Half Billion Dollar DOE Life Preserver for Biofuels: It’s About Time!

Advanced biofuels have been in a bit of a pickle of late.  For the past two years, one disaster after another has struck the industry.  First came the over-build of corn-based ethanol plants during the heady days of $120 per barrel oil.  Overheated commodities markets did more than drive up the price of oil – they whipped corn prices to a lather too.  When oil crashed, so did first generation ethanol companies as they were caught in a commodity squeeze play.  For reference purposes, see my chart below that compares the price of one gallon of oil to the price of enough corn to make one gallon of ethanol (assuming typical yields of 2.8 gallons ethanol yield per bushel). 

The Economic Collapse of Corn-Based Ethanol

 

Ethanol suddenly went from green energy investment darling to food versus fuel donkey as the economics collapsed and consumer groups pinned the blame on ethanol for high food prices. 

Over the past decade, pioneering researchers and companies cultivated technologies and microbes for creating ethanol from non-edible cellulose.  Cellulosic ethanol – fuel from non-fuel sources like switchgrass, woody biomass, garbage and other non-edible materials – promised to save the day.  At the same time that technologies were being perfected and readied for scale-up, the global financial crisis hit.  Speculative capital fled to the sidelines creating a “Valley of Death” for second generation biofuel companies that needed big slugs of capital – bigger than most venture capital firms are prepared to risk - to build pilot plants to prove their technology, and demonstration plants to prove their processes can scale and make money.  Proving new technology is hardly the stuff of bank lending, which is all about reducing risk to a minimum and predictable rates of return.  This left two potential sources of capital to fund the development of a viable cellulosic ethanol industry: large petrochemical companies making strategic investments or the federal government. 

Petrochemical companies have definitely stepped-up, putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the sector, however, their investments are very targeted on a few companies (Exxon-Mobil setting aside $600 million for Synthetic Genomics, Shell’s backing of a Verenium cellulosic ethanol project, the Dupont-Danisco joint venture, and Indian Oil’s investment in Petroalgae come to mind).  However, the rest of the sector languished even as the DOE poured money into car batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, energy efficiency and almost anything else “green” except biofuels.

The drought ended with the recent news that the DOE is putting $564 million in backing for 19 biofuels and renewable chemicals companies and projects.  See the DOE article at Biofuels Digest for the complete list of investments.

This is an extraordinarily important announcement on a number of levels.  Perhaps most significant is the political symbolism.  It sanctifies the sector as a government-approved viable path to clean energy.  Each of the projects is also backed by some level of matching private money – a total of $700 million; for a combined total of $1.1 billion.  This makes for a very signficant financial scale and scope.  Finally, the portfolio effect is vitally important to the success and health of the sector.  A diverse range of projects and companies are receiving backing, including

Bluefire Ethanol and Enerkem – for large-scale waste to energy projects

Sapphire Energy, Solazyme and Algenol - for algal fuel

Amyris Biotechnologies, Zeachem, Clearfuels Technology and Logos Technologies – for cellulosic fuel development

The DOE move breathes new life into second generation biofuels and helps move us toward a renewable fuel economy built from non-food sources.  All in all, it’s a smart investment in a sustainable future. 

There are many other companies and technologies worthy of backing.  Hopefully this vote of confidence from Uncle Sam will pave the way for others to invest in the sector.

Chevron in Biofuels: Mascoma Partnership Assembles Another Piece in Bioenergy Supply Chain

Biofuels Digest reports that Chevron and Mascoma have joined into a cellulosic ethanol feedstock supply chain and processing agreement in New Hampshire.  Chevron Technology Ventures (CTV) will provide lignocellulosic feedstock to biofuels startup Mascoma which will then use its innovative technology to convert the feedstock into ethanol.  Lignin is a by-product of Mascoma’s ethanol from cellulose conversion process.  Mascoma will then provide the lignin back to CTV for “evaluation purposes.”

This announcement follows 1.5 years after an announced partnership between Chevron and Weyerhauser to explore cellulosic ethanol technologies for “forest to fuel” conversion called Catchlight Energy.

Clearly, Chevron is seeing the forest for the trees.

The Biofuels Digest report on the most recent Chevron bioenergy focuses on the energy potential of lignin.  Certainly, it can be compressed and combusted into a high-energy, clean burning substitute for wood pellets.  Chevron has, according to Green Car Congress, submitted two patents related to conversion of lignin into biofuels.  However, the aspect that I find more fascinating is that lignin is a natural polymer.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Chevron is also investigating opportunities to make structural materials from wood-based lignin.  At the end of the day, it may be non-fuel cellulolose by-products for making green plastics and other materials adding up to create a compelling biofuel ROI business case.

Big Week for Massachusetts Biofuels: Joule Biotechnologies, Plankton Power

It’s been a big week for water-based biofuel producing crops and technologies in the Bay State so far.

Two blockbuster annnouncements: Joule Biotechnologies of Cambridge, MA comes out of stealth mode with an announcement of their high-yielding biofuel and biochemical production technology with low energy requirements and low/no feedstock needed.

See the interview on NECN with new Joule Biotechnologies CEO Bill Sims for more.

Also on tap, a new 5 acre algal fuel test facility with Cape Cod based Plankton Power to be located in Bourne.  Funding from the Regional Technology Development Corp (RTDC) makes this effort possible.

These news items came to my attention courtesy of the Biofuels Digest, a daily news summary of the biofuels industry put out by Jim Lane, who I’m working with on the Biomass Advisors venture.

After sitting the corn-based ethanol debacle out, it’s exciting to see Massachusetts based companies, scientists, technologies and facilities jumping into the algal fuel pond.

ExxonMobil Commits $600 Million to Synthetic Genomics: Algal Biofuels Table Stakes are Raised!

Big news in the biofuels world today.  According to Biofuels Digest, ExxonMobil has commited $600 million to Synthetic Genomics for research and development of algae-based biofuels.  It’s gasoline and diesel – not ethanol – that ExxonMobil is after.  And algae has the promise to deliver more per acre than any other land-based feedstock – some say up to 6 to 12,000 gallons or more per acre – which would be 10 to 20 times more than the top-yielding land-based crop.

What does this mean for the nascent algae biofuels industry?  I’ll get to that in a moment, but first, a few comments on the strategic significance this has for ExxonMobil, a late entrant to the biofuels industry.

This is an R&D partnership, similar to the model created by biotech – big pharma partnerships in the drug development world.  Financial commitments are typically contingent on the research partner reaching specific R&D milestones.  It’s notable that despite the fact that there are dozens of algal biofuels companies hurtling down the path to large-scale production, the focus of ExxonMobil-Synthetic Genomics is initially on building a portfolio of promising genetically modified algae organisms (algal GMO’s).  This is smart from an intellectual capital standpoint.  It also signals ExxonMobil’s industry assessment that algae-based biofuels are still in their infancy.   ExxonMobil is well-positioned to apply it’s financial brawn and process engineering muscle later to scale high volume biofuel production, once Synthetic Genomics has genetically engineered high production algae strains.

What does this mean for existing algae biofuels startups?  It represents both a biofuel industry threat, and an opportunity.  Many algae companies are further down the commercialization path.  They need to accelerate development to get large-scale operations up and running before this $325 billion gorilla (that’s the current market cap for ExxonMobil at the moment) comes up from behind.  As big as the threat is, the opportunity is even bigger.  Companies that develop significant production capacity with open raceway algal fuel firms and that lock-up strategic algae aquaculture sites near major industrial CO2 emitters (like large-scale power plants) will be well-positioned to offer ExxonMobil – and others – a pathway to rapid scaling.  In venture terms, they will be positioned for “exit through acquisition.”

There’s also a lot more of the value chain that needs to come together.  Inclugding dewatering systems by companies like Algae Venture Systems and other links in the value chain needed to realize algae’s significant commercial potential.

But at the end of the day, even $600 million is a small drop in a biofuels investment pond that needs to reach half a trillion dollars or more to enable a large-scale shift from petrol based fuels to renewable bioenergy sources.

Gigaton Throwdown Podium: Gold – Building Efficiency, Silver – Biofuels, Bronze – Construction Materials

A new report issued by the non-profit Gigaton Throwdown provides a sector by sector look at renewable energy and its potential impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. The big hairy audacious goal is to identify what it would take for each of the key sectors of cleantech to achieve a 1 gigaton reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

Gigaton Throwdown Report - A Comprehensive Cleantech Study

So what’s a gigaton?  Just like it sounds, 1 billion tons – of CO2.
To attain gigaton scale, a single technology must reduce annual emissions of carbon dioxide and equivalent
greenhouse gases (CO2e) by at least 1 billion metric tons — a gigaton — by 2020. For an electricity
generation technology, this is equivalent to an installed capacity of 205 gigawatts (GW) of carbon-free
energy (at 100% capacity) in 2020.
I found the comparative levels of investment in different cleantech technologies needed to achieve the 1 gigaton target very illuminating. Instead of ROI, we could call it ROCI (return on carbon investment). Here is the rank-ordered scorecard for the different sectors. Sectors requiring the least investment deliver the biggest bang (or reduction in carbon emissions) for the buck, so they rank highest:

1. Building Efficiency: $61 billion. This makes a lot of sense. Buildings represent the single largest consumers of energy (around 40%). Most buildings are energy sieves, they account for the vast majority of electricity use, and a significant portion of electricity production is from nasty coal-fired plants.

2. Biofuels: $383 billion. The fact that biofuels ranks second comes as a bit of a surprise to me – albeit a pleasant one given that I am now a principal in a biofuels consulting group called Biomass Advisors. Biofuels have been under a bit of attack lately, both in terms of economics and with the whole indirect land use charge (ILUC) controversy. Fortunately, the recent climate bill compromise has deferred any application of ILUC penalties on biofuels for the next five years. The report uses 150 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol as a benchmark for a gigaton of CO2. The report also points out that, in the case of switchgrass, if electricity cogeneration is included the amount needed to achieve a 1 billion ton reduction in CO2 drops to 76 billion gallons of fuel.

3. Construction Materials: $445 billion. The report estimates worldwide emissions from construction material manufacture at 4 to 4.5 gigatons per year. It cites an example of halving CO2 emissions from concrete by substituting low carbon concrete for half the worldwide production of portland cement. Other practices touted in the report include:

New materials under development include bio-composites, such as polymers grown by microorganisms, and products fashioned out of waste streams (recycled materials). Conservation-minded designs use products with recycled content such as cellulose (recycled newsprint) or cotton (recycled blue jean) insulation as well as salvage materials.

Bio-composites happen to be closely related to the biofuels process. Producing polymers and other materials from biomass is simply another form of carbon manipulation to create more complex carbon chains instead of, or as an adjunct to, biofuels or biogas.

From here, the numbers get a little dicey.

4. Geothermal: $919 billion. The report calls for Enhanced Geothermal (EGS) systems: “in which heat is extracted from the earth by injecting fluid into an artificially created, hydraulically fractured reservoir that attempts to replicate natural hydrothermal conditions.” The report estimates that “An increase of approximately 238 gigawatts (GW) of geothermal electricity capacity over today’s installed base of 10 GW would reduce CO2e emissions by 1 gigaton per year.” It goes on to estimate the cost per Kw installed at $3,900. Unlike solar or wind, geothermal can generate steady power output; making it a viable future source for base load.

5. Nuclear: $1.27 trillion.  According to the report, it will take “Approximately 250 new GW-scale nuclear plants would be required by 2020 – a 67% increase in the current nuclear base – to reduce CO₂e emissions by 1 gigaton annually.”  Note that, unlike geothermal or biofuels, there is little in the way of speculation on emerging renewable energy technologies in the nuclear scenario.  Nuclear plants are proven – as long as you’re okay with large-scale creation of radioactive waste – plus, they also generate valuable “base load” or power that is always available, whereas wind and solar depend on climate conditions so they are variable.

6. Wind: $1.38 trillion.  Hmm. Sounds like a lot of money.  However, the report goes on to make assumptions about improvements in the technology that could bring the figure closer to a cool $827 billion.  It goes on to point out that wind could reach the gigaton reduction mark by 2020 handily, even if recent growth rates of 28% per year in installed capacity slow to 14% per year over the next decade.

7. Solar Photovoltaics: $2.1 trillion.  The ROCI from solar panels is more than a little abysmal – according to the report.  However, unlike it’s concentrating solar brethern below, solar PV is already reaching a critical mass and, with the amount of subsidies in place around the world, poised to grow further.  Current installed capacity is estimated at 14 gigawatts.

8. Concentrating Solar Power: $2.24 trillion.  The numbers and the assumptions are getting a little (strike that – a lot) more speculative on this one; as worldwide installed capacity would need to go from 502 megawatts today to 492 gigawatts – almost a 1,000 fold increase – over the next decade.  I don’t see $2.24 trillion being poured into deserts with no water to generate solar thermal electricity anytime soon.  Will more capacity come online with this hot new technology (pun intended)? Sure, but the gigaton bogey seems like a bridge too far.

Here are my simple takeaways in layman’s terms:

First, we need to fix the leaky energy sieves we call buildings – the sooner the better.  This, more than anything else – is the quickest way to turn down the planetary stove we’ve created with this sloppy little socio economic thing we call industrialization.  Second, as far as renewable energy goes, either the report is way off, or the collective “wisdom of crowds” is quite ignorant.  I say this because the level of investment and interest in renewable energy technologies is, approximately, upside down.  It appears that the most money is going into the renewable technologies with the worst payback in terms of CO2 emissions reductions.  At face value, this report indicates that we are better off investing in biofuel technology and capacity than we are with almost any other renewable energy source.

Gotta go.  Gotta biofuels consultancy to help start up.

cg

Why the Algenol – Dow Algae Joint Venture is a Big Deal

Biofuels Digest reported today that Algenol and Dow have partnered on a joint venture in Florida to build a 24 acre algae demonstration facility for bioplastics. I think this announcement is a big milestone for algae, biorefining and bioplastics.
Here’s why:
1. Dow has deep pockets. With revenues of $57 billion, Dow ranked 38th on the 2009 Fortune 500 list. This is a company with serious financial muscle.
2. Dow may be initiating a series of strategic moves to build out a portfolio of biorefining technologies and capabilities. The faster Dow moves away from petroleum the better. According to Sustainability Ninja, Dow ranks third on its List of the 100 Worst Corporate Polluters in America. The PR ding for this is significant, but the threat of greenhouse gas regulation looms even larger. Cap and trade, as proposed under Waxman Markey is both a threat and opportunity. The threat is that Dow will be taxed so heavily as to lose its ability to generate profits. The opportunity is that, depending on the amount of allowances it is grandfathered, Dow could be sitting on a goldmine of carbon opportunity if and when it ramps up carbon-neutral/carbon-positive operations (then sells the credits off to lagging polluters without a coherent biorefining or biofuels strategy.
3. Algae, a technology that has been knocked as being “5 years away” for the past 20 years, appears poised to ramp-up. A recent analysis in Biofuel Digest predicts 1 billion gallons of algal fuel production by the year 2014 .
4. The prospect of biomaterials such as bioplastics opens up a new avenue for the sustainable production, handling and disposal of organic materials to replace petro based materials. Advantages include carbon-neutral or even carbon positive production, reduced dependence on foreign oil and, importantly, biodegradability. Plastics in their current form break down slowly, if at all. Recycling is good, but it comes at a high price in terms of energy used and recycling facilities, and has limitations, including a significant reduction in the structural properties of recycled materials.

Biomass Advisors: Guides for the Bioenergy Jungle

I’m very excited to be joining Jim Lane of the Biofuels Digest, Dr. Ari Axelrod, currently an adjunct professor at the Fletcher School of Management, and Mackinnon Lawrence from sunny California, to form Biomass Advisors. We launched today, and this post describes the mission and philosophy of the organization.
Each member of the team, individually and collectively, is committed to fostering a carbon-neutral energy future. We also share the common belief that there is no single answer to the vexing global problem of weaning modern industrial society – and the developing world – from fossil fuels.
Our mission is to foster the growth of renewable energy industries, companies, facilities and economies by supporting the development and expansion of a comprehensive renewable energy ecosystem, an ecoenergy ecosystem if you will.
We believe we can do this by mapping advances in biomass to energy technologies to the energy needs, and the energy generation and delivery economy.
Bioenergy has the capability of transforming waste products – non-edible biomass from agriculture, trash, sewage, industrial waste – into energy.
Algae has the potential to produce huge increases in biofuel output per land area, and to sequester CO2 emissions (indeed, algae gets a major boost from C02 waste streams).
Non-food crops such as Jatropha have the potential to convert wastelands into indigenous fuel producing meccas.
New anaerobic techniques and technologies have the ability to convert sewage into high energy biogas.
New advances in microbes and industrial engineering are able to create ethanol from cellulosic agricultural wastes like corn stover, moving us away from food versus fuel debates. And let’s not forget the 3 billion gallons per year of waste cooking oil the United States drains per year (all of which can be converted to biodiesel), the 11 billion pounds of animal fats we generate per year (enough for 1.5 billion gallons of biodiesel), or the six pounds of municipal solid waste we produce per person per day (which can be converted into syngas and biofuels.

Our philosophy is that all of this, and more, can, and should, become energy.

That’s not to say that recycling isn’t important – it is. Solar energy, wind energy, geothermal, hydro – all of these are of critical importance as well.
But no matter how you slice it, America is, and will remain, really good at producing trash and buying and driving cars. Maybe someday we will all drive around in electric cars powered by the sun and the wind. But if we do, that day is a long, long way off. And even if and when we do, what will we do with all our trash? Landfill it or turn it into energy?
By the way, I haven’t heard of an electric jet – not yet anyways. So we’re going to need fuel in some form or another, for a long, long time.
Energy from biological life forms isn’t just viable, it’s how the petroleum of the world was created in the first place. Many scientists believe that the world’s ever-dwindling petroleum reserves were created by ancient algae blooms and the slick oily deposits they created. By dredging them up and combusting them, we are releasing the stored CO2 into the atmosphere. A recipe for trouble, especially when you start talking about combusting several hundred million years worth of sequestered CO2 (that’s a lot of dinosaur breath).
We envision a new world of distributed energy generation where municipalities stop shipping solid waste hundreds of miles to faraway landfills, and start using it locally to create biodiesel for their town trucks and syn gas for our barbeque grills.
We envision a world where impoverished nations with no access to energy can grow energy crops in decrepit soil, without irrigation, then use the crops to create fuel and animal feed.
We also envision a world of sustainable, organically-based chemistry. Plastic biodegradable bottles made from corn husks, shampoo made from glycerins by-products from biodiesel refineries and high-protein animal feed from algae fuel by-products.
Each of us, Jim, Ari, Mackinnon and I, figure that the best way we can help this come along is by analyzing technology, understanding the economics, marriage making between technology developers, project developers, equipment suppliers, financiers, transportation equipment makers, chemical companies, consumer product and pharmaceutical companies, agribusinesses and more.
There’s a big value chain to put together. A petroleum-based economy and industrial organization to reassemble, a long-haul petroleum fuel infrastructure to refurbish, plants to build, projects to finance, crops to plant, and more. There’s also a whole lot of citizens, elected officials, municipal engineers and regulators to educate.
We figure we can help do a lot of this.
See our new Biomass Advisors website for more information. And don’t forget to subscribe to the Biofuels Digest for daily updates on the emerging world of biologically-based renewable energy.

Getting Green Funding – Innovation Capital Group

Notes from June 17, 2009 meeting. Note: meeting is being recorded and will be available on the ICG128 website.
Panelists:
Christine Sullivan (Moderator) – introduce yourselves and answer the question, what is green.
Jospeh Boyce – of Greentech Media. Focuses on solar clean energy, enabling software – smartgrid and carbon accounting. Globally solar is doing very well – 40% CAGR past 10 years, and $5 billion globally. Solar tipping point vs. coal/oil is coming. A lot of the opportunities for jobs are in manufacturing and engineering. Not a big fan of the term green. Too big, too nebulous. Non-CO2 emitting power generation and transmission is where he focuses.
Emily Reichert – Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry. Chemistry is relevant to everyone’s life. Green chemistry is a way to do chemistry in a way that is sustainable and responsible. Looking at materials, the energy involved, least toxic chemicals. Warner Babcock Institute, founded in 2007. First Green Chemistry program is at UMass Lowell. Wilmington, MA has first for-profit chemistry institute. Works with F500 companies on sustainable chemistry. Warner Babcock has 25 different scientists. A green company makes products or provides services that are more sustainable. Also, companies that are being run in a more green way. Toxic materials have a high overhead, so there is an ROI story. The picture is a lot broader for green than energy alone. It includes sustainability.
Edward Melia – P3 Ventures Group - venture capital firm, investing in early stage companies on the cutting edge. Companies in portfolio have, for instance, patented genetically engineered bacteria; or tidal energy companies. In addition to direct investment, they do private placement. He did some consulting work with the Obama transition team, so they do some work with portfolio companies to access ARRA monies and DOE monies. Defines green as green energy, but there is the same problem as products that claim to be organic. The government or some agency needs to define what a green product is. Right now, it’s a sales and marketing tool.

What does a green company need to do to get green funding?
Joe: a lot of the rhetoric is subsidy driven. The most critical thing to think about is whether the business is viable in a non-subsidized environment. This is critical. Germany is paying a lot of money to sustain the green jobs it’s created. Spain did a lot of power projects and is now rolling-back.
Emily: you need to treeat this as you would any business. You need to have vision. You need to have technologies to create products that people want to buy. Vision and strong technology portfolio.
Ed: three pillars: 1. intellectual capital – patents, etc. 2. financial capital, 3. human capital. One of the best ways to succeed is to have the right people in place. Make sure that you focus on these fundamentals, plus have a great idea.
Emily: they create intellectual property portfolios then take the property out for funding. A lot of the time, their partners are established companies.
Audience questions:
Ed, does your company deal in first stage monies?
Yes, they do finance ideas on occasion.
What time horizon do you look for in stage 2?
3-5 years, they typically exit to larger venture capital companies.
What about scaling into production?
Ed: they help companies with finding large private equity funds.
Joe for solar, typically it’s a construction loan. But in productin, there are power purchase agreements. There are tax advantages to PPA. But th etax equity market has jammed up because the investment banks don’t need to shield profits. In a biofuel plant, you are more likely to get a large private equity investment.
Audience comments:
The number one concern is feedstock. The proven process is key, so people are having difficulty with the $20-$50 million pilot facility. This is a difficult area for venture capitalists to play.
Ed: there is a lot of experimentation and we don’t know what is going to work – distributed wind, microbes, etc.
Is a balance of business people and technologists needed, so they can help bring a technology into market and make th right bets.
Ed: absolutely. Cultural fit is key. Functional expertise is a given, but psychometric assessment is important. You needd a team, the better tools assess an individual in the context of a team and the entrepreneurial environment.
Joe: less planned obsolesence in energy. More you are making a long-horizon investment. it’s more of a long-term dividend model. Solar has a lot of technology coming down the road. In it’s current form, you need to show some proof that the technology works and has been around.
Joe: once your product is developed and scales it is sold into utilities, they don’t want change, they want stability and to make money. But in the early stages, it is more of an inovation model.
For the stimulus money, how do you think it’s going to be utilized and how can it be accessed?
Ed: the answer is not clear right now. It’’s clear in some sectors like retrofitting buildings. Money is flowing here, but there is a bottleneck on the workers that are certified. You can’t get the money standing alone, you need to collaborated with other companies and at the state level. The money is following the path of least resistance, so you need to go to established channels like the Commonwealth Fund in MA.
Is there a green bubble and is the stimulus money making a bubble more likely:
Ed: yes, there will be a pop of the green bubble. Right now, money is rushing to the industry. Yes, but don’t see it happening until credit market thawing. It’s a cycle.
Which technology is more at risk?
Emily: what drives business is government and legislation. For instance the REACH legislation in Europe. All ingredients must be disclosed and all toxicological data for each ingredient must be disclosed. In CA, they are following that initiative with Green chemistry disclosure bill. They anticipate their (Warner Babcock) demand increasing.
Audience comment: the sustainable chemistry issue will filter up the supply chain.
Joe: sees green as a macro issue with a 20 year trend.

Digital Video Recorder (DVR) Energy Consumption: The Kill-a-Watt Chronicles Part 1

I learned some interesting things about cable TV and home energy consumption, with the help of my handy kill-a-watt monitor.  I tested each of my components for how much power they consume in standby mode.  For the most part, there was no cause for alarm.  However, one exception stands out, and it’s a big one.  For my first nomination into the Energy PIG Hall of Shame, along with ideas on how to cut the fat, read on.

Most components don’t drink much juice when they’re on standby mode.  Good energy consumption consumer electronics citizens include my Samsung HD LCD TV at 1 watt, our PS2 Playstation at 1 watt, our Samsung DVD player – a little worse at 2 watts, and a “vintage” Toshiba VCR weighing in at a more rotund 6 watts.  My simple solution for the VCR is to unplug it.  Not a problem, since it’s rarely used.

Moving right along, my first BIG PIG award goes to Motorola for their Cable TV Digital Video Recorder – Model DCT 3416 to be exact – that manages to consume 28 watts when it’s on or off.  That’s right, you read correctly, The Motorola DCT 3416 Digital Cable Set Top Box actually consumes 28 watts when it’s “off”. Here’s a picture of this rather innocent looking culprit.  At 8,760 hours per year, this works out to a nasty 245 kilowatt hours (KwH).  In our locale, electricity costs 20.7 cents per hour (transmission plus generation – we’re NStar customers in metro Boston).  This works out to around $50.75 per year.  Ironically, this is more than we pay RCN to rent the DVR.

Motorola's DVR - a true energy pig

Now as a family, we only watch about 15 hours of television per week.  This works out to roughly 10 percent of the time.  Hidden electricity waste amounts to $45.70 per year.  The simple solution is to unplug the DVR when it’s not in use.  Unfortunately, we have a variety of scheduled programs, cast erratically across the week at a variety of times and days.  My kids will be none too happy if the latest episode of Monk is missing.  Likewise, I don’t want to miss The Office, my favorite management leadership training program.  The plot thickens.

I could use a mechanical timer, but the basic one I have is limited to standard, on-off dial.  Setting it to turn on at 7 p.m. and off at 11 p.m. might work for weekdays, but it doesn’t work during weekends, when the boys start their day with Sports Center.

Before you accuse me of being a fanatic, indulge me as I look at the macro economic and climate implications of this smart consumer electronics/dumb electricity consumer device….

First, we need to populate our model by gathering some facts and making a few assumptions. Then we can make some estimates for aggregate electricity waste and needless greenhouse gas emissions.

Fact questions: How many people in the US have cable television?  How many have HDTV?

Assumption questions: How many have Motorola set-top DVR boxes? What’s the average idle time for these units?  What percentage of the population leaves them “off” (not unplugged) out of ignorance about their energy use?

Estimates: How much power is being wasted? And finally, how many power plants does this represent and what’s the carbon footprint of this seemingly inocuous little 28 watt electricity gremlin?

For all you trivia buffs, according to Nielsen, as of November, 2008, 23.3% of US households owned HDTV.  As of 2000, the US Census Bureau estimated 105 million households in the US.  Let’s assume that the Motorola DCT line and all Motorola DVR units prior to this model have the same power consumption problem.  Let’s also assume for a moment (for illustrative purposes) that the Motorola DCT Electricity Gremlin line has a 10% market share.  Here are some estimates based on our facts and assumptions:

105 million (households) x 23.3% (HDTV penetration) = 24,465,000 HDTV households. Based on our 10% “dumb” Motorola device assumption, that’s around 2.4 million Motorola DVRs in service.  Let’s also assume for a moment, that the average amount of time those DVR’s are used is 20%, and that they’re idle 80% of the time.  Let’s also assume that 90% of the people with these units turn them “off,” but don’t unplug them.  More quick math:

2.4 million (households) x 8,760 hours (in a year) x 80% (idle time) x 28 watts (phantom consumption) =  471,000 KwH or 471 MwH.

At 20.7 cents per KwH, that works out to around $97 million.

But how much CO2 is this?  According to a post in Triple Pundit:

Electricity production from all sources in the US average 3 pounds of NOx [nitrous di-oxides] per MWh, 6 pounds of SOx [sulfur di-oxides, which together with NOx form acid rain] per MWh, and 1,515 pounds of CO2 per MWh (delivered). For coal the emissions factor is around 2,000 lbs per MWh.

Or in our case; 1,515 pounds CO2 x 471 MwH works out to 713,565 pounds of CO2.

Clearly, we need standards, regulation and full disclosure here.  These devices should be recalled and replaced with devices with the intelligence to stop using power unless they are in record mode, or “on” for viewing.  End of story.  There needs to be a certification process as well.

This ball lands squarely in the government court.  There is a need for regulation.  We need to cut the fat.  It shouldn’t be optional, it should be a requirement.

Sorry Motorola, you blew it.  Wake up.

Stay tuned for more Kill-a-Watt Chronicles

Kill-a-Watt Chronicles – My Do-it-Yourself Home Energy Audit

I was excited to receive my Kill-a-Watt electricity meter in the mail today.  I’ve been anxiously awaiting the arrival of this gadget.  It displays the power consumption of whatever is plugged into it.  At only $21 it’s a steal (in my book).  After reading and hearing so much about phantom power consumption I’m eager to plug it in and find the electricity leaking out through electronic gadgets and gizmos, and to get a handle on something that no product manufacturer or retailer really talks about – which is the amount of electricity their product ACTUALLY uses.

A yellow tag on a window air conditioner saying “Energy Star” rated, and estimated annual electricity use $49 really means nothing.  What matters is how cold does the unit make the room and with how much electricity.  For this, I will pull out my handy Kill-a-Watt.

Kill-a-watt home power consumption meter for energy audits

I will be sharing the discoveries of my home power consumption odyssey in what I am calling The Kill-a-Watt Chronicles, with a particular focus on hidden electricity hogging “dumb” appliances.

So stay tuned…