Energywise iconEnergywise

Photograph of President Trump shaking hand of hard-hat-wearing coal miner

Commentary: Photo Ops with Coal Miners Offer No Substitute for Fact-based Climate Policy

President Donald Trump surrounded himself with coal miners at the EPA yesterday as he signed an executive order calling for a clean sweep of all federal policies hindering development of fossil fuel production in the United States. The order’s centerpiece is an instruction to federal agencies to cease defending the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and thus, according to Trump’s rhetoric, revive coal-fired power generation and the miners who fuel it.

The electric power sector, however, responded with polite dismissal. 

What separates President Trump and some of his top officials from power engineers and utilities? The latter operate in a world governed by science and other measurable forces. Unlike President Trump, scientists, engineers, and executives suffer reputational and financial losses when they invent new forms of logic that are unsupported by evidence. And a world of fallacies underlies the President and his administration’s rejection of climate action.

The biggest Trump administration fallacy at work yesterday is its claim that climate change may not be primarily human-caused—the standard line on climate espoused by top GOP leaders in Congress and Trump administration officials such as EPA administrator Scott Pruitt and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson

This oft-repeated claim is scientifically indefensible, given multiple lines of evidence that indict rising levels of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane caused by fossil fuel combustion, cement production, deforestation, and other economic activities. This includes robust satellite observations showing that natural factors have had negligible impact since 1980. As NASA scientist Thorsten Markus reminded us recently, anthropogenic climate change is simply, “what the data show.”

Fallacy of the day goes, however, to the only research cited in defense of Trump’s order: a NERA Economic Consulting report from November 2015 suggesting that “40 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 10 percent or more” thanks to the Clean Power Plan.

EPA designed the Clean Power Plan to cut power sector carbon emissions by nearly one-third by 2030 by emphasizing renewable energy, natural gas, and energy efficiency and dialing back coal-fired power. President Trump sees “an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs.” Most modeling, however, projects net economic gains from reduced use of coal, including health benefits and long-term savings for consumers.

World Resources Institute economist Noah Kaufman examined four power price projections in January, including the NERA report cited by Trump officials. Three of the studies project that electrical bills will be down in 2030, from 3 to 17 percent. Here’s Kaufman’s explanation for how NERA’s research, which was commissioned by a coal advocacy group, reached the opposite conclusion:

In every case, the study funded by the coal advocacy group used assumptions at or above the top of the range of expert forecasts or empirical estimates of the costs of clean energy available in late 2015 when the studies were conducted. In other words, the study assumed that the rapid advances in clean technologies like solar and wind energy prior to 2015 would not continue into the future, a hypothesis that has already been proven wrong.

Yesterday the electric power sector responded to Trump’s order by rejecting NERA’s negative view of renewable energy, as well as Trump’s fallacy-based fantasy that he can put coal miners back to work. “The sector plans to keep moving steadily toward a cleaner, more distributed energy future—no matter what happens with the Clean Power Plan,” reported UtilityDIVE, a mainstream business publication.

UtilityDIVE issued its annual survey of electric utility executives yesterday, concluding that rescinding the Clean Power Plan was unlikely to reverse coal’s fortunes “mostly due to the economics of natural gas and renewables.” Over two-thirds of executives surveyed expected their power mix over the coming decade would include modestly or significantly more wind power and 82 percent expected solar growth.

Only one in four executives expressed a desire for the federal government to abandon a decarbonization policy, while a majority—58 percent—called for additional measures beyond the Clean Power Plan. A national price on carbon, such as that which Canada is adopting, was the leading policy option.

UtilityDIVE’s big picture view was endorsed by dozens of state-level reports from such utilities as American Electric Power, which slashed its reliance on coal from 71 percent to 47 percent over the last two years. Based in Columbus, Ohio, AEP said it would continue to “balance out our portfolio with more natural gas and renewable generation,” according to local journal Columbus Business First. The journal added context by reminding readers of 10 natural gas plants under development in the state.

Duluth-based Minnesota Power told Michigan Public Radio that it would press on with plans to slash coal-fired generation in favor of wind and natural gas. That report provided context by noting local climate shifts meant “fewer pond hockey days, longer ragweed seasons, and heavier rainstorms that wreak havoc on farm fields, highways, and homes.”

The radio station also quoted the Republican chairman of the state’s House energy committee, Pat Garofalo, who dismissed Trump’s vow to put coal miners back to work. “The combination of wind and natural gas on price, pollution, and productivity are just trouncing every other energy source. And this executive order won’t change that.”

Further evidence of power sector resolve to reduce greenhouse gas emissions came from Carnegie Mellon University and equipment supplier Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems, which unveiled a novel index of power sector carbon intensity and plans for high-profile quarterly reporting. “We wanted to make sure that everyone understands how we’re doing,” explains Costa Samaras, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon.

How will all of this industry action on climate balance out against a hostile U.S. administration? Let’s take that up by correcting one more fallacy at work yesterday—one not from the Trump camp but built into yesterday’s coverage in the New York Times.

The Times ably reported on the near impossibility that the executive order would revive coal in the United States. It overreached, however, in this damning prediction for U.S. climate action: “Mr. Trump’s order signals that the United States will not meet its pledges under the Paris deal to cut its emissions about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.” 

Experts contacted by IEEE Spectrum yesterday question the Times’ prognostication. “I wouldn’t be that definitive,” says David Waskow, director of WRI’s international climate program. Waskow says Trump’s attack will make it “much harder and more costly” for the U.S. to deliver its share of climate progress. But he said the price of renewable energy continues to drop, and states and businesses may compensate for federal inaction. 

“It’s like you’ve got a runner on a track and now there’s somebody on the side of the track throwing obstacles in the way. It makes it harder but the runner is continuing in the right direction,” says Waskow.

Samaras agrees. “Most of the action climate-wise is going to be at the states and at companies. That was the case yesterday and that’s going to be the case tomorrow,” says Samaras. He expects to see “a little” slowing of U.S. grid decarbonization, but says there is a “good chance” that the U.S. will meet its Paris pledge, barring an unforeseen steep rise in the cost of natural gas.

A return to the pricey natural gas of decades past appears unlikely. Why? Thanks to President Trump and GOP efforts to ease federal restrictions on gas production

Coal miners should read the fine print on the President’s executive order. While Trump’s coal-boosting boasts grabbed yesterday’s headlines, his order calls for “particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources.”

America’s dirtiest energy source is third in line, right behind natural gas.

turbine rotor in a gas turbine

More Renewable Energy Means More Operating Reserves, Right? Wrong

Utilities are charged with serving the public interest: They must keep the lights on. That means they need to have something in reserve for times when more electricity is needed than is usual for a given day and time or for those times when equipment is out of service. They need operating reserves, known in electric utility parlance as spinning reserves (obtaining more output from generators already operating) and non-spinning reserves (quickly bringing generators online to meet demand spikes).

Renewable generation poses several challenges to reliable operation of power systems thanks to its inherent variability: Wind speed and direction isn't a constant for example. Operating reserves compensate for variability in both load and generation.

How much does adding renewables to the grid change what operating reserves are needed and how they are dispatched during spikes of demand? That’s what our part in the Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) project by the University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute seeks to understand.

Read More
Latex gloved hands holding a foot-wide black square

Efficiency of Silicon Solar Cells Climbs

In research published this week in Nature Energy, researchers at Kaneka Corp., a resin and plastics manufacturer based in Osaka, describe the first silicon solar cell to achieve a record-breaking 26.3 percent efficiency—a 0.7 percent increase over the previous record. That may not seem like a lot, but it’s really a big step when you consider that silicon solar cells’ theoretical maximum efficiency is just 29 percent.

Read More
A space station flying over the earth with red, gold, and green beams fanning out of it. The beams connect with the earth, the sun, and the moon, respectively.

Trump Dumps Climate Science and Innovation in 2018 Budget Blueprint

Al Gore didn’t really claim to invent the Internet in 1999, but he did champion a NASA mission that installed a deep-space webcam pointed at Earth in 2015. And yesterday President Trump put a bull’s-eye on that mission. Or rather, on part of it. Trump’s 2018 budget blueprint asks Congress to defund the Earth-facing instruments on the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR). Its sensors tracking magnetic storms emanating from the sun would keep doing their jobs.

Selectively deep-sixing well-functioning instruments on a satellite 1.5 million kilometers from Earth is one of the stranger entries in President Trump’s first pass at a budget request. But it fits a pattern: Throughout the document, programs aimed at comprehending or addressing climate change take deep cuts, even where there is no obvious fiscal justification. 

Read More
Lithium-ion energy storage units stand in front of an array of solar photovoltaic panels in Hawaii.

Tesla Teams With Tiny Hawaiian Utility to Store Solar

A 33,000-member electric power cooperative on the island of Kauai in the Hawaiian archipelago is emerging as a leader as it moves from fossil-based power generation to renewables, and deploys what ranks as one of the world’s largest arrays of lithium-ion battery packs.

The battery storage became operational in March and is expected to make solar power produced during the daytime available to customers well into peak demand periods after sunset.

Tesla Motors Inc., in association with Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC), deployed the battery storage using a design derived from the Tesla Model S vehicle. The 272 Powerpack energy storage units are sited at a solar farm whose 55,000 photovoltaic panels have a generating capacity of 13 megawatts (MW).

Under terms of the deal with Tesla, KIUC will buy power for 20 years at the rate of 13.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (KWh). The 52 MWh battery system is design to feed up to 13 MW of electricity onto the grid. Doing so is expected to shave the amount of conventional power generation needed to meet the evening peak, which lasts from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m.

KIUC President and CEO, David Bissellsays the cost is lower than that incurred to buy power from diesel-fueled power plants and is below the charge paid by electricity customers elsewhere in the state.

The solar-plus-battery facility means that KIUC has achieved roughly 44% renewable generation, says Bissell. “This is truly remarkable when you consider that as recently as 2011 we were 92% dependent on fossil fuel generation,” primarily diesel and naphtha.

Read More
Kelp farm

Robotic Kelp Farms Promise an Ocean Full of Carbon-Neutral, Low-Cost Energy

Renewable, carbon neutral energy is critical to a future where we’re not all living on rafts in the middle of a suddenly much larger ocean. Happily, we’ve got lots of ways of generating renewable energy, like solar farms, wind farms, and hydropower. Despite this diversity, renewables are horrendously inefficient compared with the dense solid or liquid combustibles that come straight out of the ground, both in terms of the energy density that they represent, as well as the amount of physical space that it takes to harvest them.

This is an often overlooked problem with renewable energy: Scaling up solar, wind, and hydro to make a dent in overall energy consumption takes up a significant amount of land area. Plus at some point, it starts to become impractical: There’s a finite amount of land area that is appropriate for and can be devoted to large-scale renewables. Not to mention that usually, these installations aren’t things that people want next door. As the global population increases, and energy consumption increases even more, we’re simply going to run out of space.

At the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, a company called Marine BioEnergy was showing a potential new way of producing an enormous amount of low-cost energy in a way that doesn’t compete for land area. Their idea is to use drone submarines to farm kelp out in the open ocean, and then process it into carbon-neutral liquid biofuel. Turns out there are a lot of reasons why this might be a very good idea.

Read More

ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit: Self-Fluffing Fabrics and the World's Coolest Paint

Every year, ARPA-E (the government's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy) holds a big conference/party in Washington, D.C., that includes an expo hall full of all of the latest, most exciting government-funded technology innovations in the energy sector. No, we're not being sarcastic. Last year, we focused on ARPA-E's push towards personal thermal regulation. The big idea: that heating an entire building is incredibly wasteful, when you could potentially save massive amounts of energy by heating each human inside of that building (or a small area around them) instead. We're happy to report that both RoCo and SRI's foot coolers have been significantly improved over the last year, although neither are quite ready for you to buy just yet.

This year, we're going to branch out a bit, and take a look two new technologies that ARPA-E has funded to try and improve our lives by saving energy.

Read More
A flying satellite with several green beam projecting down to a cliff of ice

Is This Twilight for the Golden Age of Earth Observation?

When leaders of the Congressional committees that approve NASA’s missions and budgets put forth their priorities in February, only space science and deep space exploration made the cut. Conspicuously absent was Earth science—a US $2 billion function within NASA that tracks our rapidly changing “home planet.”

Add in White House skepticism of climate science, and what experts call today’s “golden age” of monitoring Earth via satellite faces some serious challenges.

That age began in 2009, when President Barack Obama responded to a U.S. National Research Council warning that budget cuts had left the United States’ Earth observing system “at risk of collapse.” NASA, the lead federal agency for satellite development, saw its Earth science budget rise 56 percent between 2008 and 2016, and it placed eight new Earth-observing satellites in orbit during that period packing state-of-the-art sensors.

The data they deliver inform a widening range of activities—crop planning and management, wildfire risk assessment, extreme air pollution warnings, and more. NASA delivered 1.42 billion data products in 2015—174 times as many as it delivered in 2000—according to a November 2016 review by the agency’s Inspector General.

More missions are in the pipeline, such as NASA’s second Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat-2), whose primary objectives are tracking melting polar ice sheets and glaciers and quantifying the carbon locked up in the globe’s forests.

ICESat-2, however, exemplifies both the present strength of the U.S. Earth observation program and a less visible weakness. To understand why, you need a sense of the ambitious nature of ICESat-2’s mission.

Rather than rerunning the first ICESat mission, which ended in 2009, NASA redesigned the laser altimeter to boost its impact. One laser beam firing sporadically became six beams firing 365 days a year; higher-precision digital photon counting replaced analog detection of beams bouncing back from Earth.

ICESat-2 should enable measurement of annual elevation changes in ice sheets at ± 4-millimeter accuracy (and better for other targets), and at 17 times the spatial resolution of its predecessor, according to Thorsten Markus, chief of cryospheric sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, in Maryland. Such data, he says, will elucidate some basic physical processes that elude climate models, and thus improve their predictions.

But pushing for the best has not come cheap. Instead of $300 million for an ICESat rerun, NASA’s estimate for ICESat-2’s development started at $559 million and has grown to $764 million. Including operations for up to seven years, the mission could cost nearly $1.1 billion, according to that November Inspector General report. Launch dates, meanwhile, have slipped from 2015 to 2018.

Delays and cost creep in ICESat-2 and other missions, as well as several failed launches, put a significant tarnish on Earth observation’s golden age. Extending existing missions to avoid gaps in observational data creates risk, according to NASA’s Inspector General: “More than half the Agency’s 16 operating missions have surpassed their designed lifespan and are increasingly prone to failures that could result in critical data loss….”

Similar risks confront the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a key partner in climate and weather observation, according to a February report by Congress’s watchdog agency the Government Accountability Office NOAA’s polar readings currently come from a dying NASA demonstration mission. If it fails before the agencies’ long-awaited Joint Polar Satellite System launches, it would degrade weather forecasts, “exposing the nation to a 15 percent chance of missing an extreme weather event forecast,” writes the GAO.

If the golden age of Earth observation harbored weak spots before the 2016 election, experts say the new administration introduces new risks. One is the $54 billion in belt-tightening proposed for federal agencies by President Donald Trump. In early March the Washington Post reported that the President will ask for 17 percent less funding for NOAA.

Another is potential interference with climate science. In February, Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, called for “rebalancing” of NASA’s portfolio. A former chairman, Robert Walker, now a lobbyist for space-related industries, built a similar plank into the space platform that he drafted for Trump’s campaign. Both men question human-induced climate change—a view held by many Republicans in Congress and Trump appointees.

Walker says expanded Earth observation under Obama came at the expense of other science programs, particularly deep space robotic missions. He also alleges that NASA science was “tainted" by a political agenda against fossil fuels, focusing on impacts from burning coal, oil, and natural gas and neglecting natural climate influences such as volcanic eruptions. “There’s an extremely complex system that involves a lot more than CO2,” he says.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2014 assessment, however, expressed “very high confidence” that volcanic eruptions caused only “a small fraction” of the warming observed since the Industrial Revolution. And it cites “robust evidence” from satellite data showing that natural factors have had “near-zero” effect since 1980.

The notion that human activities alter climate is not a political invention, but a scientific judgement based on gigabytes of data downloaded daily from a gilded era’s orbiting sensors. “It’s not a belief,” says NASA’s Markus. “That’s what the data show.”

Gas stove ring alight with blue natural gas flame

Full Cost of Electricity: Modeling Natural Gas Prices Offers Insight for Future Fuel Prices

graphic link to the landing page for The Full Cost of Electricity

In any business investment, price forecasting plays an important role in determining the viability of the project. Energy investing is no different, especially when it comes to fuel for a generating project. Quicker to construct than coal-fired power plants, natural-gas-fired projects offer environmental gains, but fuel prices are one key—if volatile—element to their success. Our role in the Full Cost of Electricity (FCe-) project by the University of Texas at Austin Energy Institute? Come up with a model that forecasts the long-term level of natural gas prices.

There are several approaches to developing long-term forecasts for commodity prices, including many types of econometric models, equilibrium models, and expert survey forecasts. We use an approach that is based upon calibrating some of the commonly used stochastic process models [PDF] with data from the commodities markets. (For an explanation of commodities markets, spot prices, futures, and other market modeling terms, see this article. For more on our specific model details, equations, and math, see our white paper [PDF].)

Data, equations, and models in hand, we used a two-factor economic model (two factors as causes of some event) to develop forecasts and confidence ratings for both the risk-neutral price (investor ignores risk completely in the decision-making process) and the expected spot price (current market price for a physical commodity). The risk-neutral version of the model yields a slightly lower forecast. The historical data shows that from 2009 through 2014, spot prices oscillated around a mean price just under US $4 per million Btu, and then prices dropped significantly and rapidly in 2015 [see graph above].

When the model is calibrated to shale gas era futures price data, leaving out the very high historical prices before 2009, the expected spot price is forecasted to recover to only about $3.00 per million Btu over the next two years, but then grow at a modest rate to a price of $4.35 per million Btu by the end of the forecast horizon, 2025 in our calculation. This forecast aligns with the Low Oil Price case projections from the Energy Information Administration 2015 Energy Outlook, slightly lower than their Reference case.

Our research shows that the choice of the data set has some effect on the two-factor model parameter estimates and the resulting forecast. The longer term data set yields a slightly lower forecast, thanks to the long-term downward trend from the high prices realized in the middle to latter part of the decade from 2000 to 2010. With either data set, however, forecasts roughly align with the High Oil and Gas Resource and Low Oil Price scenarios from the 2015 EIA Energy Outlook, two outcomes that seem increasingly likely as judged by market sentiment [see graph above]. This market-based forecasting model provides the added benefits of simple updating (as new futures data becomes available) and a statistical basis for uncertainty analysis, through the confidence envelope around the future expected spot prices.

For more information, read the full report, “Market-Calibrated Forecasts for Natural Gas Prices” [PDF] on the University of Texas Energy Institute’s page for The Full Cost of Electricity.

Warren J. Hahn & James S. Dyer are professors at the University of Texas at Austin, McCombs School of Business.

John Goodenough, co-inventor of the lithium-ion battery, heads a team of researchers developing the technology that could one day supplant it

Will a New Glass Battery Accelerate the End of Oil?

Electric car purchases have been on the rise lately, posting an estimated 60 percent growth rate last year. They’re poised for rapid adoption by 2022, when EVs are projected to cost the same as internal combustion cars. However, these estimates all presume the incumbent lithium-ion battery remains the go-to EV power source. So, when researchers this week at the University of Texas at Austin unveiled a new, promising lithium- or sodium-glass battery technology, it threatened to accelerate even rosy projections for battery-powered cars.

“I think we have the possibility of doing what we’ve been trying to do for the last 20 years,” says John Goodenough, coinventor of the now ubiquitous lithium-ion battery and emeritus professor at the Cockrell School of Engineering at the University of Texas, Austin. “That is, to get an electric car that will be competitive in cost and convenience with the internal combustion engine.” Goodenough added that this new battery technology could also store intermittent solar and wind power on the electric grid.

Yet, the world has seen alleged game-changing battery breakthroughs come to naught before. In 2014, for instance, Japanese researchers offered up a cotton-based (!) new battery design that was touted as “energy dense, reliable, safe, and sustainable.” And if the cotton battery is still going to change the world, its promoters could certainly use a new wave of press and media releases, as an Internet search on their technology today produces links that are no more current than 2014-2015 vintage.

So, on whose authority might one claim a glass battery could be any different?

For starters, Donald Sadoway’s. Sadoway, a preeminent battery researcher and MIT materials science and engineering professor, says, “When John Goodenough makes an announcement, I pay attention. He’s tops in the field and really a fantastic scientist. So, his pronouncements are worth listening to.”

Goodenough himself says that when he first coinvented the lithium-ion battery in the 1980s, almost no one in the battery or consumer electronics industries took the innovation seriously. It was only Japanese labs and companies like Sony that first began to explore the world we all today inhabit—with lithium-ions powering nearly every portable device in the marketplace, as well as electric vehicles and even next-generation airliners.

In other words, who better than Goodenough to cocreate the technology that could one day supplant his mighty lithium-ion battery?

The new battery technology uses a form of glass, doped with reactive “alkali” metals like lithium or sodium, as the battery’s electrolyte (the medium between cathode and electrode that ions travel across when the battery charges and discharges). As outlined in a research paper and recent patent filing (of which Goodenough, 94, says more are forthcoming), the lithium- or sodium-doped glass electrolyte offers a new medium for novel battery chemistry and physics.

They find, for instance, that the lithium- or sodium-glass battery has three times the energy storage capacity of a comparable lithium-ion battery. But its electrolyte is neither flammable nor volatile, and it doesn’t appear to build up the spiky “dendrites” that have plagued lithium-ions as they charge and discharge repeatedly and can ultimately short out, causing battery fires. So, if the glass batteries can be scaled up commercially, which remains uncertain in this still-proof-of-concept-phase research, the frightening phenomenon of flaming or exploding laptops, smartphones, or EVs could be a thing of the past.

Moreover, says lithium-glass battery codeveloper Maria Helena Braga, a visiting research fellow at UT Austin and engineering professor at the University of Porto in Portugal, the glass battery charges in “minutes rather than hours.” This, she says, is because the lithium- or sodium-doped glass endows the battery with a far greater capacity to store energy in the electric field. So, the battery can, in this sense, behave a little more like a lightning-fast supercapacitor. (In technical terms, the battery’s glass electrolyte endows it with a higher so-called dielectric constant than the volatile organic liquid electrolyte in a lithium-ion battery.)

Moreover, Braga says, early tests of their technology suggest it’s also capable of perhaps thousands of charge-discharge cycles, and could perform well in both extremely cold and hot weather. (Initial estimates place its operating range between below -20º C and 60º C.) And if they can switch the battery’s ionic messenger atom from lithium to sodium, the researchers could even source the batteries more reliably and sustainably. Rather than turning to controversial mining operations in a few South American countries for lithium, they’d be able to source sodium in essentially limitless supply from the world’s seawater.

Sadoway says he’s eager to learn more about the technology as it continues to be developed. In particular, he’s paying attention not so much to how quickly the battery charges but how well it can retain its energy. “The issue is not can you do something at a high charge rate,” he says. “My big question is about capacity fade and service lifetime.”

But, Sadoway adds, perhaps the chief innovation behind Goodenough and Braga’s technology is the possibility that they’ve solved the flaming and exploding battery problem.

“Addressing the [battery] safety issue is, I think, a giant step forward,” he says. “People have been talking about solid-state electrolytes for 20 years. But I can’t point to a commercial product yet…. If he can give us an electrolyte that is devoid of these flammable, organic solvents, that’s salutary in my opinion.”

If Goodenough, Braga, and collaborators can ramp up their technology, there would clearly be plenty of upsides. Goodenough says the team’s anode and electrolyte are more or less ready for prime time. But they’re still figuring out if and how they can make a cathode that will bring the promise of their technology to the commercial marketplace.

“The next step is to verify that the cathode problem is solved,” Goodenough says. “And when we do [that] we can scale up to large-scale cells. So far, we’ve made jelly-roll cells, and it looks like they’re working fairly well. So I’m fairly optimistic we’ll get there. But the development is going to be with the battery manufacturers. I don’t want to do development. I don’t want to be going into business. I’m 94. I don’t need the money.”

Advertisement

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for the EnergyWise newsletter and get biweekly news on the power & energy industry, green technology, and conservation delivered directly to your inbox.

Load More