As we’ve reported, SkySails has developed enormous kite-like sails that can cut fuel usage and reduce the carbon emissions of cargo ships up to 30 percent by switching to wind power when conditions are right. According to the company’s managing director, Stephan Wrange, the Beluga ship used 20 percent less energy over the course of the journey than it would have without the sails. The technology has also caught the attention of the European Union, which kicked in 1.2 million euros to outfit the ship as part of its LIFE program to combat climate change.

So far, the auxiliary power system appears to be a win-win. Bremen-based Beluga Shipping CEO Niels Stolberg praised SkySails’ ability to save both carbon emissions and fuel costs–up to $1,000 per day if the wind conditions are just right! The man who captained the ship on its nearly 12,000-nautical-mile journey declared that the voyage signified the opening of “a new chapter in the history of commercial shipping.” Looks like all those sailors of old really were on to something.

Senator Obama disclosed his earmarks for fiscal 2008 on his web site last year, and this (decidedly porkier) package of earmarks continues to demonstrate his commitment to technology that can reduce carbon emissions and help curb global warming. Hat tip to this post on Griper Blade, which alerted us to his record.

Included in the package is $5 million for Chicago State University “to develop a sustainable and portable power system for military operation,” and $750,000 for the Illinois Institute of Technology to “solve critical research and development challenges directly related to achieving energy independence through environmentally friendly, commercially feasible approaches.”

And among the largest sums he approved, $6 million, goes to the Midwestern Regional Climate Center to provide “solutions to specific climate problems in economic and environmental areas such as agriculture, energy, risk management, transportation, and water resources.” Not exactly the famous Bridge to Nowhere. Don’t earmarks sound a little better when they’re tinted green?

The vehicle will store the air in carbon-fiber tanks and will be able to fill up from an air compressor in as little as three minutes (or using regular electricity and an on-board compressor in four hours). According to the designers, the car will get about 120mpg on longer journeys, and even better in towns.

But before we proclaim that the alternative fuel answer has been blowin’ in the wind, a closer look at the OneCAT’s technology is in order. The car does claim zero emissions while “in town,” but in order for the car to be truly useful (especially in the U.S.), it needs a significant range.

Negre claims he has boosted the car’s range up to 100 km, but in order to do this a burner has been added to heat up the air between the tanks and the engine to provide a power boost. The burner runs on — you guessed it — liquid fuel, which is yet another example of the disappointing trend of alternative fuel vehicles shifting the burden on carbon emissions to other sources outside of the car.

Still, Negre’s vision for shaking up the automotive industry extends beyond the technology to the entire manufacturing and distribution process. Tata is thus far the only firm licensed the sell the car, and they are limited to India. Negre hopes to attract investors elsewhere who will set up their own factories and make the cars from 80 percent locally sourced materials, resulting in a major reduction in emissions caused by transporting parts.

In a move that will undoubtedly be unpopular with dealers, Negre also wants factories to sell the product directly, cutting out the middleman. All eyes will be on Tata to see if this hot air goes anywhere anytime soon.

The carmaker just announced that it will launch another model by the end of 2008, and that’s only the tip of the iceberg; it plans to launch one new vehicle every calendar year. And a company spokesman says Reva will ramp up its annual production from 6,000 to around 30,000 vehicles in the next six months.

The company can thank its first mover advantage, a low price tag and a keen sense of targeting emerging markets for its early success. If you haven’t heard of Reva, you’re about to. The Bangalore-based company’s cars are getting popular in congested urban areas (like Delhi and London), and are gaining traction in island destinations (like Cyprus), where vehicles with shorter ranges and low environmental impact are particularly attractive.

With the governments of Italy, Japan and the UK offering strong incentives for buyers of EVs (the US is catching up, and Reva is testing that market as we speak), Reva is looking to the future. It’s researching lithium ion and lithium polymer batteries to extend range and increase performance. And its cost is relatively low — $9,000 for a range up to 80 kilometers (about 50 miles) per battery charge, according to the New York Times.

While Reva may be news to you, a few on our shores have been aware of the company’s potential for years. Reva got its start in 1994 as a joint venture between the Maini Group India and California-based AEV LLC, and after an extensive R&D period, its first commercial vehicle went to market in India in 2001. More recently, Draper Fisher Jurveston invested in the fledgling brand, and led a $20 million round of financing for the company in 2006. Founder Tim Draper sits on the company’s board of directors.

But if Revas come to the US, who will buy them? As with all EVs, eco-conscious early adopters will surely line up, but unlike the models we’ve seen so far, Reva will likely attract those with a bit of flair–with a convertible model and “over 2000” color shades to choose from, tricking out your little Reva might provide that playful edge that moves EVS into the mainstream.

This week’s Economist brands new so-called “ultracapacitors” a potentially “disruptive technology” for the 21st century, one that could actually supplant rather than just supplement traditional car batteries. Did someone say time-travelling Delorean?

The news is that while capacitors have traditionally been used for quick bursts of speed, rather than endurance, ultracapacitors differ from traditional ones in that they can potentially match a battery in both areas. That’s thanks to new technology that uses interactions of positively and negatively charged ions coupled with an electrolyte instead of static charges. This development gives capacitors 5 percent of a battery’s storage capacity, but in order for ultracapacitors to seriously challenge batteries, that number needs to be much higher.

Scientists at MIT are working on a nano-engineered version that coats the surface area of the ultracapacitors with our old friends carbon nanotubes, which they claim can boost its capacity up to 50 percent of a battery. Also in the hunt is Cedar Park, Texas-based EEStor (that we wrote about here), which does away with the electrolyte and instead uses an insulator called barium titanate, which the company claims can store “very high“ levels of energy. One sign they might be on to something is that the company recently inked a deal with Lockheed Martin for its “electrical energy storage units” to be used to charge military gear once production starts later this year.

Another exciting application for ultra capacitors could be in recharging electric cars, a process which until now has been painfully slow. Refilling capacitors in the same way you top off the tank at the gas station would make electric vehicles much more practical and attractive. Canadian electric car firm called Zenn has signed a deal with EEStor to replace the current lead-acid batteries in its small urban vehicles with the EEStor units, in hopes of making its cars highway ready.

All of this sounds promising, but whether ultracapacitors can really unseat the mighty battery remains to be seen. The conversation, however, has been started, and battery technology is going to be forced to adapt to catch up.

Bertilsson and other researchers believe that the levels of methane vary depending on what the animals eat, so 20 lucky Swedish cows will be fitted with collars that measure the methane in the air around them and fed a variety of diets. And lest you think this is a purely Scandinadivan theory, check out what the Japanese are doing.

A research team at Obihiro University of Agriculture and Veterinary medicine in Hokkaido recently found that feeding cattle an amino acid called cysteine significantly cut the rate of methane emitted in their belches. The Japanese team claims that feeding cows this chemical does nothing to harm milk quality; they’ve even applied for patents in the U.S. and elsewhere for their findings. Yet another sign that environmental researchers are leaving no stone unturned in the fight against climate change.

Portland, Ore.-based GreenPrint said today it’s making the paper- and ink-saving software available free for download for home users worldwide. “Our goal is nothing short of ending wasteful printing worldwide,” 30-year-old CEO Hayden Hamilton said in a press release (Hamilton was featured in the latest version of Inc. magazine‘s annual “30 Under 30″ hot list).

The software analyzes every page you print, and eliminates wasteful extra pages and unwanted images. It also features a print preview called GreenView, and keeps a running report on how many pages, how much money, even how many pounds of greenhouse gases you’ve saved every time you print. It could add up: The company estimates that using this software will save the average person $90 and 1,200 pages a year.

That’s great for you, but how is three-year-old GreenPrint making any money? The free software is only part of the picture. The company also makes several licensed versions of the software which include more features and costs around $75 for the corporate product, $35 for home version. Unlike those versions, the free GreenPrint World does include advertising (although GreenPrint says it donated that space to its environmental partners and “organizations it feels are doing important work with health care in the developing world”).

According to a recent profile of Hamilton, he started the company with $200,000 of his own money from savings and friends, and GreenPrint turned a (very) small profit in 2006. GreenPrint is optimistic about its future. Hamilton points out that ink, per gallon, has turned into one of the costliest materials on the planet, so maybe it makes sense to start cutting back on that other black liquid that keeps our businesses churning.

All those shipping materials add up — last year, New York City’s Department of Sanitation reported a 21 percent jump in the amount of cardboard and mixed paper left on the curbs. And in big cities like New York, where many people do their shopping by mass transit anyway, the fuel savings of not hitting the stores can be pretty negligible. That isn’t to say that people who go to stores don’t then go on to ship their goods, it’s merely an illustration of how going online doesn’t automatically equal going greener.

Where there’s a collective will (and money to be made), there’s a way: lately, an increasing number of choices for the eco-conscious online shopper have been popping up. Sites that sell environmentally friendly goods, like Ecomall and Gaiam, have been around for years, but not everyone wants to make a statement with their gifts, nor do they want to hear little Johnny complain when he gets a Nalgene bottle instead of an iPod.

An interesting new option is EarthMoment, which was launched in October, and bills itself as a “carbon offset comparison shopping site.” The brainchild of Ogden publishers (Utne Reader, Mother Earth News), it’s teamed up with over 1,000 companies to offer 15 million different goods from major retailers including Apple and Borders. If you end up buying something through the EarthMoment site, the retailer pays them a commission, half of which they invest in carbon offsetting (managed by CarbonFund.org). Now you can feel a little bit better about adding that extra gift and having it shipped to yourself.

AgraQuest plans to use the infusion to bring five new products to the U.S. market over the next two years — including an insecticide, a fumigant, and a biofungicide — as well as to stake a bigger claim overseas. As CEO Mike Miille said in a press release, “Global demand for biopesticides in general, and AgraQuest’s products specifically, is accelerating. As a result, the investment community is enthusiastic about our prospects.”

And for those of you who question whether killing bugs in an eco-sensitive manner is really worthy of such fanfare, the company points you to a recent report from BCC research that estimates the global biopesticide market will be worth $1 billion by 2010 — which, frighteningly enough, is a mere two years away. Just another sign that big agriculture is getting a global overhaul, and smart greentechers are seizing the moment.

Five of the ten are based right here in California. And quite a few we’ve covered in the past. What’’s in it for the winners? Well, aside from being invited to participate in the WEF for two years, including the high-profile annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, past winners have also seen a boon financially. And the winners are:

• GridPoint- Washington, DC:
  Presidential hopefuls have been talking a lot lately about “smart grid” systems that help utilities store and discharge energy according to demand. GridPoint sells software and hardware to create an intelligent power-grid — think what Cisco (CSCO) did for networking — enabling intelligent distribution and optimization. We interviewed CEO Peter Corsell back when the company raised a $48.5 million Series D round, led by Goldman Sachs Group (GS) and Susquehanna Private Equity Investments.
• Nanostellar – Redwood City, CA:
  We noted Nanostellar back in August when news came out that the company was raising a $3 million bridge round. The startup uses nanotechnology in the automotive industry, making materials for diesel catalysts that cut emissions, and boosting the performance of catalytic converters which reduces pollution.

• Cima NanoTech – St. Paul, MN:
  Cima NanoTech uses nanotechnology primarily to improve conductivity of electronic components, which reduces energy usage. Some of its products are conductive inks for inkjet and conventional printing of electronics.
• FluXXion – Eindhoven, The Netherlands:
  FluXXion makes membranes as thin as a single micron that filter liquids for the semiconductor industry, increasing efficiency and reducing waste.
• Hycrete – Carlstadt, NJ:
  Hycrete makes water-based additives for concrete that allow the material–which currently accounts for up to 15% of US landfill waste–to be crushed and recycled. Green building startups like Hycrete, Serious Materials and Xtreme Homes are are constructing their businesses off of a growing interest in reducing the energy usage that goes into creating our homes and businesses.
• LS9 – San Carlos, CA:
  LS9 is one of Vinod Khosla’’s biofuel bets, and the startup uses synthetic biology to develop biofuels from traditional feedstocks that contain more energy than current biofuels, require less energy to produce and can be distributed through the existing petroleum infrastructure. The company has raised $20 million in 2 rounds from Khosla Ventures, Flagship Ventures, Lightspeed Venture Partners.
• Primafuel – Signal Hill, CA:
  Primafuel invests in infrastructure and technology for large scale biofuel projects. The company develops processing equipment, and is working on a biofuel-convertible feedstock that grows in water. With corn-based ethanol dominating the discussion of the current biofuel market, biofuels have been getting more controversial, but companies like Primafuel are focusing on the next generation of more sustainable biomass-based fuels.
• Silver Spring Networks – Redwood City, CA:
  The company provides networking platforms for utilities to connect various energy-related technologies, from monitoring devices to storage and energy-efficient appliances. Like GridPoint, Silver Springs Networks is working on making the power grid as smart as the Internet.
• Unidym – Menlo Park, CA:
  Unidym makes carbon nanotubes for electronics such as lighting and displays, and is working with partners on portable fuel cells. The technology has also been linked to ideas as futuristic as the space elevator.
• SkySails – Hamburg, Germany:
  We noted SkySails as an alternative to some of the dirty practices of the shipping industry. The company makes giant kites to help propel cargo ships while greatly reducing fuel costs and emissions.

Luckily, there’’s an alternative to uncorking that Raid bomb: non-toxic pest control. SpringStar, a nine-year-old start-up based outside of Seattle, has developed an array of earth-friendly products for home and agricultural use that are built around natural insect attractants and adhesive traps instead of poisons. Specific traps are available for everything from cockroaches to mosquitoes to garden slugs.

The traps don’’t always kill — depending on the nature of the insect, beneficial ones (such as Asian ladybugs) are spared, while more onerous ones (fleas) meet “a sticky end,“ according to the product’ literature. A few products are even designed to attract more (good) bugs, such as the “Fruit Booster,” which mimics the queen bee pheromone to attract more beneficial honeybees.

SpringStar’ founder Michael Banfield first got into the field in the late 1990s. When other companies were looking to ban pesticides altogether, Banfield instead focused on natural bacteria-based fungicides and pheromone-based insect attractants to control pests without harming the environment.

As another sign that green industry now involves more than just producing an earth-friendly product, SpringStar says that all of its disposable products are either recyclable or compostable, and everything is developed and manufactured here in the U.S. Other than hitting that cockroach with your shoe, they may well be offering the greenest way to keep pests under control.

We wrote about the opportunities for eco-shipping containers a few months ago. The source of most cargo ships’ pollution is their source of power — residual fuel oil, a.k.a. bunker fuel, which is about as dirty as they come. Bunker fuel is the “tar-like sludge” that remains after petroleum is refined. The heavy metal-laden goo is collected from the bottom of distillation towers that process crude, making it cheap for shippers — less than two-thirds the rate of marine-gas oil, according to the WSJ — and a boon for refiners, who can sell of their excess waste.

While this exchange works out nicely for those two parties, the losers in the deal are the rest of us. Environmental Science & Technology (the journal of the American Chemical Society), published a study this month that estimated air pollution from ships is causing 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung-cancer-related deaths a year, chiefly along trade routes.

What’s the answer? The international nature of the industry makes regulation difficult. Imposing restrictions on fuel emissions in one zone could just prompt shippers to shift routes to another. Or, worse, they could switch between the dirty fuel and its cleaner cousin at sea, a dangerous process that could cause engines to stall and ships to drift helplessly into obstacles.

But the (admittedly biased) International Bunker Industry Association is quick to point out that introducing regulations to switch all ships over to distilled fuel from bunker fuel would require refineries to produce an extra 12 million barrels of oil every day, which is more than Saudi Arabia cranks out. Hmmm. Well, then how about just regulating the ships’ speed? An executive for one Hong Kong-based shipper told the Journal this would merely result in adding more vessels to the fleet to keep up with customer demand.

There are a few rays of (green) light shining through all this bad news. An Oslo-based group has designed a concept ship that would harness the sun, waves and wind to produce zero emissions, and Germany’s SkySails claims that the use of large parasails can reduce fuel costs by 35 percent. And let’s not forget those who are focused on reducing the environmental impact of the rest of the ship, such as the makers of the bamboo-lined containers we reported on earlier this year. Attacking this issue from every angle will not only improve our planet, it will produce tremendous opportunities for enterprising greentechies on land and sea.

Like her fellow Democratic hopeful Barack Obama, Hillary calls for a cap-and-trade system that aims for 80 percent emission reductions by 2050, and also auctions 100 percent of pollution credits. In terms of electricity, she wants 25 percent of it to come from renewable sources by 2030, and her bold plan for biofuels will raise a few eyebrows — 60 billion home-grown gallons by 2030.

Ever on the more pragmatic (others would say conservative) side than her fellow Democratic candidates, Hillary’s plan hinges on the very realistic mission of increasing efficiency, but the scale is ambitious. She borrows Al Gore’s Connie Mae program idea that would help Americans finance energy-saving home projects (the NY Times reports she consulted with the man himself for her speech). She wants to modernize utility grids, promote clean coal, and raise fuel standards to a significant 55 mpg by 2030 (realizing Detroit is a little behind the curve in this area, she promises $20 billion to our automakers to help meet the challenge).

Will she show greentech the money? Early indications are promising. Clinton’s plan would raise piles of cash from rescinding tax breaks for oil companies and the aforementioned pollution credit auctions, and in turn double spending on energy R&D, make the production tax credit for wind and solar permanent, and offer special bonds to individuals and industries for efficiency investments.

Her $50 billion Strategic Investment Fund (that we’ve written about before) would raise one-third of the $150 billion in spending she’s proposing. It’s ambitious, but by now we think she’s used to hearing that word.

In Washington, there would be a new “National Energy Council” (which would presumably spend the first few years hashing out all these details), and all federal buildings designed after 2008 would have to be zero emissions. All in all, Clinton’s plan could create five million new jobs, many of them “green collar” jobs designed to promote the green building industry. If the talk becomes the walk next November, the cleantech industry and the planet may have something to cheer about.

Caldeira cites the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, a volcano in the Philippines that erupted in 1991, as evidence his theory works. “The eruption resulted in sulfate particles in the stratosphere that reflected the sun’s rays back to space, and as a consequence the earth briefly cooled,” he writes. So, is this for real?

We asked Stephen Stretton, a researcher at Cambridge University’s Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research. He says that the idea is not entirely new. British futurist James Lovelock proposed something similar in his 2006 book Revenge of Gaia, though instead of sulpher Lovelock researched using dimethylsulphide produced by plankton. The idea also may be more complicated than Caldeira’s article implies.

One issue is that on a local level, it could change the climate in unpredictable ways. Sulphur over land will produce acid rain. “Global Warming isn’t the only problem,” Stratton told us:

“Ocean acidification is probably impossible to geo-engineer because of the huge volumes involved. And unfortunately, the critical systems such as the Amazon and the Arctic are driven by local effects too–for the Amazon, East-West Transpiration cycles and deforestation, for the Arctic factors such as methane from permafrosts and clathrates. So we really need to plan and predict ahead much further than we are really capable of doing at present and to interrupt any process.”

An imperfect solution, surely, but one that is begging for further exploration. Our bet is that you can expect to hear about cleantechers inventing a delivery system for stratospheric sulfites in the near future.

The solution is clean-burning stoves, and a sustainable business plan to get them where they’re needed. Enter the Shell Foundation, an independent UK-based charity established by Shell Group (RDS) in 2000. The foundation is partnering with Envirofit, a four-year-old nonprofit with ties to Colorado State University’s Engines and Energy Conversion Laboratory, to develop, market and distribute new clean-burning stove technology.

Envirofit’s market plan does not rely on donating or subsidies; rather, it relies on consumer-focused market mechanisms to drive demand. The Shell Foundation, itself business-focused, has committed $25 million over five years to bring 10 million clean-burning stoves to the market, with an initial focus on India.

However, the major Republican candidates have come out and made statements about where greener innovation stands on their priority lists, and what areas they are likely to bolster if elected. Here are the men that we are voting “most likely to fund cleantech”…

Mike Huckabee: Probably not going to win, but wins our cleantech vote.

Yes, I know we said “major” candidates, but he’s at the top of the long-shot heap. Though he’s been polling around the 3 to 7 percent mark, Huckabee has big dreams for a greener future. He maintains that the first thing he’ll do as president is introduce a “comprehensive plan for energy independence” to Congress. He uses the strongest language of his fellow Republicans, such as lamenting how “pathetically behind the curve we are” with federal spending on energy R&D.

Huckabee vows to “remove red tape that slows innovation,” and to set aside a federal R&D budget matched by the private sector for research into alternative fuels, and then let the free market decide what is best. As for which alternatives he favors, Huckabee loves the whole laundry list: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal and biodiesel (in that order).

John McCain: Pretty good environmental record.

Sen. John McCain has called global warming one of the three key issues in his campaign. And he’s not just jumping on the post-”Inconvenient Truth” bandwagon; in 2003 McCain partnered with Sen. Joe Lieberman and introduced the McCain-Lieberman Environmental Stewardship Act, which was the first such bill to propose mandatory greenhouse gas reductions. His approach is, not surprisingly, more free-market oriented than his Democratic counterparts. For example, McCain supports cap and trade policies for polluters, but opposes a carbon tax. He also opposes subsidies for ethanol and other “mature technologies,” but his energy plan includes hefty subsidies for nuclear and coal gasification technologies.

Rudy Giuliani: Not great, but has a few key points.

Much has been made about his law firm’s ties to big oil, but Giuliani counts achieving “energy independence” as one of his “Twelve Commitments to the American People.” On his agenda are major infrastructure projects, such as more nuclear reactors, transmission lines, organizing a digital Smart Grid and constructing more renewable energy facilities. The former New York mayor also wants to see bus and truck fleets switch over to natural gas.