We at Greentech Media spend quite a bit of our time reporting on renewable energy technologies. We live, breathe, and eat renewable energy. But today I received some bad news from Vinod Khosla, an investor sort, who spoke at the Palo Alto Research Center on Thursday.

According to this Khosla guy (if you have any background on him, let me know) many of the market sectors that Greentech Media covers are essentially greenwashing and certainly not a solution to our climate issues.

• Photovoltaic panels in the booming $20 billion PV market? Not scalable and not sustainable without subsidies. PV panels on roofs in Germany or San Francisco? No way. Not when Germany has the same solar resources as Alaska. “Rich San Franciscans and Germans putting PV on their roofs only delays the problem and diverts money from where it’s needed," he says.
• Those wind turbines from GE and Vestas? They’re good but there’s little upside for innovation, the Betz limit is being approached, and the available good sites are declining. And without storage, they don’t provide spinning reserve.
• Those Prius hybrids driven by Bay Area liberal socialists? Not a solution to the climate or energy problem. Better to take that money and paint your roof white to improve the earth’s albedo. And they certainly don’t meet the Chindia test. To meet the Chindia test they have to compete with the $2,500 Tata Nano. “Hybrids are an inefficient carbon solution."
• Biodiesel? Nope, not a great idea.
• Zero emission buildings? Fashion and fad.
• Clean Coal? “FutureGen" is more like “NeverGen"
• Carbon Capture and Sequestration? VK says, “I do not believe carbon sequestration can work economically."
• T. Boone Pickens’ plan for LNG and wind? “A dead-end street.|"
• New battery technology for EVs? It’s unlikely that Li-ion or Ni mH chemistries will yield significant breakthroughs according to The Vinod.
• Certainly, Energy Efficiency is a good thing? Sorry. According to Vinod “The Buzzkill" Khosla, “Too many people in the environmental movement think that efficiency is the answer. Efficiency is valuable but not sufficient."

According to Mr. Sunshine, we need “relevant scale" solutions attacking oil, coal, cement and steel. “500 million people on earth enjoy a lifestyle that 9 billion people will want in 2050."

Second only to the greenwashed concepts mentioned above, Mr. Khosla’s pet peeve is bad forecasting based of extrapolating the past when we should be “inventing the future."

Khosla is looking for “black swan solutions" that cause “technology shock" and cites a few startups both in and out of his large cleantech portfolio that might provide the technology shock we need.

Kior’s biocrude replaces crude by utilizing thermal cracking – simulating the millions of years that turns trees and dinosaurs into oil. According to Khosla, “They are making amazing progress [and are] producing a barrel of oil a day."

Transonic makes a “third type of engine" with an injector ignition technology that can create 100 mpg diesel Priuses.

Calera is another potential black swan that can create cement that, “sequesters carbon dioxide rather than emitting it." Khosla said that, "We’ll know in the next six months [if it’s for real]."

EEStor is not a Khosla portfolio company (it's funded by KPCB, et al.) but not by choice. “We didn’t get a chance to invest... I can’t tell you if it will work, but if it does it completely changes the economics of hybrids."

Other black swans to look for are in algenol and in energy storage.

Solar PV, Wind and biofuels are “little markets," according to Mr. Khosla’s audacious presentation and worldview.

According to him, the new green is “Maintech" not “Cleantech" and we need to go after huge markets like engines, lighting, appliances, cement, water, glass and buildings and not fritter away our time and effort on PV and wind.

Here's a factual nugget you can throw out the next time you want to impress someone that's stuck sitting next to you on a crowded train. Approximately 1 percent of the world's fuel is consumed in making chemical fertilizers, according to Jay Keasling, a professor of bioengineering and chemical engineering at UC Berkeley speaking at the Global Technology Leaders Conference at the university. Keasling, who is also one of the recognized leaders of synthetic biology, pointed out that bit about fertilizer to demonstrate the need for things like self-fertilizing plants. The world population is expected to increase by about 50 percent to 9 billion by midcentury as well, so expect the amount of food matter -- and hence the need for fertilizer absent a better solution -- to increase. Unfortunately, the quest for self-fertilizing plants over the last 35 years hasn't yielded very good results. Synthetic biology, a sophisticated form of genetic engineering that attempts to harness genetic and metabolic capabilities from several species, could help. Keasling is one of the founders of Amyris, a nearby startup in Emeryville that has come up with genetically enhanced yeast that can turn sugars into medicines or fuels. Keasling also noted that biofuels will likely play a large role in certain segments of the energy market. Cars might go electric, but batteries won't work in every market. "There are no batteries for jet engines," he said. "Therefore you need biofuels."

Tom Siebel, who made a big pile of money in the '90s by founding Siebel Systems, is trying to squeeze into green. Siebel is trying to put together a contest that will encourage companies to come up with HVAC systems and other technologies for relatively affordable, zero-energy homes. "They will be grid connected, but after 365 days the meter should read zero," he said during the Global Technology Leadership Conference taking place at UC Berkeley today. The contest, which is still under construction, will come with a few rules. For one thing, the homes have to be something the average American would want to live in. "You can't solve the problem by sitting in the dark and freezing to death," he said. Second, they have to be cheap. Green homes now are generally bought by rich people in communities like Woodside, California. "They cost $1,000 a square foot" and are generally huge, he argued. Builders have also been reluctant to get into the market although that has been changing. (In a conference earlier this month, for instance, I learned that Webcor, the largest builder in California, earned more revenue from LEED buildings in its most recent quarter than traditional construction. Imagine that.) Siebel figures the prize can be broken up in a couple of ways. In a first segment, $5 million could be given to companies and investors that come up with an interesting appliance or technology. A second $5 million prize could go to someone who designs the best green home. A third phase could award $10 million to any group that actually then builds some green homes with technology from the first two rounds. Does the world need this kind of contest? Honestly, probably not. Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs are moving into green building. Here's a greatest hits list of green building companies: Integrity Block, Navitas Capital, Serious Materials, Photosolar, Michelle Kaufmann Designs, Zeta Communities, Cal-Star Cement, Calera and SG Blocks. The homes are also moving from the rarefied luxury level Siebel mentioned. Still, $20 mil is $20 mil. I can't see anyone walking away from a good contest. Siebel's push into green makes him the latest member of the Internet era good ol' boys club to do so. Others include Gary Winnick (the Global Crossing founder who has a green cement company called iCrete), Shai Agassi (SAP sales guy turned electric car advocate) and Andy Grove (a former Intel employee teaching about hybrids at Stanford).

Project Better Place, the organization that wants to set up chains of electric charging stations and seems to generate a new press release every 20 minutes, will make an announcement today in San Francisco City Hall with Mayor Gavin Newsom. What to expect? Probably that BP will insert charging stations in San Francisco. Newsom, who once owned a General Motors EV-1, is determined to make San Francisco a green city. San Jose already has a deal with Coloumb Technologies to put electric charging station in San Jose. Shai Agassi, the former SAP exec who founded BP, has said that it will take around $1.5 billion to electrify California. He gives a great speech too, but several doubters exist. For one thing, BP wants to create a system that will let car buyers swap their batteries at charge stations. Batteries take several hours to charge; swapping allows you to get on the road quicker. But are consumers going to put a stranger's battery in their car. Consumers have accepted swapping propane tanks for barbecues, but cars could be another matter. Electric cars only go around 150 miles before conking out. BP is putting stations in Israel where it makes sense. You can't go 150 miles without hitting the ocean or enemy territory. The system might work in Australia too, where most people live in coastal cities. But in California? Are consumers really going to buy a car in the $30,000 to $40,000 range that isn't as functional as their cheaper gas car? It's going to take work. Oh, and then there's the cost of the stations. Will gas stations put these in? They had to be forced to start making it easier to sell ethanol. All of these factors are one of the reasons that many people, at least the ones I talk to, are skeptical.