Has Cleantech Peaked?

sharps_eng

It seems that an enormous influencing factor in the energy debate is Architecture, in its widest sense. Our transport needs and home power usage are driven by where we work and live (Recreation is not so important when you are cold and hungry.)

The Industrial Revolution spontaneously created cities (out of nothing in some cases) because entrepreneurs could make enough money at it to tempt agricultural workers to move to the cities. Of course for the 'Okies', it wasn't exactly a free choice.

This could start with new architectural pilot projects out in open country, or the rebuilding of abandoned city areas, or done by reorganizing / virtualising work to make travel unnecessary. Either way it will happen in a timescale that will stun us. Maybe 2-3 generations?

I am saying that without a simultaneous parallel architectural engineering track, we will not achieve the civil rethink needed to achieve our energy goals.
But if we embrace the architectural challenge, we could have a solution that flows of its own accord, and being engineered, should avoid the worst of the unwanted consequences seen in the previous industrial revolution.

The only question is, when do we start?

2/26/2012 6:08 AM EST

prabhakar_deosthali

In my opinion this may be a trough before the next wave starts. Clean tech is the energy solution of tomorrow and it is definitely going to have a worldwide acceptance as the technologies mature

2/22/2012 6:38 AM EST

seaEE

Wind power, breezed in and it's breezing out.

2/21/2012 11:38 PM EST

hm

It may look difficult path, but there is lots of work to be done and will also have very good market and money. Organization should continue engaging in cleantech.

2/21/2012 9:01 PM EST

Bert22306

The problem with government "investment" is that too often it is based on political slogans, and not on good engineering or science. Then, you see the results, when what was hyped up yesterday is abandoned and decaying today.

It's a tough balance. Corporations tend to be too nearsighted, and governments too full of generalists who can only make decisions based on hype.

Setting standards, like the CAFE standards for mpg, or EPA standards for emissions, seems like a reasonable compromise to me. As long as these standards take into account reality. And so far, I think they do. Then, you let companies create the solutions. Not the bureaucrats or, worse, politicians.

And yes, certainly, the government should rid istelf of the fleet of obscene SUVs it has come to love. That kind of blatant waste has no business being charged to taxpayers. Shame on them. But this is a separate discussion, IMO.

2/21/2012 8:33 PM EST

george.leopold

The politicization of cleantech is a real setback. The Washington Post recently published an investigation of the role of VCs in Energy Department programs like ARPA-E:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/venture-capitalists-play-key-role-in-obamas-energy-department/2011/12/30/gIQA05raER_story.html

I have met one of those mentioned in the article, David Danielson, previously of the VC firm General Catalyst, and now ARPA-E's program director for battery technology programs.

The flip side is that Congress is busy trying to discredit cleantech R&D. The result is stasis.

As for the private sector, some of the analysts we've spoken to argue that many technologies are about to enter commercialization. So we may find out soon which ones gain traction.

2/22/2012 10:54 AM EST

docdivakar

George: the issue you address is a complex one, particularly these days when globalized business environment does call for some involvement of political participation. It is sad that the branches of US government are dueling against each other.

The poster child of failure (read: Solyndra!) shouldn't have been funded to begin with in the opinion of many in the Silicon Valley, myself included. On business merits, Solyndra didn't have a prayer though their technology was academically exciting! Months after completing their new building, they filed for bankruptcy, baffling many in the valley.

MP Divakar

2/24/2012 6:00 PM EST

sharps_eng

If governments were to set an example of, say, cutting their own power bills, then we might see some need-driven technology. This I believe worked when government buildings were upgraded to get rid of 'sick building syndrome'.

In other words, if the military were to up its MPGs, thus easing its fuel logistics ( which are breathtaking in themselves) there might be some spin-off to the civvy sector.

Simply requiring officials to drive Prius's and the like is not a real initiative (although it can help if it shows domestic manufacturers that there is a market for e-cars) so it needs to be thought about and trialled in a few places before a full roll-out.

2/21/2012 5:23 PM EST

george.leopold

In fact, the military is investing heavily in certain cleantech categories like energy storage. The requirement for the Army and Marines is low power and the ability to generate and store energy in the field. The Navy is looking at ways to generate and store power using sea water. Whether any of this makes its way into the civilian economy remains to be seen, but the point is the services have the money to fund R&D.

2/22/2012 10:39 AM EST

BicycleBill

"Government" investment? Excuse me, that's taxpayer money being spent by faux VCs--they'e playing at venture capitalism, but with other people's money!

2/21/2012 4:04 PM EST

DSTech

Just like MITT

2/22/2012 4:18 PM EST

GinaT

Indeed it is.

http://www.haravfallbehandling.se/manligt-haravfall/

2/3/2013 3:04 PM EST