raif’s random rants…

raif barbaros

Notes from the UC Berkeley Energy Symposium

March 27th, 2008 · 5 Comments

A few weeks ago, I attended the UC Berkeley Energy Symposium.

It was a very thought provoking and educational day. I have below my detailed notes from the sessions I attended. But before moving on to those I’d like to synthesize some of my key takeaways:

  • There is no silver bullet to the climate change/energy crisis problem. It is more of a silver shotgun (owing this analogy to Blake Simmons from JBEI). Another nice analogy is David Sandalow’s cathedral thinking approach (read on the notes for details)
  • Corn ethanol is doomed. Alternatives must be explored, conquered.
  • China is a significant part of the problem and must be a significant part of the solution.
  • Climate Change & the Energy Crisis represents the greatest issue and the greatest opportunity of our lifetimes. As a software developer in the 90’s I’d felt that we were going to change the world with the Internet. And we did. I felt the same vibe from the young minds at BERC.

Here are my detailed notes:


Opening Remarks by David Sandalow:

David Sandalow is the author of Freedom from Oil. He is regarded as an insightful expert on how to limit USA’s dependence on (foreign) oil. I must emphasize that his focus seemed to be on reducing the dependence on foreign oil rather than reducing greenhouse emissions. Here are the key highlights from his opening remarks:

Plugging cars into the grid:

  • To reduce dependency on oil, we must connect cars & trucks to the electric grid. This is why:
    • Cars & Trucks receive 96% of their energy from oil. 60% of that oil is imported.
    • Only 3% of electricity production comes from oil.
  • He argues that coal-powered electricity plants are more efficient than the internal combustion engine, therefore plugging cars into the grid would reduce greenhouse emissions.
  • Plug-in Hybrid cars are the next solution for the auto industry. They get 150 miles/gallon today. GM is investing heavily in Chevy Volt which should be on the roads by 2010.
  • Biofuels have a role in this as well, however the pendulum has swung on this. There is a lot of skepticism on the economic viability of scaling biofuels.

Mass Transit & Commuting:

  • Widening a road to fix traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to lose weight.

Cathedral Thinking on Climate Change:

  • Climate change and the energy crisis are bigger problems than what a single generation or nation can fix. We have to approach it as how cathedrals were built where it took multiple generations of people to build one. The stone mason probably lived a 100 years before the stained glass guy. This is the way we have to approach the climate change and the energy crisis as it will take a lot of smaller steps to fix the bigger problem.

China & India:

  • China & India will have to be key components of the solution as they are (and will be) a significant part of the problem.
  • China adds 50-100 gigawatts of plant capacity every year.
  • Beijing alone adds 600 cars/day. And almost none are scrapped. Whereas in the US, for every 10 cars that go on the road, 9 are scrapped and taken off the road.
  • Although India is critical, China has to have the main focus. China is 3X less energy efficient as India.

Nuclear Energy:

  • The three key issues with Nuclear Energy are: 1) It’s VERY expensive. Needs gov’t subsidies to happen. 2) The obvious non proliferation issues, especially from an int’l perspective. 3) Waste problem is still not solved.
  • Despite these lingering and significant issues, it will be a mistake to turn the door on nuclear power.

John Doerr Keynote:

John Doerr was the afternoon keynote speaker. Very engaging speech with some good data points. Just a reminder that Al Gore has joined John Doerr’s firm as a partner.

Why invest in Green:

  • Google took $25MM to be profitable
  • Alternative Energy firms will take 10x that.
  • BUT, the opportunity is 10x as well. Tech opportunities are in the billions whereas energy opportunities are in trillions.
  • “There is a time when panic is the appropriate response.” – Eugene Kleiner
  • Going Green = Making Green
  • Crisis = Opportunity
  • Greentech will be bigger and more profitable than the Internet
  • “Going Green is the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century.” – John Doerr
  • He has invested $300M in 30 companies in this space.

Approach:

John Doerr sees 3 C’s to attack:

  1. Coal
  2. Car
  3. Conversation & Efficiency

For coal, we need to find better alternatives. For cars, we need better cars and better transportation methods.

On Wal-Mart:

  • Heating, Lighting & Refrigeration are the 3 top sources of energy usage at Wal-Mart.

On Biofuels:

  • John Doerr believes biofuels is the silver bullet. This is in direct contrast to many others in the field. This is understandable as John has invested a lot of money in ethanol. Another person who believes biofuels is the silver bullet is Vinod Khosla – another VC that has invested millions in ethanol :)
  • Every other speaker in this symposium has downplayed and lowered expectations on ethanol and biofuels.
  • Brazil has replaced 40% of its oil consumption with ethanol. They have 29,000 ethanol pumps across the country, compared with only 700 in the U.S.

On Government Investment:

  • US Federal Investment in Renewable Energy: $1B
  • DoE investment in Geo-Thermal: $5MM
  • NOT ENOUGH!

On China:

  • China’s CO2 emissions will be double US’s by 2050.

Call to Action:

  1. Put a cap and price on carbon.
  2. Extend ITC (Investment Tax Credit) on Renewable Energy for another 10 years.
  3. Increase Federal R&D budget.

On Solar-Thermal vs Renewable Energy:

  • Solar-Thermal will be quicker to market, BUT, renewable energy will have a bigger impact overall.

General Unsolicited Advice:

  • Network (1-person/day everyday for 10 mins)
  • Integrity is a binary state
  • Find and sustain mentors

Panel: Biofuels & Bioenergy

This was a panel on Biofuels & Bioenergy. You can see who the panelists were on the BERC page. But here are the key highlights that I noted:

Case against Corn Ethanol:

  • “All the world is waiting for a substitute for gasoline, the day is not far distant when, for every one of those barrels of gasoline, a barrel of alcohol must be substituted.” – Henry Ford 1916.
  • US Consumption of Ethanol in 2007: 7.8BG. Up from 1BG in 2001.
  • To replace 12% of oil consumption in the US with corn ethanol, we would need 50% of the corn production in the US.
  • Corn has very high fertilizer requirements.
  • Corn ethanol reduces greenhouse emissions by only 12-20% compared to gasoline.
  • HOWEVER, it drives deforestation in the developing world, therefore possibly offsetting any greenhouse benefits.
  • Solution: Alternatives to Corn – Switchgrass, miscanthus, other cellulosic alternatives.

Doug Cameron – Chief Scientific Officer, Khosla Ventures:

Doug downplayed ethanol, which is interesting as his employer, Vinod Khosla, has been an ethanol advocate for a long time. Doug went on to walk us through the high-level categories of their renewables portfolio:

  • Oil: Corn/Sugar Fuels, Cellulosic, Future Fuels
  • Coal: Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Natural Gas
  • Efficiency: Electrical, Mechanical
  • Materials: Tools, Water, Plastics, Building Materials

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Live
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • FriendFeed
  • HackerNews
  • MySpace
  • PDF
  • Twitter

Tags: cleantech · climate change · politics · tech · venture capital

5 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jennifer Lancey // Mar 27, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    Hello there. I was sent a link to your blog by a friend a while ago. I have been reading a long for a while now. Just wanted to say HI. Thanks for putting in all the hard work.

    Jennifer Lancey

  • 2 Red Craig // Mar 27, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    Thanks for the rundown. It’s too bad that when people dismiss nuclear energy as an important part of the solution to global warming, there’s never someone around who knows more about the subject to correct them. The few remarks given here represent misinformation from political pressure groups.

    France and Japan have been building nuclear plants right along. They find that they’re not expensive; in fact, they’re cheaper than the alternatives. In the US, nuclear energy does not need subsidies. What it needs are a coherent energy policy and a coherent environmental policy. Even while we’re trying to find a way to reduce fossil-fuel use, the government gives tax credits to fossil-fuel producers. To keep electricity cheap, coal burners are allowed to emit so much filth that literally thousands of Americans die every month just from the pollution. As it is, no energy source, nuclear or renewable, can compete on cost. Even conservation costs more.

    Proliferation has always been a red herring. The contention that spent fuel could be used to make bombs comes only from people who don’t understand what it takes to make a bomb. Here’s the short explanation: the transuranics in the spent fuel are the wrong isotopes. They won’t work. To separate out the isotopes that could make a bomb would be more trouble than making the bomb from natural uranium.

    The “waste problem” was always fictitious and, like all fictitious problems, was easily solved. The US is on track to resume recycling spent fuel. Recycling removes 97% of the material, and the residual waste decays away to harmlessness in a few centuries. In comparison, coal wastes are many times more dangerous and stay dangerous forever.

    I think the main point brought out by the symposium is right, that it will take many actions to minimize the harm of global warming. Nuclear energy is one of the necessary ones.

  • 3 admin // Mar 28, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Red Craig,

    Thanks so much for your insights. I do want to clarify something though. My notes may not do the best job to reflect this, but the prevailing sense I got from the symposium was that nuclear power was undeniably a part of the solution to climate change and the energy crisis. As with all of the other solutions discussed, it was by no means THE silver bullet, but it did have its space and it certainly deserved further examination.

    I think the key problem is that some of the traditional grassroots members of the alternative energy movement, especially in berkeley, are the folks who throughout the 60s, 70s and the 80s, protested and demonstrated against nuclear power. It is understandably hard for this contingent to swallow that past and reexamine nuclear power and what it may have to offer as a part of a cohesive solution.

    I do believe that the younger generation, who will actually carry out the solution to global warming, will approach this with a more objective perspective.

    cheers,
    -raif

  • 4 Red Craig // Mar 28, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    raif, thanks for putting my concerns to rest.

  • 5 michel foucault // Aug 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    raif,

    I think the key problem is that some of the traditional grassroots members of the alternative energy movement, especially in berkeley, are the folks who throughout the 60s, 70s and the 80s, protested and demonstrated against nuclear power. It is understandably hard for this contingent to swallow that past ……

    ……in terms of swallowing, is this the (minor) Chernoble thing… ….