Friday, October 9, 2009

The Solar Industry Gains Ground

Fast Company Magazine Article
Article location: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/131/solar-goes-supernova.html
November 25, 2008

At a time of economic pain and planetary peril, a renewable global powerhouse takes shape. Just when we need it most.

solar energy,alternative energy


By Chris Turner
To get a sense of just how bright and sunshiny the future looks to the solar-energy industry, consider The Graph: It's a standard affair, projecting solar's share of global energy production over the coming century. The Graph [1] was created by a scientific organization that counsels the German government, but it has since become a prized piece of propaganda, embedded in glossy brochures and PowerPoint presentations by solar companies from California to gray-skied Saxony. At the left-hand, present-tense end of the scale, solar power is a microscopic pencil line of gold against the thick, dark bands of oil and natural gas and coal, an accurate representation of the 0.04% of the world's electricity produced by solar power as of 2006. The band grows slowly thicker for 20 years or so, and then around 2040 a dramatic inversion occurs. The mountain-peak lines indicating the various fossil fuels all fall steeply away, leaving a widening maw of golden light as solar power expands to fill the space. By 2060, solar power is the largest single band, and by 2100 it is by far the majority share.

This has always been solar energy's tantalizing promise, since the first photovoltaic (PV) cells emerged out of Bell Labs in the 1950s to power space probes and ignite the dreams of a generation of giddy utopian dreamers. Solar energy is as plentiful as daylight, as limitless as organic life itself, a fuel that comes free of charge and replenishes itself every time the earth rotates on its axis. Almost all energy, after all, is ultimately stored solar power: Oil, gas, and coal were born of the ancient sunlight that fed prehistoric animals and plants, the wind is set howling by the sun's unequal heating of the atmosphere, and even a campfire draws its warmth from solar power trapped long ago through photosynthesis. Enough radiation from the massive fusion reactor at the center of our solar system hits the earth every hour to fill all of its energy needs for a year.

Fifty years on, the PV cell remains the most effective engine yet devised for the conversion of sunlight into electricity. The core of every PV cell is a semiconductor, traditionally a highly purified wafer of crystalline polysilicon, virtually identical to the "chips" upon which computer circuits are built. When sunlight strikes the semiconductor, its atoms get excited; if the light beam's photons pack a sufficient punch, they knock the semiconductor's electrons loose for collection by the PV cell's circuits, creating an electric current. Assemble a handful of these cells in a glass frame and wire it to a battery or a power grid, and you have got a solar panel (or module, as it's sometimes called in the industry). A small, pollution-free power plant. Compared to splitting an atom or sucking liquefied phytoplankton from 300-million-year-old bedrock, it's practically child's play.

Solar has nevertheless been stuck for decades in the future tense. PV cells have been too inefficient and too expensive, or too reliant on a fickle sun. But the solar industry has recently made a dramatic leap from the feel-good margins to the mainstream. An unprecedented production boom began around 2004, well before the rise and current fall in crude-oil prices; that boom continues unabated and has led to plunging costs, vastly more rational supply chains, and record-setting gains in the efficiency of traditional crystalline silicon cells (the best now conduct electricity at efficiency rates almost 30% better than the lab record of 2003). In the past 50 years, about 10 gigawatts of solar power -- roughly the output of 10 standard nuclear reactors -- have been installed worldwide. But current estimates, which have been modified only upward in recent years, are that 10 gigawatts more will be brought online in 2010 alone.

A new global industry is taking shape before our eyes. A journey through this energy revolution suggests that the age of truly ubiquitous solar may at last have begun. Solar's emerging titans are scattered across three continents and three technological generations -- from established crystalline PV manufacturers in California to newer "thin film" cells now reaching mass-production scale in Germany and to even third-generation compounds being developed in Australia that can be integrated into building materials to deliver power in the darkest shade. Even in this time of enormous financial uncertainty (not to mention a deepening concern, if not panic, about the health of the planet), the sense of boundless potential, the promise of The Graph, is palpable. Erik Straser, who oversees the clean-energy portfolio at Mohr Davidow Ventures in Silicon Valley, puts it this way: "Sometimes I ask myself, 'If this company was successful, would people name libraries and public high schools after it?' Who made the steam engine? Who made the lightbulb? Who will those people be for the 21st century? Who's the person that made mass-market solar affordable?"

A global industry is taking shape, with the hottest spots in Silicon Valley, Germany, and Australia. The age of truly ubiquitous solar may at last have begun.
Back in the present tense, in the piercing glare of a July morning in Silicon Valley, I'm shielded by the smoked glass of a standard-issue corner office. Tom Werner, CEO of SunPower, America's largest PV manufacturer by revenue, sits across from me at a glass-topped conference table, essentially making the case that he's that guy, the godfather of cheap solar. One of them, anyway.

"The hypothesis of SunPower," Werner tells me, his argument bottom-line blunt, "was take a high-technology, high-efficiency solar cell and mass-produce it at low cost. And it worked." He slides a small pane of glass out of a file folder. It's about the size of a household floor tile and inlaid with a blue-black hexagonal pattern. This is SunPower's PV cell, which, at 22% efficiency, holds the world record for a commercial product. (The industry average is about 16%.) He holds it up for my inspection, and I notice the hexagons are identical to the ones on the tabletop between us, which turns out to be a large SunPower panel mounted on four legs. "As you create this market for solar," Werner says, "you create the opportunity to scale. And so what happens is, you innovate your way down the cost curve."

Werner strikes me as exactly the type of hypercompetitive, profit-obsessed executive the solar industry had long been lacking. At 48, he's trim and athletically wiry, with tidy side-parted hair and a goatee. He slurs a bit through gritted teeth as we talk because the night before, in a rec-league basketball game, he caught an elbow that drove his incisors through his lower lip. "I'll get that guy," he tells me. I'd bet on it.

Werner's spiel might sound like textbook, first-year MBA stuff, but the second part of it -- the cost-reducing, mass-producing part -- was mostly absent from the solar industry for its first half-century. Incremental efficiency gains were the industry's core focus, and solar companies tended to be small and mission-driven, with a university lab's sense of priorities. SunPower was, until recently, no exception: Founded in 1985 by a Stanford engineering professor, it spent its first 15 years building solar-powered aircraft prototypes for NASA and sci-fi solar concentrators shaped like satellite dishes.

"What's the purpose of solar?" Werner asks, switching to rhetorical mode. "It's to get energy, right? So then the question is, Will the cost of solar energy converge on the cost of the way you get energy otherwise? And in the '70s, the answer was definitively no." The answer was still a pretty strong no when Werner took the helm of SunPower in 2003. He'd been transferred from Cypress Semiconductor, which had recently bought the company, and was given the monumental task of bringing the price down to mass-market rates.

"Today," he says, "the cost of the grid's gone like this." He slices his hand sharply upward, indicating the skyrocketing price of conventional energy. "And the cost of solar is coming down. So that crossover point is imminent."

Werner calls that point the "levelized cost of energy," but in most of the industry the preferred term is "grid parity" -- that magic moment, which may arrive by 2012 or even sooner in heavily subsidized energy markets such as California, Germany, Italy, and Japan, when the price of a kilowatt-hour of solar energy is about the same as one generated by any other fuel source. Grid parity: It obsesses solar executives like a grail, rolls off their lips like a forceful boast or a solemn promise. Grid parity: not if, no longer if. Only when.

Under Werner, SunPower has rapidly reinvented itself, catapulting from the lab to the center of an exploding global market. At every turn, he and his team uncovered the weaknesses and irrationalities of an immature industry, particularly at the postproduction end, where installation costs often represent 50% of the total price of a PV system. In response, the company simply expanded into those markets. SunPower is unique in the business today in that it manages essentially its entire supply chain, from silicon ingot to installation. "We've industrialized this industry," says vice president Julie Blunden.

The company's timing has been impeccable. Every year since Werner's arrival, the global solar industry has grown by at least 40%. It has jumped from humble residential roofs to the wide, flat expanses of big-box stores and office parks, and graduated from rooftop array to greenfield power plant. Solar power was the planet's fastest growing energy source in 2007, and in recent years, demand has outpaced supply and given rise to the industrial-scale solar business's enviable lament: No company could seem to manufacture PV panels fast enough to meet demand. Today, solar is a $13 billion global industry, and it'll hit $40 billion by 2012 (unless it exceeds forecasts for the next five years as it has for the past five). Gigawatt-scale "fabs" -- that is, single production lines capable of producing enough panels every year to add 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity to the global energy mix -- are in the works in Germany, China, and Japan, while several American companies are poised to soon reach similar levels of production. SunPower's 2007 revenue came in at $775 million, triple the 2006 figure. The company estimates it will clear $1 billion -- with $90 million in profit -- in 2008.

Solar is a $13 billion industry today. It will hit $40 billion by 2012, unless it continues to exceed forecasts, as it has over the past five years.
Critics of crystalline PV -- particularly the heads of newfangled thin-film solar companies eyeing crystalline's 86% market share -- continue to suggest that it might never be produced cheaply or quickly enough to compete with other power sources in the long term. But when I present this critique to Werner, he responds with a sotto voce dismissal -- "Well, it's ridiculous" -- and then bullet-points me through SunPower's bona fides: that record 22% efficiency (against thin film's paltry 8% to 12%), its reductions in hardware and installation costs, its rapid expansion to 400-plus megawatts of production capacity. The thin-film startups can wave around all the jaw-dropping cost-per-watt estimates they want (some claiming production costs as low as $1 per watt, versus crystalline PV's average of $3 or more per watt), but Werner just points to SunPower's completed projects. Its recent installation at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada was the largest PV plant in North America when it was completed last April: 70,000 panels mounted on 5,300 of SunPower's new tracking racks, which use GPS to adjust the panels' positions minute by minute, improving efficiency up to 30% all by themselves. (At least six much larger projects, including two by SunPower, are now in the works.) The tracking system, Werner tells me, is just one of the 185 patented technologies by which SunPower intends to stay well ahead of the thin-film arrivistes. As for nuke, with its 10-year-minimum lead times? "One nice way to get out of a nuclear argument is to say, 'Well, I'm worried about the next decade.' " And what about coal, trying to reverse the tide as more than 60 proposed plants are denied permits in the United States in the last year alone? "Fighting gravity."

Of course, there are caveats. Disclaimers and indemnities and asterisks. As Neal Dikeman, a partner at clean-tech investment firm Jane Capital Partners, argues, the variables built into the cost of a kilowatt-hour of electricity are so numerous and byzantine that grid parity itself may be an illusory near-term goal. The sunniest estimates of that blessed event, Dikeman notes, are based on the cost of generating more power when the demand is highest. But this peak-demand power -- the kind required by millions of air-conditioners at midday in California -- is only a single-digit percentage of the total generating capacity on most electricity grids, and the cost of producing the juice is just one of many line items on the average power bill, alongside transmission, distribution, and maintenance costs. And in solar's case, there's also the cost of reconfiguring the grid to account for hundreds of thousands of small-scale installations. So what does the version of grid parity touted by solar boosters amount to? "A legitimate sales tactic," Dikeman suggests, which "takes the best case to justify a subsidy to get down the cost curve." He says true grid parity is "still close to a decade down that curve."

Dikeman's guess is probably as good as any on that score, and he's certainly right that the solar industry's rise has depended on subsidies. Solar's growth has been largely driven by legislators, goosed along by various tariffs and tax incentives. But the energy business has long been a lonely place for free marketeers: According to British investment firm Ambrian Capital, the global renewable-energy industry receives about $11 billion in subsidies each year, versus $200 billion for fossil fuels, already a wildly profitable industry. So what's a clean, limitless power source worth? And what scale could solar reach if there were a similar national investment behind it? If U.S. capacity ramped up to equal the 10 gigawatts expected to come online worldwide in 2010, that would be enough to power 3 million homes and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions equivalent to taking 22 million cars off the road. As BP likes to say, it's a start.

The global renewable-energy industry receives about $11 billion in subsidies each year, versus more than $200 billion for fossil fuels.
Oil companies might greet such numbers with an eye roll, but solar execs are quick to point out how far the industry has come. They like to quote solar's emerging corollary to Moore's Law, that digital-age observation that a semiconductor's processing power doubles every two years, even as prices plummet: The cost of solar, they'll tell you, drops by 20% every time volume doubles, and the market of the past 10 years has borne this out. The idea of industrial-scale solar power seems even less naive and futuristic when you look at California, which has become the main production hub and primary market in the United States. True, the state is riding a $3.3 billion earmark package from Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration, but the impact of those incentives is impressive. One installer, Solar City, has grown from nothing to $29 million in annual sales in just two years. Another, Akeena Solar, has moved out of its founder's garage to 12 offices nationwide.

Then there's Applied Materials, a $10 billion Silicon Valley giant that built its fortune by producing manufacturing equipment for computer chips and flat-panel displays. Back in 2004, while it was struggling to recover from the dotcom bust, Applied went looking for new markets and quickly discovered that the cost of a solar panel was dropping with almost semiconductor quickness and that its manufacture looked quite a bit like making computer chips or giant LCD screens. That was more than enough to spur the company to a substantial expansion into the solar market. "When I went to the board in 2005, we said, 'This looks like it'll be a $500 million business in 2010,' " says Mark Pinto, Applied's chief technology officer. "And people said, 'Wow, you know, that's pretty good.' Now we're talking about $3 billion -- plus." A single Chinese startup, Best Solar, accounts for $1.9 billion of those sales; it plans to have Applied's thin-film SunFab machinery driving its production line by early 2009 -- and to reach 1 gigawatt of annual capacity by 2011. "Thin film is more utility scale," says Chris Beitel, who oversees Applied's solar operations. "It's not about the residential rooftop. It's about larger commercial rooftop areas, it's about office parks -- those are the areas where we're going to succeed."

But try telling that to Tom Werner. Under one recent contract, SunPower blanketed the roofs of 28 California Macy's stores in PV, the majority of them under a "power purchase agreement" that is quickly becoming the commercial-roofing standard. Under the deal, Macy's leases the rooftop space to SunPower for free and agrees to buy the panels' output at a fixed rate for the next 10 years. Macy's gets a competitive and stable electricity price in a volatile market, and SunPower simply gets a market. (Maryland-based SunEdison, which closed a $131 million round of venture funding in May, has solar-tiled the big-box tops of hundreds of Staples, Kohl's, U-Store-It, and Whole Foods stores in California and beyond under the same kind of arrangement.) In mid-August, SunPower announced the biggest deal in its history, a contract to supply California utility giant PG&E with 250 megawatts of PV. This comes as part of a commitment by PG&E to construct two mammoth solar farms by 2011, capable of generating 800 megawatts of power -- significantly more than the entire existing PV capacity nationwide. "This pair of deals actually changes the landscape of the solar PV industry," says Roy Kuga, vice president of energy supply at PG&E. SunPower's Blunden is even more ecstatic: "This is historic, monumental, tectonic -- those are superlatives that are fair to apply to the announcement."

It just might be, in other words, the solar industry's very own Hoover Dam -- the birth of the utility-scale solar industry in the United States. Which, by the way, is nowhere near the global industry's epicenter.

Solar power's rise has been fueled by sporadic bursts of political vision and courage. The ascent begins in Japan, where in 1994 the government introduced an incentive package in which it agreed to pick up fully half the cost of every installed panel for 10 years, spurring a handful of old-guard electronics firms to go industrial -- Sharp, in particular, still the No. 2 global producer. The recent and much more robust solar boom, however, began with Germany's Renewable Energy Sources Act. The German law, passed in 2000 (and since copied from China to California), is a "feed-in tariff" that obliges electricity retailers to buy power from renewable sources at above-market rates. The rates decline by a certain percentage each year for 20 years, depending on the source, at which point grid parity is presumed to carry on the work. An overhaul in 2004 placed particular emphasis on solar: Small, rooftop installations, for example, sell electricity back to the German grid at about six times baseline prices.

The German solar business promptly went supernova, precipitating a global polysilicon shortage from which the industry has only just recovered. (Silicon is the second-most-abundant element in the earth's crust and a chief ingredient in much of the world's sand, but silicon-processing companies were slow to realize they had an entirely new class of customer.) More than 100 solar companies have since set up shop in Germany -- more than half of them in the former East Germany (GDR) -- and now employ 57,000 workers and generate $7.3 billion in annual revenues. Seven of these firms have already vaulted onto the TecDAX 30, the technology index on Germany's stock exchange, now sometimes jokingly referred to as the "solar DAX."

The geographic center of the rapidly expanding German solar business is a decaying industrial belt south of Berlin, an East German reliquary that had been trapped in a seemingly terminal decline since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The world's first solar heartland has emerged literally in the shadow of communism's ruin, a place kissed by about as much sunlight each year as southern Alaska. A place with a name that sounds like a bad-weather curse: Bitterfeld.

Back in the days before the Wall tumbled, there was a German saying that went something like this: If we don't meet in this world, we'll meet in Bitterfeld. A once-proud little industrial burgh -- Agfa developed the first color photographic film in the area in the years before World War II -- Bitterfeld had been buried under an industrial blight so savage it seemed otherworldly. It had been turned into the Eastern Bloc's chemical and pharmaceutical workhorse after the war, dooming it to half a century of sloppy Soviet-style industrialization and a flagrant disregard for the environment. When the Wall finally fell, 55,000 of the 60,000 jobs in Bitterfeld's outmoded factories promptly evaporated.

The scars are still plainly visible in the boarded windows fronting the sturdy old brick buildings downtown and the industrial detritus beneath the rail-yard overpass, but I sweep past them in a smart new Mercedes taxi, bound for the site of Bitterfeld's startling renaissance. Out beyond the befouled chemical plants, on the edge of a village called Thalheim, I find a gentle hollow rapidly filling up with low warehouses; construction cranes and wind turbines stand against the gray horizon. This out-of-the-way industrial park has come to be known as Solar Valley, and the sprawling complex at its center houses the operations of Q-Cells, the biggest company by market cap on the TecDAX and, since mid-2007, the world's largest manufacturer of crystalline PV cells.

"We liken it to the car industry and say the status we're now at -- the cells you see out there -- that's kind of Tin Lizzy," Stefan Dietrich, the company's head of public relations, tells me. "That's the T-Model Ford. That's where we're standing."

Dietrich means it metaphorically -- that the whole industry stands at that birth-of-an-industrial-age spot -- but he could just as accurately make the case that solar's industrial age was born here, in this cafeteria, with the stern chemical industry vets in coveralls on one side, chain-smoking through their lunch hour, and the business-casual crowd from Berlin and beyond munching salads on the other.

One of the curious things about the GDR's chemical business, Dietrich explains, is that it bred workers skilled at applying chemical sealants to glass, an essential step in the production of a solar cell. So a trio of Berlin scientists and their partner, drawn by this skilled workforce and the ample subsidies available to any enterprise willing to relocate to the former GDR, began production in Thalheim in 2001. Having started in the cottage-scale solar business, they knew how hard it was to find a reliable supplier of PV cells, so they focused exclusively on making those. (This is like making engines instead of cars.) A staff of 19, including the founders, ran that first Q-Cells production line out of a quaint little wooden building. The company's payroll now numbers more than 2,000; annual revenue topped $1 billion in 2007 and will verge on $2 billion for 2008. The old wooden factory is all but smothered by the sleek, mirrored-glass facility in which Dietrich and I sit.

Dietrich mentions sort of offhandedly that Q-Cells might soon, by virtue of raw revenue alone, become the first TecDAX company ever to jump to the main stock exchange's DAX 30 -- alongside BMW and Deutsche Bank and ThyssenKrupp. "That really feels a bit strange," he says in his lightly accented English, his tone almost self-deprecating, like it can't quite be true.

After lunch, Dietrich and I don lab coats and booties to inspect the driver of this miraculous performance -- one of the five industrial-scale Q-Cells production lines up and running in Thalheim (two more are under construction). Dietrich leads me to a wide space filled with labyrinthine snakes of gleaming white metal and smoked glass linked together by robotic appendages and conveyor belts. "It looks like some '70s science-fiction movie," he tells me, hollering a bit over the machinery's hum as we watch flat squares of gray silicon cycle briskly through the system. These wafers, Dietrich notes, are barely half as thick as the ones used in 2003, and they come from REC, a Norwegian company that set up the first wafer plant dedicated solely to the solar industry. We follow along as the wafers pass through furnaces and chemical baths, get smeared with silver-aluminum paste and "printed" with electrical contacts. They turn deep blue and develop a mirror's sheen. In the final leg of the labyrinth, they are tested for efficiency (generally between 15% and 16.6%), stacked in cubes of 100, and packed in logoed boxes for worldwide shipment. The lines run three shifts a day, 24/7, churning out about 150 million cells per year -- 585 megawatts' worth this year, scaling up to a full gigawatt by the end of 2009. The foundation of a new German industrial powerhouse.

As the solar industry reaches maturity and expands into new markets, specialization has fast become the preferred business strategy. Highly efficient but relatively expensive crystalline PV cells such as Q-Cells' or SunPower's make sense if you're trying to power a home with limited roof area, but their efficiency comes at a lofty price. If you have an acre of rooftop (or a 100-acre field), then thin-film cells, which use nano-size layers of silicon or futuristic metal alloys -- either cadmium telluride (CdTe) or copper-indium-gallium-diselenide (CIGS) -- promise to do the job for a fraction of the cost. The thin-film game is dominated by ambitious startups, but Q-Cells, unique among first-generation solar companies, has jumped into the fray as well, launching a spin-off CdTe producer called Calyxo.

Unfortunately for the Germans, second-generation solar already has a superstar: Arizona-based First Solar, which has developed a CdTe panel for a production cost of an astounding $1.14 per watt, less than half the cost of its nearest rival at its debut. And by the end of 2009, the company plans to manufacture its revolutionary panels at gigawatt scale. CNBC's Jim Cramer has dubbed First Solar the "Intel of solar," helping to inflate its stock 1,000% over the course of 2007, peaking at 253 times earnings. The company's name now rolls off the tongues of even its most combative competitors with naked admiration.

Thanks largely to First Solar, second-generation thin-film technologies are now expected to grow even faster than the crystalline industry and to move from about a 14% market share to as much as 28% by 2010. That kind of growth attracts a crowd, of course, and already a would-be usurper claims to have bested First Solar's vertiginous dive down the cost curve with a rival technology. Nanosolar, based in San Jose, produced new CIGS panels for a test project last December that it claims will sell for 99 cents per watt -- 80% below the average for crystalline PV and more than 10% less than the production cost of First Solar's thin-film panels. That's low enough to flirt with grid parity in many markets even without a feed-in tariff. Nanosolar has secured $500 million in venture funding, $300 million of which it claims is still in the bank. That includes a $50 million deal with EDF of France, one of the world's largest utility companies -- just the sort of partnership that lends instant credibility to a risky new technology like CIGS.

Nanosolar's numbers have attracted such skepticism that its CEO, Martin Roscheisen, felt compelled to post a video clip to his blog demonstrating his company's new production tool in action. The video (which has drawn nearly 100,000 viewers since it was posted to YouTube in June) is a minute long and completely silent, with home-movie production values. Its sole subject is a large white chamber, which houses a machine capable of spreading Nanosolar's patented "nanoparticle ink" (CIGS semiconductor material in liquid form) onto a roll of flexible backing at the rate of a gigawatt per year.

According to Roscheisen's blog, the tool set the company back all of $1.65 million, which in this capital-intensive business is the equivalent of buying a license to print money. In fact, Roscheisen's revolutionary PV machine has more in common with a printer than it does with anything you'd find on the factory floor at Q-Cells. And if all goes according to plan, by early 2009 the machine will be the centerpiece of two up-and-running production lines, including a 500-megawatt facility located in -- naturlich -- a down-at-heel East German industrial town not far from Berlin.

In Nanosolar's repurposed beer-crate factory on the outskirts of Luckenwalde, I find Erik Oldekop, head of German operations. Oldekop offers me a tour of the half-empty factory floor, which is quickly filling with a range of conveyor-belted equipment and white robot arms to swish the cells from stage to stage in the production process. Oldekop points out a laminating machine that stacks 16 of the industry's standard laminators on top of each other -- a sixteenfold amplification, in other words, of a standard production line's throughput. "There's no reason why you couldn't have 100% of electricity generated by renewables," he tells me. "I'm not saying by solar, but by renewables, and solar is going to make a large contribution."

Anticipating my skepticism, Oldekop then draws an analogy between the energy business and the '80s-era conventional wisdom about mainframe computers. Nanosolar, he tells me, intends to begin by selling to Europe's myriad municipal utilities, small operations that can wire a 1-to-10-megawatt solar farm directly into the local grid, bypassing the costly national-grid transmission apparatus entirely. "Isn't the electricity company that actually uses central power plants -- isn't that the mainframe?" he suggests. "And we have very small power plants, 1 to 10 megawatts. Isn't that the PC?"

Radically distributed power production. That's the kind of talk that gets pulses racing, and I have to admit mine's doing exactly that as I follow Oldekop across the factory floor. Is this a Gatesian figure I've found here in the sleepy Saxon countryside? Could the solar skeptics be akin to the experts who reckoned, just 30 years ago, that computers would always be great whirring beasts that could never become more numerous than, say, power plants? Just 10 years ago -- maybe as recently as five -- I'm sure I could've filled Nanosolar's conference room with energy wonks who would have sworn I wouldn't be touring the nearly operational factory floor of a thin-film PV plant in eastern Germany in 2008. Of course, not even the Oldekops of the solar business think little sun-fueled power plants will be as ubiquitous as laptops a decade from now. But beyond that? The sky's the limit.

As persuasive as I find Oldekop's analogy, I still haven't laid eyes on a thin-film solar panel actually pumping out power by the kilowatt-hour. Fortunately, although First Solar is headquartered in Tempe, it too has a major manufacturing facility in eastern Germany. And so on one uncharacteristically bright morning, I take two trains and three buses out of Leipzig, then hike the last mile or so down a country road until I come, finally, to the site of First Solar's -- and the world's -- first industrial-scale thin-film power plant.

Maybe it's the Kremlinesque veil of silence around First Solar -- the unanswered emails and voice mails, the word from its local installation partner that there was "no chance" of a tour -- but as I trek up a dusty side lane, I half expect a Stasi jeep to come reeling around the corner. I slip past a low concrete restraining wall to find a high chain-link fence stretching away in either direction to points far over the horizon. Through the crosshatch I can see aluminum frames lined up row on row over an undulating pasture, filled to varying degrees with First Solar's thin-film panels.

So it exists. And it's growing: I can hear tools pounding on metal in the distance, and my six-month-old press release tells me at least 12.7 megawatts of thin-film solar produced here is powering German homes as I watch. When it's done, it will be, at 40 megawatts, Germany's largest solar installation, marking the commercial debut, after decades of lab-rat tinkering, of a second generation of solar power.

I have no direct experience with the wilds of Silicon Valley circa 1980, but I wonder if it felt about the same as this desultory industrial park in suburban Canberra, Australia. There's one of these, at any rate, on the outskirts of every city in the industrialized world -- a bland agglomeration of welding shops and fencing suppliers and landscaping companies housed in aluminum sheds in a dozen shades of beige. On one corner of this one, there's a small, single-story brick building with a couple of loading bays. Inside, I find an engineer hunched over a standard screen-printing machine, more or less identical to the ones they use to print Your Name Here on T-shirts down at the mall. He's using it to make solar cells.

The engineer's name is Graeme Evans, and he works for a small startup called Dyesol. He's dressed in a slightly ratty golf shirt, and if not for his blue surgical gloves, he could be working the drill press in his suburban garage. He's using the screen printer to spread a thin layer of yellowy goo on the surface of a rectangle of glass the size of a postcard, smearing it through a sort of stencil that divides it into six smaller strips in two rows.

The goo is titania -- titanium dioxide, more precisely, a plentiful, electricity-conducting material commonly used in toothpaste and paint -- and once it has dried, it leaves a porous coating of nanoparticles with an extraordinarily large surface area for such small strips. The glass panes will then be dipped in a rust-hued dye consisting most notably of a little-known metal called ruthenium and then fused to a second piece of glass coated in electrolyte. And that's how Dyesol makes its photovoltaics -- "dye solar cells" by name, a technology based on a breakthrough that emerged from a Swiss university in the late 1980s. The ruthenium dye absorbs available solar energy the way chlorophyll does, taking in electrons and transferring them to the titania layer to create electricity.

"The principle is just like a leaf," explains Sylvia Tulloch, cofounder of Dyesol. We're around the corner from the R&D building in a little green structure that looks like it should belong to a screen-door wholesaler. She points to a coaster on the conference-room table and to a patch of red berries in the festive scene it depicts. "As long as you can see that that's red, you know that it's absorbing light. And so it's not dependent on how much light is hitting it."

To her left, a handful of Dyesol cells have been mounted in a trade-show display stand. There are six small fans affixed to the sides of the stand, and they whir quietly as we talk. It's only when I stare down at the red berries on the coaster in the shadowy light that I get what's odd about that: We're indoors, and the room's windows are half-shaded by Venetian blinds. Dyesol's cells are spinning those fans with essentially no direct sunlight at all.

"That's one of the key advantages of dye-solar-cell technology," Tulloch explains. "It accepts light from all directions; it accepts light in all light conditions. And the other key advantage is its manufacturing process. You need very sophisticated equipment for either the first or the second generation, but for dye solar cells, there are kits sold for children. My son, when he was 9, made one and did a demonstration at school."

Dyesol is one of a rapidly expanding roster of firms worldwide experimenting with this third generation of solar technology -- a subsection of the lab usually referred to as "organic PV." Dyesol's key distinction, though, is its startling proximity to market readiness and the name of the business partner intending to bring it there: Corus, the industrial behemoth formerly known as British Steel. In early 2007, Dyesol signed a $1 million contract with Corus to assess the feasibility of incorporating dye solar cells into its prefinished-steel-roofing materials. Corus churns out 100 million square meters of this Colorcoat roofing for use in factories and warehouses each year -- more than enough to reroof every Wal-Mart in America -- and the process already involves applying layers of paint. Replace some random decorator color with the ability to generate clean power and the appeal would be obvious and enormous -- particularly in Europe, where makers and buyers of building materials are increasingly required to account for the emissions involved in producing them.

By the end of 2007, the project had cleared what Tulloch calls "the area of highest technical risk," in which it was determined that Dyesol's cells could in fact feasibly be printed on a massive unspooling roll of steel as it zooms down a production line at 3 to 5 meters per second. The government of Wales has since invested in the project, and Corus has converted one of its Welsh production lines into a demonstration facility for solar-coated steel roofing. The test phase continues through 2009, and there's little chance the product could be on the open market before 2011 -- which is likely why Corus is declining comment on the technology's potential for now "as a way of managing expectations."

Fair enough. After all, the prospect of Europe's second-largest steel producer integrating solar cells into 100 million square meters of roofing per year might set certain fevered minds racing.

"Can you imagine metal roofs all around the world that are power generators?" Dyesol COO Ross MacDiarmid asks me.

The truth is, I can. It doesn't even seem like an act of imagination anymore.

solar energy,alternative energy

Chris Turner is the author of Geography of Hope, a global survey of sustainable technology.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

A System's Approach to Sustainable Development

. . . "an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make money, at whatever cost to others, is seldom challenged."
~Rachel Carson

“Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development" . . .
~ A quote from the Plan of Implementation of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, cited by Ms Hilde Frafjord Johnson, Norway’s Minister of International Development on the GRID-Arendal website. GRID-Arendal is a collaborating centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)



This post is about the connections between poverty, social justice and building a sustainable future. Dr. Warren Flint, internationally-recognized expert on sustainable development, wrote a very insightful commentary on his website Five E's Unlimited titled, A System's Approach to Sustainable Development and can be found here.

"Sustainability is about a transformation of human consciousness. Social and economic systems that force people to live in ecologically degraded places or choose between rent and food are not sustainable."
~R. Warren Flint, Ph.D., Principal of Five E’s Unlimited

Sustainability is much more than being “Green”

In 1962, Rachel Carson published the book “Silent Spring,” which exposed the dangers of insecticides and inspired the environmental movement. Sadly, as E. O. Wilson observed in 2002, "we are still poisoning the air and water and eroding the biosphere"40 years after Rachel Carson started us thinking about these things. Society’s present situation can be summed up by human disregard of natural laws, which is having disastrous consequences for the future of all life on Earth. Along with the possibility of the extinction of mankind by nuclear war, the central problem of our age has become the contamination of human's total environment with such substances of incredible potential for harm — substances that accumulate in the tissues of plants and animals, in the atmosphere, and even penetrate the germ cells to shatter or alter the very material of heredity upon which the shape of the future depends. A world without plants, animals, birds and fish is not sustainable.

And a global society that is driven by the emotion of fear cannot find the answers. Sustainability is about a transformation of human consciousness that will allow our small, endangered planet and its interdependent species of plant and animal life to survive, endure, and thrive. Fear, anxiety and denial are not sustainable. Only hope and the courage to act decisively are sustainable. And this action for global change begins on the local level because we must take drastic action to reduce the depletion of resources, carbon emissions, and other pollutants, which includes educating for sustainability.

Unfortunately, most people think sustainability implies converting SUVs to run on salad oil, or heating our homes with cow chips instead of oil or gas. These actions could certainly help, but sustainability is not just about driving a hybrid car, recycling newspapers and cans, turning the thermostat down or replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents. It's also not only about putting up windmills and solar panels, although these are real money-savers for those who can afford them.

Sustainability implies informed civic engagement and working partnerships among diverse groups in the community systemically/simultaneously considering economic, social, and environmental needs so that all people can enjoy a decent quality of life. Social and economic systems that force people to live in ecologically degraded places or choose between rent and food are not sustainable. Poverty, illiteracy, and disease are not sustainable. Offering expensive catastrophic medical insurance in place of health care that supports wellness for every man, woman, and child is not sustainable. Racism, sexism and homophobia are not sustainable. Hatred, violence and war are not sustainable.

Sustainability is about cherishing biodiversity and human wellness, equity, and freedom. It means maintaining economic security without contaminating the water, soil, and air. It requires creating economic and social systems that concurrently meet human physical needs, such as adequate clothing and shelter, nutritious food, a good job, and affordable health care, along with needs of the spirit like music and laughter, family and friends, and enjoying the wonders of nature.

Modern agribusiness is not sustainable when we ship fresh food 1,500 miles in gas-guzzling trucks instead of supporting local family-owned organic farms. Profit-based corporate practices such as injecting carbon monoxide into beef to make it look fresh and adding high fructose corn syrup to a wide variety of foods and beverages to save money, in defiance of studies that show they cause brain damage, diabetes and cancer, are not sustainable. Strip malls and mega-chains that depend on cheap, dirty energy and exploited workers are not sustainable.

A sustainable society needs an educated workforce comprised of people who work with their hands — farmers, fishermen and skilled craft and trades people — as well as teachers, doctors, and business managers. Sustainable education is interdisciplinary, multicultural, and holistic. Sustainable schools teach critical thinking and conflict resolution skills along with mathematical and scientific literacy. Schools without music, arts and real physical education are not sustainable. Ignorance of history, philosophy, world religions, and literature is not sustainable.

In a world desperately in need of compassionate problem-solvers who have imagination and creativity, inordinate emphasis on teaching to standardized tests is not sustainable. Sustainable schools encourage intellectual curiosity and empower children to be life-long learners and wise human beings.

Oral storytelling and written literature, philosophy, theology, science, and the arts have given us diverse visions of the interconnectedness of all creatures, great and small, which cling to the web of life. Even before Aristotle argued that beauty has an ethical dimension, the spider's web was admired by Native American and African storytellers as a shimmering symbol of the strength and fragility of life.

Sustainability is about stewardship, cooperation and moral responsibility — about treating all living creatures as embodiments of a universal spirit. It means learning from our mistakes and correcting them, as well as regaining a sense of proportion and caring about the world we live in enough to reduce needless acquisition of extravagant consumer goods that end up as mountains of garbage that leach toxins into the soil.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

FSU Energy and Sustainability Center

Innovative Alternative Energy Solutions

The Energy and Sustainability Center (formerly Sustainable Energy Science and Engineering Center) addresses challenging alternative energy issues through innovative solutions for consumers and industry. The need for energy systems that have lower emissions of CO 2 and other greenhouse materials is of paramount importance.

Off-Grid Zero Emission Buildings (OGZEB)

ESC is almost finished with the first phase off-grid platinum LEED certified house/office, on FSU's main campus. This house illustrates cutting edge technologies for power systems and appliances. The house also demonstrates environmentally friendly building procedures. From material selection, site selection to clean site requirements and recycling leftover materials, this house rivals the top environmentally friendly buildings in the world.

OGZEB Documentation:

Follow the design and construction of the house
Current Design
OGZEB Features
Who's talking about the OGZEB??
Who is the USGBC??
What is LEED Certification??
Where are LEED Buildings Located??
Initial Proposal
Meet the OGZEB Design Team

The OGZEB team is a group of people from various engineering and architectural firms in Tallahassee that have donated their time and expertise to make the OGZEB. Without their help ESC would never have been able to get this project off the ground.

Meet the OGZEBs Donors

This group has donated several crucial systems and design concepts to the house. These companies have the foresight required to make the dream of this house a reality. Please visit their sites and learn more about how there technologies can help save you money and perserve our environment in the process.

The OGZEB is finishing up its last punch lists making sure everything is up to the standards of the design team. ESC is excited to add the OGZEB to the ranks of our facilities providing a test bed for our technology in a manner that we can not only test but also use. Two offices are planned to reside in the solar house so we can not only test our technology but also live it.
http://esc.fsu.edu/ogzeb.html

Monday, August 31, 2009

FPL executives make weak case for rate increase
Palm Beach Post Letters to the Editor
Monday, August 31, 2009

Provide renewable energy systems

Florida Power & Light Vice President Tim Fitzpatrick states in his Aug. 20 letter, "Our base rate is 17 percent lower than it was nearly a quarter-century ago" ("FPL: Post misrepresented request's impact on businesses"). However, Florida's electric base-rate is above the national average.

Moreover, Mr. Fitzpatrick states that, "FPL's requested Return on Equity of 12.5 percent is necessary to help attract investment to support $16 billion in capital expenditures over the next five years." To the contrary, FPL stock gets the highest rating from Standard & Poor's, and FPL's credit rating is top-notch. FPL is trying to enrich its stockholders at the expense of its customers.

The Florida Public Service Commission should order FPL to lower its base rate for power and should further order FPL to provide its customers with lease-to-own solar energy systems tied to FPL's grid. The cost of these renewable energy systems are rebated by the state at $4 per installed watt, and the federal government rebates an additional 30 percent.

Once the solar system is installed, FPL is required to install a net-meter that moves forward to pay FPL and backward for FPL to pay back the customer for energy generated. If a properly sized solar system is installed, the customer's bill will go down to zero and FPL will have to pay the customer for excess power generated to FPL's grid. No need for $16 billion in capital expenditures by FPL over the next five years.

It's time for the Florida Public Service Commission to act in the best interests of Florida residents and require such utilities to provide lease-to-own renewable energy systems.

THOMAS SAPORITO
Jupiter

Editor's note: Thomas Saporito is executive director of Renewable Electric Systems.com.


Generate revenue by issuing bonds

In response to Florida Power & Light CEO Armando Olivera's Aug. 26 defense of the company's rate request: Enough is enough. ("FPL: Rate increase will save customers money in the long run.")

Mr. Olivera accuses The Post of not being logical, but he continues to say that FPL customers will see an offset of the rate increase through a decrease in fuel costs, which is a variable charge. He also uses the logic that FPL has the lowest rates in the state. His logic comes from the thinking after Florida was hit with hurricanes, and FPL wanted compensation because the power was out, so use went down. It also comes from asking for voluntary donations to increase the "green" generation of power. As everyone knows, these voluntary funds were misused.

FPL is a regulated monopoly. FPL also has the highest volume of customers in the state. Every company has fixed costs and variable costs. Costs are not exponential based on the increase of users. In other words, by adding 10 percent more customers, costs do not increase by 10 percent. Since FPL has the largest customer base, the company has locked in volume while spreading the costs. Other Florida power companies have a much smaller base, therefore less absorption of costs. In Florida, FPL should have the lowest rates.

There are other means to generate revenue. Why is FPL not considering issuing bonds? For FPL to increase rates to invite investors is just a ploy to drive the stock price up. I believe that Mr. Olivera needs to look within before raising rates in a state that has high unemployment and where senior citizens will be getting no increase in Social Security for two years. Floridians are being nickled and dimed to death. I guess Mr. Olivera just doesn't care.

KEVIN MACKEY
Boynton Beach

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/opinion/epaper/2009/08/31/mondaywebletters0831.html

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Social Change Philanthropy

What is social change philanthropy?

"Philanthropy is commendable, but it must not cause the philanthropist to overlook the economic injustice that makes philanthropy necessary."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

For this post, we will explore Social Change Philanthropy. Dr. King's quote is spot on. Honest advocates for social justice must cut to the chase and help move our society beyond superficially addressing the many significant challenges we face. What is needed is an inclusive and effective engagement of the diversity of our nation for self-empowerment and economic justice. We will explore some of the trends and resources in the emerging field of Social Philanthropy which seeks to fund authentic social change from the grass roots up.

Resource Generation

Resource Generation
is a national organization that works with young people with financial wealth who are supporting and challenging each other to effect progressive social change through the creative, responsible and strategic use of financial and other resources.

Our purpose is to promote innovative ways for young people with wealth to align their personal values and political vision with their financial resources to deepen their social and civic engagement. Resource Generation supports the ability of these young people to better understand themselves as philanthropists, their place in the socio-economic system, and their capacities to contribute to social change. Resource Generation builds cross-class alliances with people and organizations working for social, racial and economic justice.

http://www.resourcegeneration.org/home.html

What is social change philanthropy?
"Social change philanthropy focuses on the root causes of social, economic and environmental injustices. It strives to include the people who are impacted by those injustices as decision-makers. It also aims to make the field of philanthropy more accessible and diverse. In social change philanthropy, foundations are accountable, transparent and responsive in their grantmaking. Donors and foundations act as allies to social justice movements by contributing not only monetary resources but their time, knowledge, skills and access. Social change philanthropy is also sometimes called social justice philanthropy, social movement philanthropy, and community-based philanthropy.
http://www.resourcegeneration.org/Resources/giving_soc_change.html

Funders’ Network
The Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that exists to inspire, strengthen and expand philanthropic leadership and funders’ abilities to support organizations working to improve communities through better development decisions and growth policies. It brings together foundations, nonprofit organizations and other partners to address the range of environmental, social, and economic problems caused by development strategies that fail to consider the big picture.

Poor planning and decision making at every level – national, state, regional and local – has resulted in sprawling metropolitan growth patterns that are rapidly consuming open space and farmland to provide housing and services for new suburban populations. At the same time, these decisions have encouraged the draining of population, jobs and other resources out of cities and older suburbs, contributing to a concentration of poverty in many urban neighborhoods. Rapidly developing suburbs also face their own set of problems as they grapple with the costs of growth—congestion, loss of open space, school overcrowding—without adequate resources.
http://www.fundersnetwork.org/



Social Change Philanthropy and How It's Done


HANDS ON: There are many paths to social change. Here's how funders dedicated to that concept go about supporting it.
by Alison D. Goldberg

"Social change philanthropy" is the term used to describe grantmaking that aims to address the root causes of social and economic inequalities.

A number of social change foundations were created in the last three decades to support community organizing, social activism and political advocacy. These foundations continue to adopt new methods for gathering and integrating the input, experience and leadership of community leaders and disenfranchised populations to make informed grant decisions.

Despite their growth in numbers, the ranks of social change foundations are still relatively small in the world of philanthropy. The National Network of Grantmakers estimates that less than 3 percent of all domestic, private, institutional grantmaking is distributed to social change causes. The numbers show that foundation resources have been overwhelmingly distributed to direct service programs providing important support in a climate of eroding safety nets but not effecting policy changes to solve social problems.

Economic disparity in the United States has worsened significantly during the past two decades, so that today the wealthiest 1 percent of the population controls 40 percent of household wealth. In the contemporary political environment, organizations working for social and economic justice have an immediate need for resources to support their work.

The Means Matters as Much as the Ends

What distinguishes social change philanthropy (also called "social movement," "social justice" or "community-based" philanthropy) from other forms of grantmaking is the central tenet that philanthropy's success is measured not only by where money is given, but also the process by which it is given.

Social change philanthropy strives to incorporate giving principles that provide access to those left out of grantmaking in order to support their campaigns for social and economic justice.

The following are core principles of social change philanthropy:

It focuses on marginalized and disenfranchised communities. Social change philanthropy focuses on social and economic justice issues that affect marginalized and disenfranchised communities. This includes protecting the rights of communities of color, low-income populations, women, immigrants, international communities, disabled people, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

The issues and campaigns that social change philanthropy supports include civil and human rights, political access, peace and nonviolence, worker's rights, anti-poverty strategies, environmental justice, corporate reform, prison reform, education and healthcare access, as well as challenges to international trade and privatization.

It addresses root causes. Social change foundations support work by community leaders that creates systemic or policy change to address the root causes of problems. Rather than applying Band-Aid solutions to problems, it aims to prevent the problems in the first place. Such work requires shifting the power dynamics in communities through grassroots organizing, advocacy, policy-related work, research and activism.

It strives to be accountable to marginalized and disenfranchised communities. Grantmakers are accountable to a board of trustees. Social change foundations recognize a second, equally (if not more) important level of accountability the communities where they make grants.

That's why social change foundations invite community leaders and the people affected by the foundation's programs to participate in the needs assessments and related decision making. Participation might range from establishing advisory groups to inviting members of the affected communities to serve as board members. Also, social change foundations investigate the demographics of grantees' leadership to determine whether the organizations are community-led.

It establishes inclusive processes. Social change foundations pay particular attention to the accessibility of their grantmaking processes for grassroots organizations, recognizing that generally these groups operate with very few staff members who have little time to spend writing proposals. They are concerned with grantees' access to information and whether their processes are respectful of grantees' time. Foundation staff often will take part in workshops or other training programs to evaluate their assumptions especially, those that guide their perspectives on social issues, and therefore, their grantmaking. Evaluating the power issues that inform the experiences of grantmakers will help them become more effective and improve their communications with grantees who are likely to have race and class backgrounds different then their own.

While traditional philanthropy also works to benefit marginalized and disenfranchised communities and to support the root causes of issues, the process, players and analysis of politics and power are what distinguish social change philanthropy from other forms of grantmaking. Peace Development Fund Executive Director John Vaughn puts it this way: "It is more than teaching people to fish. It's supporting their efforts to get a company to stop polluting the lake they're trying to fish in."


"Change Not Charity"


Social change philanthropy is not new. It dates back to the early twentieth century and has grown steadily since the 1950s. Support in the 1950s and 1960s went mainly to the civil rights and peace movements.

In the 1970s, the alternative funds that eventually became the Funding Exchange network were created. These public charities, established by wealthy inheritors, created funding boards that included or were made up entirely of local activists under the banner "change, not charity."

Since 1979 the Funding Exchange network (www.fex.org) has had a major influence in shaping social change philanthropy. The http://www.nng.org/ (www.nng.org), which was created 20 years ago, serves as a professional network for practitioners of social change philanthropy and currently is affiliated with more than 200 grantmaking organizations (see the profile of NNG on page 10 of this issue).

More recently, an infrastructure has emerged that supports social change philanthropy among specific demographic groups. The rapid growth of funds to support and promote philanthropy among women, African Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people and progressive religious communities are important components of social change philanthropy, providing learning and support networks. In addition, a "young donor organizing movement" has emerged with the development of a number of organizations and networks through which young people are using their financial resources for social change (see "Young donors support social change," page 36).


Varying Degrees of Intensity


Several foundations have incorporated components of social change philanthropy, in varying degrees of intensity, to address a wide range of issues. Examples of methods include: continue here.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Green Power: Buyer Beware

To Heck with Green
With consumers feeling blue, companies are dialing back on green marketing. In a survey of 72 companies by Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, chief marketing officers ranked environmental issues lowest on a list of five priorities over the coming 12 months. Even Wal-Mart (WMT), which has beaten the sustainability drum in recent years, is going easy. Green issues were mentioned in 12 of its press releases in the year through Sept. 11, compared with 29 during the same period last year. (Advertising Age)
—Edited by Harry Maurer & Cristina Linblad
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_39/c4101newsyoun254243_page_2.htm

Green Power: Buyer Beware

Utilities are offering renewable options to customers for a fee—but most of the extra revenue is going to marketing
by Ben Elgin and Diana Holden
Business Week Online
Green Biz September 18, 2008, 5:00PM EST text size: TT

It's one of the latest ways big business claims to be curbing global warming: More than 750 utilities across the country now offer customers the chance to pay a premium on their electricity bills to generate "green power." But it turns out that, in many cases, most of the money goes for marketing costs, and little can be traced to the generation of additional renewable energy.

Lisa Baker of Atlanta jumped at the opportunity last summer to protect the environment when Georgia Power invited consumers to pay extra to "help bring more renewable power to Georgia." Paying the minimum annual premium of $54 "is equivalent to planting 125 trees or not driving 2,000 miles," the utility, a unit of giant Southern Co. (SO), boasts on its Web site. Baker, a 33-year-old freelance writer, joined more than 4,000 other customers who signed up for the Green Energy program. "I wanted [the utility] to know there's a market for renewable power," she says.
But public records show that more than 60% of the $239,000 spent during the second quarter of 2007, when Baker signed up, went to advertising and administration. "They are preying on people's good will," says Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an advocacy group in Knoxville.

Georgia Power says the 60% figure has now dropped to only 15% of overall costs. The company adds that much of the rest goes to purchases from a local landfill that generates methane from decomposing garbage.

But buying gas-powered electricity from the landfill doesn't appear to achieve any additional environmental benefit: The renewable gas-from-trash is now actually less expensive than conventional sources like coal. "Any utility would use the landfill gas [without customers' green premium]. It's a no-brainer," says Smith.

Georgia Power counters that electricity generated by landfill methane was more expensive than other power when the program began in 2006. In addition, the company says it aims to reduce the green premium by as much as 22%.

More than 600,000 U.S. households have signed up for utility-sponsored programs claiming that they reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. That's nearly double the figure from 2004, according to the federally funded National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.

But given their eagerness for environmental bragging rights, many of the power companies are strangely reluctant to explain with specificity how extra payments from consumers produce green energy that wouldn't be generated otherwise.

"ALL ABOUT PR"
In July the Florida Public Service Commission pulled the plug on Florida Power & Light's green energy program after an audit found that more than half of the premiums collected went to marketing and administration instead of renewable energy purchases. The program, known as Sunshine Energy, had more than 38,000 participants paying an additional $9.75 a month. In a regulatory hearing in July, Public Service Commissioner Nathan Skop described the program as "all about PR and of little substance."

Florida Power & Light staunchly defends the program, arguing that billboards, newspaper ads, and bill inserts were needed to alert consumers. The utility says that the rest of the money went to new solar-power installations and the purchase of renewable energy credits. RECs are certificates indicating that a green power developer, such as a wind farm, has generated environmentally friendly energy. Purchasers of RECs take credit for funding the clean power. Florida Power & Light won't disclose, however, most of the sources that supplied RECs to its Sunshine Energy program, citing confidentiality obligations.

Utilities devoting only a modest slice of voluntary green premiums to renewable power generators is something of a pattern. Duke Energy's (DUK) GoGreen Power program in Indiana has signed up more than 1,100 customers, who pay a premium of at least $5 per month. According to Duke's marketing literature: "Purchase of GoGreen power ensures that a specified amount of electricity is produced from renewable sources." But records for 2007 reveal less than 18% of the premiums, or about $15,800, went to brokers to buy RECs; 48%, or $42,950, went to marketing the program.

Duke says that while it has had to spend significant amounts to recover GoGreen's start-up costs, the program has nevertheless already contributed to protecting the environment.

Elgin is a correspondent in BusinessWeek's Silicon Valley bureau . Holden is an intern in BusinessWeek's Atlanta bureau.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_39/b4101068119568.htm?chan=magazine+channel_what%27s+next

Thursday, July 2, 2009

A Vehicle, a Method and a Bridge to a Green Future

A repost from Saturday, September 27, 2008
A Passion for People, Profits and a Sustainable Future

You are not here merely to make a living. You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world. You impoverish yourself if you forget this errand."
~Woodrow Wilson

"I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do."
~Edward Everett Hale

Social Entrepreneurship

Social entrepreneurship is the work of a social entrepreneur. A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change. Whereas business entrepreneurs typically measure performance in profit and return, social entrepreneurs assess their success in terms of the impact they have on society and often work through nonprofits and citizen groups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship

What is a Social Entrepreneur?

A social entrepreneur is a different kind of social leader who:

-Identifies and applies practical solutions to social problems by combining innovation, resourcefulness and opportunity.

-Innovates by finding a new product, a new service, or a new approach to a social problem

-Focuses first and foremost on social value creation and in that spirit, is willing to share openly the innovations and insights of the initiative with a view to its wider replication

-Doesn’t wait to secure the resources before undertaking the catalytic innovation

-Is fully accountable to the constituencies s/he serves

-Resists being trapped by the constraints of ideology or discipline

-Continuously refines and adapts approach in response to feedback

-Has a vision, but also a well-thought out road-map as to how to attain the goal

What is Social Entrepreneurship?

-Describes an approach to a social issue. It is not a field of discipline that can be learned in academia.

-More related to leadership than to management

-An approach that cuts across disciplines (medicine, engineering, law, education, investment banking, agronomy, environment, etc.) and is not confined to sectors (health, transportation, finance, labor, trade, and the like).

Social Entrepreneurship
http://www.managementhelp.org/soc_entr/soc_entr.htm


“The green economy has the power to deliver new sources of work, wealth and health to low-income people — while honoring the Earth. If you can do that, you just wiped out a whole bunch of problems. We can make what is good for poor black kids good for the polar bears and good for the country.”
~Van Jones, Head of the Ella Baker Center and founder of, Green for All
http://www.greenforall.org/about-us
http://www.ellabakercenter.org/page.php?pageid=28
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/opinion/17friedman.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Equal Access to Civil Justice: Pursuing Solutions Beyond the Legal Profession
“When the fundamental principles of fairness and equal justice through the rule of law are shaken, the cornerstones of our democratic society are threatened. Respect for justice and laws is diminished when large segments of our society do not have equal access to civil justice because they cannot obtain legal assistance to resolve disputes that touch on the very basics of life (e.g., health care, food, and shelter) or to seek legal redress of their grievances.”
~Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1998
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=192616

"The hostile attitude of conquering nature ignores the basic interdependence of all things and events---that the world beyond the skin is actually an extension of our own bodies---and will end in destroying the very environment from which we emerge and upon which our whole life depends."
~Alan Watts (1915 - 1973), English mystic & writer. "The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are" (Vintage), Page: 9,10

A Vehicle, a Method and a Bridge to a Green Future
A Passion for People, Planet and Profit (P3)

What if we could truly improve our Community?

Would you be willing to give the possibility consideration? Real thought and deliberation? The project before you will elicit “Buy In” at all levels, from Business Executives to Hourly Employees, Entrepreneurs to Civil Servants, and Professionals to Craftsmen. It seems safe to say we all see the need for the stake-holders of our community to fix for ourselves that which should to be fixed, to correct that which needs correcting. Now is the time to come together as a body of citizens, community and business leaders and public servants who recognize our responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors.

What is the vehicle to accomplish such a goal? Oddly enough it is founded in one of the most capitalistic and misunderstood ideas, The Direct Sales Industry or, as it is also known, Network Marketing. We all know the phrase of doom, “We’re looking for a few sharp people” at which point we cringe and run for the exits. However this concept isn’t designed solely to benefit the “Upline & Downline” rather, it is to generate capital to create a social venture capital fund that will manage and allocate resources to an Umbrella Organization made up of citizens, business leaders and civic leaders who will allocate the revenue generated to areas of need within our community. Naturally, individual distributors are compensated and a viable product is offered to people who often need this service when they least can afford it. In the best fashion of capitalism it is a win/win for all parties in the process. A product of value is offered, a need is met, individuals have an additional revenue stream, a community has democratic access to additional capital and is better for the effort.

As you will see after your review of the project, this will be accomplished by adding value to companies, employees and the community, value created from the hopes, dreams and efforts of our fellow citizens. This project will allow them each to contribute to the real improvement of the community with a broadly inclusive, city-wide project of beauty, social up-lift, enterprise and sustainability. I invite you to take a clear-eyed and open-minded look at this innovative project combining the best impulses from our citizenry with the dynamism of the free market to produce a synergy that is greater than the sum total of the parts.

Before we get to the core of this proposal, please review the following commentaries about the critical role of Social Justice to meeting sustainability challenges and how one businessman is blazing a trail for more enlightened business practices.



Five E’s Unlimited
A System's Approach to Sustainable Development

Today’s problems cannot be solved with today’s mindset. Incremental changes are inadequate; a bold and broad agenda for systemic changes in values, lifestyles, institutions, and politics is required.

The Nexus of Sustainability & Social Equity: Virginia’s Eastern Shore (USA) as a Local Example of Global Issues
R. Warren Flint
http://www.eeeee.net/

and

Mona J.E. Danner
Old Dominion University

Abstract

The practice of sustainable development requires society to equally and simultaneously address economic enhancement along with actions that offer environmental protection, while also insuring that the most disadvantaged people in our communities are provided the ability to improve their quality of life. The ethnic and class stratification of different societal sectors represents one of the most tenacious forms of inequality in any part of the world. For this reason, where inequities persist in severe forms, ideas about balancing economic development and environmental preservation may be particularly contentious. The primary premise of this paper assumes that without equity considerations economic and environmental sustainability objectives of a region cannot be achieved.

If we expand the meaning of environmental equity or justice beyond disproportionate impact from pollution on public health, and combine issues of populations that are disproportionately affected by environmental insults as well as adequate access to environmental benefits, then we have a paradigm under which to explore mechanisms for poor people to derive equal benefits from the advantages of environmental related business income. By exploring how poor people might benefit from nature‑based business activities as an example, we can begin to demonstrate important linkages between a foundation of good environmental quality and the prosperous development of economic activity in certain societal sectors that might otherwise not make this connection.

This paper addresses a Virginia Eastern Shore (USA) case history example to explore whether or not a nature‑based economy and consideration of a targeted, value-added tax on this industry's income can finance the transition of a region's neediest citizens to a better quality of life and in‑turn a more amenable setting to further enhance economic development in the region that is environmentally sustainable. A focus on environmental equity emerges as key in this discussion because of the historical disregard for the environmental health and rights of disenfranchised peoples, where a disproportionate and dangerous ecological price for economic growth has been paid by poor people and people of color, both in the United States and in other nations. Thus, the nexus of sustainable development and equity, where equity considerations loom large in the search for economic development that does not degrade natural resources.

The Nexus of Sustainability & Equity
"Individual and collective economic vitality is an important element of any sustainable community. But sustainable development cannot be achieved unless jobs are environmentally clean and do not contribute to air or water pollution or create toxic wastes. Further, social equity must dominate community dynamics so there exists a climate of fairness -- evenhandedness both economically and environmentally -- toward achieving social well‑being for all. In essence, we are practicing sustainable development when we find the means to equally and simultaneously address economic development with environmental protection, while also insuring that the most disadvantaged people in our society are provided the ability to improve their quality of life. If disproportionately impacted community members aren't able to improve their well-being, the best designed plans will not meet with success and future generations will not enjoy a high quality of life. This is the nexus of sustainable development and equity -- without equity and justice considerations sustainability objectives cannot be achieved."


The Meaning of Profit
The Story, Friday, September 26 2008

Part of the bailout package before Washington includes salary limits for top executives of Wall Street companies. The fear is that many CEOs will continue to get rich while the rest of the country, and the world, go into a financial tailspin.

Hal Taussig believes that CEOs have a responsibility to do more than earn wealth for themselves. He created a successful travel company called Untours. The company has a budget in the millions and maintains a healthy profit margin - but Hal does not keep any of the profits. He donates them to charity.

Hal talks to Dick Gordon about the spontaneous moment that led him to this alternative business lifestyle. The result swims against the tide of the profit motive: Hal actually finds that having an empty bank account is exhilarating.

* Learn more about the Untours company and foundation
* Learn more about B Corporation, an organization of business leaders like Hal

http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_612_The_Meaning_of_Profit.mp3/view
http://www.untours.com/
http://www.untoursfoundation.org/
http://www.bcorporation.net/
http://www.newsun.com/untours.html

B Corporation
Higher purpose. Higher standards of accountability, transparency, and performance. These leaders across the United States have created profitable, competitive businesses while taking care of their employees, community, and environment. Meet the B Corps »

We envision a new sector of the economy which harnesses the power of private enterprise to create public benefit.

This sector is comprised of a new type of corporation the B Corporation which is purpose-driven and creates benefit for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

As members of this emerging sector and as entrepreneurs and investors in B Corporations,

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

- That we must be the change we seek in the world.

- That all business ought to be conducted as if people and place mattered.

- That, through their products, practices, and profits, businesses should aspire to do no harm and benefit all.

- To do so requires that we act with the understanding that we are each dependent upon another and thus responsible for each other and future generations.
http://www.bcorporation.net/

In The News
http://www.bcorporation.net/media/news-archive
http://www.bcorporation.net/