Mostly Convenient Truths From A Technology Optimist

2,453 views
2,334 views

Published on

Mostly Convenient Truths From A Technology Optimist

  1. 1. … mostly convenient truths Vinod Khosla Khosla Ventures Nov 2007 from a technology optimist
  2. 2. <ul><li>“ In my view for the United States, it is the greatest economic opportunity we've had since we mobilized for World War Two. If we do it right, it will produce job gains and income gains substantially greater than the 1990s. “ </li></ul><ul><li>Bill Clinton on the “green economy” </li></ul>Source: Speech at U.S Conference of Mayor’s Climate Protection Summit
  3. 3. Good News Assertions <ul><li>Technical solutions exist </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Oil Replacement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Coal Power replacement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Laser Focus: Scaling & Economics </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Feedstock scale </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Proof for capital markets </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Policy not Technology Problem </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>“ First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” </li></ul><ul><li>Mahatma Gandhi </li></ul>We are here
  5. 5. Scale of Resistance <ul><li>Saudi Arabia: $1 trillion for each $4bbl </li></ul><ul><li>Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP… </li></ul><ul><li>Coal: Peabody </li></ul>
  6. 6. Cardinal Rules <ul><li>Land efficiency! </li></ul><ul><li>Cost (plug-ins, hydrogen) </li></ul><ul><li>Pragmatics: PUG power vs Greenies </li></ul><ul><li>Regulation permanent & Subsidies transient </li></ul><ul><li>Economics & Capital Formation: Business </li></ul>
  7. 7. Renewable Energy USA! Source: NREL, USDA, NRCS, EIA West, SouthWest have solar… Texas has wind & solar … Southeast has biomass! Rockies have geothermal! Midwest has corn/wheat belt!
  8. 8. Which Gamble ? <ul><li>… . higher startup costs, lower eventual costs? </li></ul><ul><li>… . competition for energy or safe oil monopoly? </li></ul><ul><li>… . planet insurance or catastrophic relocations? </li></ul><ul><li>… . terrorism avoidance or military expenses? </li></ul><ul><li>… . energy insurance or Mideast dependence? </li></ul><ul><li>… . more jobs, more Googles or more of the same? </li></ul>
  9. 9. … biases <ul><li>… hybrids good </li></ul><ul><li>… corn ethanol bad </li></ul><ul><li>… biodiesel good </li></ul><ul><li>… FFV’s bad </li></ul>
  10. 10. Hybrids or Ethanol? Ethanol is a far cheaper and more scalable solution! Hybrid Carbon reduction 20-30% Cost $5000 Scalability Battery breakthrough Impact to automakers High Oil reduction 20-30% Corn Ethanol 20-30% $50 Cellulosic Breakthrough Low 90%
  11. 11. Hybrid or FFV? FFV’s offer a more-effective solution! Hybrid Cost $3,000 Gasoline Savings (11000 miles/yr; 14mpg) 157 FFV $30 477
  12. 12. Biodiesel vs. Ethanol vs. Cellulosic Diesel Trajectory Matters! “ Classic” Biodiesel Carbon reduction - 2006 80% Carbon reduction – 2010 80% Scalability (2030 Gallons/acre) 600-900 Sustainability (2030) Poor Product Quality Poor Unsubsidized 10 yr market competitiveness High (@ $45 oil price) 2010 Production Cost High Technology Poor Ethanol 20-30% 80% 2500 (cellulosic) High Good Good (@ $45 oil price) Med-Low Improving Cellulosic Diesel Not Available 80% 2500 (cellulosic) High Good Good (@ $45 oil price) Med-Low Nascent
  13. 13. … the chindia test only scalable if competitive unsubsidized
  14. 14. … the scaling model brute force or exponential, distributed…
  15. 15. a renewable universe …
  16. 16. Khosla’s “ solutions ” Rules <ul><li>Attack manageable but material problems </li></ul><ul><li>Technologies that can achieve unsubsidized market competitiveness in 5-7 years </li></ul><ul><li>Technologies that scale - If it isn’t cheaper it doesn’t scale </li></ul><ul><li>Technologies that have manageable startup costs and short innovation cycles </li></ul><ul><li>Technologies that have declining cost with scale – trajectory matters </li></ul>
  17. 17. Lanza Mascoma Verenium Range Coskata Altra Cilion Hawaii Bio Ethos Tools Solar Natural Gas Mechanical Efficiency Electrical Efficiency Cellulosic Future Fuels Plastics Water Materials Nanostellar Codon Praj Quos NanoH2o Draths Segetis Soladigm Calera Stion Ausra Infinia Coal Efficiency Oil PAX Streamline Living Homes Transonic Kaai GIV Seeo Altarock Great Point Energy Corn/ Sugar Fuels Wind Building Materials Geothermal LS9 Gevo Amyris Kior Khosla Ventures Renewable Portfolio
  18. 18. Biofuels Think Outside the Barrel
  19. 19. the Possible ! June 2006, Aberdeen , South Dakota <ul><ul><li>Imagine $1.99 ethanol at every Walmart in America within a decade! </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. What’s Possible - Summary Replace most of our imported oil in twenty years! Year Biomass Yield Tons/acre Acres Planted (millions) Cellulosic Ethanol (billion gals) Corn Ethanol (billion gals) Total Ethanol (billion gals) 2012 8.9 5 4.4 12.0 16.5 2017 12.5 19 24.8 14.6 39.4 2027 23.1 49 124.4 14.6 139.0
  21. 21. Issues: Land use & Water use <ul><li>Annuals vs. Perennials </li></ul><ul><li>Monoculture vs. Polyculture/Polycultivation </li></ul><ul><li>Crop Rotation </li></ul><ul><li>Soil Restoration </li></ul><ul><li>Energy crop development </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>High yield sorghum </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Miscanthus/Switchgrass </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Winter-over crops </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Trees: Polonia, Popular,… </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Waste: Forestry, Agriculture, Sewage, Industrial… </li></ul></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Biomass Yields? <ul><li>Miscanthus averaged 16.5 dry tons </li></ul><ul><li>Sugarcane : 25 dry tons </li></ul><ul><li>High yield sorghum ( in 35 US States): 25 dry tons </li></ul><ul><li>Polonia tree: 28 dry tons </li></ul><ul><li>Anagenesis: 1 acre of trees = 48x ethanol production of 1 acre corn </li></ul><ul><li>DOE est.: existing biomass could generate 1.3 billion tons </li></ul><ul><li>Ceres est: 75 million acres of US crop and pasture land to energy crops without impacting domestic food production </li></ul><ul><li>Sources: Miscanthus: U of Illinois Study,Sguatcane: Lee Lynd, High Yield Sorghum: Mark Holtzapple, Texas A&M, Polonia Tree: Megaflora Anagenesis: Anagensis Tree Corp </li></ul>… we could meet US gasoline demand on about 60m acres
  23. 23. Energy Crops: Miscanthus 20 tons/acre? ( www.bical.net ) 10-30 tons/acre (www.aces.uiuc.edu/DSI/MASGC.pdf) 1 years growth without replanting! <ul><ul><li>Little water, little fertilizer, no tillage, lots of biomass, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>… .energy crops make it possible </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Innovation Ecosystem… <ul><li>Professors at Texas A&M predict they will “boost the average yield for biomass sorghum to 15 to 17 tons per acre in three to four years, and 20-plus tons within a decade” </li></ul><ul><li>… . new “freakishly tall sorghum plants” that reach heights of nearly 20 feet – and yielding double the amount of crop per acre. They use little water, and have been bred to prevent flowering and can be grown on marginal crop lands…… </li></ul><ul><li>Source: http://ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3424 </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.grainnet.com/articles/Gulf_Ethanol_Corp__Advances_Production_Plans_for_Texas_A_M_Sorghum_Ethanol_Plant_-46989.html </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>Advances are happening every day!
  25. 25. Energy Crops: Sorghum 25 tons/acre (Prof. Holtzapple- Texas A&M)
  26. 26. The perennial advantage Source: Wes Jackson, Land Institute <ul><li>Perennial crops: </li></ul><ul><li>less land erosion </li></ul><ul><li>Better water/ nutrient management </li></ul><ul><li>Diversity protects against epidemics and diseases </li></ul>… perennial biomass polyculture crops can produce more than their annual counterparts, while requiring less human/energy inputs – on a sustainable basis!
  27. 27. Source: Wes Jackson, Land Institute The perennial advantage
  28. 28. Soil Carbon 100 years of annual cropping and hay removal from native prairie meadows Source: Wes Jackson, Land Institute ** ** **
  29. 29. Monoculture or Polyculture (Grass Cocktail) A study from the University of Minnesota suggests… <ul><li>that “mixtures of native prairie plants grown on marginal land are a good source of biomass for biofuel” and provide more energy per acre than corn ethanol or soybean biodiesel </li></ul><ul><li>Mixed prairie plants…. prevent soil erosion and remove carbon dioxide from the air …… don’t require pesticides, herbicides, irrigation, while adding fertility to degraded lands </li></ul><ul><li>Result: … utilization of grass “cocktails” can yield approximately 238% more bioenergy than monoculture plantings in poor soil! </li></ul>… sustainable and high yield strategies for low impact polyculture biomass exists … richer soils, less land, more biodiversity Source: David Tilman - http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660207597,00.html
  30. 30. Farmers Economics Per acre economics of dedicated biomass crops vs. traditional row crops Source: Ceres Company Presentation/ Khosla Ventures Biomass Corn Grain yield (bushel) N/A 162 Grain price ($/bushel) N/A $3.50 Biomass yield (tons) 15 2 Biomass price ($/ton) $35 $35 Total revenue $525 $637 Variable costs $84 $168 Amortized fixed costs $36 $66 Net return $405 $403
  31. 31. Conservative Cellulosic (24tpy/108gpt) Sugar Cane + Baggasse (11 tpy/102gpt) Corn, Cellulose, Cane Today Land Use: Large Improvements Are Visible Brazil Energy Cane Cellulosic (10tpy/100gpt) Biodiesel
  32. 32. Area to replace GASOLINE in USA 60m Acres* replaces all our gasoline! * With CAFE
  33. 33. “ The War on Oil” … weapons from the “innovation ecosystem”
  34. 34. Technology Progression Corn Cellulosic Bioethanol Algae Synthetic Biorefinery Gasification Synthetic Biology Thermochemical Energy crops <ul><ul><li>Many companies, multiple solutions …all improving trajectory </li></ul></ul>Bioengineering Fuel Chemistry Plant Breeding Computational Modeling Systems Biology ?
  35. 35. Biofuels Feedstocks & Pathways … Mixalco Process Glycerin Natural Oils BioDiesel (FAME or FAEE) Methanol/Ethanol Gasification Syngas Fermentation Ethanol/Butanol BTL Diesel Mixed Higher Alcohol Methane Microbial cultures Dimethylfuran Gasoline, Diesel, Hydrocarbons Ethanol, Butanol, Renewable Petroleum FermDiesel Sugars/ Starch Fermentation Biogasoline ETG via catalysis Biomass Cellulose/ Hemicellulose Acid or Enzyme Hydrolysis Saccharification Ethanol Algae + Sunlight – CO2 Cell Mass Hydrocracking Waste Fischer-Tropspch catalysis BioDiesel (FAME or FAEE) Catalytic Conversion Butanol Diesel Transesterification Catalysis and Aqueous phase Reforming Fermentation Catalytic Conversion Ethanol
  36. 36. Biofuels Feedstocks & Pathways … Mixalco Process Glycerin Natural Oils BioDiesel (FAME or FAEE) Methanol/Ethanol Gasification Syngas Fermentation Ethanol/Butanol BTL Diesel Mixed Higher Alcohol Methane Microbial cultures Dimethylfuran Gasoline, Diesel, Hydrocarbons Ethanol, Butanol, Renewable Petroleum FermDiesel Sugars/ Starch Fermentation Biogasoline ETG via catalysis Biomass Cellulose/ Hemicellulose Acid or Enzyme Hydrolysis Saccharification Ethanol Algae + Sunlight – CO2 Cell Mass Hydrocracking Waste Fischer-Tropspch catalysis BioDiesel (FAME or FAEE) Catalytic Conversion Butanol Diesel Transesterification Catalysis and Aqueous phase Reforming Fermentation Catalytic Conversion Ethanol Feedstock Supply Volume Increasing Technological Difficulty Ethanol – Sugar Fermentation Ethanol – Cellulose Hydrolysis Fermentation Biodiesel, Ethanol – FT and Catalysis Gevo Fermdiesel, Butanol Ethanol – Syngas Fermentation Biocrude – Catalysis/ Pyrolysis KIOR Feed Cost
  37. 37. Story Time … or news from the frontlines
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
  42. 42. Potential of Synthetic Biology Synthetic Biology Recombinant Small Molecule Bio-Synthetic Pathway Gene 4 Gene 2 Gene 1 Gene 3 Gene 1 Artimisinin Source of genes Custom-Built Microbe Fermentation Diesel Synthetic Biology = Fermentation Diesel X Anti-Malarial
  43. 43. Hydrocarbon Biosynthesis: Nature’s Energy Storage Designer Hydrocarbons Metabolic modeling + Synthetic biology Renewable Feedstock LS9 Designer Biofuels & Chemicals X X X X X X X X >90% Energetic Yield From Feedstock Hydrocarbons
  44. 44. Butanol, the old fashioned way…
  45. 45. CO 2 ethanol lactate acetone formate hydrogen . . . Biomass Hydrolysate BUTANOL A recombinant strains containing a butanol pathway produces butanol in addition to other products . Metabolic Engineering
  46. 46. Biomass Hydrolysate X X X X X Classical and genetic techniques are used to improve butanol tolerance. BUTANOL X X X Metabolic Engineering
  47. 47. … and this is just the beginning … imagine the map in 2017 ! Believe in the “innovation ecosystem” that brought you free long distance!
  48. 48. … or get to work
  49. 49. Solar Flare ? Coal Clampdown ?
  50. 50. Coal: Ready for Updating… Source: TXU Corp presentation
  51. 51. Standard and Poor’s Assessment Source: “Which Power Generation Technologies Will Take The Lead In Response to Carbon Controls?”, S&P Viewpoint, May 11, 2007 CCS or CO 2 Credits? Status Quo *S&P notes that there are disadvantages with wind that are not explicitly modeled - high transmission costs (because wind has limited availability), low capacity factors (30-35%), and unpredictability (leading to a greater need for backup/reserve power) Tech Risk/Price Risk / Power Quality Coal (PC) Gas – CCCT Eastern IGCC Wind Nuclear Ausra KV Est Altarock KV Est Capital Cost ($/kW) 2,438 700 2,795 1,700 4,000 3,000 4,000 Power Cost (cents/kWh) 5.8 6.8 6.8 7.1* 8.9 7-11 5-10 Power Cost W/CCS (cents/kWh) 12.0 9.6 10.2 7.1* 8.9 7-11 5-10 Power Cost w/CO 2 Credits ( $30 per ton) 7.9 7.7 8.7 7.1* 9.1 7-11 5-10 KV Assessment *** **** ** * *** ***** *****
  52. 52. PUG Power (utility grade power) <ul><li>Cost Effective in $/KWh </li></ul><ul><li>Reliable power : high uptime & predictable…not just when wind is blowing </li></ul><ul><li>Dispatchable power : available when customers demand power </li></ul><ul><li>Peak & Base load power : base power at base price; peak load power at peak price (12pm-8pm); no power at low load (12am-6am?) </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity factor : (ideally 60%); predictable operation time daily </li></ul>
  53. 53. PuG Power Requirements <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>CSP and EGS meet Utility Needs! </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>*Wind and Solar PV are severely disadvantaged due to the lack of storage – power is available when generated, not when needed, stopping them from serving as base-load power generators ** Nuclear energy is “always on”, generating electricity even when it is not needed (and when prices are negative, such as the middle of night). High decommissioning costs and a lack of effective waste-disposal are both significant factors in limiting its scalability CO 2 Price Risk High High Low Med N/A N/A N/A N/A Coal (PC) Coal IGCC+CCS Nuclear Natural Gas Wind Solar (PV) Solar (CSP) Ausra Enhanced Geothermal Scalability High Limited By CO2 Storage Moderate** High Low* Low* High High Reliability High Low High High Low* Low* High High Price/ Supply Risk Med Med Med- High High Med None None Low Dispatchable Power Yes Yes Moderate** Yes No No Yes Yes
  54. 54. … alternatives? <ul><li>… photovoltaic : expensive & not dispatchable </li></ul><ul><li>… wind : not utility grade </li></ul><ul><li>… natural gas : price volatility </li></ul><ul><li>… nuclear : who will bear risk? </li></ul><ul><li>… clean coal : technology & price risk </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Where should Duke Energy </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>commit $10b in 2007-08? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  55. 55. Photovoltaic Solar <ul><li>Expensive but declining </li></ul><ul><li>Available when sun shines </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(not “dispatchable” for utility needs) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Cost $.20-40kwh </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(2-4x more expensive than coal) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Economical as Distributed Power Today </li></ul><ul><li>Storage? </li></ul>
  56. 56. Wind Doesn’t Match Utility Demand Source: http://www.uwasa.fi/itt/teti/sahko/NEPF/vasa_nordiskvind.ppt Wind Random vs. Load Lots of power at 2am Lots of Daily Variability (30%+) Utilities want to buy power when customers need it Not when the wind blows or the sun shines! Stored power is key to increasing value of wind kwh
  57. 57. Nuclear Plants Are Expensive! Koomey, Jonathan, and Nate Hultman. 2007. “A Reactor-Level Analysis of Busbar Costs for US nuclear plants,” 1970-2005, forthcoming in Energy Policy Source: Jim Harding Solar Thermal
  58. 58. Untrustworthy Predictions: Natural Gas AEO projected natural gas prices versus actual wellhead prices Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2006
  59. 59. US Electric Power: Coal Is Back Source: www.eia.doe.gov and www.oilnergy.com Natural Gas Price “ As natural-gas supplies and prices have become a problem, the power industry is shifting to coal in a big way, with plans to build more than 100 coal-fired power plants in coming years at a potential cost of more than $100 billion” As Utilities Seek More Coal, Railroads Struggle to Deliver “ Wall Street Journal - March 15, 2006
  60. 60. Coal Prices <ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Is This A Risk Worth Taking? </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>Source: EIA Peak 1975: $50.92 2005: $21.51
  61. 61. Carbon Pricing Hurts Coal <ul><li>One ton of coal produces 3 tons of Carbon Dioxide </li></ul><ul><li>Effective cost of coal = 3-6 X greater </li></ul>Steve Clemmer, Union of Concerned Scientists, “Gambling with Coal”, 9/06
  62. 62. Coal Capital Costs Source: UCS – “Gambling With Coal”
  63. 63. Projections Are Lower Than Reality Source: Projections – Black and Veatch, UCS, NyTimes, Other news sources Type Install Date Capital Cost ($/kW) – 2006$ B&V Projected - New Coal (SC) 2010 2,180 B&V Projected - Coal - IGCC 2010 2,840 Big Stone II, South Dakota (Otter) - PC Construction 2008 $2,168 Kansas (Westar) PC Cancelled $2,333 Springfield, IL PC $2,500 Everglades, FL (FPL Glades) SCPC Cancelled $2,900 Cliffside (Duke Energy) PC Approved 2007 $3,000 West Virginia (AEP) IGCC 2012 $3,500+ Mesaba (Excelsior) IGCC Review on hold $3,593 FutureGen 2012 $6,000+
  64. 64. IGCC Capital Costs: 1996 to 2007 Capital Costs Have Doubled in 3 Years! Source: Emerging Energy Research
  65. 65. IGCC Cancellations - 2007 Investors and Utilities Are Beginning to Recognize Risk! Source: Emerging Energy Research Developer US State Status Reason for Stalling NRG Connecticut Cancelled Could not meet RFP timeline for delivery TECO Florida Cancelled State carbon policy uncertainty, rising costs Tondu Corp Texas Cancelled Rising costs, limited technology guarantees Bowie Power Arizona Cancelled Delayed local planning process, environmental opposition Buffalo Energy Partners Wyoming Cancelled Transmission constraints, rising costs, limited availability technology guarantees and unsuccessful bid for funding Mesaba Minnesota On Hold Increased costs have caused regulators to force renegotiation of costs Madison Power Illinois On Hold Construction of nearby SC coal plant has hindered demand and tied up transmission and coal transport infrastructure Tenaska, ERORA Illinois On Hold Local opposition to IGCC without carbon capture hampering regulatory proceedings NRG New York On Hold Must find cost reductions to maintain state-awarded financial support
  66. 66. Is Carbon risk being ignored? <ul><ul><ul><li>Black and Veatch advice: to build now without considering future carbon costs would be a “risky proposition ” </li></ul></ul></ul>
  67. 67. The Problems with CCS <ul><li>Pacala/Socolow “Wedge Theory”: burying 1b tons of Carbon by 2050 ≈1/7 th of the total emissions cut needed </li></ul><ul><li>“ to store a billion tons of carbon underground, the total inflow of CO2 would be roughly equal to the total outflow of oil and gas today [Lynn Orr].” </li></ul>If we can’t sequestrate carbon where it is produced, how do we do it for transport? Carbon volume = oil volume! Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/goodell
  68. 68. COAL = FAST FOOD <ul><li>CHEAP, PLENTIFUL, ACCESSIBLE </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It provides about 50% of the electricity in the US </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The vast majority of reserves are mined within the US </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Has the potential to supply our electrical needs for at least 100 years (though the number may vary) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>HAZARDOUS TO HEALTH </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Significant environmental problems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Damage to land from mining, water from various sources (acid runoff, heavy metals), and air (single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions) </li></ul></ul>
  69. 69. Environmental impact of coal: pollution <ul><li>Typical 500 MW Coal Plant: </li></ul><ul><li>3,700,000 tons of CO 2 </li></ul><ul><li>10,200 tons of NO x </li></ul><ul><li>10,000 tons of SO 2 </li></ul><ul><li>170 pounds of mercury </li></ul><ul><li>CO, Arsenic, Lead, VOC’s </li></ul><ul><li>2.6/6.4 tons uranium/thorium </li></ul>Source: ORNL, UCS
  70. 70. The Effects of Coal: Raw Numbers <ul><li>500-MW coal plant: </li></ul><ul><li>- 125,000 tons of ash </li></ul><ul><li>- 193,000 tons of sludge </li></ul><ul><li>Coal : 3X as much sludge as all municipal waste </li></ul>Source: ORNL, UCS Coal is an environmental menace!
  71. 71. Air pollution from power plants causes health problems : <ul><li>Coal pollution can cause and exacerbate heart disease , lung cancer , and other respiratory ailments </li></ul><ul><li>Average of 14 years-lost for those who die prematurely from exposure to particulates </li></ul><ul><li>Power plant pollution is the cause of 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks and over 24,000 premature deaths in the US each year </li></ul>Source: Clean Air Task Force, June 2004. … the next asbestos?
  72. 72. “ Nobody in their right mind should be building a coal plant” <ul><li>&quot; It's the definition of financial insanity to invest in a new coal plant ,&quot; agrees Marc Brammer (Innovest Strategic Value Advisors). </li></ul><ul><li>&quot; It's very likely the investment decisions many are making, to build long-lived high-carbon-dioxide-emitting power plants, are decisions we'll all live to regret ,&quot; warns Vice-President Gary Serio of Entergy Corp. (ETR ), which owns several coal plants. </li></ul><ul><li>“ Sue us so I can do my job,” - high-ranking EPA official . “My boss doesn’t believe that enforcing the Clean Air Act is a priority,” </li></ul>Source: Business Week Coal Plants are not economically logical given the risks!
  73. 73. *Projected development assuming states achieve annual renewable energy targets. **If achieved, IA, IL, and ME goals would support an additional 4,400 MW by 2020. HI CA NV IA & WI NJ CT & RI MA ME MN AZ & NM NY TX New renewable energy supported: - 46,270 MW by 2020** Equivalent to: - 17.7 million less cars MD CO & MT PA DC & DE WA Renewable Energy from State Standards* BIG MARKET: BIG CARROT
  74. 74. Good news on Alternatives Solar Thermal
  75. 75. … solar thermal (CSP)
  76. 76. Scalability : Land For All Electricity Carlo Rubbia, SolarPACES2006 earthobservatory.nasa.gov All Worldwide Electricity
  77. 77. USA… Looking Good Source: Creating a U.S. Market for Solar Energy, by Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association. Germany: 57% world PV US: 7% world PV
  78. 78. Area requirements to power the USA (150 km) 2 of Nevada covered with 15% efficient solar cells could provide the USA with electricity Source: J.A. Turner, Science 285 1999, p. 687. ½ as much land with 30% efficient turbines
  79. 79. The CSP Technologies Towers Troughs Dishes
  80. 80. Dish-Engine www.stirlingenergy.com
  81. 81. Power Towers Solar Two, 10MW, Barstow, CA
  82. 82. Parabolic Troughs Solar Electric Generating Stations, 354MW, Boron and Harper Lake, CA
  83. 83. 5MW CLFR collector (100’ x 1000’)
  84. 84. Ausra CLFR <ul><li>Benefits of CLFR: </li></ul><ul><li>Sturdy, low cost construction </li></ul><ul><li>Primary components steel, glass, water </li></ul><ul><li>Efficient use of land </li></ul><ul><li>Air cooled; minimal water use </li></ul><ul><li>No toxic materials </li></ul><ul><li>Easily protected from hail and dust storms </li></ul><ul><li>Can by hybridized with fossil fuel plants </li></ul>
  85. 85. Solar Thermal Power Plant Copyright © Ausra, Inc. 2007 280C 50bar Up to 20 hours energy storage Increase capacity factor by building larger solar field. Basic 180MW plant is 640 acres
  86. 86. Solar Baseload Pricing Solar Peaking Pricing
  87. 87. Solar Baseload Pricing Solar Peaking Pricing Trough 2007 DPT 2007 Trough 2011 DPT 2011 VK 2011
  88. 88. Net Impact of Time-Of-Day (Including Thermal Storage) Trough 2007 Trough 2011 Solar Baseload Pricing Solar Peaking Pricing DPT 2007 DPT 2011 VK 2011
  89. 89. Poised for Breakaway Growth ? <ul><li>Crossing Gas Prices </li></ul><ul><li>Meeting IGCC Prices (2008-09) </li></ul><ul><li>Large Capital Flows Will Follow Costs </li></ul>
  90. 90. EGS Technology How it works Source: MIT
  91. 91. Geothermal Potential Source: Matthew Clyne, Black Mountain Technology, MIT Geothermal Potential in the United States 10¢ kW/hr 1,251 GW 12¢ kW/hr 7,188 GW
  92. 92. … or get to work
  93. 93.
  94. 94. BioPlastics – the next cycle?
  95. 95. Applications of BioPlastics
  96. 96. Competitive Landscape Source: Sustainable chemicals Report – Chevreux
  97. 97. Plenty of Markets! Source: Sustainable chemicals Report – Chevreux
  98. 98. Plenty of Upside! Source: Sustainable chemicals Report – Chevreux
  99. 99. ...replaced all 300 Billion lbs of plastics ? …how much land would it take?
  100. 100. Oil Refinery Concept
  101. 101. Bio-Refinery Concept
  102. 102. Twelve Platform Chemicals Succinic Acid FDCA 3-HP Aspartic Acid Glucanic Acid Glutamic Acid Itaconic Acid Levulinic Acid 3-HDL Glycerol Sorbitol Xylitol
  103. 103. Hieroglyphic Writings… A specimen of an Egyptian language writing ca. 530 B.C. ca. 2000 A.D. A version of graphic representation of “ Top 12 DOE platform chemicals from glucose” letters  syllables  words  poems
  104. 104. Enabling Renewable Value Chains for Sustainable Chemical Industry Renewable Feedstocks (crops & forestry) Industrial Bioproducts New Industrial Bioproducts Triglycerides (vegetable oils) Soybean, Linseed, Corn, Canola Carbohydrates Starch Sucrose Cellulose/Wood Bioplastics Specialty polymers Polymer additives Performance Surfactants Adhesives Coalescent Solvents Other Biodiesel Compound set A Compound set B Fuel ethanol Compound C Other Products Technologies: Synergy of Renewable Feedstocks
  105. 105. … bottled water renewable???
  106. 106. 3-hydroxypropionic acid 1,3-propanediol EEP acrylamide acrylic acid malonic acid poly(hydroxypropionate) dehydration oxidation hydrogenation
  107. 107. 3-HP Derivatives
  108. 108. Succinic Acid as a Platform Succinic Acid Sources: MBI, Zeikus, et.al 1999; Sado, et.al, 1980; Dake, et.al. 1987 THF 1,4-Butanediol Polyurethanes Aliphatic Polyesters Polycarbonates PBT Polycarbonate/PBT Blends Solvents New TPE’s Salt Replacements Crop Growth Promoters N-Methyl Pyrolidone Adipic Acid Hexanediamine Nylon
  109. 109. Succinic Acid Derivatives
  110. 110. Lactic Acid As a Platform Lactic Acid PLA Propylene Glycol Acrylic Acid Lactate Esters Solvents Polyacrylic Acid Polyurethanes Polyesters Polycarbonates Propylene Oxide Epoxides Chiral Synthons New Amino Acids Pharmaceutical Precursors High Performance Materials TPE’s Resins Food Additives
  111. 111. PLA Derivatives
  112. 112. Levulinic Acid Derivatives
  113. 113. DuPont Sorona http://www.azom.com/images/dn_photo_swim229x275.jpg DuPont Sorona http://www.dupont.com/corp/news/daily/images/dn_photo_sorona270x270.jpg DuPont Sonona http://www.jobwerx.com/images/DuPont_sorona_apparel.jpg DuPont Sorona polymer; part of polymer is 1,3-propanediol from fermentation
  114. 114. <ul><li>● Enzymes </li></ul><ul><li>● Organisms </li></ul><ul><li>● Selective catalysts </li></ul><ul><li>Heavy Metals </li></ul><ul><li>Organic </li></ul><ul><li>Petroleum </li></ul><ul><li>● Environment </li></ul><ul><li>● People </li></ul><ul><li>Higher inherent risk </li></ul><ul><li>● Pressure </li></ul><ul><li>● Temperature </li></ul><ul><li>Petroleum based </li></ul><ul><li>Rigid discipline silos </li></ul><ul><li>Who cares? </li></ul>A Change of Paradigm Old New Catalyst Solvent System Raw Material Source Harmful Impacts Production Risk Energy _ Sustainability Water Renewable Low to no negative impacts Lower inherent risk Renewable energy Cross discipline team A new attribute

×