Yesterday Massachusetts House Speaker Sal DiMasi, flanked by Gov. Deval Patrick and Senate President Therese Murray, held a press conference introducing the Speaker's $100 million green jobs bill. DiMasi, speaking at the press conference, said the bill "combines our commitment to jobs creation and economic development with our duty to protect the environment and increase energy efficiency." All good things, right? Certainly the Massachusetts greentech sector, which is "poised to be the 10th largest cluster in the state" (pdf) with 14,400 jobs created so far, needs ongoing support for both economic and environmental reasons. The support itself, which calls for the creation of a Clean Energy Technology Center with a five-year, $65 million fund, $5 million in research grants, a $500,000 per year clean energy fellowship program, and $2.5 million for workforce development, is a sign Massachusetts is ready to get behind greentech in a big way. But did anyone bother to check where this money's coming from? Buried deep in the last page of the proposed legislation is a paragraph stating (pdf) the "state comptroller shall, for state fiscal years 2009 through 2013 inclusive, annually transfer moneys from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Fund established in said section 4E of chapter 40J in an amount not less than $5,000,000 annually for deposit" in the new program. For anyone not familiar with the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Fund, it's a branch of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative that "provides financial assistance to individuals and business for solar panels and wind turbines at their homes and facilities." As far renewable energy subsidies go in Massachusetts, the Trust Fund is it. Taking $5 million out the Fund represents a 21 percent annual revenue reduction. The Fund has subsidized 479 projects in the past ten years, adding up to 87,301 kW of installed renewable capacity, with another 149,082 kW of capacity in the development pipeline. While not a large number, it's also nothing to sneeze at. These are projects that likely would not have been built otherwise. So this leads us to an interesting series of questions. Why would DiMasi cannibalize funds from a renewable energy installation subsidy fund to promote green jobs and early stage research? If the amount of funding available to install renewable capacity decreases, won't the number of projects being installed also decrease? And, if that's the case, won't the number of people needed to install these projects also decline? As for all the early-stage research and entrepreneurship receiving grants from this program, what happens when this research matures and the entrepreneurs behind the research start shopping around for ramp up and commercial production? If the Trust Fund is too small to help subsidize these commercial projects, where will all the startups go? I hear California's nice this time of year.

A spin-out from a Massachusetts aerospace company has come up with a novel wind turbine that it says can harvest two to three times the amount of power from the wind than conventional turbines.

The FloDesign Wind Turbine is based around the design of jet engines, something that its parent company FloDesign designs. (Some of FloDesign’s ideas are incorporated into the Gulfstream II, a jet I have never been inside of.) The system effectively channels wind into a vortex, which then spins a kitchen-fan like set of blades that then help convert wind to power. Conventional turbines can’t really suck air in like this. The FloDesign can also harvest power in low-wind conditions. The design in some ways is similar to a tidal turbine touted by Ireland’s OpenHydro.

FloDesign hopes to have a prototype running in about 18 months.

If it works, it could ameliorate some of the NIMBY problems surrounding wind power. Neighborhood groups often oppose the construction of wind turbines because they are tall and the blades can present problems for birds. (Investment banks and manufacturers, however, love to put wind turbines in their alt energy ads.) The wingspan on some offshore turbines is as long as the wingspan of a jet. FloDesign’s turbines are less obtrusive and safer for wildlife, the company says. They also aren’t as noisy.

And if it harvests wind like the company says it can, it could allow the price of wind power to drop even more. Now, wind power is the renewable closest in cost to conventional electricity, according to some estimates and the location where the turbines are placed.

Like the solar industry, the wind industry right now is suffering from a backlog of orders. Put in an order for turbines now, and you might not get them until 2010. If FloDesign can begin to mass produce turbines, particularly with fewer raw materials, it could help out wind farm developers. The technology, though, will likely have to undergo several tests before developers start buying.

The company won two technology awards this week from MIT (netting it $300,000) and is reportedly speaking to Kleiner, Perkins about a $10 million investment, according to Xconomy.

Shell's decision Wednesday night to drop out of the proposed London Array has created a lot of finger-pointing and a lot of unanswered questions. The oil giant pulled its 33 percent stake in what would have been - and may well still be - the world's largest offshore wind project, saying only that the decision was part of an "ongoing review of projects and investment choices." Shell's stake in the $4 billion, 1GW wind project will be diverted into development of the Canadian tar sands, which have become a better looking investment given Shell's recent forecast that "if oil prices remain at $100 per barrel, we expect 2008 reported production to be broadly flat compared with 2007." Tar sands development makes sense if the price of oil remains high, which will likely happen as easily-recoverable reserves dry up and development and delivery of high CAPEX deposits becomes the norm. These high-risk projects have other costs too, however. But who's really at fault for the crash-and-burn at the London Array? The investor group, made up of Shell, E.On, and Dong Energy, recently entered the project tendering phase for assignment of major construction contracts. Shell, who is alone among the group in having a lucrative way out, probably looked at the cost projections from steel and cement suppliers and turbine makers, threw up a little in its mouth, and promptly left the room. But why would a company that made $8 billion in profits during the first quarter (thats about $4 million an hour) balk at these kind of expenses

If a wind turbine explodes in the woods and no one's around to smooth the load, do utility customers get pissed off? Last year, U.S. wind grew by about 45 percent, adding 5,244 MW on $9 billion overall investment. In wind-leading Texas, however, grid operators are beginning to feel the negative effects of the wind boom. From today's Wall Street Journal:

"A cold front blew through West Texas on Feb. 26, temporarily lifting wind production. When it subsided, wind speeds dropped, turbines slowed and productivity dropped by 80% to 300 megawatts from about 1,700."

Without grid-level storage or next-gen, high efficiency transmission to smooth loads, adding intermittent or non-dispatchable capacity will eventually cause enough headaches and price fluctuations that people lose interest. But we already knew this, right? So, until the babassu-powered economy gets off the ground, what's a utility to do?

On the face of it, 2007 was a banner year for U.S. venture investment in solar and biofuels. Flowing quietly under big time deals like HelioVolt's $101 million Series B, however, was a strong undercurrent pointing towards the U.S. becoming a global leader in wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association 5,244 MW of wind power were installed in the U.S. in 2007, representing a 45 percent capacity expansion and a $9 billion overall investment. European majors like Energías de Portugal, Iberdrola, Acciona, and E.On were especially active over the last year. In a landmark deal, Energías de Portugal bought Horizon Wind Energy from Goldman Sachs for an estimated $3 billion. E.On followed suit, purchasing Dublin-based Airtricity's North American holdings for $1.4 billion. But given America's notoriously patchy renewable energy regulatory framework and severe NIMBY complex, what accounts for the massive European migration?