Autonomous Vehicle Consultant

SBIR Consultant – Market Analysis: There are many issues of importance to be stressed in writing a competitive SBIR proposal. One of these is market analysis: urgent need for your innovation, your competition, showstopper issues, cost, and policy/legal impediments. The blog below is an example of a snapshot market analysis where fossil fuel technologies command far more ‘respect’ from Congress than renewable energy technologies. Thus, it will be an up hill battle for the clean energy community to make impressive in roads against embedded sway. Does your innovation face this challenge? 

New Energy Plan from the Democrats: “Leading Senate Democrats unveiled their vision Tuesday (9/22/15) for a comprehensive energy policy overhaul that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through new technology. The legislative proposal, put together by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, combines tax policy changes, emission reduction goals and research with smaller provisions, seeking to rapidly grow low- and zero-carbon energy in the United States.”

The discussion below summarizes some of the obstacles that must be overcome regarding solar PV to achieve the Democrat’s energy plan. Similar considerations hold for wind technology. 

Pitiful State of U.S. Solar PV: Solar PV in the United States has demonstrated remarkable growth in capacity (i.e., MW), but lags terribly in actual electricity production (i.e., MWh). For example, “Solar electricity generating capacity grew by a factor of 35 between 2000 and 2013 and currently accounts for 0.5% of annual U.S. electricity generation. PV cumulative capacity increased 65% in 2013 alone.” Figure 1 shows the percentage of electrical energy produced by several different generator technologies during 2013. The production from solar PV is overshadowed by coal, natural gas and nuclear, and even wind to a lesser extent.

                                                                  1.  Coal   2.Natural Gas   3.Nuclear  4.Wind  5. Solar

Figure 1. U.S. Net Electrical Energy Production by Source in 2013 (Source E.I.A. Electric Power 2012 & Electric Monthly, April 2014)

Solar and Lobbying: There is at least one, albeit frequently ignored reason, why solar PV lags other electricity production technologies. Figure 2 illustrates the amount of lobbying money spent by coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind and solar industries. Notice how Figures 1 and 2 are closely correlated. This money is lavished upon Congress to influence legislation leading to tax breaks and regulatory favors for non-renewable electric generation energy sources at the expense of other technologies. Let’s be honest: coal, natural gas and nuclear have no business interest in renewable energies. Thus, at the Federal level, there is an energy policy based on influence money and not on the best interest of the country. Please see this link from the Union of Concerned Scientists

                                                       1. Coal   2. Natural Gas   3. Nuclear   4. Wind   5. Solar

Figure 2. Money spent lobbying in 2014 by electricity generation industries (Source: OpenSecrets.org)

German Solar PV Progress: In contrast, “Solar power in Germany consists almost exclusively of photovoltaics (PV) and accounted for an estimated 6.2 to 6.9 percent of the country’s net-electricity generation in 2014…The official governmental goal is to continuously increase renewables’ contribution to the country’s overall electricity consumption. Long-term minimum targets are 35% by 2020, 50% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.” At the national level in this country, there are no admirable goals for solar PV, except to preserve the revenue stream of non-renewable energy technologies.

J. H. Everson SBIR Consultant

“350.org is building a global climate movement…The number 350 means climate safety: to preserve a livable planet, scientists tell us we must reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from its current level of 400 parts per million to below 350 ppm… We believe that a global grassroots movement can hold our leaders accountable to the realities of science and the principles of justice.”

A technique employed by 350.org involves fossil fuel stock divestment by individuals and organizations. Getting people to sell their fossil fuel stock may force that industry to ‘retool’ and pursue renewable energy technologies to sustain their revenue stream. Here are a few challenges that must be overcome to achieve success:

• ‘Retooling’ assumes that enough people will sell their fossil fuel stocks and that this industry will succumb to the financial pressure. How much pressure will be enough? Will Oil & Gas forego their huge investment already made in exploration, well completion, oil/ gas pipeline transmission/ distribution networks, refining and retail sales?
• Another issue is that Oil & Gas are inexorably entwined in our economy. For example, the rise and fall of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the last 30 years correlates well with variations in oil consumption. How will the expanded use of renewable technologies and the decline of fossil fuels affect the GDP
• 350.org, may want to also consider how political campaign contributions affect the regulatory and tax processes for the benefit of fossil fuel industries and to the detriment of renewable energy organizations.

350.org hopes that a critical mass of people will coalesce around fossil fuel stock divesture and pursue renewable energy (i.e., reach a “Tipping Point”). In contrast, the German government plans to achieve 40 percent renewable energy by 2025. Which approach has the best chance of success? Bottom up (people) or top down (government)?

J. H. Everson SBIR Consultant

SBIR Consultant – Market Analysis: There are many issues of importance to be stressed in writing a competitive SBIR proposal. One of these is market analysis: urgent need for your innovation, your competition, showstopper issues, cost, and policy/legal impediments. The blog below is an example of a snapshot market analysis where the American market for off shore wind turbines has made little commercial success compared to the European Union. One would have to ask why. Lack of Government support? Unassailable wall from the fossil fuel industry? Possible reason for 0 to 584: the E.U. does not have a bloated military budget as does the U.S. Does your innovation face this challenge?

United States: With a Gross Domestic Product Product (GDP) of $17.4T in 2014, the U.S. is finally embarking on an offshore wind turbine project.

In July 2015, “American offshore wind developer, Deepwater Wind, installed the first foundation for what is expected to be the first offshore wind farm in the United States. The project will be located three miles southeast of Block Island, Rhode Island.”

European Union: In contrast to the U.S. late start with offshore wind, the European Union (GDP of $18.5T in 2014) has achieved the following offshore wind development by June 2015:

“584 wind turbines were fully grid connected, totaling 2,342.9 MW (up 200% compared to the same period last year) in twelve wind farms: DanTysk (DE), Gwynt y Mor (UK), Humber Gateway (UK), Westermost Rough (UK), Amrumbank West (DE), Baltic 2 (DE), Borkum Riffgrund I (DE), Butendiek (DE), Global Tech 1 (DE). Luchterduinen (NL), Nordsee Ost (DE), and Trianel Windpark Borkum (DE).” Note that DE indicates Germany.

SBIR Consultant – Market Analysis: There are many issues of importance to be stressed in writing a competitive SBIR proposal. One of these is market analysis: urgent need for your innovation, your competition, showstopper issues, cost, and policy/legal impediments. The blog below is an example of a snapshot market analysis where the use of robots to repair corroded pipelines might be viewed with enthusiasm. In some instances, this is probably true. However, some years ago, I worked for an engineering company that offered such robots. In some cases, sales were thwarted because some pipeline companies did not want to invest in such robots because said companies would have to pay for the repairs. Does your innovation face this challenge?

Greater quantities of natural gas are being produced for electricity generation in New England. However, this gas is flowing through aged pipelines leading to enormous fugitive emissions. The table below shows net energy production due to natural gas from 2000 to 2014, according to the Independent System Operator of New England (ISO NE).

As more and more natural gas flow through corroded pipelines, the likelihood of fugitive emissions increases with horrible environmental consequences as discussed below.

Based on the following statement, the ISO of NE noted that the transition from oil and coal has reduced emissions.

That latter statement is true. However, it totally ignores the fact that “American consumers are paying billions of dollars for natural gas that never reaches their homes, but instead leaks from aging distribution pipelines, contributing to climate change, threatening public health, and sometimes causing explosions,” according to a staff report prepared for Senator Edward Markey (D, MA).

Excerpts from the Markey Report

“Gas distribution companies in 2011 reported releasing 69 billion cubic feet of natural gas to the atmosphere, almost enough to meet the state of Maine’s gas needs for a year and equal to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of about six million automobiles.”

“Natural gas has been touted as a cleaner alternative to coal for producing electricity, but its environmental benefits cannot be fully realized so long as distribution pipelines are leaking such enormous quantities of gas, which is primarily comprised of methane, a greenhouse gas that is at least 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Americans also remain at risk from gas explosions and other safety hazards caused by leaky natural gas pipelines.”

“…Gas companies in Massachusetts own and operate one of America’s oldest natural gas pipeline distribution systems, ranking sixth among state systems in the number of miles of main distribution pipelines made of cast iron or bare steel. These companies have replaced less than 4 percent of their leak- prone pipes per year while billing Massachusetts ratepayers an estimated $640 million to $1.5 billion from 2000-2011 for unaccounted for gas.”

Repairing Aged Pipelines: Fixing the problem of fugitive emissions is painfully slow. Why? The graph below shows the amount of lobby money spent by the natural gas industry. Fair to say that it is cheaper to lobby Congress than repair 91,000 miles of pipelines across 46 states. Too bad about the environment.

I wrote this Earth Day reflection from the perspective of a grandparent. It summarizes the accomplishments of Earth Day and how so much more needs to be done for the planet and our grandchildren.

Earth Day started in April 22, 1970 by Senator Gaylord Nelson, who channeled the momentum of the anti Vietnam war movement to raise awareness of gluttonous gasoline consumption, sickening exhaust emissions from vehicles, industrial smoke stack pollution, along with air and water contamination.

The first Earth Day led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts. This was due to the political alignment of Democrats, Republicans, labor leaders, and the wealthy.

There have been successive Earth Day events since 1970 with millions participating at home and overseas. Yet in spite of the Earth Day movement, environmental conditions are worsening and affecting our weather, oceans, snow, ice, ecosystems, and society. In addition to natural causes, human use of fossil fuels is aggravating matters by the emissions of billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year.

With ever-greater emissions, our grandchildren will encounter an increasingly hostile planet where mere survival will be difficult. They will probably experience more devastating hurricanes, greater number of destructive tornadoes, vast sections of mid west drought that will ruin crops, almost total elimination of glaciers, extinction of polar bears and other species, flooded coastal regions and fires that will exhaust equipment and personnel to contain them.

There is modest hope to limit the effects of climate change according to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.

1. Replace corporate and income taxes with a carbon tax
2. Borrow money to invest in infrastructure
3. Make permanent tax incentives for renewable energies
4. Insure that no more coal-fired power plants will be built

However, these steps will probably not happen due to the enormous influence exerted on Congress and the White House by political campaign contributions from oil/gas and coal industries. If millions of people insisted, political indebtedness could be curtailed by severely limiting political campaign contributions, perhaps according to the Canadian Election Acts.

Thus, we could get on with saving the environment for our grandchildren.  My granddaughters, Vivian, Charlotte, and Leah will be in their early twenties in another 20 years. I don’t want them to remember me as part of the Worst Generation, myopically focused on creating shareholder value and fixated on the next multi-year, presidential fund-raising cycle.  And, most of all, I want an inhabitable earth for them.

J. H. Everson SBIR Consultant