On the acquisition front, two more promising Ontario cleantech ventures have been plucked up by U.S. firms. On Tuesday Toronto-based biogas maker Stormfisher Biogas announced it had been acquired by Virginia-based Greenhouse Gas Services. Despite having one of the most boring and uninspiring names, Greenhouse Gas Services is a venture of GE Energy Financial Services and AES Corp., so it has some serious backing. The company invests in and develops projects that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and it then sells the carbon credits. So here’s my question: If some of the biggest Stormfisher projects are expected to be in Ontario, and since the Ontario Power Authority doesn’t appear to be letting biogas projects keep carbon credits, then what’s in it for Greenhouse Gas Services? I can only speculate that the power authority has quietly decided to let developers keep credits from methane destruction. Something I’ll have to follow up on.

And just today, Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Calisolar announced it had acquired Vaughan, Ontario-based 6N Silicon, a maker of solar-grade silicon that will operate as a wholly owned subsidiary. “In addition, $22.5 million in funding was raised from existing Calisolar and 6N investors,” the companies said in a statement. “The new funds will be used to increase capacity at the Sunnyvale, California cell manufacturing facility and expand silicon purification operations in Vaughan, Ontario.” It’s sad to see 6N fall under foreign ownership so early in its life, but the good news is that Calisolar is likely to set up some module assembly in Ontario to take advantage of the feed-in-tariff program here. Given that its solar cells will contain 6N’s silicon, the company will be well positioned to meet Ontario’s local content requirements and even supply other cell/module makers.

Finally, I have a follow to my story about Vestas and the possibility it will lay roots in Ontario. I spoke Wednesday to the company’s head of global offshore markets, who spoke highly of the Trillium projects and called the opportunity to develop offshore wind in the Great Lakes “fantastic.” He wouldn’t say if Vestas plans to establish manufacturing in Ontario — which isn’t surprising — but given the potential in the Great Lakes, the liklihood of Trillium’s projects moving forward first, and the positive policy and regulatory environment in Ontario (including the feed-in-tariff program, which offers 19 cents per kilowatt-hour for offshore wind power), all the stars are aligned and it’s only a matter of time before Vestas makes its move.

The Toronto Atmospheric Fund has so far signed up several public-sector partners, including Ontario’s Ministry of Transportation, Toronto Hydro, Hydro One  and the Ontario Power Authority, and smaller electric utilities and municipalities that surrounding the city are also being invited to participate. Next month, efforts will begin to start attracting private companies that would like to purchase at least one electric vehicle for their fleet as part of the program. The hope is that the buyer’s club will be set up and committed to a bulk purchase by July 1, which is when provincial incentives (up to $10,000) for purchasing electric cars are supposed to kick in.

So, if you’re in a company with its own vehicle fleet, spread the word. The more who take part in this program the merrier.

BTW: Wonder what Better Place is up to? After a big splash last January in Ontario its interest in the market seems to have faded.  Where’s the electric-vehicle demonstration and education centre it promised?  Where’s the network rollout plan and the investment timeline it was going to put together for Ontario? At least it’s making progress in Denmark, Tokyo and other parts of Europe and Asia, having just raised another $350 million.

To put this into perspective, Electrovaya is still a small fry in the global battery game, pulling in less than $4 million in revenues last year. It’s also an increasingly crowded market, with players like A123, EnerDel, Advanced Lithium, Altair, Panasonic, Boston Power and a slew of others battling for electric-car supremacy. And while it has a history of touting partnerships that haven’t gone anywhere, even if just a fraction bear fruit it could elevate Electrovaya above the noise. And forget about the U.S. market, I’m talking Asia and the deals this company have brokered in India, China and Japan. Just last month it announced an MOU with India’s HEROElectric to jointly developed electric scooters and motorcycles (unlike in China, where electric bicycles are more popular, the East Indian crowd prefers scooters and motorcycles). HEROElectric controls half the market in India for two-wheelers, so it’s not such a bad partner to have. In November it signed another MOU with Japan’s Nippon Kouatsu Electric Co. to co-develop smart grid stationary battery systems based on its Lithium Ion SuperPolymer cell technology, and in late 2008 it signed an MOU with Chana International Corp., China’s third-largest automaker, to develop zero-emission electric cars. Significantly, Chana has joint ventures with Ford, Mazda and Suzuki. Electrovaya is also a partner with India’s Tata Motors as part of a joint-venture to manufacture its  batteries in Norway.

As would be expected, Electrovaya is doing a good job leveraging its own connections to India.

These are all potentially positive announcements. Problem with Electrovaya is that little is known about all these partnerships since their announcement. How is the Norway manufacturing plant progressing? Are the Chinese MOUs moving forward or have they fizzled? That the company has turned a corner by reporting profitability in its fourth quarter, and by announcing some solid revenue growth in 2009, may be a sign that some of the groundwork laid in 2008 and 2009 is beginning to pay off. Certainly a Canadian cleantech company to watch in 2010.

Those of you who regularly read this blog know that I’m a big fan of congestion charging and distance-based transport charging scheme. It’s the best way to manage the growing problem of congestion in large cities and to get more people taking public transit (not to mention the best way to raise funds for public transit expansion projects). It’s just silly that in Canada our property taxes go toward road infrastructure, even if you’re a household that doesn’t drive much and uses mostly public transit. Makes sense that the more road you use the more you pay to maintain that road. At the same time, there’s no way Canada could embrace a cross-country charging scheme, given our immense size, but certainly large cities such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver should be seriously looking at this option.

NOTE: Here’s a recent article in the Globe and Mail about pay-as-you-drive road charging schemes, in this case discussing a pilot test of technology developed by Toronto-based Skymeter Corp.

Aurora, Ont.-based Magna, of course, isn’t doing very well with its traditional business. It saw sales plummet 45 per cent in its most recent quarter, reported yesterday, and swung to a $205 million loss. The company, however, is gradually positioning itself as a leading supplier of drive trains and other components for the emerging electric car market, and has a partnership with Ford and other players to follow through with that vision. But Gingl’s view is that the e-bike opportunity will come faster than the electric car market, and the two nicely complement each other. Magna Marque can leverage battery and motor development taking place for the electric-car side of Magna’s business, giving it an edge over other competitors in the e-bike market.

The BionX system itself is, in my own view, quite impressive. I currently have a demo bike at home and enjoy the ride immensely. It takes some getting used to — i.e. the electric boost it sometimes provides, depending on your speed, can cause a mild jolt like a car going into passing gear. It might bother some people, but I actually like it. I rode 30 minutes home from work yesterday in jeans and in dress shoes, carrying a shopping bag in one hand, and easily tackled a head wind and hills averaging 30 kilometres an hour. Though I should emphasize this is no free ride — you have to peddle to trigger the electric-assist. It’s just that you do it more evenly and consistently than you might otherwise have to when approaching hills and wind. There’s an override that can put it into all-electric mode temporarily, but generally the idea around this kind of e-bike is that you still get the exercise but without the bursts of effort needed to tackle uneven terrain and forces of nature. I can see this being a hit with boomers, but younger folks will also see it as a way to make urban commuting by bicycle less intimidating.

I should also add that when you use the back brake it immediately goes into regenerative mode, charging the lithium-ion battery pack by capturing braking energy. You can also set the control so that it captures energy when you’re going downhill or riding with a tail wind or simply want the added resistance for the purpose of exercising.

Now, these things aren’t cheap. They range from $1,200 to $1,700 depending on battery power. And that’s without the bike. This is a kit, remember — a system than can either be retrofitted onto your existing bike or purchased as part of a package from a company such as Trek (in that case, you’ll likely pay more).

All in all, it’s encouraging to see a Canadian manufacturing gem like Magna taking this high-growth market seriously. It’s not going to replace lost auto-sector jobs and revenues, but when the auto sector rebounds the e-bike side of the business will certainly be a nice complement. Already, it has created 90 or so new jobs in the last year. And with Magna’s brand behind it, it will certainly raise awareness of e-bikes and their importance as we transition our transportation infrastructure away from congestion and pollution and toward free-flowing and emission-free.

By the way, as you’ll read in the story, Magna is developing an e-bike racking system that can be rolled out as part of a package to cities, resorts, gated communities, etc… that want to expand the bike-share concept seen in Paris and Montreal to electric bikes.

I encourage you to read his full post. Very interesting.

A team of electrical engineering undergrads from MIT have developed a new type of “regenerative” shock absorber that captures energy every time a vehicle hits a bump in the road. They claim a 10 per cent improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency, and have formed a company called Levant Power Corp. to commercialize a product. According to an MIT press release, “In their testing so far, the students found that in a 6-shock heavy truck, each shock absorber could generate up to an average of 1 kilowatt on a standard road — enough power to completely displace the large alternator load in heavy trucks and military vehicles, and in some cases even run accessory devices such as hybrid trailer refrigeration units.”

This is just one of several components/parts of a car where energy-efficiency improvements are still possible, and taken together they show how far we can take vehicle efficiency. I can only imagine how much vehicle fuel economy would improve at this time of the year in Toronto, given all the potholes we’re starting to see after the winter thaw.

BTW: I know biofuels aren’t a factor in vehicle efficiency, but they are a factor in the debate over carbon emissions. One problem with ethanol, aside from the whole fuel-from-food controversy, is that vehicle fuel economy takes a 27-per-cent hit because of the lower energy content in ethanol. So to drive the same distance on ethanol as you would with 100 per cent gasoline you’d be using much more fuel, and presumably paying much more. A U.K.-based engineering company called Ricardo Inc. says it has developed a technology that, according to president Dean Harlow, “turns the gasoline-ethanol equation upside down.” The flex-fuel technology, called Ethanol Boosted Direct Injection, offers the performance of diesel, at the cost of a gasoline engine, but running on ethanol or an ethanol-gasoline blend. Now, if we could just get cellulosic ethanol to start flowing on a commercial scale…

Three U.S. senators — two Democrats, one Republican — introduced a bill today that would create a national incentive program for the voluntary retirement of inefficient vehicles. The four-year program would apply to anyone who had a driveable vehicle registered for four months or longer that got no more than 18 miles per gallon. The vehicle owner would have the option of turning in the car, truck or SUV to be scrapped in exchange for a credit of $2,500 to $4,500. The credit could be applied toward the purchase of a new fuel-efficient vehicle or, in the form of a voucher, could be redeemed for transit fares.

If passed, the bill would aim to encourage the early retirement of up to one million vehicles each year — four million in total. “If enacted, this bill would be an important part of helping getting America’s struggling automobile industry back on its feet — and help consumers who are concerned about covering the cost of buying a more fuel-efficient vehicle,” said Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California.

What’s good about this bill is that it would create economic stimulus and help achieve the goals of emission reductions and energy security. The value of the credit or voucher is determined by the age of the car being turned in and whether the person is buying a new car, used car, or accepting transit fares as a replacement. You can read details of the bill here.

I like it — though I guess it could be abused. That is, if someone takes some old clunker, registers it, and makes it work long enough to pass the “driveability” test. But it’s a great way of taking the most polluting cars off the road, and encouraging people to purchase vehicles that, at minimum, must be 25 per cent more fuel-efficient than the CAFE target for the year and class of vehicle being purchased. In other words, if you’re purchasing a 2007 used passenger car it must get 27.5 x 1.25 miles per gallon, or just over 34 miles per gallon.

Perhaps it’s something Canada should be considering as well, eh?

One criticism I do have, however, is that 18 MPG is too low for my liking. It should be raised a few notches. Beyond that, if you’ve got a 1986 Ford Bronco or 1991 Chevy Caprice sitting in your garage, this could be your big break — assuming the old clunkers still work.

Anyway, it’s interesting to see Toyota thinking so far in the future. Here’s a link to the AP story.

UPDATE: As expected, Toyota is denying that it’s building a solar car.

I dropped the idea, thinking it might be good fodder for a column at a later date. Then I noticed this week that Eric Stoutenburg, a researcher at Stanford University, came to a similar conclusion in a research paper that he presented this week at the American Geophysical Union’s fall meeting in San Francisco. “If wave energy wants to get off the ground, it might have better potential to develop in the shadow of an offshore wind plant,” Stoutenburg told Cleantech Group.

Developers pay for offshore projects based on the area covered. Dual energy-generating methods would give power energy per square kilometer, improving the project cost, Stoutenburg said. Additionally, the two power sources could share transmission cables, which are an expensive element. The plant operators would see savings in operations and maintenance, which can be costly for offshore projects that have limited accessibility, he said. However, even more notable than cost savings is the value of the energy generated, he said. Stoutenburg said he was surprised to learn that wind and wave power are not strongly correlated, which means that they don’t generate power at the same time, with the exception of during storms. That means a wind-wave energy project could deliver a consistent power supply, which is more valuable to utilities because it doesn’t stress the electricity grid as much as sudden surges of energy generation, Stoutenburg said.

Meanwhile, another report from Stanford University ranks the best combination of renewable energy and vehicle technology based on how it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy security, and cut down on air pollution. Prof. Mark Jacobson, in the university’s department of civil and environmental engineering, concluded after a thorough analysis that the best combination is to use wind power and battery-electric vehicles, though concentrated solar, geothermal, tidal, solar PV and wave power also rank high (in that order). Nuclear and clean coal with carbon capture ranked lowest. According to Jacobson:

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Joe Romm over at Climate Progress offers a more thoughtful review of Jacobson’s study if you want to learn more.