Energy Internet and eVehicles Overview

Governments around the world are wrestling with the challenge of how to prepare society for inevitable climate change. To date most people have been focused on how to reduce Green House Gas emissions, but now there is growing recognition that regardless of what we do to mitigate against climate change the planet is going to be significantly warmer in the coming years with all the attendant problems of more frequent droughts, flooding, sever storms, etc. As such we need to invest in solutions that provide a more robust and resilient infrastructure to withstand this environmental onslaught especially for our electrical and telecommunications systems.

Linking renewable energy with high speed Internet using fiber to the home combined with eVehicles and dynamic charging where vehicle's batteries are charged as it travels along the road, may provide for a whole new "energy Internet" infrastructure for linking small distributed renewable energy sources to users that is far more robust and resilient to survive climate change than today's centralized command and control infrastructure. For more details please see:

Using eVehicles for Renewable Energy Transportation and Distribution: and

Free High Speed Internet to the Home or School Integrated with solar roof top:

High level architecture of Internet Networks to survive Climate Change:

Architecture and routing protocols for Energy Internet

Monday, May 24, 2010

MUST READ: Why network and computing R&D should be funded from carbon offsets

[The Conference Board of Canada has recently come out with an excellent report looking at how various provincial governments in Canada fund research into technologies that reduce Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Most governments around the world fund such research through various university and business innovation programs which are funded from general revenues. The challenge of course is that these programs are subject to cutbacks given the extent of government finances around the world today. Alberta is unique in that their Alberta Energy Innovation strategy allows large CO2 emitters to invest in the fund rather than purchasing carbon offsets. This has 2 major advantages: Purchasing high quality offsets is difficult, and more importantly rather than spending money on questionable offsets it can be better invested in creating new technologies and jobs. Although Alberta has the right funding model, right now most of their investments are focused on traditional solutions like carbon sequestration. Information Communication Technologies (ICT) as noted by the SMART 2020 has significantly greater potential in reducing GHG and therefore should be also eligible under such a program. As well a lot of research in Green IT may not only create economic opportunities but also be eligible for carbon offsets in their own right – a double win. The Conference Board of Canada concludes that “The Alberta model appears to be working, based on the revenues generated to date and the fact that emitters are making use of all compliance options. They are reducing emissions, purchasing offsets, and trading in credits, as well as contributing to the technology fund.” They expect such programs will result in $11.8 billion in economic benefits in Canada. For a country like the US this could be over $118 billion in economic benefits. Some excerpts from the report – BSA]

The Economic and Employment Impacts of Climate-Related Technology Investments

This report examines the economic and employment impacts of climate-related technology investments in Canada.

All provinces have developed climate action plans that make use of a range of tax measures, regulatory approaches, performance standards, and technology investments. The fund structure and governance models vary widely. Alberta is the only province with regulatory limits on GHG emissions intensity, with payment into a technology fund as one compliance option. The fund is reinvested in climate technologies. The revenues are therefore not dependent on general taxation or subject to the budgeting process. A board of directors with the requisite expertise makes the investment decisions.

The Alberta model appears to be working, based on the revenues generated to date and the fact that emitters are making use of all compliance options. They are reducing emissions, purchasing offsets, and trading in credits, as well as contributing to the technology fund. The flexibility inherent in this system allows emitters to select the mix of options that best suits their circumstances.

Alberta Innovates, Energy and Environment Solutions is tasked with developing and implementing its innovation strategy, becoming an inter-mediator, serving the energy innovation community as the energy and environmental technological arm of the government, and investing in research and technology.

Under an emissions cap system, emitters that cannot meet the regulated target must either purchase emissions rights from others or pay a penalty. This additional cost impairs their competitiveness, but the cap on emissions protects the environment. If the cap regulation includes the opportunity to purchase an offset, the cost can potentially be reduced. Including a technology payment in the emissions cap approach, as is the case in Alberta, potentially addresses the competitiveness issue more directly through technology development. If the funds are set aside for technology investments rather than being returned to energy consumers or taxpayers, those investments can contribute to cost reductions for existing technologies, or support the development, commercialization, and implementation
of new, lower emissions technologies. This path has the potential to restore competitiveness more rapidly and may even make companies more competitive. It can also produce innovations that are marketable worldwide, thereby creating new business opportunities for Canadian companies.

Linking the base revenues for technology funds to emissions provides a direct and useful link between the sources of emissions and potential solutions. This link can be used to supplement the other measures described above and to reduce the economic dislocations that might otherwise accompany long-term emissions reductions.

The economic impacts are expected to be significant. Identified spending over the five-year period will total $11.8 billion, the bulk of which will be in Alberta ($6.1billion) and Ontario($1.97billion), the two provinces with the largest GHG emissions.

Blog Archive