antennagroup.com

My late brother, who used to work in the agriculture industry in California’s Central Valley, liked to tell the story of the local farmer who made a small fortune growing okra. Realizing that the farmer was onto a good thing, his neighbors all started growing okra too. The result? They flooded the okra market and lost their shirts.

Something of the same story was expressed at an Innovative Energy and Environmental Technology Workshop earlier this year on “Power Generation from Sustainable Biomass in New Jersey.” For those who aren’t aware of it, New Jersey is the garbage capital of the nation, perhaps even of the world. A Rutgers study on biomass (http://bioenergy.rutgers.edu/biomass-energy-potential/njaes-biomass-assessment-finalreport.pdf) noted that New Jersey produces an estimated 8.2 million dry tons of biomass annually, about 75 percent of which is produced directly by the state’s population. According to the study, much of this (5.5 million dry tons) can be used to produce energy in the form of power, heat or liquid transportation fuels. As one presenter at the conference said, “It’s amazing how much biomass is out there, and nobody is harnessing the power.”

But if the conference, held at the Rutgers EcoComplex in Bordentown, is any indicator, a lot are thinking about it. And while the prospect of producing power from an underutilized resource such as garbage holds great allure, the cloud in this rosy picture is the okra problem: if everyone decides to get into the act, the economic edge evaporates. Right now, this plentiful resource is better than free — garbage haulers will actually pay biomass companies to take it off their hands. But what happens when everyone jumps on the bandwagon? As Gearoid Foley of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Mid-Atlantic Clean Energy Application Center asked, “Will my tipping fee still be $70 a ton if everyone else is doing it?” The same is true of other alternative energy resources that are now viewed as ripe for the plucking. Wood pellets, for instance. Like garbage, wood pellets are viewed by many as a cheap and abundant energy resource that can be used for heating, electricity generation or liquid transportation fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

But when the law of supply and demand goes into effect, wood pellets will no longer be cheap. In fact, it’s already happening. A strong market for American wood pellets has developed in western Europe, which views wood pellets as a carbon neutral substitute for coal. Countries such as Sweden, Austria and Finland are using wood pellets from Maine and the Southeast for household heating and large-scale electricity generation. The demand from Europe for wood pellets is expected to triple between 2010 and 2020. Add increased demand in the United States to the exploding demand in Europe, and an okra situation could develop.

No matter. The history of energy use is one of successively identifying, exploiting and exhausting a series of energy resources: from whale oil to Middle Eastern petroleum. If the price of garbage or wood pellets becomes too expensive, the invisible hand of the market will identify another potential resource. Algae anyone?

— Stefanie Matteson

The biofuel industry is one defined by dynamism, creativity and constant innovation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the arguments put forth by the some of industry’s critics.

Since the implementation of the first Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) in 2007, which mandates what percentage of U.S. fuel is to be derived from renewable sources, the biofuel industry has evolved at a rapid pace, with commercial-scale advanced biofuels plants (plants that produce biofuels from non-food sources) slated to come online starting next year.

Even ethanol, the granddaddy of biofuel technologies and the most heavily criticized biofuel, has made great strides in production techniques, improving process efficiencies and yields while reducing its carbon carbon footprint.

During this same period of technological innovation, however, arguments put forth by the biofuel industry’s most vocal critics have remained stagnant and repetitive, failing to account for advancements made within the industry and in ethanol production. Corn ethanol, which accounts for a significant majority of the renewable fuels produced in the United States today, is an especially easy target because it uses a major U.S. staple food crop.

On July 31, the New York Times ran an Op-Ed entitled “Corn for Food, Not Fuel,” authored by two frequent disparagers of ethanol and biofuel mandates – professor Colin A. Carter from the University of California, Davis and Henry I. Miller, a public policy fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Carter and Miller posited an argument that has long been pushed by industry opponents – corn ethanol is a wasteful use of resources and it stands for everything that is wrong with government’s support for renewable fuels.

But despite the abundance of studies and figures refuting critics’ arguments, opponents are not swayed. And trust me, they really will not budge. Take a look at other pieces authored by Carter and Miller appearing in Forbes (2011), World Politics Review (2008) and the Washington Times (2007), and you’ll notice their rhetoric has changed barely at all in five years.

All of these pieces push the same core criticisms: corn ethanol policy raises the price of corn, exacerbating global problems of hunger, food security and slow economic growth; ethanol does not lower the price of gasoline or make the United States any less dependent on fossil fuels; and ethanol does not benefit the environment in any major way.

Despite the authors’ insistence to the contrary, all of the above statements represent extreme exaggerations of the facts or are simply untrue. Bob Dinneen, CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, promptly responded to these claims in his own letter-to-the-editor sent to the New York Times, where he presents a strong counterargument.

But what is most disconcerting is that these criticisms also assume a fundamental fallacy – that corn ethanol is not competitive enough without subsidies to survive in the free market, and that they are being “pushed” onto consumers and energy companies by federal authorities.

Ethanol production is an important industry in the United States, especially in regions like the Midwest, and even if the RFS were to go away tomorrow, it is likely that ethanol production would continue at a comparative volume. Statistics compiled by the National Corn Growers Association support this claim (granted, corn growers would be in favor of continued biofuels mandates, but facts are facts).

Over the past five years, ethanol production volumes have exceeded RFS requirements by 14 percent on average, and in 2011, production volume exceeded the requirement by 11 percent. Why would the industry be producing more than necessary if there was no demand? Ethanol is also selling for $1 per gallon less than gasoline, even after an ethanol tax credit expired at the end of last year, so there is a clear financial incentive to blend ethanol with gasoline.

Additionally, U.S. ethanol exports run close to 10 percent of total production. In 2011, the United States exported 1.2 billion gallons of ethanol, some of which went to countries with no biofuel requirements at all, meaning that there is a huge foreign market for the fuel that does not rely on any sort of mandate or subsidy. And finally, ethanol is a powerful octane booster that can turn sub-octane gasoline into pump-quality fuel, a serious asset for energy companies.

More importantly, however, the benefits of corn ethanol go beyond the ethanol industry itself. As more advanced biofuel technologies come online, they can piggyback off the success of the ethanol industry, and in some cases they can adapt existing ethanol production facilities into advanced biofuel production facilities. Corn ethanol has paved the way for the rest of the industry, and by spurring the federal government into action it has stimulated an entire industry, which will one day play an important role in our national energy strategy.

Ethanol is not a perfect solution to a petroleum-based economy, and I’ll admit that it does seem to have certain limitations, but it certainly is playing an important role in our energy future. Furthermore, government support for the industry has proven vital in stimulating the initial ethanol boom, which has led to our current situation, in which the industry is no longer wholly reliant on the government to survive. Feel free to disagree, but if you do, please don’t continue to recycle a five-year-old Op-Ed.

– Tomi Maxted is a Senior Account Executive at Antenna Group. Follow Tomi on Twitter @TMaxted.

As President Obama noted in his “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future,” which laid out his energy policy, a key to energy security is simple conservation. Although he has adopted an “all of the above strategy” toward boosting domestic energy production, which includes increased drilling as well as renewable energy technologies such as solar and wind, he has noted that “the easiest way to save energy is to waste less energy.”

That point was hammered home to me when my daughter recently moved out. Despite my constant hounding to turn off the lights, turn off the TV, turn off the computer, turn off the fans, stop standing in front of the open refrigerator, use cold water in the washing machine, etc., my reprimands fell on deaf ears — her deaf ears, and those of her small army of friends, who were trooping in and out all day and evening through the electric garage door, which was in continuous up and down motion. As many parents of teenagers and young adults can attest, it sometimes seemed as if I was spending all my time following her around the house turning off lights and appliances.

But despite the skirmishes over energy consumption, I was still absolutely floored when I got my June electric bill — the first after she had moved out. The household consumption for June was 616 kilowatt-hours, compared to 1,099 kilowatt-hours for May. In other words, the household’s electricity usage had been almost halved. The bill went from $174.15 to $85.04 – a monthly savings of $89.11, or 51 percent. To a penny-pinching single mother who is paying off college tuition bills, that’s a lot of money. I never calculated the difference after my son moved out, but if it was similar, which I suspect it was, I have probably reduced my electricity bill by two thirds or more. And the recent reduction would no doubt have been even greater had my daughter’s move occurred during the summer, since turning on the air conditioning unit and then leaving for the day seems to be her standard operating procedure.

Of course, I can’t really say that her departure has helped the national energy conservation effort, since she will no doubt continue to burn up kilowatt-hours elsewhere until the day arrives when she is the one who is paying the bills. But it does point out the stunning effectiveness of conservation as an energy-saving measure.

Now I’m eager to see what the difference is in my oil bill when cold weather rolls around.

– Stefanie Matteson

Denver is ground zero for the U.S. renewable energy industry this week, as ASES (http://ases.org/), the American Solar Energy Society, and the World Renewable Energy Forum (WREF) join forces for the first time to collocate in the LEED-certified Colorado Convention Center. The result? A solar conference that is breaking free from traditional PV events by happily sharing the stage with wind, storage, energy efficiency, electric vehicles and other synergistic technologies.

For those of us that have been a part of the cleantech movement over the past decade, solar has long been positioned as the heir-apparent to the energy generation challenge, with a multitude of different flavors (Si, aSi, concentrated, thin film) and applications. And while solar has unquestionably taken root, it, like the other renewable technologies, has remained virtually siloed.

Panelists discuss the market opportunities for EV and PV

So, at WREF it was encouraging to hear the solar conversations evolve beyond talk of simple PV installations and instead reveal the new avenues in which solar is fulfilling its potential in the nation’s renewable energy portfolio.

Representatives from REC Solar and Schneider Electric join the panel on the intersection of PV and EV

Yesterday gave way to insightful talks on new directions in which solar is evolving, ranging from PV’s integration with energy efficiency and demand response to solar’s emergence as a new financial asset class. I even had the pleasure of moderating a panel on PV’s growing role in the electric vehicles movement, which showcased three pioneers—ECOtality www.ecotality.com, REC Solar www.recsolar.com and Schneider Electric www.schneider-electric.com —that are driving industry collaboration. Each has achieved impressive milestones towards the creation of a new national infrastructure based on years worth of behavioral data, technical advancements and demand dynamics.

My last image of the panel was the sheer knowledge of the audience. 10 years ago most members would have struggled to decode the acronyms and techo-talk being tossed about, but today’s Q&A underscored just how far we’ve come, both as a nation and as a united industry.

- Caroline Venza

We’ve all heard about the role of biofuels in reducing reliance on foreign oil, enhancing national security, creating jobs, promoting national prosperity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, in an eloquent address to the Advanced Biofuels Leadership Conference held recently in Washington, D.C., cited these and more in his keynote address before the more than 500 conference delegates. But he also spoke of an overlooked role for biofuels: as a preserver of American values.

Vilsack noted that while much of the American population is focused on personal gain, farmers by the very nature of their occupation recognize that prosperity is a two-way street: their livelihood depends on conserving and protecting natural resources such as soil and water through those venerated American values of hard work, sacrifice, patience, self-discipline, prudence and thrift. The nation was founded and built upon agricultural values in which the role of stewardship plays a paramount role, the secretary said, noting that the agricultural community’s contribution to the nation — for instance, in terms of military service — has always been disproportionate to its numbers. (Note: I am paraphrasing his remarks.) The perpetuation of these values is now threatened by the aging of the farming community, he said. According to a recent agricultural census, the fastest-growing age group of farmers is the cohort over 65. But all of this may be changing. The growing biofuel industry promises to revitalize the farming community, attracting new blood, bringing new wealth to dying communities and restoring the importance of the heartland as a repository of American values whose influence extends throughout the country. In other words, biofuels could create a comeback for rural America.

If the trends are any indicator, Vilsack may be right. Nearly 40 percent of the nation’s corn crop is already devoted to the production of ethanol, which by mandate makes up 10 percent of the fuel we use in our cars. Biofuels are already enriching agricultural incomes. And that’s without even taking into consideration the potential impact of the cultivation of advanced (non-food) biofuel crops such as switch grass and Miscanthus that the industry is now focused on for use as feedstocks in the production of fuels, chemicals, plastics, fragrances and flavors.

The “Go Big. Stay Strong” theme of the conference was a reference to the commercialization of biofuels, with “strong” referring to the danger of becoming overextended on the path to expansion. But “strong” can have another meaning as well: namely, the role of biofuels in making the country stronger. In Vilsack’s view, biofuels hold the promise of strengthening the values of the nation so that it can continue to serve as a beacon to the world. If he’s right, the restoration of those values lies as much with the revitalization of the imperiled farming community as it does with changes in behavior or beliefs fostered by government, religion or the social order.

- Stefanie Matteson

Here at Antenna Group, our job is to communicate. A lot. Given the piles of email in my inbox, quite possibly too much.

So, last week—as part of a constant effort to freshen our thinking with outside perspectives—Antenna hosted an in-depth, no-holds-barred, two-coast cleantech pizza briefing with energy and climate analyst Jesse Jenkins. Jesse’s a friend, and also a fellow at the Breakthrough Institute as well as an editor at the Energy Collective, where he assembles the best of the web in clean energy and climate. He’s regularly featured as a cleantech commentator in leading media, and appeared on NPR’s Morning Edition just last weekend discussing Japan’s overreaction against nuclear power in the wake of Fukishima.

It was a little like sitting down with a combination of Al Gore, Steven Chu, Wikipedia, Otto van Bismarck and Ryan Seacrest. Jesse’s knowledge of cleantech is encyclopedic and visionary, with a deep understanding of how we got here and where we need to go. Jesse drew historical parallels underscoring the essential role of government in pushing clean energy innovation and market adoption, from military investment in semiconductors in the 1950s moving us toward the iPhone 4S, to government investment in shale gas drilling and jet engines sparking the cheap natural gas and reliable air travel we enjoy today. He also noted that the federal government invests $30B in NIH and $18B in NASA today, compared to just $4B in energy R&D—a sobering figure.

My favorite question—aside from “how many slices of pizza do you want?”—was from Antenna Group’s own Sarah Horn, who asked, “If you were running for president, what would your slogan be?”

Leaping to the task, Jesse unveiled his campaign bumper sticker: “Make Clean Energy Cheap.” It’s a communicator’s favorite sort of saying—short enough to tweet, seemingly simple but richly layered, honest, and—most important—sticky.

The greenest 100,000 people in the world will go for clean energy without much prodding. The rest of us need to see a pretty big payoff to overcome inertia. And no technology—or product—will stand up in the market for long without winning on the merits, which in the case of energy—a commodity—is price.

Jesse’s point: we can’t simply encourage clean energy production. We’ve got to promote clean energy cost-competitiveness. Because from the feistiest Tea Partier to the most granola-snacking Berkeley hippie, we can all agree that saving money on energy never goes out of style.

Antenna Group is the nation’s largest clean technology public relations firm, representing companies in sectors including renewable energy, energy efficiency, alternative fuels, energy storage, finance, waste management and water. Here, drawn from input provided by our client-partners, is Antenna’s list of the top 10 clean tech trends to watch in 2012. Judging from the changes that are in the offing, 2012 is shaping up to be a critical year in the transition to a cleaner, more energy-efficient world.

1. Energy efficiency goes retro – New construction has taken a massive hit over the last few years, resulting in fewer new green builds, but that hasn’t slowed retrofit demand for energy efficient devices. According to a report by McGraw-Hill Construction in 2011, 78 percent of building owners plan to retrofit existing properties with energy efficient improvements. Driven by the increased awareness in Property Assessed Clean Energy or PACE states (in which property owners can finance solar systems or energy efficiency retrofits through city loans that are paid back through property taxes over terms of 15 or 20 years), Obama’s Better Buildings Challenge and new financing models that make it simple for cities and property owners to do upgrades, expect to see energy efficiency finally claim its moment in the spotlight.
2. Cellulosic biomass comes online; drives U.S. manufacturing jobs – Imagine being able to turn a wide variety of biomass inputs including wood, agricultural waste and non-food crops into fuels, plastics, nutraceuticals (food products that reportedly provide health and medical benefits) and pharmaceuticals. That’s the promise of bio-based materials, which are expected to replace first-generation biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel, as well as a wide variety of synthetic chemicals. As strategics such as BASF Corp., DuPont and Dow Chemical Co. enter the cellulosic biomass game, watch for the number of U.S.-based biorefineries to dramatically increase.
3. Recycling finds its true potential – Many of us still remember the awareness campaigns that drove what are now highly successful changes in consumer behaviors with regard to recycling. As went paper, glass and plastics, so go consumer electronics and tires. A number of states already have legislation around recycling what consumers have deemed “waste” and are supporting efforts to renew those materials and give them second — and perhaps even third — lives. Watch for the big box, telecom, tire and asphalt sectors to pick up the sustainability baton for Recycling 2.0.
4. The EV market picks up speed, while Tesla, Fisker get some competition – While we’ve heard a lot about electric vehicles such as the all-electric Nissan Leaf and the gas-electric hybrid Chevy Volt, in fact there are precious few of these cars on the roads. But that’s expected to change in 2012 when a much wider selection of cars that require little or no gasoline will hit the market. Almost every major automaker — and some minor ones — plans to have at least one plug-in model on the market by the end of 2012. These include three models from the world’s leading seller of hybrids, Toyota — a plug-in hybrid version of the popular Prius, the all-electric Scion iQ EV and the 2012 RAV4 EV, an all-electric compact SUV. Also hitting the market in 2012 is the all-electric Ford Focus Electric, which will compete with the Nissan Leaf. Other EV models planned for 2012 include the four-passenger Mitsubishi i-MiEVc, and — for the luxury loving — the Rolls Royce 102EX, the Tesla Model S luxury sedan and the Fisker Karma luxury sports plug-in hybrid. Accompanying the EV rollout will be a dramatic expansion of the national car-charging infrastructure, with Pike Research, a clean tech market research firm, predicting more than 1.5 locations by 2017.
5. Smart meters reach critical mass – For decades, utilities have been forced to rely on customer reports to discover a power outage. This decidedly low-tech approach to reliability is now changing with the national deployment of smart meters that record the consumption of electric energy in intervals of an hour or less, communicate data back to the utility and allow consumers to better manage their electricity usage. And, the national deployment of smart meters is forging ahead: according to federal sources, the current penetration rate is 13 to 18 percent, with a penetration rate of more than 50 percent predicted by 2016.
6. Offshore wind takes root in the Northeast – While small wind continues to grow, the greatest potential for the significant generation of energy from wind lies with offshore wind. Much of the eastern seaboard is ideal for offshore wind as a result of the fact that the relatively shallow waters of the continental shelf make it easier to locate wind turbines far offshore where the winds are the strongest. A 25-megawatt wind farm off the coast of Atlantic City, N.J., which is expected to be the nation’s first, is now moving ahead, and the Garden State can look forward to the construction of larger offshore wind farms with the implementation of the nation’s first OREC, or Offshore Renewable Energy Certificate, a wind incentive similar to New Jersey’s innovative Solar Renewable Energy Certificate, or SREC, which propelled the state to second place nationally after California in solar capacity and inspired similar incentives in many other states.
7. Dropping balance-of-system costs nudge solar closer to grid parity – As a result of a dramatic decline in module prices (prices dropped approximately 40 percent in 2011 — a decline that is expected to continue through 2012), attention has shifted to solar balance-of-system (BOS) costs, a term that refers to costs other than those of the modules. While BOS costs include physical components such as inverters and racking, the largest share of BOS costs is for non-physical costs such as labor and permitting. These costs are also expected to decline in 2012 as a result of industry consolidation resulting from the expiration of the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program. The solar boom stimulated by the grant attracted many small installers (the “two Chucks and a truck” phenomenon) who will be replaced in a maturing market by larger players who will bring improved operating efficiencies to the industry, nudging solar closer to grid parity.
8. Distributed solar continues to thrive – While debate continues on the role of utility-scale photovoltaic systems in the nation’s energy mix, the small- to mid-sized commercial solar segment has witnessed explosive growth, particularly on flat-roofed commercial buildings that are ideally suited to the deployment of solar. New Jersey, for instance, where strong solar incentives and high energy prices have contributed to a robust local solar industry, has now outpaced California as the nation’s top commercial solar market, thanks to a high concentration of such buildings. In addition to reducing electricity costs and providing a hedge against future rate increases, distributed — or “behind-the-meter” — solar also has the advantage of generating power at the site where it is used, thus increasing energy security and diminishing demand for utility infrastructure. The U.S. growth pattern in commercial solar is mimicking what has occurred in Europe, most notably in Germany, the world’s solar leader, where the German Solar Energy Industry Association estimated in 2009 that 80 percent of capacity was roof-based.
9. Grant-to-tax credit shift means more third-party ownership of solar systems – The introduction of the federal Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program as a substitute for a federal Investment Tax Credit in 2009 created a change in the form of ownership for most commercial solar systems. Prior to the implementation of the treasury grant, which covers 30 percent of the cost of solar, most commercial systems were owned, operated and maintained by third-party investors with the tax appetites to monetize the tax credit. These investors typically sold the power back to the host entities at reduced rates under a long-term contract called a Power Purchase Agreement, or PPA. In addition to requiring no capital outlay, the benefits for the host entities included a fixed rate, a smaller carbon footprint and a visible renewable asset. After the implementation of the Treasury Grant Program, the form of ownership shifted, with the majority of commercial building owners taking advantage of the immediate payback offered by the grant to install and operate the systems themselves. With the grant reverting to a tax credit in 2012, however, we can expect a shift back to third-party ownership.
10. Gas-to-liquids technologies go mainstream – Gas-to-liquids (GTL) technologies, which transform natural gas into liquid transportation fuels, went mainstream with the recent completion of Shell’s $19 billion Pearl GTL plant in Qatar, an Arab emirate. The world’s largest GTL plant will process about three billion barrels of diesel, jet fuel and synthetic oil over the course of its lifetime from the world’s largest gas field. The project, which will reach full production in 2012, will add almost 8 percent to Shell’s worldwide production, making it the company’s primary growth engine for 2012. The completion of the Pearl facility is a harbinger of things to come: GTL technology is expected to play an increasingly significant role in meeting energy demand in the United States, which has some of the world’s largest natural gas reserves. South Africa-based Sasol, which also has a GTL plant in Qatar, has announced plans to build a $10 billion GTL plant Louisiana. If it moves ahead, it would be the United States’ first GTL facility. Once viewed as not economically feasible, GTL technologies are gaining traction in the face of declining oil reserves, high oil prices and increased concern about energy security.

For more information on Antenna Group, please visit www.antennagroup.com.

###

In addition to our stellar reputation for strategic cleantech communications, we at Antenna are known for throwing some amazing shindigs. And after a year full of challenges for the renewable energy industry, the phrase “work hard, play hard” never felt more appropriate.

So, along with sponsors Tioga Energy, Yingli Solar, PV Group and Vote Solar, we toasted to our perseverance as the solar industry converged in San Francisco for the Intersolar North America conference.

The Shrine at Prana was filled with 900 of our closest friends from across the industry, including C-level executives, engineering geniuses and distinguished members of the cleantech media.

Fantastic conversation, delicious food and a superb soundtrack made for a memorable evening.

Antenna Senior Vice President Caroline Venza, Senior Account Executive Christine Bennett and Account Executive Kimberly Setliff with Ellen White of 3M’s Renewable Energy Division

Yum!

Did we mention the World Cup mascot made an appearance?

Zakumi loves solar!

Many thanks to everyone who helped us make this event a tremendous success. We can’t wait to do it again next year!

by jenn.kho on April 14, 2010 on Sweat Investor

SweatInvestor Guest Post: Jennifer Kho is a San Francisco Bay Area-based freelancer with more than a decade of reporting experience. Her stories have appeared in The New York Times’ Green Inc. blog, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, MIT’s Technology Review, The Christian Science Monitor, Reuters.com, Earth2Tech and more. She has been covering green technology since 2004, when she initiated cleantech coverage for Red Herring magazine. She also helped launch Greentech Media’s news operations as its founding editor in 2007.

Sure, the Google Campfire last month announced its apps marketplace by the glow of kitschy fake campfires, under a canopy of fake tree silhouettes, in a room with a tent and campfire-logo fleece blankets as giveaways. But only the props were fake. The event was backed by a real product with 50 real customers. And, as fitting an enterprise product, it definitely qualified as a restrained launch for a company as big as Google.

Bloom Energy used some of the same tactics when it launched its fuel cells in February — although there was certainly nothing restrained about the event, which took place at eBay headquarters and included California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former U.S. Secretary of State Collin Powell. As with Google Apps, Bloom kept (mostly) quiet until its launch and then made a splash by announcing key customers, including Wal-Mart, eBay, FedEx, Staples and, of course, Google.

The result, in the case of Bloom, was a huge bang of publicity. With its star lineup of Kleiner Perkins investors and directors such as Powell, the company scored a feature on 60 Minutes and many high-profile publications followed. All the hype has sparked envy from other startups that want the same attention.

Should other startups take a page from the launch book of Bloom, Google or Apple, which also has been known to keep quiet until a product is ready (although not in the case of the iPad), and get more attention by keeping quiet?

If You’re Not Google

Well, it doesn’t always work. One major difference, of course, is that Google and Apple launches are guaranteed to be big news. As a reporter, I knew I’d attend the Campfire regardless of what was being launched – and I was sure I’d get a story out of it. And Bloom had the advantage of big newsworthy backers and partners right out of the gate. Not so for most startups.

Using stealth as a marketing strategy comes with plenty of potential pitfalls, as well. Of course, the main reason to keep a company or technology quiet is to protect intellectual property. Once patents are secured, the decision becomes one of strategy.

Melody Haller, CEO of public-relations firm Antenna Group, explains that if you’re a big company, you have two choices: One is freezing out the competition by pre-announcing products that aren’t ready yet, which is a tactic Microsoft is famous for. (Once Microsoft has announced it is entering a space, competing startups are less likely to score backing from investors or partners as they wait to see what Microsoft has in store.) The other is waiting until a product is ready before launching it, like Google does.

The Cost of Quiet

The choices aren’t the same for most startups, as speaking out is less likely to deter competitors. Keeping quiet might help artificially bolster a launch, but could have the opposite effect if the company isn’t viewed as newsworthy enough to cover. In the meantime, the company may be missing out on potential partnerships and customers that could ultimately help it succeed. “It comes at a cost,” Haller says.

The extent to which a startup should talk largely depends on how much it needs others, she explains. For example, a company with a limited customer base and good access to those customers needs far less publicity than a company targeting consumers or hard-to-reach customers. Building a reputation can help companies meet those partners, or get them to pick up the phone.

In general, if a company’s in stealth mode after patents are filed, it’s a sign its product isn’t ready yet – or it’s still working out an issue that might not stand up to public scrutiny. Personally, I tend to be skeptical if a company makes big claims while keeping its product hidden from public view. Most entrepreneurs I’ve interviewed are proud of their products and want to discover any problems early.

Public Troubleshooting

The danger of avoiding public scrutiny is the same as the danger of skipping peer review in science experiments – you could be missing a significant challenge which could end up being an Achilles heel. Once a product is launched, a company will usually have to spend more time and money to correct the problem than if it discovered the issue earlier.

By isolating themselves, startups also can end up victims of their own company cultures, Haller points out. Because startups tend to be dominated by researchers and engineers, rather than employees focused on marketing and selling products, they might focus on the science and technology and miss usability problems that their customers might face. Companies tend to be optimistic, which can be a key to success, but could also blind them to potential failures.

Finally, if startups succeed in generating huge launch buzz, it could be setting itself up for a fall if it can’t meet the lofty expectations it has (perhaps inadvertently) created. In other words, the greater the publicity, the higher the expectations – and the easier it is to plunge in the public eye.

Slow and Steady…

In the case of hardware, for example, it’s important to match publicity with the company’s ability to deliver products, Haller says. If a big launch creates more demand than a company can fulfill, customers will be disappointed when they can’t buy the product and the company could suffer a backlash, she says.

The best strategy depends on the specific product and its target audience. When the product is a free social networking tool, for example, which depends mainly on popularity for success and doesn’t face product availability obstacles, the challenges are different. In that case, it’s more important than ever to get the word out early and test the product with a beta group of early adopters while the user base grows, Haller says.

All in all, the biggest point startups can take away from Google and Apple product launches is the importance of building a company, she says. Google and Apple didn’t take shortcuts, but first built strong companies and products – then used savvy marketing strategies to get the most out of their launches. They need publicity because the success of their products depends on having users, but they deserve the buzz they get because they have – for the most part – lived up to the claims and expectations they have set, Haller says.

The Greenbuild celebration at Phoenix’s Chase Field last night was the best conference presentation I’ve seen, bar none—this from someone who’s been attending about 15 tech industry conferences a year for the past 20 years.

Why? Yes, there was the star power of Al Gore, looking trim and fit and delivering his usual inspiring talk (“We must make it easier for our elected officials to do the right thing and harder for them to do wrong.”). The concert by Sheryl Crow concluded the evening on a great note. The huge projection of the speakers was attractively winged by a split screen image of video footage of nature at work, exceptional green building projects, and people in communities. All good stuff, but what really impressed me was the presentation by the organizers—the last thing you’d usually expect to be exciting.

Rick Fedrizzi, president and CEO of the US Green Building Council declared, “We need not only change we can believe in but change we can build on. We need not only a tipping point but a leverage point.” The audience agreed: It’s time for a green building revolution. “It’s time to move from aspirational green building to informational green building.”

The zero-carbon buildings movement could solve the energy, economic and quality-of-life challenges for the world. If anything can. The 27,000 attendees, including the friendly, funny and hospitable CB Ellis brokers who shared their table and great view with me, all seemed to agree.

Still, what impressed me was the superbly coordinated presentation, first by Fedrizzi, then interweaving many more Green Building Council leaders from around the world: Australia, UK, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Mexico, Canada, Germany, Taiwan, Brazil and Italy. Each presenter was perfectly on message and smoothly handed off to the next, like the old friends and long-time collaborators they actually are.

At the heart of most conferences lies someone trying to make money. At the heart of Greenbuild is a huge and growing global network of designers, builders, policy-makers and humanists trying to make a better world. I loved every minute of it.