 
# Fuel Free!

Living Well Without Fossil Fuels

by

Thomas R Blakeslee

The Clearlight Foundation

Fuel Free!: Living Well Without Fossil Fuels

By Thomas R Blakeslee

Smashwords Edition

Copyright  2010 by Thomas R Blakeslee

All rights reserved
**On the Cover** : 20 MW Geothermal Power Plant in Guatamala. Ormat _Photo copyright Ormat Technology_

Biomass fields photo credit US Department of Energy

Note about hyperlinks: Underlined text is internet hyperlinks, many of which are listed in the _References and Links_ section at the end. They are all in the online edition at www.clrlight.org/book.pdf .

### Table of Contents

Foreword

1 The Elephant Under the Rug: Denial and Failed Energy Projects.

2. Electric Cars Make Fuel-Free Power Grid Practical

3 Nuclear Power: The Safe and Easy Way

4 The Coming Baseload Power Crisis.

5 Geothermal: Clean Base-load Power from the Earth

6 Heat is Power. Let's Stop Throwing it Away!

7 Beijing's Showcase "Clean Coal" Power Plant

8 Five Ways to Green Existing Coal Power Plants

9 Drill Baby Drill! For a Clean, Safe Energy Future

10 Invisible, Underground HVDC Power Costs Same As Ugly Towers

11 Biochar: The Key to Carbon-Negative Biofuels

12 Clean Coal: Here Now!

13 Can Biomass Replace Coal?

14 CHP Electricity Powers Cars 22 Times Farther Than Ethanol

15 Solar Power: A Gift from Space

16 Free as the Wind

17 NG Fuel Cell Cars: Twice as Efficient as Electric!

19 Importing Solar Power with Biomass

20 Restoring Degraded Soils for Carbon Credits

21 Energy Saving: Much Cheaper Than Building Power Plants!

About the Author

References and Links

### Foreword

"Fuel Free!" A rallying cry that's the opposite of "Drill Baby Drill!" It's a vision of life without fossil fuels. This vision is not a dream but an achievable plan for our future. The only breakthroughs required are political. The science is already here, but hard work is needed to develop it further and create our new reality. Powerful fossil fuel interests have been blocking these efforts for years. The time has come for transformation to bring forth this bright new, fuel free world. Instead of fighting wars for fuel we can create green jobs that will make us energy independent. The air will be cleaner and life will be better.

I wrote this book because I was frustrated by the terrible choices being made by politicians and industry in trying to deal with our energy problems. Short-term thinking, special interests and historical inertia have driven our path almost entirely. As an engineer and entrepreneur, I have developed a skill for recognizing promising approaches. I decided to look freshly at the whole energy problem and try to sort out the best solutions with a long-term perspective. Short-term thinking is what got us into this mess (and the housing bubble!)  People in the industry tend to become committed to a pet approach and then defend it religiously and irrationally. As an outsider, I felt I could take a more unbiased look at the problems to spot the best solutions.

If you search Youtube.com for "free energy," you will find an amazing collection of energy hoaxes. Pouring water into a tank and then driving a car away apparently looks like a convincing demonstration to a large part of the population. I remain open to all possibilities of magical breakthrough answers, but experience has taught me to be cautious. Any hot new field attracts an amazing number of dishonest shysters.

Generally, experience has taught me that if it seems too good to be true it probably is. For 20 years cold fusion has seemed on the verge of success. The believers hold annual conventions. I was excited to read a few years ago about a promising approach using cavitation that was about to be demonstrated. When I recently checked back on their progress I found that the inventor had been disciplined for falsifying reports.

As an investor, I have the challenge of sorting through all of the conflicting and exaggerated reports and winnowing out the ones that seem to be real. If I'm too skeptical, I'll miss the real breakthroughs. There are lots of urban legends out there about inventions that were suppressed by big corporations. Generally the powerful people can block government support, but they can't kill good ideas. If somebody really knows how to make a car run on water, they will soon be selling it, not just posting it on youtube. I'll happily put up the capital.

Addicts are often in denial about their problem and global warming denial is common. Certainly, predicting the weather is at best an inexact science, but future generations will know who was right and curse us if we fail to act. The stakes are very high.

If you're skeptical about global warming, please read on. It doesn't really matter if global warming is real, because fossil fuel addiction is killing us in many other ways: Pollution, environmental destruction, dependence on politically unstable sources, mounting debt and rising costs make it urgent that we break our addiction. If we don't, we will surely have wars in the future over who gets the remaining resources. China is already booking long-term contracts for oil supplies way into the future.

The world will never actually run out of oil. It will just get more and more expensive and environmentally destructive to extract the remaining supply. Our addiction started with the low-hanging fruit: Oil literally squirted out of the ground and oil prices were sometimes cheaper than water. As we learn how to economically harness the renewable energy sources, they will get cheaper and cheaper while fossil fuels get more and more expensive. A wind, solar or geothermal power plant may be more expensive to build now than a fossil power plant, but the future cost of fuel will be zero. The cost to fuel the fossil plants over the next 30-years will become astronomical.

Fossil fuels were once so cheap that we quickly developed wasteful ways that made us addicted to them. Now that the easy deposits have been depleted, it becomes more and more expensive and destructive to extract them from the earth. As the world population grows, the effects of the pollution they produce become more and more destructive.

The cost of controlling these pollutants is growing every day. Mercury has poisoned our fisheries and acid rain from sulfur has killed forests and lakes. Acidified oceans have damaged coral reefs all over the world. Oil sands, shale mining and mountaintop removal pollute our water and leave a wasteland in their wake. Like a drug addict whose arteries have collapsed, we have to resort to more and more painful ways to satisfy our craving.

Fortunately, there are excellent renewable replacements for fossil fuels, which have not been developed, mainly because of bad public policy driven by powerful coal and oil interests. The renewable technologies will someday be cheaper than fossil fuels if we can just get the politicians to stop protecting the fossil fuels with massive subsidies.

The voters too, have been targeted by massive PR campaigns like the warm and fuzzy "clean coal" ads. Organized PR campaigns to discredit global warming are waged by the same firms that previously sowed doubt about the connection between cigarettes and cancer. A $10,000 reward has been offered by one of those firms for writing anti-global warming research papers!

Back in 2003 I read a book called The Party's Over, that opened my eyes to our uncertain future as our supply of cheap energy runs out. Peak oil books like The Long Emergency and The End of Suburbia had me really depressed about the world's future. Gradually, as I researched the solutions, I realized that peak oil was a blessing in disguise. Our careless waste of energy has set the tone for careless waste of everything. By rethinking our lifestyle for efficiency and sustainability, we can actually live better, more satisfying lives, without ruining the planet for future generations.

The light of an incandescent light bulb is only 3% of the energy in the coal burned to light it. The other 97% is simply wasted as heat. Surely it will be fun to rethink that wasteful process and transform it to something clean, healthy and sustainable. We don't need to suffer at all, but we do need to change the way we do things. The lifestyle we have created is being emulated all over the third world with disastrous environmental results. We must show the world a better, more sustainable way.

# 1 The Elephant Under the Rug: Denial and Failed Energy Projects

At the World Renewable Energy Conference in Glasgow I recently witnessed the strange phenomenon of group denial first hand. After a paper about hydrogen-fueled cars, some embarrassing questions were asked about the practicalities of storing and delivering hydrogen to the cars. The questions were dismissed and the questioners meekly backed down. I wanted to jump in and set them straight but keenly felt the group pressure to not ruin the party. I couldn't do it!

Groupthink is a strange phenomenon resulting from our deep genetic programming as herd animals: If our peer group is ignoring the giant lump in the living room rug, we will naturally imitate their behavior and walk around the elephant hidden there. We tend to be drawn into a sort of mass hallucination where everyone conforms to an unspoken agreement to ignore the inconvenient but obvious truth. We walk around the lump without consciously seeing it.

Group denial can be dangerous. The housing bubble and the dotcom bubble are recent disastrous examples. The loan officers, realtors, journalists, investment bankers and regulators that caused the housing bubble were all blind to the developing problem as they rationalized and convinced themselves that every thing was OK. It is now painfully clear that they were unconsciously caught up in a fantasy world of denial. When you're making lots of money, it's natural to think that you must be brilliant. Your peer group supports you and nobody wants to spoil the party. It's not intentional, just human nature.

I learned a lot about group denial eight years ago when I lost millions on dotcom stocks. It seemed so certain that those hot stocks would regain their past glory. I was drawn deeply into dotcom denial. There were voices speaking the truth then, but my peer group and I kept the faith and laughed together at them.

U.S. energy policy has developed several similar delusions where people are still getting rich pursuing failed projects that should have been abandoned years ago. More than half of our US $4 billion DOE science budget is being spent to keep alive failed programs. Saving face and saving contracts has made denial the order of the day. Billions in subsidy money finance a war chest for lobbying that keeps these programs alive.

Let's look closer at the denial of fatal flaws in three major DOE programs where money is being spent recklessly and entire industries, government agencies and journalists are in group denial:

The Hydrogen Initiative: US $246 million 2009 budget

Honda now has a few beautiful, finished-looking, FCX hydrogen cars on the road. But wait! How do we produce and distribute the hydrogen that runs them? The tanker trucks that replenish gasoline stations can carry about 300 fill-ups. However, hydrogen takes up much more space and requires high-pressure cylinders that weigh 65 times as much as the hydrogen they contain! One giant 13 ton hydrogen delivery truck can carry only about 10 fill-ups! By ignoring this fatal flaw in the hydrogen economy idea we have created the illusion of success that is grossly inefficient compared to electric cars. Well-to-wheel efficiency analysis of the Honda FCX shows that the Tesla pure electric car is 3X more efficient and produces 1/3 the CO2 emissions!

Group denial makes us ignore obvious but inconvenient truths like the inherent inefficiency of the hydrogen economy. It was overlooked when the project was conceived, which is forgivable, but now denial makes us overlook it when we should know better. Batteries charged from the grid are clearly a better way to go; yet the DOE budget for battery development is less than one-fifth of the hydrogen budget.

Electrical distribution for overnight recharging is already installed in virtually every home that has a car. Batteries can store and retrieve that electricity with 95% efficiency to drive motors that are 90% efficient. Hydrogen would require a whole new fueling infrastructure. But why bother? It can't begin to compete with electricity because the efficiency of producing, transporting, storing and then converting hydrogen to electricity with a fuel cell is pathetic by comparison.

When I have a writing deadline it gives me great energy for fixing things around the house to avoid facing the real problem. That's exactly what we have done in the hydrogen initiative. We had great fun creating a nifty looking car. Now if we could just figure out a way to get fuel to we would really have something.

## Nuclear Power: US $1.4 Billion 2009 budget, $44 billion spent so far

The heavily subsidized nuclear industry died in 1979 when the Three-mile island and Chernobyl accidents made it painfully clear that the radioactive substances used were just too dangerous to be spread all over the map. Both accidents could have been much worse had a real meltdown occurred.

Denial has become easier today as memories fade it is much easier to pretend there is no problem and get on board the "nuclear renaissance." It's very similar to the recent housing bubble (renaissance), which was only possible because memories of the previous housing bubble that burst in 1990 had faded. The federal government bailout from our housing bubble may cost a trillion dollars before we are through. Amazingly, the "nuclear renaissance" is built on the promise of a similar bailout included in the 2005 energy bill: Nuclear accidents will have a maximum liability to the builder of only US $10.9 billion. If there is a meltdown, taxpayers have been generously volunteered to pay for any excess damages! Sandia estimated that damages could reach US $600 billion but we are optimistic because our memories have faded since the last disaster.

The 9/11 attacks showed us how easily a meltdown could be arranged by a well-aimed terrorist-hijacked airliner crash. In fact, if you're a terrorist, the possibilities with nuclear fuel and waste stored all over the map will be endless. The "nuclear renaissance" will be a bonanza for terrorists.

A Safe Way to Harness Nuclear Power

Nuclear elements in the earth are continually decaying, producing so much heat that the core of the earth is about 6000°C, hotter than the surface of the sun. In fact, 99.9% of the earth's volume is hot enough to boil water. We can generate all the electric power we need from that heat by simply drilling through the earth's crust and using water to carry the underground heat up to turbine generators on the earth's surface. This way we leave the dangerous radioactive elements where they are and simply use the heat they naturally generate to run our power plants.

This may sound like an impossible dream, but it is already being done profitably, producing 10 gigawatts of electricity worldwide at costs competitive with coal. It is called geothermal power generation. The source of heat in geothermal power is the decay of uranium and thorium in rocks safely sequestered underground. It is crazy is to dig these dangerous elements out, concentrate them and ship them to dangerous reactors just to boil water to run generators.

With geothermal power we boil the water by sending it down a well to the hot rocks. Steam comes out of a second well nearby and drives a turbine generator. Simple and safe! The steam is condensed and recycled, so water consumption is minimal. No pollution no dangerous waste and no fuel cost. What's the catch? Geothermal power is as cheap as coal in areas where the earth's crust is thin but drilling costs currently make it too expensive in most parts of the world. A breakthrough in drilling technology could make it practical everywhere.

Geothermal drilling is expensive mainly because we are using technology developed for oil exploration. Geothermal power requires deeper, larger holes, often through hard rock. If just 5% of the US $70 billion in federal money already lavished on nuclear power had been spent on drilling technology, we could have geothermal power virtually anywhere today. Hydrothermal spalling technology is capable of drilling five times faster through hard rock but zero federal money is available for its development. Google recently made a US $11 million investment in this technology.

No new nuclear power plants have been built in thirty years. The few plants now under construction are years behind schedule and billions over budget. Any plants in planning today will not be complete until at least 2020 and will be very expensive. With an aggressive drilling research program geothermal plants could fill our baseload power needs much sooner and at lower cost.

" **Clean Coal": US $754 million 2009 budget**

Coal power generation began a steep decline in 1983 when the horrendous pollution problems it was creating became impossible to ignore. Memories fade so denial has created a "renaissance" in coal spurred by a marvelous invention called "clean coal." This oxymoron doesn't actually exist but sounds like just the thing for solving our energy problems.

The problem is that "clean coal" will never be economical because when we burn coal each carbon atom joins with two oxygen atoms so every ton of coal we burn produces 3.7 tons of CO2! That currently amounts to nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 per year! One of the research projects budgeted for 2009 will try to sequester one million tons of CO2 per year. That's a mere fraction of the amount we need to hide!It's only 5% of what a single large power plant can produce.

Denial allows us to ignore this as a minor detail that can be worked out later. In reality the whole idea is clearly flawed and not economical. The "clean coal" initiative is a crash program to rescue a powerful industry, not a credible attempt to solve our energy problems. If we spent even a fraction of the money wasted on this boondoggle to develop advanced geothermal drilling technology we could quickly solve our energy problems and put a stop to the terrible environmental destruction being wreaked by coal.

Our energy policymaking has been hijacked by the coal and nuclear industries. They have sabotaged appropriations that have real potential for solving our energy problems and directed vast billions instead to keeping their dying industries alive. Technology could solve our energy and pollution problems if we could just free ourselves from the political stranglehold of these heavily subsidized industries.

Encouraging Update: The new DOE just awarded $338 million in stimulus funding to geothermal. Not enough but a very good start!

# 2. Electric Cars Make Fuel-Free Power Grid Practical

Internal combustion engines are inherently inefficient due to friction and pumping losses. After a century of evolution gasoline engines in cars are still typically only 21% efficient! Electric motors have no such limitations and are actually capable of 98% efficiency including electronic control losses! Why do we keep wasting our precious fuel on such an inefficient system? The answer is energy storage.

Gasoline, diesel and ethanol fuels are all amazingly compact ways deliver and store energy. Fuel has dominated our transportation sector because batteries are large, heavy and expensive compared to a simple gas tank. Classic lead-acid batteries, for example, need about 388 times as much volume to store energy as gasoline. Electric cars only need to carry about ¼ as much energy because of this efficiency advantage but that still means a lead-acid battery must be 388/4= 97 times larger than a gas tank. It's no wonder gasoline has dominated for a century. Gas tanks are cheap and gas used to be cheap, so why bother?

Lithium batteries have now evolved to a point where they are safe, quickly rechargeable and capable of outlasting a car. They still take up about ten times as much space as a gas tank, but the big remaining problem is cost. Mass production will eventually reduce cost significantly but for now the plug-in hybrid (PHEV) approach solves the problem nicely: Most cars are driven to work or on errands near home except for very occasional long road trips. By providing a gas engine and generator to extend range, a 20 or 40-mile battery capacity can efficiently handle almost all driving. The only time you buy gas is when you take a long trip.

PHEVs exist now only as Prius conversions. The 2008 bailout (energy) bill provides deductions of up to $10,000 that depend on the battery capacity. By late 2010 we will have a large selection of PHEV launches including the Chevy Volt. When the battery is exhausted, a PHEV acts just like a hybrid. The real payoff is during commutes and errands, when it is essentially a pure electric car. The Tesla roadster is the first lithium-powered pure electric car. It has 244-mile range and 0-60 time of 3.9 seconds. Fifty of these cars have been shipped to date and they have a large backlog in spite of the $109,000 price tag.

Tesla has done an excellent study of well-to-wheel efficiency comparing their pure electric to several other real high-efficiency cars. Their study shows that electric cars beat all other approaches even with our present inefficient, 50% coal-powered electrical grid! As bad as coal power is, the 4x efficiency advantage of electric motors makes electrics still cause less than half the CO2 emissions of any gasoline-powered car.

Assuming it is being powered by a modern combined-cycle natural gas power plant, the well-to-wheel efficiency of the Tesla electric is 3.56-times better than a Honda CNG running directly on compressed natural gas. It is also 3.25-times more efficient than a Honda FCX fuel cell car using hydrogen made from natural gas. It is more than twice as efficient as a Prius hybrid. Note that these ratios also apply to the amount of CO2 and other emissions released into the atmosphere. Less fuel means less pollution.

Since electric cars have zero emissions themselves all emissions come from the power plant where they are much more easily controlled. By using a mix of geothermal, wind and solar power the emissions of electric cars could ultimately be reduced right down to zero. The variability of wind and solar power normally limits their use to 20% or so of the total load. However, the large pool of storage batteries in electric cars plugged in for recharge could stabilize the grid amazingly.

The V2G (Vehicle to Grid) concept makes it possible for cars under charge to actually drive the grid when needed. V2G customers get a reduced rate because their charger actually supports the grid temporarily when there is a shortage of power. Charging only occurs when there is plenty of power available: at night or during a gust of wind that creates an excess of power. During a wind lull or when a cloud obscures the sun there may be a shortage, which can be filled in from the batteries. V2G systems are already being manufactured and are under system test in several locations.

Solar power is mostly produced around midday, yet peak usage is in the evening. Wind power builds in the afternoon and extends on into the evening well past the peak need. By defining the V2G charger logic properly, the grid will be stabilized automatically and variable renewable energy can be utilized to a much higher degree. The grid is designed to handle peak loads usually for air conditioning on hot afternoons. Since cars on charge can wait till power is available at night, no expansion of grid capacity will be needed to provide power for electric cars. An amazing bit of synergy, which makes me feel that this was meant to be: Quiet, clean, fuel-free cars — recharged by a fuel-free grid! A future I anticipate with delight.

# 3 Nuclear Power: The Safe and Easy Way

Nuclear power is a gift from nature. It can be harnessed cleanly and safely but an accident of history got us started down a path that is dangerous and unnecessarily complicated. Today's nuclear power plants were adapted from reactor designs originally intended for production of plutonium for bombs. In the 1950's this plutonium output was considered a bonus, but today it has become an out-of-control nightmare.

With 22,000 nuclear bombs already assembled, the last thing we need is more power plants that crank out more and more tons of plutonium and nuclear waste.

Uranium and thorium are distributed in the rocks of the earth. Their radioactive decay produces so much heat that it makes the core of the earth hotter than the surface of the sun! (about 6,000 °C). This heat rises to the surface unevenly with molten rock actually reaching the surface in volcanoes. In fact, all but the top .1% of the earth's volume is hot enough to boil water!

Boil water? Wait a minute! That's what nuclear power is all about! The reason we go to all that trouble digging up and crushing rocks and refining out the uranium is simply to boil water to drive steam turbines. Why not skip all that effort and danger and just use the hot rocks of the earth to boil water directly? It works! And it's called geothermal power.

Geothermal power plants cleanly and safely harness the nuclear power of uranium, thorium and potassium in the ground by using the heat they produce by natural decay. To harness that heat we need only drill through the earth's crust and send water down to the hot rocks below. When the cold water hits the hot rocks, it creates a network of fractures, which allow the water to travel horizontally to a second hole, where steam is allowed to escape and drive a turbine generator. The spent steam is condensed and recycled back down to the hot rocks again, making the water consumption insignificant.

Geothermal power plants harness the power of the atom while leaving the nuclear elements safely sequestered in the earth. Once a geothermal plant is built, there are no fuel costs so production cost is actually less than that for a coal or nuclear plant. The main cost of geothermal is the initial cost of drilling the wells.

However, man often prefers to complicate things, so we spend billions to build atomic power plants where we can localize the atomic reaction in a reactor vessel. We then go to great expense to dig up rocks and refine out the pure Uranium so we can carefully ship it to a reactor to boil water! After the reaction has boiled all the water it can, we store the dangerous residue nearby with the hope that we will someday find a safe place to hide it. This insanity illustrates wrong turns in history tend to perpetuate themselves as people vigorously defend the status quo.

An even more popular way to boil water with fuel is to blast the tops off of mountains and then dig out the carbon that was sequestered by nature eons ago. We then crush and wash this carbon and store the poisonous residue in ponds. We hope to find a way to safely dispose of this waste someday too, but the rest of the poison, the sulfur, mercury, and heavy and radioactive metals fly out of the smokestack when we burn the coal to boil water.

Every ton of carbon we burn unites with oxygen atoms from the air to go up the stack as 3.7 tons of CO2. Since this CO2 has been causing nasty climate problems, we are working on a way to hide it in underground caverns. Unfortunately hiding this much carbon and oxygen costs a lot of money so we're spending $407 million next year hoping for a breakthrough idea.

Man has been gathering fuel for millions of years so it seemed like a natural approach when we started building fueled power plants a hundred years ago. Now that the scale has become so enormous, it's time to rethink what we are doing. Massive power plants produce so much waste heat that it is very difficult to put it to good use. In future, power generation should always be located near where thermal heat is needed.

In many parts of the world geothermal power is already cheaper than coal or nuclear. The gap is widening daily because coal and uranium fuel costs are skyrocketing. Geothermal is already profitably generating about 10 gigawatts (GW) of clean power. It produces of the total power in Iceland and the Philippines and 5% in California. About 4 GW of new projects are underway in the U.S. in 13 states.

In many parts of the world drilling costs are excessive today because the hot rocks are 2-5 miles below the surface. Google recently invested US $11 million in new deep drilling technology, which can drill through hard rock 5x faster than current methods. If this development succeeds, geothermal power will be practical virtually anywhere. As fuel costs skyrocket, existing oil drilling technology is becoming competitive at greater and greater depths. Drilling was just completed on the first 5 km deep commercial power plant in Australia, which will ultimately produce 500 megawatts (MW) at a price of only US $0.06 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The U.S. has spent over $70 billion trying to make nuclear reactor-based power safe but the waste solution is nowhere in sight. What we need today is a Manhattan Project for developing deep, hard rock drilling and EGS geothermal technology. Political maneuvering actually reduced the geothermal development budget to zero last year in spite of a positive MIT report on the potential of EGS geothermal! If we can just solve the political problem, the technological problems will be easy.

In the meantime, the planned "nuclear renaissance" has crashed and burned. If you haven't kept up, here are some links to very recent developments: All current nuclear plant construction in the world is running years late and billions over budget. The NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) has delayed approval on all plants under construction in the U.S. indefinitely because of needed design changes. 2012 is the earliest possible delivery date for the prototype plant so other new plants can't be built for at least a decade. The French prototype being built in Norway is a similar disaster.

Cement, steel and uranium costs have skyrocketed making reactor-based nuclear power too expensive. The current projected cost for new nuclear power plants is about 20 cents/kWh!

Our existing nuclear power plants produce 75 tonnes of plutonium every year. French and English attempts to solve the waste problem by recycling fuel have failed miserably. The U.S. plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is now 10 years behind schedule and expected to cost US $96 billion. Because of the schedule slippage, an additional US $11 billion in lawsuits is expected before it can begin operation.

Bailout potential: The US government guarantees to limit industry liabilities in case of an accident to US $10 billion. A reactor meltdown could require a government bailout worse than the Wall Street disaster. Government risk guarantees for private profits is a fool's bargain.

Half a century ago we made a wrong turn when we began using plutonium production equipment to generate our power. We have been flogging this dead horse for decades now and it's time to wake up to the simple and safe way to harness nuclear power. We should redirect the money currently being spent to revive fueled atomic power to EGS geothermal development. In just a few years we could be building significant amounts of clean, safe, dependable EGS geothermal power plants.

# 4 The Coming Baseload Power Crisis

The explosive growth of worldwide energy demand has made it painfully clear that that our traditional sources of electricity can no longer be expanded without creating a major environmental tragedy. Coal burning during the industrial revolution created localized disasters but the massive scale today is creating disaster on a global scale. Fuel costs are growing exponentially as we reach the limits of our planet's resources.

The failure of the Futuregen "clean coal" project is the nail in the coffin of the coal power boom. Oil and natural gas supplies are running short but coal supplies were thought to be plentiful and cheap. "Clean coal" was supposed to rescue us from global meltdown by capturing the CO2 and storing it underground. The problem is that every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2! The idea of transporting and hiding forever that much CO2 was ludicrous from the start. To make matters worse, coal prices have quadrupled since 2003.

Even if we ignore CO2, coal is an environmental nightmare: Mercury emissions make it dangerous to eat many fish today and may be responsible for our epidemic of autism. Acid rain has destroyed forests, lakes and coral reefs. Particulates from coal smoke gray our skies and cause asthma and lung disorders. There is now hope that the new administration. will bring an end to the denial of coal's unsolvable problems. Already new laws are being considered to ban coal outright. But what is the alternative? Solar power works mainly during midday and wind power can stop almost completely from late night through morning. Weather conditions can completely disable both wind and solar. Geothermal power uses no fuel, produces no pollution and works reliably and steadily all day and every day.

While we were depending on the dream of "clean coal," research funds for alternative sources of baseload power were choked off. Now that that dream has died we have a choice between continuing to foul the planet with more coal plants or running short on power. A bill to ban conventional coal plants is now pending in congress but this could cause massive South Africa-like power shortages in the future unless we take dramatic action now to develop alternatives.

In January 2007, MIT released a report on the amazing potential of Enhanced Geothermal Systems. By injecting water into hot rocks underground to produce steam, power can be generated in areas never considered for geothermal. The U.S. Department of Energy responded by cutting its already inadequate $20 million geothermal research budget to zero. After a tough battle, (including a failed attempt to reallocate some of the US $13 billion in coal, oil and gas subsidies), congress finally came to the rescue with the 2007 energy bill, which appropriated US $90 million for EGS research. The DOE responded by ignoring the law and budgeting only US $30 million in their 2009 budget! (They still have US $407 million budgeted for coal!)

With the change of administrations, there is renewed hope that we can restore sanity to our energy policy but precious years have been wasted. The MIT report suggested a US $900 million program to develop EGS geothermal technology. If the DOE director hadn't ignored that plea, we could be building large-scale EGS plants today instead of continuing to crank out coal plants.

Every time we commit to building a megawatt (MW) of coal power capacity we are also committing to produce hundreds of million tons of CO2 over the life of the plant. A typical coal plant emits 2.1 lbs of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh).

Australia has vast coal resources, yet the new government has committed to a massive effort to develop EGS geothermal power plants. Drilling was just completed on the first wells for a 500 MW EGS powerplant in the desert. There are 33 companies with 277 exploration licenses working on projects all over the country. .Germany has provided free connection to the grid for remote geothermal projects. This has triggered a gold-rush boom in geothermal projects with over 100 exploration licenses granted so far. Medco in Indonesia just signed a $600 million contract for a 340 MW geothermal plant that will sell power for only $.0468/kWh.

New price breakthroughs in modular geothermal generators have been made possible by adapting high-volume air conditioning chillers to run backwards as generators. UTCPower has a new 250 kW, truck-transportable unit called Purecycle that works with temperatures as low as 74°C. Another breakthrough, called the Kalina cycle, improves the efficiency of low temperature systems by as much as 30%.

Geothermal power stations have traditionally been built in thermal hot springs areas but Hot Dry Rocks technology taps the heat from dry rocks deep in the earth by using the same water-injection technology that has been used for decades to get more oil out of old wells. There are some 50,000 oil wells in the Gulf states that are already spewing hot water mixed with oil to extend the life of the well. This hot water can be used to generate power now. It is estimated that the geothermal energy produced could exceed the power in the oil already extracted!

Drilling and exploration costs make geothermal power plants expensive to build. However, cost/watt construction costs are a poor measure of true cost: Coal plants, for example, must be fed an endless stream of trainloads of coal. Coal prices have increased 140% since January 2007. Coal also has incalculable hidden costs from severe storms, acid rain, contamination of fisheries and increased healthcare costs. In spite of massive subsidies, the real cost of coal power is clearly more than geothermal.

Of course there are other clean renewable sources of electric power besides geothermal. The reason we use coal for over 50% of our power is that it provides predictable, base-load power. Weather is unpredictable. Sunshine and wind can sometimes drop to a tiny fraction of their long-term averages for months at a time. Base-load power is needed to provide a predictability base to be supplemented by wind and solar when available. Maintenance shutdowns reduce average availability (capacity factor) to 71% for coal and nuclear and 90% for geothermal.

Depending on location, the capacity factor of wind power averages only 30% and solar averages 18% in "normal" years. These capacity factor figures cannot be ignored. Your electric bill is for kilowatt-hours not kilowatts.

In a normal year, 1 MW of geothermal capacity will generate as many kWh as 6 MW of solar power in New York or 5 in California. Wind power averages 30% capacity factor so 3 MW will generate as much as 1 MW of geothermal. On bad weather years the differences are even greater. We have been injecting water into the earth to squeeze more oil out of depleted wells for decades. It works and doesn't cause earthquake problems any more than blasting the tops off of mountains to get coal does. Geothermal heat is continually replenished by atomic decay of isotopes in the rocks. It is renewable, reliable and clean and doesn't clutter the landscape.

The scientists at DOE have tried to support geothermal for years only to have it shot down by high-level politics. It makes no sense to be mining and hauling coal then trying to bury the mess when the free heat of the earth will boil all the water we need. The time has come to take bold action with a Manhattan Project-like crash program to develop and scale up EGS technology to free us from the bondage of coal.

# 5 Geothermal: Clean Base-load Power from the Earth

99.9% of the earth's volume is hot enough to boil water. Atomic decay inside of the earth heats its molten core to a temperature that is hotter than the surface of the sun To harness this geothermal power, we need only drill through the crust and use that heat to boil water to drive turbine generators. The condensed steam is returned to the earth so water consumption is a tiny fraction of a coal-fired power plant..

Geothermal power is a practical reality today. It supplies 26% of electrical power in Iceland and the Philippines and 5% of California's at prices that are competitive with coal. Geothermal power plants require no fuel and produce no pollution, yet they produce steady base load power 24 hours a day. The world's first geothermal power plant, built in Larderello Italy in 1911, is still producing enough power for a million homes today.

Geothermal power generation is a profitable business. Ormat Technology, for example, has been steadily profitable for decades selling geothermal power worldwide at prices competitive with coal power. Their current market capitalization is over two billion US dollars. Since they have no fuel costs, many of their power sales contracts are for a fixed price per kWh.

Geothermal generation today is done mostly in natural geyser or hot spring areas where nature has placed underground water in contact with hot rocks below and steam flows to the surface. The Geysers area in California for example, was first developed in 1921. In 1960 it was upgraded to an 11 MW commercial power plant. In 1998 the natural water sources began to dry up so recycled water injection began. Currently the plant is being expanded to 80 MW, enough to power the nearby city of San Francisco. The power from the Geysers plant is currently sold for only $.03-.035 per kWh. In Mexico the 30 year-old Cerro Prieto field is being expanded from 620 to 720 MW. The power sells for $.03/kWh.

Water re-injection in most modern geothermal plants keeps the water usage very low but many plants today are adding water injection from external sources to greatly expand their power capacity. The technology for doing this has been highly developed by the oil industry. Since the 1950's, oil wells have been rehabilitated by drilling another hole nearby and injecting water to push out the oil. The mixture of oil and water that comes out is very hot. This hot water is now considered a nuisance but if the heat was used to generate power, tens of thousands of megawatts could be generated in Texas alone with a cost payoff in only three years. It is estimated that the geothermal energy produced could exceed the power in the oil already extracted!

The key to geothermal power generation on a massive scale is developing this water injection technology so that geothermal plants can be routinely built without depending on accidents of nature to produce steam. Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) can be built wherever there are hot rocks covered by an insulating sedimentary layer. Water injection is designed in from the start. Since water is reinjected in a closed loop, the water consumption of an EGS system is much less than for a coal or nuclear plant.

Another exciting development is a breakthrough development in power generation from low temperature geothermal resources. In Alaska a practical power plant was built using a 74 degree C hot spring. The truck transportable generator they used is significantly cheaper than most ORC generators because it is based on a high-volume air conditioning chiller modified to efficiently run backwards as a generator. Power can be generated anywhere hot water and cooling water (or air) are available. Industrial waste heat can be inexpensively turned into power as can excess heat from district heating systems during warm weather.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems give amazingly high overall efficiencies by using the hot water first for power generation and then passing it to successively lower temperature applications like drying, greenhouse heating, fish farming, bathing, etc. Nothing is wasted. Another new development, the Kalina cycle, can improve the efficiency of low temperature power generation by as much as 30%.

Drilling and exploration costs make geothermal power plants expensive to build. However, cost/watt construction costs are a very poor measure of true cost: Coal plants, for example, must be fed an endless stream of trainloads of coal. Energy inflation guarantees an ever-increasing fuel cost. Coal prices increased 140% in 2007. Coal also has incalculable hidden costs from severe storms, acid rain, contamination of fisheries and increased healthcare costs. In spite of massive subsidies, the real cost of coal power is clearly more than geothermal.

Wind power is also clean and cheap, but like solar power, it is as unpredictable as the weather.. Rain, sunshine and wind vary widely throughout the day and can sometimes drop to a tiny fraction of their long-term average for months at a time. Hydropower is greatly reduced after a dry year. Base-load power is needed to provide a predictable supply that can be supplemented by wind and solar when available. Maintenance shutdowns reduce average availability (capacity factor) to 71% for coal and 90% for geothermal.

Wind and sunshine vary on a daily cycle. The capacity factor of wind power averages only 30% and solar averages 18%. In a "normal" year, one megawatt of geothermal capacity will thus generate as many kilowatt-hours as 6 megawatts of solar power in New York or 5 in California. Wind power averages 30% capacity factor so it takes about 3 MW of wind power to generate as many kilowatt-hours as 1 MW of geothermal. On bad weather years the differences are even greater.

Cost/watt figures must be used with care in comparing technologies. If you want to keep a 100-watt lamp continually lit with solar power you'll need a 500-watt solar panel and a storage battery. On rainy days you'll need a flashlight. The constancy of geothermal power makes it the only renewable energy capable of replacing coal and nuclear for base-load power.

In this age of rising fuel costs it is time to rethink the basic idea of building power plants that require fuel. The exploration and drilling costs of a geothermal plant are insignificant compared to the future skyrocketing fuel and pollution control costs of a fueled plant. New 10 times faster deep drilling technologies under development will enable geothermal energy to be used on a scale never before imagined. The risk and time scale of such research is much less than current "clean coal and nuclear power projects. The future belongs to those who are first to master the use of the free energy that is our gift from the earth.

Australia has vast coal resources, yet the new government has committed to an aggressive effort to develop EGS geothermal power plants. Drilling was just completed on the first wells of a 500 MW EGS powerplant in the desert. There are 33 companies with 277 exploration licenses working on projects all over the country. Germany has provided free connection to the grid for remote geothermal projects. This has triggered a gold-rush boom in geothermal projects with over 100 exploration licenses granted so far. Medco in Indonesia just signed a $600 million contract to build a 340 MW geothermal plant which will sell power for only $0468 /kWh

A recent MIT report studies the potential of similarly injecting water into hot rocks purely for the purpose of generating power in non-thermal areas like the Eastern U.S. The report concludes that hot rocks are a rich resource that should be developed now. The research cost of such a development would be much less than the billions already being spent on "clean coal" and nuclear power. Since the water used is recirculated back into the ground, geothermal power consumes a tiny fraction of the massive water consumption of a coal or atomic power plant.

So far we have taken a very meek approach to geothermal development. Large plants are essentially just many small plants built on the same resource. Visionary schemes will someday make geothermal incredibly economical. For example, Atlantic Geothermal has a very ambitious plan using tunneling technology similar to that used to construct the tunnel under Mont Blanc to build a 50 foot wide tunnel 80 miles long and three deep. Using 1500 ft. boreholes laterally to expand the heat extraction field, the system could generate 1600 MW of power, nearly matching the output of Hoover dam. Since the entire system except for input and output facilities is underground and maintained by hydrostatic pressure, the visual impact above ground would be insignificant. While this project sounds grandiose, it is no more so than Hoover Dam itself. It is a much better use for government money, which is now being wasted on hydrogen and "clean coal" projects.

# 6 Heat is Power. Let's Stop Throwing it Away!

High gasoline prices have forced us to make painful adjustments, which may, unfortunately, be just the beginning. The world's dramatically growing energy demands are affecting all energy prices. Coal, Uranium and natural gas prices have all risen dramatically in the past few years and will continue to grow in the future as more and more of the world's population adopts our energy-wasting lifestyle. We are straining the limited resources of our planet.

Power rates are heavily regulated but will soon have to reach shocking levels unless we change our careless ways. Our wasteful energy habits were formed during the many decades before 1973, when oil was less than $3.50 per barrel. At those prices energy was essentially free so we learned to ignore waste. Only 15% of the power of the gasoline you burn in your car goes to move it down the road. The rest ends up as wasted heat, uselessly heating the air. Electric cars are about 75% efficient but they lost out to gas buggies back when gasoline was an insignificant cost.

In 1882, Edison's first electric power plant sold their spent steam for district heating. Efficiency of electric generation reached a peak in 1910 and has been falling ever since as regulated utilities stopped selling their waste heat. Nowadays the norm is to simply discard the extra heat. Thermal power utilities today only deliver 1/3 of the power in the fuel they burn to customers. The other 2/3 is simply discharged as waste heat! This 33%, efficiency level is the same as it was in 1957!

In the 1930s the government tried to encourage electrical generation by granting monopolies to power generators. The rate-setting formula they created actually penalizes efficient generation. If a utility buys less fuel because of better efficiency, their costs are less so rates must come down to cancel any benefit.

To make matters worse, the clean air act makes it dangerous for utilities to make efficiency improvements because it invites regulators to tighten emission controls as conditions for approval. Worse yet, the clean air act regulates the percent of pollutants (PPM) not the amount per kilowatt-hour (kWh) output. Currently, if you double efficiency the amount of pollutants you are allowed will be halved. Pollution standards should be changed to an output-based standard, such as grams per megawatt-hour (MWh) to stop these terrible unintended consequences Cooling towers simply discard the wasted heat of a power plant into the air. If a utility today sells steam as Edison did they are not allowed to keep any of the profits because the income reduces their operating expense base! Hot water or steam is a valuable commodity, which could be piped to homes for heating or sold to nearby drying plants, greenhouses, ethanol plants and fish farms. If the laws encouraged sale of excess heat, as they do in Europe, wasteful cooling towers and discharge outlets would be a thing of the past.

Iceland provides an excellent example of the benefits of efficient energy use. It approaches power generation as a complete ecosystem where available heat is used with about 90% overall efficiency. The hot water from its geothermal wells is first used to generate electrical power. If the waste heat were discarded, this would be less than 20% efficient. But the wastewater is instead piped to nearby factories and used for drying fruits and vegetables or to run absorption chillers in a refrigeration plant.

The hot water that exits those applications is still pretty hot so it is sold for district heating to greenhouses and apartment buildings. Next in line are the lower temperature applications like fish farming, snow melting and bathing.

By making use of all of the heat instead of discarding it as waste, the efficiency of the entire system can be 90% or more even though the power plant itself is only 20% efficient! This amazing improvement in efficiency requires nothing more than designing with an expanded awareness that considers synergies that will turn waste into profit. The model for this is all around us in nature where nothing goes to waste.

This new paradigm has been extensively developed as industrial ecology and is closely related to the concept of permaculture. It is a new way of thinking that opens awareness beyond design in isolation to consider the design as part of an interrelated ecosystem. As energy costs increase, we can use this new thinking to maintain a gentler form of our current lifestyle by simply taking advantage of the synergies we have ignored in the past. In Europe they have a $6 billion project called Lo-Bin ($3 billion already EU funded) to develop a 98% efficient geothermal power project based on these principles.

In cases where it isn't convenient to pipe hot water or steam to where it is needed, an ORC generator can convert waste heat to electricity. These generators are essentially air conditioners running in reverse: The heat boils a low boiling point liquid driving a turbine which turns a generator. With minor redesign, an air conditioner can be converted to a waste heat generator that will convert heat to electricity. Small ORC generators based on this principle are just beginning to be released to the market.

Solar thermal heating and hot water has become very popular in China where the cost of rooftop solar collectors has become very competitive. Fifty million rooftops already have solar thermal collectors and the numbers in China are growing by 26% per year. These collectors are mostly arrays of concentric glass tubes with an insulating vacuum between them. A hot water tank provides energy storage.

These systems could easily be converted to also provide power generation by just adding a small ORC power generator. Mini-generators are not available yet but they could be very inexpensive high-volume products. Since home air conditioners sell for only US $0.10/watt, they could be a very economical way to generate power in the home from the excess heat when the water is already hot enough. Currently, this excess heat is simply wasted.

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) cogeneration can be done in the home with 85% efficiency. Honda has sold over 45,000 of its Freewatt micro-CHP home heater/generators in Japan. The generator uses a very quiet, natural gas powered, internal combustion engine that has the usual 20% efficiency. The unit is installed in place of your furnace and runs only when heat is needed. When it is running, it puts out 1200 watts of electrical power to run your meter backwards. The 80% "wasted heat" works just fine as a furnace to heat your home!

Most industrial plants that were designed in the days of almost free energy release most of their energy into the air as waste heat. Arcelor Mittal has a steel mill in Indiana that they retrofitted to recycle wasted energy. They were able to recover about 250 MW of power, cutting the power consumption of the plant in half! This is like building a new 250-MW power plant that will never need any fuel. The cost of the construction required was less than half of what it would have cost to build a coal power plant.

In the US we don't hear much about cogeneration or CHP but Denmark generates 55% of their electricity this way and Finland and Holland do about 40 percent. When wasted power is recovered we are saved the trouble, expense and pollution of building another power plant to generate that power. If our utilities laws can be changed so that efficiency becomes profitable, we could see a doubling of plant efficiency in just a decade. Since 69% of our greenhouse gas emissions are from heat and power, doubling efficiency could reduce our emissions by 34%. Instead of spending billions of dollars building new power plants, we should be using ecological thinking to put to use the millions of megawatts of heat we throw away every day.

# 7 Beijing's Showcase "Clean Coal" Power Plant

About six months ago, I presented a paper at the The China Power & Alternative Energy Summit. It was the first time that geothermal was represented at this important conference, which has so far been dominated by wind and solar presentations.

We assembled an excellent panel of presenters from Australia, Germany, Iceland and the U.S. The title of my paper was _Can Geothermal Replace Coal for Baseload Power?_ I was delighted to find that the program included a field trip to the local coal power plant, which is a model of cleanliness and efficiency.

The Huaneng Beijing Co-Generation plant is a very impressive and clean looking 845-megawatt (MW) coal-fired plant. It features sulfur removal, water recycling and dust control. Efficiency is improved by selling excess heat for district heating. I was particularly interested to see the separate building, where an Australian carbon capture system collects and compresses 3300 tons/year of CO2 for sale to soft drink manufacturers.

At the end of the tour there was a presentation, which gave the impression that the CO2 capture solved the global warming problems of coal. I knew that a coal plant of this size emits about 6 million tons of CO2 per year, so capturing only 3300 tons means that 99.9% of the CO2 must be released to the atmosphere! When I asked the guide about this he was very embarrassed and had to admit that this was just a test and would have to be expanded. Looking at the large CO2 capture building, I would estimate that to capture all six million tons would take a building larger than the whole complex. The CO2 is now delivered in heavy steel cylinders. Hauling away and selling six million tons this way will obviously be impractical.

In the conference hall there was also a stack of free copies of the Carbon Capture Journal available. A strange thing to distribute at a renewable energy conference! The coal business is big money in China as it is here. In the U.S. we have the same problem. A coal industry front group called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices sponsors similar propaganda in the U.S. They ran US $35 million worth of TV ads during the Presidential debates, which implanted "clean coal" into our unconscious without ever mentioning that it doesn't really exist anywhere in the world.

We have similar plants in the US that brag about carbon capture in press releases while only capturing a token amount. The Mountaineer Power Plant in West Virginia, for example, only captures 1.5% of the CO2 they produce.

Unfortunately, even Obama seems determined to spend billions more on the dream of "clean coal." The political stranglehold of the coal lobby worldwide is the biggest threat to our climate today. Supporters of sequestration conveniently ignore the staggering volume of the CO2 that must be disposed of: 10 billion tons/yr worldwide! The largest sequestration project in the world so far is an Algerian plant that stores 1.2 million tons per year in four gas wells. It will be full when 17 million tons have been stored. Many individual U.S. coal plants emit more than 20 million tons every year!

Somehow we must find the political will to free ourselves from these powerful forces that fight to maintain the status quo. Coal is an environmental nightmare that only appears cheap because we have ignored its hidden costs. Geothermal power is cleaner and cheaper yet we are fooled into wasting precious time and money trying to keep coal alive.

# 8 Five Ways to Green Existing Coal Power Plants

Our existing fleet of fossil-fueled power plants represents a massive investment. With permits and infrastructure already in place, conversion upgrades can produce fast results at greatly reduced cost compared to new construction.

Since coal supplies over half of our electrical power, we will need to keep these plants running for a long time if we want to keep the lights on. It will take decades to build enough new clean power generating capacity to replace these aging beasts.

Here are some ideas:

## 1. Cofire Biomass with Coal

Biomass and wood waste from the local area can be mixed in with coal up to 10 or 20%. Since the next crop of biomass will take in as much CO2 as was emitted, it is considered carbon neutral. Biomass also has very low sulfur and mercury content and reduces NOx, so cofiring can also help meet emissions limits. Fuel and maintenance costs are often significantly lowered. Georgia Power's conversion of it's Mitchel Plant, for example, is expected to lower fuel and maintenance costs by 30%.

## 2. Use Biocoal

Biomass is more expensive to ship than coal because of it's 30% lower energy density. It also must be protected from rain and cannot be easily pulverized like coal. Torrefaction, a process similar to coffee roasting, can convert biomass into biocoal which can be shipped, stored, pulverized and burned just like coal. Torrefaction plants along the train tracks or rivers normally used to supply coal can convert locally grown biomass to biocoal and fill the same vehicles now used for coal delivery. Plant modifications are therefore unnecessary. Torrefaction increases the energy density of biomass to about 11,000 Btu/lb while making it waterproof and friable.

## 3. Sell Waste Energy

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants achieve up to 90% overall efficiency by selling waste power instead of disposing of it in cooling towers or streams. Existing plants can be modified to do the same thing. Hot steam can be sold to nearby Kilns, ethanol and drying plants and then passed on as hot water to lower temperature applications like Cold storage, greenhouses and fishponds. In Denmark 53% of the power plants also sell their waste heat. Many towns have a hot water or steam loop that distributes heat and returns the preheated water to the boiler. Recent improvements in insulation and leak detection have made long distance heat delivery practical. In one installation in Denmark, hot water is sent through insulated pipes 30 miles with only a 10% loss.

## 4. Install Biomass Gasifiers

Biomass gasifiers can be located anywhere on the property to produce syngas, which is then piped to burners installed in the coal boilers. As with natural gas conversion, only a brief shutdown is required for installation. Direct coal firing is still possible if desired. Fluidized bed gasifiers are extremely efficient and can work with a wide variety of feedstocks including biomass and municipal waste.

## 5. Solar Preheating of Boiler Water

Solar thermal preheating of boiler water efficiently captures the energy of the sun and reduces fuel consumption. Solar heating peaks in the middle of the day but is ineffective at night. By using the sun to preheat water, fuel requirements are reduced by an amount equal to the heat captured. It is particularly effective on the same bright sunny days that produce maximum air conditioning loads. Carbon credits and investment credits are available. Parabolic troughs that track the sun can increase the efficiency of energy capture.

# 9 Drill Baby Drill! For a Clean, Safe Energy Future

We have work to do. The time has come to modernize our power grid and phase out polluting coal power plants. In their place we can build a clean, renewable electric infrastructure that needs no fuel. When the wind blows and the sun shines, wind turbines and solar plants can do the job. But to keep the lights on 24/7 we must harness the plentiful and free geothermal heat in the earth's crust. We can pipe that heat up to turbines and generators on the surface, but to do it we're going to have to drill hundreds of thousands of geothermal wells. . We'll have to "drill baby drill." day and night to make it happen in time to save our planet from ruin.

Our current economic and environmental mess was caused by shortsightedness. We have been borrowing too much, ignoring future consequences. We need to learn to think differently. To consider future costs. For example, coal power plants are cheap to build if we ignore the future cost of endless trainloads of coal and terrible health and environmental consequences. If we consider future costs, coal is really very expensive. Nuclear power also seems cheap if you ignore the future cost of terrorist problems, disposing of the waste and decommissioning obsolete plants. Drilling costs make geothermal power plants look expensive because of upfront drilling and exploration costs. However, since they require no fuel and produce no waste or pollution, they are far cheaper in the long run.

Obama's stimulus plan is a perfect opportunity to create jobs while investing in a clean, sustainable future which will continue paying dividends forever into the future. Fuel-free power plants will give us almost-free power and greatly reduce future health and disaster relief costs. We have spent recklessly on wars and subsidies to extend our oil supply. Now we must invest in a better future.

For eight years politics have kept geothermal power under funded and hidden from view in the US. Meanwhile, in California geothermal power has quietly grown to where in 2007 it produced 2.3 times as many killowatt hours as wind and 23 times as many as solar power! Since geothermal plants produce power continuously, a megawatt plant produces as many kilowatt-hours as 3 MW of wind or 5 MW of solar power..

Now that California has shown the way, many other western states are drilling geothermal wells at a rapid pace. But until recently federal support was totally lacking. The Senate has been a big stumbling block with many states in the pocket of coal and oil interests. Also, Eastern states feel left out because drilling expense is much higher there because the hot rocks are deeper. With better drilling technology Enhanced Geothermal Systems can work virtually anywhere.

Google just invested $10 million in EGS Geothermal, including $4 million to Potter Drilling who have a new technique that can drill hard rock five times faster. Drilling costs currently grow exponentially with depth because drill bits must be periodically brought to the surface to be replaced. Drilling technology development has been driven by the needs of the oil industry which uses smaller bore wells, often in soft sedimentary rock.

We have already drilled a lot of holes to pump oil out of the earth. In Texas alone they have already drilled over 600,000!  Many of those wells are so deep that the oil comes up hot enough to be useful for power generation. Water flooding is used in many of the wells to push oil out from cracks in the rocks. In the Gulf States alone over fifty billion barrels of hot water a day are produced this way. This water is considered a nuisance because it must be separated from the oil and disposed of or reinjected. Much of this water is hot enough that it could be used to generate electricity—just like water from a geothermal well. In fact, similar water injection can make geothermal power practical anywhere because there are hot rocks underfoot everywhere on the planet.

The oil and gas industry has made great progress in recent years with drilling technology. There has been a gold rush to retrieve natural gas from shale deposits, which were previously considered uneconomical. They now routinely drill very deep wells that turn horizontal for several thousand feet. They then fracture the rocks all along the horizontal run to let the gas out of the shale. This fracturing of the shale used to take months of work but new techniques allow fracturing five zones in 30 hours.

All of these tricks are perfect for EGS geothermal, where you need to run water over a large area of hot rocks deep underground to extract the heat. Rocks aren't very good conductors, so if you want to pull a lot of energy out of them you must do it over a large area or they will just cool down. The moving water moves the heat like a conveyor belt up to a turbine above ground.

To generate significant amounts of geothermal power we will have to extract heat from a very large area. This means an incredibly large number of holes will have to be drilled. —Much more than the 600,000 oil wells in Texas. Oil carries much more energy than hot water: In a typical oil-fired power plant, one gallon of oil can generate about 40 kilowatt-hours. It takes about 350 gallons of °350 F water to generate the same amount in a geothermal plant. Clearly, we will need to drill a lot more holes it we're going to power the world with geothermal power instead of oil.

If we can learn to drill larger boreholes and run them horizontally with fracturing we may be able to draw heat from a large area of hot rocks with much fewer holes. This would be a major breakthrough, building on the innovations already developed for extracting gas from shale. Some of these deep, hot shale deposits are in coal country: The Marcellus shale in Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York could provide clean geothermal power without having to ruin the countryside. Politically, this could be very important, as the coal states have often blocked green energy legislation.

There are also high heat flow areas in other states such as Illinois and New Hamshire. The Haynesville shale in Texas and Louisiana is very deep with bottomhole temperatures averaging over 300 F. Even North and South Dakota have hot aquifers that may be usable for geothermal power. The problem is that because of political deadlock we haven't even been looking for geothermal resources outside of California until recently. Germany and Australia started looking a few years ago and have found rich resources. We need to get our oil and gas exploration companies busy working on geothermal. They don't do it now because the billions in subsidies that apply to oil and gas don't apply to geothermal development. We desperately need new laws that will level the playing field and recognize the staggering hidden costs of fossil fuels. We need to "drill baby drill" for clean, renewable geothermal power.

# 10 Invisible, Underground HVDC Power Costs Same As Ugly Towers

Clean, renewable power is running into transportation problems. To deliver renewable power from remote areas to where the people need it, we need to add a lot of transmission capacity to the grid. If we follow our traditional practice of building ugly towers all over the landscape and stringing wires from them, we will spend years fighting environmentalists only to ruin the landscape we love.

The U.S. power industry is very slow to change. In 1954 Sweden began using High Voltage DC (HVDC) power transmission instead of the AC system, which was created in 1885 by Nikola Tesla. DC systems used to be much more expensive because expensive electronic voltage converters had to be used in place of simple transformers. However, semiconductor costs are falling while transformer, land and steel costs skyrocket. As a result, underground HVDC power transmission is rapidly becoming cheaper than ugly AC towers. By following existing road and rail rights of way, very quick turnaround times are possible and court battles are avoided.

AC power transmission requires 3 cables instead of two and has additional losses due to skin effect and capacity to the ground. DC voltage converters are very efficient with less than 1% loss. They also handle faults much better as they can respond in an instant. They are already used to tie together our regional AC grids.

Most regulated utilities have little incentive to cut costs as they are given a percentage as their profit. Los Angeles is one exception. The LA Department of Water and Power serves the ratepayers, not shareholders. LADWP built one of the few long HVDC links in the U.S. in 1986. It brings 1600 megawatts (MW) of power from Utah to Los Angeles. The link is now being upgraded to 2400 MW and will soon be extended to the wind farms in Wyoming.

Wyoming wind is very valuable in Los Angeles because wind peaks in the evening, hours after electrical demand peaks in the afternoon. The two-hour shift in sun position between Los Angeles and Wyoming causes wind output to almost perfectly match electrical demand. HVDC power links pay for themselves quickly because the spot price of electricity varies by as much as 3:1 through the day and can be mismatched by as much as 33:1 between unconnected areas.

Wind power that has no place to go can actually have a negative value, as it must be disposed of. Solar power in the north requires links to southern deserts, preferably further West as solar output peaks about four hours before demand peaks. North-South links between populated areas also smooth annual demand variation: In the north, demand peaks in Winter while the south needs more in summer for air conditioning.

HVDC links should be built to link rich renewable resources to distant population centers. Solar thermal plants in the Sahara desert and the hydroelectric resources of Scandinavia could power all of Europe. The current system of importing energy through trains and tanker ships should be replaced by clean, efficient HVDC power links. An excellent movie on the subject by GENI is called "There is no energy crisis; there is a crisis of ignorance"

HVDC connection losses are only about 3% per 1000 km plus 1.5% for two voltage converters. This is often more efficient than conventional transportation. Electric motor efficiencies are typically above 90% while fossil fuel engines are usually under 30% so it is more economical to ship electricity than fuel. 80% of rail shipping in the U.S. is for transporting fuel.

The United States has been completely left behind in HVDC equipment development. Swedish, German, French and Japanese companies dominate the field and have built an extensive network of links. Many are across the waters surrounding the continent. The U.S. needs to play catch-up. We clearly need new laws that encourage grid development in the U.S. to accommodate our renewable energy.

Superconducting cables are even more promising but still too expensive. American and Japanese companies have already installed working superconducting links.With superconductors there is no loss in the cable but the wire must be kept cold with circulating liquid nitrogen. Newer superconductors under development can work at dry ice temperatures but much development is needed.

As with many of our energy problems, the technical solutions are the easy part but the regulatory environment is the real problem. Subsidy decisions made decades ago distort the market and encourage continuation of the inefficient fossil-based status quo. New laws could make it easier and more profitable to build HVDC links and greatly reduce the cost of renewable energy.

# 11 Biochar: The Key to Carbon-Negative Biofuels

The world is losing its battle against global warming. Even in Europe, where they have valiantly fought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the imbalance gets worse every day. Biofuels are the biggest disappointment. They still emit CO2 when burned and require fertilizer, processing and transportation which all emit even more CO2. The justification for biofuels is that the growing plants take CO2 out of the air. However, plants growing on the land before planting were already capturing CO2, so only the increase in CO2 capture (if any) should be counted.

The natural balance of the earth has always included carbon storage in the plants and soil. The problem is that we have disrupted that balance. We have burned in one century much of the carbon that nature sequestered over millions of years. Coal is almost pure carbon, gathered by plants and sequestered by natural processes. We need to stop burning it!

Though growing plants take CO2 from the air and fix it in their cells, the carbon is only borrowed: 99% of that carbon ends up back in the atmosphere as the plant is eventually burned or consumed by animals, termites, fungi, nematodes or worms, which then return the carbon to the atmosphere. pyrolysis is a way to grab the carbon in plants before it can become a meal for these creatures and return it to the soil as pure carbon biochar.

Pyrolysis mimics the natural process that turned ancient plants into coal: When biomass is heated up with no oxygen supply it melts into carbon, syngas and biooil. Pyrolysis was used thousands of years ago by the natives of Brazil to enrich their poor, acidic soil into Terra Preta, one of the richest, most productive soils known to man.

Terra Preta still contains as much as 9% carbon. It is always found with pottery shards and other evidence that it was man made. It is so productive that it is bagged up and sold today as potting soil. We're still trying to match their superb results. If we succeed, we will solve world hunger, global warming and our energy shortage in one stroke.

The Amazon culture that made these soils was killed by conquest and disease. The primitive people in the area today practice slash and burn agriculture, which quickly depletes the soil and spews CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere. The Terra Preta was created by slash and char, which involves cutting off oxygen to the burning biomass. Without oxygen, little CO2 is produced and the biomass melts into carbon with a very fine structure called biochar. The hydrogen in the plant molecules produces heat, syngas and biooil as the plant molecules are reshuffled.

The buried biochar retains some of the micro-cellular structure of the plant. It is activated charcoal with very high surface area. It can hold water and nutrients and gradually release them as needed. The nanoscale structure of biochar, like a coral reef, hosts a whole ecosystem of soil fungi and bacteria that feed the roots of plants and hold soil together. This part of the terra preta story is still not fully understood. It takes some time for this microscopic biological culture to develop and produce the amazing increases in yield for the soil.

Experiments have shown that burying biochar in the soil can increase productivity significantly. For poor acidic soil it has sometimes been known to double or triple production! The pyrolysis process converts cellulosic matter into syngas, biooil and biochar by heating in the absence of oxygen. The biooil produced can be used like low-grade diesel fuel for heating and power generation. Syngas can be burned like natural gas or converted with catalysts to ethanol and chemicals usually made from petroleum.

The energy in the biooil and syngas produced is much greater than what is obtained by fermentation to ethanol. For example, Miscanthus, a wild grass can produce 340 GJ/hectare/year of biooil. For comparison, corn fermentation only produces 120 GJ/hectare/year (net) of ethanol. The fermentation process uses lots of energy and is only 3-5% efficient at converting plant energy into fuel.

While the fermentation process emits a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, Pyrolysis can be carbon negative if the biochar produced is buried for carbon credits and crop enhancement. Every ton of biomass produces about 400 lbs of biochar by weight, which is equivalent to about a half ton of CO2. (CO2 is only 27% carbon.)

Because biomass has low energy density, it is expensive to ship. Pyrolysis units should therefore be close to the biomass source. Since biooil occupies about one-tenth as much volume as the biomass that produced it, it can be easily shipped by tanker truck or used locally. Pyrolysis units are available that fit in a standard shipping container and can handle the needs of a small village.

Carbon-inefficient slash and burn agriculture is practiced by 300-500 million people today. If these people could convert to slash and char methods, we could stop the growth of greenhouse gas in its tracks. The International Biochar Initiative and theBiochar Fund are dedicated to making that happen. This is a win-win proposition because crop yields are significantly improved while global warming is brought under control and the biooil produced provides a local source of fuel for electricity, cooking or heating. More crops, free fuel plus a revenue stream from selling carbon credits could transform these subsistence cultures while saving the planet.

As a direct result of global warming, large tracts of forests in Canada and the United States have been decimated by bark beetles. Though fast growing trees initially take in a lot of CO2 and sequester it temporarily in their wood, dead wood absorbs nothing. If we burn the trees all of the carbon they took in will be returned to the atmosphere. If termites consume the trees they will produce methane and CO2 with even worse effects. Methane is times worse for global warming than CO2. Pyrolysis could pay for itself by producing biooil and biochar while disposing of the dead trees to make room for healthy new ones.

The 2008 farm bill (passed over Bush's veto!) included amazingly strong provisions for encouraging development of Biochar. The farm lobby finally got it right! Agriculture has become a big contributor to global warming and now they can be a major part of the solution. To quote James Lovelock, creator of the Ghia theory: "The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine percent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then plows into the field."

Modern farming practices have increased greenhouse gas emissions dramatically. Fertilization emits oxides of nitrogen, which are 140 times worse than CO2. Tilling of the soil lets carbon escape as CO2. Since agriculture began, about 140 billion tons of soil-based CO2 have been lost to the atmosphere. Carbon trading provides a financial incentive for improving farming practices. By growing our fuel using no till, no fertilizer crops such as elephant grass, the farmer can help save the planet, improve yields and make good money too.

# 12 Clean Coal: Here Now!

Coal, which started out as the cheapest of fuels, is a victim of its own success. The more coal we burn the more expensive it becomes as we are forced to deal with more and more unintended environmental consequences. A clean power plant requires expensive additions to protect public health by removing particulates, Nox, sulphur and mercury. Now climate change is adding an urgent need to remove CO2 emissions. Since every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2, this is an almost impossible task that will take at least ten years to develop and will almost double the cost of coal power. Coal is no longer cheap when you consider these extra costs.

Wind, solar and geothermal power can provide clean sustainable energy but it will take decades of work to grow enough capacity to satisfy our power needs. We can solve our problems quickly by converting our existing coal power plants to biomass power. Biomass is carbon neutral and has virtually no sulphur or mercury. Conversion cost will be much less than the cost of adding carbon capture and mercury scrubbers and more importantly, it can be done now!

Biomass has about half the energy density of coal so transportation costs could be high for large urban power plants. The solution is simple: torrefy the biomass at its source. This will convert the biomass to biocoal, which has the same energy density, moisture resistance and friability as coal.

Torrefaction is like coffee roasting. When any woody biomass is heated to about 270° C in the absence of oxygen it undergoes a transformation that increases its density while retaining most of its heating value. The result is extruded into pellets that have an energy density of 11,000 Btu/lb, just like coal. Since it doesn't absorb water, biocoal can be shipped in the same train cars and barges as coal. It can be stored outdoors, fed into a coal pulverizer and burned just like coal. The big difference is much less ash and NOx, and virtually no sulfur or mercury.

Biomass waste is abundant. China has an estimated total supply of 700 million tons/year. About 100 million of this is currently being burned in the fields. Using biomass to produce power qualifies for carbon credits. One ton of biocoal prevents several tons of CO2.

National Bio Energy is a new Chinese company specializing in building new biomass power plants that use waste straw from grain production as fuel. Since their founding in 2005 they already have approval for 40 biomass plants, mostly in Northern China. Twelve of their projects are already in production, producing 324 MWe. The plants are relatively small and located near the biomass sources. These power plants provide independent power and jobs for local farmers and eliminate the pollution of burning fields.

Our massive investment in existing coal power plants can be cleaned up by repowering them to burn biomass. In the U.S., Georgia Power is planning to convert an existing 96MW coal plant to biomass power. The fuel cost compared to coal is expected to be roughly 30 percent less per year and maintenance costs are expected to be about 13 percent less. FirstEnergy is converting a 312 MW plant to biofuel and will thus avoid the $330 million cost of adding scrubbers to remove mercury. In Canada, Ontario Power Generation is considering a similar move. The U.S. already has 80 biomass power plants in operation. A recent government report found that fuel and maintenance costs were lower than coal.

Large existing coal power plants can be cleaned up by building a network of regional torrefiers along the tracks or waterways currently used for coal supply. These centers should be close to sources of farm or forestry waste or marginal land that can be used to grow specially adapted biomass. In the South, giant reed, elephant grass or other fast-growing perennial grasses can produce up to 20 tons/acre with little watering or fertilization. Agave can produce as much in semi-desert. Other specialized plants can grow on saline, acid or polluted soil.

There are several manufacturers of torrefiers who have working prototypes but none have yet reached the full-scale production stage. The project that is the probably the furthest along was developed by Ecocern in the Netherlands Integro, in the U.S., is building a fleet of 10 plants. And 4Energy Invest in Belgium is collocating a torrefaction plant at one of its biomass power plants. The waste heat from the power plant will be used to dry biomass and start the torrefier and the biocoal produced will be sold to existing coal power plants.

Repowering or cofiring existing coal plants is a quick fix that can be implemented now to slow global warming while providing good jobs. However, since coal plants average only 33% efficiency, this is only a stopgap solution. When new plants are built they should be much smaller in size so that waste heat can be put to good use. Wherever heat is needed, cogeneration plants can generate power and sell it to the grid while putting the excess heat to good use. Overall efficiencies of 85% are possible with good design. New turbine and heat recovery technology and the reduced need for pollution control equipment makes smaller plants economical.

Biomass is also a perfect match for solar thermal hybrid plants. As the sun grows weaker the biomass is gradually fired up to keep the turbines running at full speed even at night. Think of biomass as a store of solar power that can be used when needed. Wood pellets are already taking over the heating market in some areas because fuel costs are cut in half. Torrefied pellets will be even more cost effective.

Future economics will be even better as we learn to increase the tons/acre yield using highly efficient C4 photosynthesis plants. Further research will certainly increase future yields significantly as it did with food crops. Mixtures of plants that grow well together may be even better than monoculture. As the real costs of coal grow more expensive, innovation will drive the cost of biomass down. The world will be a cleaner, safer, sustainable place.

Google Earth makes it easy to explore the practicality of growing biomass near actual coal power plants. You can just click on the Coal Plant Names for a satellite view. Zoom back to see the large amount of unused land surrounding most coal power plants.

# 13 Can Biomass Replace Coal?

Growing perennial biomass in the desert stores carbon in the soil while it captures and stores solar energy. A DOE study estimated the US biomass growing capacity as 1.3 billion tons/yr

Wind and solar power are clean and free but they only work part of the time. When the sun goes down and the wind dies, coal is still the workhorse for generating baseload power. But coal is killing us by warming the planet, acidifying our lakes and oceans and sprinkling mercury over the landscape. Geothermal can do part of the job but it will take decades to drill enough wells.

One quick fix that is finally catching on is converting existing coal plants to biomass. Fuel and maintenance costs are actually reduced and expensive pollution control upgrades can often be avoided because biomass contains very little sulphur or mercury. Often the biomass can be grown locally, providing good local jobs and keeping the ratepayers dollars in the community. Biomass burning is carbon neutral because the CO2 emitted by one crop is taken back by the next.

But wait! The U.S. burns a billion tons of coal per year. Since biomass is less energy dense than coal it would take 1.6 billion tons of biomass per year to replace all that coal. According to a DOE study, we can grow about 1.3 on exising available land.

Not quite enough. But there is a way: Efficiency! Existing coal power plants are only about 33% efficient. That means that 67% of the coal's energy is simply thrown away, often simply heating up a nearby river!

We can get quick reductions in pollution and global warming by simply repowering existing coal power plants. However, a better long-term approach is to start building much more efficient, small-scale power plants where the waste heat can be put to immediate use. Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants can achieve efficiencies of up to 90% by using the waste heat from electrical generation to produce hot water, heating and air conditioning. Office buildings, hotels, industrial parks and shopping centers are already proving the practicality of CHP.

Efficient, small-scale electrical generation is already possible using fuel cells and microturbines. Systems as small as 300 kW can generate electrical power at 47% efficiency and then deliver the remaining 338 kW for heating applications. Most systems today are powered by natural gas, but biomass can be gasified to produce carbon-neutral syngas, which burns just like natural gas. Small plants can run unattended because internet-connected remote control consoles at the manufacturer can be monitored by experts.

Biomass gasifiers aren't fussy about what they burn. Even plants that look very different to us are chemically very similar and all produce about 7000 Btu-per-pound when dry. This means that monoculture is not necessary and complimentary mixtures of plants can be grown as feedstock. Marginal land can be used by growing specially-selected crops. Agave, for example, grows happily in semi-desert and produces four times the yield of corn.

Biomass has a tarnished reputation because early attempts to use it were so inefficient. When you ferment ethanol from corn, you get only 330 gallons of ethanol per acre. If you burn 1/7 of an acre of corn you will get the same amount of heat as burning 330 gallons of ethanol. To make matters worse, the ethanol will be burned in a car engine that is only about 25% efficient. Elecric car motors are 90% efficient, so an electric car charged by a 90% efficient biomass CHP plant can go about 22 times as far on an acre of corn as one burning fermented ethanol!

New generation ethanol plants actually use a gasifier to make syngas, which is then transformed into ethanol by catalysts or enzymes. Coskata has a process that makes 100 gallons/dry ton of biomass. A big improvement, but still no match for the efficiency of an electric car. Making ethanol by fermentation also uses lots of energy cooking, fermenting and drying the ethanol. Gasifiers need no external energy once they are started. Gasifiers are also very convenient for converting coal power plants because the syngas can be piped to burners inside the coal-fired boiler. The gasifier can be built in any convenient place leaving the coal burning boiler intact for fuel flexibility.

Gasifiers aren't fussy about what they are fed. In fact old automobile tires and municipal waste work just fine. In fact, the trash left over after recyclables are diverted works just fine. There are already 90 Waste-to-Energy (WTE) plants in operation in the U.S. This connection between biomass and trash burning turns out to be most unfortunate because an amazingly negative activist movement has grown up to fight against incinerators.

Paul Connett, who also crusades against fluoridation, took up the cause of incinerators, back in the 1980's. At that time incinerators were a serious source of dioxins and mercury. Now, the incinerators are 1000 times cleaner but the fight continues. By quoting "facts" from studies done before the cleanup, it is still possible to scare well meaning people into marching down to city hall to block permits. Your backyard barbeque produces seven times more dioxins than are allowed at the stack of a modern incinerator.

Unfortunately, the panic about incinerators has spread across the blogsphere and well meaning but misinformed volunteers have blocked permits for far to many well-conceived biomass power plants and WTE facilities. Every time the activists shoot down a project the environment suffers as people are forced to bury the waste or burn it in a backyard barrel. By stopping clean power generation the activists also perpetuate our dependence on dirty coal power plants!

The internet is a wonderful thing, but bad ideas can spread like wildfire. Just like the global warming denial sites, Zero waste sites sound very convincing. The problem is we can't economically recycle everything. "Zero waste" sounds good just like "clean coal" does, but both are impractical. We must provide a clean, safe way to detoxify the trash that remains after recycling. Plasma gasifiers leave only 0.2% ash residue and generate significant green power in the bargain. If we run short of trash they can happily run on biomass too.

# 14 CHP Electricity Powers Cars 22 Times Farther Than Ethanol!

Cheap fossil fuel has allowed us to waste the majority of our energy, filling the planet with pollution and waste heat. Our car engines are only 25% efficient and coal power plants are not much better. Corn ethanol is one of the worst wastes of biomass: An acre of corn produces about 330 gallons/year if you cook it using fossil fuel.

Use the ethanol as a heat source and the net yield drops to 214 gallons/year. Car gas mileage is 30% lower with ethanol. At 25 miles/gallon we can only drive 25 X 214 = 5350 miles per year on an acre of corn.

If we take that same acre of corn and burn it to make electricity to charge an electric car, we will be able to drive the car 22 times as far! About 117,096 miles per year!

The energy content of dry corn biomass is about 7000 Btu/lb or 4100 kWh/ton

With an 85% efficient CHP plant the net power out is .85 X 4100 = 3485 kWh/ton

An acre of corn yields about 8.4 tons/year or 8.4 X 3485 = 29,274 kWh per year

The Tesla electric car goes 4 mi/kWh (EPA) 4 X 29,274 = 117,096 miles!

We don't have very many 85% efficient Combined Heat and Power (CHP) biomass power plants in the U.S. In fact, only 8% of our power plants are CHP plants. But Denmark has 53%, Holland 39% and Finland 38%. CHP plants are extremely efficient with many exceeding 90% efficiency! The secret of CHP is to locate the plant near where heat is needed. The waste heat from electricity generation is then sold along with the electricity so the only real waste is the heat that escapes into the air or past the heat exchangers in the stack.

CHP requires a different way of thinking. You must look first for places you can sell heat. Electricity is easy to distribute but heat is harder so location and sizing of plants must follow the heat demand. Mammoth gigawatt-scale power plants cannot do CHP unless they are built adjacent to a mammoth cement plant, kiln or steel plant. Most mammoth plants today dump about 2/3rds of their power into a stream or ocean just to get rid of it. A horrible waste!

High-rise buildings, hospitals, industrial parks, shopping centers, apartments, housing tracts and hotels are all excellent candidates for CHP power. Hot water, heat and cooling needs are generally comparable to electric power needs so 50% efficient electrical generators are a perfect fit: The wasted heat from the generator is simply used as heat.

Fortunately, the needed technology is appearing right on schedule. Fuel cells can generate electricity with 50-60% efficiency from natural gas or syngas from biomass. One of the reasons mammoth power plants were built in the past was that only very large turbines were efficient. The other reason was pollution control. Neither reason applies today, as gas and biomass burn clean, particularly in a fuel cell.

Fortunately, we have a glut of natural gas from new shale bed discoveries. Gas is very convenient in cities, while biomass can generate carbon free power in more rural areas. Switching from coal power to CHP gas power has a massive impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural gas produces only 55% as much carbon as coal. CHP plants are three times as efficient (85% vs. 28%) so the resulting emissions are only .33X.55= 18% of a coal plant producing equivalent power! That's a better improvement than the planned 40% CO2 output of Futuregen and we don't have to wait decades for it to happen. With 3X better fuel economy, natural gas is waycheaper than coal and we won't run out of natural gas for a long time.

Giant power plants are custom designed and take 10 years to build. Smaller, modular CHP plants can be based on standard pre-approved designs with components built on mass-production lines like cars. The capital cost can be much lower than large plants. There are several mass-produced home-sized CHP units coming on the market now based on fuel cells. Honda already shipped 50,000 of their Ecowill units in Japan. These units are 85.5% efficient by using generator-wasted heat to make hot water.

What we need now are standard CHP generator designs in the 1-MW to 5-MW size that can run on natural gas or biomass. A biomass unit could be used on a farm to heat greenhouses, cold storage, fish ponds or brick production. Burning 2 MW of biomass would produce 1 MW of heat and 1 MW of electricity. 1 MW of electricity is 8,760,000 kilowatt-hours per year, worth about $876,000 per year. The heat is worth about 1/3 as much. Carbon credits and Renewable Energy Credits add to the income.

To feed a 2-MW gasifier with corn, the farmer would need only about 68 acres of land. Other, more prolific feedstocks like elephant grass could probably get by with only 23 acres. In Germany they have straw bale gasifiers that simply require the farmer to throw in a new bale periodically. The control microcomputer rings the farmer's cell phone with a text message whenever a new bale is needed.

This decentralized free enterprise approach could revolutionize our power structure in short order. Denmark changed their utility laws in 1990 and within 10 years 45% of ownership of power generation had shifted to consumer owned and municipality-owned CHP plants (25%) and wind turbines (20%).

Ironically, ten years is about the time it takes to build one giant nuclear or "clean coal" plant. Distributed power eliminates the need for massive expansion of our power grid to connect old-style monster power plants. Distributed power also reduces power transmission losses since power is consumed near where it is generated.

The U.S. is way behind in efficient power generation because our utilities laws encourage massive inefficient power plants. If we can change that legal environment we can unleash a revolution that will dramatically reduce pollution and global warming, create good jobs and reduce our heat and power costs. The problems are political, not technical!

# 15 Solar Power: A Gift from Space

At noon on the equator our sun gives us one kilowatt of free energy per square meter! This gift from space is ultimately the basis of all of our power sources except nuclear and geothermal. Wind, hydro, biomass and all fossil fuels ultimately derive from solar energy. All of these economical sources of energy benefit from concentration and storage of the sun's energy.

But the dream of capturing the sun's energy directly has been elusive. The problem is that energy needs are unevenly distributed and usually peak at night. Fuels and reservoirs provide inexpensive storage of the sun's energy making it available when and where we need it.

Though the solar industry is making rapid progress, it is still by far the most expensive form of alternative energy.
A recent NYU study found the following actual 2005 costs in cents/kWh:

Geothermal 3.1-4.3

CSP Solar 11-15

Photovoltaic 19-31

Wind 4.3-5.5

Coal 1.2

Natural Gas 3.5

Of course these costs will come down some day but for now solar is basically a subsidized research project. The new CSP plants with heat storage can keep the power flowing when clouds pass over and in the evening but that doesn't help costs. The problem is that the sun only shines part of the time. Capacity factor even in the California desert is still only 25%, which means that a 4 MW solar plant only delivers an annual average of 1 MW.

Unfortunately the custom of rating solar plants based on their peak output on a clear summer day at noon leads to some dangerous misconceptions. Cost per Watt, for example, understates the actual cost by a factor of 4 even in the desert. Growth figures and land use in acres/MW are similarly grossly misstated.

If we look at land use of some real projects now on the drawing boards we find that the latest photovoltaic, parabolic and tower projects all use about 5-6 acres per peak MW. The Saguaro 1 MW parabolic trough plant near Phoenix for example, generates 2000 MWh of electricity annually, using 15.8 acres.

It's interesting to compare this sun-capturing performance to a field of biomass. Miscanthus is perennial grass that yields 15-20 tons/acre on marginal land. That's about 250 million Btu/acre which is 73 MWh/acre. If you use a 85% efficient combined heat and power (CHP) plant to convert the biomass to power, it would take only 2000/(73X.85) = 32 acres to grow the same amount of power. I'd rather mow and haul 32 acres of grass over the year than keep all those shiny troughs clean and working. And the one-time grass planting is a lot cheaper!

So the race is on and only time will tell whether nature's storage of the sun's energy in plants can keep up with man's best mechanical efforts. The nice thing about the biomass is that you can keep it around until you need it. The hot-oil thermal storage at Saguaro is only good for 6 hours.

The specifications for the Saguaro solar plant illustrate another messy thing about the specifications on solar power. The spec shows a capacity factor of 23% now, but with the 6-hour storage added the capacity factor jumps to 40%. This seems to be common practice. When storage is added the capacity factor spec goes up apparently to indicate the % of time that power is available. Power is sold by the kilowatt-hour, so perhaps it would be better if we stopped talking about Watts and used GWh/yr instead.

Our comparison to biomass was a little unfair because we used an 85% efficient CHP plant for the biomass and Saguaro throws their waste heat away using an evaporation pond. By locating solar thermal plants in places where heat is needed, they can be efficient too. The waste heat is simply sold or put to use near the plant running a cold storage warehouse, a kiln, etc. Hotels, industrial parks and apartments should have their own solar thermal CHP plants for hot water, air conditioning and pool heating. We have to break the "giant power plant" habit.

Solar thermal is often supplemented by natural gas at night. The boiler is simply kept going as needed with gas. Since heat loads are often variable, CHP plants lose efficiency if the waste heat must be disposed of. A good approach is to size the solar collectors for minimum heat needs so that efficiency is always high, and then use natural gas to make up the difference. This minimizes the investment and maximizes efficiency. In fact, just one collector to preheat boiler water can cut gas consumption and CO2 emissions significantly.

A mass-produced solar thermal-CHP system sized for large homes or apartments could be much more cost effective than the typical overpriced home photovoltaic installation we often see. Most homes and buildings use more energy for hot water, heating and cooling than for electricity. Instead of electric air conditioning, waste heat can power the heating and cooling. With decentralized small CHP plants scattered all over the map, power transmission losses are almost eliminated and we don't need to spend billions adding transmission corridors.

In places that often have cloud cover, thin film photovoltaic power works much better than polycrystalline because the clouds scatter the light in all directions more than actually blocking it. Thin film panels usually have 3 layers to cover a wider spectrum of light. Evacuated tube solar collectors also work well with clouds.

Concentrating PV needs a sharp sun image to be efficient. It is best done in deserts where there are no clouds or haze. Concentrating PV lenses and mirrors work by focusing an image of the sun's disk onto the solar cell. When haze scatters that image, efficiency plummets. Deserts in the US Southwest, Mexico and in North Africa have the potential to supply less sunny northern areas if we make the investment in massive HVDC transmission lines. Since solar panels produce DC naturally there may be a savings in electronics. Also the significant amount of waste heat can be used for energy intensive industries and to make fresh water from the ocean.

But don't bet against solar as a long-term winner. Silicon development for computer technology fooled everyone with their "Moore's law" doubling capability every couple of years. This has gone on for decades and will probably continue. For example, proton plasma beams can now cut wafers as thin as 20 micrometers thick. This cuts material costs to 1/3 and the wafer flexes like thin sheet metal.

Another group at University of Delaware just announced a cell/concentrator combo with 42.8% efficiency. Clearly exciting developments will make this a fascinating race with many winners. We must pursue all ideas and let the winners be chosen by the marketplace.

# 16 Free as the Wind

Wind power is a way to indirectly harness the power of the sun. Landmasses absorb the sun's energy, smoothing it out and concentrating it based on terrain features. Mountain passes and cool water can create amazingly windy places that are easily tapped by standardized wind turbine designs. Wind power peaks in the afternoon, a few hours before power usage peaks but an almost perfect match to demand if the power is sent West over power lines. Hot days mean high loads to run air conditioning. Unfortunately, wind can sometimes be still on the hottest days. Peaking capacity must be provided to keep the lights on.

The worst situation is windy days when demand is low. Wind turbines can actually make it necessary to discard energy to keep the grid from going to excess voltage. Wind farms sometimes have to pay for this service. Fortunately, hydroelectric power can be used like a giant battery to stabilize the grid. With pumped storage, excess power is used to pump water back into the reservoir to be released later when there is a shortage of power. Pumped storage is about 70-85% efficient and simply uses the wind power to run the pump motors when there is a surplus of energy created.

Denmark has the good fortune of having its grid connected to hydro-rich Sweden and Norway. When the wind gets really strong the excess power is simply stored behind [dams in Sweden and Norway] for future use. There were 9 occasions in 2003 when wind produced power in excess of 85% of installed capacity. And then there was one day in 2003 the wind stopped and the wind turbines actually consumed more energy than they produced.

Since Danish wind turbines are only expected to produce an average of approximately 20% of their stated capacities, the country is indeed lucky to have neighbors who are happy to level their load. With wind currently supplying 19% of total electrical load, the Danes are planning to go to 50% in the future.

Ontario, Canada actually publishes a chart of power output vs. capability hourly for each type of generation every day. It is very interesting to study a particular day and see the wind die down and gas powered or hydro plants kick in to support the load. It's a complex problem that uses a kind of auction with highest prices during shortages and very low prices during surplus. The electricity into the grid must equal what is taken out at all times or the voltage will go unstable. Wind and solar are a special challenge because they can be so unpredictable.

You have probably heard that wind turbines kill birds. They certainly do, but so do coal power plants, houses, cars and anything else birds could run into. The Audubon society strongly supports properly sited wind power. Today's giant wind towers have blades that are more like the wings of an airliner. Environmentally, wind is squeaky-clean and doesn't even take up any space if developed in farming areas. Cows happily graze under the towers and the farmer gets a nice monthly check. Biomass might make even more sense as a crop to grow under the towers.

Wind is a real success story that didn't start out well. Early windmills built in the 1970s had a kind of frenetic feel to them with fast spinning blades. Today's giant towers are graceful, majestic and almost restful looking. They're also much more reliable. Often the old wind farms had a large percentage of the blades broken or stuck in one position.

Our modern turbines have electronic monitoring of blade condition and transmission particle count that can electronically signal for help before trouble develops. According to Vestas, the energy used in building a wind turbine can be paid back in the first 7-9 months of operation! Much better than the 2-3 years it takes for silicon photovoltaic panels to generate the power it took to make them.

Power output rises as the cube of wind velocity; so doubling wind velocity actually gives eight times the power output. Power output also increases as the square of rotor diameter so large turbines in good locations really pay off. We already have towers as tall as a 35-story high-rise. Expect to see them go even taller. As they get bigger they are more and more like a building. Instead of ladders, many now have elevators that lead to an equipment room inside the nacelle. Repairs can be done from inside the nacelle including generator replacement and gear repairs.

Gearboxes tend to wear out in about 5 years so some new designs are gearless. As the generators get larger its easy to get high velocities for efficient generation without gears. One direct-drive generator has 3,960 permanent magnets around the periphery. American Superconductor is developing a 10-MW generator that uses superconducting wire cooled by liquid nitrogen. Because of the zero resistance wire, a 10-MW generator is no larger or heavier than a conventional 5-MW unit. The blades and tower size are scaled up.

In windy areas small wind turbines can be more cost effective than solar power for off-grid generation. A Chinese maglev 300-watt turbine uses magnetic levitation for extremely low friction, allowing it to work on a wind speed of only 1.5 m/s. That's nice to keep it turning but in order to achieve efficient wind power generation, high wind velocities are required. If you're on the grid it's probably best to let the giants generate the power rather than look to small wind. Bigger turbines are much more efficient.

Building integrated turbines on the tops of high-rise buildings are good PR but the economics are still questionable. Remember that power ratings in Watts are meaningless as they only apply at a very strong wind velocity. What really matters is average kilowatt-hours over the year. That's what we pay for and that's what should be used to estimate payback time.

Wind power is already cheaper than coal. The amazingly fast evolution of wind turbine design and cost effectiveness will continue, leaving coal power in the dust (literally!) Offshore wind promises another jump in reliable capacity factor. Possibly more pumped storage will have to be built to allow wind to continue to grow, but the cost of pumped storage is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions being spent trying to rescue the coal business with carbon capture and storage.

# 17 NG Fuel Cell Cars: Twice as Efficient as Electric!

The hydrogen initiative is stalled. The hydrogen fuel cell cars work fine but no good solutions have been found to the problems of where to get the hydrogen, how to deliver it and how to store it. 95% of our hydrogen is made from natural gas, which is abundant on earth and already distributed at 1/3rd of the price of gasoline. Three recent breakthroughs have made natural gas a very interesting fuel:

  * Ceramic fuel cells that can make electricity from natural gas at 60% efficiency.

  * ANG: Adsorption stores natural gas at low (500 psi) pressure in compact tanks.

  * A glut of cheap natural gas caused by new shale drilling/extraction techniques.

The fuel cell breakthrough is particularly important because it means a car can generate its own electricity more efficiently than a massive power plant! Big plants typically average 30% efficiency, so a 60% NG fuel cell hybrid is twice as efficient as an electric vehicle charged from the grid. That means half as much fuel is consumed.

Twice as efficient as an electric car is saying a lot because electric cars are already three times more efficient than conventional cars. This is because internal combustion engines are less than 30% efficient verses 90% for electric motors. Natural gas fuel cell cars are thus about six times more efficient than today's cars. Using 1/6th as much fuel means pollution is also 1/6th . But NG is inherently very clean. and has 30% lower carbon content and virtually no sulfur, mercury, volatiles, and Nox so pollution is way less than 1/6th.

Since NG fuel cells have a warm up time, the hybrid batteries must have enough capacity for all-electric operation until warm up is complete. After warm up, the fuel cell keeps the batteries charged and the batteries provide power for peak loads and acceleration and recapture energy on braking. A Prius uses 16.8 kW for continuous 70 mph driving on a level road. The fuel cell must be able to supply this much power for steady driving.

Natural gas is already distributed by pipeline to homes all over the US, so home refueling is possible. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is already used to run five million vehicles worldwide. Pump prices for CNG are about one third of the price of gasoline in spite of the expensive ($350k), 3600 psi pumps and fittings currently used for delivery. The pipeline cost of natural gas is only 1/4th of the cost of crude oil with the same energy content. If much simpler, 500 psi Adsorbed Natural Gas refueling is adopted, prices could be reduced even further.. Cost per mile for a NG fuel cell hybrid would currently be only 1/18th of present cars but could be reduced even further with low pressure ANG refueling!

ANG fuel tanks contain activated carbon "sponges" that adsorb 160 times their own volume of natural gas. They can be made from Corn cobs , which have a network of nanoscale passageways that remain after carbonization. One gram of this material has as much adsorbing surface area as a football field. When natural gas is adsorbed on a carbon surface it ceases to act like a gas. Dense storage at low pressure makes it possible to hide the much smaller tank inside the car's frame. Even if we kept the existing CNG high-pressure storage, the tripled efficiency would allow fuel cylinders only 1/3rd as large as present CNG tanks.

So an NG fuel cell hybrid is a lot like a Chevy Volt with a fuel cell replacing the range extender (engine/generator) and a much smaller battery. Its battery only needs to be large enough to run the car during warm-up of the fuel cell, currently about 15 miles. The Chevy Volt's 40-mile battery is rumored to cost $5000, so the NG car's 15-mile battery would cost $3125 less. Incidentally, at these battery prices a 400-mile range pure electric car would need$50,000 worth of batteries! Clearly, small batteries with range extenders are the way to go until we have a significant battery breakthrough. Pure electrics have other problems too: A 110v, 20A household plug can only supply 2.2 kW which means that, unless you add 220v service, 10 hours of home charging will only take you 10 x 2.2 x 4 mi/kW = 88 miles.

Natural gas today is primarily a non-renewable, fossil fuel. But people have already begun selling renewable gas into the pipeline. Landfills, manure piles and sewage plants that used to release significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere are now selling it as green gas. Biomass< and garbage can also be gasified to add to the supply. The energy balance of grass biomethane production is 50% better than annual crops now used.

Though the US power grid uses significant hydro power and other renewables, CO2 emissions are still almost twice as much per kilowatt-hour as a 60% efficient NG fuel cell. In 2007 the US power grid emitted 605 grams/kWh. A NG fuel cell emits only 327 grams. At 4mi/kWh that translates to about 151 grams per mile for a grid charged car verses 82 for the NG fuel cell car.

Someday the grid could be cleaned up so that electric cars charged from it are cleaner than NG fuel cell hybrids. EIA data makes it easy to track our progress towards this goal: In 1996 we emitted 627 grams of CO2 per kWh and by 2007 this was reduced to 605 grams. That's a 2-gram per year decrease. If we continue at that rate, it will take 139 years to equal what we can do now with a NG fuel cell. Recent years show even less progress. There was no improvement between 2006 and 2007. Plugging into the grid is, unfortunately, a bit like plugging into a lump of coal.

Infrastructure expansion also favors natural gas. Gas pipelines cost half as much to build as ugly overhead electric transmission lines of the same power capacity. Gas also has one fourth the transmission loss of electricity and much cheaper energy storage. Depleted gas fields and salt caverns are already storing 4.1 Tcf of gas in the US. At 60% efficiency this could produce 1,970 gigawatt-hours of electricity. A very cheap battery!

Fuel cell developers are in a race to commercialize suitable fuel cells. The first products using NG fuel cells are home CHP electricity generators that use their waste heat to make hot water. The fuel cells in these units produce only 2 kW but they can startup from an idle state in 5 or 6 minutes. Scaling up to 15 kW and adapting to the tough environment of a car could take years. Another company is developing a fuel cell range extender that is fueled by methanol. Methanol has only half the energy density of gasoline but, because of the higher efficiency, fuel tanks would still be smaller than current gasoline tanks.

"Price at the pump" is the one thing that seems to get voters excited. Reducing fuel cost/mile by a factor of 18 with a fuel that is 97% from North America while using corncobs should generate some excitement. The hydrogen initiative should be immediately redirected to focus instead on a fuel that is plentifully available, transportable and storable.

### 18 Methane: A Better Energy Carrier than Electricity or Hydrogen

##

Methane (natural gas) is a better long-distance energy carrier than electricity. Its storage and transportation is much cheaper and easier than electricity. Natural gas pipelines cost half as much to build as electric towers and have about one fourth as much transmission loss. They are also more reliable, safer and visually superior to ugly transmission towers.

Our electrical grid is only 30% efficient in delivering the energy in fuel burned to the customer. That efficiency could be doubled or even tripled if we used gas-powered combined heat and power (CHP) electrical generators located where heat is needed. By using the generator's waste heat, an efficiency of 85% is possible. Clearly it is smarter to expand our gas pipeline network than to build more electrical towers to distribute inefficiently generated electricity from massive power plants..

Even though most of our natural gas is now fossil fuel, a doubling of efficiency would be just as effective as achieving 50% renewable power as far as global warming is concerned. We can simultaneously work on greening our gas supply by feeding more and more biogas into the pipeline. In Germany 22 billion kWh of biogas were produced in 2007. That's a six-fold increase from 1999, driven partly by feed-in tariffs. About half of that biomethane was from landfill and sewage gas and the other half was from commercial and agricultural biomass plants. Renewable biogas is produced by natural processes of anaerobic digestion or gasification then cleaned up for sale to the gas pipeline. Sweden already gets 25% of their energy from biogas.

Energy storage is another big advantage of gas. Both the gas and the electricity grids need energy storage to take up the slack between production and consumption. Gas storage is cheap because it can simply be pumped into depleted gas wells and salt caverns. We are already storing 4.1 Tcf of gas in the US. At 85% efficiency that gas could produce 1,180 gigawatt-hours of useful power on demand. A very cheap battery!  The smart electrical grid is all about making supply match demand because electrical storage is so expensive.

Though the US power grid uses significant hydro power and other renewables, CO2 emissions are still almost twice as much per kilowatt-hour as a 60% efficient natural gas fuel cell. In 2007 the US power grid emitted 605 grams/kWh. The fuel cell emits only 340 grams. EIA data makes it easy to track the effects of our attempts to green the electric grid: In 1996 we emitted 627 grams of CO2 per kWh and by 2007 this was reduced to 605 grams. That's a 2-gram per year decrease. If we continue at that rate, it will take 139 years to equal what we can do now with a fuel cell. Recent years show even less progress. There was no improvement between 2006 and 2007. Plugging into the grid is, unfortunately, a bit like plugging into a lump of coal.

People have already begun selling renewable gas into the pipeline. Landfills, manure piles and sewage plants that used to release significant amounts of methane into the atmosphere are now selling it as green gas. Biomass and garbage can also be gasified to add to the supply. The energy balance of grass biomethane production is 50% better than annual crops now used. When biogas is captured instead of releasing it to the atmosphere we get a double bonus. Methane is 72 times worse than CO2 as a cause of global warming in a 20-year time frame. You may have heard 25 times, but that's based on a 100-year time frame. Methane only persists about 8 years. Also, when manure piles are covered, N2O, which is 289 times worse than CO2, can also be captured. Coal mines emit almost a trillion cubic feet of methane into the atmosphere every year.

In Cincinnati, Ohio, the 230 acre Rumpke landfill has been capped and the gas is cleaned and delivered to the pipeline to provide enough gas for 25,000 Duke Energy customers. China has an estimated 31 million biogas digesters mostly on small farms. They produce in total about 9 Gigawatts of renewable energy which is mostly used locally. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and now Ontario, Canada have feed-in tarrifs to encourage production of biogas. In Germany small farms can receive up to 25cents per kWh for biopower. In the US, bills like SB306 which support biogas production, are still stuck in committee.

Increased system efficiency means we will need that much less of these renewable sources to do the job. If we're going to gasify biomass, it is more efficient to upgrade the gas and send it through the gas grid to customer CHP units than to generate electricity less efficiently and send it over wires to the customer. Until we get more efficient electrical generators, generation should always be done where the waste heat can be put to good use.

Electric cars would be twice as efficient if they fueled up with natural gas and used a fuel cell to recharge a small battery. Like a hybrid with a natural gas fuel cell range extender. The expense and weight of a large battery is eliminated and the energy can be stored in a much lighter and cheaper tank. Refuelling can be much faster and can even be done at home from your natural gas connection. New, low pressure, adsorbtion tanks make this easy because they only require 500 psi of pressure. Recharging is a problem with batteries.  A 110v, 20A household plug can only supply 2.2 kW which means that 10 hours of home charging will only take you 10 x 2.2 x 4 mi/kW = 88 miles. Natural gas refueling infrastructure is in place in much of the world to refuel five million vehicles worldwide.

We already have prototype hydrogen cars which work on a similar principle but hydrogen has virtually no refueling infrastructure. Hydrogen is very expensive to produce, store and transport. Its tiny molecules find the smallest leaks and fly into space. They embrittle pipeline metals by nestling into the metal matrix. Storage is extremely inefficient, requiring extremely high pressure tanks or cryonic vessels. One giant hydrogen delivery truck can service about ten customers. Methane has one carbon atom that holds four hydrogen atoms in a tight formation making containment and dense storage easy.

"No carbon emissions" sounded like a great idea but 95% of our hydrogen is made from natural gas and that process emits about 30% more CO2 than if we simply burned the methane. Yes, you can make hydrogen from water with electricity (at about 70% efficiency.) But you can also make carbon-negative methane from CO2 and hydrogen. When you burn it, the net result is carbon neutral. The "carbon-free" cleanness of hydrogen is an illusion. Building a hydrogen infrastructure now would be folly. Biomethane can do the job and will be cleaner, faster and cheaper.

# 19 Importing Solar Power with Biomass

Every six hours the sun bathes the lands of the earth in as much energy as the world consumes in a year. If we could just find a way to collect and distribute that energy our energy problems would be solved. Unfortunately, most of our energy consumption is in the places with the least sunshine (see insolation map, below.)

Biomass captures and stores the suns energy for later use. In tropical zones biomass grows year round and can be five times more productive than in the temperate zones. Biomass can be converted to denser forms and shipped to where it is needed surprisingly economically. For example, ocean shipping of coal priced at $73/ton from Australia to China only adds about $12/ton to the final cost. Wood chips are bulkier, but they can be made as dense as coal by heating and compressing them into torrefied pellets.

Ocean shipping is amazingly efficient for long distances. Australia has shipped an average of two million tons of coal per month to China so far this year. Ordinary (untorrefied) wood pellets have less than half the energy density of coal, yet Plantation Energy just signed two contracts to ship $130 million worth of pellets to Europe over the next three years. With torrefied pellets shipping costs could be halved so the economics would work out even better. Torrefaction is like coffee roasting. It requires no external energy but uses about 8% of the biomass energy to drive the process. Some of that energy is recovered because pelletizing energy is reduced because the heat-softened lignin in the biomass makes it easier to compress into pellets.

Another big biofuel order recently announced by Valero Energy could be worth up to $3.5 billion dollars. Mission New Energy, an Australian company, will deliver 60 million gallons per year of biodiesel oil from Jatropha crops in Malaysia. Jatropha is a drought-resistant bush with oily seeds that are easily converted to diesel fuel. It is not edible and thrives in tropical climates but requires manual labor for picking the seeds. The all-year growing season, tropical sun and availability of inexpensive labor provides a clean replacement for diesel fuel that can be shipped by the same tankers used for fossil fuel. Valero's annual sales are $120 billion, so this is a serious order.

Mission New Energy works with small farmers to encourage them to plant the bushes on unused and marginal land. They can press their own oil and sell it to the refinery. Larger farmers can refine the oil themselves, as the refining process is very simple compared to petroleum refining.

Jatropha can also be planted on depleted, marginal forestland to restore the land. Mission is careful to maintain a balance between food, fuel and forest so the development is a plus for the community. Unlike factory development, biomass makes it possible for people to remain on their ancestral lands and make money doing clean, outdoor farm work. With industrialization everybody moves to the city to work on dehumanizing production lines. Growing biomass can become a major source of income for the poor and undeveloped tropical countries of the world.

Biomass feedstocks can be grown on soils that have no other uses. For example, Florida has 100,000 acres of phosphate clays that are not stable enough to build on and useless for growing food crops. Leucaena is a bushy legume that grows nicely on these lands. It can be harvested three times per year using standard harvesting machinery to chop it into chips and put it into a truck that follows the harvest machinery. Yields of up to 25 dry tons/acre per year have been obtained but 15 tons is a reasonable average.

Moringa is another legume that has achieved even higher productivity and is tolerant of sulfate acid soils. Legumes need no nitrogen fertilizer because they can fix nitrogen from the air. In semi-desert areas, specially adapted plants like Agave can be grown with no irrigation. Agave stores water in its leaves and heart so that it can continue growing through the long dry seasons that are common in the tropics.

Desertification is a major global problem where is causing cropland to be abandoned to deserts. China has been fighting the advance of the Gobi desert by planting fast-growing sand willows. These willows regrow quickly when cut and are being used in local plank factories and for biomass power. It has transformed the local economy and driven a movement to reclaim the desert. China recently made a deal with esolar for a hybrid power plant which will burn sand willow when the sun isn't shining and use esolar's tower to heat the boiler by day.

Bamboo has been known to grow as much as 48 inches in a 24-hour period and has been observed growing 39 inches per hour for brief periods. The plants can grow to full height in 3-4 months but die naturally on a six-year cycle.

Clenergen has been growing a variety called Beema Bamboo in India for four years achieving a yield of over 60 tons/acre after four years of cultivation. The company has also been raising a tree called Paulownia for several years with a yield of 40 tons/acre. The company uses a process in which it gasifies the biomass to generate local electrical power but it has announced plans to use gas-to-liquids technology to make liquid fuels out of the syngas. Liquid fuels can be inexpensively shipped around the world by existing tankers.In fact, biomass can be converted into a wide range of energy carriers for economic shipping.
Here are some possibilities and their volume energy density in Watt-hours per liter:

Crude oil, biodiesel | 8800

---|---

LNG (Biomethane)(-268°F) | 7216

Torrefied Wood Pellets  | 6500

Ethanol  | 6100

Methanol  | 4600

Ammonia | 3100

Wood Pellets | 2777

Liquid Hydrogen (-423°F)  | 2600

CNG 250 bar biomethane | 2500

Wood chips | 1388

Hydrogen, 150 bar | 405

Lithium Ion Battery | 300

The technology for converting biomass to gas and liquid fuels is well known. Methanol, also known as "wood alcohol," is readily produced from biomass through gasification and catalytic synthesis. Methanol fuel cells can convert it to electricity for efficient hybrid electric cars. Methanol has a big advantage because it can be reformed into hydrogen at 200 °C, about half the temperature of other fuels. This makes fast warm up times practical, greatly reducing battery size. During World War II methanol was used extensively in Europe to keep cars running in the face of gasoline shortages.

Methanol and other liquid fuels can be made efficiently on a small scale using microchannel technology, originally developed for the space program. Velosys and Oxford Catalyst have developed a working prototype of a biomass-to-FT-liquids plant that is just being installed in Güssing, Austria. The 5 ft diameter X 25 ft assembly of 10 microchannel reactors is connected to a biomass gasifier and will output 400 barrels per day of ultraclean synthetic crude oil. This output can be shipped just like crude oil and burned or converted to a full range of clean, carbon-neutral fuels by conventional oil refineries. The microchannel reactor is much more efficient than massive-scale gas-to-liquids plants. The microchannel approach is much like a chemical microprocessor. This kind of small-scale upgrading technology will soon make it possible for tropical areas to convert their plentiful sunshine into easily shipped liquid and solid fuels.

Another approach to exporting solar power involves using electricity as the carrier. The Desertec scheme envisions building HVDC electrical transmission links under the Mediterranean Sea to connect the Sahara desert to the European grid. Massive solar thermal plants in the desert would then supply electricity to all of Europe. Similar concepts for Australia, India, and the USA have been worked out. It still remains to be seen if solar thermal with overnight storage can really be economical. Perhaps someday, but in the meantime, low-tech wood-pellet production is already working at prices almost competitive with coal.

Desertec is like the supercomputer approach while biomass is more like distributed microcomputers. An informal network of low tech, minimal investment biomass operations spread over the world and using existing transportation infrastructure could make a nice living for millions of small low-tech biomass entrepreneurs. Like the Internet, no central control is needed, just a free market that rewards innovation and efficiency. Ocean shipping compares very favorably with HVDC electrical transmission for efficiency. The energy wasted on a long ocean voyage is a tiny percent of the energy being transported.

Already, in 2008 the worldwide pellet market had reached 10 million tons. About 25% of it is already exported to other countries and the market is growing at 25-30% per year. As equipment for upgrading energy density improves, the economics of this market will also improve dramatically. Some power plants in Europe are running entirely on wood pellets but the pellet's lower density means that extensive modification of the power plant are needed. Torrefied pellets can be burned without modifying the power plant. They can be stored, pulverized and burned just like coal. With shipping costs halved, the economics are compelling.

The southern United States has lots of sunshine and rain so it is an excellent biomass growing area. The most efficient model for biomass is to grow it locally in a small radius around a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant built where thermal heat is needed. Efficiencies of 90% are often attained because all heat that is normally wasted is used. A recent study showed that the southeastern U.S. could easily be energy self-sufficient. The U.S. government has done some detailed studies showing the dramatic environmental superiority of biomass power over fossil fuel plants. Even conventional farming techniques using fertilizers, insecticides and mechanization turn out to have an excellent energy efficiency factor of 20.5 under a detailed analysis that includes all energy inputs including the energy to make the farm machinery. With all of the energy inputs subtracted, the plantation analyzed yielded a net energy production of 125 MWh per acre per year.

You may have heard that biomass is much less efficient than photovoltaic cells. Solar cells are typically rated around 10% efficiency but this rating ignores the fact that the average energy from the sun is only about 20% of peak. The real average efficiency then is .1 X .2 = 2%. If we look at land use of some real projects now on the drawing boards we find that the latest photovoltaic, parabolic and tower projects all use about 5-6 acres per peak MW.

The Saguaro 1-MW parabolic trough plant near Phoenix for example, generates 2000 MWh of electricity annually, using 15.8 acres. That's 130 MWh per acre per year. The 125 MWh figure for the biomass plantation that I mentioned above is for heating value. Electricity generation can be 80% efficient if it is done where wasted thermal energy can be used as in CHP plants. So biomass is at least in the same ballpark as other solar technologies for land use but much cheaper to implement, store and transport than direct electrical generation.

Some terrible mistakes have been made in recent years when tropical rain forests and peat bogs were burned for agricultural development. Big trees should not be replaced by a succession of little trees. We must structure carbon trading so that such acts are taxed and only sound actions are rewarded. Clearing land by open-air burning is common today. If simple, inexpensive equipment was available for upgrading biomass to shippable products, logging waste could be put to good use replacing coal power.

Biomass can help keep the lights on while we build more renewable capacity. If we don't use it, coal will certainly fill the gap. Sweden, Norway and Finland have been making heavy use of biomass for power for decades. They have structured their laws to encourage good stewardship of the land. We can do the same thing internationally by defining good rules for carbon trading.

A wind-assisted ship pulled by a Skysail

# 20 Restoring Degraded Soils for Carbon Credits

Poor farming practices have degraded the world's soils causing them to release carbon that should have stayed in the soil. In the past 150 years soils have released twice as much carbon as fuel burning. Improved farming methods could quickly rebuild degraded land and store enough carbon to offset the damage already done by fuel burning. Dr Rattan Lal of Ohio State University, a leading expert on soil carbon, estimates that the potential of economical carbon sequestration in world soils may be .65 billion to 1.1 billion tons per year for the next 50 years. This is enough to draw down atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm by 2100. This is a one-time opportunity, however. We must ultimately stop burning fossil fuels.

Man has already degraded about five billion acres of land on the planet by misguided farming practices and overgrazing. In fact, many of the world's deserts were once rich land. Desertification from overgrazing, plowing and growing annual crops has greatly reduced the carbon retained in the earth's soils. Many of our deserts started as forests which were cut or burned down to clear the land and then ruined by overgrazing. If we could reclaim these ruined lands we could restore the carbon balance of our planet.

We have only recently begun to understand the destructive effects of plowing and overgrazing. The delicate surface crust is an almost invisible biotic network of algae, cyanobacteria and lichens that hold the soil together with tiny filaments. This thin crust takes in an amazing amount of CO2 by photosynthesis and also fixes the nitrogen in the air to a form usable by plants. Tilling the soil breaks up and buries the biotic crust, stopping photosynthesis. The dust bowl in Oklahoma in the 1930s was an example of the bad effects of plowing the land. Wind and erosion almost turned that once-rich grassland into a desert. In China and Africa the sand dunes have been advancing southward, turning more and more land into sterile deserts. Dust storms in the Gobi desert often block the sun in Beijing and many Saharan dust storms ultimately evolve into the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

One very encouraging project in China has restored a desert community and given them a source of revenue growing sand willow for making wood planks. This experiment was so successful that the restored area is growing rapidly as individuals plant sand willow as a source of income. Even more exciting, is the plan to build hybrid solar power plants in the area that will use the sand willow as biomass to feed boilers when the sun doesn't shine. Esolar will provide heliostats and a solar tower for generating solar power in the daytime. The same turbines will be driven at night by steam, generated by burning the sand willow. A total of two gigawatts of these hybrid power plants are planned.

The sand willow matures in only three years and quickly regrows when cut. Villagers sell sand willow timber to plank companies for $30/ton. This economic boom has driven more and more plantings which are greening of the desert. Once a beachhead is established, the local micro climate is changed. Trees provide shade and shelter from the desert winds. Ultimately moisture brings clouds and increases in rainfall. A whole new ecosystem evolves.

Carbon credits could drive this kind of renaissance even faster. It is very important that we develop inexpensive soil carbon monitoring systems so that such important changes in land use can be rewarded. Farmers are already receiving millions of dollars for no-till farming in the US but some have challenged their legitimacy as being "non-additional." Hopefully, projects with multiple benefits should not be deprived of carbon credits which could drive the fast progress we need. A "green wall" project has been proposed by the UN, which will plant trees along a 7000 km strip that is the current southern edge of the Sahara desert. It is floundering now for lack of money but carbon credits for land restoration could restore it to health.

One of the biggest challenges is re-educating people in degraded areas to keep them from turning it back into a desert. Grazing goats and sheep were practical only when population density was much less than it is today. Under crowded conditions animal hooves quickly trample the soil crust. Denuded plant life soon leads to erosion and desertification. Goats and sheep are particularly destructive as they pull up vegetation by the roots. Too much of our agriculture has been dedicated to feeding animals, which is inefficient at best. It takes 15 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beefsteak. Fish, being cold blooded, are much more efficient. They eat as little as two pounds per pound of meat.

The "green revolution" doubled cereal production between 1961 and 1985. Unfortunately, much of the increase was based on use of cheap fossil fuels to make fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and to irrigate and cultivate the land. The energy content of food has reached frightening levels. Worse yet, the whole philosophy of this movement treats nature as an enemy to be conquered. Other plants, insects and microbes are simply poisoned. Unfortunately, the result has been degraded soils that need even more chemicals. Good healthy soil can hold three times more carbon than the plants themselves, mostly in the form of humus, bacteria, algae and other organic matter. The University of Illinois has maintained corn-growing test plots for over 100 years. Since 1955 synthetic nitrogen fertilization has been applied which contained 90-124 tons of carbon per acre. Today, all of that residue has disappeared into the atmosphere adding to global warming and there has been a decrease in soil carbon of 4.9 tons per acre.

Today, there is a healthy revival of permaculture principles that work with nature instead of against it. Annual crops only do photosynthesis during the growing season, leaving bare dirt the rest of the year. By growing perennials, the root mass and the biotic community can grow steadily larger year after year instead of starting from scratch. Roots go deeper and deeper with each season, increasing drought resistance. Yearlong Green Farming maximizes carbon and water storage in the soil by keeping soil covered with greenery all year long. The world's soils hold three times as much carbon as the atmosphere and four times as much as all of the plants in the world. A large part of the carbon storage is in the biotic soil community and humus, which forms only when the community is kept intact. Restoration experiments in Australia found that conventional cropping practices had reduced soil carbon to half to one third of original levels.

Biomass can be grown from perennial grasses harvested regularly like a lawn that is repeatedly mowed. This allows undisturbed roots to continue to grow larger every year. Symbiotic fungi called mycorrhizae form an association with the roots which can increase their efficiency by a factor of ten. They are powered by the grasses' metabolism but pay back by creating nitrogen and collecting nutrients. By putting rows or clumps of perennial grasses in fields of other crops, yield can be increased while collecting carbon credits. In some cases 8 tons of CO2 stored per acre per year have been recorded with virtually no biomass inputs. The more the soil has been degraded the easier it is to earn credits with changes that store significant carbon. Grazing animals can help restore soils if their grazing patterns simulate herds on the move. They are an important part of the grassland ecosystem. A recent study by Stanford University's Carnegie Institution identified 1.8 million square miles of abandoned farmland worldwide.

Heavy use of chemical fertilizers is unnecessary if the soil's crust is kept intact. Even in barren deserts specialized cyanobacteria on the very top surface remove CO2 and nitrogen from the air through photosynthesis. They protect and colaborate with other species in the next layer that fix the nitrogen but cannot stand oxygen. These species have coevolved to work together to hold the soil together and support the growth of more complex vascular plants. Almost invisible to the naked eye, this crust ecosystem stabilizes the soil while fixing carbon and nitrogen. When the delicate crust community is destroyed, plants starve for nitrogen unless they are given massive fertilizer applications. Chemical fertilizers are an environmental nightmare which release lots of nitrous oxide into the air. Nitrous oxide is 298 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Fertilizers also pollute streams, consume fossil fuels and emit CO2 in their manufacture.

Bioinoculants can restore degraded soils by adding natural microorganisms that greatly reduce the need for chemical fertilizers and even water in the soil. Dramatic increases in soil carbon are possible in a single season. Damaged soil crusts could be healed by aerial spraying of tiny amounts of cyanobacteria mixtures which remain viable through long periods of dryness yet rehydrate and begin growing within minutes of receiving rain or even dew condensation. Cyanobacteria were responsible for creating the oxygen on our planet from CO2 billions of years ago. Perhaps they can help us to rescue the planet today.

Another promising approach to greening deserts is seawater farming. Coastal desert areas lacking fresh water can grow plants like Mangrove and Salicornia along with fish and shrimp that provide the fertilizer. The first commercial-scale saltwater farm was built by the Seawater Foundation on a barren desert in Eritrea, on the west coast of the Red Sea. Before the project, ecologists found only 13 species of wild birds in the area. By the time the farm was completed in 2002, the count had increased to 200. Here is a movie about that farm.

Another massive farm is planned for Abu Dhabi. Boing and Honeywell are partners in the project which will grow salt-water biomass to be used for making green fuel for jet aircraft. There are 25,000 miles of coastal desert in the world that could be developed in this way. Carbon trading could be the driver for these projects if we can only develop sound verification protocols and measuring instruments.

# 21 Energy Saving: Much Cheaper Than Building Power Plants!

On an electrical grid, supply must always exactly equal demand or the voltage goes unstable. Our utility laws very effectively encourage building of power plants to meet an ever-growing demand. This seemed like wise policy in the days of almost free energy but today it encourages gross investment inefficiencies. Power utilities maximize profits by spending as much as possible on expansion of supply even though energy saving could much more efficiently accomplish the same result.

It costs about $2.50/watt to build a new coal power plant. But replacing light bulbs can decrease demand for only $.025/watt!  (A 13-watt compact florescent bulb replacing a 60 watt incandescent bulb reduces demand by 47 watts for only $1.19. $1.19/47=  $.025/watt)  A properly motivated power utility can accomplish the equivalent of building an expansion power plant at much lower cost by just giving compact florescent lamps to their customers. That's exactly what Southern California Edison did in 2007 by sending out sample CFLs to their customers with discount coupons that resulted in over a million lamp replacements. That's 47 megawatts demand reduction when they're all turned on! Another program paid $100 towards an efficient, Energy Star refrigerator and offered free pickup of the old refrigerator. Eight hundred thousand refrigerators were replaced on this program.

In most states this would be a suicidal move for a utility because selling less electricity means making less money. However, California made it good business by rewriting the utility laws to decouple earnings from sales. Utilities are rewarded per customer, based on meeting goals rather than the amount of power sold. . They established a loading order that makes energy saving a top priority. Everybody wins because less fuel is burned so there is less pollution and less global warming

In the 1970s refrigerators used an average of 1800 kwh per year. In 1975 the US tightened efficiency standards for refrigerators. The manufacturers complained loudly that costs would skyrocket. They were wrong. Today, refrigerators cost half as much and consume one fourth as much power. This pattern is repeated again and again as people naturally defend the status quo when it is challenged. The EPA Energy Star program periodically raises the bar on energy standards. Reduced standby power consumption on TVs and computers is a recent campaign against waste. Back when power was almost free, these wasteful ways seemed to make sense.

We must continually reexamine traditional assumptions as history often takes us down a wrong path. The urinals found in men's public bathrooms are a perfect example. For a century urinals have had a flush handle on them. Then somebody invented the automatic flusher triggered by electronically sensing body heat. It seemed like a great invention till somebody realized that this complexity was totally unnecessary. The waterless urinal needs no flusher, no power and no water because it has an ingenious plastic trap filled with a heavy blue liquid that keeps sewer smells in without flushing. Each flush urinal wastes 20,000-40,000 gallons of water a year. If all of the urinals in the US were waterless we would save 160 billion gallons of water per year!  Sometimes it pays to stand back and rethink the assumptions of the past.

Early in this century we had a nice life based on very little energy consumption. Almost-free energy has led us to change our lifestyle in many ways that should probably be re-examined now. Modern lighting, heating and air conditioning went from uneven coverage to uniformity because cheap energy made that possible.

It may be a good time to question whether uniform light and temperature is really better. Modern lighting spotlights the beautiful or useful and leaves the rest in shadow. A family gathered in front of the fireplace accepts it as natural that the rest of the room is cooler. A fan, an open window or a front porch provides an enjoyable oasis from warm weather. Perhaps we could save a lot of energy by learning to accept uneven temperatures in parts of rooms that we only pass through briefly. A ceiling fan can cool sitting areas with much less energy than it takes to air condition every corner of the house.

Those old stone buildings never get very hot or cold because the massive stone walls cool them during the heat of the day and warm them at night with stored heat from the day. Modern lightweight construction has lost this thermal inertia and requires much more heating and cooling.

PCM wallboard (Phase Change Material) has embedded wax beads that melt at 78 degrees in the plaster. Just like melting ice, they they cool the wall when it tries to get hotter than 78. At night, when the wall gets cooler, the wax refreezes, giving back heat in the process. A 15 mm PCM wallboard is as effective for heat retention as 90 mm of concrete or 150 mm of brick! Tiny acrylic microspheres filled with wax are embedded in wallboard allowing normal nailing and cutting without worry. The microspheres can also be mixed into concrete or plaster.

Ceiling fans make it possible to greatly reduce air conditioning use. On warm days you can just open the windows and you'll enjoy the coolness under the fan and enjoy the day. If it gets too hot, try setting the thermostat to eighty degrees and letting the fans cool just your sitting areas. During cold weather you can keep the heat at sixty or so and enjoy sitting by a fire or pellet stove. Ceiling mounted radiant heating panels can make you feel very cozy even though the room is only sixty. NAHB research found they could save 52% compared to electric baseboard heaters.

When you are walking around, sixty feels just fine. Sitting is what makes you cold and you usually do that in only a few places in the house. Also, try to give your body a chance to adapt to heat or cold.

Your comfort zone is partly a matter of conditioning. Push yourself a bit and you will find that you don't really need such a uniform temperature. People who live in cold climates have a very different idea of cold than people living in the tropics.

If you live in a very hot or very cold climate a ground source heat pump can save a lot of energy. Deep in the ground the temperature is mild and stable. Buried heat exchange tubing can be used to pump heat to or from the house to the ground. Efficiency can be as high as 500% compared to traditional electric heating. These systems are expensive to install but can greatly reduce high heating and air conditioning bills. The seemingly expensive upfront costs are cheap compared to the cost of building the additional power generating capacity to power a conventional air conditioner. Currently you can take a tax write-off if you install a heat pump system. In an ideal world a rational choice would be made between spending money on building more generating capacity or reducing demand by installing heat pumps. Currently, utility laws in most states make it inevitable that we will overspend on generating capacity and under  spend on efficiency.

I   
nsulation is one of the home upgrades with the fastest payoff. An attic fan can pay for itself in one year in some cases. Roof insulation is very cost effective too. Window replacements can pay for themselves in a few years, particularly if windows are leaky. New infrared cameras can spot heat leaks in a moment. They show as red, areas where repair work is needed. Professional consultants can do an energy audit on your house that typically result in a 20-40% savings if the indicated repair work is done.

Hot water is very inefficient in the US. In Europe most people have tankless water heaters that come on only when they use hot water. These are more efficient and they save water because you don't have to waste it waiting for the hot water to arrive from a distant tank. In China most new construction uses solar hot water from vacuum tubes on the roof. In Japan, Honda makes a combined heat and power (CHP) system that uses natural gas to generate electricity and uses the waste heat from the generator to make hot water. The overall efficiency is 85% and the electricity generated can run the meter backwards. Volkswagen is introducing a similar unit in Germany and Australia has a new unit based on a solid oxide fuel cell. Several European power utilities are planning to sell these units to yheir customers at discount as a more economical and efficient way to expand power generation.

Now that the almost-free energy is used up we must break our old wasteful habits and begin to respect efficiency. We are wasting so much now that it will be easy and fun to discover new and more efficient ways to live. If we can improve our efficiency it will cost us less, not more. We just have to take the money we would have spent to build more and more power plants and spend it instead on efficiency improvements. The problem is in our legal structure that subsidizes the wrong things. If we can change our utility laws, the technical solutions are easy.

# About the Author

T homas R. Blakeslee is president of The Clearlight Foundation and the author of technical and popular books that have been published in nine different languages. He earned his degree from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California in 1962. After working for IT&T in Antwerp, Belgium, he moved to Silicon Valley in California where he helped found several startup companies as Engineering Vice President. In 1980 he used his own money to found Orion Instruments Inc. He served as President and then Chairman of the Board until he retired in 1998.

A prolific inventor, he holds patents in such diverse fields as photography, hydraulics, electronic circuits, information display, digital telephony, instrumentation and vehicle guidance. Since retiring from Orion, he has focused on managing his own and others investments. After years of successfully investing in oil and gas stocks, he came to the realization that the burning of fossil fuels was ruining our planet through pollution and global warming. His search for practical solutions led him to geothermal energy, where he found an amazing gap between its potential and present reality. Impatient at the slow pace of clean energy development, he went on a search for other technologies capable of producing quicker results. The Clearlight Foundation is his vehicle for change: investing his own and friend's personal savings for the good of the planet.

# References and Links

Note: A pdf version of the book with many more hyperlinks is available at: www.clrlight.org/book.pdf

Also, this book is a compilation of my monthly columns in Renewable Energy World. Extensive hyperlinks and reader discussions may provide additional insights. A list: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/author?id=48
Foreword

PR clean coal: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity

firms that also did tobacco: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

my monthly columns: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/author?id=48

1.. The Elephant Under the Rug: Denial and Failed Energy Projects

PR clean coal: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

Hydrogen 10 fill-ups http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

Well-to wheel: 3X more efficient

http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/well_to_wheel.php

efficiency http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4541

2005 2005 energy bill http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/articles.cfm?ID=13449

meltdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

Sandia http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/accidents/crac2.pdf

airliner crash http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1102-04.htm

waste http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:U9eFzj5dkJIJ:www.nirs.org/factsheets/nirsfctshtdrycaskvulnerable.pdf+nuclear+power+plant+attack+missile&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

sun http://www.physorg.com/news62952904.html

$70 billion http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/9/12502/69812

10 billion tons of CO2 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114163448.htm

not economical http://ran.org/campaigns/global_finance/resources/the_dirty_truth_about_clean_coal/

industry: http://solveclimate.com/blog/20071220/bush-implants-dirty-coal-crony-key-doe-slot

sabotaged: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/white-house-wont-open-emails-pt2.php

http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/Tesla_20060719.pdf

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/symposium/presentations/kempton_murley.pdf

"clean coal": http://ran.org/campaigns/global_finance/resources/the_dirty_truth_about_clean_coal/

http://pesn.com/2007/01/22/9500449_MIT_Geothermal_Report/

http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearpowerplantelectricitycostslusk.pdf

$338 million for geothermal http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/11/a-turning-point-for-geothermal-doe-funding-wins-industry-approval

2. Electric Cars Make Fuel-Free Power Grid Practical

of well-to-wheel efficiency: http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/Tesla_20060719.pdf

Tesla white paper http://www.gowheel.com/data/TeslaWhitePaper20060719.txt

V2G (Vehicle to Grid) concept http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/symposium/presentations/kempton_murley.pdf

3."Nuclear Power" - The Safe and Easy Way

6,000 °C: http://www.physorg.com/news62952904.html

Australia geothermal: http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1405

Reduced budget to zero: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0207/p01s04-stss.htm

MIT report on EGS http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47192

NRC delayed approval: http://www.alternet.org/environment/92937/even_the_government's_nuclear_agency_thinks_an_atomic_renaissance_is_a_bad_idea/

Norway disaster.: http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=329954

Too expensive : http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_27/b4091024354027.htm

20 cents/kWh: http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearpowerplantelectricitycostslusk.pdf

French waste: http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/14-2.pdf

English attempts to solve the waste problem: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NuclearFinancialandSafetyNightmare.php

$96 billion. : http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2050701

The US government guarantees to limit industry liabilities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

4. The Coming Baseload Power Crisis

fish : http://www.edf.org/documents/3370_MercuryPowerPlants.pdf

autism: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002210097_autism17.html

Indonesia geothermal plant: http://www.indonesia-ottawa.org/information/details.php?type=news_copy&id=2857

could exceed the power in the oil already extracted: http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2007/erdlac.pdf

healthcare costs: http://www.grist.org/article/the-health-externalities-of-coal/

solar averages 18% : http://www.cleanenergystates.org/library/ca/CEC_wiser_solar_estimates_0205.pdf

5. Geothermal: Clean Base-load Power from the Earth

Geothermal 5% in California: http://www.geothermal.org/articles/California.pdf.Australia: http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1405

$.03-.035 per kWh: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html

exceed the power in the oil already extracted: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html

air conditioning chiller modified: http://smu.edu/geothermal/Oil&Gas/Dickey_UTC.pdf

Coal prices increased 140%: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919

Coal hidden costs: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/coming_clean.pdf

geothermal plant which will sell power for only $0468 /kWh: http://www.indonesia-ottawa.org/information/details.php?type=news_copy&id=2857

MIT report on EGS http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=47192

6.Heat is Power. Let's stop throwing it away!

1882, Edison's first: http://www.cogeneration.net/ThomasEdisonsCogenPlant.htm

penalizes efficient generation: http://cleantechnica.com/2008/06/26/electricity-generation-efficiency-its-not-about-the-technology/

dangerous for utilities to make efficiency improvements: http://www.recycled-energy.com/_documents/articles/tc_energy_pulse1-15-08.pdf

For more how the power monopolies cling to their power, click on each of the bullet points on this page.: http://www.recycled-energy.com/_documents/articles/tc_energy_pulse1-15-08.pdf

Iceland provides an excellent example: http://www.iea-dhc.org/download/H%FAsavik.pdf

industrial ecology: http://www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/resources/compendia/INDEpdfs/INDEintro.pdf

permaculture.: http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/permaculture/

Lo-Bin: http://www.lowbin.eu/overview.php

Honda Freewatt: http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=200704033944

250 MW of power: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90714692

Watch an excellent video interview with Tom Casten, chairman of RED, the company that worked on this project.: http://www.eenews.net/tv/video_guide/785

CHP : http://www.recyclingenergy.org/its_time.html

recovered energy: http://www.iaee.org/documents/washington/Tom_Casten.pdf

An excellent book on utilities laws and efficiency is: Turning off the Heat by Thomas R Casten, Promethius 1998

Cogeneration News www.cospp.com

7. Beijing's Showcase "Clean coal" Power Plant

Australian carbon capture system: http://www.csiro.au/news/CarbonCaptureMilestone.html

Americans for Balanced Energy Choices: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Balanced_Energy_Choices

West Virginia, for example, only captures 1.5% of the CO2: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-look-at-carbon-capture-and-storage

plants emit more than 20 million tons every year: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114163448.htm

8. Five Ways to Green Existing Power Plants

Fuel and maintenance costs are often significantly lowered.: http://www.biomassmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2466

30 miles with only a 10% loss.: http://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/energy-solutions/capturing-and-distributing-waste-heat-power-generation

Gasifiers located anywhere on the property: http://www.energyproducts.com/EPITechPapers.htm

Solar heating of boiler: http://www.ausra.com: http://www.ausra.com/

"clean coal": http://ran.org/campaigns/global_finance/resources/the_dirty_truth_about_clean_coal/

Peak coal, uranium http://www.energybulletin.net/29919.html

The hidden cost of coal 2.4% of GDP! p21 http://assets.panda.org/downloads/coming_clean.pdf

Geosequestration will make clean coal very expensive. http://ran.org/campaigns/global_finance/resources/the_dirty_truth_about_clean_coal/

9.Drill Baby Drill for a Clean, Safe Energy Future

decommissioning nuclear: http://www.alternativeenergyfoundation.org/releases/2008/uk-spend-140-billion-nuclear-decommissioning-100-years/

2.3 times as many killowatt hours as wind and 23 times as many as solar power!: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table6.html

they have already drilled over 600,000: http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2007/erdlac.pdf

To see an amazing movie of how fracting works click on "Excape" here: http://www.exprogroup.com/techzone_02g_noMPD.swf

Marcellus shale: http://www.marcellusfacts.com/pdf/homegrownenergy.pdf

North and South Dakota: https://smu.edu/geothermal/Oil&Gas/2008/Gosnold.pdf

10. Invisible, Underground HVDC Power Costs no more than Ugly Towers

HVDC rapidly becoming cheaper: http://library.abb.com/global/scot/scot221.nsf/veritydisplay/fb6c585ba5834af4c1256fda004c8cbe/$File/Distr2000.pdf

be mismatched by as much as 33:1 : http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/09/curtailment-negative-prices-symptomatic-of-inadequate-transmission-53616

wind negative value: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008/09/curtailment-negative-prices-symptomatic-of-inadequate-transmission-53616

11. Biochar: Key to Carbon Negative Biofuels

slash and char: http://www.biochar.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=8&Itemid=10

terra preta article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pyrolyisis-terra-preta-could-eliminate-garbage-generate-oil-carbon-sequestration&sc=I100322

double or triple production: http://orgprints.org/13268/1/Biochar_as_a_soil_amendment_-_a_review.pdf

produce 340 GJ/hectare/year of biooil: http://www.biochar-international.org/images/Agrichar_May2,_2007_Presentation-Radlein.pdf

.Methane from termites: http://books.google.com/books?id=eCplelCvA00C&pg=PA610&lpg=PA610&dq=termites+warming+forest&source=bl&ots=gHQbnB_383&sig=4raVnJY5Nt5Ts_6zBoIvOZfVOT4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#v=onepage&q=termites%20warming%20forest&f=false

NOx 140 times worse: http://www.relocalize.net/charcoal_from_biowaste_may_remove_carbon_from_atmosphere_on_global_scale

Watch an excellent 49-minute BBC movie about Terra Preta: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8993313723654914866#

12. Clean Coal: Here Now!

National Bio Energy http://www.nbe.cn/about_english.asp?clsid=6

An excellent presentation by Dragon Power http://www.dragonpower.com/

government report on biomass power plants: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26946.pdf

torrefiers Ecocern : http://www.techtp.com/recent%20papers/BO2-technology.pdf

Google earth. Click on Coal Plant Names: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=MidAmerican_Energy

13. Can Biomass Replace Coal?

Grow about 1.3 on exising available land. DOE Biomass report: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf

Austrian small-scale: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/austria-flexes-its-bioenergy-muscles

fuel cells: http://www.fuelcellenergy.com/products.php

microturbines.: http://www.capstoneturbine.com/prodsol/products/index.asp

1000 times cleaner incinerators: http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Stengler_The_European_Position.pdf

barbeque seven times more dioxins http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4033.php

14. CHP Electricity Powers Cars 22 Times Farther Than Ethanol!

An acre of corn yields about 8.4 tons/year: http://www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu/dairynet/paperDisplay.cfm?ContentID=7753

Denmark has 53%, CHP: http://www.climate.org/PDF/RecyclingWasteHeat.pdf

Many biomass plants exceeding 90% efficiency: http://www.opet-chp.net/download/wp2/small_scale_biomass_chp_technologies.pdf

High-rise buildings: http://www.distributedenergy.com/may-june-2009/chp-thrives-nyc.aspx

with 50-60% efficiency: http://ecogeneration.com.au/news/fuel_cells_in_australia/001348/

home-sized CHP units: http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/20090522_CFCL_BlueGen_Launch_22May09.pdf

German straw bale gasifiers : http://www.nrg-consultants.com/chppowerplantscogeneration/wholestrawbalegasifiers/wholebalegasifiers/index.html

years 45% of ownership of power generation had shifted: http://www.folkecenter.net/mediafiles/folkecenter/pdf/CHP_in_Denmark__1990_-_2001.pdf

15. Solar Power: A Gift from Space

air conditioning from heat: http://www.distributedenergy.com/the-latest/ducool-cogeneration-wastetoheat.aspx

20 micrometers thick: http://www.distributedenergy.com/the-latest/ducool-cogeneration-wastetoheat.aspx

42.8% efficiency: http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html

16. Free as the Wind

wind 85% of installed capacity.: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/31/194053/962

a chart of power output vs. capability in Ontario: http://reports.ieso.ca/public/GenOutputCapability/PUB_GenOutputCapability

Audubon society: http://www.audubon.org/campaign/windPowerQA.html

Service done from inside the nacelle: http://clipperwind.com/pdf/Liberty_Brochure_2009_LR.pdf

10-MW generator superconductor: http://www.amsc.com/newsroom/pr.html?id=317

17. NG Fuel Cell Car is Twice as Efficient as an Electric

95% of our hydrogen from nat gas: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html

ANG: Adsorption 500 psi: http://www.greencar.com/articles/corncobs-store-gas-natural-gas-vehicles.php

five million CNG vehicles: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-05-08-natural-gas-usat_N.htm

500 psi Adsorbed Natural Gas refueling: http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/43_3_BOSTON_08-98_0575.pdf

Volt battery cost $5000,: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10311119-48.html

Gas pipelinescost half as much to build: http://www.chpcenternw.org/NwChpDocs/Transmission_and_N_Gas_Comparing_Pipes_and_Wires_032304.pdf

Gas also has one fourth the loss: http://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/energy_loss__transmission_loss.html

storing 4.1 Tcf of gas: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/undrgrnd_storage.html

Methanol range extender http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=21663

hydrogen initiative forced on DOE: http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-forces-the-doe-to-take-hydrogen-funding-2009-7

18. Methane: A Better Energy Carrier than Electricity or Hydrogen

Gas pipelinescost half as much to build: http://www.chpcenternw.org/NwChpDocs/Transmission_and_N_Gas_Comparing_Pipes_and_Wires_032304.pdf

Gas also has one fourth the loss: http://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/energy_loss__transmission_loss.html

efficiency of 85% : http://www.cfcl.com.au/BlueGen/

Sweden already gets 25% bio: http://www.metaefficient.com/buses/biogas-sweden-fuel-buses-trains.html

Gas pipelinescost half as much to build: http://www.chpcenternw.org/NwChpDocs/Transmission_and_N_Gas_Comparing_Pipes_and_Wires_032304.pdf

Methane is 72 times worse than CO2 p5: http://www.bioeconomyconference.org/07%20Sessions/approved07sessions/Amonette,%20Jim.pdf

Coal mines emit almost a trillion cubic feet of methane: http://www.energyglobal.com/sectors/exploration/articles/methane_from_coal_mines_presents_opportunity_to_recover_energy_and_generate_revenues.aspx

German digesters 9 Gigawatts of power: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GreenEnergies.php

gasify biomass, for grid: http://www.ecn.nl/fileadmin/ecn/units/bio/Leaflets/b-08-026_Green_Gas_explained.pdf

inefficient hydrogen storage: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4541

truck can service about ten customers.

fuel cell CHP US http://www.clearedgepower.com/categories/home-owner/pages/home

19. Importing Solar Power with Biomass

five times more productive http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridges/4543/

$12/ton  http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&om=1&msa=0&msid=111159065126825523002.0004437067f2bca141bb3&ll=-0.703107,-168.046875&spn=169.346228,360&z=1&source=embed

torrefied pellets. http://www.shortrotationwood.eu/07-NEWS/news%20ENG.html

two million tons http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/coal-exports-to-china-may-fall-as-prices-shipping-rates-rise/story-0-1225748182834

$130 million http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/login.php?url=http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/72635/Plantation-Energy-secures-60m-deal

reduced http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/2020-02-12-14-013%20eindrapport%20ECN_tcm24-171075.pdf

$3.5 billion http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/valero-bets-on-biodiesel-from-jatropha/?partner=yahoofinance

food, fuel and forest http://www.missionnewenergy.com/Sustainability.php

Desertification http://www.tradeinvestnigeria.com/news/914013.htm

regrow quickly http://desertification.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/inner-mongolia-greening-the-desert-with-sand-binding-plants-and-biofuels-google-alert-biopact/

burn sand willow http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-11-china-powers-global-green-tech-revolution/

48 inches http://www.midatlanticbamboo.com/bamboo-info/bamboo-grow.htm

Clenergen http://www.businesswireindia.com/PressRelease.asp?b2mid=20375

energy density http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density#Energy_Density_sorted_by_Wh.2Fl

Methanol fuel cells http://www.methaenergy.com/US/Products-and-segments/Vehicle-drive-train

cars http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/5650/innovative-danish-technology-uses-methanol-to-make-fuel-cell-vehicles-competitive/

microchannel http://velocys-files.gripmanager.com/conferences/22/Microchannel_Fischer-Tropsch_for_Biomass-to-Liquids.June08.pdf

much more efficient http://bdd30412c4435fb83871bb42c4abc74fdcc18bff.gripelements.com/downloads/technical-docs/international_sugar_microchannelreactorsmarch09_lowres.pdf

Desertec http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/

10 million tons. http://www.scribd.com/doc/13830646/Global-Wood-Pellet-Market-2008

Torrefied http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/2020-02-12-14-013%20eindrapport%20ECN_tcm24-171075.pdf

study http://www.cleanenergy.org/images/stories/local_clean_power_wri.sace.southface.pdf

superiority of biomass http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~baallen/Life%20Cycle%20Assessment.pdf

energy efficiency factor of 20.5 http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/21_2_NEW%20YORK_04-76_0021.pdf

generates 2000 MWh of electricity annually

coal http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/32575.pdf

biomass http://www.opet-chp.net/download/wp2/small_scale_biomass_chp_technologies.pdf

Skysail http://www.skysails.info/english/information-center/news/news/article/erste-frachtschiff-serie-wird-mit-skysails-ausgeruestet/472/aa67e95d4b/

# 20 Restoring Degraded Soils for Carbon Credits

Soils have http://renewablesoil.com/increased-photosynthetic-capacity-reverses-global-warming.html

Rattan Lal http://carboncoalitionoz.blogspot.com/

China and Africa http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/nuearth-releases-white-paper-on,1120096.shtml http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/nuearth-releases-white-paper-on,1120096.shtml

Sand willow http://desertification.wordpress.com/2007/08/17/inner-mongolia-greening-the-desert-with-sand-binding-plants-and-biofuels-google-alert-biopact/

hybrid solar power http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-11-china-powers-global-green-tech-revolution/

chemicals http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf

synthetic http://www.grist.org/article/2010-02-23-new-research-synthetic-nitrogen-destroys-soil-carbon-undermines-/

yearlong green http://austcom.org.au/uploads/media/sustaindec07p34_35scpa.pdf

single season http://www.microsoil.com.au/SoilCarbon/tabid/60/Default.aspx

21. Energy Saving: Much Cheaper Than Building Power Plants

Southern California Edison lamp replacement: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS196253+10-Jul-2008+BW20080710

the utility laws to decouple earnings from sales: http://www.progressivestates.org/content/671/utility-decoupling-giving-utilities-incentives-to-promote-energy-efficiency

Energy Star: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=tax_credits.tx_index

ingenious plastic urinal trap: http://www.waterless.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3&Itemid=55

save 160 billion gallons of water per year: http://www.waterless.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=44

PCM wallboard: http://www2.basf.us/corporate/080204_micronal.htm

. Ceiling mounted radiant heating: http://www.oikos.com/esb/37/radiant.html

pump heat: http://www.waterfurnace.com/how_it_works.aspx

energy audit: http://www.marylandenergyauditor.com/home-energy-audit-infrared-thermal-imaging-video

Volkswagen is introducing CHP: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/09/15/volkswagen-to-make-electricity-in-your-basement/

Australia has a new unit based on a solid oxide fuel cell.: http://www.cfcl.com.au/BlueGen/
