Group items tagged

Two strong potential candidates for the Next Big Thing in cleantech venture capital are nuclear and carbon capture and storage. I've spoken with numerous VCs recently who are looking for innovative ways to play in nuclear power. Bets have already been made by VCs in small-scale nukes, hot fusion, and technologies related to big-scale nukes. The hope is to find a low-cost solution that is practically zero carbon emissions and also provides reliable "base load" power. So in other words, the hope is for a lower-carbon replacement for coal power. The challenges are also significant, however, not least of which being time to market for any new innovations, as this interesting article illustrates. With the recent news that the DOE will be putting $2.4B into carbon capture and storage, and its inclusion in emerging climate legislation, it's also clear that CCS will be leaned upon as a hoped-for way of making our existing coal-fired generation infrastructure less impactful on the atmosphere, while still preserving its value as low-cost baseload power. So in other words, the hope is for a lower-carbon "fix" for coal power.

"BEIJING--CHINA will build an "industrial system" and "consumption pattern" with low carbon emissions, Premier Wen Jiabao said in the government work report delivered at the parliament's annual session yesterday. The country will work hard to develop low-carbon technologies as well as new and renewable energy resources to actively respond to climate change, Wen said at the session of the National People's Congress, adding that the development of smart power grids should be intensified. "

A new report by Sir David King, senior scientific advisor to UBS Investment Bank, explores the challenges facing biofuels (PDF) and the role they can play in a low-carbon future.

Leading UK scientists say there is no single solution to meeting future energy needs and tackling climate change.\n\nIn a report, Towards a low carbon future, for the Royal Society, the scientists call for an end to the UK's "half-hearted" approach.\n\nThe country lacks a coherent energy system able to meet the challenges ahead, says the report, and needs a new vision for the future.\n\n"It is time for us to break away from the endless debate which is so often dominated by vested interests and the search for a silver bullet," says lead author of the report, John Shepherd.

Low Carbon West Oxford's EcoLibrary of shared energy saving tools

While the global economic crisis will likely reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the impact over the long term is counterproductive to battling global warming, the Global Futures 2009 report asserts. Reduced funding for low-carbon energy technologies makes it less likely the world will reach the $500 billion-per-year investment needed by 2020 to ensure carbon emissions peak no later than that year.

What if cutting greenhouse emissions could also save the lives of soldiers in Iraq, where fuel-laden convoys make them targets? The U.S. Army says it is happening now in a push to reduce its carbon "bootprint." From forward areas like Iraq and Afghanistan to training ranges in the United States, the Army has been working to limit its use of fossil fuels and make its operations more environmentally sustainable.

Great point, and one I've not heard before. Yet another benefit of going low-carbon. I suspect that there must be many linkages between sustainable energy and the military. Energy efficiency could be another one. It extends the range of equipment, It reduces demands on upstream logistics and so on.

A full 43 percent said nuclear energy provides a way to achieve a low-carbon future. The same percentage said they believed other renewable energy sources alone cannot fully replace fossil fuels. While 29 percent of those responding to the survey said they were more supportive of nuclear energy today than they were three years ago, 19 percent said they were less so.

When the idea of a low carbon economy first raised its head some expected a sea change in public attitudes. This change would impact the regulatory framework, acknowledge the responsibilities of businesses,  encourage development of sustainable practices and generally save the world from itself. It seems that some observers are surprised at the slowness of the sea change. Perhaps the level of innovation required is not materialsing because the need, in fact, is not urgent enough in the minds of business, government or consumers. Over the last decade, governments have put in place frameworks for action, but the timing is over many years - a serious commitment which should encourage. On the other hand, perhaps we should not expect a huge change in lifestyle look and feel as we grow into an efficient low carbon society.

Isn't the problem that climate is a global issue, which encompasses so many aspects of day-to-day life. So it's at the same time the ultimate global and local issue, requiring us to change everything for everyone. Those expecting sea change will have to wait for quite a while.