Mia Green Expo & Conference

This past week in Miami I attended the Mia Green Expo & Conference. It was a two day event held at the Miami Beach Convention Center. The event had an exhibit hall with 118 exhibitors and four different parallel Conference sessions, the choices were: (1) Designing and Building greener Americas; (2) How to be Green & Profitable; (3) Green Policies & Benefits; and (4) LEED 2009 Update & Special programs.

 

Here is my analysis of this event:

Is Miami the new capital of the world for Greentech? Well, the short answer is…no. Furthermore this conference was fairly small and a bit disorganized.

In spite of the above I have to admit that in this growing field of Greentech there are always new things to learn and new people to meet. But, most importantly I enjoy attending these conferences because it reminds me of the HUGE OPPORTUNITY we are facing by being part of this group of early adopters of the green wave.

Some day we will look back at these events and say something like this: “remember those days when we were trying to convince the rest of the world that the green wave was coming and that greentech was going to become a huge industry?”

Most of the people in the event were from state or city government, from the various utilities and from academia. The business people (aside from the utilities) were from the construction arena. This is a good example of how Greentech is still flying under the radar.

Many people don’t realize yet the impact Greentech is going to have in our everyday lives and businesses. Just to give you an example: If the US government sticks to their plan and implement the cap and trade law, every business will have to start thinking in terms of carbon emissions. This means that the corner ice cream shop will have to pay or compensate for the carbon emissions of their ice cream machines (and their blenders, and their delivery truck, and their a/c)! The greentech world will have a demand never seen before, instead of companies pushing for their greentech products, people will demand greentech applications in their businesses, their transport and their homes.

Here are some comments from last week’s IT’S ALL GOOD... GOOD NEWS!:

“We are all happy you said it.
If you remember how it started, we can say now: Bad times R.I.P.”

“I concur. I am beginning to see an improvement in the hiring market. And green jobs are going to lead the way”

“Thanks... Most of us need this kind of news.
Everything but the global Climate Change which goes beyond the Koyoto Protocol is fairly good news.. All that will do is boost my 100% Carbon Tax exempt product automobile mfg company sales”

“Some interesting thoughts here. however the incentives currently on offer for 'green' technologies are skewed towards what the lobbyists want rather than what is practical and effective technology. For my proof I offer wind power which is probably the most unreliable erratic supply available and undeserving (in my opinion) of the massive subsidies it is getting in the UK. I would be more interested if power from waste was getting the same level of subsidy and planning application help. The nimby effect (not in my back yard) prevents good waste to energy gasifiers and combusters from getting off the ground in the UK and this just has to change-recovers energy from waste and reduces landfill - both required for our sustainability. For the UK in situ coal gasification with CO2 capture is a way to supply all of our gas and chemical industry supplies for 200 years plus! By producing synthesis gas we can revert all households to towns gas as we knew it and use syngas to make ammonia and hence fertiliser and plastics - basically replace the petro industry with gasification products as SASOL”

“I certainly hope so. These however are just a few of the green giants out there. If the rest of the economy picks up on their regular way of doing business again, we might be back in the financial slumps before you know it”

“1. the last depression-recovery was based on investment in military and road building. this one is green.
2. it smells like the internet age in c.1994
3. the market is not natural. nice feelings around social conscience did not cut it. economic drivers are being created by government. as such, it is so disruptive! And neat stuff can be done until the old fashioned laws of supply and demand
.
So I do not see there being a return to a premature slump as we have started the next cycle. between now and then I believe we will see another massive transfer of wealth from investors to consultants and marketeers via entrepreneurs as we saw in late 1990's. As the zietgiest is based on long term >25 years for a big return, I hope we are seeing another long growth run; then again energy deficits may derail us”

Until next time: SHALOM!

IT’S ALL GOOD... GOOD NEWS!

It seems the world is getting back in track. After some uncertain months of rollercoaster economic forecasts, bailouts and bankruptcies it seems the future is looking brighter than ever. Here are some news that are sure to lift your spirits (that is, if you are in the green wagon)

- This article talks about the new Prius which has factories working overtime. While the rest of the car manufacturers are shutting down Toyota is selling more Priuses than it can produce.To read full article click here

- A public-private coal plant previously discarded because of high cost will be built in Mattoon, Ill. This plant will store nearly all of its emissions underground. The decision change was based on a cost calculation error that turned the project’s cost from $1.8bn into $1.3bn. To read full article click here

- Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing (TSMC) one of the largest semi-conductor producers in the world is jumping into the solar cell and LED light arena. This compatibility between semi-conductors and solar cells first identified in Israel will open new markets for this industry giant. But, more importantly, it will call the attention of other competitors and therefore reduce solar cell and LED costs for the consumers. To read full article click here 

- Bonneville Power Administration, whose power lines carry much of the electricity in the US Pacific Northwest is ramping up their capacity using wind power. The article talks about the demand of some groups to shut down some of the company’s hydropower to protect wild salmon. But, from my perspective, the article brings good news regarding substitution of dirty sources of power generation with clean power. The fact that this creates some conflicts with other groups is just part of the process. To read full article click here

- Climate Change Treaty, to Go Beyond the Kyoto Protocol, Is Expected by the Year’s End. More than 100 nations are negotiating a new treaty that will push the agenda further into cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases and preventing deforestation. To read full article click here

Any thoughts?

Here are some comments from last week’s Why incentives work, and don’t work? (some are VERY INTERESTING. Thanks!)

“In my experience good people tend to attract money rather than money attracting good people”

“Tell me how you reward people and I will tell you how they will act. If you reward people in an illogical inconsistent manner, that's exactly how they will act. Now, if they also get the best administration who understands how to motivate people to giving students a better education with above average teachers in the classrooms I think it will be an amazing system”

“The problem isn't the incentive it is the accountability. The inflated pay is not the reason why good teachers would be found in this new school. It is the accountability that comes with the high pay that weeds out the lesser candidates”

“My thoughts were to have a top school who charges zero tuition but gets paid a percentage of the students earnings for the first 20 years of work. From that, the teachers receive a "dividend" from each child they taught. This way their retirement fund grows from those they taught. It would be a great incentive for the teacher to see that the student is truly able to succeed in life, as their retirement directly depends on the success of the children they taught.
Also, while teaching have bonus pay based on the number of students actually retaining what was taught. This would require the elimination of all multiple-choice tests and every test would have only one question, regardless of subject matter. The question would be "What have you learned this semester from this teacher and show with examples". This would foster critical thinking skills rather than memorization and regurgitation. The percentage of subject matter that the students learned would directly relate to the bonus given.
This would create accountability and a co-dependency relationship between teacher and students”

“All incentives have the challenge of hitting the sweet spot of their intended and invoking the desired response. This one sounds off-target. Did teachers become teachers to make big money? Only if they were misguided and misjudged the teaching space”

“I think in your article you are ignoring that we as society have a very big interest that energy be cheap. Energy is one of the major taxes that everybody has to pay on their lives, so if we are worried over the long-term development of our industries and their competitiveness over time, energy, over time, needs to be low-cost (also, btw, communications and finance).
We should have an interest in developing 50mpg cars and such other technologies. Apart of having lower pollution, such machines are cheaper to operate and provide real advantages. But is making energy expensive the right way? Although it is a good incentive, it goes against other, more important goals”

Until next time: SHALOM!

Why incentives work, and don’t work?

Recently an article in the NY Times was talking about a new school being assembled. The particular thing about this school is the salaries teachers will receive; around $125,000 a year “two and a half times as much as the national average for teacher salaries”.

The idea is to have the best teachers available and the means to do it is by offering a big incentive: 2.5 TIMES THE AVERAGE SALARY OF OTHER TEACHERS!

So, will this guarantee success? Who knows, but certainly they have managed to get VERY good teachers, who knows if this really will translate into top notch education.

That is precisely the point about incentives. Human systems are complex structures and when you create an incentive you disrupt the “natural order” of things and create sometimes unpredictable outcomes. Here is an example:

I believe the US society has a plethora of negative role models from professional sports (as exemplified in the List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes). Some football, basketball and baseball players earn immense sums of money, they have big houses and luxurious cars, but they also have encounters with the law, they lack education, and some are bound to self destroy. It all traces back to incentives!

A kid from high school gets selected for a top school based on their athletic ability, not their level of education (first incentive). They have lower requirements from the school and eventually get drafted into a professional team. The first round pick in NFL for this year will get “$41.7 million in guarantees” for a six year contract. What is a 21 year old kid supposed to do with over $40 when he turns 27? Furthermore what kind of example is he setting for other kids who look up to him? Is he prepared to be a role model?

All this brings us back to the incentives on Greentech. Are they well designed? will we get the consequences we desire from these “disruptions”?

Greentech needs a hand to compete with existing technologies, energy sources and to change consumer behaviors. But we must be very wary of the potential outcomes of the incentives we propose.

Here are some responses from last week’s Are these environmental goals any good?:

“I am disappointed in the new standards. My VW Jetta 2000, gives about 30.x mpg during summer and 28.5+mpg during Winters in the metro Boston area. My Toyota Corolla 2007 gives about 34mpg.
If the SUVs and Trucks had say, 35mpg in 2016 and sedans to have a minimum of 50mpg, then that would have been a better goal to push for true innovation and energy use reductions by 2025. It would take atleast 8-9yrs. after the 2016 standard to have replaced a majority of vehicles on the road”

“After reading your blog, I have to admit that the "tough rules and regs" doesn't make a lot of sense. If we already have the technology for 50mpg, and Obama's only pushing for 35.5mpg, that takes away from the drive to go for better mpg than 35.5”

“I think like much policy that comes from Washington, it's flawed, but a step in the right direction”

“The best, and in my opinion, only effective way to promote alternate technologies is to ensure gasoline is priced in the range of $5.00 per gallon. That, in my opinion is the way to go. Legislating fuel economy standards may help, but think about it - for every new 35 or even 45 MPG car on the road - how many dozens are out there (think older cars or SUVs)at 20 MPG or less. Then lets think about diesels”

“If oil companies have their way it will become another reason for higher fuel and oil prices. In my view, the Feds have to take seriously the task of forcing automakers to switch over to hydrogen engines and other clean tech, along with forcing the grid energy suppliers to do the same. “

“What 'O' bases his assumptions on are Al Gore's global warming scandal of man-made C02, and other gas emmissions, so we started off wrong to begin with. With the banking crisis killing most other industries, esp the automotive industry, I believe this is a bad time to further destroy the industry”

“Give people something that is better and they will buy it. We can discuss the pros and cons of global warming and political agendas "until the cows come home" yet from where I sit on the other side of the world to you; I see a strategy that should galvanise the community to embrace change”

“I think they should be much tougher.... It is ridiculous that Americans continue to drive gas guzzling cars at 55 mph. The management of American car makers have failed to respond to the energy crisis, produce terrible cars and then want bail outs when they can't sell them”

“Considering the concept of sustainability, I think that 35.5 MPG is definitely high enough. Remember, this is CAFE, the average fuel economy for all of the vehicles a company manufactures, up to 10,000 lbs GVWR. So, while we may have the capability of manufacturing vehicles that will perform at 50+ MPG, there would still be a need for work trucks and vans that simply would not be useful with such a high fuel mileage.”

“I agree with you that the goals are unambitious but if the political pragmatism is that it is a modest goal that passes to law versus no change, then it is better to get the ball rolling.
By the way the US National Academy of Science has just published a free book that illustrates to the US what is happening in its own backyard. Copy available at http://tinyurl.com/qdfwyd”

“I predict that in 2 years we'll all be in agreement that it would have been better to just let Chrysler and GM go out of business”

“Obama so called tough rules are only decades too last due to the Big Three in the past always claiming excuses so that they did not have to upgrade CAFE mileage. They sure used lobbyists' a lot back then.”

“The new standard for cars efficiency by President Obama was long awaited and it is a great news. However, cars in many parts of the world (including China) are more efficient.”

Until next time: SHALOM!

Are these environmental goals any good?

On a recent press conference Obama announced a new standard for cars and trucks emissions (Obama to Toughen Rules on Emissions and Mileage). I wonder if this is the right move?

It was in college while studying Computer Simulation that I learned about retro-feeding cycles. These are cycles where several factors contribute to the growth (positive cycle) or shrinkage (negative cycle) of a specific variable. A retro-feeding cycle occurs for people who gain weight (that is why its so difficult to lose weight). As the person starts to eat more and more, he or she feels less and less energy to exercise (or even walk), also the stomach grows bigger and bigger providing for more space for food as well as preventing the person from feeling satisfied from eating. There are probably other physiological and psychological factors that also contribute to the weight gain of these specific person. Here is a graph that illustrates this retro-feeding cycle:

The environmental damage we are causing to planet earth is a very complex retro-feeding cycle that is further enlarged by other retro-feeding cycles. Population growth is a retro-feeding cycle  that contributes to the "environmental damage" cycle (the more people, the more growth), so is the "energy needs" retro-feeding cycle (more energy creates more progress and more need for additional energy).

So, is 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016 enough to change the negative retro-feeding cycle of carbon emissions?

The only way to neutralize a retro-feeding cycle is to create a counter-cycle that grows at equal or higher rate than the cycle we are trying to overcome.

I have read that when Kennedy proposed the lunar landing goal before the end of the decade (1960's), the US was very far from achieving this goal. Furthermore, Kennedy did not know if that goal was achievable at all!

In the world of Greentech, 35 MPG does not sound very impressing. There are many vehicles out there that can easily achieve that mileage today (click here to see some of them)! Are we selling ourselves short? If we have the technology to achieve 50MPG today, is setting 35MPG by 2016 going to help or to hinder the development of that technology?

So I ask you again: Are these environmental goals any good?

Comments from Why Greentech in Israel?:

First of all I want to share an article closely related to this post Israel's Clean Technology Pioneers

“Sami, exactly my sentiments. Israel also has it's own environmental challenges which desperately need Greentech solutions. In some ways Israel is an island and needs find new ways to harvest renewable energy, and recycle water and upcycle raw materials.”

“I agree with you in general terms, in specific I would ad that in some cases Israel needs some expertises to be imported for example in the windfarms development. But even here there are a lot of candidates ready to cooperate with companies from Israel provided they are invited”

“My only thought is on the following: "Because it’s easier and cheaper to continue with our current behaviors." It is easier, but not cheaper, to behave unsustainably. True, the greedy don't always pay now, but longer term the costs to society will be far higher to have ignored our planet's well-being”

“Why is that? Following the great success in the IT sector?
Do you believe "Silicon valleys" are the best place to start green start-ups?
Israel is where most of solar nergy concepts and ideas were born and rose up to become products and technologies. Do you believe that this background is another good reason for Israel being a good place to do greentech? “

Until next time: SHALOM!

Why Greentech in Israel?

I hereby declare that Greentech and Israel is a perfect match!

The more I put my head into it, the more I get convinced that Israel and Greentech are a great combination.

Let’s start with my assumptions:

Assumption #1: Greentech is the future. As I have explained in the past I strongly believe that Greentech is the Wave of the future (The Greentech Wave July-2008). Whereas you believe the planet is in need of help or you want to reduce your electric bill, the future lays in alternative energy sources, changes in waste management and improving our water supply.

Assumption #2: Greentech needs to push technology boundaries to substitute existing technologies and current behaviors. The world is still running of fossil fuels, waste (liquid and solid) keeps piling up and getting dumped in the wrong places and water sources are diminishing as water needs are rising. Why? Because it’s easier and cheaper to continue with our current behaviors. Therefore, greentech needs to “step it up” and start competing in cost and ease of use.

Therefore:

We need the fastest and best technology developers.

How about using the country that has the biggest concentration of scientist per capita? or The country that has delivered many of the technologies we use today, like the key drives and the messenger? The country that invests the most of its GDP in R&D? The country that has the most Nasdaq listed companies after the US?

The answer to all those questions: Israel

Last, but not least. Israel has the personality (as a country) to develop technology. People are natural entrepreneurs, scientist are “commercial application” oriented (as opposed to “pure research” oriented).

Here are some comments from the previous post “To Tree..”:

“I personally appreciate the yin and the yang of the tree hugging continuum. The extremists on both sides are the ones that come up with the ideas and questions no one has ever thought about before. Though it usually the more moderate parties that actually end up utilizing these new ideas and addressing the questions.”

“"The cost of solar power has to match the cost of coal power". - Coal is subsidized which is why it is so cheap. Wind and solar power are subsidized to a smaller extent through renewable energy credits purchased by individuals and some corporations, but do not receive the large amounts of funding given to coal.”

“Did you see the article about the Inuit village in western Alaska having to move inland because of flooding/rising seawater levels. I think there is ample empirical evidence that we are in the midst of climate change globally and that can be seen by studying the past and present. If we wait until the future...Nonetheless, I see a great global movement unlike anything we have seen in recent history”

“There are more trees in the US today than there were 100 years ago. The state of Texas has more trees than any state in the lower 48.”

“Saving the Planet...And it may be too late; I get your point! But Tree Huggers be damn! It is not "Global Warming" that is going to cause the destruction of life, It is the acidification of the Oceans. And, It needs to stop and reversed”

“Green tech for green tech's sake is a non-issue. The more pressing concern is overall US energy independence and green tech certainly has a place in that”

“Setting aside climate change skepticism (and there are reasonable physical scientists and engineers who are skeptical and have essentially been shouted down), it is too limiting to think only of energy production. We need to look at all aspects of human activity. For instance, intensive farming has done more environmental damage than all industry and transportation. Modern diets consisting of more meat result in significantly higher consumption of energy, water and other natural resources; and all that live stock means more green house gases”

“It is very difficult to tell someone he can't have a car, a refrigerator or an air conditioner because of added pollution and climate concerns. Specially when the "developed" part of our planet consumes most of the energy produced and generates most of the pollution”

To Tree Hug or not to Tree Hug? That is the question...

Sometimes we run into situations in life where its too late to undo what has been done and the only thing left is to chose between the "lesser evil" option.

If you are at a friends house and accidentally run into a large ceramic vase and the vase breaks. You can't undo what you did, the options left are: 1- to compensate for the loss by buying or paying for a substitute or 2- to piece the vase back together and somehow glue it back into shape. Either choice yields a bad result, but sadly, there is no way to go back in time and undo the damage.

I have talked to people across the "tree hugger" spectrum. People who believe "mother earth" is hurting and "she" needs our love and caring attention. And people who say that climate change is nonsense and that we are not impacting nature in any way by just going on with our lives.

We will only know the reality of today's status when we see the consequences in the future, and by then, it will be too late to change the result.

So let's try to make sense out of what we have today. Does Greentech stand a chance to help us avoid running into a unwanted "point-of-no-return" scenario?

I have said it many times: Greentech has to have economic feasibility. The cost of solar power has to match the cost of coal power. But, who says the cost should only represent materials plus labor. What about cost of public health. What about the cost of losing our bees (read this article Group Sounds Alarm on European Bee Industry)

The other factors we need to take into account when we compare Greentech to existing sources of Energy, Water and Waste Management are (a) the Economies of Scale and (b) the Research & Development amortization.

For example: A coal burning plant has several choices of vendors for their equipment (the risk of building a plant and getting it wrong are minimal); the sources of coal are well established and we know how to exploit them; the electric grid is designed to receive electricity from this type of source, etc. Today's entire world is set-up to generate energy from carbon. On top of all this, the majority of the cost of R&D for coal energy has been already paid for (as well as the cost of R&D for cars that run on oil, classical waste treatment methods, etc.).

Greentech will need a "boost" to achieve a competitive level with the existing technologies. Not only do we need to artificially create Economies of Scale for the replacement of coal plants, but we will also have to find a way to offset the cost R&D. That is why the CEO of Duke Energy agrees that coal is very bad for the environment and we need to substitute it, but he is not taking concrete steps to achieve that. Watch this:

Perhaps we are taking the correct steps to avoid running into a point-of-no-return situation (see Clinton Says U.S. Is Ready to Lead on Climate). I just want to leave you with the following thought: even though many people disagree on what happens after you die, few are willing to take the step to find out.

Here are some interesting comments I received for Who is holding Greentech back?:

"I don't believe it is who but what.
Any investment unless it is an emotional decision comes down to payback. Many green investments don't payback within many financial investor's needed timeframe.
With that said, I believe many are getting close."

"The banks or investors must check the results… that's why, good scientific consultants are required in financial business!!!!"

"So much for the great American Capitalistic system. This kind of environment is no more no less than the same economic mine field that was created around the sub prime mortgage fiasco and no one even wants to discuss it.
What has to happen is that a completely new means of funding has to be created to support viable technologies that are waiting in the wings. This could be done on the same level as what was done in the oil and gas industry with the “Royalty Trust Agreements” or some other financial instrument along those lines that reward the investors based on “PRODUCTION” derived from the process output and the effectiveness of the product in the market place"

"Wow, you really hit the nail on the head. Entrepreneurs like me who have risked so much to create a new technology are being hung out to dry by the more comfortably situated. Real entrepreneurs who risk their own money and careers (not the cushy kind who step right into a paid position with a startup) are treated as irresponsible and reckless"

"Of course oil companies are going to try to stomp out greentech... it is very much hitting them where it hurts...their money. The greentech companies have to infiltrate by really selling themselves with the saving money pitch. I know this may sound like it goes against what greentech is about but you need to speak in the language of big business. If you can go into a hotel chain and tell them your innovation will save them big bucks they will listen and in fact they just might invest in your greentech company"

"Cheap fossil fuels"

"You are correct the decision makers do not have enough information to define what is green or what is brown...they have a lot of hype...and perceptions that are incorrect"

"The Greentech bank is an interesting idea. The US has the resources to become a world leader in the alternative energy space"

"I love it. And it’s even worse if you are not developing a widget. My Energy Credit Card has a business method patent. My customers will be electric utilities and the closer I get to those "decision makers" the more entrenched they are and/or just plain scared of the simplicity of the Energy Credit Card.
For the curious, here is a short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBDZUQQLRBs"

"It is not just the credit markets that are holding Greentech back. Two other candidates are government and the consulting engineering industry"

"Maybe the answer is to learn to do a better job of educating the current crop of money people about the value of taking risks in such areas and/or doing a better job of demonstrating long-term benefits"

Until next time: SHALOM!

Who is holding Greentech back?

"He who is firmly seated in authority soon learns to think security, and not progress, the highest lesson of statecraft" James Russell Lowell

If you want to know what else is wrong about today's economic model, you have to talk to any entrepreneur who is trying to implement a new Greentech initiative in a commercial scale.

The logical general path of a new product or service towards market implementation is the following:(1) An idea is conceived;(2) The concept is proven;(3) The product or service is launched to the market. Generally speaking, almost any new product that addresses a big enough market requires a big capital injection at the time of launch to market. Most of the companies seek this capital from banks and financial institutions.

The problem with this sources of capital is that they are very risk averse (now, even more that before!). Therefore, the decision maker for lending money towards a new Greentech product or service will be intrinsically against taking a risk on a new technology, even if that technology represents higher margins, and more so if that technology "only" represents lower carbon emissions.

Think about a new solar cell that is able to generate 5 times more electricity than classical cells being used nowadays. Lets assume that the product has been tested and proven worthy of initial investment. When this product is proposed for a large solar field to generate electricity for an entire town the project is presented to the banks. The bank's loan committee will look at this loan and will try to asses their risk. Someone will ask "has anyone proven these cells for a lifespan of 20 years, which is the loan period we are considering?". A long silence will follow until someone answers "we are not sure how these cells will behave past their first year of life, which is what was tested so far". What do you think the outcome of the loan committee will be?

A similar problem occurs with regulators. When a new greentech product is trying to get into the market is up to the regulators to provide a permit for this product to be commercially feasible. These regulators are also risk averse, at the end of the day they don't get any reward for approving better technologies, but they get punished for approving faulty ones!

To summarize, the lending committees of the world and the regulators are setting the limits to the type of technology we can access. This severely skews the outcome of the technologies being developed and presented to solve today's energy, water and waste management problems. I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING: LET'S BUILD THE GREENTECH BANK, hire experts in each field to really asses the possible risks of each technology and let's give financial backing to the technologies that deserve to be launched (and hope regulators will follow suit).

Here are some comments I received from The Good News, the Bad News and the Ugly News:

I am sorry, your point escapes me, even after reading your blog. What are you trying to say here? We need to be thinking in terms of substantial changes in the supply of types of energies and the methods of delivering those supplies that are economic and feasible. Man, that is a life-altering experience. Greentech is still a pipe-dream with wet diapers.

Interesting and relevant news. Consistent with what I am seeing. The economy has certainly slowed (but not stopped)

Provide more capital to small start ups - there are thousands of people out there in garages - we do not need the big to protect the markets and have it their way - at one point there were 200 car companies - same here - protect the small and help them grow

Comments from The obstacles to Alternative Energy implementation are in our heads. Are they?:

That's only part of the problem. The other problem is that we are too rich, so we don't give a damn, and can throw away hundreds of dollars per month without even knowing it. The conscious people are satisfied with talking the talk and walking the walk for themselves

The barriers to entry in the Energy Market are in your mind in this respect -- Don't allow anyone person, company & entity to impede your progress. If you provide smart business answers, the volume will follow

I do not think you are wrong, but is the green or alternative energy infrastructure large enough to be part of the mainstream?

Why don't we spend time and money coming up with ideas to use wisely the energy supplied by renewable energies. If we do not have electricity for one hour or a couple of hours, do we die? No, so many millions in the world do not have and they live every day. Mr Shiro is completely right. It is our own brain, which is creating the problem

Really big obstacles exist, I am currently making suggestions to my local Politician to asses and draw up protective outlines to govern the hapless new wave of installers and dealers of this new technology. Residential involvement seems to want more guidelines on how new dealers with almost no experience can suddenly appear out of nowhere and work on your home or office for a high dollar price. Where will this lead? Homeowners dealing with a nightmare of no set rules and guidelines orchestrating the professional as these newbies call themselves without getting proper identification, certification, licensing and insurance to facilitate these constituents of our local, state, or even federal areas. New dealers are not the only problem; New manufacturers are also popping up and claiming remarkable and physical science impossibility with these products. These New Manufacturers also need to make sure that they express that there systems only work at these outputs, and that the material has been reviewed by either DOE or NREL and certified by UL or consumer reports. We set up rules and guidelines to safe guard our peoples vehicles they ride in in the United States. If you build a car that does not meet the DOT crash standards for instance; it will not be sold to the people. This same concept is what I am proposing to the renewable energy field

Until next time: SHALOM!