One of the most confusing aspects of the alternative energy industry has to be the story about ethanol. Simply put, is ethanol good or bad? Does it help or harm the environment?

The confusion and controversy stems from evaluating the net effect on CO2 emissions of ethanol production and use, relative to the production and use of the incumbent fuel, gasoline. Largely, this is driven by questions concerning the energy balance of ethanol — how much energy is really required to fertilize, grow, harvest and process the ethanol, and what are the CO2 emissions associated with these steps. The proper quantification of these factors has seemingly been a matter of dispute between those who favor ethanol and those who see ethanol promotion as merely a means of subsidizing the agricultural sector.

A Reuters summary of an article in the January 2006 issue of the journal Science, written by several researchers from UC Berkeley, indicates that the current corn-based means of producing ethanol is in fact a dubious environmental proposition. However, the use of emerging technologies to convert cellulosic matter — the tougher fibers as found in trees, bark, woody wastes, etc. — in ethanol should be net environmentally positive.

Not surprisingly, the downside is that cellulosic technologies are now on the costly side. But, perhaps with additional clarification of the type on the net environmental benefit (along with the energy supply benefit) that can be generated by cellulosic ethanol, this controversy can be put to bed. With the concerns more definitively allayed, more effort and capital might flow to this potentially important source of energy.

California has a large and broad energy usage, and a very diverse energy mix. We also have one of the best energy tech funding programs in the country, as fitting with our status. A bit on both.

A few of our California energy statistics to think about:

We get 42% of our oil from our own wells (these amounts and the percentages have been declining for 20 years, it was 60% in 1980), 22% from Alaska, and 36% from overseas (the big suppliers are Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Ecuador).

We get only 15% of our natural gas from instate, the rest coming from Canada and other Western US states. Maybe Californians really should enter the debate about an Alaskan North Slope gas pipeline.

We generate 80% of our electricty instate with that same natural gas the largest source, at 40%, with the rest split between coal, rewewables (mainly wind and biomass), hydro, and nuclear, with coal the largest of those sources.

California Energy Commission has a number of programs running to fund and promote new and clean energy technologies in the state. Full details here.

The big ones include:

PIER – Small business R&D grants that in the past have included programs in new generation technologies, energy efficiency, and demand response. At $60 mm per year, PIER is one of, if not the largest government R&D funding program of any non-federal agency. The key funding areas are:

Buildings End-Use Energy Efficiency
Energy Innovations Small Grant Program
Energy-Related Environmental Research
Energy Systems Integration
Environmentally-Preferred Advanced Generation
Industrial/Agricultural/Water End-Use Energy Efficiency
Renewable Energy Technologies

Renewable Energy Funding – CEC runs ths solar rebate programs, to the tune of $135 mm/year. This is one of the largest in the US. Keep in mind, this is state money set aside by the legislature. The new solar news is about the recent PUC solar program – that’s ratepayer money mandated and overseen by the PUC (see earlier Cleantechblog post) . Though if I understand correctly, it is a close partnership as CEC has earmarked some of its funds for some allied programming related to new construction.

I know a lot of Californian’s don’t know exactly where we get our energy, and what we as a state are paying to improve that energy use and demand in the future, but as far as I’m concerned, kudos to the CEC and the people who keep it going.

If you’re not on the CEC listserv, check it out. The mailing list includes information on all upcoming RFPs as well as energy news.

I’ve heard some feedback from people asking why superconductivity is given a voice in a cleantech blog. This is a good question. There are a few reasons.

In one area in particular–power quality–superconductors are directly related to renewable energy. Advanced, flywheels, superconducting magnetic energy storage, superconducting fault current limiters, etc. are all being proposed as technologies that will allow for erratic, geographically distributed generation sources such as wind and solar to be brought onto power grids more effectively. Basically, superconducting power systems developers believe without some way of balancing load versus supply, electric utilities have a difficult time matching load with supply, and all the resulting economic and technical problems that come with it. Also, add-on generation grids such as wind farms are prone to introducing fault currents to the main grid, or require VAR compensation—both of which increase the cost of using that energy. Superconductors are being used in the development of solutions for all three of these problems. Siemens, GE, Sumitomo Electric, IGC SuperPower, American Superconductor, SC Power, CAS in China, KEPRI in Korea, and a bunch more are, or have been, working in this area, and their technologies and businesses have been reported on in some detail.

Perhaps more speculative, developers of high temperature superconducting (HTS) generators are looking to put them in wind turbines. The main reasons for this have to do with the electrical properties of AC superconducting machines, an also because such machines would be dramatically lighter and smaller than conventional generators. There is also some improvement in generation efficiency.

The cost of cooling superconductors is not necessarily a significant hurdle, and refrigerators that cool superconducting devices to their 30 to 65 degrees Kelvin operating temperature are commercially available. Admittedly, the technical challenges of integrating the cooling systems within the device are sometime daunting.

One last reason why superconductors may be considered by some to be “clean tech” is because they may, in fact, provide a cleaner alternative to conventional technology.

For example: in a story we are preparing in Superconductor Week, we look into the massive transformers that are used in substations to take power from transmission voltages to distribution voltages. These devices are inefficient, dangerous, and environmentally hazardous. One company researching the topic concluded that existing conventional 26MVA transformers contain seven tons of copper winding, 16 tons of iron, and 14,000 liters of highly flammable oil. In contrast, an equivalent HTS transformer could contain just 200kg of superconductor in its windings, which are immersed in non-flammable and environmentally benign liquid nitrogen.

In addition, this research concluded that operating at full load, such a HTS transformer would provide an annual abatement of 1,500 ton of CO2 and save $900,000 in electricity over its lifetime. The study concluded “that by including the installation of HTS transformers as part of their national abatement strategy… countries could meet a significant proportion of their Kyoto protocol targets.”

The question of whether superconductors are “clean tech” is semantic. The real question is, can developers make HTS devices that work, and can utilities be persuaded to buy them?

For more information, visit: www.superconductorweek.com

On January 12th the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved the California Solar Initiative (CSI), which provides $2.9 billion in incentives from 2007 – 2017 to help promote the development of solar power. This program is aimed at reducing the costs of solar technology for State consumers as California move towards cleaner energy solutions. The CSI represents the largest program of its kind in the United States, setting an example that many hope will lead to nationwide growth opportunities within the renewable energy arena.

“The California Solar Initiative is the largest solar program in the country and I hope it will be a model for other states. The program will be a major source of dependable and environmentally friendly electricity, and is a major tool in the State’s promise to address climate change and meet the Governor’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” stated PUC Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich.

It is believed that this program will help to stabilize and solidify the market for solar technology, benefiting consumers as well as participating companies operating within this space. Dr. Robert Wilder, CEO & Founder of Wildershares, LLC and Manager of the WilderHill Clean Energy Index explains, “Many solar companies have already sold out all their panels for this entire year and some into the next year, so this isn’t so much going to create wanted demand – the demand is there now. Instead, it’s going to ensure a more stable scenario for the future. Producers of raw silicon for panels will ramp up with less risk now, as they look five or ten years out.

This Initiative will also help kick-start other States and even Nations to grow their solar programs. Germany and Japan have benefited so far with the jobs created and growth from their ambitious programs, and now it’s California’s turn. I’m proud that the State is going to generate economic growth and new jobs, enacting this smarter energy policy that’s a win-win all around.”

I am looking forward to evaluating the impact that this initiative will have not only for Californians, but for many of the other states that have aggressively been pursuing clean energy