John Lounsbury

U.S. Venture Capital Moving from IT to Clean Energy

derryl -

I have read your posts with interest. You have obviiously done some good research. I would like to add some perspective to your discussion.

The problem with fluctuating sources of power (solar and wind) can be addressed with new storage technology. Hydrogen is not a source of energy; it is an energy storage medium. Whether it (hydrogen) will become a widely used storage vehicle remains to be seen. An alternative is new battery technology. The current front runner is Lithium ion technology. There may be better systems not yet being developed or Lithium ions may prove to be the new standard. Whatever, grids supplied with large amounts of solar and wind power are not viable without storage systems not yet developed. Otherwise, you are correct that these two technologies can only be supplemental, not primary sources of electric power.

One additional note on hydrogen: I don't believe hydrogen production from hydrocarbons will ever be an attractive energy production/storage process. Hydrogen production from water may have a future. After energy is released from hydrogen the end product is water, the starting material. We have a loop system where the material resulting is the starting material, not true with hydrocarbon sourced hydrogen.

The one specific energy proposal that John McCain has made that I feel is the most important in his energy policy plan is the $300,000,000 prize for the development of a viable long range battery system for electric automobiles. (Do not take this as an endorsement of McCain or any other candidate.)

Energy storage is a critical factor for both electrical transportation and electrical grid use of alternative sources of energy that do not involve combustion.

It is clear that carbon dioxide levels are correlated with earth temperature levels. This correlation exists over very recent history (the past 100 years) and back to the age of dinosaurs. Does higher earth temperature produce more CO(2) or does more CO(2) produce higher earth temperature? It could be that both are true (or not). There should be no claim that more CO(2) could lower global temperatures. There is excellent science to support a theory that CO(2) contributes to global warming. However, it is very reasonable to contend that CO(2) is not THE ONLY cause of climate change.

Finally, hydrocarbons (natural gas, coal and oil) are natural resource materials. They are the best source of materials for ferilizers, asphalt, lubricants, polymers, plastics, many pharmeceuticals, etc. Obtaining these materials from biomass is much less efficient, especially in a world that has issues with food supply. When we obtain energy from anything we burn, we are destroying materials useful to the future centuries of human civilization on this planet. When we burn our natural resource materials, we are burning money. I'm not referring to the cost of production of fossil fuels today; I mean the added future costs of not having hydrocarbons readily available for future generations who must expend much larger resources for hydrocarbon materials. Not concerned with what happens more than 200 years in the future? I'm glad the Sons of Liberty were not thinking that way in 1775.

DISCLAIMER: I see the world through two lenses: financial and technical. My profession for the past 16 years has been financial planning and investment management. In addition, I have a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry, a 34 year career in technology development and management in a major corporation and several years of college teaching experience (Chemistry).