Moving from IT to green tech entrepreneurship – Why?

Being an entrepreneur means continuously searching for new opportunities and trends that will pay off in the hopefully not so distant future. IT is the classic playground for risk capital opportunists, and has indeed paid off for some of them quite handsomely. Earth2tech has a list of 25 successful IT entrepreneurs that have now turned to environment related technologies.

The list includes many categories, from transport -for example we have talked about Shai Agassi and his Project Better Place venture in Israel and Denmark- to energy production with sun and wind. Given that IT is still big money, it is a surprise that people that know this market well, risk capital in a sector that has less guaranteed earnings. So I came up with a list of what their incentives might be: (continued)

ElectronRun is now a hosted blog. New posts will continue to appear here for limited time. For new posts point your browser to http://electronrun.com and subscribe by clicking on the RSS icon.

SoCal Edison builds 4.5 GW wind farm in California

The world is not short of plans for large zero emission energy production projects. ElectronRun has so far covered several solar projects or proposals worldwide -see links below. The Southwest states of the US are blessed with lots of sunshine, a fact that has recently led to several large solar project plans in this corner of the world.

Wind energy however has not shown its full potential yet, Southern California Edison plans a massive park just 100 miles north of LA at the Tehachapi desert. Construction is starting right now, and when the project is complete in 2013 it will produce 4.5 GW (yes 4500 Megawatts!) to power 3 million homes! The Horse Hollow Wind Project in Texas was so far the largest wind project in the US with 730 MW.

IR radiation solar panel uses tiny antennas, has 80% efficiency

Source: Idaho National Laboratory 

There is all sorts of ways to produce clean energy, but the smartest and cleanest of all is definitely solar panels. There is absolutely no moving parts, noise or intermediate materials. Just beautiful clean energy. The catch? Low efficiency that in reality is far from the theoretical 20%, high manufacturing costs and productivity only during daytime -preferably with lots of sunshine. The researchers at the Idaho National Laboratory are addressing all these shortcomings. By putting loads of nanoantennas on cheap base material, they manage to collect energy in infra-red frequencies by day and night.

How solar energy could make the US energy independent

 

We have already written about Desertec and how it could change the energy scene in Europe. Now the January issue of Scientific American describes a project that aims even higher, by using solar energy to produce up to 3 terawatts of energy and cover 69% of US electricity and 35% of its total energy by 2050. And all on US soil, in the sun drenched states of the southwest.

The numbers might sound optimistic but the whole plan has a firm basis and every one of its aspects is convincing. Geographically, the southwest states are perfect as they provide year-round sunny conditions and have large uninhabited public areas without competing uses. By 2050 and at full deployment, solar stations will require 46,000 square miles of land, a large area by any standard but feasible bearing in mind that the states of interest already have this land available and there would be zero burden on local ecosystems.

Good news, the US to switch to efficient light bulbs too

Saving energy is preferable to producing more of it, even if it is 100% green. Politicians have recently got the message and earlier this year EU leaders decided to follow Australia’s lead and stop the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2010. Now the new US energy bill makes a similar move and 2012 will be the date after which consumers will only have access to more efficient incandescent or new technology bulbs of the fluorescent type. The news is more than welcome since the EU and US are the largest energy consumers worldwide with a combined population of 800 million consumers. The race is on of course for even more efficient LED lighting, a technology promising further efficiency gains.

Link: New York Times

The wind powered UK

 

Wind turbine producers crank up your production! If Britain’s plans go ahead to power all homes with wind turbines by 2020, there will be unprecedented demand for turbines. Current wind power covers about 2% of total demand. To achieve the optimistic target, large coastal areas will be set aside for power generation, so the view of the coastline will change completely, something we are not sure will be acceptable in such a huge scale. Homes are responsible for almost half of total greenhouse gases and are additionally the weakest link in the fight for green energy as their replacement rate -unlike cars and electronics- is extremely low. In other words it would take almost a century to replace all buildings with energy efficient versions, unlike for example cars that could be replaced in 10 to 15 years. Therefore, the UK’s intended move is wise since feeding inefficient homes with green energy would still do the trick! Here at electronrun we applaud the effort wholeheartedly and wish there would be similar moves elsewhere. We also have a feeling that the wind turbines would make formidable windsurfing slalom courses :-)

Link: CNN

Google’s new directions, Microsoft’s example

There’s a lot of speculation as to the new directions of expansion that Google is going to take. First of all comes the 700 MHz auction in the US and whether Google will take it seriously or is just testing the water. Then there is the green energy sector that is more of a certainty despite the fact that it is a completely new area for an internet company. So in which direction is Google going to chose to go? In my opinion in the largest possible number of directions, and here is why:

• In just a few years, Google has grown to enormous size with a stock valuation above $500 and enough cash to buy a number of large companies. Investors are used to a company offering enormous performance in the small term and this is not going to change. Something must be done to keep them satisfied and when you have 80% of the online search market sooner or later you have to look elsewhere…
• Google’s dominant market position already has enemies and with time it is going to get worse. Expansion via diversification looks all the more attractive. A recent interview of Microsoft’s Dan’l Lwein a couple of months back at the Gigaom show more or less underlines the fact that a huge company has to investigate all possibilities, in all possible fields. Google is in the same league, it cannot afford to let opportunities go and has to search for them quite actively.

Maglev = magnetic levitation + wind = green energy

Hey, do you feel guilty when you leave your PC on all night for those downloads and virus scans? There might hopefully be a solution to produce enough energy to alleviate this bad feeling if the Maglev project delivers as much as it promises. Just imagine a very large building spinning on a cushion of air, utilising huge vertical blades. The Maglev home page (http://magturbine.com/) requires username and password but has a link to a useful related article in Forbes. Ah yes, this technology is developed by chinese scientists. I hope these boys manage to get some results quickly before chinese coal plants cover the entire surface of the earth with black dust…

Electronics companies green ratings by Greenpeace. How realistic is it?

Green is good because of course it sells. Big guns like Nokia and Microsoft are striving to show a green face, especially if this is presented via Greenpeace…. This time around in the report of the 26th of November 2007, Sony-Ericsson is #1 with a score of 7.7 out of 10 while Nokia has fallen from #1 to #9 spot with 6.7 out of 10. I am all for Greenpeace’s and the manufacturers’ efforts but despite the fact that data covers both use of green materials and takeback / recycling policies there is serious reasons to be sceptical about the high scores, especially those related to takeback and recycling. Most multinationals have very different strategies between countries and on top of that the methods used are not so effective. For example why does my printer manufacturer’s printer cartridge program not include Greece and Portugal? Even if I lived for example in Ireland would the plane (stated as the default means of postage) not pollute the environment even more for transport to the french recycling center? Planes are the worst polluters from all means of transport, about ten times worse than trains, so it all seems insane. Oh yes, and what about those huge laser printer cartridges?

You can find the company ratings and judge for yourself at: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up