Promoting Clean Technologies ^ Forging Cross-Industry Collaboration

Posts Tagged ‘washington’

Entrepreneur Start-Up Lab on Sustainable Technology Development at 6:30 PM on 6-15-10 at NRECA Headquarters in Arlington, VA with Dr. BP Agrawal, Ashoka, IFC, Egg Energy & Tseai Energy & Herb Simmens

In angel Investor, biofuel, Bioscience, cleantech, Energy, entrepreneur, Environment, finance, greentech, investment, Science, Sustainable, Technology, technology transfer, Venture Capital on June 12, 2010 at 3:08 pm

MIT ENTERPRISE FORUM OF WASHINGTON DC & BALTIMORE’S
ENTERPRISE START-UP LAB: Sustainable Technology Development

June 15, 2010 from 6:30 to 9:00 PM at NRECA 4301 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA
Many issues face sustainable entrepreneurs. Financial challenges are only one of the many hurdles companies deal with. Social elements, customs, power struggles are among the many elements will be considered by entrepreneurs. This evening’s event focuses on the sustainable companies and the entrepreneurs who start them. Panelists from the NGO & Venture communities will provide feedback from their perspectives.
FEATURED GUEST:

  • BP Agrawal is founder and president of the nonprofit corporation Sustainable Innovations which seeds change, nourishes change, and harvests change. Dr. B.P. Agrawal of Sustainable Innovations has won both the $100,000 Lemelson-MIT Award for Sustainability and the 2010 Energy Globe World Award for his community-driven rainwater harvesting system.

PANELISTS:

  • IFC Senior Investment Officer in Clean Energy Corinne Figueredo
  • ASHOKA Managing Director Stuart Yasgur,
  • Agora Partnerships Managing Partner Ben Powell
  • Angel Investor Herb Simmens

ENTREPRENEURS :

  • EGG Energy Founder Alla Jezmir. Since June 2008, a multi-disciplinary team from MIT and Harvard has been working on an innovative solution to bring affordable power to communities in the developing world. Their goal is to bridge the power distribution gap that keeps 1.6 billion people worldwide in the dark.
  • Tseai Energy Unlimited Founder Trevor Young Tseai Energy Unlimited was the undergrad biz plan competition winner last year at UMD. TEU has merged the entrepreneurial spirit with social development and created a sustainable business model that allow underdeveloped communities to produce their own electricity and simultaneously develop their economies. (http://www.mtech.umd.edu/news/press_releases/bpc09_release.html and focuses on

RSVP:http://mitef.org/content.aspx?page_id=87&club_id=582681&item_id=98794

Advertisements

MIT Enterprise Forum Gala 2010 at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC

In angel Investor, cleantech, Energy, entrepreneur, finance, investment, Science, Technology, technology transfer, Venture Capital on February 22, 2010 at 7:08 pm

Bookmark and Share

The MIT Enterprise Forum (MITEF) of DC & Baltimore’s  2010 Gala on February 18, 2010 was an event to remember for 150+ small and medium entrepreneurs and the larger companies, VCs, Angel Investors and service providers who support and mentor them.

In a town where skepticism is rampant and who you know sometimes seems more important than what you know, the MIT Enterprise Forum of DC and Baltimore refreshingly brought together inspired professionals with knowledge, leadership and hope for the future to talk about international cooperation in launching and growing science based technology businesses. The Gala was held at the beautiful Canadian Embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue and it marked MITEF’s first DC based event. The glass windows of the Embassy looked out onto the Capital which provided a terrific backdrop for the distinguished gathering. One hundred and fifty entrepreneurs, scientists, venture capitalists and service-providers spent three hours mingling and eating, listening and asking questions of two fascinating keynote speakers with first hand knowledge about policy and the investment realities for Canadian and American businesses.

MITEF Gala program


This year’s theme was “Growing Opportunity for Technology Entrepreneurship in Domestic and Emerging Markets: The Role of Innovation in Economic Development” and was chaired by Patrick Mellody, a Director on the MITEF Board.  Jean-Luc Park, the MITEF Chairman and an Associate at the Calvert Fund moderated.

Jean-Luc Park Chairman Chapter of the MITEF of DC & Baltimore

The two keynote speakers were Jean-René Halde of the Business Development Bank of Canada & Phil Auerswald, founder and co-editor of the MIT Innovations Journal (along with Iqbal Quadir, Founder of Grameen Phone) and Associate Professor at George Mason University. The question and answer period went on for 30 minutes which indicated that people were truly engaged with both Jean-René Halde and Phil Auerswald.

Jean-René Halde’s visit with the MITEF was part of a larger business trip to the United States. Mr. Halde told the crowd that he was enjoying his trip and had enjoyed productive meetings with the heads of several private and public American institutions in Washington, DC. As CEO of the Business Development Bank of Canada, Jean-René’s primary goal is to invest in and promote entrepreneurial activity in Canada. He does this with tremendous support from the Canadian government. He is enthusiastic about the many successful entrepreneurial partnerships between American and Canadian companies. Mr. Halde also shared what he believes are new opportunities in a difficult economic environment. Mr. Halde ended the evening by  showing his Canadian pride as this year’s sponsor of the Olympics. He generously awarded several pairs of red mittens adorned with the Olympic symbol to several lucky attendees.

Phil Auerswald came to the Gala hours after meeting with leaders at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York. Mr. Auerswald brought a fresh new perspective to the MIT Enterprise Forum. He asked entrepreneurs to think globally as they create new entrepreneurial partnerships and establish new markets for their products. He asked them to engage foreign nationals to learn more about partnership opportunities in international markets. He also asked entrepreneurs to become more politically involved to protect their interests and grow their range of opportunities both at-home and abroad.

All in all- the evening was a tribute to the spirit of innovation and broad international entrepreneurial partnerships. Event Sponsors included The Canadian Embassy, Honeywell, Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP and ProVDN

_______________________________
About The MIT Enterprise Forum
Open to all since 1981, the Enterprise Forum® has promoted the growth, education, and success of the entrepreneur and business community of the greater Washington & Baltimore area.
The MITEF is a non-profit, volunteer organization, it provides exceptional quality events that are open to the public.  Its many programs are targeted to local start-ups, high technology businesses, venture capitalists, angels, and the professionals who support them.

The DC  chapter is one of a network of 24 worldwide chapters of the Enterprise Forum , which was created as an outreach educational program of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.).  Participation and membership by the general public, regardless of their affiliation, is encouraged.

Bookmark and Share


The Author, Halima Aquino, is a Director on the Board of the MIT Enterprise Forum. She was also last year’s Gala Chair and this year’s Vice Chair. Halima is the Founder of Bolton Hill Consulting and Clean Tech Market Maker.

Photography and videos supplied by Allan Tone at ProVDN

Video & Press Briefing: Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, United States Department of State DOS

In biofuel, cleantech, Energy, Environment, greentech, Science, Sustainable on February 17, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Bookmark and Share


This article contains two presentations by Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change at the U.S. Department of State. The first is a video presentation that he made at the Center for American Progress. The second is a Press Briefing that he gave February 16, 2010 at the State Department. He discusses the road forward despite some obvious setbacks at Copenhagen. He is optimistic about the possibilities and continues to work for positive changes that will protect the global environment.

Video

Todd Stern, US State Department’s Special Envoy on Climate Change at the Center for American Progress

In February 2010, Todd Stern, U.S. special envoy for climate change, spoke about the lessons of the COP-15 summit in Copenhagen last December, the significance of the Copenhagen Accord that was negotiated there, and the path forward over the coming year and beyond. This was Stern’s first public speech since the January 31 deadline for inscribing mitigation targets and actions in the Copenhagen Accord. An expert discussion panel follows the address.

Introductory Remarks: John Podesta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Center for American Progress

Featured Speaker: Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, United States Department of State

Featured Panelists:

  1. Jennifer Haverkamp, Managing Director for International Policy and Negotiations, Environmental Defense Fund
  2. Andrew Light, Senior Fellow and Coordinator for International Climate Policy, Center for American Progress

Location: Center for American Progress, 1333 H St. NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20005

Transcript: Press Briefing by the Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern


Bookmark and Share

Todd Stern
Special Envoy for Climate Change
Washington, DC
February 16, 2010

Briefing by the Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern
MR. TONER: Good afternoon. We’re very pleased to have Special Envoy Todd Stern here today to give us the lay of the land on international climate negotiations post-Copenhagen. As you know, in late January, the U.S. announced that it submitted its pledge to limit or reduce greenhouse emissions under the Copenhagen Accord, as did all of the world’s major economies. These countries represent more than 80 percent of global emissions and this constitutes an unprecedented step forward in the global effort to combat climate change.
With that impressive statistic in mind, I’ll hand the podium over to Todd Stern, who has about 20 minutes to answer your questions.
MR. STERN: Hello, everybody. Pleased to be here today. I’m just going to be very brief at the top and open it up for questions for you all.
Where we stand right now is – as you all know that Copenhagen meeting produced, in the end, a short document which is known as the Copenhagen Accord, we think a very important – short but important document that was produced very importantly through the intervention of leaders, a great number of leaders from countries there. It was, at the end of the day, not formally adopted as a decision of the – decision being a term of art – of the Conference of the Parties, but was supported by the overwhelming number of them.
The fact that it wasn’t formally adopted has led to a process since Copenhagen where countries essentially conveyed to the secretariat of the UN convention their interest in being part of it; the UN term is to associate itself with the accord. And in addition, the major countries, major economies have submitted their targets or actions that they plan to take to reduce emissions. So this is the developed countries and the major developing countries. That was supposed to happen by January 31st and it did.
We now have slightly less than a hundred countries that have indicated they want to be part of the accord, and my guess is there will be still some additional ones who indicate that. The accord itself, I think, is an important document for a number of reasons. It includes – it quantifies the objective of this whole exercise of the Framework Convention. The objective, as stated in the convention, is to – essentially to avoid dangerous climate change and the Copenhagen Accord quantifies that by talking about limiting the increase in temperature to 2 degrees Centigrade. It includes a pledge by the major economies to submit their targets and actions. It includes important stuff on – important language on transparency, important provisions on financing, and on technology. So in – all in all, I think a very important step forward.
The – going forward this year, I think will be a combination of both of making elements of the accord operational as well as further discussions under the umbrella of the UN Framework Convention toward additional agreements in Mexico. So that’s kind of where things stand right now. I’m happy to take questions.
QUESTION: Sean Tannen with AFP. You alluded to this a little bit in your talk at the Center for American Progress —
MR. STERN: Yeah.
QUESTION: — the other week. The commitments by countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa aren’t necessarily unambiguous. How do you see that going forward, unless there’s a clear commitment by those emerging economies?
MR. STERN: Well, I think that that’s going to get clarified. I think that, first of all, they have all submitted their proposed actions and there’s nothing ambiguous about that. They have submitted the actions that they intend to take to reduce emissions. I think that’s a good thing. So far, I believe Brazil and South Africa have stated to the – have conveyed to the secretariat that they wish to be associated with the accord. And China and India have conveyed something which is not entirely clear. I think that’ll get clarified, though, is my guess over the course of the next few days.
There will be – the way this thing works is that the secretariat publishes a report on the COP, the Conference of the Parties. They do this every year when there’s a Conference of the Parties. After a couple of months, they publish a report, essentially, on the proceedings, what happened. And the report includes all of the decisions that were taken. One of those decisions was a decision to take note of this Copenhagen Accord. And so as part of that decision, the accord itself will be published. And on the front page of the accord, there will be a list of all the parties who have said we want to be part of this.
And so I think that that’s something that will presumably happen reasonably soon, and I would expect that all of the major countries will be part of it at that point.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up briefly? But would there be a risk to the accord itself unless there is more clarity from these emerging economies?
MR. STERN: I think it’s important that the major countries be part of it, but I – again, I think that we have close to a hundred countries now. So I think that the accord is already kind of gathering steam.
Yes.
QUESTION: If India and China, turn out – don’t associate themselves with it, is there any possibility that the U.S. would pull out, essentially?
MR. STERN: No.
QUESTION: Not at all?
MR. STERN: No. I mean, I think that the U.S. is – we have put forward our own submission. It’s consistent with what President Obama announced back in November. So I don’t think it’s a question of the U.S. saying “Never mind.” I don’t think – that’s not the plan.
Yes.
QUESTION: Lalit Jha from Press Trust of India. Just a follow-up question. What you said is not clear about China’s and India’s proposals?
MR. STERN: The proposals are clear. This is a little bit confusing. I don’t want anybody to be confused. The proposals that they’ve all made with respect to “Here’s what we’re going to do,” perfectly clear. There is a second piece of this which is do you, quote “associate yourself with the accord,” and in effect, will you be one of those hundred-plus countries that are listed on the front page of the accord as having said “Yes, we want to be part of it.” That’s the piece that I’m talking about right now, and that’s – as I say, there’s just slightly less than a hundred countries that have said that. India and China have said something close to that, and I think the UN is just trying to make sure that they understand what the intention is.
QUESTION: Now my question about – India has distinctly announced that they will set up their own IPCC because they believe that the UN’s IPCC is not that realistic, that they are a bit confusing and it’s – they’re not reliable. What’s your opinion on that?
MR. STERN: Well, look. I think it’s a good thing for countries to have an active scientific effort. I don’t know what the details are. I don’t know what Minister Ramesh or others in India have in mind. But I think, obviously, the United States has all sorts of scientific work that we do through our various agencies of the U.S. Government. So I think that’s all a good thing.
I think the IPCC as an institution has made a very large contribution and I think it’s an important body that will continue and that is very representative of countries all over the world. So I don’t know what – I’m not familiar with the specifics of what India —
QUESTION: He was talking about – Minister Ramesh was talking about recent controversies about Himalayan glaciers.
MR. STERN: About what?
QUESTION: About Himalayan glaciers and the – some of the facts and figures in the IPCC report which has raised a lot of doubts.
MR. STERN: Right. Well, look, as I said, I think the IPCC is a very important body. I think it’s made a very important contribution. To the extent that there were any – that any errors appear in their lengthy report, I think that’s regrettable. But again, I’m not – I don’t have any – I’m not a scientist and I don’t have any considered view on the specifics. But I think the IPCC as an institution has been quite important and will continue to be important.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that, actually? How much more difficult has your job been since the errors in the IPCC report came to light, both globally and –
MR. STERN: It was difficult already. (Laughter.) No, look, I think that the scientific underpinning for action on climate change, the fundamental science of climate change and the observed data, is quite overwhelming. I think that to the extent – and again, I make no comment one way or another about whether they’re mistakes – I just don’t know. But to the extent that there were any mistakes in the IPCC report, reports, assessments, or anywhere else, that’s regrettable. You don’t want there to be mistakes.
But what should not happen is that any individual mistakes, typos, whatever they might be, be taken to undermine the very fundamental record that exists from scientists all over the world and from observed data from all over the world that this is a quite serious and growing problem. So I think that that’s really the kind of underlying important point.
And nor should – and I think what you do see sometimes is that people who have an agenda that is directed toward undermining action on climate change grab whatever tidbit they can find and say, look, there’s no climate change, it snowed last week in Washington, there’s no climate change. That kind of stuff is nonsense. And the exploiting of this or that mistake that might have occurred in some part of long reports that pull together a lot of scientific data, again, I think is – I think it needs to be seen for what it is, which is a deliberate attempt to undermine. The fundamentals haven’t changed.
QUESTION: Andy Quinn from Reuters. I was hoping you could talk a little bit after Copenhagen how you see the UN’s role in further negotiations about climate change and that of the Major Economies Forum. And do you have any word on when and where the next meeting of the MEF might be?
MR. STERN: Well, two things. I think the UN absolutely has an important role going forward. I think that there are obviously – anybody who was at or closely following Copenhagen can see that there are challenges with respect to managing a big process like that, particularly one with – where a small group of countries can block actions. That is certainly difficult, but it is – the UN has a special level of credibility and history in this and we support the UN process.
The Major Economies Forum, I think, was a very useful exercise last year, a useful forum, a useful body that we really picked up from the previous administration and then kind of remodeled. So we have every intention of continuing that this year. I am quite sure that we will have a meeting this spring. We haven’t set the exact date or the place yet, but I would anticipate that we will be working with our Major Economies Forum partners to set up a meeting in the relatively near term.
And I might say that in the fall we began a practice of inviting a few additional countries to participate who were important countries but not necessarily majors in terms of their economies. And I think that that was a useful process that we began in – I can’t remember if it was September or October, but we started it in the fall. And I would guess we’ll probably continue something like that as well.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) broaden the guest list even further?
MR. STERN: A little bit. A little bit, but not to a large extent.
Yes.
QUESTION: Sort of related to his question, is there any coordination between your office and the Trade Representative’s office, folks at Commerce, folks at Treasury, in trying to deal with some of the economic concerns that some countries might have about trying to limit their economic output that might have an impact on the rise in temperatures globally?
MR. STERN: Well, two things. We coordinate with everybody. I mean, this is not just a State Department exercise. It’s a government exercise. We – for starters, we coordinate very closely with the White House, obviously with the President but also with people in the NSC and the climate and energy office over there. And we coordinate a lot with Treasury and EPA and Energy and Commerce and other places. So this is a broad government effort where, of course, on the diplomatic side, State’s in the lead, but there’s a lot of coordination just in general.
With respect to the question of countries who need to play a role and who have concerns about that, we interact, we discuss those issues with the countries – with countries in that kind of a position a lot. I think that USTR is also an agency that we certainly do work with. Look, there’s kind of a basic underlying reality here, which is that countries in the sort of emerging market category of countries, which is really what you’re talking about, they have to be part of the solution in dealing with this problem.
If you only look at developed countries, you’re at about 40, maybe – somewhere between 40 and 45 percent of total emissions and shrinking. And if you’re trying to deal with the 80 or 85 percent of emissions and growing, you’ve got to bring in China and India and Brazil, other countries like that. You have to do it in a way that is mindful of their own needs for development, but those things can be reconciled and they have to be reconciled or else there’s no way to deal with the problem.
MR. TONER: Okay, just a couple more questions.
QUESTION: On the difference between associating with the accord and commitments for the accord –
MR. STERN: Yeah.
QUESTION: — Yvo de Boer earlier, a few weeks ago, said that there – that the January 31 was a soft deadline. Are – do you know what the number of countries is that have made commitments for the accord?
MR. STERN: Yeah. Well, I mean, I know that Yvo said that, but the reality is that the countries who were expected to make those commitments did so by January 31st. I think somebody might have been February 1st, but basically it was done by January 31st. And those countries are the developed – all developed countries, so U.S., Europe, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, et cetera; and the major developing countries, so that’s China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia. Korea and Mexico are kind of in a halfway house, but they’re still traditionally considered developing. And there are some additional countries. I don’t have them at the – at my fingertips. There’re some additional countries that would not necessarily be considered majors but who nonetheless did step forward and make their own commitments with respect to actions.
So that piece of it is basically, in terms of meeting the deadline, that got done. That’s done.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR. STERN: So now we’re just in the world of what countries are going to be reflected as part of the Copenhagen Accord.
QUESTION: Okay. And in relation to that, what are the next steps in the accord process?
MR. STERN: Well, there’s —
QUESTION: — leading on to COP (inaudible)?
MR. STERN: Yes. So there were these two steps we’ve already just talked about, the making your commitments and the associating, which is – that part – not quite over yet. Beyond that, there are a number of elements in the accord that, by their terms, need further elaboration. So it calls for a global fund. All right, well, then you need to set up – set the fund up. You need to – there’s a structure, there’s mechanics, how the fund will work. It calls for technology mechanism. All right, what does it look like? Does it look this way or this way or how – what is it – what are the elements of the mechanism?
A very important provision about transparency, including with respect to developing countries, including with respect to actions they take on their own as opposed to just actions they take when they’re funded. Very important stuff there. And in paragraph five of the accord, it talks about further guidelines to spell out those transparency provisions. Okay, that needs to get done. So there are probably four or five elements of the accord that need further work, and I think that that – that those things need to be carried forward. The first piece of that that got announced was a high-level panel or group, advisory group, I think it’s called, on financing that Ban Ki-moon announced just Friday.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR. STERN: That’s under – I think it’s paragraph nine of the accord that talks about setting up a high-level panel to do a study on potential sources of income toward realizing that goal of $100 billion by 2020. All right. So they’ve now announced that panel. I think there’s a couple of members from different countries, including ours, that haven’t been announced yet. But that’s underway and there’ll be other elements of that that I think as time goes on will get – will be – will get underway as well.
MR. TONER: Any more questions? Go ahead.
QUESTION: We’ve heard that several companies – BP, Conoco, and Caterpillar – dropped out of the Climate Action Partnership. I’m wondering if you can talk specifically about that, if you know about it. Is it a blow to that side of the equation? And more specifically, how do you feel that business is – I mean, do you think that there is some concern that business interest in this whole process is waning?
MR. STERN: I don’t know anything about that – about the specifics, so I’m not going to comment on that. I think – it’s interesting. I think that overall business interest and focus on this issue is growing gradually and that that will continue, because whatever the ups and downs of this process at any particular moment, there is only one direction that this process can go, which is in the direction of action to reduce emissions. I hope we get there – I very much hope we get there sooner rather than later and we will be doing everything we possibly can to advance that goal. But whether it’s sooner or later, it’s coming. Businesses get that. Businesses need to plan for not just – businesses don’t drive by looking right over the head of the car, they look down the road, and this is coming. So I think that that will grow.
Thank you.

Bookmark and Share

US DOE International Solar Decathlon 2009 Winners & 2011 Rules

In building, cleantech, construction, Energy, entrepreneur, Environment, greentech, investment, maintech, Science, Solar, Sustainable, Technology, technology transfer, Venture Capital on February 10, 2010 at 5:56 pm

Department of Energy DOE: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Peer Review Best Practices Workshop

In building, cleantech, Energy, entrepreneur, Environment, finance, greentech, maintech, Power Grid, Science, Solar, Sustainable, Technology, technology transfer, Venture Capital on January 27, 2010 at 11:10 pm

This Association of Public Land Grant Universities (APLU) sponsored event was designed to help DOE employees improve the grant review process. Had it been open to the public… it would have been of great interest to anyone trying to get government funding in the renewable energy arena.

It was a privilege to attend this event.

Jim Turner at the Association of Public Land Grant Universities (APLU) put on a stellar speaker panel and provided participants with the opportunity to meet the experts in the funding process. A select group of speaker presentations are listed below. One of the best featured speakers included D. Wayne Silby (Chair), Founding Chair of the Calvert Funds; Co-chair, Calvert Social Investment Foundation; Chair-elect and Principal, Syntao.com. Catherine Hunt, Dow, Director of Technology Collaboration Development was engaging and informative about finding practical solutions to industry problems.

The agenda and presentations are included below:

EERE Peer Review Best Practices Workshop
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
1307 New York Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20005
8:30 am Continental Breakfast

9:00 am Welcome : Peter McPherson, President, APLU

9:05 am Opening Remarks:Henry Kelly, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, DOE Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

9:15 am Keynote : Bill Bonvillian, Director of Federal Relations, MIT

9:45 am Peer Review Best Practices: Basic Science
Moderator: Jim Turner, Energy Programs, APLU

  • W. Lance Haworth, Director of Office of Integrative Activities, NSF
  • David T. George, Director, Office of Scientific Review, NIBIB, NIH
  • Linda Blevins, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of Science, DOE
  • Diana Jerkins, Interim Integrated Programs Director, Competitive Programs Unit, NIFA, USDA

11:15 am Peer Review Best Practices: Applied Research and Technology Development
Moderator: JoAnn Milliken, EERE

  • Marc Stanley, Deputy Director, NIST
  • Arun Majumdar, Director, ARPA-E
  • Julie A. Christodoulou, Director, Naval Materials Division, ONR
  • Lita Nelsen, Technology Licensing Office, MIT

12:30 pm Lunch

1:00 pm Peer Review Best Practices: Private Sector and Academic
Moderator: Jim Turner, Energy Programs, APLU

  • Catherine Hunt, Dow, Director of Technology Collaboration Development
  • Supratik Guha, Senior Manager, Semiconductor Materials and Devices,
  • Thomas J. Watson Research Center, IBM
  • Wayne Silby, Chairman, Calvert Special Equities
  • Mike Witherell, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of California at Santa Barbara and former head of Fermilab

2:15 pm Alternate Approaches to Peer Review

  • Ken Gabriel, Deputy Director, DARPA
  • Doug Comstock, Director, Innovative Partnerships Program, NASA

3:00 pm Public Comment Period

:: EERE Peer Review Best Practices Workshop Agenda
:: EERE Peer Review Best Practices Workshop Speaker Bios
Powerpoint Presentations
  1. :: Henry Kelly, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
  2. DOE Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
  3. :: W. Lance Haworth, Director of Office of Integrative Activities, NSF
  4. :: Linda Blevins, Senior Technical Advisor, Office of Science, DOE
  5. :: Diana Jerkins, Interim Integrated Programs Director, Competitive Programs Unit, NIFA, USDA
  6. :: Marc Stanley, Deputy Director, NIST
  7. :: Julie A. Christodoulou, Director, Naval Materials Division, ONR

Clean Energy Week Events 2010 in Washington DC

In cleantech, Energy, Environment, greentech, Power Grid, Solar, Sustainable, Technology on January 25, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Complete list of events: http://www.cleanenergyweek.org/schedule.php

National Coalition of Organizations Create Clean Energy Week, Washington DC — February 1st – 5th, 2010

Organizations nationwide are joining together to maximize efforts to move clean energy to the forefront of national policy. Officially declaring February 1-5, 2010 as Clean Energy Week, a growing list of partners are working together to produce a high-impact week of powerful and effective activities and events.

Clean Energy Week, February 1-5, highlights:

  • February 1: Clean Energy Week Press Conference – Presented by ACORE, Alliance to Save Energy, and the Clean Economy Network. National Press Club, Holeman Room, 9:30am
  • February 1-5: NASEO State Energy Policy and Technology Outlook Conference
  • February 2-3: Business Advocacy Day for Jobs, Climate & New Energy Leadership – Clean Economy Network and Ceres’ Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy. More Information
  • February 3-5: RETECH 2010 Conference & Exhibition, Washington DC Convention Center
  • February 4: Finance Education Day by the U.S. Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance (US PREF)
  • February 4: Clean Energy Breakfast Roundtable – with Special Hill Guest Speaker. 8am (Clean Technology & Sustainable Industries Organization, Clean Economy Network and K&L Gates). Please contact CTSI or community@ct-si.org for an invite. Free with Invite
  • February 4: Renewable Energy Interactive Webinar (World Team Now) – 2:30-4pm. For more information and to register. Free Webinar
  • February 4: Buy Clean Energy 2010 Program Launch (Center for Resource Solutions). More information available! – Open Opportunity
  • February 4: A cutting-edge feed-in tariff that has the potential to transform New York State into a leading center for renewable-energy investment and job creation will be discussed in a public forum at the Cooper Union’s Great Hall in NYC at 6:30 p.m. http://www.nyses.org
  • February 5: Opportunities and Challenges for Renewable Energy in Latin America and the Caribbean (Latin American and Caribbean Council on Renewable Energy – LAC-CORE, Washington Convention Center: For more information and to register. Free Event

Partners Include:

U.S. pledges billions; China says climate pact is doubtful – washingtonpost.com

In Energy, Environment, investment on December 17, 2009 at 9:50 am

By Juliet Eilperin and Anthony Faiola Washington Post Staff WriterThursday, December 17, 2009; 7:01 AMCOPENHAGEN — The United States on Thursday announced it would help build a $100 billion annual fund by 2020 to help poor countries cope with climate change, but said its commitment depended on whether the nations gathered here could reach a substantive pact that includes “transparency” on tracking emissions cuts.

In the absence of a comprehensive pact, Clinton said, the United States would take its long-term financial pledge off the table. She did not specify how much the U.S. would contribute to the fund if a substantive agreement was reached. The European Union has also committed to building a longterm, $100 billion fund, while Japan has committed $15 billion in short-term funding to poor countries over the next three years if an agreement is reached.

Clinton’s announcement could help break a logjam that has stymied the talks for days, since developing countries have insisted they need to know how the industrialized world will help them adapt to climate change and curb their own emissions before signing off on a deal.

The $100 billion annual fund endorsed by Clinton would help poorer countries switch to less environmentally harmful forms of energy production and prepare for the impacts of rising seas and warmer global temperatures. Clinton did not detail how much the U.S. would contribute to that fund. She said there were a number of financing options under consideration, but would not provide details.

“$100 billion is a lot,” Clinton said. “It can have tangible effects.”

Clinton, however, warned that a failure to reach agreement in Copenhagen — a deal has been anticipated Friday when leaders including President Obama enter the final stage of talks — would put that pledge in jeopardy. Officials from the United States and other developed countries have consistently said they cannot accept an agreement that does not include pledged emission reductions from major developing countries, as well as a method of verifying those cuts. Such language is essential to U.S. senators, who have yet to pass climate legislation and would have to ratify any future climate treaty.

via U.S. pledges billions; China says climate pact is doubtful – washingtonpost.com.

MIT Press Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate

In cleantech, Energy, Environment, greentech, investment, Power Grid, Science, Sustainable, Technology on December 5, 2009 at 2:49 pm

MIT Press Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate.

If you have any trouble playing the video here- then press HERE

Bolton Hill Consulting assisted MIT Innovations editors to organize this educational event at the National Academy of Sciences. (Live Streaming & Video production provided by Alan Tone at Fimmaker etc).

Time For Change
Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate

A discussion on the occasion of the release of the Innovations journal special issue on energy & climate.

November 24, 2009
The National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.

The solutions to our climate challenge aren’t just “out there,” they are right here-before your eyes, in your hands.
—John P. Holdren,
Science Adviser to the President of the United States, Introduction to Innovations 4:4 Energy for Change: Creating Climate Solutions

EVENT DESCRIPTION

The goal of this meeting was to contribute to reframing the conversation on energy and climate by illuminating opportunities inherent in the transition away from carbon intensity. The meeting focused on how technologies already in use can be combined with common-sense policies and 21st century modes of organization to create jobs, advance innovation, and enhance international cooperation. Led by the Science Adviser to the President of the United States, John Holdren, and informed by a year-long project on energy & climate at the National Academy of Sciences, the meeting was be organized into a set of forward-looking conversations respectively emphasizing opportunities for business, for the United States, and for the global community of nations.

Selected video highlights from Time for Change: Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate.

AGENDA

Panel #1: Building Change: The built environment and electric power service delivery video

Moderator:Ellen Vaughan, Environmental and Energy Study Institute .pdf

Panelist:Ralph Cavanagh, Natural Resources Defense Council .pdf

Panelist: James Turner, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities .pdf

Panelist: Henry Green, National Institute of Building Sciences .pdf


Panel #2: Driving Change: Transport and reduced oil consumption
video

Moderator:Philip Auerswald, George Mason University

Panelist:Judi Greenwald, Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Panelist: L. Jerry Hansen, United States Army

Panelist:William Drayton, Ashoka and Get America Working! .pdf


Panel #3: Legislating Change: U.S. policy options and directions
video

Moderator:Edward Maibach, George Mason University

Panelist:Richard Meserve, The Carnegie Institution

Panelist:Jason Grumet, Bipartisan Policy Center

Panelist:Bracken Hendricks, Center for American Progress


Introduction of Keynote Speaker

Philip Auerswald, George Mason University

Keynote Address video

John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to the President of the United States .pdf


Panel #4: Negotiating Change: International agreements and new institutional arrangements at a global scale
video

Moderator:William Bonvillian, MIT .pdf

Panelist:Thomas Schelling, University of Maryland .pdf

Panelist: Frank Alix, Powerspan Corp. .pdf

Panelist:Iqbal Quadir, MIT

Closing Address video

Rear Admiral Philip Hart Cullom, United States Navy


Concluding Remarks
video

William Bonvillian, MIT .pdf

Read William B. Bonvillian and Charles Weiss’s MIT Press Book: Structuring an Energy Technology Revolution

Subscribe to Innovations

Time For Change: Reframing the Conversation on Energy & Climate

In Energy, Environment, Science, Solar, Sustainable on November 20, 2009 at 4:45 pm

Time 4 Change Reframing the Conversation on Energy & Climate.

Bolton Hill Consulting is helping plan “Time for Change: Reframing the Conversation on Energy and Climate” At the release of MIT’s Innovations journal special issue on energy & climate

Event Details:

Date: Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Time: 1:00 – 6:45PM (Event: 1-5:40PM; Reception: 5:45-6:45PM)
Place: The National Academy of Sciences, 2100 C Street, NW (21st and Constitution Avenue), Washington, DC 20001(Foggy Bottom Metro)
Cost: Free of charge – Register here

Event Description
The goal of this meeting is to contribute to reframing the conversation on energy and climate by illuminating opportunities inherent in the transition away from carbon intensity. The meeting will focus on how technologies already in use can be combined with common-sense policies and 21st century modes of organization to create jobs, advance innovation, and enhance international cooperation. The meeting will take place at the National Academy of Sciences and will engage leaders from business, government, and academia in a discussion of the societal possibilities inherent in the in the creation of climate solutions. The event is timed to take place two weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, and coincides with the release of the Innovations journal special issue on energy & climate titled “Energy for Change.” Led by the Science Adviser to the President of the United States, John Holdren, and informed by a year-long project on energy & climate at the National Academy of Sciences, the meeting will be organized into a set of forward-looking conversations respectively emphasizing opportunities for business, for the United States, and for the global community of nations.

Featured speakers include:

  • John Holdren, Science Adviser to the President of the United States and former Director of the Belfer Center’s Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program
  • Thomas Schelling, 2005 recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics
  • Bill Drayton, Founder and CEO of Ashoka, Innovators for the Public
  • Richard Meserve, President of the Carnegie Institution
  • Iqbal Quadir, Founder and Director of MIT’s Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship

Northeast Adds 17 Gigawatts of Renewable Power to Meet RPS : CleanTechnica

In cleantech, Energy, investment, maintech, Power Grid, Sustainable on November 1, 2009 at 12:19 pm

 

Written by Susan Kraemer for CleanTechnica.com

 

Renewable energy comprised more than half the energy added this year to the Northeast grid, comprising part of Canada and 6 US states. 17 GW of renewable energy projects in the region will be completed in the next five years.

It is no coincidence that each of these states has a state renewable portfolio standard which requires utilities to add an increasing percent of renewable power to the grid each year. New York’s RPS requires 24% by 2013, Maine:40% by 2017(met), Vermont:20% by 2017, New Hampshire:16% by 2025, Rhode Island:16% by 2019, and Connecticut:27% by 2020 )

The Renewable Portfolio Standard is a sure way to get more homegrown climate-friendly renewable power on the grid and is up for votes yet again this year (in the American Clean Jobs & American Power Act) after multiple previous attempts to pass it.

>>Find local group discounts on solar power for your home.

Democrats have attempted to pass a Renewable Portfolio Standard multiple times, for example here and again. Each time Republicans have defeated it by calling coal renewable, or filibustered it to prevent passage. (Renewable energy is defined as energy that is from a resource that is renewable and that has low carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas.)

It is included again in the current renewable energy bill in the Senate now (CEJAPA) and is the closest it has been to having the critical mass needed to pass it.

Maine has a RPS and has more renewable energy on the grid than any state in the nation; 55%. Collins and Snowe of Maine are two of the four Republicans who have reliably sided with Democrats on renewable energy. However the other two were both voted out last year; Smith of Oregan and Coleman of Minnesota.

Even when states don’t meet them, having an RPS requirement has been proven to get more power on the grid than not having one.

Image: Flikr user Katerina

Tweet This Post

Tags: American Clean Jobs & American Power Act, Connecticut 27% by 2020, Maine:40% by 2017(met), New Hampshire:16% by 2025, Northeast 17 Gigawatts renewable, NY: 24% by 2013, Renewable Portfolio Standard, Rhode Island:16% by 2019, Vermont:20% by 2017

via Northeast Adds 17 Gigawatts of Renewable Power to Meet RPS : CleanTechnica.