Differentiation vs Importance

Upon re-reading my last post, I realized that I was fairly unclear about a few important points and that it could easily be misinterpreted as saying I was against renewable energy.

To clarify:

• There is differentiation between traditional grid sources and renewables 
• There is clearly differentiation here beyond price: CO2 generation, fuel security at the very least.
• That differentiation becomes more important as regulatory structures (carbon tax or cap & trade), popular opinion, regional politics or peak oil make it so.

• There is differentiation between various renewable sources (E.g. solar thermal vs solar PV vs wind vs biofuels vs tidal)
• Each technology has characteristics that differentiate it from other technologies: where it can be located, is it distributable, is it carbon free or carbon neutral, social justice concerns (e.g. does it raise food costs, impacting the poor?), impact on wild life and local ecosystems, etc.
• Different vendors of a particular renewable source, though, are largely, I think, competing on price / kW. I'm sure there are exceptions.

• Saving the world as a niche - It is big enough
• Taking 2009 total power usage as 3297 TWh, 90% of which is from non-renewable sources.
• A 30% reduction in demand (989 TWh) from conservation, assuming all existing renewable generation stays in place, still leaves 1978 TWh of non-renewable energy that could be replaced by renewables. 
• Put in terms of solar PV installations, that's $5780 Billion... That's a huge market.

My original point was:

• I decided I wanted to focus on conservation not because renewables are unimportant or non-viable, but because conservation is a higher leverage route to sustainability.
• Differentiation between solar PV generation companies seemed, in the long run, to be a commodity situation where price ruled.

Can renewable energy be differentiated?

When the solar market was hot I, like probably half the people in the Bay Area, was thinking about a career in solar. I thought about this a bit and concluded that this would be the wrong place for me because I could not figure out how it could be differentiated enough to yield an interesting marketing job.


Can renewables be differentiated?
Renewables, at the end of the day, are just another source of power. Power is a commodity.
Can a commodity be differentiated?
Or is it solely about $ / unit?

If you put it against grid connected power, then it is about $/kWh. It's a race to the bottom.
It's about being the cheapest because all the power is interchangeable.

If you put it against something else, then you have a niche and can be differentiated some other way.
For example: off grid development.
Are you the most rugged? Portable? Reliable? Efficient (kW/m2)? Flexible? Available in all weather conditions? Backup-solution-ready? Affordable (if you're off grid b/c no one can afford to build a grid)? Difficult to steal? Easy to install and maintain?

Or the "save the planet" green niche.
It's really important, but still a niche today.

Are these niches big enough to support a business in the US?
I think many people are counting on it getting really big... though there is a question of how realistic that is because of the scale of the problem...


If you don't want the niches, can you create differentiation where it doesn't exist with renewables and ride that to financial success?

• BloomBox seems to be trying and making quite a mindshare grab despite being an order of magnitude too expensive ($/kW peak capacity).
• Lobbying for feed-in tariffs, rebates and marketing solar based on these.  

Ok. Maybe this is more interesting than I originally gave credit for.

Saving the planet with leverage

According to the United States Green Building Council (USGBC):

In the United States alone, buildings account for:
•    72% of electricity consumption,
•    39% of energy use,
•    38% of all carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions,
•    40% of raw materials use,
•    30% of waste output (136 million tons annually), and
•    14% of potable water consumption.

 And according to the US Dept of Energy:

• For 2009, total electrical generation was ~3297 TWh. Of which:
• 2960 TWh (90%) was from non-renewable sources
• 337 TWh (10%) was from Hydroelectric and other renewables.

 And if you believe this research result is typical:

The norm is for savings from direct feedback (immediate, from the meter or an associated display monitor) to range from 5-15%.

Then 10% savings of 72% of electricity consumption is 7.2% of 3297 TWh = 231 TWh.
That's 69% of the total renewable energy generated in 2009.

So if you wanted to make the carbon from 231 TWh of electricity disappear, would it be cheaper to spend your money on:

1. increasing the renewables capacity by 69% 
2. putting a smart meter and feedback display / system in every home and business?

And which one could be done more quickly?

That's part of why energy efficiency and control systems is my focus instead of energy generation. They'll both get you there but one seems much more cost effective and possible in the short run than the other.