Is Clean Energy Back For Good?

Thursday, May 16, 2013 | Leave a Comment 

The S&P Global Clean Energy Index, a diversified benchmark of 30 clean energy companies from around the world, underperformed the S&P 500 every calendar year of the last five. Over that time (2008-2012) it lost 88 percent of its total value, according to Bloomberg. This year, however, clean energy stocks have strongly outperformed U.S. equities overall (which have themselves surged to record highs in 2013). So what’s the deal? Is clean energy truly back?

Though there is no doubt many cleantech companies could not survive another economic downturn the likes of the one we’ve seen the last five years, that also means that none of the companies in the game today are pretenders. The sector is probably stronger now than it ever has been, and not just because investor cash is finally flowing in: Entrepreneurs have finally figured out how to make money in clean energy.

That’s true for S&P Global Clean Energy Index constituents like First Solar, a utility-scale photovoltaics provider, and it’s also true of earlier stage companies that are set to make a splash in clean energy. The recession’s secret silver lining is that it forced companies to innovate their technologies and their business models simultaneously.

Here in New England, we have no shortage of innovative clean energy upstarts whose businesses look promising. Altaeros, for instance, makes a wind turbine unlike any you’ve seen before – it hovers hundreds or even thousands of feet in the air, where winds are stronger and no one can complain about a windmill ruining the view. Don’t believe me? Check out this video of the turbine in action:

Portland, Maine-based Ocean Renewable Power Company is also putting turbines in unusual places, in this case, deep in the ocean, where the company harnesses the massive energy of tidal currents. Big Belly Solar (hailing from Newton, Massachusetts) has actually combined two clean technologies – recycling and solar energy – to revolutionize public trash collection. Its waste and recycling stations (which, by the way, can send email and text message alerts when they’re full) can now be seen from Times Square to Viborg, Denmark.

There’s never any telling where a market as new and swiftly changing as clean energy might be headed, but it’s safe to say that things are looking up. And that’s good news: After all, what other industry is good for investors, global economies and the environment at the same time?

Jake Navarro is an account supervisor for Greenough. Send him an email at jnavarro@greenough.biz

Is Cellulosic Ethanol the Future of Biofuels?

Friday, May 3, 2013 | Leave a Comment 

Photo: Dodo Bird, Flickr

Photo: Dodo Bird, Flickr

Ten years ago, ethanol was one of the hottest commodities on the market. Americans (especially those in Congress) had fallen in love with the idea that we could make a renewable, plant-based fuel to replace oil. You mean I can power my car with corn and sugarcane? That sounds like a great way to stay away from foreign oil and be (sort of) green.

Today, that picture is quite a bit different. Ethanol is no longer broadly viewed as a pro-American or particularly green fuel. In fact, Congress introduced legislation last month that would counteract 2005’s Renewable Fuel Standard, a policy that required incremental increases in the standard percentage of biofuels blended with gasoline (today it’s about 10 percent).

Why did ethanol fall out of favor? A big part of the change is probably due to the massive natural gas boom, which has gone a long way toward making the U.S. energy independent. But ethanol has had its own problems. The overwhelming majority of ethanol in the U.S. is made from corn, but corn has plenty of other uses. And though anyone who has driven through Iowa would have trouble believing it, there actually isn’t enough corn to sustainably produce ethanol.

Corn ethanol is created from the plant’s sugars and starches (in other words, the good stuff) which means that those same corn kernels can also be used for corn oil, corn syrup, livestock feed and many other functions. These other customers create demand for the corn which ultimately makes ethanol too costly to produce on a large scale. The same is true for ethanol derived from sugarcane or other valuable crops.

But sugars and starches aren’t the only parts of a plant that can be used to create ethanol. It is also possible to use cellulose, an inedible component of almost every plant. Since the cellulose is found in the undesirable portion of a plant (i.e. corn stalks and husks rather than kernels), it makes for a widely available, cheap feedstock. That’s why many are calling cellulose the future of ethanol, and perhaps the future of biofuels in general.

There is a catch, however. Any bootlegger can turn corn kernels into alcohol, but creating ethanol from cellulose is much more difficult. Only a few companies, such as Massachusetts-based Mascoma, have figured it out. Using proprietary technology, Mascoma introduces bacteria to materials such as wood and agricultural waste to create cellulosic ethanol. The final product is identical to corn ethanol, but the method and feedstocks are much more sustainable and scalable.

How big will cellulosic ethanol’s impact on the renewable fuels industry be? The answer depends in part on Congress’s decision about the Renewable Fuel Standard, but a sea change has already begun.

Jake Navarro is a senior consultant for Greenough. Send him an email at jnavarro@greenough.biz

New England’s Clean Energy Leaders Gather at Babson

Monday, April 1, 2013 | Leave a Comment 

PrintThe Northeast has become a hotbed for environmentally-conscious companies that also have strong business models. Call them what you will – clean tech, sustainable, green – just don’t call them treehuggers or do-gooders. These are businesses that make real money; they just happen to offer a product or service that will help lead the way to the future of U.S. energy independence and environmental sustainability.

This Friday, April 5, many of New England’s most prominent energy leaders will gather at Babson College for the school’s annual Energy + Environmental Conference.  Greenough has sponsored this event for years, and we’ve heard insightful thinking by everyone from Rhumb Line Energy Founder and former Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environment Ian Bowles to representatives from ExxonMobil. This year’s slate of speakers and panelists looks as impressive as always.

For instance, Claire Broido Johnson, co-founder of SunEdison, will deliver one of four keynote addresses. SunEdison is, of course, North America’s largest solar energy services provider, a company that has developed more than 883 MW of solar energy capacity. Considering that the U.S. only has about 7,700 MW of total capacity, it’s fair to say that SunEdison has had a huge impact. Claire also heads up Boston-based Next Step Living, a residential energy efficiency provider.

We’re also excited to hear from David Schatz of WiTriCity, who will be sitting in on a panel about energy transition in the auto industry. WiTriCity is a pioneer in the new field of wireless electricity. Using magnetic fields, the company’s technology enables wireless charging of any electronic device, from a light bulb to a laptop, so it will be fascinating to hear David speak.

Another local company to watch is Cambridge-based Zipcar. The company has already revolutionized car rentals once through its unique approach, now it’s revolutionizing the industry again with the introduction of plug-in vehicles and other green cars. Director of Business Development Gretchen Effgen will join the same panel as WiTriCity’s David Schatz to discuss the future of the auto industry.

Those are a few of our favorites, but we look forward to hearing from many other energy leaders from around the region and across the country at Babson this Friday. See you there!

Jake Navarro is a senior consultant for Greenough. Send him an email at jnavarro@greenough.biz

What Happens to Spent Nuclear Fuel Rods?

Tuesday, March 19, 2013 | Leave a Comment 

Photo: OeilDeNuit, stock.xchang

Photo: OeilDeNuit, stock.xchang

The (incredibly scary) answer is, at the moment, pretty much nothing. The U.S. is currently the proud owner of more than 70,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel. Where do we store this phenomenally hazardous material that will continue to be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years? Essentially, most if it goes into a temporary concrete bunker on the site of whichever nuclear plant created it. Worse still, that pile of spent fuel rods is growing on the order of more than 2,000 tons every year.

Ever since the plan to build a facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was abandoned in 2010 (for reasons that may or may not have been politically-driven), the U.S. has yet to come up with a backup. And even if Yucca Mountain had panned out, it was far from a permanent solution. The facility was planned to last 10,000 years, less than 1/25th the deadly life of the nuclear waste it was meant to contain. It would also have been unable to store our entire supply of spent fuel. Even if the facility hadn’t fallen more than a decade behind schedule before being killed, Yucca Mountain was inevitably doomed.

So what’s the plan? Right now, the U.S. doesn’t have a good one, but the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster in Japan proved to be a much-needed kick in the pants. A Blue Ribbon Commission report on America’s nuclear future last January urged the U.S. to find an alternative to Yucca Mountain in the near future.

Now that the bat signal has been turned on, innovators have emerged with new solutions to tackle the nuclear waste dilemma. Daher, for instance, a French industrial company, has pioneered a method for evacuating damaged spent fuel rods under water and encapsulating the waste in proprietary container designs. Areva, another French company, has proposed building a $20 billion plant in the U.S. that would recycle used nuclear fuel to create more electricity. And at last year’s Babson Energy and Environmental Conference, a spokesman for an as yet unnamed company told me about a proposal to build a storage facility in Labrador that would last 10 million years.

As the need becomes more dire, innovations in this budding industry will be refined even further. Let’s just hope that legislators pick a solution soon, because nothing good will happen to that growing pile of nuclear waste.

Jake Navarro is a senior consultant for Greenough. Send him an email at jnavarro@greenough.biz

Could 2013 Be the Year of Wind Energy?

Thursday, January 10, 2013 | Leave a Comment 

It may be early, but things already seem to be looking up for wind energy this year. The last decade has seen many ups and downs for the wind industry, from the highs of Cape Wind being approved to the lows of, well, Cape Wind not really being approved. But the eleventh hour fiscal cliff deal proved that wind is really here to stay, as President Obama argued to ensure a vital production tax credit of 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour for wind energy providers was renewed. The American Wind Energy Association estimated that without that subsidy, as many as half of the 75,000 wind-related jobs in the U.S. would have been lost.

This comes in the wake of what was possibly wind energy’s best year ever in 2012. The wind industry had installed more than six and a half gigawatts of new capacity as of November – which is more than natural gas or coal mustered over the same time period. The industry probably exceeded eight gigawatts in new capacity for the full year, and that number may have been as high as 12 gigawatts as companies rushed to complete installations before the production tax credit was slated to end on December 31.

The last-minute surge in installed capacity during December might just kick-start an even more successful year in 2013 now that the tax credit has been renewed. Instead of cutting half the jobs in the industry, wind is stronger than ever thanks to the huge (if not 100% voluntary) increase in capacity. All this is good news for local wind companies, including Boston’s First Wind.

First Wind already operates more than a dozen projects in several states, including Maine, Vermont and New York, and it hopes to increase its portfolio by 50 percent or more now that the tax credit has been extended. According to a recent press release, “The ambitious effort could mean that thousands of people will be employed building new First Wind projects over the next few years along with millions of dollars in investment and new revenue.” That’s great news for the Northeast and other regions where First Wind operates, as well as the wind industry as a whole.

Companies like First Wind, Vermont-based Northern Power and others in the area – coupled with a newly-secured, crucial government subsidy – make wind power one of the most important industries to watch in 2013.

Jake Navarro is a senior consultant for Greenough. Send him an email at jnavarro@greenough.biz

Clean Energy’s Fiscal Cliff

Friday, December 7, 2012 | Leave a Comment 

The best explanation of the looming fiscal cliff I’ve seen so far came from Conan O’Brien sidekick Andy Richter last week:

So if Congress can’t get a deal done and we do fall off the fiscal cliff and “crash into the double dip recession river,” what does that mean for clean energy? Like many government programs, clean energy funding would see mandatory cuts. The White House reports that sequestration would take away $148 million from the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program in 2013 (I know, it’s a ridiculously long document – look at page 80 if you don’t believe me).

That’s $148 million less to be invested in clean energy over the next year, and even if we do avoid the fiscal cliff, chances are that government funding for renewables will see cuts anyway. That means that the cleantech companies with the best chance to survive 2013 might just be the ones with the most cost-effective products or services. As unconventional as it may sound, technologies exist for which customers don’t have to pay more to be green.

Myriant, a company that manufactures green replacements for petroleum-based chemicals, charges “no green price premium” for its products. And since their bio-based chemicals are identical to those that come from petroleum, there are also no hidden costs for manufacturers making the switch. GreatPoint Energy is another example: the company produces a clean, high efficiency fuel called bluegas that is a cost-competitive replacement for standard liquefied natural gas in many regions.

Many of the companies with the best chance to survive are service providers that save their clients money through green alternatives. Absolute Green Energy Corporation, for instance, uses solar and thermal systems within integrated building designs to help organizations and individual residents save on energy costs. Conservation Services Group offers a similar value proposition: they optimize energy efficiency in residential buildings through weatherization and other services. Next Step Living is another company that helps people reduce their bills through energy-efficiency best practices.

No one in the clean energy industry wants to see government funding fall, but if it does decrease – whether by the $148 million baked into the fiscal cliff cuts or a lower number – the companies with the best chance to thrive will be those (like the five above) that can actually compete with their less green counterparts. Many other cleantech companies have promised cost-effective products and services, and we’ll have to see if 2013 turns out to be a good test of those claims.

Jake Navarro is a senior consultant for Greenough. Send him an email at jnavarro@greenough.biz

Massachusetts Big Data Initiatives Can Spur Economic Growth

Wednesday, June 6, 2012 | Leave a Comment 

Last week Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, joined by key representatives from MIT and Intel Corporation, announced the “Massachusetts Big Data Initiative,” a collaborative effort to position the Bay State as a global center for the big data industry. Big data refers to the business of dissecting and analyzing the enormous stream of digital information generated everyday by consumers working, shopping or socializing online.

This announcement, paired with the Governor’s focus on expanding both the Massachusetts renewable energy and robotics industries, bodes well for our state’s economic recovery, and it could provide a model for other states to follow.

According to a recent report from the Mass Technology Leadership Council (MassTLC), 120+ Boston-area companies are currently working with big data technologies and those firms employ about 12,000 people in the Bay State alone. MassTLC estimates that an additional 58,000 related workers, including data scientists and data managers, are working in such industries as healthcare, online media and financial services. Most importantly, MassTLC estimates that growth in both areas could add 50,000 jobs by 2018.

We applaud the efforts of industry leaders such as MIT and Intel Corporation, other big data innovators, such as Endeca (recently acquired by Oracle), and smaller companies that include Tokutek and Hadapt.

Bring on the big data—we’re ready for the next technology chapter in and around the Massachusetts Route 128 belt.

Barbara Call is director of content for Greenough.

 

Cultivate the Next Generation of Clean Energy Futurists with Knowledge

Friday, May 25, 2012 | 1 Comment 

The Massachusetts energy economy could be in good shape for the future if our aspiring engineers and technologists are getting a head start during field trips such as this one:

Earlier this month a class of 5th graders from Shady Hill School visited New England’s largest privately-owned solar energy park. Although the Westford, Mass.-based facility is still under construction, it’s a good example of how Bay State companies, including Cathartes Private Investments, Nexamp, Inc. and National Grid, are not only banding together to develop real business solutions but also working to educate the next generation (as well as budding engineers, designers and scientists).

Field trips help reinforce knowledge in a practical, hands-on way, and I encourage all companies playing in the renewable energy industry to get involved. Does your company have a facility that demonstrates how your technology works and/or how it’s used to solve real life problems? I encourage you to reach out to your local school district (or those of surrounding towns) and volunteer your location as a “field-trip worthy” destination. Most kids love the outdoors, and fun ideas about sunshine (1336 Technologies, Applied Materials, Veeco Instruments), wind (Mass Megawatts Wind Power, Cape Wind) and even biogas/compost (Harvest Power) are relatively easy to bring to life.

You can also use kits and toys to pique interest and develop knowledge. The Boston Museum of Science’s gift shop, for instance, includes such products as Venture View’s renewable energy-themed kit (it allows kids to build six different solar-powered vehicles, and the solar panel in each one charges a rechargeable battery) and the National Geographic’s Sustainable Earth Lab, an environmental science kit for kids ages 8+.

Why not contact the Museum of Science (MOS) and design a kit or toy in collaboration? Or work hand-in-hand with the MOS to sponsor an exhibit or provide the props for hands-on demonstrations? (FYI, the MOS is usually filled with visiting school kids during the work week.)

My point is two-fold: Massachusetts renewable energy companies need to follow the lead of companies like Nexamp and begin serving as destinations for elementary and middle school field trips. At the same time, why not design a toy or kit in collaboration with the MOS, an organization such as the National Geographic Society or a forward-thinking toy manufacturer?

Renewable energy is here to stay, and exposing our kids to the growing industry is critical—especially in Massachusetts, where great ideas are hatching (and growing) every day.  Knowledge is power, and remember you may be planting seeds for our next generation of green energy and clean tech futurists.

Barbara Call is director of content for Greenough.

Choosing Wisely: Trimming Fat in the Health Care Industry

Monday, May 21, 2012 | Leave a Comment 

In corporations, it’s common to implement and continuously refresh best practices to eliminate inefficient, low-value activities. A similar principle is now being applied to the U.S. healthcare industry due to excessive medical spending in the United States. David Cutler, an expert in Economics at Harvard University, suggests that one third—up to $750 billion— of our country’s medical spending does not contribute to improved health.

Through a campaign called Choosing Wisely, nine specialty medical groups have identified tests or procedures “commonly used in their field, whose necessity should be questioned and discussed.” The end goal: Reduce costs and improve care. Launched last year by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, the campaign galvanized around a controversial opinion piece by Dr. Howard Brody, director of the Institute for the Medical Humanities.

Since then, nine medical specialty societies have committed to this campaign and eight more are expected to join this fall. While the Choosing Wisely campaign is not the panacea for spiraling healthcare costs, it is surely a positive step forward in raising awareness about excess spending. Ultimately, by reducing healthcare costs we can ensure that all patients have access to safer, higher-quality care.

The original medical specialty organizations of the campaign, who are leaders in cardiology, oncology, radiology and primary care, last month released their recommendations for areas where healthcare costs can be trimmed. Suggestions include skipping treatments such as cardiac stress tests for annual checkups in asymptomatic patients and brain imaging scans after fainting. Arguably the most controversial recommendation is that oncologists limit or decline chemotherapy treatments for late-stage cancer patients; most oncologists agree that these patients would be better off receiving hospice care.

With reducing health care costs as its core mission, Choosing Wisely has certainly sparked a healthy but contentious debate. One argument against their recommendations is that cutting “waste” could actually be healthcare rationing in disguise. The campaign’s architects make it clear, however, that their fundamental goal isn’t rationing care or denying services to those who need them. Instead, they emphasize that Choosing Wisely is about eliminating care that has no value.

Measures to contain and reduce healthcare costs in this country are vital—especially in this uncertain economy. I support this campaign, not only for its potential to trim costs but also for its ability to fill a gaping void in today’s healthcare system: The troublesome lack of communication between patients and physicians. In addition to making doctors more accountable in their practices, Choosing Wisely’s recommendations also place equal responsibility on patients to ask important questions that may ultimately lead to better care.

The campaign is working with Consumer Reports magazine to broadly disseminate the list of “unnecessary” treatments and procedures; however, for the time being, there is no regulation that forces patients and healthcare professionals to treat these recommendations as rules. I believe it’s up consumers to question procedures that may be unnecessary. It’s really about making well-informed decisions and thinking before we act. After all, every test, necessary or not, has a cost to the system.

I urge you to get involved. Read the lists from the nine partners and use these resources to learn how you can be a smarter patient. Then tell me if you agree or disagree.

Sarah Hurley is a consultant at Greenough. Follow her on Twitter at @Sarah_Hu

See How Clients Rate Our Passion for Their Business

Thursday, May 3, 2012 | Leave a Comment 

Surveying your customers in order to gauge their satisfaction with your products or services is nothing new—and applying that same principle to a PR, marketing and communications agency such as ours makes perfect sense. And we’ve been measuring client satisfaction for 11 years.

The results, as you might expect, help us assess our strengths and weaknesses, and they form a strong foundation for determining the agency’s to-dos, whether that’s to build on our ability to drive new sales for our customers or polish our storytelling capabilities.

Instead of purely bragging about our results, however, which you can see a select sampling of here, we challenge you to assess your own PR/marketing/communications agency on the following criteria:

1) Is your agency an extension of your own team? By this I mean does your agency work efficiently and effectively with your staff? Do the two teams have a solid rapport and bullet-proof communication? Does your agency enhance your own capabilities (versus creating redundancy) and complement your existing skillset (versus replicating key abilities)? If it didn’t violate any contracts or policies, would you hire the staff at your agency as employees? Do they have the same (or complementary) core values, work ethic, personal style (and even sense of humor) as your strongest team members?

2) Does your agency demonstrate a passion for your business? Let’s face it—it’s difficult for anyone to know your business as well as you do—but a good agency can come damn close—and should. Your perfect agency should demonstrate complete immersion in your industry, including knowing your competitors, understanding the key issues and having a familiarty with the major players, trends and developments. We’re not talking about a quick refresh before your next in-person visit or conference call—we’re referring to a deep  and ongoing knowledge of all your strengths, weakenesses and paint points—internal and external. In a word, your agency should be a subject matter expert in your company and your industry.

3) Does your agency work proactively on your behalf? Someone once said you can’t teach people to be proactive—they either are or aren’t. In my opinion, the best employees are wired to take charge and think ahead—they try to solve problems ahead of the curve. The flip side, naturally, is less desirable—the reactive (versus proactive) employee waits for your orders before they move. Seems pretty clear which type makes a better partner, don’t you think?

4) Last but not least, and perhaps most importantly, does your agency help drive new sales? Is your agency connecting you to qualified leads? Yes, a large part of PR, marketing and comuinications work involves building a brand, whether that’s through thought leadership (contributed articles), social media (Facebook likes) and/or media coverage (Wall Street Journal). But is your agency working from a strategic point of view, directing, managing and integrating all the efforts, from content creation and media outreach to social media, ongoing measurement and reliable follow-up, in order to drive new business into your hopper?  At the end of the day, just answering that one simple question may be the truth you need.

Barbara Call is director of content at Greenough. Follow her on Twitter @BarbaraCall1