From Washington Post blog yesterday:

The names still in the mix for Energy Secretary, according to well informed senior Democrats include: Govs. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.), Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.), Bill Rittter (D-Colo.) andJennifer Granholm (D-Mich.), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (N.M), Google’s Dan Reicher, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers, former Edison International CEO John Bryson, Federal Express Chairman Fred Smith and Steve Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

And, from Reuters last Wed:

U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He advocates renewable energy and energy efficiency measures.
Wesley Clark, retired Army general and former NATO commander who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
General Electric Co Chief Executive Jeff Immelt, who says government investment in environmental technologies can create green jobs.
Ray Mabus, former Democratic Governor of Mississippi and U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer. He served as a senior adviser to the Obama campaign.
U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. A long-time critic of OPEC and nuclear power, he supported higher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.
Dan Reicher, director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google.org. A former assistant energy secretary under President Bill Clinton, he wants more U.S. electricity generated by renewable sources and promotes plug-in vehicles.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat who has called for a $850 million state Energy Independence Fund to invest in clean energy projects and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat who is a big promoter of developing liquid fuel from coal.
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat who fought efforts to allow a coal-fired power plant to expand in her state, saying it would spew more greenhouse gas emissions.

Personally, I am rooting for those with an energy industry and/or technology background with vision/ability to break out of old patterns.

The company is Calera Corporation. We have technology that converts CO2 from large point sources such as coal-fired power plants into carbonate (CO3) cements for use in green building applications, thus pulling a double play against global warming. Calera is backed by Khosla Ventures. Click on the images below for a couple recent articles that tell the story:

Last year, I started shooting short clips with my point-and-shoot camera as I was traveling back and forth between San Francisco and Shanghai. Since patching this cut together, I shot another trip to edit in… if I ever get around to it..

Sep 13, 2008 - Pacific Grove Triathlon. I was on track to beat my target time of 3:00:00 before my knees gave out in the run and I hobbled across the finish at 3:28:01. I also had lower leg problems during the Wildflower in May. As I think about next year’s season, I am working on leg strength and stretching. I think a combo of weight training and yoga is in the plan.

]]> http://www.bcurtisBLOG.com/?feed=rss2&p=171 http://www.bcurtisBLOG.com/?p=144 http://www.bcurtisBLOG.com/?p=144#comments Tue, 27 May 2008 03:45:19 +0000 admin http://www.bcurtisblog.com/?p=144 In particular, I thought Bill Aulet’s Xconomy post (”The next big thing in energy investing? Let’s Talk Water”) was interesting in the way he identifies the critical link between water and energy from a venture investor’s perspective.

Let me add a little detail to the cooling water use that Bill mentioned. It is remarkable that almost 40% of our water consumption withdrawals currently go into thermoelectric power generation, that is, using various fossil and nuclear fuels to produce steam to drive electric turbines (see clarification below - 05/29/08). Compare that to 13% for home use which includes drinking, showering, watering the lawn and leaving the tap running while you brush your teeth. 41% goes to make stuff we eat. Here’s a great visualization from LLNL of USGS data:

Click on image to enlarge.

Check out LLNL’s full water report and detail by state.

Clarification: It is worth noting the technical difference between “withdrawals” and “consumption”. As an interesting point of reference, let me draw from the DOE’s May08 “20% Wind Energy by 2030″ report (see report website here), which claims that an aggressive wind program can provide an 8% reduction in U.S. water consumption:

In the energy sector, water is used primarily for cooling in steam plants, but it is also used in boilers and in air pollution reduction processes. Several technologies are used to condense steam (EPRI 2002; Feeley et al. 2005):

• Recirculating steam plant cooling: Water is reused to cool steam in a closed loop system using a cooling tower or cooling pond.
• Once-through cooling: Water from a lake, a river, or the ocean is used to condense steam and the water is returned to its source but at a higher temperature.
• Dry cooling: Air cools steam, using far less water than the first two wet cooling technologies. Although dry cooling is not widely used, it can be the cooling technology of choice where water supplies are limited.

Two types of water use are generally considered:

• Water withdrawal: Water is removed from the ground or diverted from a surface source for use.
• Water consumption: Water is withdrawn from a source but not directly returned to the source because it is evaporated, transpired, incorporated into products and crops, or consumed by people or livestock.

In this analysis, water consumption projections were made by applying water consumption rates (gallons per megawatt-hour generated) to projected megawatt-hours of generation for each type of power plant. These calculations were made on a yearly basis for the no new Wind Scenario and the 20% Wind Scenario. Water savings from deploying large amounts of wind-generated electricity are calculated as the difference in water consumption between the two scenarios…

…Displacing large amounts of fossil-fueled power generation with wind energy reduces water consumption. Based on the authors’ estimates, if the current conventional generation mix is expanded to meet electricity needs, approximately 51 trillion gallons of water will be consumed for electricity production from 2007 to 2030. If wind energy deployment gradually increases to 20% of the nation’s electricity over the same time period, however, 47 trillion gallons of water will be consumed. This is a saving of 4 trillion gallons, an 8% reduction in water consumption during that time. Of the 4 trillion gallons of water saved nationally, 29% will be in the West, 41% will be in the Midwest/Great Plains, 14% will be in the Northeast, and 16% will be in the Southeast.

While water consumption is a smaller number than water withdrawals, the environmental impacts should not be underestimated. I remember visiting Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the Central Coast of CA for a field trip in my undergrad nuclear engineering course. They were using seawater to cool the reactor and condense steam. The water they returned to the ocean was 10+ degrees warmer and created a foreign ecosystem with tropical fish and everything living in Central CA. They had a full blown marine lab on site to monitor/manage the environment.

In discussing all these links between energy and water, a friend quipped that you would probably save more water if you turned off the lights when you brush your teeth than if you turned off the faucet…

(1 MB)

Click on image for pdf.
See also Chinese version here.

Yay, I finished my first Olympic distance triathlon last weekend at the Wildflower in south Monterey County. I was really slow (one of my friends beat me by over an hour), but it was inspiring and I’ve signed up for another one in September in Pacific Grove.

Let me state my goals publicly here so I’ll be more likely to stick to it. This race, I came in over 4 hours. Definitely bottom quartile, but hey, it was my first one and I’ve been traveling a lot for work lately. I was in survival mode. I hope to get under 3.5 hours in PG in Sep. Then, next year’s Wildflower, I want to be under 3 hours. Once I get in this range, I can really work on actual racing, which will be really cool.

The toughest parts for me are: 1) the start is basically a cold sprint of swimming with no way to catch your breath after the initial chaos subsides; and, 2) the transition between bike and run wreaks havoc on my leg muscles. I need better technique (in addition to general fitness) to conquer either one. In terms of biggest bang for time improvements, if I can be comfortable with the bike>run transition, I can really push the bike (by far my best leg) and cut serious time by not walking off calf cramps during the run. While the swim will be good to nail, I don’t think I can win more than 10 extra minutes unless I make a serious step change in technique… I’ll save that for next summer.

Triathlon is a great sport!

(2.19 MB)

Click on image to download slides from my presentation at the Biomass 2008 Conference today in DC.

A friend of mine in medical school was complaining the other day about how business schools always get the nice buildings. I complained that I was about 7 years too early to enjoy Sloan’s new building… Here’s a blurb about the “greenness” of it, though:

Once it is completed in 2010, the new MIT Sloan building (E62, pictured in this artist rendering) should be the greenest building on campus. The six-story structure will incorporate a number of environmentally friendly features including daylighting, chilled beams and radiant ceiling panels.

Source: Tech Talk, April 16, 2008 (issue includes several other energy articles)