Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

When CNET’s respected “Future Tech Blog,” authored by Michael Kanellos, reported last week that Miasole intended to go public in 12 to 18 months, we decided it was time to take a closer look at this promising manufacturer of thin film photovoltaics.

Like Nanosolar, Miasole (pronounced mee-ah-so-LAY) relies on CIGS technology. CIGS, short for “copper indium gallium selenide,” requires far less silicon, which is in short supply these days. As Miasole’s website states, the CIGS photoactive material can be deposited on a “stainless steel foil only 50 microns thick. It can easily be used in PV modules or incorporated into building materials like membrane roofing.”

Earlier today, when we asked Martin Wenzel, Miasole’s SVP of Sales and Marketing, whether or not they were shipping product, he said no, but they would be very soon. He stated they had two production lines capable of 25 megawatts of output per year in place. He said they could be ready to go into production in 30-45 days. He also said they had already procured material to build two more 25 megawatt (per year) production lines at the same plant. And get this, they are doing this in Santa Clara, in the heart of the Silicon Valley!

We had to ask, why not go offshore? Wenzel explained that the cost for labor is such a small percentage of the total cost of manufacturing it woudn’t make sense to have the first volume production plant anywhere but close to the research facility. Shades of Silicon Valley in the late 1970′s, except this time it’s green tech instead of high tech… When asked how much capacity Miasole eventually envisioned building up to, Wenzel was cautious about long range forecasting. He did acknowledge, however, that Miasole within five years could be producing between 1.0 and 1.5 gigawatts of photovoltaics per year. The entire world production of photovoltaics in 2005 was 1.6 gigawatts. Keep your eye on Miasole…

A generation from now, advanced energy storage devices, barely recognizable as what today we know of as batteries or capacitors, along with ubiquitous photovoltaics, will have completely transformed the world’s energy and transporation industries.

We’ve been electric car fans for a long time, and the relationship between Feel Good Cars, located in Toronto, Ontario, and EEStor, located in Austin, Texas, is too intriguing to ignore. Feel Good Cars manufactures the ZENN (zero emission no noise) “luxury neighborhood electric vehicle.” According to the ZENN specifications, this two-seater car has a top speed of 25 MPH, a range of 35 miles, and costs $12,500.

No breakthroughs there. Just two days ago, taking advantage of 1.9% financing, my webmaster just bought a Ford Escape Hybrid for $25,000; a car that gets 40 MPG in the city and goes over 400 miles without refueling. Oh, and it can be driven on the highway, at speeds, shall we say, well over the speed limit. So for twice the price do you get twice the car? I think so.

Feel Good Cars is going for the neighborhood electric vehicle market, where they are probably about to compete with imports from Asia that will offer most of the amenities they have at less than half the price. But that’s today.

Anticipating their future – caught in a death squeeze between ultra low cost neighborhood cars and ultra high mileage freeway-capable hybrids – Feel Good Cars has scored what could be the coup that saves them. In late 2005 they signed an exclusive agreement with EEStor, a company that claims to have technology to produce an ultra-capacitor.

For those of you unfamiliar with capacitors, they are electrical devices that can store energy in the electric field between a pair of closely spaced conductors (called ‘plates’). When voltage is applied to the capacitor, electric charges of equal magnitude, but opposite polarity, build up on each plate. The problem with today’s capacitors is they have a very low energy density – that is, they cannot achieve kilowatt-hours per kilogram at a ratio anywhere near what is necessary for an automobile.

There are several companies in the race to produce an ultra-capacitor (all of them relying on nanotechnology), and EEStor, with no website and operating in stealth, is one of the rumored front-runners. That they have raised venture capital from the Silicon Valley heavyweight, Kleiner Perkins, lends great credibility to their claims.

According to a May, 2004 edition of the newsletter “Utility Federal Technology Opportunities,” EEStor claims to make a battery at half the cost per kilowatt-hour and one-tenth the weight of lead-acid batteries. Specifically, the product weighs 400 pounds and delivers 52 kilowatt-hours. This translates to nearly 300 watt-hours per kilogram, as good as the best lithium ion batteries out there, and certainly good enough to power an electric vehicle, particularly since capacitors can charge in minutes instead of hours, and don’t overheat. They are also potentially far less expensive.

Returning to Feel Good Cars, according to a press release issued about one year ago, they have “entered into a Technology Agreement with EEStor, Inc. to acquire the exclusive worldwide right to purchase high-power-density ceramic ultra capacitors for all personal transportation uses under 15 KW drive systems (equivalent to 100 peak horse power) and for vehicles with a curb weight of under 1200 kilograms not including batteries.”

Should all this come to fruition for Feel Good Cars, they will, theoretically, be able to offer freeway capable light vehicles with ranges competitive with hybrids. And for $12,500, that would be a good value for money. We will see.

Yesterday another prominent businessman, who I admire greatly, has weighed in on the potential of biofuels. In a presentation delivered at a forum hosted by the World Trade Organization, Ted Turner said “biofuels could do more than fight problems like pollution and global warming. They can also provide wealthy countries a means of keeping their farmers in business, instead of subsidizing products that can be grown more cheaply in poor countries, products like cotton, sugar beets, sugar cane and rice.”

Turner has a good point. Wealthy countries with ample farmland that is already in service can grow biofuel instead of food. Because the land is already being used as farmland, there is no pressure to deforest. Because the farmers are already being paid subsidies to keep land out of production, these subsidies can be redirected towards encouraging biofuel production. In this manner, even a biofuel crop of marginal economic viability can improve a wealthy nation’s energy security while remaining “tax neutral.”

It is in the developing countries that encouraging biofuel plantings is more problematic. As we point out in an earlier post “Deforestation Diesel,” planting biofuels is crowding out food production in countries where prices of food are already too high. Planting biofuels is also encouraging deforestation, since now there are two reasons, food and fuel, for taking down trees and planting crops. Moreover, planting biofuels will lead to desertification, since much of the topsoil in the tropics is very thin and deteriorates quickly when the tree canopy is removed.

To replace all energy used on earth with biofuel would require 10 million square miles of land, on a planet with only 5 million square miles of arable farmland. See proof for these figures in “Biofuel vs. Photovoltaics.” For this reason, as long as growing biofuel is profitable, and in many parts of the world it is very profitable, the pressures to deforest will be more compelling than ever.

Those who believe we need to manage atmospheric CO2 to manage global warming should be especially concerned. So what if biofuel is “carbon neutral” if producing it requires stripping the earth of even more forest canopy and contributing to the spread of deserts? More forests (cool and CO2 sponges) cool the planet, and more deserts (hot and no CO2 absorption) warm the planet. Their impact very likely dwarfs any advantage we may get from burning biofuel instead of petroleum. At the least, these trade-offs need to be evaluated.

This is the message that is currently lost on biofuel proponents: Biofuel should be grown on existing farmland in developing countries and on land that is already desertified – or in factories. Anywhere else ought to be subject to careful cost/benefit analysis. Biofuel is a promising source of supplemental fuel. Biofuel using factory farming techniques may become more than just a supplemental fuel, read “Factory Farmed Algae for Biofuel.” But in our exhuberance for biofuels let us not forget the forest for the fuel.

Central Asia A place of myth, legend & lore

Central Asia’s power sector is just beginning to be developed. Each of the Central Asian economies is hungry for greater power generation – and each one is facing big obstacles on the path to further growth and development of the sector. Probably the most significant development in Central Asia’s power grid is in Tajikistan.

TAJIKISTAN’S ENERGY PROJECTS

Tajikistan’s hydro resources are unique and top-ranked. Electricity production for 15 years of independence in average amounted to 17 billion kWh. Their aggregate installed capacity of hydropower stations in 2006 amounts to 4,090 MW.

According to the Tajikistan’s National Strategy for Energy Sector Development (2006-2015) their electricity output is estimated to reach 26.4 billion kWh by 2010 and 35.0 billion kWh by 2015.

TAJIKISTAN’S ELECTRICITY EXPORT POTENTIAL (expressed in megawatt-years)

According to the National Strategy for Energy Sector Development (2006-2015) the electricity output is estimated at 3.0 gigawatt-years (gWy) by 2010 and 9.1 gWy by 2015

Opportunities for new hydroelectric power generation projects exist on the following rivers: Vakhsh, Pyandj, Amudarya, Zerafshan, Surkhob and Obi Hingoh.

Development of the potential on Vakhsh River is estimated at 9,195 MW with annual electricity generation at 36,930 million kWh. At present only 3,835 MW are utilized. Hydropower stations offering an additional aggregated installed capacity of 4,490 MW are under construction, and hydropower stations with another 850 MW installed capacity are under design.

HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS ON TAJIKISTAN’S VAKHSH RIVER

Projects already in progress will triple the hydroelectric output on Tajikistan’s Vakhsh River, to 9.1 gigawatts.

The investor behind the Sangtuda-I project is the monopoly power company of Russia, Unified Energy System (http://www.rao-ees.ru).

The investor behind the Rogun project is the largest aluminum producer in Russia, Russian Aluminum, (http://www.rusal.com).

The investor behind the Sangtuda-II project is the Government of Iran.

Kairakkum, Golovnaya and Varzob Cascade Hydropower Plant Modernization Projects:

Barqi Tojik’s Kairakkum hydropower station (126 MW) located on the Syrdarya River in northern Tajikistan, and Golovnaya (240 MW) and Varzob Cascade hydropower stations (a total of 25 MW) in southern Tajikistan need to be rehabilitated to increase utilization and efficiency. Rehabilitation would include primarily the turbines, runners, substations, and ancillary equipment, such as pumps, compressors, and some piping. With the rehabilitation of the hydropower plants, capacity would increase to 162 MW for the Kairakkum station and 270 MW for the Golovnaya station. Likewise, the additional power generated per year would be 259 GWh, 216 GWh, and 40 GWh from the three hydropower facilities, respectively. The Kairakkum and Varzob Cascade rehabilitations are expected to cost a total of $43 million and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is expected to fund these rehabilitations as a package. The Golovnaya rehabilitation is estimated to cost $34 million, and the Asian Development Bank is expected to provide financing.

New Export-Based Power Generation Plants:

The objective of the project is to increase the supply of export-based power generation by identifying from 300 to 1,000 MW of new hydroelectricity in Tajikistan at new sites or by completing partially completed installations. This new electricity will then be exported to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The existence of a transmission corridor makes it feasible for the new electricity supply to reach its markets. The project includes: identifying the criteria by which the new generation would be ranked and selected; the design and construction of the new reservoirs and generation installations; and the new transmission lines to connect to the transmission corridor. It could also involve the negotiation of new electricity sales agreements with Afghanistan and Pakistan that recognize the long-term nature of the new supply before it becomes available. Total project costs are estimated at around $700 million.

TAJIKISTAN’S POTENTIAL NEW POWER GENERATION PLANTS

Along with Norway and Sweden, Tajikistan is a country relatively small in population that has an enormous hydroelectric resource.

Export of Available Seasonal Electricity to Afghanistan:

Tajikistan has a well-developed sector for the generation of hydropower from existing dams and other structures and seasonally available surplus power. Afghanistan, which lies immediately to the south of Tajikistan, has suppressed electricity demand and currently supplies much of its demand through costly decentralized diesel-electric generation based on imported diesel fuel. This project consists of a transmission line (220 KV) and connection with the appropriate substation in Afghanistan’s northeast transmission grid. The attractiveness of the project stems from the ability to implement it in the short term and the gap between the cost of hydroelectric power and diesel-generated power. Total project costs are estimated at $35 million.

KAZAKHSTAN’S ENERGY PROJECTS

North-South 500kV Transmission Project:

The existing North-South (N/S) electricity transmission lines are insufficient to meet growing domestic and anticipated export demand. The new 500kV N/S line will enable an increased volume of electricity transfer from generating plants in northern Kazakhstan to markets in southern Kazakhstan. Additionally, this will expand the Central Asia electricity marketing options through the expansion of a Kazakhstan leg of a new Central Asia North-South power transmission system. The loan for this project has already been approved by the World Bank. The total amount of financing is about $326 million. The project includes 3 phases.

The Music of Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan : Moinak Hydropower Plant:

The Moinak Hydroelectric Power Project is located in South-Eastern Kazakhstan on the upper reach of the Charyn River, approximately 170 km East of Almaty. A number of studies have been undertaken in the past to investigate the hydropower potential of the Charyn River, and in 1985, construction on the head works and the dam for the Moinak project started. However, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent suspension of project funding, construction was halted in 1992. The total cost of the entire project is estimated at $310 million. The majority of the costs will be financed by the Government of Kazakhstan, with funding apparently being drawn from the national pension fund, which is reported to have accumulated more than 460 billion tenge ($3.5 billion).

Export of 4,000 MW of Coal Fired Power & 1,500kV DC Transmission Line:
Voracious growth has created an unprecedented demand for energy in China. In order to meet the growing power supply deficit, China is actively looking for innovative supply solutions. Both China and Kazakhstan are taking steps to meet this looming demand as evidenced by their decision to commence deliberations on the construction of a huge power station at the Ekibastuz coal field in Pavlodar Region. This power will be exported to eastern China through a 4,500 km 1,500 kV DC transmission line, with an expected capacity of 5,500 MW.

KYRGYZSTAN’S ENERGY PROJECTS

Datka-Kemin 500KV Transmission Line & Substations Project:

A new 400 km, 500kV transmission line and one substation will be designed and built to increase the internal power transmission capacity of Kyrgyzstan. This will link abundant generation capacity and potential in the south of the country with the energy deficient north. Additionally, this will expand the Central Asia electricity marketing options through the construction of the Kyrgyzstan leg of a new North-South power transmission system. The transmission line will require building, along new rights of way, steel structures with steel-reinforced conductor wires to carry a maximum load of 1,500 MW. At the north end, the line will connect to the 500/220 kV Kemin Substation, whose implementation is included in this project. At the south end, the transmission line will connect to the planned 500 KV Datka Substation and a substation that is part of the Southern Kyrgyzstan Transmission Upgrade Project, for which USTDA is funding a feasibility study. The estimated investment for the project totals about $170 million in line construction and about $20 million in Kemin Substation construction.

Rehabilitation of Uch-Kurgan Hydropower Plant:

The Uch-Kurgan hydropower plant is the first plant of the Naryn Cascade. Construction began in 1956 and was completed in 1962. Its installed capacity of 180 MW (4 units of 45 MW each) averages an annual generation of 899 million kWh. As a result of 40 years of operation and a lack of funding for adequate maintenance in the years following independence, Uch-Kurgan HPP’s primary equipment, auxiliary equipment, control equipment and technical systems all need significant repair or replacement. Lack of action will result in further decrease of installed capacity, leading eventually to HPP shutdown. The cost of rehabilitating Uch-Kurgan is estimated at between $27 million and $35 million.

220 kV Overhead Transmission Line Rehabilitation:

At the present time, power to the South of Kyrgyzstan is supplied through a network of 110-220 kV transmission lines. Those lines also pass through the Uzbek Republic, which leads to security issues for reliable power supply. In addition to the security issue, those lines and substations are overloaded by 25- 30% in the wintertime when peak demand is three times that of the peak summertime load. The transmission company has begun the South Kyrgyzstan Electrical Improvement Program to rehabilitate and strengthen the transmission grid in this region. The first phase of the project involved the construction of the 131 km Alay-Aigultash 220 kV transmission line, the construction of the 220 kV Aigultash Substation and rehabilitation of the 220 kV Alay and 110 kV Batken substations. The second phase of the project involves the construction of a 500/220 kV substation at Datka, with interconnection to the existing 500 kV O/H Transmission Line and the 220 kV network and replacement of the 220 kV network, which is old and in need of rehabilitation. Total costs for this project are estimated at $70 million. Financing is in place.

Naryn Cascade Hydropower Projects:

This project covers the study and promotion of the integrated development of the hydroelectric resources of the Naryn River. There is significant interest within the Government of Kyrgyzstan and others to design and build five or more hydroelectric plant sites with a total generating capacity of approximately 350 megawatts. A concession will be offered for the development of the five sites for the production and export of electricity under the terms and conditions of a negotiated concession agreement. Funding amounts have yet to be determined.

Taliban, by Ahmed Rashid Coexisting with Electrification?

AFGHANISTAN’S ENERGY PROJECTS

220 kV Transmission Line from Sherberghan to the Turkmenistan Border:

At present, Afghanistan’s power demand is being supplied by plants run almost exclusively on diesel. Progress is being made by the governments of Afghanistan and Turkmenistan on energy trade between the two countries. This project is a 220kV interconnection with Turkmenistan that has been identified by USAID as a means to facilitate additional import of power into Afghanistan. This would be an adjunct to the North East Transmission System (NETS), which is currently being designed and built. ADB and others are funding other project components to provide for the transmission of electricity from the north into Kabul. The transmission infrastructure (lines & corresponding sub-stations at different locations) requires repair, and rehabilitation, as well as greenfield project development. Total funding requirements are being established for this component of the NETS project.

Export of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Electricity to Afghanistan and Pakistan:

The project addresses the seasonal surpluses of hydroelectricity in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan and the establishment of a transmission corridor that would export this surplus electricity to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The total surplus electricity supply from the three Central Asian countries can meet a significant part of the demand in Afghanistan and Pakistan. For this supply to meet the demand an electricity transmission corridor (500 KV) needs to be constructed by linking segments of existing lines with new construction. The corridor will originate at a connection with the Kazakhstan grid at the border with Kyrgyzstan and connect to the Pakistan grid at a yet to be determined location. Total costs of the project are estimated at between $600 million and $1 billion.

CONCLUSION

* Power generation cost in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is lower than in its neighboring countries in South Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India);

* Host governments support export based projects, and in some countries domestic demand for electricity is significantly lower than generating capacity;

* U.S.-based power sector companies are absent in the energy sector in Central Asia, while companies from Russia, China and Iran are actively involved;

* Multilateral banks recognize and support export based strategies;

* In general, the investment climate in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is positive, but remains challenging.

THE NATIONS OF CENTRAL ASIA

(Map: U.S. Central Intelligence Agency)

About the Author: Gordon Feller is the CEO of Urban Age Institute (www.UrbanAge.org). During the past twenty years he has authored more than 500 magazine articles, journal articles or newspaper articles on the profound changes underway in politics, economics, and ecology – with a special emphasis on sustainable development. Gordon is the editor of Urban Age Magazine, a unique quarterly which serves as a global resource and which was founded in 1990. He can be reached at GordonFeller@UrbanAge.org and he is available for speaking to your organization about the issues raised in this and his other numerous articles published in EcoWorld.

Last week, Richard Branson announced some of Virgin’s profits will be plowed into developing alternative energy, up to as much as 3.0 billion dollars. This is a good and noble thing to do, but also requires discussion. What if all those profits are invested in the hydrogen fuel cell sector (a very inefficient use of funds), or into biofuel plantations that deforested the planet?

Also of concern is the possibility these funds will be put into CO2 sequestration programs instead of CO2 absorption programs. That is, why aren’t we digging aqueducts to refill the Aral Sea using surplus water from the Volga River since the Caspian Sea is rising? Why aren’t we tunneling through the mountains north of the Ubangi River, so we can divert some of its water into the Sahel to refill Lake Chad? These water projects could create a million or more square miles of restored ecosystems in the Aral Sea and Lake Chad basins. And they will absorb CO2.

Why aren’t we planting new forests in the Congo, instead of burning away more forests to grow Cassava, a biofuel? Why aren’t we planting new forests in the Amazon, instead of burning them to grow Sugar Cane, another biofuel?

Why shouldn’t an investment in carbon sequestration go instead into stopping desertification? What if biofuel plantings were only allowed on desertified lands? Or even more restrictive, biofuel plantings would only be allowed as the vanguard plantings, to begin to restore desertified topsoil, often immediately followed by plantings of more permanent forest plants. To avoid any deforestation, have you thought of factory farming biofuels?

The original forest canopy on the planet earth constituted over 20 million square miles, and at this time there are only about 12 million square miles of forest in the world. To think this change in land use, combined with the increasing presence of urban heat sinks on the planet (also something that can be ameliorated by planting trees), is not responsible for global warming is counterintuitive, to say the least. Put the forests back.

When only 5% of the carbon dioxide emissions each year into the earth’s atmosphere are from human sources – at most, many estimates cite an anthropogenic CO2 contribution of only 2% – and over 40% of the world’s forests are gone, you have to conclude the presence (or lack) of forests has something to do with higher atmospheric CO2, and/or higher global temperatures! Forests are cool, deserts are hot. Not only are something like 8 million miles of forest are gone in the last 50 years, but there are equal millions of square miles of new deserts in the world. Deserts are on the march along with deforestation on a planet with only 56 million square miles of land surface.

Through desertification and deforestation humans have transformed about one-third of the entire surface of the earth from cool to warm. Sir Richard Branson should be lauded for putting his profits into alternative energy research. Finding clean, cost effective, renewable energy alternatives to coal and oil is a great thing – photovoltaics, windmills, batteries, green buildings and countless other innovations are all great ways to produce, store and conserve clean energy. But before any of these Virgin profits go to investments in CO2 sequestration, we believe they instead should go to reforestation and reversing desertification. That would yield obvious side benefits – less CO2, a cooler planet, and new life zones where food and timber can be harvested sustainably.

To think we could be set to further deforest and desertify this planet because biofuel is “carbon-neutral” is a sad thought indeed. And in that regard, please good Sir, think carefully about where to send the proceeds of your noble act.

Such is the moniker applied to biofuel by none other than a commentator for the BBC, in an opinion piece posted today entitled “Biofuels: Green Energy or Grim Reaper?”

We have always been optimistic about the potential of biofuel with a couple of big qualifiers: They do not always offer a positive economic or energy payback, even though in some places – palm oil in Africa, sugar cane in Brazil, their payback in both senses is quite positive. They also are not going to replace petroleum, or even come close.

As we prove in our post “Biofuel vs. Photovoltaics,” the best biofuel crops produce about 6,000 barrels of fuel per square mile per year. This equates to about 55 million Btu’s of energy per square mile per year. To produce enough fuel to fulfill energy requirements of the human race (400 quadrillion Btu’s per year) we would need to devote 10.8 million square miles to growing biofuel. There are only about 5.5 million square miles of arable farmland on the entire planet.

Returning to today’s commentary on the BBC website, it isn’t some petro-puppet coming up with this scorching criticism of biofuels, it is Jeffrey McNeely, the Chief Scientist of the World Conservation Union. He makes several sobering points, including the following:

Because biofuel is a profitable business in many parts of the world, deforestation is now accelerating to feed demand for biofuel crops. This in turn is causing habitat destruction. This practice as well puts fragile topsoils that should never have been taken out from under a forest canopy on track to eventually become desertified.

Biofuel as a cash crop is coming into direct competition for land with crops needed for food, often driving up food prices in regions where there are significant areas where people live in poverty and are already malnourished.

Biotechnology holds the promise to greatly increase biofuel yields, but also holds risk. What if, for example, bioengineered trees with weaker lignin fiber (allowing easier commercialization of processes to extract ethanol from cellulose), crossbreed with wild trees, undermining the strength of their trunks and limbs?

We agree with every one of Dr. McNeely’s cautionary points. It may be the best future for biofuels will be through factory growth of biomass, such as algae, where the processes are contained and yields are far, far higher. Read about factory farmed ethanol from algae in our post “Ethanol from CO2 & Algae.”

We have learned that Nanosolar, possibly the most credible aspirant to developing the next generation photovoltaic panel, has partnered with Conergy Group, arguably (among other things) the biggest installer of photovoltaic installations in the world.

Needless to say, this partnership constitutes a huge endorsement of Nanosolar, since Conergy Group would not have gotten involved with them unless their technical and procurement people had done a thorough job of evaluating this company and their technology. We have contacted Conergy’s North American headquarters to request whatever specifics regarding their due diligence they may wish to disclose, which we will report here as soon as we hear back from them.

In the report released jointly by Nanosolar and Conergy Group, it is noted that Conergy Group, headquartered in Hamburg, Germany, has annual revenues of 800 million Euros and has already installed over 30,000 photovoltaic systems. Nanosolar, with its “proprietary nanoparticle ink and fast roll-printing technology,” owns the processes and designs which they believe will allow them to produce the world’s most cost-efficient solar cells.

In our previous report on Nanosolar “Silicon Valley Photovoltaics” we report that the company raised $100 million in investor financing and is preparing to build a manufacturing plant capable of turning out 430 megawatts of photovoltaics each year. In 2005 the entire world manufacturing output of photovoltaics was only 1.6 gigawatts, meaning this single plant intends to increase the yearly world output of new photovoltaics by 27%!

Currently the price of photovoltaics has been kept artificially high for two reasons (1) the shortage of polysilicon, something which is changing, and (2) the well-founded fear that a new technology would emerge to greatly reduce the manufacturing costs has discouraged investment in new manufacturing plants. For this reason, while photovoltaic panels sell for around $4.00 per watt, this is a shortage-driven price, and the manufacturing costs are already below $2.00 per watt. Nanosolar, with claims on their website their manufacturing costs will be “a fraction” of current costs, could be what the market has been waiting for.

If Nanosolar delivers on their claims, we could be a few short years from having photovoltaics become a low cost, abundant, totally clean and renewable source of electricity. Read their product overviews, and keep an eye on this company.

We’ve been challenged recently to defend our somewhat unconventional view of environmentalism. After all, if you believe that most of the conventional wisdom held by typical environmentalists is wrong, are you still an environmentalist?

The answer is yes, yes, yes, absolutely and resolutely, yes. We don’t believe in half the things that we’re supposed to believe in as “environmentalists,” yet we are environmentalists. People in the name of environmentalism waste billions of taxpayer’s money pursuing half-baked schemes, and tie our economy up in knots, and it is our job as non-conformist yet utterly committed environmentalists to carry the torch of true environmentalism. It is our job to expose environmentalist myths at the same time as we relentlessly pursue the truth, and redefine environmentalism to legitimately appeal to a wider, mainstream constituency.

We’re not sure yet whether or not anthropogenic CO2 is the reason for global warming, nor that the most dire predictions of global warming are very likely. We’re think measured use of DDT might be a wise choice in many parts of this world where malaria still runs rampant. We question why people claim there is a shortage of landfills, when we could have ten times as many landfills as we’ve got now and hardly anyone would notice. And we’re not sure recycling is as unambiguously good as environmentalists claim.

We don’t think the world is about to run out of oil, and we don’t think nuclear power is beyond debate, and we think the whole fixation on hydrogen is nonsense. We’re not even sure that genetically modified organisms is always a bad idea. We think humans should build more freeways, dig more quarries, and permit more housing developments. So how on earth can we call ourselves environmentalists?

The reason is simple: Because we want to see pollution cleaned up, we want to see energy abundance, and we want economic growth for all of humanity. Wasting time on hydrogen fuel cells was a distraction that cost billions of dollars and wasted decades – we could have had fuel efficient cars and developed electric cars instead of pursuing this pipe dream. And is nuclear power so bad? Why, if it’s managed responsibly? Are you saying coal power is better? These matters should not be beyond debate.

What’s wrong with freeways if the car is getting fuel efficient and ultra-clean? What’s wrong with more housing developments if the population of the world is going to stablize at 8.0 billion people – which it will? What’s wrong with landfills if recycling uses more energy than just smelting more glass, for example? Why are we regulating CO2 emissions, when we haven’t even eliminated harmful pollutants like carbon monoxide, lead, ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide?

Having a commitment to clean technology does not mean we have to wear blinders and agree with everything environmentalist “experts” have to tell us. To be an environmentalist means having a commitment to cleaning up the air, the water, the earth, and to making sure there is room for wildlife and wilderness. It doesn’t have to mean you are against development of any kind, nor does it mean you have to fear every demon you are told to fear. Environmentalism should be a rational set of goals that isn’t influenced by emotional arguments or peer pressure.

Environmentalism should mean clean technology, near-zero pollution, and within that context, realistic balancing of ecological and economic objectives. We look for exciting examples of truly environmentally friendly technologies; battery powered cars, photovoltaic cells, green buildings; the list is endless and fascinating. We are as on guard for excesses of misguided socialist “remedies” as we are on the lookout for the excesses of unfettered capitalism. We have no allegience to either. Environmentalism, truly expressed, should have no ideology outside itself, not left nor right, not religious nor secular.

With spectacular Pacific coastline, Sierra alpine peaks, the best music, movies, food and wine in the world, with ongoing world high-tech leadership and trend-setting culture, California is the Athens of the 21st century. But California has allowed a gaping hole to be rent into the fabric of its democracy, through the enactment of term limits for California’s state legislators. This unhealthy condition here in California not only causes grievous harm to our great state, it spreads ripples around the planet.

Every member of every powerful special interest influencing California’s government has an unlimited term. Every corporate chief, every union boss, and every agency bureaucrat has a job that can last for decades, but the elected leaders who are supposed to balance these special interests are automatically and routinely terminated, often well before their time, by term limit laws. The good politicians are eliminated with the bad. No visionary leader can arise to represent their constituents, when the only way to make a lifetime committment to a career in politics is to jump from one district to another.

California’s veteran legislators are now vagabonds, who hop from district to district each time they are termed out. They can never know their constituents the way a long-term legislator could, and they are more beholden instead to their party for funding and support. Because they must rotate districts, they are less likely to have grassroots support of their own. Term limits kill off powerful and independent legislators before they can realize their potential, and the effect of this is to shift power away from the voters and into the hands of party bosses and public bureaucrats.

If you are a legislator in California, you may be completely committed to the district where you have your own home and family. But unless you abandon your home and take over another electoral seat, you will only serve six years if you are a California State Assemblyperson (3x 2 year terms), or eight years if you are a California State Senator (2x 4 year terms).

Not only do term limits undermine the connection between legislators and their constituents, it guarantees a higher percentage of office holders are either ineffective novices or party hacks. It takes about 6-8 years just to know what’s going on in Sacramento’s state legislative chambers. What bill was brokered off the floor last year, and why, and why is it back now? What to do with the myriad of special interest lobbyists, and let’s not forget that registered lobbyists have no term limits. By the time you have acquired competence and established a reputation in California’s legislature, and can exercise the leadership that our democracy counts on to survive, you are termed out. This subverts democracy because excellent and powerful elected representatives are automatically killed off. Term limits are good for government bureaucrats and special interests, and bad for the rest of us.

The reason term limits were enacted was because incumbents were wielding too much power. Particularly when there are gerrymandered districts where all seats are safe. In California the districts are so gerrymandered that in California’s last general election, 2004, not one seat in California’s Assembly or Senate changed party hands. But term limits don’t alleviate, they compound the problems caused by gerrymandering. Both must end.

Towards the end of the California legislature’s 2006 session, a bill came very close to passing that would have done this – it would have eliminated term limits at the same time as it ceded redistricting authority to a nonpartisan commission – something that probably would spell an end to gerrymandered electoral districts. That this bill almost passed into law is encouraging to anyone who would like to see California’s democracy revitalized.

Given California’s visibility in the world, it would be an especially good thing if their voters and legislators and judges would act to put an end to gerrymandering and repeal term limits. The only term limits that should exist in a democracy are the ones enforced at the ballot box.

We’ve always enjoyed growing cottonwood trees. They can grow about ten feet per year, and can eventually tower over 100 feet in height. If you want a quick forest, look no further.

As a feedstock for bioethanol, trees and crop forage display far greater potental via their cellulosic fibers than the yield from their food crops – sugar cane, cassava, corn – ever could. As we point out in our post, “Ethanol From Cellulose,” the problem is that this process is much more technologically challenging. Simple extraction of oils and sugars from the food crops, as opposed to the forage, is much more viable today. But that may change.

In a report just released entitled “The First Tree Genome is Published,” the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Joint Genome Institute claims “the analysis of the first complete DNA sequence of a tree, the black cottonwood or Populus trichocarpa, lays the groundwork that may lead to the development of trees as an ideal “feedstock” for a new generation of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol.”

The report goes on to say they have “identified 93 genes associated with the production of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, the building blocks of plant cell walls. The biopolymers cellulose and hemicellulose constitute the most abundant organic materials on earth, which by enzymatic action, can be broken down into sugars that in turn can be fermented into alcohol and distilled to yield fuel-quality ethanol and other liquid fuels.”

A lengthy study authored in 2005 by the U.S. Dept. of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that the “United States has enough agricultural and forestry land to support production of over one billion tons of biomass, which could provide enough liquid biofuels to replace over a third of current transportation fuel consumption, and still continue to meet food, feed, and export demands.” Here is the full text of this report.

It could be a while before cellulosic refining is commercially viable, but in the meantime there are many economically viable examples of primary refining of sugars and oils from plant crops to produce bioethanol and biodiesel fuel. In the rapidly evolving market for alternative fuels and alternative automotive drivetrains, don’t write off biofuels, or the next generation of internal combustion engines.