When possible I prevail on someone I know to attend the major AlwaysOn conferences, usually it’s KG Charles-Harris, but more recently it’s been Chris Blackman.

Last week Chris attended this year’s AlwaysOn Venture Capital Summit at Sand Hill Road in the heart of VCland and got a glimpse into the future investment strategies of that storied world.

From Chris Blackman

What can put venture capitalists in a frenzied state? More money—raising it or losing it.

Was the mood somber, reflecting the fact that a huge chunk of available capital was erased when university endowments closed their piggybanks? No; the mood was frenzied at the thought of being able to raise capital once again.

Going forward, who do VCs anticipate will open the spigot for them? Sovereign wealth funds.

The other depressant in the room should have been found in talk of this year’s IPO market falling without a parachute.

Instead, a second source of glee is their belief that next year will be the year of recovery for the IPO market? Why? Because it can’t get any worse than this year.

This was tempered by the keynote speaker, Bill Gurley of Benchmark Capital, who reminded the audience that, “VCs are inherently an optimistic bunch.”

Anticipation and optimism are all well and good, but does anyone believe that Dubai is unique amongst the rentier states—bankrupt?

There is a real possibility that sovereign wealth funds will need to deploy them to buoy their own economies, which will kill the buzz in short order.

If not, what if the SWFs prefer to sink their teeth into physical assets as opposed to swallowing more IOUs?

And there is certainly no guarantee that the money won’t continue to hide from the markets.

Videos from the conference should be up soon.

Click for more from the Summit and a look at how culture is faring.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: AlwaysOn

Today is Blog Action Day and the topic is Climate Change, so I asked Chris Blackman, who is a strategic consultant specializing finding both private and public funding in the green and clean technology sector, to offer her thoughts on a subject that enrages me every time it comes up—which is more and more often. The subject is the sacrificing of one limited resource for the sake of another.

From Chris…

Would you choose to go hungry and thirsty so that you could have energy?

That choice is the dark side of clean energy.

A ‘clean coal’ power plant uses tens of thousands of gallons of water daily—water that cannot even be reused or recycled—because it is so fouled and contaminated.

To biomass’ benefit the water it consumes is reused over and over again, but turning waste to energy using the aerobic digestion method has a 1:1 ratio—one ton of waste requires one ton of water to process that waste.

In some ways, we have adopted an anything goes approach to producing some green energy and it seems a bit deja vu: using oil products to produce other energy forms.

In this case, it is even worse—it is not only the environmental impact but also the real possibility of going thirsty or hungry if we use our drinking or irrigation water to produce energy.

A recent New York Times article revealed that a solar power company dangled the opportunity to create hundreds of new jobs in a desert community at the cost of “consuming 1.3 billion gallons of water a year, about 20 percent of the desert valley’s available water.”

All that community needs to do is to look at the legal battle being waged right now amongst the states that have access to the Colorado river to vividly understand why they should not sell their water rights, in the hopes of procuring water from their neighbors.

Already there are many parts of the country in which the water is already unusable in spite of the Clean Water Act.

In the last five years alone, chemical factories, manufacturing plants and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. … the vast majority of those polluters have escaped punishment. State officials have repeatedly ignored obvious illegal dumping, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act, has often declined to intervene.

I am not in any way advocating stopping our investments in clean and green energy; however, it is tunnel vision to invest in clean energy at the cost of clean water.

There are places in this country better suited, where the solar and water requirements are better aligned: Florida and the rest of the Southeast, at least in most years. (See Chris’ post on how dark, rainy Germany used US-invented technology to become a global solar leader.)

The opening question may seem melodramatic, but I wonder what the former Soviet Republic would give today to have the Aral Sea back, since today it is mostly a dry lifeless bed of blowing salt.

Was its loss, and the salt poisoning of the surrounding lands, worth the measly two decades of cotton they produced while depleting its water sources? The environmental and economic toll of the Aral Sea’s destruction could end up being as costly as Chernobyl.

That is not melodrama, that is precedent.

Want more proof? T. Boon Pickens, who isn’t known for his ‘friend of the community’ attitudes, is betting 100 million dollars that water is the new oil.

‘Oh Father, spare me the need to eat and drink so that I may use these resources for electricity’ – who would ever pray for that?

We still don’t get “the vision thing.”

When will we begin to approach our economy and the environment as a single integrated whole?

When will we balance out the true costs and benefits of our activities?

When will the options we choose from include using less, instead of always inventing new ways to consume more?

When will we learn?

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Blog Action Day

Today is Blog Action Day and the topic is Climate Change, so I asked Chris Blackman, a strategic consultant who specializes in finding both private and public funding for the green and clean technology sectors, to tell us about a country that has used US-invented technology and incentives to become a global solar leader.

Chris also provides compelling background on a subject that enrages me—sacrificing one limited resource for another.

From Chris…

In 1940 Russell Ohl, a scientist at Bell Labs, invented the photovoltaic cell.

So why is dark, rainy Germany a world leader in installed photovoltaic solar panels and solar manufacturing equipment instead of the US?

I work in the sector and am frankly astonished that anyone would even say the words ‘Germany’ and ‘solar power’ in the same sentence.

Germany became a solar leader by use of a feed-in-tariff. Many panelists at the AlwaysOn going green conference in San Francisco last month derided this promising incentive to encourage the adoption of clean energy technologies.

To learn more I contacted Sebastian Britting, a visiting graduate scholar at Columbia University, who will publish the results of his thesis analyzing all the economic and ecological implications of America emulating Germany’s success implementing this program.

How does a feed-in-tariff work?

Sebastian explained “the utility companies are forced through legislation to accept clean sources of energy generated by individuals, provide access points where the individual can feed the energy into the grid and pay the individual a premium for the energy they have generated.”

Germans quickly latched on to this program because it is a guaranteed source of income. This is clearly demonstrated by the year-on-year increase in solar technology equipment in German homes: 40% for the each of the last three years.

The benefits of adopting feed-in-tariffs in Germany don’t end with personal profit, “Germany created 280,000 new jobs since implementing this incentive and is today at the forefront of innovation in the solar energy industry.”

The same program that rewards customers for generating their own electricity also allows the utilities to reallocate the cost of buying it by spreading it out to all of their customers.

“That price increase was 1.38 [Euro] CENTS per kilowatt in 2008, a price increase of less than five percent.”

Stated another way, the program adds just $1.69 to the average German’s monthly electric bill. The average electricity price increases slightly for everyone but Sebastian emphasizes, “This is not a tax and spinning it as such is attempting to make a deliberate distortion.”

This price increase does not go on forever: “It is temporary and when the newly installed generators pay for themselves which is over a 20 year period, the price increase will phase itself out.”

Tellingly, 97% of all Germany’s solar power is captured using solar photovoltaic (PV) cells. PV is highly efficient under the most stressful conditions offering very little sunlight and little water.

Germany receives about 60% of the sunlight that the United States receives, yet even the brightness of a cloudy day provides enough light for the PV cells to generate electricity.

And since the only water required by PV cells is for cleaning the panels from time to time, a little rain acts as an automatic maid.

America invented this technology, so why haven’t we capitalized and profited from it?

What do you think?

Image credit: Blog Action Day

Monday I introduced Chris Blackman, who attended the AlwaysOn GoingGreen West conference for us.

I found her reporting of the attitudes toward implementing renewable energy into the grid in the face of entrenched interests disturbing.

Fungible Grids

Will the energy grid replace existing sources of power—oil, coal, gas, and nuclear—with renewable energy? Currently, our energy is finite and polluting yet highly efficient. And all of the players in the market, producers and consumers, recognize the need to overcome these limitations.

Solar energy accounts for only 0.003% of energy consumption in the US today and that is projected to increase to 2% by 2025. That kind of miniscule percent of the overall energy consumed is not specific to solar energy. Wind, bio-mass and geothermal heat all give a negligible contribution to the US’s power supply.

The players in the market have one requirement of energy: it must be reliable at all times.  Oil and coal are reliable. And from what I could see at the AlwaysOn Going Green conference, oil and coal companies are not going to allow their market shares to erode without putting up a fight and having their case heard.  Chris Poirier, CEO of CoalTek, emphasized to the audience: coal in particular exists here in the US in abundance; coal companies are developing cleaner versions of this resource.

Much is made of “clean coal” but at the end of the day, clean coal is an oxymoron. Coal is a disaster at every stage of its production.

To mine coal, currently the companies raze our mountains to procure the coal. What they absolutely never want to discuss is that they are a highly subsidized industry: all of the energy used to transport the coal over vast distances is subsidized.

But probably the gravest problem of using coal as an energy source is that it emits more carbon dioxide than any other fuel and those carbons are much more polluting because the carbon molecule in coal is larger.

According to John Woolard, CEO of BrightSource Energy, the only way that we can overcome the limitations of going completely green and clean is if we take a localized approach to integrating the grid. That requires the grid to receive energy locally: solar power from Southern California and the Western states, wind from the Mid-West states, tidal power from the coastal states, etc.

That is a smart way of consuming energy. However, what do cleaner oil and coal have in common? The infrastructure already exists for these products. The grid already runs on oil and coal.

How will consumers and the US government react to the fact that this resource resides in abundance in this country and that we wouldn’t have to pay to overhaul our infrastructure to continue to use it?

For argument’s sake, let’s suppose that all renewable energies will have the same level of projected involvement as solar will in 2025, renewable energies would capture about 15% of the market.

Hopefully this is an ineffective way of looking at the situation as nothing is static and clean and green tech companies could possibly improve the amount of energy they generate exponentially in the future.

This all begs the question: can green and clean tech survive and even thrive without national policies to encourage their adoption?

I fear that due to the propaganda of coal being cleaner from the coal companies and the lack of capital investment and political incentives from the government to upgrade our infrastructure we will not replace coal and oil in our grid with renewable energies.

What do you think?

(Be sure to see what Chris says about water.)

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: LeoSynapse on sxc.hu

There are many types of technology; Going Green brings together those active in what is called green tech and clean tech. Those fields are of critical interest for many reasons, to I prevailed on Chris Blackman to attend and share her impressions with you.

About Chris

Chris is a strategic consultant specializing in the positioning of clients for the acquisition of capital – private and public sources of funding – in the green and clean technology sector. Chris is a graduate of Columbia University having studied Political Science and International Relations. To date, Chris has written proposals in the green and clean tech space for a variety of water projects but is interested in a wide variety of topics. Her interest is piqued when there are projects at the intersection where green and clean tech meets the infrastructure.

Chris will be looking especially hard at these pressing questions:

• What is being done in the green and clean tech space?
• Who is financing the new startups and which kinds of startups are receiving funding?
• What will be the impact of funding clean tech companies in the United States?

About the conference

AlwaysOn’s Going Green, founded by Tony Perkins of RedHerring repute, is a three day conference in the San Francisco Bay area that explores who is in the green and clean tech space and who is funding what in its myriad sectors. The conference can be viewed daily for free; if you have a webcam and mic you can be seen, join in and ask questions.

This year’s keynote speaker for the opening ceremony was R. James Woolsey. The former cabinet member of the Clinton administration analyzed the need for green technologies that continue to use existing infrastructure and the importance of developing green and clean technologies, which encourage local self-sufficiency on the community level.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: AlwaysOn

Each year AlwaysOn produces several high profile events. One is the premier technology event Stanford Summit that KG Charles-Harris covers for MAPping Company Success.

But there are many types of technology; Going Green brings together those active in what is called green tech and clean tech. Those fields are of critical interest for many reasons, to I prevailed on Chris Blackman to attend and share her impressions with you.

About Chris

Chris is a strategic consultant specializing in the positioning of clients for the acquisition of capital – private and public sources of funding – in the green and clean technology sector. Chris is a graduate of Columbia University having studied Political Science and International Relations. To date, Chris has written proposals in the green and clean tech space for a variety of water projects but is interested in a wide variety of topics. Her interest is piqued when there are projects at the intersection where green and clean tech meets the infrastructure.

Chris will be looking especially hard at these pressing questions:

• What is being done in the green and clean tech space?
• Who is financing the new startups and which kinds of start-ups are receiving funding?
• What will be the impact of funding clean tech companies in the United States?

About the conference

AlwaysOn’s Going Green, founded by Tony Perkins of RedHerring repute, is a three day conference in the San Francisco Bay area that explores who is in the green and clean tech space and who is funding what in its myriad sectors. The conference can be viewed daily for free; if you have a webcam and mic you can be seen, join in and ask questions.

This year’s keynote speaker for the opening ceremony was R. James Woolsey. The former cabinet member of the Clinton administration analyzed the need for green technologies that continue to use existing infrastructure and the importance of developing green and clean technologies, which encourage local self-sufficiency on the community level.