Three years ago, an unprecedented number of transport the Department of energy announced electrification projects in the framework of the American recovery and Reinvestment Act. Since that time, we have an acceleration of the manufacturing and development of plug - in electric vehicles, batteries and components in America. And because of the advances in technology and increased production, have reduced battery costs by 50%. More recently has the Department the Grand Challenge, a national initiative to reduce the cost of EV everywhere and increase the comfort of electric vehicles. Key to achieving these goals are easy access to charging stations, and thanks to companies like ChargePoint, finding a charger is always more convenient than ever before.
ChargePoint matches 2 charging stations in residential and offices in the United States as part of its ChargePoint America program that was supported with a $15 million grant from the Department of energy and dollar for-dollar by ChargePoint before recently level after completing the installation of 4,600 U.S. manufactured. Level 2 Chargers add usually 10-20 miles on the range of the electric car per hour charge. The company also worked with vehicle manufacturers Chevrolet, Ford, BMW and Nissan to their customers in return for the acquisition of operational data from the charging station at home charging station hardware is free offer. The complete history, see the blog post of energy.
View the original article here
Showing posts with label Charge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charge. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Stations take way EV charge across America
Wednesday, December 12, 2012Ярлыки: across, America, Charge, stations 0 коммент.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Georgia Leading the Charge for the Clean Economy in the Southeast
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
This post was written in collaboration with Ben Taube, BLT Sustainable Energy, Inc.
In California it’s San Francisco. In New England, it’s Boston. Now, 2012 is proving that Georgia is rising as the cleantech epicenter of the South. This year we witnessed IKEA flip the switch on two large scale solar installations and Quality Technology Services announce a more than $1 million investment in solar for their Atlanta and Richmond data centers. Meanwhile, Georgia Solar Utilities emerged to propose building 90MWs of solar in Georgia, and selling it to Georgia Power, which itself has a 50 MW solar initiative.
Lehigh Technologies based in Tucker recently raised $5 million in an investment for their method of recycling post-industrial rubber into new materials. GenAgain Technologies set up shop in Lithia Springs to convert mixed waste plastics into synthetic crude oil. If that’s not all, Savannah Technical College started offering new sustainable technology programs, this year, a first of their kind in Georgia.
Another first in Georgia is the Savannah International Clean Energy Conference (Nov 11-13). It will play host to a prominent line-up of over 50 global cleantech speakers and an estimated 300 international clean economy executives. VIP speakers and participants like Governor Nathan Deal, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, Savannah Mayor Edna Branch Jackson, AGL Resources CEO John W. Somerhalder II and Southern Company executives will all have an unprecedented opportunity to highlight the Georgia’s sustainable accomplishments and the state’s potential to become a major clean economy marketplace for both local and international companies.
The Georgian clean economy 2012 accomplishments are just the tip of the iceberg. Even during the worst parts of the Great Recession, clean economy jobs grew at a rate of 3.7 percent. Today they total over 83,000 jobs, more than 2 percent of Georgia’s total workforce. However, if Georgia is to lead the Southeast in green jobs, more must be done to ensure that companies and jobs flourish and stay in Georgia.
Supporting the clean economy starts at the early-stage, and the “godfather of Atlanta angel investing” Sig Moseley co-founded CTW Venture Partners this year to fill what he and his partners see as a critical shortage in the Southeast of seed and early-stage capital. Standing for “Change The World” cleantech is one of the firm’s investment focuses.
With or without seed funding, companies still need business support and Georgia Tech has been doing an excellent job incubating and commercializing new innovations coming out of its incubation programs. Additionally, the Global Cleantech Cluster Association is fostering early and later stage companies locally and around the world, by networking together over 40 of the world’s leading cleantech clusters. Headquartered in Atlanta, the GCCA provides a gateway for established and emerging cleantech companies to gain exposure to potential investors, new markets, influential networks, innovative technologies and best practices. The group’s annual Later Stage Awards with over 200 global companies competing for 10 winning spots, sponsored by Deloitte and McGuire Woods, will be presented at the Savannah International Clean Energy Conference on November 12th.
Once established, clean and green companies thrive in Georgia. The state is home to a growing number of international solar companies including Suniva, Mage Solar and the solar mounting firm Renusol. Biomass is also winning here, as the state was listed as third in the nation in 2011 for energy generated by this alternative fuel source.
However, to truly rival Boston or San Francisco for cleantech status, the state must get serious about the four critical policies identified by The Pew Charitable Trusts that support a state’s clean economy. Currently, Georgia offers one them, financial incentives, which is an excellent start. The state should also encourage clean economic development by assessing policy options such as a renewable portfolio standard, energy efficiency resource standards, and options to allow for power purchase agreements. Of our 50 states, 30 have mandated renewable energy standards and 7 offer voluntary goals. In the Southeast, North Carolina mandates a clean energy goal.
According to the report “Sizing the Clean Economy” by the Brookings Institution, the clean economy added more than half a million jobs, between 2003 and 2010, nationally. Georgia is well on it’s way to solidifying it’s strong hold in the Southeast as a cleantech leader. But it can only capture that title, through diligent public policy and building momentum by consistently sharing its variety of success stories with the world. At the Savannah Clean Energy Conference, Governor Deal and others have a pivotal opportunity to impress on the international audience the strength of Georgia’s clean economy and its reliable potential for successful cleantech profitability in the 21st Century.
View the original article here
In California it’s San Francisco. In New England, it’s Boston. Now, 2012 is proving that Georgia is rising as the cleantech epicenter of the South. This year we witnessed IKEA flip the switch on two large scale solar installations and Quality Technology Services announce a more than $1 million investment in solar for their Atlanta and Richmond data centers. Meanwhile, Georgia Solar Utilities emerged to propose building 90MWs of solar in Georgia, and selling it to Georgia Power, which itself has a 50 MW solar initiative.
Lehigh Technologies based in Tucker recently raised $5 million in an investment for their method of recycling post-industrial rubber into new materials. GenAgain Technologies set up shop in Lithia Springs to convert mixed waste plastics into synthetic crude oil. If that’s not all, Savannah Technical College started offering new sustainable technology programs, this year, a first of their kind in Georgia.
Another first in Georgia is the Savannah International Clean Energy Conference (Nov 11-13). It will play host to a prominent line-up of over 50 global cleantech speakers and an estimated 300 international clean economy executives. VIP speakers and participants like Governor Nathan Deal, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, Savannah Mayor Edna Branch Jackson, AGL Resources CEO John W. Somerhalder II and Southern Company executives will all have an unprecedented opportunity to highlight the Georgia’s sustainable accomplishments and the state’s potential to become a major clean economy marketplace for both local and international companies.
The Georgian clean economy 2012 accomplishments are just the tip of the iceberg. Even during the worst parts of the Great Recession, clean economy jobs grew at a rate of 3.7 percent. Today they total over 83,000 jobs, more than 2 percent of Georgia’s total workforce. However, if Georgia is to lead the Southeast in green jobs, more must be done to ensure that companies and jobs flourish and stay in Georgia.
Supporting the clean economy starts at the early-stage, and the “godfather of Atlanta angel investing” Sig Moseley co-founded CTW Venture Partners this year to fill what he and his partners see as a critical shortage in the Southeast of seed and early-stage capital. Standing for “Change The World” cleantech is one of the firm’s investment focuses.
With or without seed funding, companies still need business support and Georgia Tech has been doing an excellent job incubating and commercializing new innovations coming out of its incubation programs. Additionally, the Global Cleantech Cluster Association is fostering early and later stage companies locally and around the world, by networking together over 40 of the world’s leading cleantech clusters. Headquartered in Atlanta, the GCCA provides a gateway for established and emerging cleantech companies to gain exposure to potential investors, new markets, influential networks, innovative technologies and best practices. The group’s annual Later Stage Awards with over 200 global companies competing for 10 winning spots, sponsored by Deloitte and McGuire Woods, will be presented at the Savannah International Clean Energy Conference on November 12th.
Once established, clean and green companies thrive in Georgia. The state is home to a growing number of international solar companies including Suniva, Mage Solar and the solar mounting firm Renusol. Biomass is also winning here, as the state was listed as third in the nation in 2011 for energy generated by this alternative fuel source.
However, to truly rival Boston or San Francisco for cleantech status, the state must get serious about the four critical policies identified by The Pew Charitable Trusts that support a state’s clean economy. Currently, Georgia offers one them, financial incentives, which is an excellent start. The state should also encourage clean economic development by assessing policy options such as a renewable portfolio standard, energy efficiency resource standards, and options to allow for power purchase agreements. Of our 50 states, 30 have mandated renewable energy standards and 7 offer voluntary goals. In the Southeast, North Carolina mandates a clean energy goal.
According to the report “Sizing the Clean Economy” by the Brookings Institution, the clean economy added more than half a million jobs, between 2003 and 2010, nationally. Georgia is well on it’s way to solidifying it’s strong hold in the Southeast as a cleantech leader. But it can only capture that title, through diligent public policy and building momentum by consistently sharing its variety of success stories with the world. At the Savannah Clean Energy Conference, Governor Deal and others have a pivotal opportunity to impress on the international audience the strength of Georgia’s clean economy and its reliable potential for successful cleantech profitability in the 21st Century.
View the original article here
Ярлыки: Charge, Clean, economy, Georgia, leading, Southeast 0 коммент.
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Time To Consider a Thermal "System Benefits Charge"?
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Well before most states and/or the federal government had enacted renewable electric or fuel mandates, many states imposed modest surcharges on electricity and natural gas, with the revenues used to finance efficiency programs. Often referred to as “system benefits charges” (SBCs), these programs have funded billions in efficiency and conservation programs for utility customers.
A defining characteristic of SBCs is that they are nearly universally imposed on customers of regulated electric and natural gas utilities, and conveniently collected through utility bills. The incentives made possible by these funds are limited to utility customers and generally do not fund programs that eliminate the customer’s use of the regulated energy. For example, SBC funds cannot be used to pay for fuel switching to a renewable technology that eliminates a customer’s use of electricity or natural gas. Instead they typically fund gas or electric efficiency or conservation measures while retaining the customers dependence on these non-renewable energy sources. It’s reasonable that those who pay should receive the benefit, but the inability to fund the switch to renewables greatly narrows the potential benefits, especially for heating.
Perhaps it is time we took a hard look at SBCs on unregulated fuels such as heating oil or propane, two expensive and often imported fuels. This is not a new idea, as some states have considered legislation imposing modest fees on these fuels, but with very restrictive uses for the funds. In Massachusetts, for example, a heating oil/propane SBC of $0.025/gallon is proposed to fund efficiency upgrades with the proceeds used to cost-share installation of more efficient oil or propane heating systems (ironically perpetuating dependence on these costly and non-renewable fuels). If the SBC were to be extended to include the funding of efficient bioenergy heating equipment that uses wood pellets or wood chips or include biodiesel used as a liquid heating fuel then perhaps a more comprehensive and fuel neutral program focused on thermal efficiency and renewables could be developed.
Implementation Concepts
A thermal SBC would take the form of a modest assessment administered at the state level on a diversity of unregulated heating fuels such as heating oil, propane, kerosene and wood pellets that have well established distribution systems. It is expected that the importers and distributors of these fuels would pass the assessment along to the consumer in the form of slightly higher energy costs.
The revenues derived would be deposited in a non-lapsing fund in each state. The fund would be administered by an appropriate state agency or quasi-public commission (with public and private oversight). The purposes of this fund would be to:
(a) Finance a comprehensive program of education, outreach and incentives to residential, commercial, municipal, and industrial consumers to encourage them to install thermal renewable energy technologies, combined heat & power technologies, or community-scale district heating (e.g. it could offer a one time upfront rebate against verified installed cost of such systems). Other possibilities include grants, incentives, low/no interest loans, administration of revolving loan funds, property tax credits, business tax credits etc.;
(b) Support the distributors and installers of conventional fossil heating fuels and systems in adopting alternative thermal renewable technologies and fuel distribution (this would help those businesses negatively impacted by the imposition and collection of the SBC fee to transition to new business opportunities in thermal renewable technologies), and in assisting their customers in replacing old inefficient oil and propane appliances with new systems that meet minimum efficiency requirements;
The size of the fee would decline over time as new renewable thermal energy business sectors reach critical mass and are able to flourish without support from the SBC; or, as the cost differential between fossil and renewable energy cost grows wider and free market economics are sufficient to drive the transition and meet state goals. Conceivably the fee could be phased out in as short a period as 5 years. In addition, the fee could be reduced or waived during periods of unusually high market pricing for fossil energy, and reinstated when market pricing drops – providing a so-called “price floor.”
This approach combines a traditional SBC on fossil fuels with a commodity “check-off” program on pellets or biodiesel, similar to those widely administered in support of marketing and R&D for agricultural commodities (examples include national promotional campaigns for milk, eggs, pork, beef, and more recently, softwood lumber). However, check off programs have generally been sanctioned by Congress and applied nationwide, not state by state.
Considerations
The implementation of the thermal SBC will be complex and challenging. There are many important considerations that must be addressed. Among these are:
Whether or not to tie the SBC to the achievement of measurable goals, such as many state RPS programs do.Who will provide monitoring and verification of progress toward meeting goals?How much of a thermal SBC fee would be necessary and acceptable to consumers?How to collect SBC fees on unregulated heating fuels such as cordwood?How to ensure the efficient implementation of state programs and incentives while keeping bureaucracy and administrative costs to a minimum.Fair and equitable access to funds by all sectors: residential, commercial, municipal, industrial.Use of funds based on broad public policy objectives without technology or fuel bias.
View the original article here
A defining characteristic of SBCs is that they are nearly universally imposed on customers of regulated electric and natural gas utilities, and conveniently collected through utility bills. The incentives made possible by these funds are limited to utility customers and generally do not fund programs that eliminate the customer’s use of the regulated energy. For example, SBC funds cannot be used to pay for fuel switching to a renewable technology that eliminates a customer’s use of electricity or natural gas. Instead they typically fund gas or electric efficiency or conservation measures while retaining the customers dependence on these non-renewable energy sources. It’s reasonable that those who pay should receive the benefit, but the inability to fund the switch to renewables greatly narrows the potential benefits, especially for heating.
Perhaps it is time we took a hard look at SBCs on unregulated fuels such as heating oil or propane, two expensive and often imported fuels. This is not a new idea, as some states have considered legislation imposing modest fees on these fuels, but with very restrictive uses for the funds. In Massachusetts, for example, a heating oil/propane SBC of $0.025/gallon is proposed to fund efficiency upgrades with the proceeds used to cost-share installation of more efficient oil or propane heating systems (ironically perpetuating dependence on these costly and non-renewable fuels). If the SBC were to be extended to include the funding of efficient bioenergy heating equipment that uses wood pellets or wood chips or include biodiesel used as a liquid heating fuel then perhaps a more comprehensive and fuel neutral program focused on thermal efficiency and renewables could be developed.
Implementation Concepts
A thermal SBC would take the form of a modest assessment administered at the state level on a diversity of unregulated heating fuels such as heating oil, propane, kerosene and wood pellets that have well established distribution systems. It is expected that the importers and distributors of these fuels would pass the assessment along to the consumer in the form of slightly higher energy costs.
The revenues derived would be deposited in a non-lapsing fund in each state. The fund would be administered by an appropriate state agency or quasi-public commission (with public and private oversight). The purposes of this fund would be to:
(a) Finance a comprehensive program of education, outreach and incentives to residential, commercial, municipal, and industrial consumers to encourage them to install thermal renewable energy technologies, combined heat & power technologies, or community-scale district heating (e.g. it could offer a one time upfront rebate against verified installed cost of such systems). Other possibilities include grants, incentives, low/no interest loans, administration of revolving loan funds, property tax credits, business tax credits etc.;
(b) Support the distributors and installers of conventional fossil heating fuels and systems in adopting alternative thermal renewable technologies and fuel distribution (this would help those businesses negatively impacted by the imposition and collection of the SBC fee to transition to new business opportunities in thermal renewable technologies), and in assisting their customers in replacing old inefficient oil and propane appliances with new systems that meet minimum efficiency requirements;
The size of the fee would decline over time as new renewable thermal energy business sectors reach critical mass and are able to flourish without support from the SBC; or, as the cost differential between fossil and renewable energy cost grows wider and free market economics are sufficient to drive the transition and meet state goals. Conceivably the fee could be phased out in as short a period as 5 years. In addition, the fee could be reduced or waived during periods of unusually high market pricing for fossil energy, and reinstated when market pricing drops – providing a so-called “price floor.”
This approach combines a traditional SBC on fossil fuels with a commodity “check-off” program on pellets or biodiesel, similar to those widely administered in support of marketing and R&D for agricultural commodities (examples include national promotional campaigns for milk, eggs, pork, beef, and more recently, softwood lumber). However, check off programs have generally been sanctioned by Congress and applied nationwide, not state by state.
Considerations
The implementation of the thermal SBC will be complex and challenging. There are many important considerations that must be addressed. Among these are:
Whether or not to tie the SBC to the achievement of measurable goals, such as many state RPS programs do.Who will provide monitoring and verification of progress toward meeting goals?How much of a thermal SBC fee would be necessary and acceptable to consumers?How to collect SBC fees on unregulated heating fuels such as cordwood?How to ensure the efficient implementation of state programs and incentives while keeping bureaucracy and administrative costs to a minimum.Fair and equitable access to funds by all sectors: residential, commercial, municipal, industrial.Use of funds based on broad public policy objectives without technology or fuel bias.
View the original article here
Ярлыки: Benefits, Charge, consider, system, thermal 0 коммент.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
As Electric Vehicles Take Charge, Costs Power Down
Saturday, January 21, 2012By Patrick B. Davis Vehicle Technologies Program Manager
The record number of electric-drive vehicles on the floor of Detroit's North American International Auto Show, which ends January 22, sends a clear message—the American auto industry is dedicated to driving innovation and delivering advanced vehicles to consumers here and around the world. We’re working with them every step of the way to help make that vision a reality. One of the keys to translating the trade show excitement around electric vehicles into widespread consumer adoption is driving down costs, and one area that continues to be a focus across the industry is reducing the cost of electric motors.
In addition to further research and development, increasing the domestic manufacturing capacity of electric motors is one of the keys to accomplishing this. Upping capacity will not only help meet growing consumer demand but also help drive down the cost of both the motors and the vehicles that use them. To help achieve this goal, DOE has undertaken a variety of projects with industry partners to find innovative ways to design and manufacture electric motors. On one such project, the department teamed with Delphi Automotive Systems in an effort to reduce the cost, size, and weight of electric motors by using patented semiconductor packaging technology. The result of this cost-sharing partnership is new packaging that is smaller, lighter weight and allows more power to be produced than previous methods. Read the full story on DOE's Energy Blog.
Ярлыки: Charge, costs, Electric, power, vehicles 0 коммент.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)