After years of struggling, cleantech investors are now quietly but optimistically beginning to talk about impressive gains in their funds. Unfortunately, the elephant behind them that LPs are beginning to talk about is the prevalence of massive unrealized gains from the behemoth solar, biofuels and automotive startups in the portfolios.

Cleantech Venture Capitalists Beware - What You Don't Know About Energy Can Kill You

In general, layman and media who don’t understand the details of the carbon markets attack carbon offsets in two areas, first, questioning whether the credits are for a project that would have occurred anyway (a concept known in carbon as “additionality”), and second questioning whether there are checks and balances to ensure the environmental standards are adhered to and the abatement actually happens (in carbon known as the validation and verification processes). The frustrating part for anyone in the industry is that the entire of the carbon credit process set up under Kyoto is all about ensuring the answers to those two questions. Leading certification firms and carbon project developers have been dealing with the details behind those questions for years.

It has been nearly five years since I last had the chance to speak with Smart Fuel Cell founder and then CEO Dr. Manfred Stefener, and a lot has changed. That is to say, unlike almost every other fuel cell company I know of, they have actually done what they said they would five years ago.

On Thursday EIX announced its sixth competitive solicitation for renewable energy. On peak delivery from the Tehachapi region is preferred, as it is currently building a massive transmission line to tap into the 4,500 MW of wind potential. But wind produces only 35% of the time. This major pipeline needs to be balanced. As such, it is looking for creative proposals from developers to fill up the rest of that transmission line with on peak power deliveries.

In the meantime, the cost of solar on a per kwh basis has continued to improve, primarily on the back of unsexy work on the integration and installation side, as well as the growing size of the average photovoltaic installation. This is despite the increase in average module prices in recent years, driven by the silicon shortage.

• CFLs & LEDs - We are already moving aggressively towards compact fluorescent light bulbs, and the penetration rates are still low. As that trend continues, and LEDs come into the mix for more and more applications, our lighting bills should trend straight downward for the next decade. Now if we can just stop cringing at the thought of a $3 lightbulb!
• Heating and Air Conditioning - I know whenever my power bill goes higher than I like, I just watch how often I turn the heater on, and adjust the thermostat a bit. The answer here has always been some combination of improved technology, smart metering and more transparency in billing and usage, and energy prices rising high enough for consumers to feel the pinch. Oh, and did I mention insulation, California?
• Hot water heaters - Can anybody say, "tankless"?
• Power generation -If every power plant was upgraded to the latest generation of technology the impact could be staggering. In the power generation world, newer tends to equal more efficient, all else being equal . But bottom line, this means our regulators would have to approve the increase in utility capital expenditures and pass those costs on through to us in the short term. That's about as likely as George W announcing a plan to tax every SUV Detroit makes and give the money to the poor to buy solar systems.
• Solar - As for solar - which is typically sold on a "reduce your energy bill" pitch, not a chance. At $0.15 to $1.00/kwh (depending on who's counting and how they count), if we actually reduced a significant amount of our building load with solar power we'd likely send our GDP plummeting. There are lots of reasons to love solar, but decreasing energy usage per unit of GDP is not one of them. At least, not yet.

The first part of the question involves some simple numbers: what's the tax basis and impact? If he sells now, he pays his 20% in taxes on the gain (depending on whether it’s long term or short term). If he holds and it does go through, it should go through at a roughly 10% higher price ($31 vs. $28), and he can possibly roll his tax basis (check this with your tax advisor, as the proposed deal is half cash and/or half stock – but I believe it is intended to be tax free at least for the stock portion). If he holds and it doesn’t go through, Yahoo could well give back the 50% it has traded up.

Carrots and sticks work well together, but sticks alone are not going to solve our global carbon problem. I think it is also important to ensure that our carbon legislation does not result in a higher cost to consumers in middle America, just because the MidWest happens to have been historically coal fired, than the cost to those of us living on the coasts. Jim Rogers of Duke Energy puts this much more eloquently than I do.

So why is 'homeland security,' not green energy, the hot new sector? Perhaps because there are two distinct business models that can respond to our climate and energy crisis. We can develop policies and technologies to get us off this disastrous course. Or we can develop policies and technologies to protect us from those we have enraged through resource wars and displaced through climate change, while simultaneously shielding ourselves from the worst of both war and weather....In short, we can choose to fix, or we can choose to fortress. Environmental activists and scientists have been yelling for the fix. The homeland security sector, on the other hand, believes the future lies in fortresses.