Tom Friedman discusses two technology companies in his op-ed column yesterday: Calera and Bloom Energy.
Friedman takes the tack that the internet is replete with “studies” either criticizing or affirming the feasibility of these firms’ approaches. But that’s not really the case.
The problem is, these companies don’t appear to be revealing very much at all about what they really have, so it is just about impossible to assess them, one way or the other. And therein lies the rub. If they really had something, they’d put it all out there. After all, they claim to have patents, which would protect them from being ripped off.
As I’ve already discussed Bloom Energy here, let’s focus on Calera. The headline on Calera’s website is:
We make coal and natural gas power plants and cement plants cheaper and cleaner than solar and wind by reducing carbon by more than 100%, in a scalable and economic way
…
As we’ve all been taught (or should have), if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. A claim of more than 100% reduction just plain sounds bad, no matter how they might try to justify it. Calera also claims on its website that, at a demonstration facility,
We have proven and the engineering firm RW Beck has independently verified that we met our goal of a minimum 80 percent carbon dioxide removal with less than 10 percent power consumption.
There should be a link to the RW Beck analysis, then, so we can see what’s up, but I don’t find it.
Being enthusiastic about technology is all well and good. But developing a critical eye is important.
Related posts:
- Cleaning Our Clocks by Being Pale Green Tom Friedman has a new OpEd piece in today’s NY...
- IGCC Power: Boon or Boondoggle? Today’s NYTimes has an OpEd piece by a journalist, Gregg...
- Cap and Trade Explanation by Duke Energy Duke Energy has a concise discussion of some aspects of...