Fascinating. I'm very leery of bio-engineering like this. How many well intended introductions have had disastrous long term consequences? (Nutria, Kudzu, etc, etc. ) But I can clearly see the economic and environmental benefits of creating trees that grow quickly, are disease resistant, and create high quality wood. Hmm.

"Vancouver-based CellFor said it raised $10 million to expand the types and quantities of its specialty tree seedlings that increase timberland yields by more than 50 percent an acre.

The seedlings are developed by cross-breeding the seeds of the fastest-growing trees and using somatic embryogenesis to produce large numbers."

CellFor grabs $10M for improved tree seedlings | Cleantech Group:

It will provide Wal-Mart with 226 million KWh of power annually, and will offset 139,000 metric tons of carbon — the equivalent of what 25,000 cars would emit.

Hard to find fault with this. Whatever their motives, Wal-Mart moving towards green has the potential to be a real force in the evolving green-tech and alternative energy world.

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2008/11/20/wal-mart-signs-up-wind-power-purchase

My favorite kind of solution. Simple, elegant, and effective.

"In a paper published in the International Journal of Vehicle Design, Inchul Kim of Metacomp Technologies, in Agoura Hills, California, working with Xin Geng and Hualei Chen of the University of Michigan-Dearborn report that the aerodynamic drag and lift on a mini-van moving at 108 kph (67 mph) are reduced by 5% and more than 100%, respectively, when the new spoiler is attached to it.

With as much as 65% of the power required for ground vehicles to travel on a highway at 70 miles per hour is being consumed due to aerodynamic drag, the reductions from the spoiler could increase fuel economy by up to several miles per gallon, the researchers say."

Read the full article for a concise, but good explanation of aerodynamics and their effect on efficiency. I've often wondered how much "low hanging fruit" in the form of energy efficiency is lost due to styling and packaging considerations. Otherwise, it seems we'd all be driving identical looking cars. Of course, this is exactly Honda's explanation for why the new Insight looks so much like the Prius.

Green Car Congress: Novel Spoiler Design Reduces Fuel Consumption for Minivans, SUVs

Business Week has a good summary and analysis of Obama's stimulus plan.

http://www.businessweek.com/

And I'd like 12 classic cars in my garage in 11 years. Who knows if either will happen? But Germany has a plan, and it includes:

a large amount of funding for advanced battery development, investment in an electric car charging infrastructure, and tax credits for the adoption of electric cars and plug-in hybrids. Conceived by four separate German agencies — the departments of Economics, Transport, Environment, and Education/Research — the plan is on track to be signed into actual law at the beginning of the next German legislative session.

I'm not convinced that electrics are the best answer to the transportation problems, I personally see more promise for bio-fuels, particularly outside of urban areas. Of course, Europe is a different market from the US, with less land area, denser urban populations, and higher energy costs. And a concentrated effort to improve battery technology and find renewable power sources with the support of government could help solve some of the significant hurdles to electric car adoption.

http://gas2.org/

In October, I noted the announcement of the new Chrysler Hybrid SUV models.  

According to the NY Times:

The hybrid S.U.V.’s became available at dealerships in early October. But on Oct. 23, Chrysler announced that at the end of the year it would close the Delaware plant where they are built.
Production of the hybrid models began on Aug. 22. Even if production continues until Dec. 31, the Aspen and Durango hybrids are almost certainly the shortest-lived new models from a major manufacturer in modern times.

It's hard to fathom what Chrysler was thinking.   To spend the money to develop the vehicles, and then shutter the only plant set up to build them?   If the market conditions that would make hybrids attractive (high gas prices) are going to kill sales of SUVs, and cause you to shut down the plant that makes them, why the heck would you tool up your SUV plant to make the hybrids?

With gas prices falling, will Chrysler save the SUV plant?  But with $2 gas, will people pay the premium for a hybrid?  It seems hard to believe that both would happen. 

It's decisions like these that got the Big 3 into the mess they are in.  Any federal bailout should come with stipulations that the folks making these kinds of decisions be booted out.   Silliness.

There are many good reasons to doubt the future of corn ethanol.   (Not necessarily ethanol, but corn ethanol.)

This Washington Post article puts it in perspective.

But because of how corn ethanol currently is made, only about 20 percent of each gallon is "new" energy. That is because it takes a lot of "old" fossil energy to make it: diesel to run tractors, natural gas to make fertilizer and, of course, fuel to run the refineries that convert corn to ethanol.

If every one of the 70 million acres on which corn was grown in 2006 was used for ethanol, the amount produced would displace only 12 percent of the U.S. gasoline market. Moreover, the "new" (non-fossil) energy gained would be very small -- just 2.4 percent of the market. Car tune-ups and proper tire air pressure would save more energy.

Treehugger reports in a separate report (here) that as many as 40 Corn Ethanol plants might file for bankruptcy in 2009. And that report was when gas was still expensive. If fuel stays <$2 a gallon, it could be far more than that.

Part of me wants to think, well, good riddance.  I'm not a fan of Corn ethanol.  But failures like these will surely be lumped into the general "CleanTech" or Alternative Fuels categories, and it might make finding funding for other projects more difficult. 

Adeo Ressi has made a presentation recently that argues that the traditional VC model is broken.   I might agree that it has issues, but I think calling it dead is very premature.   Over at TechCrunch much was made of the slide I copied above, from Ressi's original presentation.  It does point out, correctly, that the line that represents the value that venture capital adds has dropped below the line that represents how much they have made, and that is disturbing.  If it continues, it could spell the end for many VCs.  Without providing more value than they cost, there would be no reason for investors to invest in the VC.   But I think the presentation and the slide are overly simplified.   The funds going into VC's today are not expected to be creating a return today.  It's expected to create a return in 5-10 years.   If I were an institutional investor, and a VC had a solid plan to attack the CleanTech markets, I might be inclined to invest in them.  What I'm saying is that the money going into VCs today is, or should be, based more on what an investor believes the markets will be like in 5-10 years, not so much the sorry state of the markets today.  Is it an optimistic view?  Perhaps.  But it also represents a belief that with the current state of the economy, the rising markets for energy around the world, the new adminstration and other factors, that the markets for GreenTech and CleanTech companies will be stronger in the future than today.

Wave energy seems like it holds some promise for a renewable resource.  Essentially, it is concentrated wind energy, since waves are formed by wind across large areas of water.  Capturing it has it difficulties, marine environments are tough on moving parts, tough to maintain, and frequently create energy that must then be transported somewhere.    Searaser seems to have a cool idea, but it's not immediately clear why this is better than other similar wave energy harvesting ideas.  

Via http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/19/searaser-floating-pump-will-use-the-oceans-waves-to-generate-po/

 "We want to position Connecticut as the preferred location to grow clean tech jobs,” said Governor M. Jodi Rell, who announced the fund in November."

 It seems to me that it will take a lot more than $9M to establish Connecticut "as the preferred location to grow clean tech jobs".   Don't get me wrong, it's cool that they are doing it, and that more funding is available, but $9M isn't enough to fund ONE sizable startup, let alone create a cluster or hub.  Even if you disregard the size of the fund, creating a positive environment for start-ups requires much more than money.  You need the right people around too.  Experienced entrepreneurs, VC's, Angels, customers, etc., etc.

I wish them all the luck, and would have just reported the fund, but the quote struck me as a little optimistic. 

Connecticut Clean Tech Fund Launched - Renewable Energy World: 

Solargy is announcing a 120M project in Africa.  They bill themselves as an alternative energy system integrator, but this system doesn't seem any different than conventional incinerators.  At least, it's not at all clear how it's different.   Anyone know?   They claim to integrate solar and incineration, but is the solar actually used ot make the incinerators more efficient, or are they just parralel systems?

'We share a vision of helping emerging economies meet the challenges of supplying economical green power solutions. Projections for 2009 are estimated at US $25 million from solar photovoltaic systems and expand with the introduction of hybrid systems to US $120 million in 2010.'

Publish Post

-- Carl Nurse, CEO, Solargy"

Solargy Systems Begins US $120M African Waste-to-Energy Project - Renewable Energy World: "