By Michael T. Burr

If you were following @FortnightlyMag on Twitter last week, you saw a stream of tweets in real time from Accenture’s International Utility & Energy Conference in Tyson’s Corner, Va. Below is an edited selection of those tweets, most of which are paraphrased quotations from the speakers indicated.

Gen. Colin Powell, former U.S. Secretary of State (April 20, 2010)

-Energy is the second most powerful force. The free exchange of ideas is the first. 1:27 PM

-Openness and democracy is the greatest weapon America has. 1:14 PM 

-China won’t become America’s enemy because they’re doing too well by being our partner. 1:25 PM 

-In my judgment and that of Kleiner Perkins, cars in America are moving to electricity. It’s a solution that makes sense. 1:03 PM 

-Fuel cells have a unique military application. #bloomenergy 1:55 PM 

-Fuel cells are a breakthrough. Think of them like cell phones. #bloomenergy 1:54 PM

-We need to be careful not to focus so much on terrorism that we forget what we can accomplish. Keep moving forward. 1:40 PM

Ray Kurzweil, inventor and futurist (April 19, 2010)

-People tend to disregard new technologies in the early years of logarithmic growth. 8:50 AM

-Exponential growth in IT is transforming every industry. Every industry will be an IT industry. 8:07 AM

-Nanotechnology is inherently an information technology, subject to exponential growth. 9:20 AM

-Solar and storage are the energy technologies that depend on nanotechnology, and they follow the law of accelerating returns. 10:40 AM

-The cost per watt of photovoltaic cells is a function of nanotech progress. 9:20 AM

-Solar energy production doubles every two years. In five years solar will reach the cost-per-watt crossover point and will be cost-competitive with the alternatives. 8:15 AM

Electricity storage is a bit behind solar. It’ll be eight to nine years before storage is cost effective. In 10-20 years, it’s a whole different landscape. 11:24 AM

-Decentralized power networks are inherently more stable than centralized networks. 8:35 AM

-We’re destroying jobs at the bottom of the skill ladder and replacing them with eight times as many at the top. 8:48 AM

Jonathan Silver, DOE loan program executive director (April 20, 2010)

-Government loans should finance technologies that private financing doesn’t support. When private financing comes in, DOE should get out. 7:55 AM

-The worst thing for private financing isn’t a bad set of rules; it’s uncertainty about the rules. 7:58 AM

-Clean tech investing is the driver of the VC industry today. 8:01 AM

-[On Fortnightly’s question RE: FutureGen status and plans:] Expect progress. Next question? 8:15 AM

Andy Karsner, former DOE Under-Secretary (April 20, 2010)

-Durable price signals are the most effective remedy for ‘capital constipation.’ 9:28 AM

-DOE has lost its focus on R&D toward scalable techs and is displacing private capital. 8:49 AM

-Congress has two approaches to policymaking — do nothing or overreact. 8:33 AM

-Congress is more likely to legislate energy policy in reaction to a crisis than it is to legislate with thoughtful deliberation. 8:35 AM

-”No policy” is a lot cheaper than “bad policy.” 8:46 AM

-The official US position on oil price policy is we don’t know and it’s out of our control. 9:12 AM

Andy Serri, Ameren (April 20, 2010)

-In Washington, the loudest party, the last to speak, rules the day. Subject matter experts aren’t in the room. 8:54 AM

Hugh McDermott, Better Place (April 19, 2010)

-As long as EV batteries carry a price premium, we will take that out of the equation w/ leasing. 3:27 PM

Mark Case, Baltimore Gas & Electric (April 19, 2010)

-BG&E’s “no losers” rebate program nets the same peak reduction as critical peak pricing and gives 100% of customers immediate benefit. 2:47 PM

-Peak rebate program will save customers $1,500 each over the 15 year meter lifespan. 2:44 PM

Chris Colbert, UniStar (April 19, 2010)

-We haven’t started construction yet and Calvert Cliffs is already big: $600 million just for permitting & licensing. 1:02 PM

-You have to convince yourself you’re not building just one reactor, but three or four. 1:35 PM

-We’re not just building a project; we’re building up the whole nuclear industry again, including the NRC. 1:30 PM

Gautham Chandra, Washington Gas Light (4/19/2010)

-We try to position ourselves to be the lowest cost platform to bring the best technology solutions to market. 10:49 AM

-The regulatory tide is moving gradually toward DG and distributed control of the grid. 11:27 AM

A.R. Mullinax, Duke Energy CIO (4/19/2010)

-We’re hedging our bets, investing in all the emerging solutions. 10:45 AM

-Once you break the electricity storage barrier, everything changes. 11:18 AM

Arthur Hanna, Accenture (4/19/2010)

-About 51% of US consumers say they don’t trust energy companies to make correct decisions to address US energy challenges. 9:33 AM

-… Yet 2/3 say the industry is responsible to solve energy problems. 9:35 AM

-The energy industry has a responsibility to take charge of educating consumers. If they don’t trust us, they’ll trust someone else. 9:48 AM

Geoffrey Colvin, Fortune magazine (4/19/2010)

-The most successful companies are very good at creating new solutions for customers’ new problems. 10:22 AM

Posted: April 26th, 2010 under Current News, R&D, Uncategorized, climate change, dynamic pricing, finance, geoengineering, green energy, investment banks, natural gas, renewable energy credits, renewables, smart grid.
Comments: none

News about electric vehicles (EV) has been coming fast and furious in the past few days.

For instance, on March 30, Nissan announced the sticker price for its Leaf EV — $32,780 before government incentives. (Early in March Nissan said it would ramp up the global production capacity for the Leaf from the current reported 50,000 to 500,000 units a year in 2012.)

The next day, Ford and Microsoft announced they were teaming up to integrate smart charging into Microsoft’s Hohm energy management system. Microsoft says Hohm will help drivers to determine the best time to charge their vehicle. “Ford and Microsoft will deliver a solution that will make it easier for car owners to make smart decisions about the most affordable and efficient ways to recharge electric vehicles, while giving utilities better tools for managing the expected changes in energy demand,” stated Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO.

And the same day, Ford was providing test drives of its new Transit Connect commercial van, which the company says will use $2 to $3 worth of electricity to cover its 80-mile range, compared to $12 to fuel the gasoline version of the same van over the same range.

But as interesting and important as those developments were, they overshadowed another announcement on April 1 (no fooling) that ultimately might have much broader ramifications. Namely, in its supremely wonky, pocket-protected style, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) re-designated its arcane-sounding standard, P1809, with the even-more arcane designation “P2030.1.”

Ho hum, right? Actually, not so much.

By re-designating P1809 — which was IEEE’s “draft standard addressing electric-sourced transportation infrastructure” — the organization officially moved its work on EV standards into the realm of the smart grid. It might seem subtle, but it’s a major shift in focus for EV technology stakeholders worldwide. IEEE is developing P2030.1 for use by utilities, manufacturers, infrastructure developers and end users, and thus arguably is creating the technical roadmap for EVs to roll onto roadways—and plug into utility systems—around the world.

“We believe this move will foster a more coordinated, integrated relationship between [IEEE’s EV and smart-grid standards efforts], sparking new smart-grid technology innovation and development,” stated Siri Jodha Khasla, chair of IEEE’s Standards Coordinating Committee.

IEEE’s announcement comes at an opportune time in the smart-grid standards process. These standards have advanced significantly in the past year, and in recent months the U.S. federal government has taken a leadership role by forming a governing board for the U.S. Commerce Department’s stimulus-funded Smart Grid Interoperability Panel (SGIP), under the auspices of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

John McDonald, who chairs the SGIP governing board and serves as general manager of marketing for GE’s T&D division, told Fortnightly magazine in a phone call on March 31, “We [NIST’s SGIP] are looking at priority action plans for electric vehicles. It’s something we’re discussing right now,” he said. “And at GE we’re looking at Japanese standards, as part of our work to develop smart-charging technology.”

McDonald pointed out that smart-charging standards might get a significant boost sooner rather than later, as EV drivers begin causing pain for utilities in a highly localized way.

“While the overall penetration rate for EVs will be low for some time, there’s growing fear in the utility industry about pockets of high density,” he said. “You’ll find an affluent subdivision with higher penetration rates than other areas. All these folks will plug in at the same time and the distribution transformers serving those homes will get overloaded.

“Pad-mounted and overhead transformers weren’t sized to handle the load of electric vehicle charging,” he explained. “And they’re designed to have a nighttime cooling period. If we’re charging a bunch of EVs at night, transformers won’t be able to cool down enough, and during the day they’ll blow up or burn out.”

Such pain points will prompt utilities to accelerate plans to install smart-charging infrastructure — and that makes EV integration standards all the more timely. “Once the vehicles start rolling out in certain areas,” McDonald says, “smart charging will come to the forefront almost as quickly as the cars do.”-Michael T. Burr

Posted: April 1st, 2010 under R&D, Uncategorized, electric vehicles, smart charging, smart grid.
Comments: none

By John A. Bewick

The Presidential candidates increasingly are including energy-policy issues in their stump speeches. And the Democratic contenders propose enormous spending programs—from $50 billion (Sen. Hillary Clinton) to $150 billion (Sen. Barack Obama)—with a New-Deal style appeal for investing in the country’s energy future.

Last year, Obama said, “This is our generation’s moment to save future generations from global catastrophe. It will take a grass-roots effort to make America greener and end the tyranny of oil.”

Clinton, in a speech at the National Press Club, said “Instead of national security dictating our energy policy, our failed energy policy dictates our national security.”

Sen. John McCain likewise includes the energy theme in his campaign promises. In April 2007 he said, “We have the urgent need and the opportunity to build a safer and thriving future with more diverse, reliable, and cleaner energy. But it will take another indispensable commodity to make it happen—American leadership.” McCain is well known as the perennial co-sponsor, with Sen. Joe Lieberman, of legislation that would mandate carbon constraints.

It seems the next president, regardless of who it is, is going to attack development of clean energy vigorously. If mountains of public money are to be spent on development of new technologies, there is an equally mountainous question of how those funds should be managed to assure the money is not wasted—i.e., that the investment yields commercially viable, clean energy technologies that get widely deployed in the coming decades. Who should manage this project—the federal government or the private sector?

While the Department of Energy might seem like an obvious choice, its track record suggest otherwise. For one thing, DOE’s annual appropriations are subject to political whims, as well as political competition inside the beltway—with defense, health care, education, and other departments clamoring for their share. Further, the agency’s tendencies to pick so-called winners like FutureGen before the facts are in about commercial viability suggests it would be the wrong model for managing a New Deal-scale energy development effort.

So what about the private sector? The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), funded by the utility industry, has prepared a comprehensive and detailed RD&D program for developing commercial, climate-friendly power generation technology. EPRI brings a great degree of industry credibility, but its budget model severely constrains its resources, and its track record is mixed, when it comes to wide-scale deployment of technologies developed.

The Gas Research Institute might be a model worth replicating. It generated 30 percent success on commercial ventures—twice the normal industry rate of success—with a benefit/cost ratio of 7:1. GRI selected its projects under the oversight of a government watchdog—FERC—with multiple review boards—including industry, academia, public interest groups and technical experts—all contributing in a formalized project appraisal methodology that winnowed out the important, likely winners with amazing success.

Plus GRI’s funding model bears more resemblance to the broad-and-deep stream that might characterize a New Energy Deal. GRI was funded by a surcharge on interstate gas pipeline sales.

It comes down to this: whom do you trust? No one I know trusts the government to develop commercial products. And historic examples support this sense of mistrust.

After World War II, Alfred Loomis shut down the MIT Rad Lab that had developed radar during the war by January 1946, because he felt companies like RCA and Motorola would do a much better job of exploiting the commercial potential of electronics. By contrast, the National Laboratories associated with atomic energy were not closed. And while they have produced valuable research, their efforts have paled in comparison to what the RCAs and Motorolas of the world have produced.

America might need a New Deal to finance the mammoth clean energy challenge, but such an investment must be managed by the private sector—perhaps in a GRI-style structure—to ensure public spending actually results in cost-effective technologies being developed, commercialized and deployed.

(EDITOR’s NOTE: This blog entry provided a preview of John Bewick’s article, “Cultivating Clean Tech,” which appeared on the cover of Fortnightly’s May 2008 issue. Bewick, formerly secretary of environmental affairs for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is founder of Compliance Management Inc., an environmental consultancy based in Hingham, Mass. -MTB)

Posted: April 2nd, 2008 under R&D, energy policy.
Comments: none