Honda Drives Toward Home Solar Hydrogen Refueling
Date: 15-Mar-10

Author: Mary Milliken, Reuters from California.

{Jon Spallino (L) with his wife Sandy (R) and their daughters Anna (2L) and Adrianna accept their new 2005 Honda FCX fuel cell powered vehicle in Los Angeles on June 29, 2005.
Photo: by Mario Anzuoni}

Coming not so soon and probably not to a house near you is the home solar hydrogen refueling station — Honda Motor Co’s latest idea in its drive to make hydrogen the fuel of choice for zero emission cars.

The Japanese auto giant believes hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles offer the best long-term alternative to fossil fuels and the company showed on Friday a refueling breakthrough that it says points to a home version down the road.

Most major automakers have spent billions of dollars in researching hydrogen-powered fuel cells, tempted by the idea of a car that uses no gasoline and emits only water vapor. But Honda is widely seen as the hydrogen leader, while others like General Motors put more effort into battery-powered electric vehicles like the upcoming Volt.

One of the big barriers to hydrogen car deployment is the lack of refueling infrastructure, leading Honda to bet that the future lies in combining a public station network with a more modest home option.

Honda’s home option will comprise a solar-powered hydrogen refueling station using solar panels.

“Customers can choose how they interact with both of them based on their annual miles and their habits,” said Stephen Ellis, fuel cell manager at the Honda’s North American headquarters in Torrance, California.

‘BIGGEST PROGRESS’

“The key thing to remember is that with five-minute refueling you are good for another 240 miles,” Ellis added.

That range comes from the “fast-fill” public station, of which there are just a handful in Southern California, where Honda leases 15 FCX Clarity hydrogen-powered vehicles and is set to distribute more in coming months.

Eight hours of home solar refueling would guarantee a smaller range of 30 miles or about 10,000 miles (16,000 km per year — enough for an average commuting car.

At the Los Angeles R&D center, engineers refueled the sleek FCX Clarity sedan with a new single-unit station connected to a solar array that replaces a two-unit system, cutting costs and improving efficiency by 25 percent.

“This is wonderful progress, the biggest progress,” said Ikuya Yamashita, the chief engineer of the station.

The station uses a 6-kilowatt solar array, composed of 48 panels and thin film solar cells developed by a Honda subsidiary. It breaks down the water into hydrogen in what Honda calls a “virtually carbon-free energy cycle.”

The FCX Clarity’s hydrogen “stack” — or the electricity generator — is around the size of an attache case, tucked between the two front seats, and is a fifth of the stack size developed a decade ago.

The car is likely to be sold commercially around 2018 in the luxury large sedan category, while the solar hydrogen refueling system could move beyond the research stage and into the market-ready phase around 2015.

“A lot of this work is not necessarily for today’s economic situation,” said Ellis. “This is for tomorrow, when most people feel energy prices will be higher.”

Have Fuel Cells Finally Turned the Corner?
Now by Darren O’Dowd, Manager, Smart Grid, March 10, 2010.
Sunnyvale, California-based Bloom Energy, founded in 2001, was one of the feature stories on the February 21 edition of CBS Television’s “60 Minutes.” The subject of the story was the public unveiling of the Energy Server™, which is refrigerator-sized generating units containing solid oxide fuel cells. Bloom Energy claims that this type of advanced fuel cell holds greater potential for real distributed generation applications than its predecessors due to its use of lower cost ceramic materials as well as due to a breakthrough in engineering design challenges that previously hindered the development of solid oxide fuel cells.

The Energy Server™, according to the Bloom Energy web site, is “fuel flexible,” able to run on Natural Gas, or on renewable bio-fuels. Each one has a generation capacity of 100 kilowatts (kW), and the servers can be deployed modularly to provide greater generation capacity if needed (a Bloom Energy press release from February 24 details modular deployments of 400 kW and two deployments of 500 kW).

One of the most unique and remarkable elements of this public “debut” is that it is nothing of the sort from a production and operational standpoint. Bloom Energy, on its web site and in press releases, already counts such prominent companies as Bank of America, Coca-Cola, eBay, FedEx, Google, Staples, and Walmart as its customers with already installed and operating servers. Among the uses cited for the Energy Servers™ are replacements for on-site diesel generators (typically for back up or peak time period generation) and replacement of traditional grid-delivered power, including for the purpose of reducing these companies’ respective greenhouse gas emissions/carbon footprints through the use of bio-gas as fuel.

However, amid the hype and buzz generated from the “60 Minutes” story and subsequent public unveiling of the Energy Server™ on February 24th, many questions remain as to whether or not this new offering is the “game-changer” that, to date, in regard to fuel cells, has been more promise than delivery. The Energy Server™ was developed largely in secret since Bloom Energy’s founding in 2001, with no substantive information on the product coming from the company until last month’s public coming-out party. Bloom Energy’s headquarters are a non-descript office building in Sunnyvale with no signage indicating their presence there.

Furthermore, while most often such new technologies are tested in cooperation/collaboration with the utility industry, Bloom Energy chose not to do so with the Energy Server™ at least not that is publicly known. A representative from The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) declined specific comment to a blog posting for the Wall Street Journal, indicating that, “we haven’t had access to it.” Therefore it is unclear how the server will function if interconnected to the grid in a net-metering scenario (similar to what’s happening now in many jurisdictions with smaller Solar PV distributed generation). It’s also unclear how exactly the Energy Server™ would function in residential areas, as its capacity would dictate its deployment at the sub-station level.

Finally, there are many questions as to the specific costs associated with obtaining and operating the Energy Server™. Bloom Power’s web site mentions a 3-5 year payback model on owning the server, but the company has not publicly gone into any further detail on the costs of ownership. Any deployment at a “utility level” will likely attract the attention of and possibly require the approval of regulators, at which point the cost in comparison to other generation resources, renewable or otherwise, will come into play.

Despite these (and probably others not explored here) open questions, Bloom Energy and the Energy Server™ merit our industry’s interest and attention going forward. The fact that they have a deliverable product already being used in the market speaks volumes as to how far fuel cells have come from promise to reality.

———–

We think that the questions in above article are basically irrelevant – this because we hope the Bloom-boxes will develop a new decentralized market that is not based on the grid. In our best dreams we envision them make the grid itself a thing of the past – so that the present investment push for smart grid will have to be reconsidered.

We picked up some ideas from Katie McCaskey of an aol blog – http://www.housingwatch.com/2010/02/19/kill-your-lawn-earn-some-green/

Katie pointed out that Southern California residents have  now further good financial reasons for doing sane things and rip out their water-wasting turf – did you hear that they will get even a check in the mail?

These programs were instituted by Southern California utilities because of water shortage and above triggered my memory of things past that occured when I tried to do sane things in New York State and found that one must bow to the conventional narrow minds running the system.

In Southern California homeowners are now required to replace grass with drought-tolerant, native plant species or install permeable surfaces which filter water back into the ground. Common permeable surfaces that are allowed include:  flagstone, brick, and gravel. The rebate is $1 per square foot, up to a maximum of 2,000 feet.

Cyberhomes blogger Marcie Geffner writes:
The rebate might not be enough to persuade homeowners who really love their lawns. But for me, the offer was a no-brainer as I wanted to replace my big boring lawns with flagstone walkways, cactus and other plants that are more natural to the climate, if not necessarily native.

Other water-saving rebates available through LADWP include incentives to replace toilets and clothes washers with high-efficiency models, timer controlled irrigation, and pressure-reduced sprinkler nozzles. If you’re willing, there is even a rebate for installing synthetic turf.

Kathie McCaskey suggests – “Check with your local utility company or DSIRE.org to see what environmentally-conscious rebates are available in your area.”

Better than sliced bread?

{Now please – do not be sarcastic – this
should have been an Obama moment. Will the White House buy one – or
get one for free if this is permissible – and install it in the White
House Basement – Please? The point is that people should realize that
clean DECENTRALIZED ENERGY is the best we will ever get!}

Bloom: Thinking inside the box – { a new meaning for this – please! }

• Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 27th, 2010
  by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

  from: www.Tomdispatch.com -  By Bill McKibben
  February 27, 2010  |

  Twenty-one years ago, in 1989, I wrote what many have called the first book for a general audience on global warming. One of the more interesting reviews came from the Wall Street Journal.  It was a mixed and judicious appraisal.  “The subject,” the reviewer said, “is important, the notion is arresting, and Mr. McKibben argues convincingly.”  And that was not an outlier: around the same time, the first president Bush announced that he planned to “fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.”

  I doubt that’s what the Journal will say about my next book when it comes out in a few weeks, and I know that no GOP presidential contender would now dream of acknowledging that human beings are warming the planet.  Sarah Palin is currently calling climate science “snake oil” and last week, the Utah legislature, in a move straight out of the King Canute playbook, passed a resolution condemning “a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome” on a nearly party-line vote.
  
  And here’s what’s odd. In 1989, I could fit just about every scientific study on climate change on top of my desk. The science was still thin.  If my reporting made me think it was nonetheless convincing, many scientists were not yet prepared to agree.

  Now, you could fill the Superdome with climate-change research data. (You might not want to, though, since Hurricane Katrina demonstrated just how easy it was to rip holes in its roof.) Every major scientific body in the world has produced reports confirming the peril. All 15 of the warmest years on record have come in the two decades that have passed since 1989. In the meantime, the Earth’s major natural systems have all shown undeniable signs of rapid flux: melting Arctic and glacial ice, rapidly acidifying seawater, and so on.

  Somehow, though, the onslaught against the science of climate change has never been stronger, and its effects, at least in the U.S., never more obvious: fewer Americans believe humans are warming the planet.  At least partly as a result, Congress feels little need to consider global-warming legislation, no less pass it; and as a result of that failure, progress towards any kind of international agreement on climate change has essentially ground to a halt.

  Climate-Change Denial as an O.J. Moment:

  The campaign against climate science has been enormously clever, and enormously effective. It’s worth trying to understand how they’ve done it.  The best analogy, I think, is to the O.J. Simpson trial, an event that’s begun to recede into our collectiveKatoKaelin, anyone? Lance Ito?

  The Dream Team of lawyers assembled for Simpson’s defense had a problem: it was pretty clear their guy was guilty. Nicole Brown’s blood was all over his socks, and that was just the beginning.  So Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian et al. decided to attack the process, arguing that it put Simpson’s guilt in doubt, and doubt, of course, was all they needed. Hence, those days of cross-examination about exactly how Dennis Fung had transported blood samples, or the fact that Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman had used racial slurs when talking to a screenwriter in 1986.

  If anything, they were actually helped by the mountain of evidence. If a haystack gets big enough, the odds only increase that there will be a few needles hidden inside. Whatever they managed to find, they made the most of: in closing arguments, for instance, Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler and called him “a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America’s worst nightmare, and the personification of evil.” His only real audience was the jury, many of whom had good reason to dislike the Los Angeles Police Department, but the team managed to instill considerable doubt in lots of Americans tuning in on TV as well. That’s what happens when you spend week after week dwelling on the cracks in a case, no matter how small they may be.

  Similarly, the immense pile of evidence now proving the science of global warming beyond any reasonable doubt is in some ways a great boon for those who would like, for a variety of reasons, to deny that the biggest problem we’ve ever faced is actually a problem at all. If you have a three-page report, it won’t be overwhelming and it’s unlikely to have many mistakes. Three thousand pages (the length of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)?  That pretty much guarantees you’ll get something wrong.
  memory. For those who were conscious in 1995, however, I imagine that just a few names will make it come back to life.

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
  Posted in California, Real World's News, Reporting from Washington DC, The US States

  Discuss this article

It is funny how the Chinese cannot take responsibility when they do something right, and the Americans cannot take responsibility when they do something wrong.

Washington bailed out GM rather then making sure first they change products and Beijing stopped companies from buying into the GM misfits but find ways to explain this without harming the feelings of GM. Good riddance to the Hummer monster – specially to the yellow one that used to cruise the New York Mid-town East Side and driven by some chief from the Department of Sanitation.

CHINA INSISTS A FLAWED APPROACH HURT GM DEAL
By Patti Waldmeir in Shanghai 2010-02-26, The Financial Times.

The collapse of General Motors’ plan to sell Hummer to a Chinese buyer reflects flaws in the deal rather than any reluctance by Beijing to sanction cross-border transactions, say Chinese government officials.

GM announced late on Wednesday that it had given up on efforts to sell its troubled Hummer operations to Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, after nearly nine months of trying.

The Detroit carmaker said it would now wind down production of the heavy sports utility vehicle.

The collapse marks another difficult sales process for GM since it began to downsize its operations more than a year ago. The carmaker backed out of plans to sell its Opel business last year, while a deal to offload its Saturn brand fell apart.

But it this week succeeded in selling Saab, its Swedish marque, to Spyker, the Dutch boutique sports car maker.

Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery, which had never produced a passenger car, said the deal collapsed because it was “unable to obtain clearance [for] the transaction from the Chinese regulators within the proposed deal timeframe”.

The deal’s deadline had already been extended by a month while Tengzhong made a last-ditch effort to obtain Beijing’s blessing.

Analysts said yesterday that Beijing’s refusal to sanction the deal was scarcely surprising, given the central government’s recent strong emphasis on encouraging Chinese consumers to buy smaller, fuel-efficient cars.

To produce the hulking Hummer, with its image of wasteful excess, could hardly be less consistent with Beijing’s pro-green automotive policies, said Mike Dunne of Dunne & Co, an Asia-based automotive consultancy: “For them to approve the Hummer deal would be a big contradiction.”

A ministry of commerce spokesman said Tengzhong failed to provide a sound purchase plan. He reiterated China’s policy of encouraging development of a renewable, green and environmentally friendly economy.

The ministry has previously insisted it never received an application by Sichuan Tengzhong – but the company repeatedly denied it.

Yale Zhang, of CSM Automotive in Shanghai, said the deal violated not only Beijing’s environmental goals but also Chinese insistence on consolidation in the auto industry, which has about 50-100 carmakers.

“This was just the wrong group making the wrong purchase in the wrong way,” said an industry insider, noting Tengzhong did not obtain provisional clearance before announcing the deal.

Beijing is thought willing to sanction the much bigger $1bn acquisition of Volvo by Geely, the big private Chinese automaker. That deal is expected to be finalised by March’s end.

Last year BAIC, the Beijing automaker, acquired some assets of Saab from GM, with central government approval.

—————

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL

Goodbye, Hummer
Published: February 25, 2010

The world might be saved: It looks as if the Hummer is destined for the junkyard. The plan by General Motors to sell the muscular brand to a Chinese company went up in a puff of exhaust smoke on Wednesday after government officials in China said that they had never received the necessary application for approval and thus couldn’t grant it.

We suspect the deal collapsed because the Chinese Communist Party — which rarely shows much shame — is worried about China’s image as the most polluting nation on the planet. If true, that is good news.

There may be other good news. While some policy analysts have called — sensibly, in our opinion — for steeper gasoline taxes to encourage American drivers to embrace fuel efficiency, some economists have been skeptical. They acknowledge that drivers might decide to drive less and take public transportation more. But they warn that most could not afford to quickly dump their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars.

Yet given time, it seems, people change their ways. Americans drove 3.4 percent fewer miles in 2008 — when gas prices shot up to a peak of $4 a gallon nationally — than in 2007. And many who had bought the Hummer when a gallon of gas cost $2 decided that they couldn’t afford to tool around town in a small tank that would run, on average, around 10 miles on a gallon.

By last year, even as gas prices drifted downward, only about 9,000 Hummers were sold in the United States. That was a steep drop from 71,000 in 2006. In the spring of 2008, G.M. announced that it could not keep the sinking brand. The company is weighing two long-shot bids, but it is more than likely to wind down the brand.

Gasoline is back around $2.50 a gallon, and Americans are falling back on some of their old bad habits. Still, the Hummer’s tale is a vivid example of the power of gas prices to change Americans’ ways. It also suggests that, given the proper incentives and disincentives, all the world’s nations can embrace a greener future.

 http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2010/02/b…

20 February 2010 – The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough ?
Posted by Big Gav in bloom energy, cogeneration, fuel cells.

CBS’s “Sixty Minutes” program has a look at cogeneration / fuel cell company Bloom Energy this weekend – The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?.
For the past year and a half, several large California corporations have been secretly using the “Bloom Box,” a potentially revolutionary fuel-cell system. Confirming this for the first time, several of the companies report this system is a more efficient, clean, and cost effective way to get electricity than off the power grid. Lesley Stahl and 60 MINUTES cameras get the first look inside the secretive California company, just days before the Bloom Energy official launch, scheduled for this Wednesday (24). Stahl’s report will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Feb. 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

John Donahoe, CEO of E-bay, confirms Bloom Boxes were installed at his corporate campus nine months ago. The company says the boxes already saved them over $100,000 in electricity bills. “It’s been very successful thus far. [The Bloom Boxes] have done what they said they would do,” says Donahoe. The five boxes are able to produce five times as much electricity as the 3,248 solar panels that E-bay installed on its campus roofs, says the CEO. “The footprint for Bloom is much more efficient,” he tells Stahl. Google, FedEx, Staples and Wal-Mart are among the first 20clients Bloom is confirming.

Stahl is the first journalist to be allowed into the Bloom Energy lab and factory where they currently make one box a day. The boxes create electricity by a chemical process that utilizes oxygen and fuel, but involves no combustion. Bloom’s founder and CEO, K.R. Sridhar, insists all the materials in the box are cheap and available in abundance. Bloom says each large Box – which can power about 100 homes – currently sells for $700-800,000. They hope within five to 10 years to roll out a smaller home version for about $3,000 a unit.

Bloom Energy was the first clean energy start-up Kleiner-Perkins, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, invested in. They currently invest in about 50 clean tech companies. Sridhar confirms the company has received over $400 million, making it one of the most expensive startups in history. The majority of that comes from Kleiner Perkins. John Doerr, the Kleiner Perkins partner who invested in Bloom, has high hopes. “The Bloom Box is intended to replace the [electric power] grid for its customer,” says Doerr. He thinks existing utility companies should not be threatened or have a problem with Bloom Energy. “The utility companies will see this as a solution. All they need to do is buy Bloom Boxes, put them in the substation for the neighborhood and sell that electricity,” he says.

But there is another hurdle says Michael Kanellos, editor in chief of the Web site GreenTech Media. Even if Sridhar can mass produce his boxes and sell them cheaply enough, “The problem is then G.E. and Siemens and other conglomerates that can probably do the same thing. They have fuel cell patents,” he tells Stahl.

The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?

60 Minutes: First Customers Says Energy Machine Works And Saves Money.
CBS NEWS
CREATED: 02/18/2010 05:03:11 PM PST

(CBS)   For the past year and a half, several large California corporations have been secretly testing the “Bloom Box,” a potentially revolutionary fuel-cell system. Confirming this for the first time, several of the companies report this system is a more efficient, clean, and cost effective way to get electricity than off the power grid.

Lesley Stahl and “60 Minutes” cameras get the first look inside the secretive California company, just days before the Bloom Energy official launch, scheduled for next Wednesday (Feb. 24).

Stahl’s report will be broadcast this Sunday, Feb. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

John Donahoe, CEO of E-bay, confirms Bloom Boxes were installed at his corporate campus nine months ago. The company says the boxes already saved them over $100,000 in electricity bills. “It’s been very successful thus far. [The Bloom Boxes] have done what they said they would do,” says Donahoe. The five boxes are able to produce five times as much electricity as the 3,248 solar panels that E-bay installed on its campus roofs, says the CEO. “The footprint for Bloom is much more efficient,” he tells Stahl.

Google, FedEx, Staples and Walmart are among the first 20 clients Bloom is confirming.

Stahl is the first journalist to be allowed into the Bloom Energy lab and factory where currently one box a day is built. The boxes create electricity by a chemical process that utilizes oxygen and fuel, but involves no combustion.
Advertisement

Bloom’s founder and CEO, K.R. Sridhar, insists all the materials in the box are cheap and available in abundance. Bloom says each large box – which can power about 100 homes – currently sells for $700-800,000. They hope within five to 10 years to roll out a smaller home version for about $3,000 a unit.

Bloom Energy was the first clean energy start-up Kleiner-Perkins, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm, invested in. They currently invest in about 50 clean tech companies. Sridhar confirms the company has received over $400 million, making it one of the most expensive startups in history. The majority of that comes from Kleiner Perkins.

John Doerr, the Kleiner Perkins partner who invested in Bloom, has high hopes. “The Bloom Box is intended to replace the [electric power] grid for its customer,” says Doerr. He thinks existing utility companies should not be threatened or have a problem with Bloom Energy. “The utility companies will see this as a solution.All they need to do is buy Bloom Boxes, put them in the substation for the neighborhood and sell that electricity,” he says.

To contact the Newsroom, call 907-274-1111.

The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?
CBS 60 Minutes: First Customers Says Energy Machine Works And Saves Money

Bloom Energy’s K.R. Sridhar, holding up fuel cells that are key components of the so-called “Bloom box.”

Lesley Stahl (CBS):  In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that’s inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.

You’ll generate your own electricity with the box and it’ll be wireless. The idea is to one day replace the big power plants and transmission line grid, the way the laptop moved in on the desktop and cell phones supplanted landlines.

It has a lot of smart people believing and buzzing, even though the company has been unusually secretive – until now.

K.R. Sridhar invited “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl for a first look at the innards of the Bloom box that he has been toiling on for nearly a decade.

Looking at one of the boxes, Sridhar told Stahl it could power an average U.S. home.

“The way we make it is in two blocks. This is a European home. The two put together is a U.S. home,” he explained.

“‘Cause we use twice as much energy, is that what you’re saying?” Stahl asked.

“Yeah, and this’ll power four Asian homes,” he replied.

“So four homes in India, your native country?” Stahl asked.

“Four to six homes in our country,” Sridhar replied.

“It sounds awfully dazzling,” Stahl remarked.

“It is real. It works,” he replied.

He says he knows it works because he originally invented a similar device for NASA. He really is a rocket scientist.

“This invention, working on Mars, would have allowed the NASA administrator to pick up a phone and say, ‘Mr. President, we know how to produce oxygen on Mars,’” Sridhar told Stahl.

“So this was going to produce oxygen so people could actually live on Mars?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” Sridhar replied.

When NASA scrapped that Mars mission, Sridhar had an idea: he reversed his Mars machine. Instead of it making oxygen, he pumped oxygen in.

He invented a new kind of fuel cell, which is like a very skinny battery that always runs. Sridhar feeds oxygen to it on one side, and fuel on the other. The two combine within the cell to create a chemical reaction that produces electricity. There’s no need for burning or combustion, and no need for power lines from an outside source.

In October 2001 he managed to get a meeting with John Doerr from the big Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.

“How much do you think, ‘I need to come up with the next big thing’?” Stahl asked Doerr.

“Oh, that’s my job,” he replied. “To find entrepreneurs who are going to change the world and then help them.”

Doerr has certainly changed our world: he’s the one who discovered and funded Netscape, Amazon and Google. When he listened to Sridhar, the idea seemed just as transformative: efficient, inexpensive, clean energy out of a box.

“But Google: $25 million. This man said, ‘How much money?’” Stahl asked.

“At the time he said over a hundred million dollars,” Doerr replied.

But according to Doerr that was okay.

“So nothing he said scared you?” Stahl asked.

“Oh, I wasn’t at all sure it could be done,” he replied.

(CBS)  But there was a selling point: clean energy was an emerging market, worth gazillions.

“I like to say that the new energy technologies could be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century,” Doerr explained.

He told Stahl it was the firm’s first clean energy investment.

Many followed, and the clean tech revolution in Silicon Valley was off and running with start-ups that produce thin flexible solar panels, harness wind with giant balloons, or develop new fuels from algae.

But Bloom is among the most expensive. “I heard actually so far, not just from Kleiner Perkins, but total $400 million,” Stahl remarked.

“You’re in the ballpark,” Sridhar acknowledged.

With that kind of money comes a lot of buzz. “In Silicon Valley, every time a company raises over $100 million, and they haven’t come out with a product yet, everybody starts getting the heebie-jeebies,” Michael Kanellos, editor-in-chief of the Web site GreenTech Media, told Stahl.

Kanellos admitted he is skeptical. “I’m hopeful but I’m skeptical. ‘Cause people have tried fuel cells since the 1830s,” he explained. “And they’re great ideas, right? You just need producing energy at an instant. But they’re not easy. They’re like the divas of industrial equipment. You have to put platinum inside there. You’ve got zirconium. The little plates inside have to work not just for an hour or a day, but they have to work for 30 years, nonstop. And then the box has to be cheap to make.”

One thing stoking his skepticism: Sridhar has been hyper-secretive – there’s no sign on his building, a cryptic Web site, and no public progress reports.

Given the stealthiness, we were surprised when Sridhar showed us – for the very first time – how he makes the “secret sauce” of his fuel cell on the cheap.

He said he bakes sand and cuts it into little squares that are turned into a ceramic. Then he coats it with green and black “inks” that he developed.

Sridhar told Stahl there is a secret formula. “And you take that and you apply that. You paint that on either side of this white ceramic to get a green layer and a black layer. And…that’s it.”

Sridhar told Stahl the finished product, a skinny fuel cell, would generate power.

One disk powers one light bulb; the taller the stack of disks, the more power it generates. In between each disk there’s a metal plate, but instead of platinum, Sridhar uses a cheap metal alloy.

The stacks are the heart of the Bloom box: put 64 of them together and you get something big enough to power a Starbucks.

Sridhar offered to give Stahl a sneak peek inside the Bloom box.

“All those modules that we saw go into this big box. Fuel goes in, air goes in, out comes electricity,” he explained.

(CBS)  Asked if Bloom box is intended to get rid of the grid, John Doerr told Stahl, “The Bloom box is intended to replace the grid…for its customers. It’s cheaper than the grid, it’s cleaner than the grid.”

“Now, won’t the utility companies see this as a threat and try to crush Bloom?” Stahl asked.

“No, I think the utility companies will see this as a solution,” Doerr said. “All they need to do is buy Bloom boxes, put them in the substation for the neighborhood and sell that electricity and operate.”

“They’ll buy these boxes?” Stahl asked.

“They buy nuclear power plants. They buy gas turbines from General Electric,” he pointed out.

To make power, you’d still need fuel. Many past fuel cells failed because they needed expensive pure hydrogen. Not this box.

“Our system can use fossil fuels like natural gas. Our system can use renewable fuels like landfill gas, bio-gas,” Sridhar told Stahl. “We can use solar.”

“You know, it’s very difficult for us to come in here and make an evaluation. How are we supposed to know whether what you’re saying is true?” Stahl asked.

“Why don’t we talk to our first customers?” he replied.

Yes, he already has customers. Twenty large, well-known companies have quietly bought and are testing Bloom boxes in California.

Like FedEx. We were at their hub in Oakland, the day Bloom installed their boxes, each one costing $700-800,000.

One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there’s a 30 percent federal tax break because it’s a “green” technology. In other words: the price is cut in half.

“We have FedEx, we have Walmart,” Sridhar explained.

He told Stahl the first customer was Google.

Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant.

Sridhar told Stahl that three weeks in at Google, suddenly one of the boxes just stopped.

Asked if he panicked, he told Stahl, “For a short while… yes.”

He fixed that; then there was another incident. “The air filters clog up and air is not coming into the system because the highway is kicking dirt. You just flip the system around, and the problem is gone,” he explained.

Another company that has bought and is testing the Bloom box so Sridhar can work out the kinks is eBay. Its boxes are on the lawn in the middle of its campus in San Jose.

John Donahoe, eBay’s CEO, says its five boxes were installed nine months ago and have already saved the company more than $100,000 in electricity costs.

“It’s been very successful thus far. They’ve done what they said they would do,” he told Stahl.

eBay’s boxes run on bio-gas made from landfill waste, so they’re carbon neutral. Donahoe took us up to the roof to show off the company’s more than 3,000 solar panels. But they generate a lot less electricity than the boxes on the lawn.

“So this, on five buildings, acres and acres and acres,” Stahl remarked.

“Yes. The footprint for Bloom is much more efficient,” Donahoe said. “When you average it over seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the Bloom box puts out five times as much power that we can actually use.”

(CBS)  But not everyone is convinced that even if the technology works, Bloom – that now makes one box a day – will ever be able to be as big as its backers say.

“Going from a few to mass-manufacturing’s going to be tough. And then making them so people won’t run away at the price tag. It needs to be cheaper than solar. It needs to be cheaper than wind,” a

href=”http://www.greentechmedia.com/”target=new”>GreenTech Media’s Michael Kanellos told Stahl.

“What if he can get the price way down? He claims he can,” she asked.

“And if he can, the problem is then G.E. and Siemens and other conglomerates probably can do the same thing. They have fuel cell patents; they have research teams that have looked at this,” Kanellos replied.

“What do you think the chances are that in ten-plus years you and I will each have a Bloom box in our basements?” Stahl asked.

“Twenty percent,” Kanellos replied. “But it’s going to say ‘G.E.’”

“Companies that you have bet on, they haven’t all succeeded?” Stahl asked John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins.

“I have some famous failures,” he acknowledged.

Doerr is praying that Bloom is not the next Segway, as he and Sridhar get ready for the company’s official launch this Wednesday. They’re pulling out all the stops, including high profile endorsements.

“I have seen the technology and it works,” former Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

He joined Bloom’s board of directors last year.

Asked if this is the answer to our energy problems, Powell told Stahl, “I think that’s too big a claim to make. I think it is part of the transformation of the energy system. But I think the Bloom boxes will make a significant contribution.”

To make a contribution, in Sridhar’s mind, Bloom boxes will power not just our richest companies, but remote villages in Africa and all our houses.

“In five to ten years, we would like to be in every home,” he told Stahl.

He said a unit should cost an average person less than $3,000.

“You are an idealist,” Stahl remarked.

“You know, it’s about seeing the world as what it can be and not what it is,” Sridhar replied.

“I see you seeing a Bloom box in the basement of the White House,” she said.

“Absolutely. I would love that to go on the lawn,” he replied.

“So, forget…the basement. You want the Bloom box in the Rose Garden?” Stahl asked.

“Maybe next to that organic vegetable garden,” Sridhar joked. “I would be happy with that.”

Morrison & Foerster Seminar.
Cleantech Forum XXVI

Thursday, February 25, 2010

At The Palace Hotel
2 New Montgomery St.
San Francisco, California, 94105

Program:    11:30 AM – 12:30 PM
For more information and to register for the Cleantech Forum XXVI, please visit the Cleantech Forum website.

—————

Morrison & Foerster is a sponsor of the Cleantech Forum XXVI “Taking Cleantech to Scale” in San Francisco February 24-26th, 2010 at The Palace Hotel.

As a sponsor, we will present the following break-out panel discussion on Thursday, February 25 from 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.:

China/U.S. Cross-Border Investment in Cleantech.

China’s ambitious renewable energy goals, national incentive programs, and aggressive fuel economy standards will enable the growth of a domestic Cleantech industry that some have predicted could reach $1 trillion, or 15% of China’s GDP, by 2013. At the same time, the U.S. is increasing its focus on retrofitting existing infrastructure for efficiency. This panel will discuss differences in Cleantech investment priorities between the U.S. and China, their implications and key issues for cross-border Cleantech deals between the U.S. and China.

Moderator:
Charles Comey, Managing Partner of the Shanghai Office, Morrison & Foerster

Panel:
Raj Atluru, Managing Director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson
Ken DeWoskin, Senior Director, Deloitte China
David Yarnold, Executive Director, Environmental Defense Fund
Honghui Yu, Vice President, China Energy Conservation Investment Co.

The Cleantech Forum will bring together 1,000 industry leaders ushering in new forms of financing for scale and innovation, for a broader set of global demands and new business models. Attend Cleantech Forum and gain a competitive advantage as large corporate incumbents and governments worldwide play an increasing role in financing and scaling Cleantech. Learn about the new business models and markets that a maturing Cleantech sector is creating. Attendees have access to first-hand accounts from the new companies appearing, the new funds investing, and corporations looking for partners.

For more information and to register for the Cleantech Forum XXVI, please visit the Cleantech Forum website.

Morrison & Foerster’s global Cleantech Practice is dedicated to representing clients that are bringing innovative, sustainable products, services, and processes to the marketplace. The firm is the largest U.S. law firm in Asia and has over 75 lawyers working on the ground in China across three well-developed offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Morrison & Foerster is pleased to have served as sole international counsel to the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games.

Friends kept telling me that I have to see it, but what convinced me to go and support the public avalanche of money to the movie’s coffers was the interview of Larry King with the writer – director – producer – James Cameron. I realized that this very talented and versatile Hollywood man was able to sell any kind of snake oil if he would put his mind at it. He knows the market and knows how to perfect the technique of listening – you say what you think and he says -YES. Larry King was saying he saw this and that in the movie and the answer was yes and yes.

I am saying that this is a mixed up review because I have very mixed feelings about the movie and I cannot easily make up my mind – but to my credit I must say that I refused to read any of those professionals that review movies and help spread the word – it is a must. At the way the movie brings in $1 Billion per weekend so it seems to become a must – and everyone finds there what he is looking for. My strongest feelings were that it was too long for the time span I have to go – you guess what – but as I was sitting in the middle of the row in the IMAX movie house I could not go – so I suffered pains.

About 35 years ago, I belonged in the Village (that is Greenwich Village in New York City) to a club that was meeting monthly to analyze an honest commercial movie after we saw it together – even those first science fiction movies – reasonable budget movies. To analyze meant that several doctors or professors of the Psychoanalytical profession would put the movie on a couch and talk what they saw. Would they have done so to this movie – I doubt it. Why – simply said – there was nothing hidden in the movie – it all hang out for all to hear so why debate motives? The movie is made at a level of 95 IQ in great technicolor and as 3D it outs your nose right in the middle of the action. One moment you root for the Blackwater fighters as they move over virgin land, the other  moment for those giant ape like (pointed ears and long tails) blue smurfs. The pictures are terrific – the fights terrifying.

Yes – you have a problem with the fact that you do not know where you are. Are you on an outer planet or on some island, or continent, but you are there because some company wants some mineral that is extremely important for some new technology that  is being devised on mother earth – whatever it is that they come from. If you do not agree with what you are doing then you are a traitor to your race. Yes – it said race not country nor global humanity. Are those indigenous peoples really monkeys? Do we have to denigrate them by this allegation – that is – do we still believe that man is superior to animals. Are they?

The location seems more like a Tahiti Island in the midst of the Amazons and this reminded me of a small stockbroker Paul Gauguin who betrayed his race by going to live in Tahiti and admire the local nature and culture. Our male protagonist in the movie goes there and finds his female partner right there – a la Gauguin. She is instructed by her mother to teach him “our ways.” No wonder here except that all those tailed gorgeous giant blue smurfs speak English. Is this a bow to previous colonialism that is now returning because the need for that particular mineral was developed only now?

Now, how do you get to Smurfland? That you do through an inner voyage – you get there in your brain. And you know what – that voyage reminds us of similar things to what we wrote last week about Dr. Eric Kandel’s work on memory – you bind dendritic ends of your nerves to some machine nerves that is pre-programmed? Later we see you doing the same to your brain and the brain of birds that the Smurfs use as flying horses. This must be very deep suggestive practices in the theory of dominance. In Dr. Kandel’s work it is your experience that changes you and that are the dendrites – here you are changed from the outside and that is Stalinist. Did this occur to the producer? Did he just bank on it that Sarah Palin fans will say – how beautiful! It is our huge military machine in action! We go and solve our problems through conquest! Bravo!

On the other hand, those indigenous peoples belonging to various tribes on that new terrain – whatever it is – are extremely well adapted to their environment and love it. The animals there cooperate with them for the common good of their environment and will resist to what we are intended to believe are the human intruders that look very much like a US army invading some oil country – because WE NEED IT! OK – somehow our protagonist understands this in his dream and fights for real his master. Now – that part reminded me of the story of the Golem of Prague that in the Middle Ages the Jewish Rabbi invented to save the Jews, but got out of hand and destroyed everything. Can Obama act like Rabbi Loew and destroy the Global industry construct? This protagonist – the traitor – destroyed his maker but though hurt – the tailed indigenous, so well adapted to their environment, stayed on and their marvelous environment – though partially destroyed – will survive. Here at SustainabiliTank.info we wish reality could be as simple as that.

The truth is that this corporate military machine decimates everything and ends up devouring itself. The reality is in what we are doing – the dream is that we can stop it. The truth is that those that will see the movie will believe in what Cameron is dishing out to them – beautiful color, shapes, gore of war – AH THAT IS THE FUTURE OF ENTERTAINMENT FOR YOU BLOCKHEADS!

OP-ED COLUMNIST, The New York Times.
TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

By BOB HERBERT
Published: February 5, 2010
Palo Alto, Calif. – We’ve now lost 8.4 million jobs in this recession, and a vast majority of them are gone for good. The politicians are clambering aboard the jobs bandwagon, belatedly, but very few are telling the truth about the structural employment problems in the U.S. and the extremely heavy lift that is necessary to halt our declining living standards and get us back to an economy that is self-sustaining.

We don’t hear a lot that is serious about the sorry state of the nation’s infrastructure or the trade policies that crippled so many American industries or our inability (or unwillingness) to compete effectively with China when it comes to the new world of energy for the 21st century or our abject failure to provide a quality public education for the next generation of American workers, scientists, artists and entrepreneurs.

Speaking at a conference here on Wednesday, Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania said that if we don’t act quickly in developing long-term solutions to these and other problems, the United States will be a second-rate economic power by the end of this decade. A failure to act boldly, he said, will result in the U.S. becoming “a cooked goose.”

{Governor Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, early backer of Hillary Clinton for President, but later switched to Barak Obama Saying he would be the better President, we hope is not the kind of leader that will just back the labor unions by using key word “infrastructure” and mean what he says when calling for a green future as the main motor for creating the needed jobs. Editor comment for ST,info}

Neither the politicians nor much of the mainstream media are spelling out the severity of these enormous structural problems or the sense of urgency needed to address them. Living standards are sinking in the United States, and there is no coherent vision or plan for reversing that ominous trend over the long term.

The conference was titled, “The Next American Economy: Transforming Energy and Infrastructure Investment.” It was put together by the Brookings Institution and Lazard, the investment banking advisory firm.

When Governor Rendell addressed the conference on Wednesday, he used words like “stunning” and “unbelievable” to describe what has happened to the nation’s infrastructure. His words echoed the warnings we’ve been hearing for years from the American Society of Civil Engineers, which tells us: “The broken water mains, gridlocked streets, crumbling dams and levees, and delayed flights that come from failing infrastructure have a negative impact on the checkbook and on the quality of life of each and every American.”

The conference was sparked by a sense of dismay over what has happened to the U.S. economy over the past several years and a feeling that constructive ideas about solutions were being smothered by an obsessive focus on the short-term in this society, and by the chronic dysfunction and hyperpartisanship in much of the government.

I was struck by the absence of grousing and finger-pointing at the conference and the emphasis on trying to develop new ways to establish an economy that is not based on financial flimflammery, that enhances America’s competitive position in the world, and that relieves us of the terrible burden of reliance on foreign energy sources.

I was also struck by the pervasive sense that if we don’t get our act together then the glory days of the go-go American economic empire will fade like the triumphs of an aging Hollywood star. One of the participants raised the very real possibility of Americans having to get used to living in an economy “that won’t be number one,” an economy that perhaps is more like Germany’s.

Rescuing the U.S. economy will require a commitment, and undoubtedly sacrifices, that need to start now. And it will require leadership that pulls together the best talents from all sectors of the society — not just business, not just government, but from everywhere.

Bruce Katz, the director of Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program, discussed some of the steps that need to be taken to remake an economy that has been thrown completely out of whack by frantic, debt-driven consumption, speculative bubbles, exotic financial instruments, and so on.

A new, saner, more sustainable economy will have to be more export-oriented, powered by cleaner fuels, bolstered by innovation that comes from a renewed focus on research and development, and committed to delivering a better-educated, more highly skilled work force.

Mr. Katz believes this is doable, but by no means easy. The nation’s infrastructure, he said, will have to “shift from 20th-century models of transport and energy transmission to rapid bus, ubiquitous broadband, congestion pricing, smart grid, high-speed rail and intelligent transport.”

New ways of financing such transformative changes will have to be developed, linking public and private capital, preferably through the creation of a national infrastructure bank, among other things. The nation’s political leaders and the public at large will have to grasp the difference between wasteful spending and crucial investments in the future.

It’s time for serious people to step forward and help lead on these critically important issues. Time is short.

US Oil Imports From Western Hemisphere Countries To The US Are Dropping:

Mexico Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

= = = =

Venezuela Petroleum Supply, Exports to U.S. and Net Exports. Source: EIA. Chart by Chris Nelder.

= = = =

Combined Annual Net Oil Exports From Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Source: Jeffrey J. Brown, Samuel Foucher, PhD, Jorge Silveus.

= = = =

The Oil Export Crisis Has Unofficially Arrived.
By Chris Nelder | Friday, February 5th, 2010

Last March, his study of the effect of peak oil on U.S. imports had
brought Mexico to the forefront. “As our #3 source of imports, the
crashing of its supergiant Cantarell field had put the future of our
oil supply in serious jeopardy.”

The possibility that Mexico’s oil and gas exports to the U.S. could go
to zero within seven years looked very real.

As I explained in that piece, rising domestic consumption coupled with
declining supply puts an ever-tightening squeeze on imports. I have
found no evidence that policymakers are paying any attention to this
critically important dynamic, but it is the very point of the peak oil
spear.

Were it not for the market meltdown and recession, it would have
pierced our vital organs. Instead we felt a pinprick. Hardly anybody
realized what it really was, and most ran off on a wild goose chase
for evil oil speculators.

Now Venezuela has appeared on my radar for similar reasons… only
this time, we’re really going to feel it.

Let’s begin with a review of Mexico’s exports.

Mexico:

Shortly after publishing that article, I casually remarked to my
friend and fellow energy analyst Gregor Macdonald that Cantarell’s
production could fall to under 0.5 million barrels per day (mbpd) by
the end of the year.

I arrived at this somewhat startling conclusion by calculating the
effect of its decline rate — 38% at the time and accelerating — on
production of 0.77 mbpd in January, down precipitously from its 2.1
mbpd peak in 2003.

Gregor’s recent data sleuthing on Cantarell found its production in
December 2009 was 0.527688 mbpd, just a hair above my estimate.

To update the data on Mexico, it’s now our #2 source of imported
petroleum because Saudi Arabia has fallen from #2 to #4.

As of November 2009 (the latest data available) the U.S. imported 1.08
mbpd of crude and finished petroleum products from Mexico. Its exports
to the U.S. peaked at 1.46 mbpd in 2004, the same year as its
production peaked. Net exports (production minus consumption) fell to
1.06 mbpd in 2008.

For the years 2005-2008, Mexico’s exports to the U.S. declined by 0.51
barrels per day. In 2010, supply is expected to fall to 2.5 mbpd —
nearly half a million barrels per day less than 2009.

Mexico nationalized its petroleum operations in 1938 in a
constitutional amendment and handed over total control to the state
oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), with predictable results.

Oil now provides more than 40% of the country’s revenues, which have
been used to pay for a vast array of public services and line the
pockets of the oligarchy while starving investment in both upstream
activities (new oil supply) and downstream (finished products).

Consequently, Mexico’s oil reserves have decreased by more than 75% in
two decades (owing partly to the correction of a previous,
ridiculously inflated figure), production has begun to decline and
exports are falling fast.

It now imports $4.5 billion a year worth of gasoline, $10 billion a
year in petrochemicals, and 25% of its natural gas, mostly from the
U.S. This despite having nearly 13 billion barrels of proven oil
reserves and more than 50 billion barrels of (unproven) reserve
potential.

Mexico would be in a far better position, were it not for its hostile
stance on foreign participation. PEMEX simply lacks the technical
ability to develop its more difficult, remaining resources —
particularly deep water.

Venezuela:

As of November, the U.S. was importing 0.9 mbpd from Venezuela, making
it our #3 source. Its exports to the U.S. peaked at 1.8 mbpd in 1997,
the same year as its production peaked. Net exports (production minus
consumption) have fallen 38% from the 1997 peak of 3.1 mbpd to 1.9
mbpd in 2008.

Venezuela’s oil exports to the U.S. have been declining markedly since
2004, after a long period of relative stability. From 2004 through
2009, Venezuelan petroleum exports fell 0.7 mbpd.

Like Mexico, Venezuela is endowed with enormous energy resources and
could be producing at a far higher level. Estimates of its oil
reserves range from 153 billion barrels of certified proven; to 513
billion barrels technically recoverable in the USGS’ January estimate;
to 1.5 trillion barrels in offshore potential, if you believe the
effervescent Dr. Marcio Mello of Brazil.

Most of it is heavy oil, a low-grade which must be upgraded to synthetic crude.

And like Mexico, President Hugo Chavez has exiled the Western oil
companies who might have made the investment to bring those resources
to market.

A Nation in Free Fall

The good times rolled for Chavez in the first years after his election
in 1998. His socialist programs to rebuild the country and raise its
standard of living were popular but expensive, and soon began to fail
under the crush of declining energy supply.

Oil revenues make up 90% of Venezuela’s foreign earnings, so its
dependence on oil exports is extreme.

Billions of dollars in profits from the national oil company,
Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) were diverted to welfare programs
and into the pockets of oligarchs, while investment in future
petroleum and power supply languished.

The precipitous drop in oil prices since mid-2008 only compounded the
revenue shortfall.

Oil production has fallen 25% since Chavez was elected, and a long,
devastating drought has cut into its hydropower supply, of which 73%
comes from the massive Guri Dam.

Chavez responded by nationalizing most of its petroleum operations and
its grid in 2007.

In 2009, another 76 oil services companies on the Maracaibo Lake were
taken over. The projects now sit abandoned, waiting for PDVSA to
compensate the displaced operators and put them back into operation.

Almost half a million hectares of land were seized in 2009 with the
rationalization that it was underused.

Measures to counter the declining hydro supply have been implemented
in a haphazard fashion, resulting in frequent, unscheduled blackouts,
including seven national blackouts since 2007. Malls and government
offices have had their hours of operation cut and water rationing has
been imposed.

“Some people sing in the bath for half an hour,” Chávez cried at a
cabinet session in October. “What kind of communism is that? Three
minutes is more than enough!”

In January, a wave of public protest erupted, prompting Chavez to
implement a rapid series of desperate measures.

Rolling blackouts were imposed in the capital city of Caracas. After a
few days of protests, Chavez lifted the blackouts and fired the
electricity minister. Blackouts are expected to be reinstated in an
effort to keep hydro reservoir levels from falling to the point of
collapse.
A recent report gave the power shortage a paradoxical twist,
indicating that power from one of the state refineries may have to be
diverted to the grid, cutting distillate output by 200,000 barrels per
day — or more. This will result in less heating oil for China, who
will make up the loss by burning more coal.
Chavez devalued Venezuela’s bolivar currency by half; the president
went on to nationalize a chain of French-owned supermarkets over
alleged price gouging.
He ordered cutbacks in the operation of state-run steel and aluminum
manufacturing operations, which account for up to 20% of the country’s
power demand.
This week he turned to Cuba for help on how to cope with the power
shortage, since Cuba has been through similar problems. The island
nation is providing tens of thousands of energy-efficient lightbulbs
and cloud-seeding technology to Venezuela.
Last weekend, he forced six television channels off the air for
failing to broadcast one of his speeches — up to six hours in length —
in a continuation of his campaign for “communicational hegemony.”
Since December, all radio and television networks are required by law
to broadcast his speeches live, whenever he chooses to make one.
Nationwide student marches have been met by troops armed with rubber
bullets, and at least two deaths have been recorded.
Chavez has said he’s prepared to take “radical measures” should the
situation worsen, begging the unsettling question of what could be
more radical than what he has already done.

Looking East, Not North

Now Chavez is turning east for help in developing his nation’s oil and
gas resources. Recent agreements include a $20 billion joint venture
with Russia to develop the Junin 6 field in the Orinoco oil belt, with
a potential top production rate of 450,000 barrels per day.

China has agreed to build a refinery and develop the Orinoco heavy oil
fields, and Venezuela has guaranteed 560,000 barrels per day to China
this year.

Venezuela has launched its first major auction for drilling rights in
more than a decade, for access to areas east of the existing
operations in the Orinoco. Developing the leases will be expensive
because of their distance from the existing infrastructure, and
winning bidders are expected to make offers in the $10 billion-plus
range including early payments of at least $1 billion, financing
plans, and commitments to build the necessary roads, pipelines, ports,
and upgraders. Potential bidders include Spain’s Repsol, Japan’s
Mitsubishi, the UK’s BP, and Chevron.

Given the sheer size of its resources, it’s too soon to declare the
end of Venezuela’s glory days in the oil patch. However, it does seem
likely that the new barrels it brings to market will be headed east —
not north — and Western producers will have very little stake in the
projects.

Chavez will put exports to the U.S. on a short path to zero the first
chance he gets.

—————–

Oh Imports, Where Art Thou?

The combined decline in imports from Mexico and Venezuela for 2005
through 2008 is 0.89 mbpd. If the trend continues in 2009, then over 1
mbpd will have disappeared from the U.S. import stream in the last
five years — a decline of 8% from 2004 levels.

Since 2007, the loss of production from Cantarell alone was 0.7 mbpd,
but the recession cut U.S. demand by 2 mbpd, effectively masking the
decline. This raises the question: If U.S. demand rises from here,
where will those barrels come from… and how much will they cost?

The U.S. is not only in first place worldwide in its demand for oil,
but in paying the market rate for it. Nobody else buys 8.5 mbpd of
crude at retail.

Drivers in Venezuela are still filling up for 25 cents a gallon, even
as their exports decline.

Mexico’s gasoline prices are more on par with the U.S., but its
consumption has been rising steadily since 1997 and continues to cut
into exports.

Saudi Arabia’s domestic consumption is currently growing at the rate
of 7% per year, following a trend of more than three decades. It uses
a whopping 1.5 mbpd — 1.8% of total world oil supply! — to desalinate
water, at the equivalent of 7 cents a gallon.

Before the OPEC cuts of 2009, its exports to the U.S. had essentially
flatlined at 1.5 mbpd since 2004.

Exports from our #5 source, Nigeria, have also declined — from 1.17
mbpd in 2005 to 0.98 mbpd in 2008.

In fact, of the top five oil exporting countries to the U.S.,
representing 63% of our crude imports, only Canada posted an increase
(of 0.2 mbpd).

The combined annual net oil exports from our top three exporting
countries — Canada, Mexico and Venezuela — illustrate our situation:

Given the very modest increases from unconventional domestic production and Canada, the decline of imports from Mexico and Venezuela means the U.S. will be increasingly forced to depend on suppliers farther afield — the very same suppliers that China has been buying into in size. The “collision course with China” that I wrote about in July 2005 has nearly reached the point of impact.

It also means that when oil prices rise again, the pain will be far greater for the U.S. than it is for our top suppliers. Next time, the spear of declining oil exports will puncture a lung.

The oil export crisis has arrived… We just haven’t felt it yet.

Production, consumption, and export data herein is the latest available from the EIA.

Until next time,
Chris

Thanks to the following individuals for their contributions to this
article: Venezuelan oil expert Carlos Rossi for sharing excerpts from
his forthcoming book, The Completion of the Oil Era: The Economic
Impact; Gregor Macdonald for sharing his data on Cantarell; and
Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher, for their work on net exports data
and the Export Land Model.

Investor’s Note: While declining oil imports from Mexico and Venezuela
paint a nightmare scenario for meeting future U.S. demand, all hope
isn’t lost… In fact, one U.S. oil play is developing at a breakneck
pace. You’re likely aware of the Bakken oil formation. But you may not
realize fully how the Bakken has single-handedly thrust North Dakota
into the international investment spotlight.

Of course, members of the $20 Trillion Report know how profitable the
Bakken oil formation is. So far, they’ve raked in gains of 305%, 249%
and 130%! We want you to share in their success.

—————————-

Our reaction to the above goes in two directions:

To every straights there is also the possibility for an answer that provides for new opportunities. in this case:

(1) it becomes even clearer that the US has here an opportunity to make policy accommodations with its neighbors to the south.

(2) the US does not have to – and will not – continue its dependence on oil alone as its source for energy. The US can go for novel and mostly renewable sources of energy, then the Saudis might also discover sun and wind as good replacement for this insanity of using 25% of their oil to provide their water needs. Whatever – energy independence – or at least oil imports reduction for the US – is not an excuse for  a “drill baby drill” US energy policy. Actually, put a carbon tax on the use of oil in the US as a good way to tell the world that the US is capable to detoxify from its addiction to oil imports.

from Sierra Club -  Meet Michael Brune the incoming new Executive Director of The Sierra Club who is the author of “Coming Clean: Breaking America’s Addiction to Oil and Coal by Sierra Club Books.”

Last month, the Sierra Club announced that Michael Brune will be the next executive director of the organization. He’s been the leader of Rainforest Action Network for the past seven years, and you can read about his work there (and a good deal more) on our website.

Though he won’t officially start his new job until sometime next month, Michael’s already appeared on CNN’s Mad Money to talk about clean energy and the Sierra Club’s campaign to stop the Coal Rush. It’s an issue he knows well, as his relationship with the Club actually goes back a couple of years to the publication of his book Coming Clean: Breaking America’s Addiction to Oil and Coal by Sierra Club Books.

You can leave a message for Michael at the “Welcome Michael Brune” group on Climate Crossroads. And, for the next week, Insider readers who want to check out Coming Clean can purchase it from the Sierra Club store at a 30 percent discount by using the code CLEAN2010.

==================================

AJAMI NOMINATIONED FOR OSCAR – ARAB-ISRAELI COLLABORATION MARKS THIRD ISRAEL NOMINATION
IN A ROW

The Israeli film, Ajami, was selected as one of the five nominees for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. The Oscar nominees in all categories were announced Tuesday in a press conference in Los Angeles.

This is the third year in a row that Israel received an Oscar nomination in this category and Israel’s ninth nomination. No Israeli film has ever won the Best Foreign Film Oscar.

Ajami, a drama about crime in Jaffa, was directed by Scandar Copti, an Israeli-Arab Christian, and Yaron Shani, an Israeli Jew. While it’s anyone’s guess whether the film will be the first Israeli feature film to win an Oscar, the fact that it received a nomination at all is a triumph for its young directors, both first-time filmmakers.

The Israeli film, Ajami, was selected as one of the five nominees for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. The Oscar nominees in all categories were announced Tuesday in a press conference in Los Angeles.

This is the third year in a row that Israel received an Oscar nomination in this category and Israel’s ninth nomination. No Israeli film has ever won the Best Foreign Film Oscar.

Ajami, a drama about crime in Jaffa, was directed by Scandar Copti, an Israeli-Arab Christian, and Yaron Shani, an Israeli Jew. While it’s anyone’s guess whether the film will be the first Israeli feature film to win an Oscar, the fact that it received a nomination at all is a triumph for its young directors, both first-time filmmakers.

They spent seven years making the film, which features a cast of almost all non-professionals, mainly from Jaffa. Its complex narrative involves the conflicts and alliances among Israeli Arabs and Jews, Arab Christians and Muslims, as well as West Bank Palestinians and Bedouins. Ajami, which won a prize for Special Distinction in the Camera d’Or competition for first-time filmmakers at Cannes, also won the Ophir Award (the Israeli Oscar) last September, which made it Israel’s official entry for the Oscars.

Copti told The Jerusalem Post, “We’re still on a hysterical adrenaline rush from it all. This is more than I dreamed of in my wildest dreams.” It’s also a triumph for Israel in a year in which prominent film industry figures called for a boycott of a program of Israeli films at the Toronto film festival last fall. Ajami is a partnership between directors, producers and actors of different religions and points to the openness of Israeli society. It received funding from the Israel Film Fund, a government body.

The other nominees in this category are El Secreto do Sus Ojos (Argentina), Un Prophete (France), The White Ribbon (Germany) and The Milk of Sorrow (Peru).

from:
 http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jspet=110299081386… e=001rraRBJWP4w1dU4WfNtv0DZvIr9HijLwWpr293xtqq9G5jwvUonbZxQC6HXelPGKu8ZbOlIleOmQgStRzWUQJhvxscbcXVF3GPE0CUHdIn2qpFhEfXK-A0KBGIIvoqmDylvPBmHP-CwUEyEKMUvnUDA==]

The White House has said that the US President would not be attending what used to be the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he participate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate?

The EU has three Presidents – if they cannot decide who is their President in fact – do they really expect for Obama to travel trans-Atlantic, and sit at Summits chaired by all three of them – Herman Van Rampuy, The Permanent EU President, Jose Manuel Baroso, the President of the European Commission, and the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero,    who is presently the Rotating President of the EU?

Papers write of a “Snub.” This is ridiculous and for us who watched the Copenhagen Conference that was saved by President Obama under a G-2 arrangement with China, because he had to act fast if he wanted to save the meeting from itself, and there was no strong man or woman of the EU to stand at his side, the above “News” are old hat – and we say – we told you so!  Actually, we welcome Charles Forelle writes as “World News” in the Wall Street Journal of today: “Things haven’t been good recently for Europe’s position on the world stage. Despite the new treaty ambition to make the EU a bigger player, the bloc has sometimes seen itself shut out.  At climate talks in Copenhagen in December, Mr. Obama hammered out a last-minute accord with China and other emerging nations. The Europeans were left out of the picture.” This recognition of reality in a WSJ article is very unusual – but this is real life. If the EU does not get together – and still claims 7 seats at the G-20 – rather then one seat for real – they are turning themselves, by their own choice,  into world political irrelevancy. The same is true at the UN where we see more and more a 2 1/2 seats situation – with France and the UK in Security Council seats but Germany on practical UN Security Commissions, and no EU representative with any powers what so ever.

Obama’s decision not to go to Madrid is no snub to Mr. Zapatero or to Spain – but rather the cleareeded sign that he wants to go and meet the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED EUROPE. Had Obama decided to go to Masdrid it would have been as if someone from Europe would come to a meeting of the US Governor’s Association. Just think – Germany id California, France is New York, the UK is Texas, Spain is Florida, Poland is Illinois, Austria is Vermont … etc etc. Perhapse indeed Van Rampuy should come to the US Governor’s Association meeting in order to learn what is needed in order to create out of the EU the neededpartner for Obama in order to turn the G-2 into a G-3 and to create out of the G-20 a new meaningful global body.

———————–

The best article on this we found is from The Telegtaph:
Barack Obama has snubbed the EU amid confusion in Washington over which “president” of Europe he would be expected to meet at a trans-Atlantic summit this spring.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels  – from Telegraph.com
Published:  01 Feb 2010 -
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew…

The White House has said that Barack Obama will not be attending the EU-US talks planned to take place in Madrid in May.
The White House has said that the US President would not be attending the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he particioate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate.
US officials have expressed frustration because the Lisbon Treaty, which was supposed to give the EU a single global voice, has created a number of European presidents competing for Washington’s attention.

Even the venue for the summit, Madrid or Brussels, has been “up in the air” after a tussle between Spain, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency and Herman Van Rompuy, the new created President of Europe.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council which represents EU heads of government, should host the summit in Brussels as Europe’s lead negotiator in global bilateral talks.

But Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, insisted that he should host the summit because the EU was in “transition” after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in December.

A US official told the Wall Street Journal that President Obama had not yet received an a formal invitation to the EU-US summit, a twice yearly meeting that has taken place since 1991.

“We don’t even know if they’re going to have one. We’ve told them, ‘Figure it out and let us know’,” said the official.

Other American diplomats have blamed confusion over which of the three EU “presidents” is in charge of the summit – Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Zapatero or José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.

“Who attends from the US and at what point will depend on who’s calling the meeting,” said a US state department official.
“There’s a competition in Europe because you now have the standing EU architecture.”

Many national and EU diplomats are dismayed at the institutional infighting that has followed the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

“The Spanish are behaving badly. They’ve made a mess of the summit but Van Rompuy and the post-Lisbon EU institutions will carry the can in the long term. The squabbling has damaged the EU in the eyes of the most powerful nation in the world,” said a senior source.

A European Commission spokesman hinted that the meeting would have to be downgraded or cancelled if Mr Obama did not show up.

“Normally a summit is a summit because it is attended by heads of state and government,” said the spokesman.

A Spanish foreign ministry spokesman said: “The EU-US summit is scheduled to take place in May in Madrid, as was foreseen and we are still preparing it.”

US officials have indicated that Mr Obama might reschedule talks with the EU in the wings of a Nato summit in Portugal this autumn.

At the first event of this years UN Commemoration of the Holocaust aftermath, I was approached by Sandra “Akiwa Gizzel” Nelson-Zongo who is with an NGO at the UN. She gave me a flyer about an event the following day, at the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s New York Tolerance Center that was established years ago in the proximity to the UN, with the intent of having an influence on the UN.

Simon Wiesenthal was obviously the Nazi fighter of Vienna, and the US institution that bears his name is based in Los Angeles – its reach out to the UN was just because it was realized that the UN has the potential to become a Jew hating and general racist international institution, where pure haters lead a sea of ignorant member states with funds provided by our use of their oil.

The New York Tolerance Center asks – “HOW MANY RACISTS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB? It says that tolerance is about – Experience, Explore, Encounter, Engage and Responsibility, Respect, Social Justice. By providing space for New York NGOs active at the UN the Institute hopes to affect the spirit of the UN.

————

The flyer said that January 26, 2010 1-3pm, there will be an event of an Ad Hoc Unit – “Human Rights Learning Through Art and Athletics.” Sandra was going to host the event and it turned out that she was the choreographer of various scenes that dealt with domestic violence against women.

The Simon Wiesenthal Institute was represented by Curran Geist – its New York Program Manager and a Special Guest was Osoroko Nana-Yabani, a Ghanaian poet and UN Peace Messenger whose latest activity seems to have been recently in Abu Dhabi. He spoke of Empowering of women in every culture with education, safety, business opportunities such as micro-lending, family and social support, health services, promotion of respect will alleviate Violence Against Women he said. He told how he saved a battered woman in Abu Dhabi, and as there is no institution there where you can lead her too – he actually engaged one of the police to harbor her with his family in his own home. He said that his UN card helped getting the attention of the locals for whom beating one’s own wife is no offense.

No one should be subjected to torture or cruel inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as per article 5 of the Human Rights Charter.

Then Michelle Chang picked up on Policy in Action – touch offense. It was about love and the ideal of reaching out to one another.

Sandra’s “Family Feathers” eventually turned into “Johnny Traffic” with a pimp taking over the place of family head. The intent was to show how to learn, extract information (data) and to help find a solution to problems of ordinary real life.

It felt germane to the efforts of reinventing one’s future when faced with calamity – as those survivors showed capable of doing in the “Generations” event – the opening of HOPE of this year’s Holocaust UN series. When helping individuals in the global community, the Simon Wiesenthal Institute also hopes to decrease intolerance in the larger global sense. Whatever the reality – their opening to the UN is clearly a positive window for those in need.

Letha Francis, Leroy Mobley, Sharla Kornegay, Von Wright were the performers.

Interesting – “Human Affect” distributed  articles 1 and 27 of The Universal Declarationof Human Rights as part of their program.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE BORN FREE AND EQUAL IN DIGNITY AND RIGHTS. THEY ARE ENDOWED WITH REASON AND CONSCIENCE AND SHOULD ACT TOWARDS ONE ANOTHER IN A SPIRIT OF BROTHERHOOD.

OP-ED COLUMNIST of The New York Times, January 28, 2009
March of the Peacocks

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last week, the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, published an acerbic essay about the difference between true deficit hawks and showy “deficit peacocks.” You can identify deficit peacocks, readers were told, by the way they pretend that our budget problems can be solved with gimmicks like a temporary freeze in nondefense discretionary spending.

One week later, in the State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a temporary freeze in nondefense discretionary spending.

Wait, it gets worse. To justify the freeze, Mr. Obama used language that was almost identical to widely ridiculed remarks early last year by John Boehner, the House minority leader. Boehner then: “American families are tightening their belt, but they don’t see government tightening its belt.” Obama now: “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.”

What’s going on here? The answer, presumably, is that Mr. Obama’s advisers believed he could score some political points by doing the deficit-peacock strut. I think they were wrong, that he did himself more harm than good. Either way, however, the fact that anyone thought such a dumb policy idea was politically smart is bad news because it’s an indication of the extent to which we’re failing to come to grips with our economic and fiscal problems.

The nature of America’s troubles is easy to state. We’re in the aftermath of a severe financial crisis, which has led to mass job destruction. The only thing that’s keeping us from sliding into a second Great Depression is deficit spending. And right now we need more of that deficit spending because millions of American lives are being blighted by high unemployment, and the government should be doing everything it can to bring unemployment down.

In the long run, however, even the U.S. government has to pay its way. And the long-run budget outlook was dire even before the recent surge in the deficit, mainly because of inexorably rising health care costs. Looking ahead, we’re going to have to find a way to run smaller, not larger, deficits.

How can this apparent conflict between short-run needs and long-run responsibilities be resolved? Intellectually, it’s not hard at all. We should combine actions that create jobs now with other actions that will reduce deficits later. And economic officials in the Obama administration understand that logic: for the past year they have been very clear that their vision involves combining fiscal stimulus to help the economy now with health care reform to help the budget later.

The sad truth, however, is that our political system doesn’t seem capable of doing what’s necessary.

On jobs, it’s now clear that the Obama stimulus wasn’t nearly big enough. No need now to resolve the question of whether the administration should or could have sought a bigger package early last year. Either way, the point is that the boost from the stimulus will start to fade out in around six months, yet we’re still facing years of mass unemployment. The latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office say that the average unemployment rate next year will be only slightly lower than the current, disastrous, 10 percent.

Yet there is little sentiment in Congress for any major new job-creation efforts.

Meanwhile, health care reform faces a troubled outlook. Congressional Democrats may yet manage to pass a bill; they’ll be committing political suicide if they don’t. But there’s no question that Republicans were very successful at demonizing the plan. And, crucially, what they demonized most effectively were the cost-control efforts: modest, totally reasonable measures to ensure that Medicare dollars are spent wisely became evil “death panels.”

So if health reform fails, you can forget about any serious effort to rein in rising Medicare costs. And even if it succeeds, many politicians will have learned a hard lesson: you don’t get any credit for doing the fiscally responsible thing. It’s better, for the sake of your career, to just pretend that you’re fiscally responsible — that is, to be a deficit peacock.

So we’re paralyzed in the face of mass unemployment and out-of-control health care costs. Don’t blame Mr. Obama. There’s only so much one man can do, even if he sits in the White House. Blame our political culture instead, a culture that rewards hypocrisy and irresponsibility rather than serious efforts to solve America’s problems. And blame the filibuster, under which 41 senators can make the country ungovernable, if they choose — and they have so chosen.

I’m sorry to say this, but the state of the union — not the speech, but the thing itself — isn’t looking very good.

Committed to Sustainability
The 2010 Green California Summit

Dear Colleagues:

The GreenMoney Journal thought you’d want to know about a chance to
get the inside scoop on the coming changes in policy and purchasing in
the nation’s largest green market – the Green California Summit,
coming to Sacramento from March 15-17, 2010

From legislating greenhouse gas reductions and providing models for
federal environmental programs to attracting green venture capital,
California has the policy climate and economic clout to set the pace
for a green economic resurgence – and to help new companies and
products gain a foothold.

Advisory Board Co-Chairs

Linda Adams
Secretary
California Environmental Protection Agency

Thomas L. Sheehy
Acting Secretary
California State and Consumer Services Agency

Summit at a Glance
Click Here

2010 Exhibitors List
Click Here

2009 Exhibitors List
Click Here

Education Program Overview
Click Here

Questions? Call 626.577.5700

Bright Green Light: the 2009 Green California Summit and Exposition

Sustaining the California Dream

Engines of Change

California’s Emerald Cities

Green Report Roundup

“Protecting our environment is one of my administration’s top
priorities, and I know that the steps being taken at this conference
will help us succeed in our efforts.”California Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger

State and local governments in California have long set the standard
for public sector sustainability programs.

The annual Green California Summit has become an essential resource to
support their efforts to meet the challenges of managing energy and
water resources, and to create clean and sustainable communities
throughout the state.

From stimulus funds to clean tech investment, California remains
central to the nation’s hopes for a greener future.

If you want to stay up to date on the policy innovations,
technologies, strategies and best practices that are keeping the
Golden State on the cutting edge of the green revolution, this is the
one event all year that you can’t miss!

Speakers

Tuesday, March 16
Keynote Speaker
Alec Loorz
Founder, Kids vs. Global Warming
Bio

Featured Speaker
Senator Fran Pavley
Bio

Wednesday, March 17
Keynote Speaker
F. Noel Perry
Bio

Keynote Speaker
David Roland-Holst
Bio

Event Sponsors

Champion Sponsors

Opening Keynote Sponsor

Advocate Sponsors

Cyber Café sponsor

Outreach Partners

Venture Capitalist Bullish On Green Startups.

Poornima Gupta, January 29, 2010.
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. recession and slow global economy have created big opportunities for investments in promising green startups, an area that at one time had lofty valuations, Silicon Valley venture capitalist Steve Westly said.

Westly, a former California state controller and eBay Inc executive, said he is seeing some “great quality of deals.”

“Two years ago when we were investing, there was huge competition and people had bid the market higher,” Westly said in an interview this week. “Because of the recession, we think entrepreneurs’ expectations have moved back to reality.”

He said: “It’s a terrible time to raise money, but we think this is a great buying opportunity.”

Westly, founder of Menlo Park, California-based Westly Group, is currently in the process of assessing business plans of green startups.

Westly Group closed its second fund, exceeding $127 million, in December and has already invested about half of that money in diverse green technology companies, including light emitting diode (LED) fixtures startup Lunera, solar cell maker Solexel and smart grid company Eka Systems.

The fund’s investors include pension funds, strategic investors and high net worth families, with the principles committing over 20 percent of the capital of the fund.

Westly is especially excited about the potential of California startup Lunera, which makes ultra-thin LED lighting units for offices.

The commercial market for LED lights is huge, he said, adding that Lunera is growing rapidly.

Looking forward, Westly said he expects many more investors to come into the green space in 2010.

Green technology “is not a bubble and is not going away,” he said. “It has the potential to become one of the largest sectors.”

“The only thing that held the industry back is a lack of IPOs,” he added.

After a first round of initial public offerings, mainly by solar companies, in 2006 and 2007, the market for green IPOs has been slow.

The financial market turmoil following the collapse of Lehman Bros. in the latter half of 2008 virtually shut down the IPO market.

The appetite for IPOs has picked up since mid-September this year and the sector saw the successful debut of lithium- ion battery maker A123 Systems Inc.

Already a few green technology companies have filed registration statements for IPOs, including solar firm Solyndra Inc and biofuel firm Codexis Inc.

Westly says some widely expected high-profile green IPOs, such as Silver Spring Networks, would ignite the market this year.

He also expects a lot of activity in the electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle sector, including lithium-ion batteries.

And: “The area I am most intrigued with is green building materials,” he said. “It’s not very sexy and is a blue-collar space that most people overlook.”

Silicon Valley is finding high-tech ways to make age-old materials, such as energy-efficient ways to make concrete, windows that insulate better than walls, and wood substitutes.

Although the field is new, the green building materials sector is gaining attention and growing fast.

Some surveys and studies estimate that the green building materials market is expected to reach as high as $500 billion in the next decade.

“The dollar amounts are huge and the opportunity is great,” Westly said.