21st Century Regenerative Technology

1. Fuel Cell Funding: Intelligent Energy Raises $13.6M
2. Cleantech that Defies Physics, Whatevs, Here's $60M
3. Green Campaign Watch: Is McCain an Energy Flip-Flopper?
4. If This Doesn't Violate the Clean Water Act, What Would?
5. Hurricane Boris Regains Strength
6. This July 4, Declare Your Independence
7. 8 Fun Alternatives to Fireworks
8. The Year Americans Fell Out of Love with Cars
9. Tropical Storm Douglas Joins Hurricane Boris
10. Hurricane Boris Forms in Pacific
11. A Big Piece of Montana Is Protected from Development
12. Hurricane Boris Losing Strength
13. Judge: Reduce CO2 Or Don't Build Coal Plant

Fuel Cell Funding: Intelligent Energy Raises $13.6M

2008-07-02 20:24

Katie Fehrenbacher - Startups

Another hydrogen-based fuel cell company has brought in cash, and unlike the physics-defying BlackLight, this one’s tech is already getting tested in some big deals. Intelligent Energy said this morning that it has raised $13.6 million to help it get its hydrogen fuel cells closer to commercialization.

The UK-based company has a lot of projects in the works, even if it’s not delivering scaled-up sales yet. Intelligent says it’s working on a motorcycle with Suzuki; a delivery vehicle (called the H2Origin) with PSA Peugeot Citroën; an airplane with Boeing Research & Technology Europe; home power systems with energy company Scottish & Southern Energy, and taxis with the UK's Technology Strategy Board.

Like most hydrogen fuel cells, Intelligent Energy’s technology uses hydrogen and air to produce power. Fuel cells can be more efficient and less toxic compared to traditional combustion engines and batteries. And they also don’t have to be plugged into the power grid, so they are more mobile and in some cases, cheaper. Intelligent Energy says its technology is different than competitors in that it has more power density, and is able to fully function at very low temperatures (good for running vehicles in cold locales).

Top

Cleantech that Defies Physics, Whatevs, Here's $60M

2008-07-02 18:30

Katie Fehrenbacher - Startups

Who needs physics when there’s money to be made? The race to discover clean energy breakthroughs is seeing its fair share of cold fusion style ideas — oh-so-much promise, but a looming gap between enthusiasm and scientific reality. In the case of BlackLight Power, a 19-year old company working on what could be a disruptive fuel cell technology, it sounds like an extremely passionate scientist came down with tunnel vision. Or something much worse.

CNN Money profiles the 25-person company based in Cranbury, N.J., which says it has a working prototype that creates a chemical reaction to alter hydrogen atoms, turning water into super cheap clean power. The company’s founder, scientist Randell Mills, says the fuel cells can provide electricity that is ridiculously cheap — less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour — and provide 50 kilowatts of electricity, enough to power 6 or 7 houses.

Such a grand technology has allowed BlackLight to raise $60 million in funding from individual investors — the company’s Board includes Michael Jordan, former CEO of Electronic Data Systems and Westinghouse, and Neil Moskowitz, CFO of Credit Suisse First Boston. The investor list also includes Delaware utility Conectiv. Mills tells CNN BlackLight will grow to “500, maybe 1,000 employees” in the next two years (remember that’s from its current 25 employees after two decades.)

All of this is in the face of the fact that the large majority of the science community debunks BlackLight’s science, says CNN. The article lines up the powerbomb:

By positing that a molecule’s energy level can dip below its ground state, he rewrites the principles of quantum mechanics, which are widely viewed as incontrovertible. Perhaps the most widely-known critique of his theory was published by Andreas Rathke of the European Space Agency, who argues that Mills’ mathematics is flawed.

But, hey, what’s $60 million give or take? There’s an energy crisis at hand!

Wealthy individual investors can do as they like, but should probably be prepared for a worse-than-lottery odds of this being a winner. If it works, halleluyah — wait ’til 2009 to call the flatline, when the company says it will install its fuel cells in power plants.

Top

Green Campaign Watch: Is McCain an Energy Flip-Flopper?

2008-07-02 17:01

Katie Fehrenbacher - Policy

Is McCain the John Kerry of energy? News reports this week are essentially calling him a flip-flopper when it comes to his energy record and policy. The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg say the presidential candidate has had varying stances on offshore oil drilling, clean energy tax incentives, nuclear power and playing favorites with specific clean power technologies.

“The Arizona senator has swerved from one position to another over the years, taking often contradictory stances on the federal government’s role in energy policy.” - Los Angeles Times.

The LA Times article picks through the presidential candidate’s record and points out that McCain has called for both reducing and expanding offshore oil drilling, and has declared there should be no tax breaks for clean energy but backs billions of subsidies for the nuclear biz. McCain has called for 100 new nuclear power plants, 45 of which he wants built by 2030, but the LA Times says McCain voted 5 times in the 90’s against taxpayer aid for research on nuclear reactors, and in 2003 opposed federal loan guarantees for nuclear power.

Bloomberg points out that McCain doesn’t want to play favorites when it comes to which clean energy technology to promote — let the market decide is the theory — and is miffed (like the rest of us) about ethanol subsidies.

But his energy plans goes ahead and picks favorites, calling for $30 billion in government funding for clean coal research and those new nuclear power plants. McCain policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin tells Bloomberg that “the plan is not calibrated to make interest groups happy.” Though it sounds more like what Tim Greef, deputy legislative director of the League of Conservation Voters, tells the Los Angeles Times: It’s “a very sporadic pattern here.”