Is there money to be had in carbon restrictions?

Smart companies are looking to profits they can earn when state governments clamp down on carbon emissions.

Toby Talbot/AP/File
In this file photo, a wind turbine is seen at the First Wind project in Sheffield, Vt. As state governments work to reduce emissions, companies are searching for ways to make a profit.

Matthew Wald of the NY Times reports that two companies called SolarReserve and BrightSource are thinking ahead about profits they can earn when state electric utility commissions enact the combined policies of aggressive renewable portfolio standards (RPS) and time of day pricing.  A RPS of 33% would mean that an electric utility must purchase 33% of its power from renewable sources such as wind and solar.  If total demand peaks each day at around 3pm and then declines throughout the rest of day gradually , then the price of electricity could soar at around 6pm each day because the sun is no longer shining and solar won't be generating much electricity.  

Anticipating that there could be serious profits to be earned by those generators who have capacity to sell at that hour,  these companies are developing storage technologies that will allow them to sell at that hour.Note the key synergy here.  Solar power becomes more "feasible" if there exists such a storage technology so there will be greater investment in solar.  As there is greater investment in solar, this encourages more investment in storage technology. Similar to peanut butter and jelly, the two go together.  Now is government $ needed here? The DOE is betting on SolarReserve.  Will this be another Solyndra?  In the absence of government $, would the private sector have funded this?  Is VC capital aggressive or highly risk adverse?

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.