oil. The way the EDAF puts it:

“We need your help conveying this concept to the American people in a clear, brief, convincing and memorable way to stick in the public's consciousness—like the well-known shot of an egg frying that depicted ‘your-brain-on-drugs.’”

Hmm. Boiling down a cap-and-trade concept into something as simple as “don’t do drugs?” I suppose anything is possible. However, as someone who took two semesters of economics in college, I remain skeptical.

One nice thing, in my opinion, is that the contest rules make it very clear that the EDAF doesn’t want this to be about global warming, and they don’t want this to be a partisan message, either. I think most people believe that cap-and-trade only makes sense if you DO believe in global warming, so if you can make a convincing argument that cap-and-trade makes additional sense from an energy independence perspective, that could be a powerful educational tool.

Of course, the EDAF leaves no room for opponents of cap-and-trade to make a video about their perspective… or at least win a prize for it.

Via Green Supply Line, edf.org

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222378354;}i:9;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:58:"Ammonia Borane Could Store Hydrogen for Fuel Cell Vehicles";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/402950748/";s:11:"description";s:3019:"

While electric vehicles have enjoyed a lot of recent attention, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have somewhat fallen to the wayside. Sure, we can build FCVs. Honda has begun commercial production of its FCX Clarity, fuel cell busses are on the road, and there are even hydrogen filling stations being opened in California. But the general sense out there is that hydrogen will “always be ten years away”, as I once heard it put (by an EV advocate, it should be noted).

One reason some people feel this way has to do with the problem of hydrogen storage. Because hydrogen’s energy density is so low compared to gasoline, the equivalent of a tank of gas amounts to an enormous volume of hydrogen. Fuel cell vehicles today solve that problem by compressing the hydrogen gas into heavy metal tanks. These tanks, however, could use improvement. Much energy is lost simply compressing the gas, and some are concerned about the safety of a tank of highly pressurized, explosive gas .

For this reason, scientists are investigating alternative means of hydrogen storage. One chemist, Tom Autrey from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, has been experimenting with a compound called ammonia borane (AB), which consists of hydrogen, nitrogen and boron – all relatively light elements. When AB is heated, it releases hydrogen gas for use in the fuel cell. When all the AB is “spent”, hydrogen gas can be pumped in to regenerate more.

The breakthrough for Autrey came when he discovered a more efficient way to synthesize AB – something that could make or break a technology’s ability to go to scale. He is also looking into ways to recycle solvents in order to make the entire production process economical (and clean).

Other researchers are trying to do similar things with ammonia and metal hydrides. This guy uses tiny spheres of titanium, which hydrogen adheres to. As long as the material is light, hydrogen dense and feasible to produce, it is a good candidate. And if we manage to come up with some decent hydrogen storage devices, hydrogen cars may eventually NOT be ten years away.

Via H2Daily

";s:6:"author";s:13:"Yoni Levinson";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:28:24 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2156/";}s:7:"summary";s:3019:"

While electric vehicles have enjoyed a lot of recent attention, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have somewhat fallen to the wayside. Sure, we can build FCVs. Honda has begun commercial production of its FCX Clarity, fuel cell busses are on the road, and there are even hydrogen filling stations being opened in California. But the general sense out there is that hydrogen will “always be ten years away”, as I once heard it put (by an EV advocate, it should be noted).

One reason some people feel this way has to do with the problem of hydrogen storage. Because hydrogen’s energy density is so low compared to gasoline, the equivalent of a tank of gas amounts to an enormous volume of hydrogen. Fuel cell vehicles today solve that problem by compressing the hydrogen gas into heavy metal tanks. These tanks, however, could use improvement. Much energy is lost simply compressing the gas, and some are concerned about the safety of a tank of highly pressurized, explosive gas .

For this reason, scientists are investigating alternative means of hydrogen storage. One chemist, Tom Autrey from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, has been experimenting with a compound called ammonia borane (AB), which consists of hydrogen, nitrogen and boron – all relatively light elements. When AB is heated, it releases hydrogen gas for use in the fuel cell. When all the AB is “spent”, hydrogen gas can be pumped in to regenerate more.

The breakthrough for Autrey came when he discovered a more efficient way to synthesize AB – something that could make or break a technology’s ability to go to scale. He is also looking into ways to recycle solvents in order to make the entire production process economical (and clean).

Other researchers are trying to do similar things with ammonia and metal hydrides. This guy uses tiny spheres of titanium, which hydrogen adheres to. As long as the material is light, hydrogen dense and feasible to produce, it is a good candidate. And if we manage to come up with some decent hydrogen storage devices, hydrogen cars may eventually NOT be ten years away.

Via H2Daily

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222349304;}i:10;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:50:"Senate Passes Renewable Energy Bill: House to Come";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/402629629/";s:11:"description";s:2831:"

The senate has just passed what could end up being some of the most important legislation to the future of our country of the decade. No, I'm not talking about buying up $700 B of questionable mortgage assets...I'm talking about an actual, feasible, renewable energy package.

The package, which will cost around $17 B over ten years will stimulate growth in a number of clean tech sectors.

The solar investment tax credit will reduce the cost of solar installations, and it'll set us back roughly $2 B over ten years while the solar energy production tax credit will cost another $6 B. Carbon capture technology research gets another $1.5 B and an incentive program to get power plants to sequester carbon costs another $1 B.

Obviously I'm excited about all of these numbers, but mostly it's the solar tax credits that are really important. A huge number of solar installations, both residential and grid-level, are riding on the extension of the tax credit. And while previous bills have extended the credit for a measly 2 years, this bill would extend it for ten years, giving the solar industry time to plan for future growth without wondering whether the tax credits will still exist.

Of course, the bill still has to pass the House. And, unfortunately for everyone in the entire world, they may be too busy to even look at the thing.

The fight for these tax credits has been going on far too long, even though every single congressperson in America has been touting clean technology's ability to help us out of our environmental crisis, we simply couldn't pass the legislation. GE has calculated that the legislation will more than pay for itself with increased revenues and economic stimulus, and a recent study indicates that the legislation would help create almost half a million at-home, high-paying jobs.

I'm not sure why it took us so long, and I'm not calling this thing until the House votes, but if we can finally pass some legitimate renewable energy legislation in this country, I may actually stop saying bad things about congress...at least for a couple of days.

Via Fool.com Earth2Tech and Bloomberg

";s:6:"author";s:10:"Hank Green";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 25 Sep 2008 06:14:21 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2155/";}s:7:"summary";s:2831:"

The senate has just passed what could end up being some of the most important legislation to the future of our country of the decade. No, I'm not talking about buying up $700 B of questionable mortgage assets...I'm talking about an actual, feasible, renewable energy package.

The package, which will cost around $17 B over ten years will stimulate growth in a number of clean tech sectors.

The solar investment tax credit will reduce the cost of solar installations, and it'll set us back roughly $2 B over ten years while the solar energy production tax credit will cost another $6 B. Carbon capture technology research gets another $1.5 B and an incentive program to get power plants to sequester carbon costs another $1 B.

Obviously I'm excited about all of these numbers, but mostly it's the solar tax credits that are really important. A huge number of solar installations, both residential and grid-level, are riding on the extension of the tax credit. And while previous bills have extended the credit for a measly 2 years, this bill would extend it for ten years, giving the solar industry time to plan for future growth without wondering whether the tax credits will still exist.

Of course, the bill still has to pass the House. And, unfortunately for everyone in the entire world, they may be too busy to even look at the thing.

The fight for these tax credits has been going on far too long, even though every single congressperson in America has been touting clean technology's ability to help us out of our environmental crisis, we simply couldn't pass the legislation. GE has calculated that the legislation will more than pay for itself with increased revenues and economic stimulus, and a recent study indicates that the legislation would help create almost half a million at-home, high-paying jobs.

I'm not sure why it took us so long, and I'm not calling this thing until the House votes, but if we can finally pass some legitimate renewable energy legislation in this country, I may actually stop saying bad things about congress...at least for a couple of days.

Via Fool.com Earth2Tech and Bloomberg

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222323261;}i:11;a:8:{s:5:"title";s:41:"IBM Helping The World Go Cradle to Cradle";s:4:"link";s:52:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EcoGeek/~3/402517510/";s:11:"description";s:1902:"

A quick search of EcoGeek's archives show that IBM has never been shy about its environmental leadership. But now their taking it to a new level. Instead of just working on greening their business and their products, they're creating a massive consulting service to help others down the path.

IBM is calling the new business unit "IBM Environmental Product Lifecycle Management" but I'm going to call it the IBM Big Green Evangelical Party. The service covers pretty much everything a major corporation could want to green up their operations including:

Of course, if I was any manufacturing company in the world, I'd be calling up IBM right now to get on their waiting list. But all I make is blog posts, and while I'm sure I could be more efficient...I don't really have to worry too much about hazardous substances.

 

";s:6:"author";s:10:"Hank Green";s:7:"pubdate";s:31:"Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:45:08 +0000";s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:8:"origlink";s:41:"http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2154/";}s:7:"summary";s:1902:"

A quick search of EcoGeek's archives show that IBM has never been shy about its environmental leadership. But now their taking it to a new level. Instead of just working on greening their business and their products, they're creating a massive consulting service to help others down the path.

IBM is calling the new business unit "IBM Environmental Product Lifecycle Management" but I'm going to call it the IBM Big Green Evangelical Party. The service covers pretty much everything a major corporation could want to green up their operations including:

Of course, if I was any manufacturing company in the world, I'd be calling up IBM right now to get on their waiting list. But all I make is blog posts, and while I'm sure I could be more efficient...I don't really have to worry too much about hazardous substances.

 

";s:14:"date_timestamp";i:1222321508;}}s:7:"channel";a:8:{s:5:"title";s:11:"EcoGeek.org";s:11:"description";s:57:"

EcoGeek - Technology for the Environment Blog Feed

";s:4:"link";s:22:"http://www.ecogeek.org";s:13:"lastbuilddate";s:31:"Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:22:38 +0000";s:9:"generator";s:17:"FeedCreator 1.7.2";s:12:"thespringbox";a:1:{s:4:"skin";s:47:"http://feeds.feedburner.com/EcoGeek?format=skin";}s:10:"feedburner";a:1:{s:9:"awareness";s:63:"http://api.feedburner.com/awareness/1.0/GetFeedData?uri=EcoGeek";}s:7:"tagline";s:57:"

EcoGeek - Technology for the Environment Blog Feed

";}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:3:"RSS";s:12:"feed_version";s:4:"0.91";s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:23:02 GMT ";s:4:"etag";s:29:"B+H1baKcJU6xZYMP+8Ld4CQmtvM ";}