• On TV.com: THE GIRLS NEXT DOOR photos
September 24, 2008 4:00 AM PDT

Khosla: Crazy clean-tech ideas yield breakthroughs

Posted by Martin LaMonica
  • Print

This post was updated at 8:30 a.m. PDT with additional material from Khosla's speech on Wednesday and photo from the event.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Famed investor Vinod Khosla is one of the clean-tech industry's most vocal cheerleaders. But most of today's clean technologies fall short of his 1-billion-car test.

"If it doesn't scale, it doesn't matter," says Khosla. "Most of what we talk about today--hybrid, biodiesel, ethanol, solar photovoltaics, geothermal--I believe are irrelevant to the scale of the problem" of climate change.

Vinod Khosla speaking at the EmTech conference at MIT.

(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET Networks)

Khosla delivered the keynote speech at the EmTech08 conference (formerly called the Emerging Technology Conference) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Wednesday, where he talked about energy, policy, and investment.

On Monday, he spoke to MIT student energy fellows covering many of the same topics.

On the whole, Khosla is highly optimistic about the potential for technology to address climate change and other environmental problems. He challenges people to imagine cars and cement factories that actually remove, rather than add, carbon dioxide from the air.

But he views climate change as a global problem that requires an overhaul to today's energy infrastructure. That means displacing oil and coal in a world where consumers from Asia and other fast-growing regions will be adopting a more energy-intensive lifestyle similar to that in the West.

"We will ship a billion cars on this planet in the next 15 years or so. Unless a low-carbon technology gets into 80 percent of those 1 billion cars and over time causes an 80 percent reduction of carbon per mile driven, it's not going to be a solution. Everything else is just a toy," he said Monday.

He places wind and solar photovoltaics in the "toy" category because, without storage, they will remain a small fraction of electricity production, only 5 percent to 15 percent.

That's because, without a breakthrough in storage technology, solar and wind power cannot replace "baseload" electricity during peak times because of their intermittent nature.

"What is needed is something that replaces baseload coal technology. Unless technology does that, it's not competitive," he said on Wednesday.

Electric cars, another darling of "greenies," are also unlikely to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations dramatically because of cost, putting those products outside the reach of consumers in India or China--what he calls the "Chindia" price.

"The current batteries industries are not likely to lead to scalable hybridization of cars," he said.

Khosla said he supports development of electric cars and has invested in battery companies and other related technologies. He expects both biofuels and electric car variants to compete in coming years.

"There's no reason that cars shouldn't have both hybrid technologies and flex-fuel capability (to run ethanol or gasoline). I'm hoping to see competition."

Eye on algae
To reach technology breakthroughs, Khosla contends that entrepreneurs need as many "at bats" or "shots on goal" as possible, focusing on the most scalable solutions.

Khosla Ventures has invested in more than 40 clean-tech companies. They include firms working on next-generation synthetic fuels and cellulosic ethanol as well as solar thermal, building materials, lighting, water, and energy efficiency.

When the wave of recently formed clean-tech firms are viewed as a whole, major change in the incumbent fossil fuel energy industry can happen.

"There are many such things going on that are radical, implausible--each individually (is) somewhat implausible, on the aggregate (it is) highly plausible that one plan will work. That's the key to the solution," he said.


Khosla, who has been investing in small companies for decades, noted that many of the forecasts for technology adoption, such as cell phones, are way off because forecasters underestimate the pace of technology change. "Today's unimaginable is tomorrow's conventional wisdom," he said.

One of the other areas in biofuels where he is optimistic is algae, which advocates say has the potential to grow without competing for agricultural land. Khosla is scheduled to deliver the keynote talk at the 2008 Algae Biomass Summit in October. He has not yet invested in an algae fuel company because he has yet to see a competitive technology, he said.

People should call these "main tech" firms, rather than green tech or clean tech, because they are working in mainstream industries, according to Khosla. "These are mainstream markets. By staying on the fringes of clean, you're not going to make a difference," he said.

Khosla's views on the potential to displace oil and coal as the world's primary energy sources draw a sharp contrast to BP's chief scientist, Steven Koonin, who also spoke to MIT energy fellows on Monday.

Koonin forecasts that fossil fuels will provide 80 percent of the world's energy in 30 years, unless there is some dramatic change.

No fan of Pickens Plan
In the area of policy, Khosla said that government policies should subsidize new energy industries for a short period of time, on the order of seven years.

His call for an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases in the coming decades is more aggressive than most U.S. politicians who support climate change regulations, but in line with what many scientists recommend.

On Wednesday, he advocated a renewable portfolio standard--a policy, now in place in many states, that would mandate that utilities get a certain percentage of their power generation from renewable sources.

"That is sufficient to get all this innovation going," he said. "I think Washington is slowly going in the right direction."

Because he thinks energy policy should focus on the economy's overall capacity to reduce carbon emissions, he had no good words to say about the Pickens Plan, put forth by billionaire oil mogul and wind farm developer T. Boone Pickens.

Pickens says the U.S. should boost wind energy from less than 1 percent of electricity generation to 20 percent in 10 years with a massive build-out of wind farms in the middle of the country and transmission lines to other regions. He also advocates a switch to natural gas cars; he has invested in a number of natural gas companies.

"The Pickens Plan is a dead-end street. We shouldn't be wasting our time on it," Khosla said. "If a 20 percent reduction in carbon is sufficient for society, then we should embrace it."

On one point, however, he agrees with Pickens: the need for beefed-up transmission lines to transport power from wind farms or solar power plants.

"If you want renewable power, the single most important thing to do is a high-voltage power grid," he said.

Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Recent posts from Green Tech
Ford accelerates electric-vehicle plans
Green news harvest: Utility installs solar panels
Obama's security adviser calls for energy action
Ta ta, Tesla
Eyes turn to auto start-ups' funding, aid requests
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 15 comments
by cmstratton September 24, 2008 6:29 AM PDT
I'm usually a Khosla supporter, but I have to disagree with him here. I agree we do need to reduce carbon emissions by 80% or more - totally agreed there. I don't think we can look to one "silver bullet" however, to replace oil as a clean energy source. Back when we first started using oil, energy demand was small enough that it could provide the great majority of our needs. Our demand today is much higher. There's not going to be one clean energy source that will do it all. We're going to need multiple sources - wind, solar, bio-fuels, etc.
Reply to this comment
by Manhattan2 September 24, 2008 6:52 AM PDT
We have told Khosla and others numerous times that ethanol is not the answer. We have the solution, when enough are ready to step up we will release our energy manifesto. H2, wind, solar, and a dynamic grid are all part of the answer. Ethanol starves the land of its farmable land and in turn leads to food shortages. There is not enough wind out there to be the sole answer. Nanotechnology will have a role but many are trying too hard to come up with a solution that is already out there, already up there, every day.
Reply to this comment
by tremorfireheart September 24, 2008 9:12 AM PDT
food shortage? we still have subsidies out there to pay farmers to not grow crops on their lands. I'm sure we could increase ethanol production without causing a food shortage and maybe even be able to provide a means for us to no longer have the subsidies since ethanol would help raise the basic demand for the crops.
by rslc September 24, 2008 8:05 AM PDT
I agree with him on where he is going the whole, but not entirely.
Algae and 80% reduction, totally agree.

Hybrid car, particularly series hybrid, is definitely the way to go.
This plus biofuel is the way. Mpg is increased 2 to 3 times instantly.

However, I am against plugin-hybrids and full electric car.
The extra battery capacity used in these could be used to make a few more series-hybrid vehicles,
making full use of the current limited battery production. (hear that Altairnano?)
Reply to this comment
by clamenza September 24, 2008 8:51 AM PDT
Why do I feel algae is the next ethanol? Maybe it's because we don't live in the sea and tend to think of oceans as vast expanses of nothing, but they're as much thriving ecosystems as prairies. To unleash algae which in many cases are already causing massive dead zones, we're going to suffocate waters as well as land.

It seems humans are just an unstoppable destructive force. Well, unchecked powers are corrupting.
Reply to this comment
by freemarket--2008 September 24, 2008 12:50 PM PDT
What are you talking about? Algae can be grown in vats or ponds where it can be concentrated and fed CO2 and then easily harvested. I have not seen any proposal to grow biofuel algae in the ocean. It does not even require large amounts of fresh water, just enough to replace that which evaporates over time.
by bobmorton22 September 24, 2008 9:00 AM PDT
Unfortunately, Khosla has created a false impression that the energy systems and technologies exist today to make a dramatic 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions. He criticizes Boone Pickens? plan for producing only a 20 percent reduction in emissions. But even Khosla concedes in the Green Tech account that the current energy infrastructure must be overhauled to meet his goal. That?s not going to be done tomorrow or probably during the coming decade. Until he comes forth with a firm proposal, Boone Pickens has the best approach currently on the table.
Reply to this comment
by ddesy September 24, 2008 9:51 AM PDT
Khosla is right and wrong at the same time.

Just because efforts need to be put into large scale sources of energy doesn't mean that there should be no effort put into the smaller scale sources. To not make any change now and just hope that there will be one big change is irresponsible. The development of large scale technologies can be handled at the R&D level while a small improvement can be started by the production level.
Reply to this comment
by guinness02 September 24, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
We do need to consider the power of our transportation infrastructure. While all goals listed are laudatory, we should also consider what's practicable. In terms of practicability, we should look at natural gas as a fuel for large scale transportation vehicles. But as our long-term, ultimate goal, we should continue to look to the sky.
Reply to this comment
by chash360 September 24, 2008 1:37 PM PDT
There is another glaring possibility. Reduce a degree of separation in your thinking. Global warming is the problem. CO2 the major contributor to this problem, so they want to drastically reduce CO2, to solve global warming. Great idea if it can be done, but what about generating energy through reverse-entropy, absorbing ambient heat directly to produce usable electricity? There is no law in physics that truly prevents this, its just not the natural direction of flow. Think super efficient thermocouples.....we are several hundred degrees above absolute zero, there is definately a lot of energy there if it can be harvested.

Wind energy is also a great idea, because as global warming increases, so will the energy in the atmosphere, and thus average winds for all regions. Think hurricane tolerant wind farms.....
Reply to this comment
by smurray28 September 24, 2008 2:08 PM PDT
Vinod Khosla?s latest criticism of the Pickens Plan as ?a dead-end street? is unfair, unrealistic and irresponsible. He says that society should embrace the Pickens approach if a 20% carbon reduction was sufficient, but the fact is that nobody ? including Khosla ? has come up with a plan that produces greater reductions than the Pickens proposal in the immediate future. The Pickens Plan would be a ?bridge? until those cleaner, more efficient energy sources are available ? and an improvement over the current emissions situation.
Reply to this comment
by olivia_chavez1 September 24, 2008 4:27 PM PDT
While we all support efforts to maximize the efforts to reduce carbon emissions, there is no need to trash the Pickens Plan just because it doesn?t need the idealistic standards set by Mr. Khosla. Implementation of the Pickens Plan would, in fact, result in greater, more acceptable carbon-emission reductions (at least 20%). But the Pickens Plan is a comprehensive effort that deserves consideration based on a series of factors, including greater reliance on American-produced energy resources, increased use of wind and solar power and the ultimate objective of reducing foreign oil imports by more than 30 percent over the next decade.
Reply to this comment
by collin_kenneth5 September 24, 2008 4:38 PM PDT
One of the most interesting lines in the article states that Mr. Khosla, while criticizing the plan proposed by Boone Pickens, views climate change as requiring an ?overhaul in today?s energy infrastructure.? How long will that take? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? At the very least, the Pickens proposal offers the distinct advantage in that 1) it can be adopted in the first 100 days after either McCain or Obama is sworn in, and 2) we will see the positive results produced by the Pickens Plan within the next decade, especially a one-third cut in imported oil.
Reply to this comment
by atulkumthekar September 24, 2008 10:31 PM PDT
dont we think about REDUCING the transportation need altogether?
daily commute - of US citizens can easily be avoided by a good public transport like that in Europe.

Car lobbyists - their bad dirty game - is turning into a world problem. Thats the trouble with mankind overall.

We dig our own grave.
Reply to this comment
by lanceincabo September 25, 2008 3:05 PM PDT
For me, the most telling line in this article was that Mr. Khosla agrees about the need to update the national power distribution, which is a large component of the Pickens plan. He is also far too intelligent to deny the fact that the algae, solar and hydrogen need more R&D before they will be ready as meaningful contributions to our power needs. I would bet that Mr. Pickens is pretty happy about this speech, since it is basically a 50% endorsement of his plan from a respected greenie and makes it all the more urgent to do SOMETHING between now and when these great new technologies will become viable solutions. One reason I have respect for Mr. Pickens is that he doesn't seem to oppose using other technologies. Environmentalist or not, his plan does at least get started in the right direction by reduction in gases of 20%. He is for anything American. He believes his plan is the best, but says if you have a better one he will become your biggest supporter! So far, I haven't seen ANY other plan that could be this large scale and implemented in the short term. Also, I didn't see an energy independence plan from Khosla, just a bunch of ideas. They are good ideas and I am not discounting them. Getting petroleum out of energy production is a great long term goal, but we are in an energy crisis today and we are dependent upon foreign and sometimes hostile sources for a large fraction of our energy. I am all for a green environment, but in order to maintain our national security and the standard of living we are accustomed to, our energy independence has to come before environmental concerns.
Reply to this comment
advertisement

In the news now

A tech veteran responds to the recession

LogLogic's Patricia Sueltz heard a clear message about the economy from investors, but she already knows a thing or two about navigating through tough times.


Obama's AG pick on privacy

Eric Holder has criticized the warrantless wiretapping program, but his views on other online policies may not be that far from those of the Bush administration.


About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech guru Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right