Can Cleantech Produce "Ten Googles"?

--LegalizeMe Clean coal is a political term. The process of creating energy from coal creates CO2, you can't clean a chemical reaction... -- I agree above that there needs to be a diversification of energy supply and relaying on cheap energy now ( coal in cost, oil due to cost to change energy infrastructure for a new source) will only intensify the costs for the future when supply runs low... I agree with the Author from the point that low cost renewable energy will be the modern economic revolution much of what computers have done since the '70's. If you have money to make home run bets, then you stand the chance to make huge returns, and this author seems to have that kind of money.... For everyone else, you have to ask yourself "Is there something better I could be doing with my money now?" For myself paying down my debt and short-terming the market works for now, and hopefully in the future I will be in a position to invest in possible home run companies like Clean Tech

--LegalizeMe Clean coal is a political term. The process of creating energy from coal creates CO2, you can't clean a chemical reaction... -- I agree above that there needs to be a diversification of energy supply and relaying on cheap energy now ( coal in cost, oil due to cost to change energy infrastructure for a new source) will only intensify the costs for the future when supply runs low... I agree with the Author from the point that low cost renewable energy will be the modern economic revolution much of what computers have done since the '70's. If you have money to make home run bets, then you stand the chance to make huge returns, and this author seems to have that kind of money.... For everyone else, you have to ask yourself "Is there something better I could be doing with my money now?" For myself paying down my debt and short-terming the market works for now, and hopefully in the future I will be in a position to invest in possible home run companies like Clean Tech

Clean energy? Why? Stupid global warming BS. The same person responsible for "global warming" is the one that began the ice age... GOD.

Gee, I thought these guys were all about redistribution of wealth, why doesn't he give away half of his 10 billion dollar empire to the poor. He sure wants uncle Obama to take all my money..."for the good of all"

Mr. Khosla needs to get a real job that forces him to do some real work. As a venture capitalist, all he does is invest his money in companies that employ people who do the real thinking and the real hard work.

There is no such thing as "Clean Coal" Those who think they know who post don't have a clue, they are only basing their bable on what they real on news blogs. If the emissions from a coal plant were actual cleaned to the last Micron dust particle. Which are the ones that destroy your helth "Microns" look it up. It would cost more to clean the coal emision than it is worth. The cost? The 'Air Scrubbers' that it would take the coal companys to purchase and install. Why do you think they have paid millions to lobbyist to fight clean coal technology. The coal companies then bargain the emission standard down by donating money to the political candidate running for office 'cough' G.W.Bush *#@ and thus we have the watered down standard we have today. The cost enormus, the sollution? Alternative energy and energy storage like Beacon Power company.

Sorry guys, Hydrogen Storage is the energy source of the future and always will be. THERE IS NO STORAGE! Anyone who says there is; I want to see it. Show me a company that sells reliable affordable hydrogen storage that is practical for a car to travel say, 100 miles on a tank. Hydrogen is merely a proton, it slips between the atoms of anything you store it in. Metal Hydride has been around since the 70's and will never be cheap and affordable enough to use. Google algenol , origin oil. Algae has the potential to make 100,000 gallons per acre per year, desalinate water and produce biomass for soil at the same time. As opposed to crop based ethanol that does exactly the opposite for 30 gallons per acre per year. The answer is out there somewhere. We do not need to keep doing the same thing over and over. New clean tech will emerge.

The next Bill Gates will be the guy that figures out a way to democratize energy production. Then energy will be like PCs and boom exponentially, much like the internet boom. Who could have predicted the Y2K+ applications of the internet in 1990. That transformation only took 10 years.

Clean energy my foot. Global worming is a scam1 I beleive it was cooked up by a bunch of American haters! Let's take carbon dioxide crap. Some time ago NY Times publshed in its Science section, proof that CO2 really heats up this globe. They found correlation between the global high temperatures eras and high CO2 atmospheric levels using samples of Antartic ice. What the 'proof" did not consider is the fact that at -70C, CO2 sublimates -- transitiones from gas to ice-- and in Antartica such low temperatures are reached even today, in a hot cycle, and quite often in a cold cycle eras. So one should expect Antartica to be a "sink" for CO2 in cold periods, full of CO2 trapped in its ice destroying their "proof" This happens when "science" has and agenda and second rate scientists are getting grands to prove it. Also, at 65,000 ft Altitudes and above, the temp are lower than -79C so the CO2 is cold ice crystals, reflecting light and heat. More CO2 in atmosphere, more CO2 crystals reflecting heat!!! I SHOULD GET A NOBEL PRIZE for this little disertation, but the Sweeds are not likely to be so inclined since all these nordic nations are antiamerican, and paranoic about any change in the global climate. this is because most of potential chances in climate may get them in diaspora again, as happened with the Vikings, Goths, Ostrogoths etc. In short, for all "Clean energy", "anticarbon" enthusiasts, if u r concerned, keep your breath for 5 or 10 min per day!! ... and do not forget, YOU ARE CARBON UNITS!!!

Nice to see Stacy again

Clean energy my foot. Global worming is a scam!! I beleive it was cooked up by a bunch of American haters! Let's take carbon dioxide crap. Some time ago NY Times publshed in its Science section, proof that CO2 really heats up this globe. They found correlation between the global high temperatures eras and high CO2 atmospheric levels using samples of Antartic ice. What the "proof" did not consider is the fact that at -70C, CO2 sublimates -- transitiones from gas to ice-- and in Antartica such low temperatures are reached even today, in a hot cycle, and quite often in a cold cycle eras. So one should expect Antartica to be a "sink" for CO2 in cold periods, full of CO2 trapped in its ice destroying their "proof" This happens when "science" has and agenda and second rate scientists are getting grands to prove it. Also, at 65,000 ft Altitudes and above, the temps are lower than -79C so the CO2 is "cold ice" crystals, reflecting light and heat. More CO2 in atmosphere, more CO2 crystals reflecting heat!!! Selfregulating!!! I SHOULD GET A NOBEL PRIZE for this little disertation, but the Sweeds are not likely to be so inclined since all these nordic nations are antiamerican, and paranoic about any change in the global climate. this is because most of potential chances in climate may get them in diaspora again, as happened with the Vikings, Goths, Ostrogoths etc. In short, for all "Clean energy", "anticarbon" enthusiasts, if u r concerned, keep your breath for 5 or 10 min per day!! ... and do not forget, YOU ARE CARBON UNITS!!! :-))

Green is the next dot.com boom ride the wave.

There will only be a handful of winners in the alternative energy (not 10 googles) and these are the ones with breakthrough technology in nanosolar ink, cellulosic based fuels and/or advanced battery/ultra capacitor technology. Not sure what Vinod has invested in, but he will be lucky to get 1 or 2 winners out of his 30 clean energy investments and maybe thats all he needs to make money. Even with alternative energy, what do you do when the wind doesn't blow (in the calms) or sun doesn't shine and only 7 or 8 hours of sunshine in the winter in the northern US. Furthermore no one wants more power lines to get wind and thermal solar energy out of the midwest or southwest or ocean to where its needed. You need more nuclear for baseline power generation. Its clean and affordable and necessary for these new hybrid plug-ins coming in the next few years. It will be interesting to see what happens with blacklightpower and there technology. Vinod is correct with the fact that most of these technologies don't scale, but don't confuse the easy money he made in telecom with alternative energy, its a different animal.

joel.wigton Thank you for providing us the information on CO2 output vs. GDP. You have succeded in locating a source that demonstrates the opposite of Ryan M's assertion. According to this source, the US emits the 9th highest per GDP of the 25 listed countries. That is a long way from "...polluting far less than any other country per GDP...". Since there are many major industrial powers with far smaller numbers (Germany 30% less, France 50% less) listed, this data demonstrates that it is possible for a nation to be much less polluting without destroying its economy, as Ryan M seems to fear. I still await the reference to the source that demonstrates that the US is polluting far less than any other country, by GDP or any other measure.

Texas CEO - You are sharp, but are wrong on coal as the future of energy. "Clean coal" is at least 10 years off and we need a solution now. Besides, it will cost at least $1T to retrofit existing plants when it finally arrives. Coal emits sulfur dioxide, even after scrubbing, radiation, more than even a nuclear plant, and alot of CO2. The only clean, renewable, and scalable energy technology currently is nuclear. After reprocessing spent rods, the average household produces only about a shot glass full of waste in 20 years. It emits no greenhouse gasses, and is economical and cheap. And it scales to large scale commercial/industrial production. A plant can be built in five years, excluding all of the enviromental crackpotism built into the process. They could build a new reactor on every nuclear site in the US and raise our domestic energy production from it current ~20% to ~35% by 2014. The US currently has 104 plants in operation. We could then begin to retrofit cars to natural gas, which is plentiful in the US (no more OPEC enslavement), and less polluting than petroleum. The problem with nuclear is not technical, but political. All of the anti-nuclear kooks have a faith-based hatred of it. It has nothing to do with facts, data, and information, only fear. It is a religion to them. They are idiots who will further ruin the country, based upon their own bias, as opposed to the truth. Unfortunately, they are in control of Washington currently. Obama is totally disengenuous and is controlled by the Demo party stooges on this issue. Their energy policy will only further serve to ruin the US standard of living and economy. We are in for some serious future sacrifice. Mr. Khosla is a bright and self-made success. I hope he is successful with his "green" ventures. It is also great that he is investing his own hard-earned dollars, not screwing us poor taxpayers as most anyone who has anything to do with DC appears to be.

to jack.trainor@ymail.com I have to disappoint you, but wars are good, as long as they are competetive and not religious or hate related. The most competitive wars were WW2 and Cold War. Because of them we have nuclear power, internet, cellphones, everything... and we would have more if we still had the same condition (of Cold War). And as for clean things, it is not the cleanness upon which is decided what way will be used to power things up. It is the demand, supply, costs, profit and government. However good point is made in the article about that not an individual technology will dominate the market. Wind power powered calculators is a joke. Nuclear Power will power homes, sun will power small thing. Wind small villages....

joeslick66, How will hydrogen fuel cells be a source of energy? Where will the hydrogen come from? Hydrogen can be used for energy storage and a relatively convienient liquid alternative fuel, but unless we have some existing source of free hydrogen, we will have to make it from existing compounds like water, by inputting energy. The energy we input will have to come from some source. Creating hydrogen, to put in cars instead of gasoline, using energy from the burning of fossil fuels is no energy or pollution saver. Wind and solar would provide us with a carbon free mechanism for creating such hydrogen fuels. This is a waste because it costs some money up front? Some people might use the word 'investment'.

Currently, however, hydrogen vehicles utilizing hydrogen produce more pollution than vehicles consuming gasoline, diesel, or methane in a modern internal combustion engine, and far more than plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. It is a Quote from EFCF and TechnologyReview.com.

Geothermal and Tidal are the future.

Coal is POISON? ....Icky..... We can't leave that in the ground!... It's creepy thinking about all that dirty dirty CARBON just under our feet? Wow. We've GOT to dig all that terrible pollutant up and burn it! ...Carbon=BAD...Tye Dye=GOOD