GREGG DIEGUEZ: I'm Gregg Dieguez
of the MIT Club and
Northern California Clean
Technology Program.
I want to thank you
for coming.
And we'd like to begin with
thanking lots of people,
certainly Wilson Sonsini, who is
a sponsor of our club for a
number of years, and Google
that has made these most
colorful and lavish
accommodations
available to us.
We thank them for this
excellent facility.
We're working with the
German-American Business
Association.
But before I introduce Philip,
I wanted to just acknowledge
some of the volunteers here,
Deepak Boggavarapu--
it was his conception to have
these two series of solar
events that we've held today
in San Francisco and here.
John Rethens, who arranged
the facility, and Laura.
Where's Laura?
Laura who does our PR.
All right.
So Philip, please.
PHILIP COONS: Thank
you, Gregg.
Hi there.
Welcome here to this beautiful
site here at Google.
My name is Philip Coons.
I'm the Chair of the GABA Clean
Tech Industry Group.
And first of all, I want to
thank our colleagues from the
MIT C&C Club.
Because I really think this
great collaboration between
two organizations that have
different links could bring
different strengths and
different people to this event
and really made this possible
and made this
such a great day already.
And I'm sure we're going
to continue right now.
Of course, I also want to thank
Google for the excellent
food they put out here, and the
fact that they even allow
us to videotape this.
And the videotape will
be out on the
Internet tomorrow hopefully.
And every one of you who wants
to listen to some of the
arguments that Hermann is going
to make later on again
can certainly do that.
I also want to thank some of
the people behind GABA who
have really, really
made this happen.
One is Caroline Raynaud,
the President of GABA.
Another one is Bianca, Bianca
Lautenschlager, who was the
good soul behind all the
RSVPs and everything.
Without her we would have been
completely lost. And then
there's some more people in the
back over there who don't
want to come to the front, Katie
and Vanessa, and Alex
[? Schle ?]
who's helping us tonight.
Thank you very, very much.
I'm particularly grateful.
And Dirk will say one more word
about him that Martin
Roscheisen has kind of signed
up to do the introduction of
Hermann Sheer.
Martin, as you know, is CEO and
founder of Nanosolar, one
of the success stories in solar
here in the valley with
great funding rounds
and good news flow.
And we're particularly happy for
one reason that Mr. Scheer
mentioned today during an
investor luncheon in the city
in San Francisco.
The continuation of the German
feed-in tariff law really
depends on success stories like
Nanosolar doing amazing
stuff here in the Bay Area, but
also coming to Germany and
doing things over there and
creating jobs over there.
Because that's what the general
public-- that's what
the politicians are looking for
to continue this program
that was so successful in the
past and which we hope will be
equally successful
in the future.
So without any more I'll pass
over to George Michaels, K&L
Gates, who has been the sponsor
of this, and has
through Vanessa and Katie, has
helped us a great deal with
putting this all together.
GEORGE MICHAELS:
Thanks Philip.
I'm going to make it
short and swift.
Happy to see all of you, many
clients, many friends, and
many future clients and
friends hopefully.
Clean tech has become the theme
in the Silicon Valley.
My question is whether we are
going to know the Silicon
Valley or the San Francisco Bay
Area as Clean Tech Bay in
five years and not that much
as Silicon Valley.
I think that history is
going to show that.
Certainly I'm very happy to be
personally part of it and be
with a firm that is a part of
it, K&L Gates, 1400 attorneys
from Hong Kong to Berlin and
everywhere in between.
We have years of experience
in energy.
We have been doing energy
alternative and dirty energy
projects for the last
25, 30 years.
For me personally, it's a very
great pleasure to see that
alternative energy, clean tech
has become prime time in the
Silicon Valley.
So that allows me to use my
hobby of project financing for
wind and solar energy projects
and to marry it with my job,
and that is working with my
emerging growth clients, which
I just love, and VCs, and
make them successful.
And I hope that all of you
were with emerging growth
clients in the clean tech area
will be vastly successful in
the next years, as successful
as Nanosolar.
I think Martin Roscheisen
doesn't need any further
introduction.
In this young industry of clean
tech, he has become
almost something like an icon.
So let me just hand it over to
Martin, and thank you very
much for being here.
MARTIN ROSCHEISEN: Thank
you very much.
Welcome.
Welcome, everyone.
I'd like to give the Silicon
Valley-centric introduction to
Hermann Sheer, which is start
out by contrasting Hermann
with Al Gore.
So I love Al Gore.
But you cannot start a company
and build a business around
speeches around global
warming.
You just cannot.
No customer's going to buy
solar panels or install
systems around general concerns
on climate change
over tens of years.
What it requires are successful
policies, policies
that level the playing field
against highly subsidized
nuclear and coal sources, and
policies that are working.
Now in particular at Google
here, a lot people understand
the difference between getting
something right and getting
something close to right or
i.e. not getting it right.
And there have been a lot of
policies in the world and
start-up in Japan are very
successful solar programs that
led to massive solar
installations.
But it was done in the kind
of closed Japanese way.
In Silicon Valley, if you have
a company here or in the rest
of the world, you cannot build
a business around selling
panels into Japan because
it's a closed market.
There have been a tremendous
amount of city-based and state
level-based programs around
the world in different
countries, that would level the
playing field and incent
solar installations.
But at the end of the day, in
the aggregate of them an in
terms of their predictability,
they weren't at the type of
scale that's required for doing
very aggressive and
Silicon Valley scale investments
in and research
and development, that at times
takes years and years for the
technologies that take solar
from a $500 square meter
economics down to a $50 per
square meter economics.
It takes years of our research
and development.
We've going to use our close
to $200 million dollars in
capital quite well to
get to that point.
But it takes substantial
investments in these areas.
And do a step of investments
that look ahead
for five, six years.
They require a market at the end
of day that's predictable.
And that's at a very
interesting scale.
And that's what Hermann
accomplished in Germany.
It's a first example of a very
elegant and simple tariff that
gets it right in terms of
predictability, scale, and
ultimately accomplishing nothing
else but making green
tech investable, including very
R&D intense investments.
And just to say a few things
about the current feed-in
tariff we have in Germany is the
outgrowth of a number of
programs. Hermann as long back
as '93 started one of the
first large scale solar
installation programs which
was the 100,000 Rooftop Program
in Germany, which he
had heard earlier.
Greenpeace at that time called
it unrealistic that it should
be at most 50,000.
So you're welcomed to Silicon
Valley for your audacity.
It's good to be called back by
Greenpeace as being too green.
But it turned out that the
$100,000 Rooftop Program was
fully subscribed between
'99 and '03.
And it was kind of predecessor
to the feed-in program that is
now in place.
And that applies to both wind
and solar installations and
has led to something like 15, 16
gigawat of installations at
this point, and really around
the globe unleashing a market
dynamic that's going to
fundamentally change the
gestalt of green energy in
many countries around the
world, as well as through policy
a effort also around in
the area of biofuels achieving
a general tax exemption for
biofuels, which makes a very
significant difference in a
country where the fuel prices
are a factor higher than we
have in the United
States here.
And again leveling the playing
field for new technologies.
So without further delay, please
welcome the man who
made green tech investable.
DR. HERMANN SCHEER: OK.
Thank you, Martin.
From Albert Einstein, I know a
sentence he has written in
this last year in the
middle of the '50s.
And the sentence is "The methods
who have caused our
programs are unable to solve
these problems." And if you'd
look to the global situation and
the running energy crisis,
one point is very
clear for me.
And I hope after my speech
also for you.
The present energy economy, the
present dominating energy
economies, their ways of
thinking and acting is unable
to solve the problem we have.
We need a consideration why we
are aware more and more by the
energy crisis, why are aware
of existential problems for
civilization in general.
But why happen so few things?
What happens in policies and
economy that there is no
adequate reaction to
the energy crisis?
That means we have also to
reconsider the strategies and
policies which we have done
in the past including the
policies for climate protection
including the Kyoto Protocol.
All these steps are far below
the real necessities.
The international panel on
climate change and the
governmental panel on climate
change recommend an urgent
reduction in the total amount of
CO2 emissions in the total
amount of 60% up to 2050.
And this on the basis
of the year 1990.
The Kyoto Protocol which is in
power up to 2012 ruled only a
reduction of 6%.
And it is not an obligation
for all, because some
countries including the United
States of America--
they are able to deny
that not to
participate in this Protocol.
But even if all would
participate including all the
countries which are not
asked to participate
like China and India--
if they all would take part and
they all would reduce the
emissions about 6% up to 2012,
it would be far beyond the
necessities.
And who can imagine that in the
same process of political
acting there could be an
approaching to the necessity
of the deduction of 60%?
Who can imagine that if someone
wants to be realistic?
Again this shows we need
other considerations,
other ways of acting.
Otherwise we would lose
the race against time.
And we are aware of seven, not
only one world energy crisis.
One is the climate crisis.
A second is the availability
crisis, which would exist even
if there would be no climate
crisis caused by fossil energy
pollutions or emissions.
The availability crisis comes by
the running depletion, the
coming depletion of the fossil
energy resources, and even the
running depletion of the uranium
reserves for nuclear
facilities.
And if you look to the real
problem, if you tell the truth
about the energy situation
of the world, we have to
recognize that is decreasing
curve of reserves.
And it decreases faster
the more the
energy consumption increases.
And we have an increase of the
energy consumption in the
world mainly because of the
development in China and India
where 1/3 of world
population live.
1/3.
And if we have a decreasing
curve and an increasing curve
of demands and decreasing of
possible supplyings, then we
approach to a crossing
point of both curves.
If you would arrive at this
point, the world would get the
most brutal, bloody conflict
ever happened.
Because without energy,
nothing works.
Nothing is possible.
And on the way to this crossing
point, there will be
many, many conflicts.
The time of energy
war has begun.
Not whether the Gulf War, nor
the Iraq War would have
happened if there would be the
plantation of bananas instead
of the extraction of oil
at Arabian Peninsula.
There's no doubt about that.
And economic conflicts will
become more and more heavy.
Because if the approach to this
curve, to this crossing
point of the two curves, then
energy will become more and
more expensive for all.
It creates a social problem
for all countries.
It becomes social hypotheque.
And it is still.
This is the third crisis, a
social hypotheque, for the
third world countries.
40 countries in the third world
I have counted pay for
the importation of oil, more
than their total export
earning is.
That means-- speaking about the
third world crisis without
referring to the energy
problem--
means to understand nothing
about the third world crisis.
The only chance for them is to
shift as soon and as radical
as possible, as wide as
possible, to indigenous
renewable energies.
But even their elites do
think that this would
be an economic burden.
It is a total misleaded
thinking.
Totally.
And these are three world crises
caused by the present
energy system.
The fourth one is the
nuclear crisis.
The extension of nuclear
technology creates more and
more problems about nuclear
weapons proliferation.
The danger for nuclear
proliferation is much higher
than it has been 15 years
before, much higher.
Look to the Iran crisis.
Look to the situation
in North Korea.
Look to other countries.
And the idea to organize nuclear
renaissance, and
that's in countries which
are not stable.
Because a stable country,
a state situation is the
absolute prerequisite for
having nuclear powers.
To appeal for nuclear
renaissance in the world in
general for overcoming the
climate crisis is totally
stupid and totally
irresponsible.
Because you don't have the
social and political
conditions for that.
Besides that it is a lie that
nuclear doesn't contribute to
the climate crisis.
Because nuclear power stations
produce many heat which would
not be there in the atmosphere
without the nuclear powers.
And the global warming effect
is based on the increasing
difficulties in the atmosphere
cause of the mounting of the
CO2 emissions that the heat
cannot leave the atmosphere
like it happened before
with solar heat.
Therefore although nuclear is
source of global warming,
besides a lot of other
questions.
But I don't want to speak too
much about that non-option.
And all who appeal for a nuclear
renaissance don't tell
the truth about the
real direct costs.
Because even the uranium
depletes.
And if someone wants to
prolongate the nuclear, he
must tell the truth.
And this would mean immediately
to go over to the
fast breeder technology.
And nowhere in the world exists
one operational well
functioning fast breeder
reactor.
And if it would exist, it would
cost much more than the
present nuclear power
facilities.
Therefore it is a myth to
speak about the future
opportunity of having cheap
nuclear energy.
And then we have a fifth
crisis caused by the
convention energies, by nuclear
and by fossil energy.
This is the high water
consumption rate of this
energy system.
In the United States statistics
you have a water
consumption by the present
energy system, mainly by the
heat power plants.
And all big power plants are
based on the steam processes
if it is nuclear or if it
are coal power plants.
And they need so much water that
the water consumption of
the energy system, the present
energy system is in America
more than 50% of the total
water consumption.
And now look to many countries
which are in the midst of a
water crisis which increases.
And therefore, there is no
future for the present energy
system because of the water in
more and more countries.
And then you have a health
crisis caused not by the
climate problems, but caused by
the other pollutions of the
present energy.
And you have an agricultural
crisis caused by the
petrochemical fertilizers--
is one of the main source of
agricultural crisis, the
increasing loss of humus
potential on our globe.
Each reason is enough for itself
a reason to change the
energy system, to change
to renewables.
And altogether culminate in the
same time and overlap each
other in the same time.
Because they have the same
origin or close origins.
And that means we are in
a race against time.
And this race against time is
not really contradictable.
If we look to the two main
limits in general of the
present energy system,
you have the
limit of the resource.
And on the other side you have
unlimited resource by renewed
energies all derivates
from the actual solar
radiation for our globe.
Therefore this is the first big
difference, limited resource.
And on the other side as long
the sun exists, an energy
source for our globe which
is 15,000 times--
the daily supply of the sun to
our globe is 15,000 times
higher than the daily
fossil and nuclear
energy consumption is.
To say there would be not enough
natural potential of
renewable energies in order to
replace the conventional
energies is ridiculous.
Has nothing to do
with science.
Has only to do with prejudicial
standpoints and
nothing else, with
nonscientifically assumptions
in the energy debate.
And the energy forever it
is sometimes defined.
This is not totally right.
The science of the astrophysics
tells us that the
sun will exist for 5 to
7 billion years more.
One time when I gave this
number, one asked me
afterwards did you say 5
billions or 5 million years?
When I said it is 5
billion, then he
answered then I am satisfied.
This is the first
big difference.
And the time of the running
out is shorter than many
people who think and than the
conventional experts confirm.
And they don't confirm it
because the answer is too
radical for them.
It should be given to that.
If you look to the oil reserves,
we can expect that
the liquid oil reserves will
run out in the next roughly
four decades, roughly
four decades.
The natural gas reserves
are not longer.
Perhaps it could be
five years less.
Perhaps it could be
five years more.
But this doesn't make
a difference.
The uranium reserves, based on
the present number of nuclear
facilities, perhaps 50 or 60
years-- on the present number
of nuclear facilities.
Coal, a little bit
more than 100.
But who can imagine that after
the final exportation of the
other sources, oil would go over
to coal, and to continue
by that way the global
pyromaniac energy system.
But before the time limit
of the reserves, we
have another limit.
This is the limit of
the ecosphere.
Because the ecosphere is
already overstressed.
That means we are not allowed
to burn off all
of these known reserves.
That means we have to replace
these energy sources in the
run of the next three
or four decades.
And this the challenge
of the century.
This is the unique challenge
since the beginning of
civilization.
Because without energy,
nothing works.
Nothing can move.
It is an existential question.
And the contrast between that
question, between that
challenge and the activities
is scandalously.
And it is not any more enough
to present warnings.
I am not an enthusiast
about for instance,
the movie of Al Gore.
The reason for that is he
doesn't show a solution.
There is not one detail which
is not right in the
description of the dangers--
not one sentence.
It's brilliant formulated.
Brilliant.
But I think it is a problem
itself to show such a dramatic
danger and not to show in the
same time a solution.
Because what will happen
with the people who
are aware of that--
and if they are not aware about
the opportunity or the
possibility to come
to a solution to
overcome this tension.
Some may become active.
But a silent majority--
this is a normal historical
experience--
the silent majority will react
in a total other way.
They feel concerned themselves
that this problem can never
become solved.
And if they think that, they
develop no future mentalities.
They become apathetic.
They start to live from day to
day as long as possible in the
usual way or they become
realistic.
And a society can only create
the power, can only start to
overcome a danger if a
perspective is seen--
only then on socio-psychological
reasons.
It is necessary not leave a
society alone with a danger.
It is necessary to show
the perspective.
That means it is necessarily
to show that there is a
possibility to replace nuclear
and fossil energy supply in
general by renewable energies.
This is the challenge
to show that.
From the natural potential,
showing that is not a problem.
I gave some indications
for that.
But then many energy experts
say and they reduce its
potential and speak about yes
but what is the economic
potential or the technological
potential?
And they reduce it radically.
Then they ask what is the
economic potential?
Then they give the answer
it's too expensive.
And they reduce it again.
But they never ask about
the human potential.
And this is the most important
thing to have enough human
potential to overcome
that problem.
Because we cannot discuss this
question only on cost
comparisons.
Who has the courage now?
Or, well, will have the
courage-- its let's say-- in
20 or 25 years to tell their
own children we could have
solved the problem.
But it was too expensive
for us.
The additional cost of $0.03
or $0.04 per kilowatt hour,
for some time were too
costly for us.
Such an answer will become
shabby, totally shabby.
Refer to the real problem.
Therefore we are challenged in
a total other very much more
than the energy debate shows us
and much more than the most
energy experts tell us.
The conventional energy experts
are a part of the
problem and not a part of
the solution mostly.
And the reason for that is
that they think in an old
paradigm in the paradigm of the
existing energy system.
And this paradigm misleads.
And I'll try to explain this
paradigm, this difference.
Because there is a set main
contrast between renewables
and the conventional
energy system.
The first was polluting energy
and energy free of pollution,
emissioning energies and
emission free energies.
Second, limited reserves and
non-limited reserves.
The third difference is the
resource, the potential of the
conventional energies,
we find at very few
places in the world.
But energy consumption
is everywhere where
people work and live.
That means energy consumption
is always decentralized.
Conventional energy promotion
is from the early beginning
centralized because of very
few reserve places.
60% of the annual oil extraction
and consumption
comes from only 40 giant fields
in the world-- only 40.
And the more we approach to
the exhaustion, to the
depletion, the fewer
reserves there are.
And from these 40 reserves,
roughly 30, 3/4 are in Islamic
states, from Central Asia like
Turkmenistan, to the Caucasus,
like Kazakhstan, then to Iran,
then to the Arabian Peninsula.
And then to North Africa like
Libya, Sudan, and Nigeria.
And this creates a lot of
additional political problems.
This creates increasing
security costs.
The new pipeline which became
installed in 2005 between the
Caspian Sea and the
Mediterranean harbor, Ceyhan,
is guarded day and night
by 10,000 soldiers.
Their costs are not in
the energy bill.
This is only one example--
only one example.
And if we look to the
human disaster in
Sudan, what is the reason?
There reason are conflicting
interests of some big powers
since there is the extraction
of oil in the year 1999.
That's the reason why there is
no contenders in the United
Nations Security Council between
China, United States
of America, and the
European states.
This is the truth behind
that story.
And the situation we have cause
of this long chain from
few places to billions of
customers is the conventional
energy system can only
become supplied by
a long energy chain.
This long energy chain consists
of many elements.
Each single element is linked
with the others.
And each element
is a cashier--
each element.
And the administrators
of this system--
that means the energy
economy--
is risen by its own chain.
They cannot leave it.
They are dependent from their
own business totally.
And if you compare that with
a renewable energy natural
supply, renewable energy is
everywhere, not at few places,
everywhere supplied by nature.
In different intensities, but
solar radiation is everywhere.
Wind is practically in each
region more or less.
Nearly everywhere you
can plant or you
have biomass, bioenergy.
In many regions of the world
you have running water.
Capacities in coastal
regions we have wave
energy or tidal energy.
And nearly everywhere you
have geothermal energy.
And all these together
are derivates
from the daily sunshine--
all of them.
That means the general term
for all is solar.
And because it is at
very few places in
the world, this creates--
if you start to do that--
a new economic development
for all who do that.
It is a opportunity to overcome
the decoupling of the
spaces of energy consumption
and energy promotion which
defines the present energy
system by a process for the
relinking of the spaces
of energy
consumption and energy promotion.
That means in the case of
renewed energies energy
harvesting.
And this makes possible for
each country or for many
reasons within countries, for
cities within countries, or in
many cases also for
individuals to
get an energy autonomy.
The general formula to describe
that process is--
for the global economy that we
will arrive in a development
for a globalization
of technologies.
Because it is good if all
people in the world have
access to the best technologies
free of
discrimination.
But the same time of regional
resources market and global
technology markets.
And what that means if we look
on the tie to that process,
then we come to a total
different paradigm of the
energy basis of our societies.
And this paradigm shows that
the conventional energy
system, the existing energy
system, the existing energy
economy, can never behave, can
never be neutral to the
different energy sources.
That's impossible on
physical reasons.
Even if they want to be
neutral they can't.
Because we had in fact
only one decision.
That is a decision about
the energy source.
After taking such a decision,
all other follow-up decisions
or consequences are coming by
itself, the other consequence
from that decision.
Because the choice for energy
decides about the question how
far are the sources?
Are they far?
Or are they close to us?
They decide is there a
need for promotion--
mining extraction and so
forth technologies--
or not?
It decides about the question
how much infrastructure is
needed for the transportation
of the energy?
It decides about the conversion
technologies which
must be introduced for the
conversion of primary energy
to final energy which is used.
It decides about the way of
distribution of the energy.
And it decides about which
structure of companies is
adequate to organize
this process.
Because a local utility or all
small and medium enterprise is
unable to organize the energy
delivering from the Arabian
Peninsula to the United
States of America.
This can only be done by a
multinational company--
only by them and
not by others.
But such a big company is
possibly unable to organize
the supply of regional energy
sources for regional needs in
the same region.
This is a total other
business.
And after the decision for the
dominating existing energy
system, have you got an energy
economy which is tailored in
all its investments to fossil
energies and nuclear?
And all of these investments
need a payback.
And there is no time.
You cannot identify
scientifically not--
whether scientifically no, then
practicality, you cannot
identify for the whole system.
Because such a point
doesn't exist.
The point at which all invested
money is paid back at
the same time.
That point doesn't exist.
Because investments were done
at different times.
We are running investment,
not at the same time.
And a lifetime of the
technologies are also different.
That means the present
energy system tends--
and its protagonist tends
to prolongate
it as long as possible.
And it is impossible on sources
reasons and technology
reasons to keep the structure of
this energy system which is
tailored to the conventional
energy sources to keep it and
to take renewables through
the system.
Because even if we promote,
if we use renewables, the
technological and economic
prerequisites for that must be
tailored then to the
new resources.
And the difference
are tremendous.
The way to renewable energies
is away from, as I told, few
sources, a few giant fields
to sources everywhere.
It's away from commercial
primary energy, like coal,
gas, and uranium, and oil,
to non-commercial primary
energies with the exception
of biomass.
Because if you take biomass
from agriculture, the
agricultural world
must be paid.
But solar radiation and wind are
primary energies free of
cost. That means it is
impossible to change, to shift
from the business, being a
seller of oil and gas to
become a seller of solar
radiation and wind.
That means this part of the
energy economy will lose its
job without alternative.
They can do other things.
But they cannot change their
role as primary energy
supplies to renewables.
That's impossible on natural
scientific reasons.
And you can imagine how many
resistances come cause of that
against renewable energies.
You can imagine because the
resistants are everywhere.
And it became the only possible
to overcome it by
strong policies--
only then.
It can never by itself.
It was always blocked by the
conventional power structures.
And moreover, it is a way from
few power plants and
refineries to many.
Because of the lower energy
density of renewable energy
sources, it is impossible to
replace a 1000 megawatt
reactor, nuclear powered or coal
powered reactor by a 1000
megawatt windmill.
The alternative to 1000
megawatt reactor are--
let's say--
several hundred windmills or
seven 10,000 rooftops, or
several dozens biogas
or biomass plants.
That means it is total
other ownership
possible and will come.
It is not in the hand
of few companies.
It's impossible to keep
renewable energy supply in the
hand of few companies if it
overcome the monopolistic
supplying structure by
itself if it comes.
They can take part.
But they can never keep their
present monopolistic
structures if we go
to renewables.
And all this show
big difference.
And moreover, if you have a
natural supply and you are not
dependent from far away
resources, you can save
infrastructures.
And that means you have
other calculations.
All of the investments for
renewable energies with the
exception of biomass are only
investments for technologies--
only.
Nothing else.
Not more for fuels.
And in most cases the
possibility to avoid
infrastructural investments.
And that means you have possibly
higher initial costs.
But then you have not
any more fuel costs.
That means you need a 10 or 15
years or 20 years calculation.
And all who compare the
investment costs of a
conventional energy system with
its fervor running costs
for fuels--
if you compare that with the
investment cost for PV or for
wind, you will not come to
adequate results if you forget
the system costs for a period
of 10, 15, or 20 years.
That means the longer you think
about renewables, the
cheaper will it be.
And because we are only
technology costs, the
situation is that this is the
experience of 200 years
technological development.
The renewable energy costs
can only go down by new
technologies, technological
improvement, and by mass
production of its
technologies.
The conventional energy costs
can only go up cause of the
increasing fuel costs and
costs of the increasing
environmental damages which
have to be paid at
one time if not yet.
And costs of the increasing
infrastructural and security
costs in the run of the
depletion of resources.
That means we are now
on a watershed.
If we postpone the way to
renewables then we create
unsolvable energy problems in
the future and unpayable
problems in the future.
If you don't postpone it, we
can get for all the future
energy security and
clean energy.
The decision is very clear.
If we leave this question to the
energy companies which are
the vested interests against
renewables itself, then they
have to go to renewables
at a specific time.
When they are at the end
of their possibilities
and this will come.
But this would be a postponement
about three or
four decades.
And if we could allow that or
would allow that, we would
lose worldwide the race
against time.
That means the answer is to
create a policy which doesn't
leave this question anymore--
the energy decisions to the
existing energy companies, but
which inspires and gives room
for maneuvering their society
and many investors to go
straight to renewable energy
investments without being
dependent in that from the
power structure.
This is the only way to get
success in the short run--
the only way.
And this shows the experience
in Germany.
The idea when we started, when
we initiated the renewable act
was to organize an independent
development, independent from
the existing power structure.
That was the reason why they
fighted against it and they go
on with their fight
against this law.
But the solution was we
installed three elements in
this renewable energy act.
First first element was a
guaranteed access to the grid
for each power supplier from
renewables even it is a very
small one with a one kilowatt
peak photovoltaic device.
If he wants to sell it for
others and if he needs the
grid, he has a guaranteed access
to the grid, legally
guaranteed.
There is no more way and
opportunity to obstruct it by
the power companies.
Second element to give
a guaranteed fee.
Because it is possible to block
such a business if the
grid companies pay only a low
fee which doesn't allow an
investment.
And therefore gives a guaranteed
fee in a total
amount which allow investments
and revenues from that.
And the third element is not to
eliminate the quantity of
introduction.
Because only if there's no
limitation of the quantity for
the introduction of renewable
energies--
only then there are enough
companies who start the
production.
Because a company who starts a
production needs a long-term
perspective.
Because they never get the
payback for their investment
in production facilities if they
have only perspective of
a two or three years program.
And that means without quantity
and limitations the
quantities allows and moderates
firms to extend
their production and by this
way to reduce, to cut the
costs by joining mass
production.
Exactly that happens.
And therefore we created a new
group, a new movement of
investments and investors who
were not any more obliged, who
had no reason anymore to ask
the power companies for a
permission for their
investments.
They can do it without
asking someone.
And the result was that we have
in the last six years
annually 3000 megawatt new
renewable energy installations
without large hydropower.
Without large hydropower
annually 3000 megawatts.
In six years 20,000 megawatt
altogether.
We created a new industry
with 150,000 new jobs.
The windmill industry, PV
industry, and biogas plant
industry, and others.
We organized by that way a
cost decrease, because we
arrived in the early beginning
of mass production cost
decrease of 15% in the run
of very few years.
And we got-- if you let
me give one example--
by this way the cheapest
renewable energies compared to
the others.
And in UK they have a
total other system.
They have a system based
not on the price
regulation like we did it.
They have a regulation
in quantities.
They obliged the energy supplier
to take a specific
percentage of energy from
renewables into their supply.
The result is many deviations
for them.
The result is that we have 20
times more installed wind
energy capacity than UK,
although UK has better wind
conditions than we.
And the wind energy is cheaper
in Germany than in UK, about
30% cheaper.
This is a result of policy not
the result of having better
engineers of having
more diligent or
more intelligent people.
It's only the result of
a different policy.
And I assume the new ambitious
targets within the United
States like California or some
other states have now, because
they don't want any more to
wait for a federal law--
All these states targets and
ambitions can only become
matched with the right policy.
And I have my doubts if the
mostly used or introduced
renewable energy portfolio
standards policies will allow
to match the official targets.
And if there is the clear
evaluation of policies shows
you shall not leave it to the
present energy sector.
You shall not give them a veto
power for the introduction of
renewable energies neither
directly nor indirectly.
And you must give the incentives
for new players.
And the general economic view
about that is we can show
already a lot of macroeconomic
benefits by going to
renewables in contrast to the
increasing macroeconomic
burdens of the conventional
energies.
But economically a macroeconomic
benefit is not
in the same time for all
economic players a
microeconomic benefit.
Therefore the political art is
to translate, to transform
with the right policy
instruments the macroeconomic
benefit into a microeconomic
incentives for
investors and customers.
And if someone follows
this line, he can
create a dynamic process.
And this dynamic process is
needed to give an example
which inspires others
to do the same.
We shall not wait for
international negotiations.
We have now within 35 years
experiences of global energy
conferences and environment
conferences.
Most of these conferences
have only one result.
This is a decision for
organizing a follow-up
conference.
And in the same time you have
a rapid growth of the drama.
And the number of participants
increases.
But the results are too low.
And this is based on
a wrong premise.
The wrong premise of all these
world climate conference and
other conference is that the
way from the conventional
energy system is the source of
the problems. The way to
energy efficiency and finally
the way to another energy
source, to renewable energies.
[UNINTELLIGIBLE]
energies.
This way would be an
economic burden.
And therefore such an economic
burden should be carried by
all or by none.
This is a philosophy.
And what is estimated as a
burden leads to the bazaar of
international negotiations and
leads to the trying to get a
broad consensus.
And the broad consensus, this
trying, is in a deep
contradiction methodologically
in a deep contradiction to the
needs to have speed.
It's in a deep unbridgeable
contradiction.
And there is no example in
history of modern technologies
since 200 years in which a new
technology which creates a new
paradigm based on other
calculations which creates new
opportunities apart from the
former experiences--
there is no example in history
that a breakthrough for the
technology came by an
international treaty.
Not one example.
And therefore we need the
organization wherever there is
enough human power to do that,
enough ambitions, enough
commitment.
The organization of such
a dynamic process--
we started that in this
sense in Germany.
And I think it would be a
fantastic if California could
do the same.
Because the world needs
such examples.
And I want to close
this speech with a
sentence of the Polish--
PHILIP COONS: Thank
you very much.
I'm sure your passion and deep
insights into renewable energy
policy making spark a lot of
questions here in the audience.
So please raise your hand
and state your name and
affiliation briefly before you
and start with your question.
BRIAN WONG: Hi.
My name's Brian Wong.
I'm a computer consultant here
in the Bay Area currently
working on a contract at Visa.
I have a question with regards
to nuclear power.
I think that coal is far worse
than nuclear power.
And I think that the issue that
you brought up in regards
to nuclear power proliferation,
and you were
looking at the cost should be
considered for renewables.
So then your cost arguments
probably don't need to be
addressed for nuclear.
But that you've got the three
gigawatts per year in Germany.
You still have coal power which
is killing 8000 people
per year in Germany, and
especially air pollution--
particulates and that kind of
thing causing heart disease
and that kind of stuff.
So because a million people a
year die from the pollution
from coal,, shouldn't that be
some kind of a priority issue
to work with everything else
including nuclear until we get
rid of coal?
HERMANN SCHEER: Yes.
Perhaps you are right.
But this has nothing to
do with my speech
what you have said.
Because I did not recommend
coal instead of nuclear.
I do not that.
It is not a good choice
between--
it's like having a choice
between cancer and cholera.
But nevertheless we have, as
I said, between cancer and
cholera, nuclear cancer
and fossil cholera.
No.
The alternative is renewable
energies.
And it is a distributed myth
that we would need too much
time to go to renewables.
That is not right.
It is totally wrong.
Nothing can become implemented
faster
than renewable energies.
Nothing.
The 20,000 megawatts we have
introduced in the last six
years, the 20,000
new renewables.
Not [UNINTELLIGIBLE]
involved in that number.
This as an energy equivalent
from their annual production
of that 8000 megawatts
conventional power plant--
If there would have been instead
of the renewable
energy act in Germany the
decision to construct 8000
megawatt reactors if it is
nuclear or coal, not one of
them would work today.
Because they have a construction
time of 5, 6,
sometimes 8, 10, 12 years.
Not one would work, or perhaps
only one or two.
And a windmill is installed
in one week.
And it is not an equivalent
alone.
It's not an equivalent to
a big power station.
But several hundred are
equivalent together.
But each one module can
work immediately after
installation.
The big power station can only
start to produce the first
kilowatt hour when all things
are constructed.
And this example shows nothing
can be done faster.
It is possible if there is
the adequate will and the
advantage of a society about the
real possibilities to come
within 15 years to 100%
renewable energy system in
direct [INAUDIBLE].
Perhaps not in the field of
fuels if you think about the
traffic, the cars, biodegrading
the fossil fuels
by biofuels.
Perhaps for this you need
some more time.
Because you can make a lot of
mistakes by doing that, a lot
of environmental mistakes
if it is not done well.
But in the electric power
sector, it is very easy to
show a very fast development.
Therefore there is no reason to
decide between coal or gas
on the one side and nuclear
on the other side.
I think we need a moritorium
for both, a
moritorium for both.
No new plants, no new coal
plants, no new nuclear plants,
and all future investments into
renewable energies are at
least coal generations.
These are the last coal
generation as long as some
fossil fuels are involved.
Nothing else.
Then we have the right speed
and for the future.
PHILIP COONS: If you could use
the microphone I'm sure the
people from the filmmaking would
appreciate that a lot.
Thank you.
AUDIENCE: Michael
Schopenhauer.
Great talk.
I don't want to insult you.
But some of the ideas that
you're talking about are
things that we already had
about 20 years ago.
The things about
decentralization and stories
about heat power coupling et
cetera, et cetera, those are
ideas and concepts that were
probably developed in the late
'70s and in the early '80s.
And they were out there
at that time.
And we're now 20 years
down the road.
We really haven't seen too much
technological progress in
a lot of these things.
These things are now
being put in place.
When you're looking at Germany
at a point in time where your
power cost in Germany is about
$0.65 per kilowatt hour.
All power costs in California
is somewhere around $0.20 to
$0.30 cents per kilowatt hour.
So we have a serious issue in
operating under similar
economic interactivity scenarios
as opposed to where
Germany is.
If our energy would be about
twice the price, we probably
would see more move towards
photovoltaic, et cetera.
But that doesn't
really happen.
And the energy costs in this
state is not going to go up.
So if you want to burn this down
to what is supposed to
happen in California, what
concrete suggestions are there
to do that?
And in particular the question
is how and what can we do
using a low temperature
energy?
How can we use that in
a beneficial way?
Because this is where the
other problem is.
When you're boiling down the
systems as to something that
is actually working, what
is very efficient--
the thermodynamic reason why the
things that are happening
in Germany do happen in Germany
and do work in Germany
is because you can
do something with
low temperature power.
We can't really do
a lot with that.
Because we have a lot of
sun in summer here.
And people really don't have an
interest in having more low
temperature heat
here in summer.
So that is thermodynamically a
problem in putting some of
those heat power coupling units
into the place here in
California.
Do you have any concrete
suggestions or
ideas about that one?
HERMANN SCHEER: Yes.
But give an adequate answer
requires to think about the
special ways how to substitute
the conventional energy
structures.
And not only because of the
change of the energy basis,
but also because for
technological development in
the society which change the
kinds of energy demands.
And the most important step in
this way is that more and
more, electric power will
substitute other energy
sources, even in the
conventional
structure more and more.
Cause of the technological
development, information
technologies, lead in its
mass introduction--
and this happens--
leads to more electric
power demand.
There's no doubt.
But the biggest step comes
by another development.
And I expect this development
in the run of the next five
years at least in the run
up the next 10 years.
I have no doubts that the car
of the future will be an
electric powered car.
I have no doubt about that.
All other options for the car,
for fueling the car cannot
match the benefits of electric
powered car, no other option.
Because we have to look beyond
fossil fuels for the cars.
And there is no doubt.
And if we compare the different
alternatives,
hydrogen or biofuels, then I
think all evaluations lead--
if they are done in the
comprehensive way--
lead to electric powered car.
And the electric power must be
produced from renewables.
And only then you get
a clean city.
You can get CO2 neutral
fuel by bioenergy.
But you cannot clean the
cities by that way.
And even hydrogen will create
a problem for the cities.
Because they have all the kind
of pollution that is steam.
Burning hydrogen leads to
synthesis of oxygen in the air
and leads to water.
You produce water by
burning hydrogen.
And that is comes from out of
car in the form of steam.
And if you do it in the
countryside, it's no problem.
But if you do it in the city
like Los Angeles, or San
Francisco, or New York, or
Berlin, or Paris, you will get
so much air humidity, additional
humidity that this
will overstress many people.
There is no doubt about that.
And a real clean city is only
possible with individual
traffic, with cars, with
electric powered cars.
And the technological
prerequisites to come to that
are much closer to reality, to
implementation, than all the
other options--
much closer.
Even in America--
perhaps you have seen the movie
Who Killed the Electric
Car?, which was shown
some months ago
in the United States.
Who Killed the Electric Car?
It is the automotive industry
cause of one reason why they
forgot the technology
of the electric
car in the last decades.
The working time of an internal
combustion engine,
like it is now in the cars,
is not more than
between 3 and $4000--
the real working time.
The working time of electric
motor is up two $100,000.
And therefore the difference
between electric car, electric
motor and the internal
combustion motor is for the
industry very, very relevant.
That is the reason why the
automotive industry hesitates
to do that what is reasonable or
hesitated to develop that.
But one producer will
start with that.
And then he will win.
Look to the hybrid
car from Toyota.
This is a step to
that direction.
It's not the final solution.
It is a step to that.
And Toyota became the most
successful automobile producer
in the world cause of that.
And the automotive industry who
misses that will create a
lot of dangers for the societies
which are dependent
on such industries,
like Germany, like
United States of America.
That means in general you will
have more electric power needs
replacing other energy
demands.
And based on that, we can have
already enough time to see for
the perspective in which the
heating and cooling of
buildings will come by direct
solar radiation use mostly.
The cars will become fueled
by elected power.
And electric power needs from
the day will remain.
And in this field a lot of new
technologies will come or will
become introduced.
Some we don't know.
But even that what we know
is enough to show a full
perspective.
With low temperature it will
also become possible to
produce electric power.
One option is the
Stirling engine.
With a Stirling engine you can
produce electric power with 60
or 70 degrees Celsius,
60 or 70 degrees.
And if you take coal generation
perhaps based on
biomass or biogas mainly, then
you can come from the power
and cheap production to power,
heat, and power production,
three steps from one source.
The creation of renewable energy
system leads to a new
diversity of energy
technologies.
I suppose it is the second
industrial revolution.
The first was driven by the
steam engine, and then the
fossil fuel economy.
The second will come
by that way.
And it is impossible to show
all the branches which will
become developed
by that today.
You can give a roughly
imagination of that.
PHILIP COONS: Sorry.
Unfortunately we only have time
for one more question,
since we want to get all the
people are helping here on the
Google side out and in time.
I'm happy to introduce Edgar
Gunther, who is writing an
excellent solar blog.
Those of you who haven't read it
yet should definitely start
to have a look at it either
tonight or tomorrow morning.
EDGAR GUNTHER: Thank you.
I really didn't have
a question.
I was looking through
my notes.
PHILIP COONS: Oh, OK.
Then I got it wrong.
You had a question, right.
AUDIENCE: I did.
Yes.
It's a brief one.
My name is Dana Sanderson.
Thank you.
This was very informative and
exciting this evening.
Are you currently in any
a dialogue with the
Schwarzenegger administration
here in California?
Has there been any contact
between your organizations and
the California solar
policymakers?
Can we be hopeful of that?
HERMANN SCHEER: I was invited
two years ago when the first
legislation was introduced.
And I gave a speech in the
capitol in Sacramento at also
a meeting with Arnold
Schwarzenegger.
And I am in contact with the
head of the California Energy
Commission, John Geesman.
And perhaps I will have
a meeting with
him in the next days.
It depends on the different
agendas.
I met him two months
ago in Washington.
And my running argument is don't
take care anymore about
the claims of the present
energy companies.
And make a full step to a
[UNINTELLIGIBLE] cycle nation
like we have with the renewable
energy act.
And then I'm totally sure that
you would get a dynamic larger
dynamic than we have. Because
you have in some cases better
conditions than we.
You have a lot of coasts in
Germany with more wind than we
have. And you have several--
what is the average of the solar
radiation per square
meter in California?
Twice.
That means 2000, 2000
hours, yeah?
2000 kilowatt hours per
square meter, 1800.
We have in the average 1100.
And the costs would be the
same for the technology.
There you can imagine what could
happen in California.
And I have a big hope that
this will happen.
Because it's not good
to be alone in a
front running situation.
Because more and more arguments
we have around--
you isolate yourself, and
all of these things.
It is necessary to have
alliance for that.
That means states would do the
same with the same ambition,
with adequate policies, and
who can create the same
dynamic development.
And I think therefore I would
appreciate it totally if this
would happen here.
And what I can do to
inspire that I do.
That's why I'm here.
PHILIP COONS: Please join me
in thanking Hemann for this
great speech.
And before closing, here let
me just make a few remarks.
Well thanks again so much for
the MIT and C&C Club for
organizing this together
with us.
This was a truly great
experience with you guys.
I want to briefly mention Vote
Solar, the Rahus Institute and
also the German-American Chamber
of Commerce who's also
helped promoting this.
And I want to draw your
attention to an event that the
German-American Chamber-- and
maybe Stephan, you want to
stand up one second and
identify yourself--
organizes with our support which
is the German-California
Solar Day which is going to
happen in March 13th I believe
it is in San Francisco.
So unfortunately Hermann is
not going to be there.
But lots of interesting German
and California solar companies
and some policy makers.
And in saying that,
let me close.
We have Energy Autonomy,
Hermann's latest book here
which we're selling, and which
I'm sure he's happy to sign.
And it would be great if we
could thank our host here at
Google by trying to be out of
here by 9 o'clock or just
after 9:00.
I know they have a lot of people
here helping us and
supporting us.
And I'm sure they would
appreciate that a lot.
Thanks again to all of
you for coming here.
And bye-bye.
