-
1. Morgan Stanley Making Waves With Tidal Energy
-
2. Offshore Drilling Could Sink or Save Clean Power
-
3. Mapflow Launches Avego for Carsharing 2.0
-
4. How Much Should the U.S. Government Spend on Clean Energy R&D?
Morgan Stanley Making Waves With Tidal Energy
Craig Rubens - Startups
The hope of tapping the energy of the world’s oceans has attracted a number of large investors, and today one of the biggest, Morgan Stanley, has upped its investment. The investment bank announcedthat its tidal current energy project developer, Current Resources, has been fully acquired by tidal turbine maker Atlantis Resources Corporation. In exchange for Current Resources, Atlantis has made Morgan Stanley its largest shareholder.
Founded in 1996, Singapore-based Atlantis Resources is developing oceanic tidal turbines for deployment in “turbine farms” or “arrays.” The company has two different turbine designs — the Solon for strong, but remote, deep sea currents and the Nereus for more accessible shallow waters. Successful, grid-connected tests of the company’s turbines have already taken place off the coast of Australia, and commercial-scale array installations are scheduled to start by 2012. The Solon turbines use a ducted horizontal axis design which researchers at Oxford recently said could drastically cut the price of tidal energy.
Tidal energy faces many of the same obstacles offshore wind faces, namely a complete lack of infrastructure in world’s oceans. But countries and cities with lots of coastline are looking into the potential that tidal energy could provide. And a number of startups have sprung up and are eager to get their gear in the water.
Marin Current Turbines started testing a huge 1.2 MW turbine earlier this year. Meanwhile startups Free Flow Power and Hydro Green Energy are both aiming to tap the mighty Mississippi River for some clean energy. Unlike wind energy, which is an intermittent energy source, tidal energy is supposed to be able to provide a far more stable and consistent stream of power, tapping into the constantly shifting tides of the seas.
Images courtesy of Atlantis Resources Corporation.
Offshore Drilling Could Sink or Save Clean Power
Craig Rubens - Policy
Following a Convention-filled recess, Congress returns to session today. The federal legislature has three weeks before it adjourns again for its members to hit the campaign trail ahead of the November elections, and energy is going to be a hotly debated topic throughout September. The issue of opening up offshore drilling left Republicans Twittering up a storm at the end of the last session and has yet to be resolved. While many think compromise is unlikely, offshore drilling could be the necessary bit of quid pro quo the Democrats need to get the renewable energy tax credits extended beyond the end of year.
Even President Bush is urging Congress to extend the investment and production tax credits, critical to the solar and wind energy industries, but yesterday in his weekly radio address added that they should “cover all forms of low-emission power generation — including nuclear power.” Bush also reiterated his call for Congress to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling and warned lawmakers: “If members of Congress do not support the American people at the gas pump, then they should not expect the American people to support them at the ballot box.”
A bipartisan group of Senators is working on an energy compromise, exchanging limited offshore drilling for renewal of the tax credits and a $20 billion investment in alternative fuel vehicles. But should that fail, the GOP is prepared to play a game of chicken if they don’t get a vote on offshore drilling; Republicans are threatening to block a bill that would keep the federal government running between Oct. 1 and Nov. 4. The question now becomes, will the Democrats be able to use offshore drilling to get those renewable energy tax credits, or will they be forced to accept offshore drilling simply to keep the lights on in government buildings?
Mapflow Launches Avego for Carsharing 2.0
Katie Fehrenbacher - Automotive
What would a commuter carpooling service that actually tapped into the real-time transparency and flexibility of the Internet look like? Well, a lot like high-tech hitch-hiking, and possibly a lot more popular and effective at getting single occupancy vehicles out of morning traffic. At least that’s the idea behind Avego (Update: formerly called Sharelift according to the DEMO info), a service officially being launched at the DEMO convention in San Diego on Monday.
The service, developed by Cork, Ireland-based company Mapflow, uses a cell phone or connected-gadget placed in commuter vehicles to pull satellite navigation info and car info via a wireless connection to develop a next-generation public transportation system. Update: Mapflow executive chairman Sean O’Sullivan tells us that the company will be focusing on its iPhone app for the DEMO launch. Mapflow calls it “shared transport,” but to us it looks a lot like carpooling brought into the always-on Internet age. The service will largely target commuters, but also could be used for taxi and other public transportation systems.
While the obvious benefit of the service (to eco-minded folks like us) may be getting any number of commuters to ditch their cars and cut carbon emissions, Avego could help battle the pinch of $4 gas, too. Mapflow estimates that out of an estimated $2-billion-per-day market of single occupancy vehicle trips, “20 percent are excellent candidates for Shared Transport.”
Mapflow has already developed a business selling consulting and technology solutions for customers interested in location-based services for vehicles in the UK. That includes partnering with municipal and federal groups on several pay-by-the mile toll and insurance programs. The company is backed by a Series A of $5.6 million and a total commitment of $11.7 million from SOSventures.
We have a lot of questions for Mapflow. We’ll be checking out the company’s presentation on Tuesday in San Diego, and will update the story. Particularly we’d like to know more about the business model — who pays for what?
Update: O’Sullivan tells us: The passengers will pay on a per mile basis, a fraction of the IRS rate per mile (IRS rate is 58.5 cents per mile, the service would cost about 30 cents per mile, or 5 to 6 times cheaper than a taxi). Mapflow directs the vast bulk of the revenue directly to the driver (85 percent of the fare)… the remainder goes to cover OTA data communication charges, SMS charges, IT infrastructure, finance charges (Visa/MC/Paypal), and our operating, marketing & R&D expenses. We feel that by directing the vast bulk of the revenue to the driver, we have a decent chance of enabling changed driver (and rider) behavior.
Update: So the company is actually launching an iPhone app — the DEMO official launch info was out-of-date. And given it’s particularly difficult and expensive to sell hardware as a startup, we’re wondering if that is the best way to start off — why not create a mobile application that taps the GPS and wireless networks of phones to do something similar? (Like California Cleantech Open Finalist Goose Networks, for example.)
Mapflow is no doubt figuring out its plan of attack. The company hopes to launch in 4 weeks or so in the U.S. But out of a sea of DEMO startups building various technologies to help make life easier, more productive or more fun, we’re glad to see at least one pondering our planet.
How Much Should the U.S. Government Spend on Clean Energy R&D?
Katie Fehrenbacher - Policy
When it comes to getting U.S. federal government funding to deliver clean technology innovation and save us from the energy and global warming crisis, how much is enough ? Dan Kammen, director of UC Berkeley’s Renewable Energy Labs, touched on that subject at both the Cleantech for Obama launch party and the National Science Board Task Force on Sustainable Energy last week. Kammen has previously called for at least a five-to-tenfold increase in federal energy R&D spending from annual federal budget levels — a tenfold increase in spending would deliver, over a decade, more than $150 billion for federal energy R&D.
Sounds like a lot, yeah? It’s also the figure that Obama (to whom Kammen is actually an adviser on energy) is using for his planned investment in renewable energy. Obama calls for $150 billion investment over 10 years. That spending would go toward renewables like solar and wind, plug-in vehicles and clean coal; $50 billion would go into a government-controlled Clean Technology Venture Capital Fund and $6 billion would go into energy R&D, according to New Energy Finance.
Some groups are saying $100 billion from both the public and private sector would do a lot of good on the green job front. A campaign called Green Jobs for America, which is backed by organizations like the Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council, are touting a report being released this week that says a $100 billion spent on clean energy could create 2 million green jobs in just two years. That program would combine tax credits, loan guarantees and public investment; the report, entitled "Green Recovery – A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy,” was co-authored by Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute and the Center for American Progress.
Whatever the details are, it’s clear we need at least 12-digit spending for the next eight years and longer. Kammen also noted at the Obama meetup that the Democratic presidential candidate’s plan is “a down payment” on our energy future. He explained to us in an email: “$150 billion is an excellent and bold start on what is needed. More will be needed…larger commitments will be needed — not necessarily public money. For us to really address climate change the private sector will have to really get behind this.”
When you think about hundreds of billions of dollars and compare that to other government programs, it’s not even that much. Kammen’s report from 2006 lays out the $150 billion in terms of how it stacks up against other U.S. government R&D spending since the 1940s. He points out the Apollo Program, which ran from 1963 to 1972, and spent $184.6 billion. The Reagan defense program of 1981 to 1989 spent $445.1 billion. And according to some estimates the war in Iraq has already cost more than $550 billion. Given that the $150 billion on energy R&D would go toward saving our planet from global warming, a tenfold increase seems like just a start.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment