Profile

Cover photo
Scott Stephens
772 followers|712,107 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTubeReviews

Stream

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
Great article which provides some helpful perspective on the challenges of commercializing new thin film PV.  Great to see my master thesis advisor, Dr. Shafarman quoted!
Champions of new solar material perovskite say it could hit the market in three years. But the troubled history of another photovoltaic suggests otherwise.
1
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
Very promising developments in carbon emissions over the past 5 years:

http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/  

"The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their lowest level since 1994 and over 12 percent below the recent 2007 peak."
1
Bradley Coleman's profile photo
 
awesome!
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
Pretty depressing story about the nature of drug prices and tactics in the US.  The argument of the drug companies can be summarized here:

"Drug companies have long argued that pharmaceutical pricing reflects the cost of developing and testing innovative new drugs, many of which do not pan out or make it to market."

This is obviously a weak argument.  Drug companies simply price drugs to maximize profits.  I don't really have a problem with that but the article goes into detail on the ways drug lobbying efforts have resulted in a market that is less encouraging to generic drugs. 
The high price of commonly used medications for conditions like asthma contributes heavily to health care costs and certainly causes more widespread anguish.
1
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
I just finished reading +Ozzie Zehner 's piece in IEEE on the environmental considerations of Electric Vehicles (EVs).  It provides a nice overview of current subsidies for electric vehicles but unfortunately relies upon some dated analysis and selective sampling of studies to conclude that EVs aren't significantly cleaner than traditional ICE cars.

For example, the author writes:

Electric-car makers like to point out, for instance, that their vehicles can be charged from renewable sources, such as solar energy. Even if that were possible to do on a large scale, manufacturing the vast number of photovoltaic cells required would have venomous side effects. Solar cells contain heavy metals, and their manufacturing releases greenhouse gases such as sulfur hexafluoride, which has 23 000 times as much global warming potential as CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

First, Zehner provides no reason as to why solar energy can't be adopted at large scale.  Second, the claims about sulfur hexafluoride relate to a specific type of thin-film photovoltaic (PV) technology known as amorphous silicon which is an uncompetitive PV technology and represents less than 1% of current PV sales (and falling).  To my knowledge, manufacturing crystalline silicon (c-Si) panels, the dominate (>95% of market) PV technology, doesn’t produce any significant sulfur hexafluoride emissions.  Further, the life cycle carbon emissions, water consumption, energy intensity, etc, associated with c-Si PV technology is far lower than traditional energy sources (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X09002345).  Zehner's own citation from the IPCC is merely a link to IPCC's web page rather than a publication supporting his claims.

At times, Zehner's arguments are a bit confusing.  He stresses that the findings of the National Academies of Science’s 2010 report on EV’s are “sobering” but then states in the next sentence that the study “found that operating an electric car was less damaging than refueling a gasoline-powered one”.  It’s worth noting that the 2010 NAS study is a bit dated at this point.  It assumed a current cost of Li-Ion batteries in the $1000/kWh range and projected these costs to decline slowly to 2030.  Today Tesla’s Li-Ion battery costs are reportedly close to $200/kWh and falling (http://green.autoblog.com/2012/02/21/battery-cost-dropping-below-200-per-kwh-soon-says-teslas-elon/).  One of the better (and free!) sources I’ve seen on future price reductions for Li-Ion batteries can be found here (http://www.element-energy.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/CCC-battery-cost_-Element-Energy-report_March2012_Public.pdf)

This brings me to perhaps the most flawed aspect of Zehner’s argument.  Not only is he cherry picking reports and stitching antidotes together to produce the appearance of a lengthy and multi-faceted take down of EVs, he also appears to lack any appreciation of just how quickly cleantech is evolving.  If Zehner is truly interested in understanding the viability of renewable energy and electric vehicles he should look to trends in PV and EV cost reductions, PV+EV co-adoption (people who charge their EV with PV), distributed storage, demand response, and energy efficiency.  A piecemeal analysis of EVs or renewable energy will always miss the synergistic nature of the technologies when taken together.  This type of synthesis is challenging (due to the technology's nascent state) but ultimately necessary if one wants to arrive at accurate and useful projections.
2
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
The link below is an interesting point/counter-point discussion on the failure/success of Germany's renewable energy program or "Energiewende".  Will Boisvert pens the pro-nuke arguments and while I'm in agreement that the current fleet of nukes should be operated as long as safely possible, I was disappointed that Boisvert presents his readers with a false choice.  Below are my running notes from his piece:

- Boisvert argues correctly that nukes aren't as dangerous as the public fears but doesn't address that when things go wrong, they are also more expensive than public knows.  There are many examples but the most recent, Fukushima, is likely to "range from nearly 71 to 250 billion dollars" (http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/89987.php).

- Boisvert portrays Wind and Solar as erratic and destabilizing while stressing that nukes are dispatchable and stabilizing.  Unfortunately nukes are a rigid as renewables are variable.  Too much of either in a conventional grid will destabilize the grid.

- Boisvert ignores all progress Solar has made in cost reductions.  Yes past subsidies were lucrative but necessary to bring about today's current cost structure.  Modules prices fell 5x in 4 years and today, feed-in-tariff rates are below retail electric rates.  Essentially, newly added PV installations are an arbitrage opportunity for utility providers while incentivizing customers to increase self-consumption and adopt distributed storage (http://qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/UBS.pdf).  All of these measures should provide price stability, reduce transmission volumes,  and moderate the variable nature of renewable generation.

- The worst offense of Boisvert's piece are his arguments that wind's worst attributes (poorly correlated generation curves, transmission burdens, expensive off-shore projects) and solar's past pricing (prior to a 5x reduction in panel prices over 4 years), are reasons to avoid future solar adoption but these aren't based on today's reality.  Further, with his complete ignorance (or tactical avoidance) of future electric vehicle adoption, demand response programs, energy efficiency, and distributed storage it's no wonder he focuses exclusively on an energy solution that is over 50 years old.

It's very important that readers realize the false choice Boisvert presents.  Nuke advocates often threaten their audiences by stating the only choice is Coal or Nukes.  That may have been true until very recently but fortunately the Energiewende was all about creating new options.  The current desperation of incumbent energy producers in Germany is evidence of the Energiewende's incredible success to date and the affordable, reliable, abundant, renewable future it has enabled.  
This article is part of a debate on the German plan to eliminate nuclear energy. To read Osha Gray Davidson's response, click here. Through much of 2012, the Energiewende, Germany's pioneering effort to construct an energy system around renewables while simultaneously phasing out nuclear power ...
2
Steve Scott's profile photoScott Stephens's profile photo
2 comments
 
I'm actually pro nukes as well (my father worked at a nuke plant his entire career) except the simply aren't the cheapest or best option for the bulk of generation additions in western nations anymore. Perhaps new modular designs could change this but buy the time they are ready and accepted clean tech will be miles ahead. Take note however, the US will experience this same FUD over the next 20 years as solar and it's complementary technologies (demand response, distributed storage) continue to squeeze out existing incumbents.
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
Pretty strong growth in Google+ usage.  In general, it seems like my friend's perspective on G+ has gone from dismissal to guarded optimism.  

The entire Mary Meeker slide deck can be found here:
http://qz.com/88980/mary-meekers-2013-internet-trends-all-the-slides-plus-highlights/
1
Maciej Smuga-Otto's profile photoJon Jarvis's profile photoScott Stephens's profile photo
6 comments
 
+Jon Jarvis that worked pretty well for Palm as well... until it didn't.
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
Just watched an interesting talk by Daniel Dennett @ google.  His new book appears to about techniques for or categories of thinking but during the talk and follow-up Q&A, Dennett spends a bit of time on the age old question of free will.  At one point he contrasts his belief in free will with his colleague Douglas Hofstadter's belief in determinism.  

Dennett claims part of the disagreement is semantics and gives the example of magic (illusions) versus REAL magic.  He states that his belief in free isn't based on unknown physics or quantum arguments.   Instead, he proposes an example of an individual considering a car loan.  If the individual is capable of paying back a car loan then that individual has the freedom of taking out the car loan or not.  The problem I see with this example of free will is that it ignores the determinism which ultimately will "decide" whether or not the individual will buy the car.  

Perhaps a more global version of Dennett's argument is that understanding and even accepting a physics-based deterministic world doesn't prohibit one from enjoying their life. One can accept that life is predetermined and still appreciate that one is likely to encounter happiness; that this pre-determined path will lead to many enjoyable things (the brain being a happiness seeking machine).  Further, as a whole, the dominance and self-similarity of humanity is predetermined towards happiness, equality, etc and that this ongoing improvement of the human condition is the probable outcome (absent some unlikely doomsday scenario).  

My issue with even this re-proposal of Dennett's argument is that to arrive at this conclusion, requires a blissful ignorance which is at odds with the logic based argument he's making.   Essentially, his argument is that practical free will exists for most people because we are determined to seek happiness.

Perhaps, all Dennett is trying to stress is that free will isn't required for a full and meaningful life.  I agree with this conclusion but this narrower point doesn't require nearly as much effort as Dennett puts forth.
3
Ivan Raszl's profile photo
 
Intuition pump? Interesting!
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
772 people
Chris T. Armstrong's profile photo
pepa Ferrandis's profile photo
Kamel Ounadjela's profile photo
Jon Morrow's profile photo
Hernan Cortes's profile photo
Peter O'Brien's profile photo
Brendan Ozawa-de Silva's profile photo
Jeff Nelson's profile photo
Nick Retka's profile photo

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
I'm always amazed at how persistent anti-EV pundits can be dispute the remarkable progress EV technologies and markets have made over the past 3 years.  +Kirk Kardashian brings us the latest desperate attempt in the newyorker.  Among his claims:

"Better Place, A123, and Fisker weren't successful and are symptomatic of the entire EV market"

"EVs are subsidized and therefore no commercially viable"

"Who knows if EVs are even better for the environment"

This type of attack-by-anecdote article ignores the most important facts associated with EV's including:

1) Exponential adoption rates
2) Dramatic cost and price reductions
3) Clear localized emission reductions with global benefits improving each year due to a clear shift towards renewable energy production.
4) Significant reduction in cost of operating an EV

Each year it becomes harder to write these hit pieces on EVs but I don't suppose we'll see an end to them anytime soon.
1
Rick Stephens's profile photoScott Stephens's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Rick Stephens well considering the US sells something like 20M cars a year and this year EVs will be around 100k - that might be a bit of a stretch.  10% of new sales could happen around 2020 and that would be amazing.
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
"In sectors like steel, cars and refining, when there was overcapacity, capacity was closed. But in the energy sector, we have massively subsidised additional capacity in solar and wind, which has led us to the absurd situation in which we find ourselves today,"

This remark by Gerard Mestrallet, the CEO of GDF Suez (a a French multinational electric utility company) hightlights the threat that existing electric companies see in solar.  What Mestrallet characterizes as "massive" is in fact just a few percent of total energy generation.  The real problem for traditional generators is that, once built, these wind and solar plants are operated at nearly zero cost which is very disruptive to the market.  This economic disruption is the "absurdity" that Mestrallet and others are concerned about.

The link discusses a recent event where The CEOs of 10 utilities companies, which together own half of Europe's electricity generating capacity, are calling for an end to subsidies for wind and solar energy, which they say add too much power to a market already struggling with overcapacity.
1
Daniel Lemire's profile photoScott Stephens's profile photo
2 comments
 
Daniel - you're right that solar and wind aren't free and, on a levelized cost basis, they have historically been significantly more expensive than traditional generation sources.  My point is that, "ONCE BUILT", the decision to operate these wind and solar plants is dependent upon the plant's marginal, as opposed to levelized, cost competitiveness .  It's the lack of fuel or labor costs which allows PV and Wind to bid into wholesale markets at $0.00/kWh and depress the premium mid-day wholesale pricing which traditional generators have grown dependent on.  This, combined with the German EGG's prioritization of generation based on carbon intensity, has resulted in the current market disruption.  

+Daniel Lemire - I know you like papers - take a look at this one (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0444.pdf) for further detail on how the merit order effect results in renewables having an out-sized market impact (relative to their penetration levels)

Now, the other interesting part of this story is the utility consortium's claim that subsidies for solar and wind have become prohibitively expensive.   With the exception of off-shore wind, subsidies for wind and solar have declined significantly in all markets over the EU over the past 5 years.  Today, the feed-in-tariff rates paid for solar generation is lower than than the retail rate (by a few euro cents per kWh).  This spread will only increase as the German FIT decreases by 1.8%/month and retail rates continue to climb.  The net effect is to encourage "self consumption" and adoption of enabling technologies (like demand response and distributed storage).  

The incremental cost impact of new distributed energy is a very hot topic currently (google "utility death spiral" or "value of solar - Net energy metering") but it's important to always remember that

1) there's real value of co-locating and harmonizing generation and load.
2) solar and wind become cheaper while fossil generation becomes more expensive  with each passing year.
3) huge electrical grid investments (~$500B over the next 25 years in the US alone) need to be  made regardless of whether we decide to double down on centralized generation or embrace a meaningful transition to renewable energy + demand response + distributed storage + energy efficiency.

The linked article is all about the consortium ignoring #1 and #2 and pushing for business as usual to preserve their current regulated monopoly status.
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
If you have a moment and are interested in some sobering visuals, click on the album below and go full screen.  For me, the only data which captures the enormity of the energy industry are pictures like these.  As someone who is working in a nascent but aspirational sector of the energy industry these images represent both the challenge and opportunity ahead for renewable energy.

The first image comes from this article (http://breakingenergy.com/2013/09/20/are-fossil-fuels-necessary/) which motivated me to write down my thoughts.   The sentiment of the article, entitled "Are Fossil Fuels Necessary?", is captured in the quote: 

“Given the capital stock that we have – we’re talking about a large number of cars, and half the cars that are bought today will still be on the road in 2025 – so some of these capital stocks take a long time to change,” said Wærness [Statoil chief economist]. “All the existing power plants, for example, you cannot just mothball them and believe it doesn't have an impact on economic growth.”  

Wærness also states that even out to 2040, the horizon of Statoil's analysis period, renewable energy will still account for only a relatively small share of the total energy mix.  Undoubtedly, seeing the picture and reading Wærness' calm and cogent arguments, most readers will finish the article convinced that any prior optimism they had related to renewable energy was foolish.

The challenge for any disruptive technology is to find a market niche which had enormous growth opportunity and is simultaneously unattractive to market incumbents.  In energy, it's nearly impossible to find a niche (quality isn't a differentiator as everyone deals in the same kWh or BTUs) and incumbents are enormous.  In many cases the only way to overcome this enormity is to develop a technology which is cheaper on an all-in cost basis than the incumbent is on a cash cost basis.  Some examples below.

The quote about vehicle stock turnover time is true but fails to highlight the gross inefficiencies associated with today's vehicle fleet.  It's true that it's inconceivable that new zero emission vehicles could be cheap enough that people stop driving their already purchased vehicles prematurely.  However, what if those existing vehicles were obsoleted by self driving fleets which offered rides cheaper than the fuel, maintenance, and insurance costs ("cash costs") associated with driving the existing vehicle?  Fleet utilization rates would have to be high but only relative to the ~5% of the day most folks spend driving their human controlled vehicles.

Most folks are coming around to an understanding that photovoltaics are becoming cheap enough to compete with retail electric pricing.  However, the broad consensus of the energy industry is that the variability of solar generation means that the technology is fully dependent upon incumbent electricity providers for power during the night.  However, what if a convergence of energy efficiency, distributed storage (possibly provided by the EV fleet owners mentioned previously) and home electricity intelligence allowed this dependency to be significantly minimized?  Existing infrastructure owners would likely charge for back-up power services but it would have to be less than the price of a Honda generator and large fuel tank.

This leads me to the opportunity comment made in my first paragraph.  One can be intimidate by the gargantuan scale of energy incumbents but this same scale is also a liability.  How quickly do these assets become liabilities when energy tipping points are reached?  What happens to the cost of conventional energy when the globe is no longer growing conventional demand?  Just imagine the opportunity for the clean energy industry when the demand powering these giants begins preferring renewable power.  I have a sneaking suspicion that we won't have to wait until 2040 to find out...
1
Rick Stephens's profile photoJeff Cadman's profile photoScott Stephens's profile photo
7 comments
 
+Jeff Cadman - the studies I've seen on opportunities typically focus on technology or markets. I agree with your sizing suggestions but also suggest that they are all distributed storage (I.e. interconnecting on the distribution grid).

The key with storage economics is to "stack" energy services. Batteries are too expensive and electricity is too cheap for a battery to be used for a single purpose. 
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
I'm guessing that the solar parking meter installers aren't all that well trained... #StrugglingSolar  
3
Add a comment...

Scott Stephens

Shared publicly  - 
 
Interesting OpEd on the topic of GeoEngineering.  One aspect which usually overlooked when the topic of engineered climate solutions comes up is that by the time we're read to implement these "solutions" we'll be getting a substantial amount of energy from the sun (PV and CSP).  The cost of blocking some of the sun (even a few percent) will be significant.  Hopefully it will simply be easier to grow a bunch of trees and bury them in the earth.
We should not try to play God with the planet.
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
772 people
Chris T. Armstrong's profile photo
pepa Ferrandis's profile photo
Kamel Ounadjela's profile photo
Jon Morrow's profile photo
Hernan Cortes's profile photo
Peter O'Brien's profile photo
Brendan Ozawa-de Silva's profile photo
Jeff Nelson's profile photo
Nick Retka's profile photo
Links
Contributor to
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Nice trails and easy access. Trail maps available at trail heads but not perfect accuracy.
Public - 9 months ago
reviewed 9 months ago
No line at noon on a Friday. Fast service and plenty of parking. Be prepared - nobody likes folks stammering or fumbling when your number is called...
Public - 11 months ago
reviewed 11 months ago
Intimate friendly pizza joint. High quality ingredients, artisan style, quaint decor, laid back atmosphere. Will be back!
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
This theater offers quality and ease. I went to a showing in the DX theater and the picture, sound, and seating were great. Parking is also free which is a huge plus. Food was decent. Nothing's cheap at the movies these days but at 20 Daly City you get what you expect.
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
31 reviews
Map
Map
Map
We did this hike in late October. The hike is very accessible and approximately one mile from the parking lot to the falls. The trail is in great shape and in the morning there is some beautiful contrast coming through the trees. I believe that it had snowed recently and so there was some compacted snow on the trail which was slippery in places. If you walk fast the hike can be done in 30 mins; for photographers and people taking their time it will be closer to 1 hour.
• • •
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
Beautiful restaurant design. Excellent dishes. Service is decent (but suffers slightly when the place is busy). Pricing is fair for the quality of the food.
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
Excellent happy hour prices and very friendly staff. The decor is modern and the space is intimate. Overall this is a great neighborhood sushi restaurant which also serves wonderful appetizers and tasty ramen.
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago