lundi 1 février 2010

Sensors for the Smart Grid: Market  Opportunities 2010­2017  

Why the Smart Grid is an Important Opportunity for Sensor Firms

Overall, the grid infrastructure market worldwide represents about an $80‐billion a year industry with approximately $20 billion of that in the North American markets. While the transition to a more intelligent grid has already started, the current grid is dominated by a system that is mostly electromechanical in nature, radial in its layout with centralized generating capacity and one way in its communication with little or no sensor feedback to centralized decision makers.

The transition to a digital network with two‐way communication, a network topology with distributed generation, grid storage and pervasive control systems and self monitoring presents extremely attractive opportunities for sensor firms.

These opportunities can be grouped into three general areas:

  • The first is the “line infrastructure” or “transmission grid,” which consists of the transmission lines that run from the point of power generation to the substations (distribution hubs).
  • Second is the local distribution grid, which runs from the substation to the home (end user). This segment represents an overall worldwide market of about $40 billion a year, with $10 billion a year in North America. It is in this section we will also include opportunities centered on distributed generation, microgrids and variable generation sources (wind and solar).
  • The third group is the edge infrastructure, which starts at the smart meter and includes everything within the home, or office, building, etc. This segment represents an overall worldwide market of about $6 billion a year, of which $2 billion a year is in North America.

7 Types of Sensors for the Smart Grid

1/7- Wireless sensor networks for AMI:
The AMI represents the first two‐way communication between the delivery infrastructure and the end consumer. The AMI will allow the central distribution system to monitor in real time the use of each individual node on the grid and allow information about outages to be transported back to the central command structure. The AMI represents a real opportunity for the emergence of wireless smart sensor networks within the home or small business space as well as sensor opportunities for utility outage detection.

2/7- Smart voltage sensors:
Smart voltage sensors will be one of many evolving smart sensor components.
While traditional regulators at the substation and on main distribution lines are part of the current electromechanical net, voltage sensors along spurs and near the end of the line that report back on current conditions are currently rare but will become pervasive as part of the emerging smart‐grid sensor network. Currently, without end‐of‐line sensors, long distribution lines must use inefficient high voltages at the feeder distribution point to ensure that the voltage at the end of the line is never below quoted specification. The addition of smart sensors at the end of the line can report real‐time voltage data back to the feeder line so it can distribute the current at a lower voltage than it otherwise could without the sensor information, thus allowing more efficient use of the available electricity in the distribution network. This will be especially useful in rural areas with long radial lines.

3/7- Smart capacitor control:

Currently, large capacitors are used on the grid to maintain voltage and
power factor1. While the capacitors are able to react to changing voltage, current or power factor, they are not monitored or controlled remotely. The addition of smart sensors that can monitor and control capacitor banks remotely will increase the overall efficiency of the distribution network.

4/7- Smart sensors for outage detection:
In addition to smart meters, smart continuity grid sensors that can communicate with the central distribution points will improve outage detection.

5/7- Smart sensors for transformer monitoring:
Transformers represent one of the more expensive assets of local utility companies, but monitoring in general is limited to once a year manual dissolved gas analysis and periodic temperature observation with IR cameras. On‐line sensors for dissolved gas analysis and temperature monitoring with two‐way communications back to the substation represent a significant opportunity.
High‐voltage line temperature and weather condition sensors: Sensors will provide real‐time temperature and weather conditions for to improve the efficiency of high voltage distribution lines and allow more accurate dispatch of current in times of significant demand with reduced chance of outages due to line sag.

6/7- Distributed generation:
For distributed generation to be viable in the emerging smart grid, sensors for load balancing between the greater grid and the distributed generating sources will be crucial.

7/7- Smart grid storage:
Sensor opportunities are two fold for smart grid storage. There will be opportunities both in monitoring the status of all battery cells in storage banks and in load monitoring and dispatch of energy from the battery bank to the greater grid.

Source : Nanomarkets, Dec.09

EV Charging Stations: Are They Utilities or Are They Not?

The state’s big utilities are split on the issue. California’s PUC president seems to be siding with the companies that are building the charging station infrastructure. They --no surprise – would rather not be regulated as utilities.

With the first of the mass market EVs due to roll out later this year, companies that

are building the networks of charging stations to support them have been a source of regulatory contention in California – and it’s a safe bet it won’t be the only place.

The question is whether these charging stations should be treated as quasi-utilities from a regulatory standpoint. California’s three big utilities are split on the issue. The infrastructure companies that are in the middle of it all – such as Better Place and Coulomb Technologies – argue regulation could be stifling in terms of innovation and attracting investors.

The latest development is that California’s PUC president issued an interpretation of the law where he sides with the charging companies. According to a report in the New York Times, Michael Peevey wrote:

“Facilities that are solely used to provide electricity as a transportation fuel do not constitute ‘electric plant.' As such, the commission would not have regulatory authority regarding the price that an electric vehicle charging facility operator charges for charging services or other aspects of the operation of such facilities.”

But there’s more to come; the PUC chief invited utilities, automakers and the charging companies to weigh in on his interpretation – one of many issues related to EVs and grid integration that state regulators are racing to resolve. Don’t miss our just-released special issue (linked below) that covers many of these topics.


Smart Grid News, 29/01/10


From the source …

· New York Times

More from SGN …

· Special Issue: The ABCDs of EVs

· Electric Vehicle news and resources

Le marché des smartphones devrait exploser en 2010

L'explosion de la demande de nouveaux combinés multimédias moins onéreux va doper le marché du smartphone, et la concurrence devrait se faire de plus en plus féroce en 2010 avec l'arrivée de nouveaux acteurs.

Les coréens Samsung et LG, peu actifs jusqu'à présent sur ce segment, devraient accroître leur offre alors que Huawei et Dell s'apprêtent à asseoir leur présence. « Le marché des smartphones va devenir de plus en plus compétitif en 2010 », juge l'analyste de Strategy Analytics Neil Mawston.

« La guerre des smartphones est une bonne nouvelle pour les consommateurs mais elle exercera une pression baissière sur les marges des vendeurs », prévient-il.

HTC s'attend à souffrir
HTC, numéro quatre mondial du secteur, a déclaré la semaine dernière qu'il serait l'un des premiers à souffrir du durcissement de la concurrence, prévoyant un déclin de sa marge brute de bénéfice au premier trimestre 2010.

Selon Strategy Analytics, le marché des smartphones a progressé de 30 % d'un an à l'autre en décembre, pour s'établir à 53 millions d'appareils, un chiffre historique.

Le finlandais Nokia, qui continue de vendre plus de smartphones que ses deux principaux rivaux réunis – RIM, qui fabrique le BlackBerry, et Apple –, a livré 20,8 millions de modèles au dernier trimestre, soit une hausse de 38 % par rapport à la même période un an auparavant.

Soutenu par les ventes de ses appareils à clavier E71 et E72, Nokia a vu ses ventes et ses bénéfices exploser au quatrième trimestre 2009, dépassant largement les attentes des marchés.

SOURCE : 01net

ZigBee simplifie la chaîne d'approvisionnement

La norme de communication sans-fil s'étend au secteur du commerce de détail. Le but : faciliter - entre autres - la gestion des stocks, des livraisons et des commandes.

ZigBee s’est déjà attaquée à rendre les objets domestiques compatibles entre eux. La norme, qui établit un protocole standard garantissant l'interopérabilité des appareils, s'étend désormais à la chaîne d'approvisionnement dans le commerce du détail avec le lancement de ZigBee Retails Services. Secteurs qui en profiteront : "les domaines de la domotique ou du contrôle de la consommation énergétique, par exemple", explique à L’Atelier Bob Heile, président de Zigbee Alliance. Mais pas seulement. Le protocole vise aussi à faciliter la logistique, mais aussi la gestion des livraisons et des approvisionnements. "On peut imaginer d’associer à chaque colis un capteur pour savoir à tout moment où il se trouve, assurer que la chaîne du froid a été respectée etc.", explique ainsi Bob Heile.


Applications mobiles pour améliorer divers domaines
"On peut garder une trace statistique de données importantes". Une fois le produit reçu, le vendeur peut en être notifié et s’assurer ainsi que tout s’est bien passé. L'intérêt étant d'améliorer sa réactivité et par conséquent la satisfaction client. Autre domaine d’application possible : l’information en magasin. Des applications mobiles utilisant les réseaux de contrôle ZigBee existent. "En Italie certains téléphones sont équipés d’une carte SIM ZigBee", affirme le président américain. Dès lors, on peut imaginer toutes sortes de services. Comme équiper les téléphones de scanners à partir desquels ils sélectionneront leurs produits et obtiendront des informations.


Obtenir des données clients
La technologie étant par définition géolocalisée, cela pourra aussi faciliter la recherche de produits. "Les standards ZigBee permettraient ainsi d’améliorer l’expérience d’achat des consommateurs", s’enthousiasme Bob Heile. Avantage pour les gérants de l’enseigne : ils disposeront de données tangibles sur les comportements des consommateurs. Où ils se sont rendus, combien de temps ils auront passés dans tel ou tel rayon etc. "Cela améliorera l’agencement du magasin", explique-t-il. Pour rappel, le protocole permet de commander et accéder à des informations sur des produits et objets à distance. Zigbee Alliance regroupe plus de 200 entreprises parmi lesquelles Philips, Schneider Electric, Texas Instruments ou encore Emerson.

SOURCE : L'Atelier

Audience des réseaux sociaux


En France, 34,7 millions d'internautes âgés de 11 ans et plus étaient actifs en décembre 2009, soit 4 % de plus qu'en décembre 2008. Cela représente autrement dit un taux de pénétration de 65 %. Parmi cette population, 30 millions déclarent avoir accédé à Internet à domicile via une connexion haut-débit (+10 %).




Une étude mondiale réalisée par Motorola démontre que 51,4 % des internautes utilisent leur téléphone mobile pour s'informer sur les produits à acheter lorsqu'ils sont en magasin.

Outre le fait d'appeler un proche (30,8 %) ou de lui envoyer un SMS (21,3 %) ou un MMS (16,3 %), plus de 14 % des répondants à l'enquête indiquent utiliser leur portable pour chercher des informations sur le produit via Internet ou bien comparer les prix avant d'acheter. 6,9 % vont même jusqu'à finalement acheter en ligne et non dans le magasin où ils se trouvent.


Fournisseur de technologie et de réseaux pour les professionnels de l'hôtellerie, iBAHN a enregistré une hausse de 50 % des données téléchargées par la clientèle professionnelle en hôtel en 2009. Il faut dire qu'ils passent 60 % de temps en plus à surfer sur la Toile que l'année précédente.

67 % des internautes téléchargent de la musique, 60 % des vidéos et 54 % des informations.

SOURCE : Journal Du Net

VC Leaderboard: Top 25 Most Active Dealmakers Of 2009

Which venture capitalists funded the most companies last year? We went through our funding data in CrunchBase to come up with the Dealmaker Rankings below. The most active VC was Draper Fisher Jurvetson, which invested in 57 deals throughout the year by our count, followed by Kleiner Perkins (49), New Enterprise Associates (47) Intel Capital (46), Sequoia Capital (42), First Round Capital (34), and Accel (33). You can see all top 25 in the interactive table below, which is followed by another table for just the fourth quarter of 2009. Mohr Davidow and DAG Ventures broke into the top ten for the quarter. You can compare those to the tables we published for the third quarter.

The rankings are based on the number of deals each firm participated in during each time period. But you can also you can also re-rank the table by clicking on the different column headings to find the VC firms which participated in rounds with the largest total or average values. By doing that you can see that the bigger VC firms with the most capital to deploy, such as New Enterprise, Kleiner, Accel, Venrock, and Sequoia, were the most active in the bigger rounds. The fbFund, True VEntures, First Round, and Charles River Ventures dominated the smaller, earlier stage rounds. And then interestingly, firms like Benchmark, Greylock, and Highland Capital were active at both ends of the spectrum.

Click on each VC firm name in the table to get to their CrunchBase profile, which lists all of their deals. Or if you are really a data hound, you can download this Excel Workbook free of charge which includes the top 100 firms for the both the year and the fourth quarter, ranked by number of investments, as well as exits. The data also breaks out the number of investments in each category/sector as well as stage of invesment.

Most Active VCs 2009

Rank ↓
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Venture Firm ↓ # Deals ↓ W/Value ↓ Round Value ↓ Mean ↓
Draper Fisher Jurvetson 57 55 432,520,714 7,864,012
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers 49 44 929,650,000 21,128,409
New Enterprise Associates 47 47 1,166,530,000 24,819,787
Intel Capital 46 34 429,350,000 12,627,941
Sequoia Capital 42 39 572,013,896 14,667,022
First Round Capital 34 31 144,817,366 4,671,527
Accel Partners 33 32 714,289,999 22,321,562
Venrock 28 27 617,150,000 22,857,407
Benchmark Capital 26 25 340,590,000 13,623,600
Highland Capital Partners 26 26 335,870,000 12,918,076
Bessemer Venture Partners 25 25 404,929,997 16,197,199
DAG Ventures 24 23 356,200,000 15,486,956
Canaan Partners 24 23 347,619,997 15,113,912
Polaris Venture Partners 23 23 397,530,000 17,283,913
North Bridge Venture Partners 23 22 211,158,131 9,598,096
Mohr Davidow Ventures 22 22 341,199,999 15,509,090
InterWest Partners 21 20 389,510,000 19,475,500
Menlo Ventures 21 21 230,320,000 10,967,619
Sigma Partners 21 21 181,650,000 8,650,000
Greylock Partners 20 17 285,144,999 16,773,235
Charles River Ventures 20 17 179,500,000 10,558,823
True Ventures 20 19 41,850,000 2,202,631
fbFund 20 3 1,325,000 441,666
General Catalyst Partners 19 19 183,650,000 9,665,789
Foundation Capital 18 18 355,950,000 19,775,000

Most Active VCs Q4 09

Rank ↓
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Venture Firm ↓ # Deals ↓ W/Value ↓ Round Value ↓ Mean ↓
Draper Fisher Jurvetson 20 20 146,027,068 7,301,353
New Enterprise Associates 17 17 339,500,000 19,970,588
Intel Capital 17 11 142,600,000 12,963,636
Sequoia Capital 16 15 312,063,896 20,804,259
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers 15 13 376,700,000 28,976,923
Venrock 15 15 354,950,000 23,663,333
Mohr Davidow Ventures 11 11 209,099,999 19,009,090
DAG Ventures 11 10 208,900,000 20,890,000
First Round Capital 10 9 40,467,366 4,496,374
Sigma Partners 9 9 94,150,000 10,461,111
North Bridge Venture Partners 9 9 88,158,131 9,795,347
InterWest Partners 8 8 177,600,000 22,200,000
Bessemer Venture Partners 8 8 148,899,997 18,612,499
Benchmark Capital 8 8 75,300,000 9,412,500
Polaris Venture Partners 7 7 252,800,000 36,114,285
Domain Associates 7 7 153,057,968 21,865,424
Lightspeed Venture Partners 7 7 141,500,000 20,214,285
Atlas Venture 7 7 105,177,000 15,025,285
Shasta Ventures 7 7 60,894,999 8,699,285
Canaan Partners 7 6 55,619,997 9,269,999
SoftTech VC 7 7 20,750,000 2,964,285
HBM BioVentures 6 6 228,000,000 38,000,000
Khosla Ventures 6 6 116,150,000 19,358,333
General Catalyst Partners 6 6 80,000,000 13,333,333
Enterprise Ireland 6 6 44,380,000 7,396,666


Source: Techcrunch

Will China Eat America’s Lunch in Cleantech?

In the State of the Union Address last Wednesday, President Obama said “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy and America must be that nation.” At the same time, on the other coast, 75 clean energy investors, entrepreneurs, and researchers were debating whether the U.S. can gain this leadership position. They agreed that even though Silicon Valley leads the world in technology, it is not clear if it will ever lead in Cleantech. The Valley may develop some breakthrough technologies, but without government help these are unlikely to translate into global leadership. The technology world is rightfully allergic to government assistance and intervention. Cleantech is different, however, and we aren’t dealing with a level global playing field.

The Knowledge Economy Institute Leadership Summit, which I attended, was held at the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI), in Emeryville, California. The question posed: what will it take for the U.S. to achieve global leadership in the clean-energy economy? The group concluded that the U.S., by far, has the strongest innovation platform in the world. But other countries may well reap the benefits of its research efforts. China, in particular, is making massive investments and has a huge advantage from focused policy and large markets. Even though China is not likely to produce its own innovation, it will continue to appropriate U.S. technology and gain a major advantage by combining this with its manufacturing prowess. American firms which are increasingly choosing to build design and manufacturing operations in China will provide it with additional advantage.

What will it take for America to lead? Despite decades of dominance in technology innovation, America has a dilemma in the clean-energy economy. Most entrepreneurs aren’t getting the support needed, and we are unable to translate research discoveries in our universities into profitable businesses that attract high levels of investment, make lots of money through manufacturing, and create jobs.

There are two problems with university research – the system for commercializing discoveries doesn’t work well, and there is no clear path-to-market for new technologies which do make it out the door. I’ve written about these problems and I prescribed some workarounds. JBEI is a bold experiment to fix some of these problems the right way. It brings together researchers from different disciplines with business. And it has a practical focus on solving real-world problems.

Centers like JBEI may produce major breakthroughs in technology. But that is when the next set of problems kick in both for university research and for entrepreneurs – clean energy is different than other technologies. Startups typically need hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and scale up technologies. Investors don’t see steady, strong and growing markets. So, few are taking the risks and making the big investments.

U.S. policy is not as aggressive as other countries in creating sustainable markets, investing in commercialization, or promoting manufacturing. Take, for example, Japan’s Sunshine Project and related initiatives that have consistently driven that country’s clean-energy policy since 1974. Japan has succeeded in building infrastructure, markets, and technology companies that help meet national energy security goals for the long-term. The U.S. has not.

Contrast this with how U.S. government responded to challenges to its semiconductor industry by rallying behind it and keeping a significant value piece here. How do we keep our innovative clean-energy companies and their design and manufacturing operations in America?

We need to learn from other countries. In industries like Cleantech, success depends upon consistent and reliable government policy that links market supply and demand over the long-term. U.S. policy has been cyclical, unilaterally focused on petroleum, and unrealistic about the value of short-term subsidies and support. American startups suffer from inconsistent pricing-signals that make investors wary. As investment cycles wax and wane, small companies lose top talent and are unable to recruit it back when funding begins to flow with the next cycle upturn.

Policy makers need to look at things that affect pricing. Energy is a commodity and it is all about cost. The energy sector is undifferentiated. Startups compete with large incumbent firms. Moreover, clean-energy technology often has a deceptive fit with current industry and markets. Take biofuels, for example. The high ratio of bulk-to-fuel, distributed biomass sources, and inherent chemical variation dictate smaller-scale and more regional patterns of development and deployment than for petroleum.

Consumers are key. Consumer perceptions of energy prices have potent effects on the market. China figured this out. In addition to subsidizing manufacturing, it is training thirty thousand salespeople to sell new clean technologies to consumers. In the U.S. energy is just too cheap, so consumers don’t see the benefits of Cleantech. Rebates and short-term subsidies just aren’t creating long-term demand. As a result, entrepreneurs trying to build companies on energy efficiency are finding it hard to stay afloat. The demand and growing markets are just not there.

Will America meet President Obama’s call for global leadership in the clean energy economy? Not likely if Congress and state governments don’t make it a lot easier for startups to attract investment and a lot more attractive to manufacture here. Governments need to coordinate comprehensive, long term energy policy – now.

Editor’s note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. Follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwa.

Source: Techcrunch