Make no mistake, climate policy is good business.

The ongoing buffeting that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has received from a slew of leading corporate giants is a clear signal that opposing climate legislation, as the Chamber has repeatedly done, is now perceived as bad business.

The reasons are clear. Put simply, the country that sets the most aggressive and enlightened policy goals for clean energy will have a distinct business advantage over others. Why? Because those policies will allow the countries (and businesses) that adopt them to drive down costs, and thus scale the clean technologies that will power our future, i.e., make a lot of money while doing good. Those countries that fail to adopt such policies will be relegated to mere consumer status, i.e., spending money while doing nothing. (The U.S. currently squanders $1 billion a day importing oil.)

And aside from generating new clean growth, such policies also bring with them lower health care costs, lower national security risk and lower food security risk – all good business decisions.

Put even more simply: If our national and state policymakers don’t get their act together quickly, China will eat our lunch. Positive steps have been made in Washington, D.C. The passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act set aside tens of billions of dollars for clean energy, clean transportation and clean building. And the American Clean Energy and Security Act adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives moved us closer to a framework that would benefit the growth of a clean economy.

Building a clean economy is no longer some feel-good mantra for a bunch of treehuggers. It is a practical and rational goal with massive economic and business implications. Already, China is storming ahead of the U.S. in adopting policies that will result in a $1 trillion annual clean tech market by 2013.

We can either compete for this market, or surrender it to other nations and businesses based in those nations.

As the Senate begins deliberations on climate and energy policy, some members of Congress are still under the misguided impression that putting a price on carbon is an ideological ping-pong ball. It is not. It’s an opportunity for the U.S. to either take a place as one of the leaders of the global clean energy industrial revolution that is at our doorstep, or be a spectator.

Without these policies in place, we will fall further and further behind domestic and international competitors. Getting strong federal policy is key to Washington state’s success, but business and public leaders need to come together on an action plan that will make the state even more competitive. Some key elements include: protecting and enhancing our state standards that require use of renewable power and greater efficiency, developing financing tools and policy that allow us to maximize clean energy investments, and removing disincentives for utility initiatives and investments. We also need to make growth of clean energy jobs and companies a priority. Our businesses, research institutions, and state and local governments need to work together with a sense of urgency and purpose.

The U.S. has prided itself for the past century for leading the world in business innovation. It now has a chance to lead again as we prepare for a race to stabilize our climate, but it is time for action.

Failure to act is bad business.

---

A former foreign correspondent, William Brent is a public relations exec at Weber Shandwick. He started the firm's cleantech practice. More can be found at http://www.mrcleantech.com.

The energy and climate portion of the G8 nations’ statement issued at the end of this week’s summit includes a promise to intensify clean energy research and development.

I’m a big supporter of basic research and I hope a lot more money goes to science, but a less sexy piece of the clean energy puzzle deserves equal attention: manufacturing. An exciting piece of technology isn’t going to do much good if it can’t get out in the world, and that means it has to be mass producible.

Sterling Energy Systems, makers of a concentrating solar-thermal power system, recently unveiled their second-generation model. The company is tapping the automotive industry supply chain to enable economical high-volume production. It’s using stamped sheet metal to make the system’s mirrors.

This makes me wonder if in the near future we’ll be able to point to a breakthrough in production as the Model T of clean energy. It also makes me think of John Deutch’s comment that energy innovation needs to be a team sport where science, engineering and business all happen at the same time.

Another often overlooked aspect of this interrelationship is research focused on manufacturing processes. One researcher who exemplifies this is Frederik Krebs of the Technical University of Denmark’s National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy. Much of the polymer scientist’s work is focused on roll-to-roll solar cell manufacturing. It’s not headline-grabbing work, but it could quietly make the difference in when and how clean energy technologies reach the market.

The familiar R&D acronym has recently been expanded to RD&D, meaning either research, development and demonstration, or research, development and deployment. We could start using RD³ to encompass both meanings. And maybe we could parse this further by adding manufacturing: RD³M.

---

Eric Smalley is the editor of Energy Research News. He has written about technology since 1987 and has freelanced for many publications including Discover, Scientific American, Wired News and The Boston Globe on topics ranging from quantum cryptography to global warming.

MIT Institute Professor and former CIA Director John Deutch last week warned that the U.S. needs to revamp its “innovation system” if we want to make timely progress on global warming and energy security. The former Deputy Secretary of Defense and Undersecretary of Energy offered his views on the challenges to remaking our energy system in a plenary talk at the Optics and Photonics for Advanced Energy Technology meeting at MIT.

Deutsch’s main point is that the researchers and entrepreneurs who are rushing to tackle the energy problem are following the traditional model of technology innovation: identify a problem, come up with an idea to solve it, engineer the solution for specific applications, and bring the solution to market.

This linear, technology-push approach is running up against the hard economic and regulatory realities of the energy market as currently embodied by Congress and exemplified by the Waxman-Markey Bill.

Innovation needs to be more of a team sport, Deutch said. You have to start the science, engineering and business aspects at the same time. “So this traditional distinction we have… between discovery and application is blurred because discovery here depends upon the character of the application,” he said.

On top of the systemic challenges, the Waxman-Markey Bill poses a particular challenge for energy innovation, Deutch said. On one hand you have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that dictate specific amounts of wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. And on the other you have cap-and-trade, which attempts to place a price on carbon emissions.

The two methods clash, Deutch said. “You have an inconsistent set of measures that are supposed to guide our energy future. The problem is RPS hides the cost of the generation technologies that are going to replace CO2, and the CO2 cap-and-trade system recognizes the costs,” he said. “It makes an uneconomic basis for technology choices.

---

Eric Smalley is the editor of Energy Research News. He has written about technology since 1987 and has freelanced for many publications including Discover, Scientific American, Wired News and The Boston Globe on topics ranging from quantum cryptography to global warming.

All politics are local. So is the progress in greentech.

Federal and state Renewable Portfolio Standards, federal loans and stimulus packages are vitally important programs.

But progress in greening our cities is going to come from local efforts as much as from on high. We take a quick look at some city-based green initiatives.

San Jose, Calif. considers itself the capital of Silicon Valley, and wants to be the global center of greentech innovation. The city and its Mayor, Chuck Reed, have initiated one of the nation's most aggressive green initiatives – the Green Vision program with a 15-year goal that includes:

1. Creating 25,000 cleantech jobs

2. Reducing per capita energy use by 50 percent

3. Receiving 100 percent of its electrical power from clean renewable sources

4. Building or retrofitting 50 million square feet of green buildings

5. Diverting 100 percent of waste from landfills

6. Recycling or reusing 100 percent of its wastewater (100 million gallons per day)

7. Ensuring that 100 percent of its public fleet vehicles run on alternative fuels

8. Planting 100,000 new trees

9. Replacing 100 percent of its streetlights with smart, zero emission lighting

San Jose calls itself the capital of Silicon Valley but Palo Alto, Calif. could arguably assume the mantle of its' heart (against the protestations of Mountain View and Menlo Park). Palo Alto is the home of Stanford University, Packard's garage (of Hewlett Packard fame), Facebook, and a lot of Venture Capital firms. Steve Jobs of Apple and Larry Page of Google call it home.

Palo Alto can also lay claim to be one of the nation's greenest cities.

In June 2008, Palo Alto adopted mandatory green-building requirements for residential and commercial development -- one of the most stringent green building ordinances in the nation.

New buildings and remodels in Palo Alto must meet standards developed by the U.S. Green Building Council or the Build It Green organization. Expect some public pushback since the green requirements can add from $2,000 to $10,000 to the cost of a home and 2 percent to 5 percent to the cost of a commercial project, according to a city report.

Palo Alto also has

• A climate protection plan addressing CO2 emissions and water
• A program for less-toxic pest control
• Proposed stringent ordinances on construction and demolition debris, a major source of landfill material, waste, and toxics.
• The "greenest" congressional office. Anna Eshoo, a high-powered Congressperson, recently unveiled the very first congressional office in the nation to go maximum green. Eshoo's office has installed a 1.6 kilowatts photovoltaic system and 100 percent of the electricity used by the office is obtained from renewable sources. The office has made profound green modifications to its' lighting, water, heating, cooling, materials, waste stream and the transit habits of its' employees.

Palo Alto has some competition from its neighbor/rival across the Bay – the Republic of Berkeley, Calif. 

Late last year, Berkeley's city council approved a plan to offer city-backed loans to building owners who install PV systems. The loans, up to $20,000 each, would be paid off as part of the owners' property-tax bills. This type of program could eliminate the biggest obstacle to solar deployments – the large upfront cost.

If this program succeeds, it could be expanded to finance other energy-efficiency efforts such as installing double-glazed windows or thermal insulation.

How about tiny Greensburg, Kan.? After being decimated by an F-5 tornado that leveled the city and left few homes standing, the survivors launched a plan to resurrect their town as the greenest city in America. All public buildings are to conform to LEED platinum standards.

Now, two years after the disaster, Greensburg's new homes are almost 50 percent more energy-efficient due to energy-saving windows, improved insulation, efficient heating, etc.

The people of Greensburg are pioneering the greening of a municipality, in one of the reddest states, no less.

Gainesville, Fla. is the first U.S. city with Feed-in-Tariffs.

In the first such program in the country, The Gainesville City Commission has approved a solar feed-in tariff for residential and business customers served by the Gainesville Regional Utilities in Florida. Wrote Ucilia Wang:

"Under the program, owners of solar energy systems would sell the electricity to the utilities at $0.32 per kilowatt-hour under a 20-year contract. The rate, which is higher than the price for conventional power, will remain for the first two years of the program. ... The program is modeled after the successful one in Germany, which has become the largest solar market in the world."

Other cities with claims on "the greenest" include:

Austin, Texas: Austin Energy, the city's municipally owned utility, plans to grow the renewables' portion of Austin's energy portfolio to 30 percent by 2020 and to build solar power's share to 100MW by 2020.

Boulder, Colo.: The city has resolved to become a zero-waste community.

Burlington, Vt.: More than one-third of energy used in the city comes from renewable resources, an impressive figure for the frosty Northeast.

Madison, Wis.: A bike-friendly city with an extensive recycling program that claims more than 90 percent participation.

New York City: High-density populations like NYC use fewer resources per capita. New Yorkers use of public transport dwarfs that of any other city.

Portland, Ore.: Portland is bike friendly, has set an urban growth limit to protect 25 million acres of open space, and recycles more than half of the city's trash.

San Francisco: More than half the city's residents use public or alternative transportation to get to work.

Please forgive the slightly California-centric selection in this list. Feel free to comment and let us know your choice for greenest city.

When Energy Secretary Steven Chu delivered the Compton Lecture at MIT yesterday he let his Bell Labs roots show.

During the talk, titled "The Energy Problem and the Interplay Between Basic and Applied Research," Chu switched up the usual formula of breakthroughs in basic research advancing applied research. He said fundamental breakthroughs also come from highly focused applied research. His prime example — Shannon’s information theory — is a shining moment in Bell Labs’ history.

Chu also talked about modeling energy research laboratories on Bell Labs. He described a management structure where labs are run by the top practicing scientists whose intimate knowledge allows them to quickly deploy resources and help researchers connect with colleagues. He also described a place so rich in ideas that people are not obsessed with secrets.

He cited the Joint BioEnergy Institute as an example of a “Bell Lab-let”. The Institute is a partnership of three national laboratories and three universities focused on developing biofuels. The lab is headed by Jay Keasling, a UC Berkeley professor, Berkeley National Lab scientist and pioneer in the field of synthetic biology. “Great science is going to come out of this,” said Chu.

The brief question-and-answer session was dominated by the topic of money. Chu said he was going to be sending letters to university presidents and deans and heads of scientific associations asking for volunteers to help review grant proposals. The several billion dollars the Department of Energy is awarding for research is a large load on the system, he said.

The next question prompted him to say that the money we’re devoting to energy research and development as a nation is a small fraction of what’s needed. Most of our energy system is still based on burning oil and coal. We need to make it more high-tech, Chu said. The US spends over $1 trillion a year on its primary energy market. Following the model of high-tech companies we should be investing at least 10 percent of that in R&D, which would amount to about $100 billion per year, he said.

“Science and technology will be a cornerstone if not the cornerstone for how Americans are going to prosper in this century. And so what we’re investing now is nothing,” said Chu.

Eric Smalley is the editor of Energy Research News. He has written about technology since 1987 and has freelanced for many publications including Discover, Scientific American, Wired News and The Boston Globe on topics ranging from quantum cryptography to global warming.

More Bloggage from the BIPV Summit in San Diego -- Steven Strong  was the lead-off speaker at a recent BIPV event (see BIPV (vs. BAPV and BSPV) and The Yoda of PV) . He is a leading authority on integrating renewable energy systems, especially solar, in buildings in North America. Strong's firm consults to architects on the integration of solar power, and to the building industry on product development through his firm, Solar Design Associates. Over the past 25 years, Steven has designed scores of solar buildings including the world's first PV-powered neighborhood in central Massachusetts in 1984, and in what was the world's largest PV installation at the time -- the Natatorium Complex at the 1996 Olympic Summer Games in Atlanta. Amongst his many PV installation accomplishments, Strong was involved in a semi-clandestine solar mission -- deploying solar in the less-than-friendly environment of the Bush/Cheney White House compound at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C. "The dialogue actually began with the prior tenant," Strong explained.  "But Clinton was distracted by interns and impeachment," and Strong never heard from the Clinton people after that. Then, nine months after the start of the W. administration, Strong visited the site and spent the entire day with the White House architect.  They looked at all the potential siting opportunities, excepting the main mansion which is "covered with spook stuff."  (BTW: The White House grounds are managed by the Parks Service) Strong ended up helping design and install a 10kW+ photovoltaic system and two thermal solar systems within the compound.  All the inverters had to go to the secret service warehouse for clearance, presumably for inspection for listening devices and explosives.  The system was installed on one of those few occasions when the President was at his ranch clearing brush and the VP was at an undisclosed location. If you wonder why you didn't hear more about this seemingly positive news from the W. press office -- well, in an administration that had a VP saying things like, "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy," the presence of PV on the White House never made it to their talking points.

The Indian company Green Infra has set a goal of having 500 megawatts of renewable energy in its portfolio by 2012. Wind energy will stand for 300 megawatts of the clean power investment while small-sized solar power projects will generate 100 megawatts. The rest will come from biomass and small gas-based projects. Green Infra is promoted by IDFC Private Equity Fund. The new green power project will need an investment of Rs 3,000 crore, according to Projects Today, the Indian projects database Website. But the investment will also be supported by various Indian Government incentives. As a commercial player in this field, Green Infra can benefit from concessional import duty on certain components of wind electric generators, excise duty exemption, get ten years’ tax holiday on income generated from wind power projects and benefit from an accelerated depreciation and loan from the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA). According to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), India has had a total of 26.95 billion units of electricity generated from wind power projects during the last three years. On the same note, MNRE has fixed a target for the whole country of 10,500 megawatts coming from wind power by 2012, according to The Economic Times. And the incentives from the Government are crucial to the development. "The robust growth in the country's wind power generation is largely driven by the incentives provided by the government to companies which set up wind power farms," said Santosh Kamath, KPMG Advisory Services' Associate Director, to The Economic Times.