Khosla takes shot at Scheer
I came across this interesting blog post from venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, who at great length explains why he believes German environmentalist Herman Scheer is an idealist whose predictions of solar PV on every home and other distributed/renewable scenarios are unrealistic. While Scheer attacks the idea of central plants and an almighty grid, Khosla defends it as necessary. “Ardent do-gooders can do harm and set back real solutions,” writes Khosla, who says some of Scheer’s “green” solutions to the world’s energy ills probably requires more fossil energy to create. I haven’t read this lengthy post in detail, but it’s certainly to ruffle a few feathers, particularly those of Sheer loyalists. I’m currently reading Scheer’s latest book, Energy Autonomy, and on the whole I’m quite enjoying it. Will be interesting to see if Sheer replies to Khosla’s respectful, but nonetheless cutting remarks.
Tyler Hamilton is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper. Tyler can be reached at tyler@cleanbreak.ca
April 12th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Like you (Tyler) I don’t have the time right now to go through Vinod’s whole blog (maybe bedtime reading tonight), but I was glad to see that he does admit bias in the matter. As a proponent of biofuel–a strategy which remains problematic–it would seem a bit rich for him to accuse solar of causing more harm than good.
Bottom line is: with such uncertainty about the effectiveness of any mass solution right now (biofuels vs solar, distributed vs centralized etc.), I think it’s important to keep all options on the table and explore them much further, and more “holisticly”. I hope/am glad to see that Vinod wants to be part of a vital debate, and not merely trumpeting his own pet solution by dismissing the “competition”.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Well pretty much, Vinod Khosla is heavily invested in biofuels.
An inferior solar technology.
Of course he’s going to try to be dismissive. He needs to be to distract away from the fact that solar electricity is roughly 32x better than liquid biofuels.
Now distributed versus centralized.
Solar can play things both ways.
You got Concentrating Solar Power for centralized.
And you got thinfilm building integrated for localized.
BioFuels don’t have a strong future, except for military and air travel uses.
April 12th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Khosla is right. When we don’t take into account the larger picture, in time and space, we’re not being effective in what we say we want to establish: an ecologically, economically, just society for all life. Now and later, human and otherwise.
CSP has been run through numerous times by renowed institutes and comes out as expedient to be implemented now.
Power from the community can be a part of the energy mix, like on and off shore wind, PV, hydro, biomass, tidal, waves, what have you. Khosla rightfully points to the larger picture:
(i) given the current dominant state of mind & heart, money is a bottle neck. This means that the issue of maximal result of money invested is a key issue
(ii) what will be the Energy return on investment (EROI)
(iii) will the cost of the chosen altenative go down quickly enough & will it be a viable alternative for significant numbers of earthlings, in order to effectively serve/save our planet
I’d like to add some spin doctor pepper to this: our current predicament is that those who are already well off, have 80+ % of the power to steer this worlds course (Providence aside, which is a truly chaotic attractor in these already interesting times) and have huge interests in business as usual.
The only way to make anything happen is to make the triple p sexy
Finding inroads in what looms beneath the surface of our minds & souls, is what makes marketeers rich. If they can sell us yoghurt with cherry coke taste or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why can’t they sell us the vital interests of our children?
What makes me an optimist: in my intense research in these matters I always found a longing for a next step in the direction of the common good, coupled with a coping out when taking action beyond the comfort zone came in sight. Reason always is in the domain that there’s no longing, no passion, no desire for this next step. Yet.
Marketeers (that is, those that can hire them), sell Joe Sixpack & upwards that green is the cool thing to do.
Some ingredients for those marketeers of and for the common good:
CSP
A promising project is ‘Concentrated Solar Power’[8]. This means cooperation with North-Saharan countries and secure, 100% sustainable, electricity supply for all of Europe before 2050. As well as abundant drinking water and related tremendous agricultural potential in the North Sahara. Reasons to flee North Africa will be replaced by reasons to move in. This can be achieved through creating mutual dependencies between regions in the Mediterranean basin[9]. Focussing on the potential for a better future and resilience, instead of on potential threats and scare, shows vision, boldness and leadership. In addition it is also necessary to disseminate this technology throughout the world, especially to the Middle East. So that OPEC countries can gain a new source of income, by supplying solar energy to other countries in Asia. This will also address a rampant lethargic attitude regarding public office, as well as a leading role for the EU on the world stage. Long distance transportation, buffering and other issues have been addressed and solved in numerous reports by renowned institutes. CSP-plants have been in operation for some 15 years and new ones are under construction in the US, China, Spain and Australia.
Bio Methanol
Through sustainable forestry[10] and mobile on-site methanol production facilities, the 100 million tonnes per year methanol market can be served. Per site per year, 30.000 tonnes dry bio mass can be transformed into 15.000 tonnes of bio methanol. Rural communities worldwide can dedicate themselves to sustainable forestry and earn money themselves (a production facility has a pay back time of 2 years; lease and other financial tools can be tailored for maximum value for all stakeholders). Since the Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) is one of the most-promising fuel cell types, this methanol route seems ideally suited to bypass[11] ever problematic hydrogen[12] pursuits. First generation bio ethanol and bio diesel are not feasible on a large scale without competing with food stock. Second generation (cellulose based) bio ethanol is still far off. Hydrogen in internal combustion engines, especially when combined with natural gas, is fine in the period of transition towards all electric vehicles. Energetically, hydrogen is an inferior route of using primary energy (fossil, nuclear, or sustainably generated): 25% efficiency when used in a fuel cell, as compared with 90% for all electric[13]. Given limited energy resources, arguments set forth by Shell as that the issue is financial, rather than technical, are incorrect.
Direct Drive
For cars[14,15], as well as scooters[16], busses[17], trucks and utility vehicles a reduction in fuel consumption of 60% has been reached. This is a consequence of when the -electric- motor is in the wheel itself. This technology is proven and implementable now. Resulting configurations of engine, battery and modular generator set, allow DMFC to be phased in as they become available. Idem for when better batteries become available, or increased range through a larger battery pack is opted for[18,19]. This can be charged through (CSP)-electricity and be used as base load equalizer for the grid. Modularity leaves the rest of the vehicle intact, thus avoiding reasons for not adopting this superior propulsion technique. Fleetowners, in the commercial as well as the public domain, can boost deployment through their procurement capacities.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Ask questions that matter
The previous 3 projects should be spearheads in an effort for maximum involvement of all stakeholders. Some examples: EU Action plan for energy efficiency[20] and Braungart & McDonough’s ‘Cradle to Cradle’-concept[21]. For increased speed: team up[22] with best of class actors like Sweden[23], 40 cities world wide[24], California[25] and some 194 cities in the US[26].
Emil M
April 13th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I wouldn’t count on Methanol Fuel Cells.
They are basically just a variant on PEM Fuel Cells.
And those are all but dead.
The European Fuel Cell Forum canceled all research on PEM FuelCells last July.
The reason why?
Batteries offer 3-4x more range on the same amount of electricity as a PEM Fuel Cell.
And Methanol fuel cells are even worse than standard PEM fuel cells, since you lose about 62% of the energy contained in the original biomass when you convert it to Methanol. (And likely even more when you convert it to hydrogen, and even more when you run it through the PEM)
By comparison, Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell can convert biomass into electricity at 70-80% efficiency.
But yeah, the PEM Fuel Cells (including Methanol Fuel Cells) are dead.
Don’t count on them for the future.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Coke is roughly 6x better than Pepsi.
But, of course I would say that.
Distributed vs. centralized? Perhaps this is more an issue of political economy than innovation.
Why don’t biofuels have a strong future? It looks to me like corn tortillas are the things that don’t have a strong future.
What are you heavily invested in as to warrant distracting me?
Sarcasm and gross generalizations only serve to further obfuscate the issues. I am truly interested in why you believe that biofuels don’t have a strong future. Additionally, can you please qualify future? (decade,century,…)
April 13th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Why are we commenting on something that we have not read?
April 13th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
It is amazing that folks will comment with their biases without reading the blog first. Let me be clear: (1) I don’t think nuclear is a timely solution but opposition to it has discouraged solutions to nuclear’s problems and increased carbon emissions from coal dramatically because of our reliance on the only alternative so far (coal) – my blog makes this clear. (2) I love PV and am invested in PV but dont believe it can replace 50-100% of coal; solar CSP is the only currently visible technology that can do so in the next decade. Solar can grow form current 0.04% of world electric power to 10% or so if no battery breakthroughs happen but is 4-5X more expensive today than solar thermal technologies and is likely to remain so in the next ten years; Solar thermal can compete with clean coal and meet utility requirements like reliability, dsipatchability (storage), capacity factor , cost etc; (3) wind can also provide economic power today but not reliability, capacity factor or dispatchability unless CAES (compressed air) technologies are developed (which I am very interested in); (4) I am aggressively looking for battery breakthroughs to invest in (and have one investment see http://vcratings.thedealblogs.com/2007/03/vinod_khoslas_complete_portfol.php ) but they are today 100-1000X more expensive (and flywheel type solutions are 10,000X more expensive); (5) biofuels are oil replacement solutions or transportation solutions while wind, solar and clean coal are solutions to dirty coal based stationary power generation (electricty); (6) we will have an energy mix of wind 10-15%, PV 10%, geothermal <10%, and other like nuclear, coal, but we need something that can match the scale and “utility requirements” of coal at the price of coal based electricity. Solar thermal today appears to be the lead horse in that race.
April 14th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Mr. Vinod Khoslas
I find you’re over view to the point, meaning you must look at replacement technologies that are cost competitive with coal. What is interesting is your analysis comes close to that of Bush and the energy policy they had proclaimed, which was immediately panned as wrong. The claim was they had not included enough alternate energy as a percentage of the total package.
The interesting part is your opinion on the need for high efficiency solar and the thermal solar as the direction we should be going for short term gain. I believe the thermal was not included in the plan and could change that basic energy plan. As for efficiency that has been the Holy Grail of Solar Energy for years. I was unable to see the kind of efficiency percentages for the companies you are looking at. Personally I see cost as the biggest obstacle, but are they getting better or close too 30%?
Could you provide an opinion on the following point? I believe your ideas on thermal storage are not only interesting’ they are do able, but I see the possibility of capacitance storage as another. One of the topic on the blog has been EEstor and there possible Cap battery and the other is (my idea here) Altairnamo’s battery. They have tested past 20,000 cycles (I see no end in sight) and I personally believe you could now look at this type of battery as a capacitor in the sense that it never goes bad (because of cycles – just like a cap). Therefore, I see a lot of interest by power companies in both systems, since initial cost is not as much a concern as is length of live. The Altair batteries could work for them even with the higher cost. However, if the EEstor Cap works that blows everything out of the water.
My question to you is; what do you think of EEstor and Altairnamo? If the EEstor works (and there are many question as to whether it will ever work) that could be a big change to your analysis, because then cheaper storage would be possible every where, like homes, wind mills, and so on. In fact it could even be better then thermal storage.
Thanks, Tom McGreer – Green Works
April 14th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I am sure that solar is 32x better than biofuels, if you can build it with somebody else’s money (read government money).
And I am sure that if you were forced to build solar with your own money, you would complain that biofuels is 32x better than solar.
Such idealistic comments that solar is better than biofuels, while having no clue about the costs of delivery, is not real. I bet such comments come from certain ideologically motiviated quarters who have never produced one penny of production with their own money.
In other words, money talks, BS walks.
Suri
April 15th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Vinod, your expert opinion on nono lithium-ion betteries is sought. Altairnano has already been brought up and then there is A123. Although this technology will not make a dent on power generation (except for possibly damping generation variance (CF) and aiding dispatchability), it will make a huge impact on mobile energy storage (transportation fuels).
EEStor apparently has not yet demonstrated a cell, and they have not replied to concerns from quantum physicists regarding the electron tunnelling effect that becomes prominent at their densities.
Suri Ahmad
April 17th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Vinod, I agree with your comment about nuclear. I’m not a huge fan of it, because of known issues, but I do believe many of these issues can be overcome if we concentrate more R&D (and take some away from hydrogen and fuel cells) in the areas such as waste disposal and next-generation reactors that use spent uranium as fuel. As I’ve always said, compared to coal the lesser of the two evils is nuclear. I also agree that PV won’t replace coal in any major way, at least not over the next 30 to 50 years, since PV without cheap storage is not load following. That said, I believe PV can have an enormous impact on peak power needs that are currently handled by coal and natural gas. Even more potential, as you say, with large-scale solar thermal.
I, too, am curious about your thoughts on some of the storage plays out there. Also, have you given much thought to pyrolysis technologies that convert wood waste and other agricultural waste into bio-oil/syngas/char? The bio-oil could be used in modified turbines to generate electricity and heat, and contains materials that could replace many petrochemicals. Again, not a complete solution to the coal problem but certainly part of the mix, no?
April 29th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Mr. Khosla, I appreciate your elevating the debate to what mix of renewables would work best, when so many are keeping discussions stuck at what tiny percentage of the mix should be renewable, or more counterproductive still, at whether crises like global warming even exist.
That said, I have some issues with the points you bring up in your comment here above.
First, I notice you leave biomass, hydropower from rivers, and wave power out of your mix above.
I am not sure why you leave hydropower and wave power out, which have potential to supply at least a third of worldwide electricity needs according to the scientific reports I have read. Hydropower already supplies 20% of global electricity. Environmental impacts would have to be mitigated, as with any energy source, but when put into perspective of the impacts of conventional energies, shouldn’t these systems be given your attention and (moral if not financial) support?
Presumably you leave out biomass because you think it should be used for biofuels rather than electricity (and heat), as stated in your article. I wonder what you make of the recent Stanford study that indicates the carcinogenic pollution from cellulosic biofuels stands to be no better and quite possibly worse than that of regular gasoline. http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85PaperEST0207.
pdf
That along with the fact that cellulosic biofuels technology is not yet market ready and the fact that its replacement of gasoline would require massive infrastructures that involve coordinating the Ag business/bureaucracy, the Oil Distribution business/bureaucracy, and the Auto business/bureaucracy personally have dampened my faith in cellulosic biofuels as being a very good option for replacing conventional fuels. At least in the personal automobile sector. Other sectors, especially airplanes are a different story. I think a select group of people would stand to make a financial killing on a complete shift to cellulosic biofuels, but it does not seem at all clear that it would be to the greatest benefit to general life and societal welfare.
You minimize in your article the financial and economic viability of electric vehicles. However, unlike cellul. biofuels, the technology for these exists, at least in a form that is viable for probably the majority of drivers for their personal needs. You mention price as an obstacle, however, several models of EV’s that get hundreds of miles per charge are coming out on the market for under $50K in the next couple of years. And the fast charging Altair batteries look promising as well. Also I need not explain that support for mass production would bring costs down all the more. You mention in your main article that using electricity is a problem environmentally until we switch to renewable source electricity. I don’t see how this is a viable argument in favor of cellulosic biofuels, when their manufacturing and distribution will use the same dirty energy and likely a lot more of it than charging EV batteries for cars. I believe, as no doubt you do, that electricity must shift to renewables regardless of what happens in the transportation sector. That said, until that happens, people can buy roof or garage port installed solar panels to charge their batteries. Tesla already reports offering modestly priced solar installation with their vehicles that can charge batteries for 50 miles of driving per day. I have a hard time seeing how, from an environmental and human life impact perspective, cellulosic biofuels are more viable on a mass scale than electric vehicles other than as part of flex fuel hybrid technology that could serve as a bridge for people who need to drive long distances until batteries catch up.
I also question your figures in part 6) of your comment. My question, by the way, as all these comments are, is sincere. I am not just trying to rabble rouse for rabble rousing’s sake
I have no vested interest, in any of these technologies–except the desire that we likely all share of seeing life continue to thrive on this earth and well beyond our lifetimes.
Wind you say will make up 10-15% of the energy mix. I wonder by when you mean this figure to take place. And according to what studies. Greenpeace and the Global Wind Energy Council, whose figures are based on IEA projections (so it is presumably not just people with vested interests coming up with these figures), estimate that if moderate efficiency measures are taken, wind can supply the world with 15.6-17.7% of its electricity needs by 2050, and that figure can be raised to 34.2 percent with advanced efficiency measures taken. Perhaps you have no faith that such efficiency measures will happen?
Regarding your 10% PV projection: Greenpeace projects 16% worldwide use of solar energy by 2025, a figure which does not to my knowledge include CSP. The World Energy Council reports that solar generated energy already makes up 10% of world supply. This figure is not just PV presumably, but also solar cookers, heaters, and the like. However, the amount of solar thermal CSP in that 10% mix is surely very small and much smaller than PV and other decentralized technologies.
Biomass is projected to be able to supply up to 5% of the electricity mix by mid-century (according to the IEA).
The point I am trying to make is that a mix of a variety of renewables could be poised together to viably replace coal faster than you project, and solar thermal, while it has many good things going for it, might not be the much needed saving grace that you make it out to be. It may well be appropriate for hot, desert -like areas, especially in developed countries that already have grid infrastructures in place–e.g. the Mohave, parts of Spain… But with its reliance on direct sunlight, dust problems, its own inefficiency issues, water use, as well as the problems of creating grids in rural areas of developing countries, I have a hard time seeing how it will replace the majority of coal use either.
One last point is regarding Spain’s project to build Europe’s first solar thermal plant. I am guessing, Mr. Khosla, that you are happy about this, given your enthusiasm about this technology. I think it any project that is favoring solar energy over conventional energies right now is of interest. It has probably occurred to you, being a business minded and practical thinker, that the reason this project is getting off the ground is largely the feed-in tariff policy the country implemented not long ago. This policy, of course, was modeled after the one Dr. Scheer pioneered in 2000 that you belittle in your article. A contradiction for you to perhaps take a look at. I mean no disrespect. Only to impart a closing sentiment that I think it important to keep our debates constructive and fair-minded and to avoid thrashing insults that are likely to slow progress down unnecessarily at a time when we have no time.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
“solar CSP is the only currently visible technology that can (replace 50-100% of coal) in the next decade”
A report in the last couple years released jointly by Greenpeace,The European Solar Thermal Power Industry, and the IEA’s SolarPACES program advocates solar thermal ; however, it says it is only capable of covering 5% of world electricity needs by 2040.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:20 am
that’s new to me. Could you be more specific about your sources? Thanks, Emil M
May 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/Concentrated-Solar-Thermal-Power.pdf
Neither India nor China, by the way, were mentioned as one of the top five countries where solar thermal would be most viable. I point this out only because it seems to contradict Khosla’s intimations.
To be clear, again I am not dismissing solar thermal. I am only questioning Khosla’s favoring it as “the” winning technology to replace coal and nuclear.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Hi Diane, have been reading Greenpeace cs report and indeed found the 2040/5% info.
Unfortunately I couldn’t find underpinnings for this. Moreover, it’s in contrast with the rest of the report, which makes a strong case for CSP now, technically (off the shelf technology) and politically (expedient thing to do).
On a summary of a report by DLR a 2050/15% indication can be found.
In a recent article in the Guardian an indication is given that CSP can deliver high quality (in the sense of People, Planet and Profits) electricity. Especially when seen in the light of money going to nuclear fusion (7bln euro’s), trillions of euro’s going to refurbishing & expanding current power plants and subsidies to fossil industries, one wonders where our policy makers have their heads.
When listening to Lester Brown on how the US car industry was transformed after Pearl Harbor, one can wonder even more why a true solution + bonus of free drinking water & shade, enabling now refugees to have a reason to want to live and prosper in the North Sahara is treated so, ehh, ineffectively.
3 to 4 bln euro per year until 2020 would make CSP viable RES in a mix with other RES like wind, hydro etc. This would not only serve the EU, bur also inspire China, India cs to follow suit. Khosla’s point.
When offered a scheme of bartering their natural gas to CSP-builder EU, or one of its member states, when the bureaucracy would to take too long to serve future generations’ interests, CSP could be even closer.
For it is not rocket science, but human beings willing a better future for their children. All children, of all species.
It’s our challenge to go beyond the interests of current regime actors, who have little interest but short term share holder value or worse.
Pace e Bene,
Emil M