Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

More than a few venture investors would consider giving up their first born if they could identify for sure the Next Big Thing.

Last week, however, a senior energy technology guru gave them some free advice. His message: don't just look at obvious items like batteries and solar cells, but also at the "game-changing materials" that underly key advances in those technologies. (Shameless plug: see NEXT100's earlier take on some of the amazing developments in materials science.)

Speaking at the annual convention of the Edison Electric Institute in San Francisco, Mike Howard, senior vice president of R&D at the Electric Power Research Institute, emphasized that "materials are critically important to everything we do," from generation to lighting to storage.

As an example, he pointed to the current limits on steam generation efficiency set by steels that degrade at temperatures above 1000F. If operating temperatures of boilers and turbines could be raised to 1400F, their efficiency could be increased dramatically from 37 percent to 47 percent.

Finding new materials to work at such temperature extremes without cracking requires understanding what is happening at the atomic level. "Working with atomic probe microscopes, we are uncovering some fundamental properties of materials and why failures occur," he said.

Materials science is also having a revolutionary impact on lighting, which consumes about 17 percent of all electricity in the United States. Applying surface-mount technology to assemble LEDs with different spectra to produce the desired light output is opening up great room for potential further improvements in efficiency and usability. "LEDs are on a strong upward trajectory with regard to efficiency," Howard said. "It's a game changer."

Last but not least he addressed storage, where the Holy Grail is maximizing the amount of energy stored per kilogram (energy density). For electrochemical batteries, the critical factor is the amount of reactive surface area available.

By inserting nanowires into lithium ion batteries, their energy density can be increased four times, Howard said. That means a laptop computer could be powered for 16 hours instead of only four, with batteries of the same weight and size. Or it means a Chevy Volt could drive 160 miles instead of 40 on a single charge. "That's where we are headed," Howard promised.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Slow, loud and smoky, brought to you by General Motors.

That was the how Americans came to perceive a variety of ill-designed diesel cars more than two decades ago, after giving the fuel-efficient technology a try in the wake of the two oil embargoes. Diesel was a bust here in the U.S. of A.

So what is it about diesel cars today that makes them account for about half of new car sales in Western Europe?  It turns out that engineers have quietly made them clean enough to pass the tightest air regulations, while retaining their famed accelerating power (torque) and fuel efficiency.

Diesel fuel has more energy than gasoline and diesel engines tend to have higher intrinsic efficiency than spark-ignition gasoline engines. Diesel fuels can also be manufactured from vegetable oils or animal fats--even recycled restaurant grease--making biodiesel an especially attractive "green" fuel.

There's more good news: after a nasty spike last year, diesel prices are back below gasoline. According to figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, diesel prices in California last week averaged $2.79 a gallon versus $3.01 for gasoline, a 22 cent spread. 

This confluence of improved technology and lower fuel prices is giving a big boost to Volkswagon, maker of the diesel Jetta TDI. Sales of the diesel-engined Jetta in the United States are running far ahead of the manufacturer's projections.

The $22,000 Jetta TDI was named Green Car of the Year last November by Green Car Journal, which said the vehicle "raises the bar significantly in environmental performance with its EPA estimated 41 mpg highway fuel economy, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and extremely low tailpipe emissions. This is all the more impressive when you consider the Jetta TDI is a clean diesel, achieving the kind of fuel efficiency offered by gasoline electric hybrids but in a more affordable way." 

Riding the diesel wave, Volkswagon recently unveiled its BlueSport roadster, with a top speed of 140 mph, 258 ft-lbs of torque, and 0-60 acceleration in less than 6 seconds. Its U.S. fuel economy is estimated at 42 mpg.

Like Volkswagon, Mazda is reportedly focusing on clean diesel engines ahead of more expensive hybrids. And Audi is launching a major marketing campaign for its new line of diesels.

The latest surveys suggest, however, that only a third of Americans would consider buying a diesel car. Maybe the Old Country still has something to teach us about new vehicle technology. 

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• San Francisco has passed a law requiring all homes and businesses to recycle and compost. Mayor Gavin Newsom says if everyone puts all the garbage, food scraps and other waste in the correct color-coded buckets, the city's recycling rate would rise to 90 percent from the current 72 percent. There's a cap of a $100 fine for homes and small businesses, but Newsom says the goal is to heighten public awareness.
• Smart Sewers? Yes, we will have them right here in San Francisco. The city's Public Utilities Commission and IBM Corp. have teamed up to install software to monitor maintenance of the city's 1,000-miles of sewer pipes and pinpoint potential water pollution, overflowing storm drains and other underground emergencies. 
• Chicago's 110-story Sears Tower, the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, will get a $350 million "green" retrofit that aims to reduce electricity use by 80 percent and water consumption by 40 percent. The makeover will include gas boilers with fuel cells to generate electricity, heat and cooling; solar panels to heat water; wind turbines, if possible; "green" roofs; new lighting systems; and water conservation in new restroom fixtures, among other energy-saving features.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several news stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

Global warming--and efforts to fight global warming--are both putting national wildlife refuges at risk, according to a new report from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Not surprisingly, climate change and rising sea levels threaten to destroy marshes and other critical habitats. But the report also warns that wind and solar farms and electric transmission lines can slice up wildlife habitats. The report calls for incentives for landowners to protect sensitive land and for better siting of power infrastructure. 

The Waxman-Markey climate bill comes to the House floor for a vote today, with strong backing from President Obama. Public opinion if divided on its central provision, cap-and-trade: 52 percent of those surveyed in a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll support the approach, with 42 percent opposed. But three-quarters of Americans, including even a majority of Republicans, support federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

A group of 20 corporations, including PG&E, HP, Applied Materials, and Starbucks ran an ad supporting Waxman-Markey, declaring: "Putting a price on carbon will drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and will create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy." 

Opponents of the bill include the American Petroleum Institute, the National Pork Producers Council, Friends of the Earth and most Republican members of Congress. Said House Minority Leader John Boehner, "Americans know that this bill would have a disastrous impact on our economy and our constituents." However, studies by the Congressional Budget Office and EPA suggest the average cost per household would be somewhere between $80 per year and $175 per year to help prevent potentially grievous economic and environmental harm.

Even if the United States passes a climate change bill with teeth, getting other countries to go along will remain a challenge. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently said Russia might cut greenhouse gas emissions by about 10 to 15 per cent based on the 1990 base year used under the Kyoto deal. But because Russian emissions were so high that year, such a target could still allow the country to increase emissions by a third by 2020.

Posted by: Jennifer Zerwer

This week Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is hosting its annual convention and expo in San Francisco. The conference focuses on the major public policy challenges now facing the electric utility sector and features such thought leaders as U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Steven Chu and Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp. Hot topics on this year's agenda include the smart grid, the future of electric vehicles, renewable energy standards, carbon trading and energy efficiency.

As the host utility, PG&E created a special demonstration for attendees simulating how customers will one day communicate with PG&E through SmartMeter's Home Area Network (HAN) gateway. This demonstrated how customers can utilize the HAN to better manage their energy use and participate in voluntary demand response programs.

In the demonstration booth, a variety of smart energy devices were connected to the HAN, including a thermostat, in-home display, smart plug, demand response enabled refrigerator and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). PG&E then initiated a demand response signal to the HAN to reflect an energy curtailment event. Based on settings preset by the customer, the smart energy devices, refrigerator and PHEV automatically adjusted to reduce energy consumption. For example the thermostat automatically increased its set point temperature by five degrees and the PHEV disabled its charge. The demonstration also showed how customers can easily override a demand response event if needed. Check out pictures of the demonstration below.

As my colleague Jonathan Marshall has written before, electric customers stand to benefit greatly from a smarter grid, including more control over energy bills and better, faster service.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

No one ever thought it possible, but an issue has finally emerged to unite the oddest of bedfellows: Senator Tom Coburn, the conservative Republican from Oklahoma who called global warming "just a lot of crap," and Greenpeace, one of the most zealous of environmental activist groups.

That issue is federal support for research on technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions, primarily from coal-fired power plants, and store them underground (even under the ocean floor) where they can't contribute to greenhouse warming of the earth.

Both right and left are slamming a decision this month by the Department of Energy to resurrect a Bush-era proposal to fund FutureGen, an R&D project to demonstrate carbon capture and storage (CCS) at a new coal-fired power plant in Mattoon, Ill. Tens of billions of dollars more could be made available for CCS projects through the Waxman-Markey bill on global warming.

The controversy has all the ingredients that make national action on global warming so difficult: the specter of huge federal expenditures, major scientific and engineering uncertainty, and the clash of powerful political lobbies (especially coal-related interests) against partisan and ideological opponents (Coburn and Greenpeace).

Sen. Coburn this month put FutureGen--slated to receive $1 billion in stimulus funds--at second place on his list of 100 federal projects that he denounced as "wasteful spending."  

Meanwhile Michael Crocker, media director at Greenpeace USA, said, "The billions for CCS make a new fleet of helicopters for the president or Alaska's infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' look like a rummage sale bargain. At least we know helicopters and bridges actually work."

Ouch.

Skepticism about CCS isn't confined to the two extremes. The Economist magazine charged in March that "For the moment, at least, CCS is mostly hot air":

[T]here is not a single big power plant using CCS anywhere in the world. Utilities refuse to build any, since the technology is expensive and unproven. Advocates insist that the price will come down with time and experience, but it is hard to say by how much, or who should bear the extra cost in the meantime. Green pressure groups worry that captured carbon will eventually leak. In short, the world's leaders are counting on a fix for climate change that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable. 

But the Department of Energy can make a good case for its subsidies. For one thing, several promising technologies already exist for grabbing CO2 out of the air (or, in this case, out of flue gases). And for years, oil companies have pumped compressed CO2 underground to displace and extract more crude. The challenge is to find cheaper ways to extract CO2 and safe underground storage caverns that won't leak for hundreds of years.

Hard, yes, but not impossible. Studies at MIT and elsewhere suggest it can be done for $50-$70 per ton of CO2, more expensive than many energy efficiency investments, natural gas-fired generation and some forms of renewable energy, but less than the cost of some policies now being adopted to fight global warming.

Many energy experts advocate funding a reasonable number of demonstration projects to help narrow the cost uncertainties and advance the technology before deciding the fate of coal and CCS. They are joined by mainstream national environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund.

Interestingly, Royal Dutch Shell has redirected its "clean energy" investments from solar and wind to place its bets instead on CCS demonstration projects. "We think carbon capture and storage is one of the few technologies which has the potential to become very big," said CEO Jeroen van der Veer in May. "And if it becomes very big, then you start to do something about greenhouse gases."

If nothing else, political realities suggest that with half of U.S. electric power coming from coal--and millions of jobs tied to it--coal will have to be part of the solution.

As Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said sagely, "Even if the United States turns its back on coal, China and India will not. Given the state of affairs, I would prefer to say let's try to develop technologies that can get large fractions of the carbon dioxide out of coal."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Scene: It's 2025. The recent collapse of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets has raised sea levels two meters. Major sections of San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York City are now underwater and the public is panicking.

On the Washington Mall, under the hot sun, a fiery orater from Greenpeace tells assembled demonstrators that America must change its way of life or lead the world to ruin. He calls on the Menendez administration to support a ban on popular wall-sized TVs and other power-hungry home electronics.

On the steps of the Capitol, a crowd of counterdemonstrators jeer him. Their leader walks to the podium and hoists aloft his iPhone (version 20.0, with its new Telepathic OS™).

"You can have my iPhone when you pry it from my cold, dead hands," he shouts, as the crowd roars its approval.

That nightmare crossed my mind today upon reading the results of a new national survey of consumers. When asked whether they would be willing to do without certain products that harmed the environment, most people said, in effect, fuggedaboudit.

More precisely, only 38 percent said they would give up their iPod if they learned that it harmed the environment. Just over a third could live without a dishwasher. Only a quarter would part with their microwave, and only a fifth with their cell phone.

Civil war would erupt if anyone tried to turn off their air conditioner--only 14 percent of consumers would consider that sacrifice. The same for televisions--13 percent.

Most addictive of all were computers (7 percent willing to forego) and cars (6 percent).

If American attitudes are any indication, trying to convince residents of China and India to do without cars may be a lost cause.

Said Suzanne Shelton, whose Knoxville advertising firm conducted the survey, "Consumers don`t want to give up the modern conveniences of life. We`re all basically saying, `I`ll be green as long it doesn`t make me uncomfortable or inconvenienced.'"

Will we be uncomfortable enough when our cities are two feet under water?

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. once again is taking the lead on road testing the first all-electric utility truck in the U.S. with an aerial lift for work on overhead power lines. The truck was developed by Smith Electric Vehicles U.S. Corp., with Altec Industries Inc. providing the aerial boom and platform. It will be the first all-electric utility truck to be put into operation by a major utility before being brought to market.

PG&E will put the truck through its paces on routine and emergency overhead tasks in the utility's service area in northern and central California and deliver test data to Smith Electric and Altec for development of a production model.

"PG&E is committed to reducing the environmental impact of our operations and helping to improve air quality in the communities we serve," said David Meisel, director of transportation services at PG&E. "We hope our involvement will lead to the accelerated development and mainstream acceptance of electric vehicles in our industry."

Bryan Hansel, CEO of Smith Electric Vehicles U.S., said: "The production of this truck is just the latest example of PG&E's outstanding leadership role in sustainability-related initiatives."

PG&E has also been active in deploying diesel-electric hybrid bucket trucks for field tests against a conventional truck, with results showing reduced fuel consumption and lowered emissions by operating an aerial bucket with battery power without the engine running. The utility also operates a large fleet of alternative-fueled cars and other trucks.

The new test truck is fuel-emissions-free, runs without noise of vibration and stores energy during stopping though a process called regenerative braking and then reusing the energy for acceleration. The vehicle has a top speed of 50 mph, a range on a single battery charge of more than 100 miles and a maximum aerial height of about 38 feet with a reach of more than 28 feet.

The news comes as the federal Energy Department begins to extend loans to automakers to develop new fuel-efficient vehicles. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today a $5.9 billion loan to Ford Motor Co., a $1.6 billion loan to Nissan Motor Co. and a $465 million loan to Tesla Motors.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Pundits point to computers, wireless, the Internet, the Web and now clean tech as the revolutionary technologies of our time. But a strong case can be made that the enabling innovations behind most of those revolutions have been in the field of materials science.

Like Rodney Dangerfield, materials science--the study of the relationship between the atomic or molecular structure of matter and its macroscopic properties--doesn't get much respect outside of narrow professional circles. But the accelerating discovery of new materials with extraordinary properties is what makes advances in solar cells, lithium batteries and terabyte-level computer storage possible. They will be critical to helping the world achieve higher standards of living while using or producing energy more efficiently.

You won't see many stories in your local newspaper, but one of the hottest research areas for materials scientists is a two-dimensional crystalline form of carbon called graphene. A mere one-atom thick, it nonetheless manages to be the strongest material ever discovered. Unlike buckyballs or carbon nanotubes, which are also one atom thick, graphene lies flat, in sheets.

"In physics today, graphene is, arguably, the most exciting topic," says Tomás Palacios, assistant professor in MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

It usually behaves like a highly conductive metal, but scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have discovered a reliable way to make it act like a semiconductor (the basis of transistors), by doping it with the right chemicals. The new results make graphene a promising candidate for nanoelectronics (microelectronics is so 20th century) and "could enable new kinds of optoelectronic devices for generating, amplifying, and detecting infrared light," according to the lab's announcement.

Meanwhile, scientists at the University of Manchester have used graphene to create the world's smallest transistors--a mere one atom thick and 10 atoms wide. And at MIT, scientists have shown the ability of graphene to process electrical signals at frequencies a hundred times faster than normal semiconductors, opening up new windows for communications.

An Austin, Texas startup, Graphene Energy, hopes to use the miracle substance to make super high capacity ultracapacitors, which story energy electrostatically between two charged plates, rather than chemically as in batteries. Unlike batteries, ultracapacitors can charge and discharge millions of times without failing. Graphene-based ultracapacitors could have application in electric vehicles, forklifts or even for stabilizing electrical grids.

Because ultrathin graphene films are both transparent and highly conductive, they also show great promise as electrodes in solid-state solar cells. Graphene can also be used for touchscreens, light-emitting diodes, sensing gas molecules and even detecting microbes.

Research in the field was opened up in 2004 when a team of physicists at the University of Manchester first announced their production of graphene. (Their paper almost didn't get published because its claims were so exotic.) 

Highly impractical physicists love the stuff because it lets them explore theoretical questions of particle physics and even astrophysics in their labs without the need for multi-billion dollar particle colliders. The rest of us practical folks can look forward to a host of potentially life-changing applications.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• A prototype will be introduced in Switzerland on June 26 for the Solar Impulse plane aiming to fly for 36 hours powered only by the sun. The plane features a giant wingspan with more than 11,000 solar cells and lithium batteries to power four propellers. A test flight is expected later this year. Solar Impulse is financed by European companies Solvay, Omega and Deutsche Bank.
• Just in time for a summer driving vacation in an alternative-fueled car: The National Renewable Energy Labs and Google have developed a TransAtlas map of alternative fuel stations across the U.S. The fuels are hydrogen, propane, electricity, liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas, E85 and biodiesel.
• San Francisco is testing new energy-efficient solar bus shelters for its sprawling transit system featuring solar photovoltaic panels embedded in the roof, LED lighting, Wi-Fi space for advertising, maps and an information display for arriving buses. The city's MUNI transit agency plans to replace 1,100 existing shelters this year.
• Britain's Queen Elizabeth is going green, reports Vanity Fair, growing organic vegetables at Buckingham Palace, the first royal vegetable patch since World War II. Her Majesty is growing beans, beets, tomatoes, lettuce and potatoes. The magazine speculates that perhaps the Queen was inspired by her First Lady friend Michelle Obama who gardens at the White House. 

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

A major new federal climate report, commissioned by the Bush administration, warns that unchecked CO2 emissions could warm the United States by 10 degrees over the next 80 years. Its regional findings for the Southwest, including California, warn that

Continued temperature increases combined with river flow reductions and rapid population growth will increase competition for water supplies. Increasing temperature, drought, wildfire, and invasive species will accelerate transformation of the landscape. Impacts of climate change on the landscape of the Southwest are likely to be substantial, threatening biological diversity, protected areas, and ranching and agricultural lands. . . . Record-setting wildfires are resulting from the rising temperatures and related reductions in spring snowpack and soil moisture.

Scientists reporting on the findings of a major conference attended by 2,000 climate impact specialists this March in Copenhagen say that half measures to limit global warming won't prevent the earth from reaching a "tipping point" in which "change is abrupt, large, and potentially irreversible in time frames relevant for contemporary society."  Said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, "Either you make a decision like Churchill in the war and talk about blood, sweat and tears, or you say, 'Let's surrender.'"

Political battles in Congress continue to bog down climate change legislation. In addition to fierce opposition from the coal lobby, agricultural interests are seeking to water down key provisions even though global warming threatens to cause droughts, crippling heat and pest infestations. Backed by Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), farm state electric cooperatives are demanding free emissions allowances based on historic emission levels, which would reward the dirtiest polluters. Peterson is threatening to block climate change legislation unless he wins such concessions. 

Farm interests also won a vote in the House Appropriations Committee for an amendment to the appropriations bill for EPA, which would block the agency from making factory farms report their greenhouse gas emissions and exempt livestock operations from emissions regulations. Cows and their manure are major sources of methane, a greenhouse gas much more potent than carbon dioxide.

The energy bill reported out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will save only about a third as much energy as its counterpart in the House, according to an analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. But the organization still sees a glass half full:

Consumers will realize approximately $20 billion in net savings by 2030. Moreover, such savings will avoid about 133 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020, the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off the road for a year. The 2030 energy efficiency savings account for about 4% of projected U.S. energy use that year.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

The world's biggest renewable energy project--at least on paper--may launch next month with an investment of half a trillion dollars, according to the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung.

Promoted by the Desertec Foundation, the project would erect 100 gigawatts of concentrating solar thermal power generation in North Africa, enough to supply about 15 percent of Europe's electricity needs. That's about 80 times the size of PG&E's record solar deal with BrightSource Energy.

As NEXT100 reported last fall, European leaders including Gordon Brown and Nicholas Sarkozy have endorsed the concept of transmitting vast amounts of Saharan solar power to Europe over efficient, high-voltage DC lines. Visionary inventors have gone further and proposed desalination plants and coastal agricultural projects to accompany solar stations along Africa's Mediterranean shore.

The Desertec project brings together 20 major German companies, including Siemens, Deutsche Bank, RWE, E.on, and the insurance giant Munich Re. Munich Re has been vocal about the looming financial impact on the insurance industry (among others) of natural disasters aggravated by global warming. Companies from other countries may join as well.

According to some estimates, harnessing a mere 0.3 percent of the light falling on the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East could supply all of Europe's energy needs.

Desertec has won applause even from the harshest critics of big corporations. Said Andree Bohling of Greenpeace, "Businesses have finally recognised that renewable energies belong to the future, and in times of economic crisis this also sends out an important signal for economic growth."

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Last summer, a presidential candidate named Barack Obama drew hoots and hollers from opponents for claiming that properly inflating your tires is a simple but important step individuals can take to save energy.

For all the derision he endured, Obama was right, of course. Tire pressure and road friction significantly affect auto fuel economy. The Department of Energy reports that "a vehicle with a recommended pressure of 35 psi whose tires are at 28 psi will have increased its rolling resistance by 12.5%."

Ironically, Obama was echoing an advertising campaign mounted by the first Bush administration in 1990, called "Do Your Part, Drive Smart," which advised that drivers collectively could save millions of barrels of oil a year simply by increasing the air pressure in their tires.

California has long understood the importance of tire friction. In 2003, the state passed a law that required the development of reporting requirements from manufacturers to help consumers compare the fuel economy of different tires.

A 10 percent improvement in the rolling resistance of older tires used in California could reduce the state's consumption of oil by more than 250 million gallons (saving about $750 million) and reduce CO2 emissions by 2.7 million metric tons annually, according to the California Energy Commission.

California's Air Resources Board already requires service stations to check tire pressure whenever they do repairs. Last week, the California Energy Commission proposed a new rating system for tires sold in California based on their rolling resistance, according to my favorite bedtime periodical, Modern Tire Dealer.

The Commission proposes to award the label "fuel efficient tire" to all tires that fall within 15 percent of the lowest measured "rolling resistance force." It would be like an Energy Star label for tires.

The Commission believes such ratings will "ignite a competitive spirit" among tire manufacturers to win the coveted label. But the Rubber Manufacturers Association advocates less costly testing requirements and a "self-certification" system for ratings.

Until the new ratings are final and published, one good source of information is Consumer Reports, which claims to be "the only independent group that rates tires for both performance and rolling resistance." Wikipedia also has a good list of tires with low rolling resistance.

Consumer Reports, which was invited by the Commission to be part of its rating proposal process, has this caveat:

Rolling resistance should not be the primary reason for a tire purchase. The most important considerations are safety-related performance features including dry- and wet-braking, hydroplaning resistance, handling, winter traction if applicable in your region, and tread-life. Low rolling resistance should be a secondary consideration in your tire-buying decision.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Can't wait for Detroit to produce an all-electric car? Call Duke's Garage. This family-owned classic car dealer and restoration shop in Westminster, Colorado, has converted a 1965 Ford Mustang Convertible into an Electric Pony with a travel range of 50 to 60 miles on an 8-hour charge. It's believed to be the first all-electric Mustang and probably not the last for the garage.

"Advancements in 'green' technology are gaining more and more interest in this country every day. We have taken the beauty and character of a 45-year old classic car and combined it with today's advancements in Earth-friendly engineering," said Melisse Altschuler, co-owner of Colorado Classic Cars. "It is not a coincidence that we chose to paint Electric Pony an olive green color."

The Electric Pony includes two high-torque direct drive motors, a high-power direct current motor controller and a lightweight 144-volt lithium-ion battery pack. The garage made structural modifications to house the electric motors beneath the car, along with other work to rebuild the Mustang. The interior features tan colored, recycled foam-filled hemp seats.

The Electric Pony is the initial step into a new business strategy, says John Altschuler, manager of Duke's Garage. "We're looking to convert classic vehicles to all-electrics for people who want efficiency and some personality -- a cool factor,"  he said. The Electric Pony cost about $70,000 to convert because the garage had to begin with nothing more than a floorboard and some metal. Converting a car in better condition could run about $30,000.

Duke's Garage has converted a 1995 Chevrolet Sonoma truck to an EV for a customer and is now working on battery conversions for Volkswagen Beetles, VW buses and a Chevy Camaro. "You could get a VW Bug for about $2,500 and a conversion could run $15,000, so you've got something affordable, efficient and cool," Altschuler said.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Rail buffs, gird your loins: travel by train can actually produce more greenhouse gas emissions than flying, according to a new study of lifecycle energy use and pollution by cars, buses, trains and airplanes.

The study, by U.C. Berkeley engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath, takes into account the full range of environmental impacts from raw materials extraction, manufacturing, construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of vehicles, fuels and  infrastructure (roads, rails, airports) needed to run them.

Perspectives change a lot when you look at the big picture. For example, aircraft have big fuel requirements for every passenger-mile traveled, but relatively low infrastructure costs. Building and operating railroad stations and rail lines, on the other hand, takes twice as much energy as operating rail cars.

Their analysis shows that some light rail systems, like San Francisco's Muni, may use more energy per passenger mile than large aircraft. What saves Muni from having a larger carbon footprint is the relatively clean source of electricity it uses. Boston's Green Line, powered mostly by dirty fossil fuels, emits more greenhouse gases per passenger mile than large or mid-sized aircraft with typical occupancy rates.

Lead author Mikhail Chester told me he's cautious about declaring any one mode of transportation the "best" or the "worst." A lot depends on actual ridership. For example, he notes, "the worst performer could easily be the midsize aircraft flight I took recently with 5 passengers." Most aircraft, however, are much more fully loaded.

Buses illustrate his point especially well. The worst energy hogs shown in the paper's charts--and the worst greenhouse gas emitters--are urban diesel buses running off peak, with only a few passengers. But the most energy-efficient and generally cleanest vehicles are also urban diesel buses, running full at peak periods. (All comparisons are per passenger-mile traveled.)

Conventional cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are the worst energy users and greenhouse gas offenders, apart from near-empty diesel buses. But adding one or two passengers can dramatically improve their relative performance. The same point goes for other forms of transportation: higher occupancy works magic.

Strange, isn't it, that we invest so much money and talent into engineering more fuel-efficient vehicles, but not into finding simple ways to make them more people-efficient.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Even die-hard fans of bottled water know all that plastic filling up landfills can't be good for the environment. What they may not appreciate, however, is the staggering amount of energy embodied in all those liquid refreshments.

Taking something you can get free from the tap and charging more for it than the price of gasoline is one of the great marketing triumphs of all time. As of 2007, beverage companies sold more than 200 billion--billion, not million--liters of bottled water worldwide. Americans alone drank more than 30 gallons of bottled water per person that year, more than milk or beer.

Manufacturing, filling, transporting and cooling all those myriad bottles uses a good bit of energy, particularly when they are shipped from France or Fiji.

In fact, producing and distributing bottled water requires as much as 2,000 times the energy used in producing tap water.

Bottom line: "the annual consumption of bottled water in the US in 2007 required an energy input equivalent to between 32 and 54 million barrels of oil or a third of a percent of total US primary energy consumption," conclude Peter Glieck and H. S. Cooley of Oakland's Pacific Institute in a new article in Environmental Research Letters. "We estimate that roughly three times this amount was required to satisfy global bottled water demand." 

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Our recent report on the status of fusion power research suggested that its promises of limitless power are destined to remain promises for a long time to come. Confirmation of that view comes from a recent report by Agence France Presse about delays in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), slated for construction in southern France.

The reactor will heat hydrogen atoms to a temperature of 270 million degrees F, energizing their nuclei enough to fuse into helium, a reaction that unleashes tremendous amounts of energy. Don't try this at home.

Confirming that the hugely ambitious project has "a new commissioning strategy," a spokeswoman for France's Atomic Energy Commission said, "discussions are underway about the best timetable."

What that means, apparently, is the backers still hope to begin experiments by 2018, but on a pared-back schedule that will put any hope of commercial power back a long, long way. Key experiments necessary to commercialize fusion power would not begin until 2026 at the earliest, five years later than previously projected.

Participants in the project include the European Union (EU), China, India, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the United States, with Kazakhstan likely to join soon. (More grist for Borat.)

If they don't bail, those countries may be on the hook for $25 billion in construction and startup costs, according recent estimates.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several news stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

• Experts predict that environmental stress caused by global warming could displace at least 200 million people by 2050, creating the greatest migration in human history. A new report by the International Organization for Migration highlighted the likely impact on people living in vulnerable river deltas, deserts, and islands.
• In a rare joint statement, the science academies of the G8 countries and those of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa appealed to political leaders to "seize all opportunities" to combat climate change, which they said "is happening even faster than previously estimated."
• Want to estimate your personal impact on climate change? A team of scientists has demonstrated for the first time a simple linear relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global termperature changes. For every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted--which is about the carbon footprint of 5,000 miles of air travel--you'll raise global temperatures by 0.0000000000015 degrees.
• Japan announced this week that it plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Japan's prime minister called the target "ambitious" but one environmental consultant termed it "the weakest target any country has pledged so far."
• In a cruelly ironic twist, global warming may be slowing down the very winds needed to generate renewable energy that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Though the findings are still controversial, one atmospheric scientist says average wind speeds in the Midwest have dropped 10 percent or more in a decade.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• San Francisco and New York are rerouting vehicles in order to free up public spaces for car-free plazas where people can sit, chat, read and dream. San Francisco has created a small plaza near a busy intersection in the Castro District. For now this is an experiment, but Mayor Gavin Newsom has in mind more than a half-dozen other "pavements-to-parks" projects for the city. New York has taken a big step for open space: Mayor Michael Bloomberg has banned cars and trucks from a five-block stretch of Broadway in Times Square and set up lawn chairs for the public.
• New York is also introducing another novel urban space for pedestrians -- a new public park developed atop an abandoned elevated railroad trestle on the West Side of Manhattan. A landscaped walkway with more than 100 species of plants is being developed in three phases on the trestle after a lengthy campaign to save the railway, known as the High Line. Mayor Bloomberg notes that the High Line has sparked 30 new projects in the neighborhood, including a new home for the Whitney Museum of American Art.
• The San Francisco Bay Area is weighing three energy-efficient housing developments that would limit parking spaces in favor of public transit. Suburban Hayward has approved zoning for a proposed 1,000-unit, nearly car-free neighborhood with shuttle service to a BART rail station 1 1/2 miles away. Two big redevelopment plans in the works for San Francisco's Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard and Treasure Island neighborhoods include reduced parking spaces. Plans call for home buyers to purchase parking separately and also to buy transit passes. "We believe that what we are trying to do is at the very edge of environmental sustainability while still being financially feasible," says Michael Cohen, manager of the city's development projects.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Innovation sometimes involves little more than revisiting the past with a fresh look. Take, for example, the recent announcement that PG&E's ClimateSmart program will buy carbon offsets from California Bioenergy's methane capture project at a dairy near Bakersfield.

As the news release notes, "the project will process manure from the dairy through an anaerobic digester that traps the methane gas produced as the manure decomposes." Since methane is many times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, this project should be a winner for the environment--and will yield a useful fuel as well.

Using anaerobic digesters--devices that harness microorganisms to break down organic waste in an environment free of oxygen--to generate methane is not a new idea. The first such device was reportedly built and used by a leper colony in Bombay in 1859. A few decades later, the English city of Exeter used one to create gas for street lighting. Today, it's common for agencies like the East Bay Municipal Utility District to use anaerobic digestion to break down food waste in their sewage treatment plants.

Anaerobic digestion has been promoted by the United Nations as a particularly promising source of energy in the developing world. In China, an estimated five million rural households use anaerobic digesters to process organic wastes. As in high-tech California dairies, they create energy in the form of biogas as well as fertilizer for agriculture. The versatile effluent can also be used to feed pigs, grow mushrooms or rear worms for chickens.

As PG&E's announcement shows, the technology is equally suited to the developed world. The waste management firm Biffa recently announced that it will build a major anaerobic digestion facility in Staffordshire, England to process 80,000 tonnes of waste food per year, generating four megawatts of electricity and producing compost and fertilizer for farms.

And the North German town of Lunen plans by December to finish a similar plant, which will generate 6.8 MW and supply enough heat to meet a third of the town's energy needs.

Turning bugs and waste into methane and energy may not be quite as sexy as turning lead into gold, but it's a remarkable kind of alchemy that will enrich us more in the long run.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

If you're trying to live a more environmentally pure lifestyle, here's something new to feel guilty about: charging your mobile phone too long. Turns out that many people charge their phones overnight for at least eight hours, when a mere three would do.

The result, according to a new survey of mobile customers in the UK: 85,000 tonnes of CO2 are needlessly emitted, wasting about $60 million a year in electricity, just in that nation alone. Topping it all off, overcharging reduces battery life.

Young people tend to be the most wasteful; half concede that they leave their phones charging for an average of 7.3 hours.

Men are most wasteful than women; 15 percent of men charge for an average of 8.5 hours, compared to fewer than 7 hours for a similar fraction of women.

Bottom line: if you can't remember to unplug the charger, be sure to get a timer to remind you. Just make sure it doesn't consume more power than your phone!

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

It's not every Sunday you can watch -- or join -- adults dancing the kid-friendly "Hokey Pokey" on roller skates but it could become a staple in San Francisco if the city's "Sunday Streets" program takes root.

Thousands of San Franciscans and visitors of all ages crowded into a two-mile-long, traffic-free street party in the Mission District Sunday to ride free bicycles, skates and skateboards, stroll, jog, play Wiffle Ball, take dance lessons, teach kids how to ride bikes, dance with Aztec dancers, and enjoy food and drink from sidewalk vendors along the routes.

Launched in Bogota, Colombia, more than 20 years ago, Sunday Streets (Ciclovia) set aside some roads  for pedestrian and bike use; today a million Colombians take to 70 miles of roads in the city every Sunday. New York City, El Paso, Portland (Oregon), Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore and San Francisco are adopting their own car-free street programs, along with cities in Asia, Europe, Canada, Mexico and South America.

Sunday Streets in San Francisco and other cities aim to set aside streets to encourage a greener, cleaner environment, healthier living, learning more about our neighborhoods, a sharing of cultures and a lot of good fun. The Mission District event was the third Sunday Streets in San Francisco and three more are scheduled into September -- one in the Mission and two along the Great Highway at Ocean Beach.

Sunday Streets in San Francisco is drawing support from Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, San Francisco's Municipal Railway, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and other corporations and organizations.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

If worse comes to worse, and the world fails to curb greenhouse gas emissions in time to prevent runaway global warming, there's always Plan B--"geoengineering" our way out of disaster by limiting the amount of solar radiation striking the earth. As described here in April, one of the most promising proposals--technically and economically--is to seed bright clouds in the ocean to reflect more sunlight.

The good news is that oceanic cloud seeding likely could hold back global warming for a quarter century, according to a new analysis by scientists at the Met Office Hadley Center, the United Kingdom's top center for climate change research.

The bad news is the earth would still experience disruptive regional climate shifts. Worst of all, rainfall would decrease sharply over South America, depleting the rich Amazon rainforest.

Said Dr. Andy Jones, lead investigator, "While some areas do benefit from geoengineering of this sort there are other, very significant regions, where the response could be very detrimental, raising questions about the practicality of such a scheme."

In other words, there's no simple fix. The politicians had better get back to work and solve this problem.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Several stories on the science and politics of global warming caught our attention this week:

• A new evaluation of global companies that stand to be most affected by climate change shows that most are disclosing little or no information about the risks they face or their mitigation strategies, according to a new study by Ceres and Environmental Defense Fund. The report named ExxonMobil and Massey Coal as among the worst offenders, but cited AES, PG&E and Xcel Energy as some of the best performers. The report calls on the SEC to mandate increased disclosure.
• Mainstream institutional investors are significantly increasing their support for shareholder resolutions on climate change, according to a new study by Ceres and Fund Votes, two organizations that support sustainable business practices. Its report names TIAA-CREF as the institution most supportive of climate change resolutions in 2008, and also recognizes Credit Suisse and Charles Schwab as consistent supporters. 
• Rising ocean levels in the Gulf of Mexico could doom 100,000 households and cause more than $10 billion in damage in the Galveston, Texas area, according to an analysis by researchers at Texas A&M University. Rising seas could also inundate various hazardous waste and Superfund sites, threatening public health unless they are moved or protected.
• A new exhibition that opened on Bonn this week, "The Himalaya--Changing Landscapes," shows photographs from mountaineering expeditions in the 1950s of vast glaciers that no longer exist. A major UN study warned last year that the Himalayan glaciers may shrink from 500,000 square kilometers to a mere 100,000 square kilometers in twenty years, posing huge risks of flooding and landslides.

Posted by: Leonard Anderson

Several items relating to the business and technology of clean energy caught our attention this week:

• The growing popularity of car-sharing programs in North American cities may reduce the need for parking spaces in new apartment and condo buildings if developers provide on-site room for shared vehicles. A 250-unit building in Seattle with 16 car-share vehicles may eliminate up to 47 parking spaces, according to a recent study. Toronto may join Seattle, Vancouver and San Francisco in setting aside car-share spaces for apartment dwellers.
• The city council of Ghent in Belgium and vegetarian activists are encouraging the city's 240,000 residents to give up meat on Thursdays -- a "Veggie Day" -- to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the meat industry and lower the risk of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and other disease. The Ghent council says it's the first city in the world to take such a step. The average Belgian eats 1,800 animals in his or her lifetime.
• There's no knowing how the NFL New York Giants and New York Jets will fare when the 2010 football season opens but it's pretty clear that their new shared stadium in the Meadowlands in New Jersey will be a "green" winner. The New Meadowlands Stadium Co. and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have agreed to many environmentally friendly goals for the stadium. Among the goals are reduced water consumption, energy efficiencies, recycling of construction waste, and saving the equivalent of about 1.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide during construction and the first year of operations.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Last fall, NEXT100 revealed the secret of converting olive pits into ethanol. (We didn't take a stand on whether it should be consumed in person or in your car.)

Now there's another good reason to save your leftover pits: researchers at the University of Grenada report that olive pits, pulp and other waste are great for retaining heavy metals like lead that are found in sewage and industrial waste water.

Other materials with powerful "biosorbtion" properties for the cleanup of toxic heavy metals include various kinds of mold (Rhizopus), bacteria (Bacillus subtilis) and seaweeds (Sargassum, Ecklonia). They are useful for detoxifying effluent from mines, coal-fired power plants, battery manufacturing and other industrial operations.

But if you live in a place like Andalusia, which grows more olives than anyone knows what to do with, why use mold or seaweed when olive pits could do the job?

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Even with unemployment rates at levels not seen since the Great Depression, most workers in "green" industries feel relatively secure and are making good salaries, according to the first-ever Carbon Salary Survey by Reuters.

According to the survey, 68 percent of "green" workers say that increased government and business attention to global warming has improved their job security.

The average green collar worker earns $76,000 a year worldwide--and $100,000 annually in the United States. The worst paid sector, at $58,000 a year, was green marketing, PR and media--a category that includes bloggers.

On at least one score, green companies are still politically incorrect: they pay women an average of 18 percent less than men.

So how do you land a desirable green job in these hard times? Check out a new online map launched by Environmental Defense Fund. It lets you search for a wide variety of green California companies--2,200 in all--by city, county or congressional district. Clicking on any of the stick-pin icons will give you the name, address, url and description of each company.

The EDF database doesn't encompass all green companies; it focuses on those in the energy generation, energy efficiency, transportation and green building sectors.

Job seekers should also check out EDF's "Green Jobs Guidebook," which profiles dozens of jobs, suggests opportunities for high school graduates and provides information on job training and placement programs.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

If what's left of the US auto industry is looking for some bright young minds to help engineer the next generation of clean vehicles, we know where to look.

The 8th grade class at Novato Charter School in Marin County.

When the class decided to learn about alternative energy and transportation, it set an ambitious goal: "having a lot of fun" by designing a 4-person vehicle, called the Solar Human Hybrid.

They chose several design criteria: the vehicle had to have excellent peddling performance, an electric motor to push up hills, advanced battery technology with solar charger, and be street legal.

And, not least, it had to "look cool."

Rather than reinvent the wheel, the class decided to build their vehicle on an existing platform, the Swiss ZEM 4cycle, an aluminum-framed, four-wheel, four-passenger cycling machine. According to the school, one of these devices won third place at the human powered vehicle world championships held at Interlaken, Switzerland.

Then came all the electric hybrid modifications: a high efficiency, 24-volt motor and motor controller; an Italian-made transmission; batteries; two 20-watt solar panels; headlights; dog platform; global positioning system device; and much more.

The result was a road-legal motorized bicycle fit for four, able to squeeze into standard-width bike lanes, and limited to a maximum speed of 18 mph but with enough torque to climb hills.

Dealer inquiries, anyone?

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

PG&E now boasts the nation's largest deployment of smart meters, which measure energy use at frequent intervals throughout the day and automatically communicate the data back to the utility. But what do those meters mean for customers, other than no longer having to tie up your dog when meter readers come by on their monthly rounds?

One big improvement, in addition to giving customers timely and detailed information on their energy use, will be expanded availability of voluntary pricing programs that can save them money and help the environment. Such pricing programs reward customers for cutting back on energy use a few hours each year during periods of "critical peak" demand, typically on scalding days when air conditioners are running flat out.

Timely reductions in load in turn reduce the need to operate expensive natural gas-fired "peaker" power plants, thus minimizing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Last year, 10,000 customers in Bakersfield signed up for a new program called SmartRate, one of the first critical peak pricing programs for residential and small-and-medium business customers in the United States, and the first to use data from advanced meters.

The award-winning program gives enrolled customers a discount of about 3 cents per kilowatt hour on electric bills from June 1 to September 30. In return, residential customers pay a rate surcharge of 60 cents for electricity used from 2 p.m to 7 p.m. on up to 15 days a year when soaring temperatures drive up demand on PG&E's grid.

The program is a win-win for customers and PG&E. On the nine peak "SmartDay" events called by PG&E last year, customers cut their average usage by about 17 percent. More than two-thirds of customers said they enjoyed savings. Nine in 10 customers said they intended to stick with the program.

Said one customer, insurance agent Randel Thompson, "This was one of the easiest tasks I have ever joined. . . . Makes for a nice reward at the end of the month and saves us all energy and money." Mary Noriega, another customer, commented that shifting power use to the morning or evening was "all it takes" to save money. "Also, get into the habit of turning off lights, fans, etc. when you leave the rooms. It is very easy to do and worth it!"

Impressive results like these help explain why "demand response and peak shaving have jumped to the top of the list as drivers of Smart Grid implementation at North American utilities," according to new research from Pacific Crest Securities.

Posted by: Katie Romans

PG&E's ClimateSmart program, which allows customers, like Fresh Choice, to voluntarily balance out the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions associated with their energy use, today announced its first dairy contract for 75,000 metric tons of GHG emission reductions. The contract with California Bioenergy is the program's third GHG emission reduction project -- the first two were forestry projects located in Mendocino County and the Santa Cruz mountains.

What does this mean for ClimateSmart customers? I had a conversation with Neil Black, chief operating officer of California Bioenergy, and Robert Parkhurst, PG&E manager of climate protection and analysis, to determine just that.

--------------------------
Q: What will this contract do?
A: PG&E's ClimateSmart program has agreed to purchase 75,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions resulting from the capture and destruction of methane generated by an anaerobic digester on one of California Bioenergy's first projects.

This contract will balance out the GHG emissions resulting from the energy use for one year of more than 15,000 homes in PG&E territory.

Q: How does this project work?
A: Manure from the dairy cows is being flushed into a large, uncovered lagoon.  This water-manure mixture is an anaerobic (or non-oxygen) environment in which bacteria break down the manure and release methane, a greenhouse gas which is more potent than carbon dioxide. Under the contract with the ClimateSmart program, the dairy will trap and destroy the methane before it is released into the atmosphere.

Q: How will it trap the methane?:
A: California Bioenergy's first test site will be a covered lagoon.

Q:  What are the impacts on dairy's water use?
A: Dairy farms are carefully designed and monitored to use water efficiently. The farmers work closely with the Water Board to make sure that all nutrients are used at agronomic rates. The farm is a closed-loop process - where the water is used to clean the facility and flush the manure (and for other uses). This water is stored in a lined lagoon. This nutrient rich water is in turn used to irrigate and fertilize the farm's crops, which greatly reduces and often eliminates the need for oil-based commercial fertilizer. The crops that result are then consumed by the cows and provide the nutrition that cows need (in addition to other feed stocks) to produce milk. The result of the digester process, which CalBio is adding, is that the effluent water is an even a better natural fertilizer since the nutrients are more available for crops to utilize.

Q: What is a digester?
A: A digester is an anaerobic (non-oxygen) environment where bacteria break down organic material, in this case cow manure (it could also be food waste, agricultural waste), producing methane.  A covered lagoon is an example of a digester.  (Or you can build holding tanks made out of concrete or steel.  These plug-flow or complete mix digesters often heat and stir the components, breaking down more of the organic material, producing more methane and thus more renewable energy.)  More information is available at http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/anaerobic.html#digestion.

Q: What is the return on ClimateSmart customers' investment in this project?
A:  This project generates two environmental benefits. These two benefits require two distinct capital investments: (1) the capture and the combustion of the methane which converts the methane into a far less potent greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide, and (2) the use of the combusted methane to produce renewable electricity in a manner that displaces the use of fossil-based fuels.

The first level of capital investment involves the capture and combustion of the methane by the anaerobic digester and burning it in a flare. It works as follows: The methane is generated by the natural decomposition of manure in an anaerobic environment. To capture this methane, the anaerobic digester collects the manure by flushing, scraping, or vacuuming it into a lagoon or holding tank. The water and manure is then fed into the digester, which can range in design from a covered earthen lagoon to a steel tank. As the manure is digested, methane flows up into the digester gas line. It is then mixed with oxygen and burned (combusted) in a flare.  In this case PG&E is paying for the destruction of the methane.

An alternative to the capture and destruction of the methane by flaring it is using the combustion of the methane to generate electricity, which requires a second level of capital investment. In this alternative approach, an anaerobic digester installs additional equipment either (a) to combust the methane in a manner to generate electricity at the place of capture (e.g., with an engine) or (b) to process the captured methane for shipment in a gas pipeline, which is subsequently combusted to generate electricity. To use the methane to generate electricity, it must first be scrubbed to remove impurities and meet the gas quality specifications required for use in a generator or delivery into the gas pipeline. If a generator is used to send its total or excess electric generation to the power grid, it must be interconnected in accordance with the applicable interconnection standards. If the methane is injected into the gas pipeline, it must first be compressed. A gas meter at the pipeline tap records the amount of gas delivered to the pipeline. The investments needed to generate electricity are significant and additional to those needed to capture and combust the methane through a flare.

The effect of the generation of electricity from the combusted methane is a displacement of the use of fossil-based fuels that would have occurred if the combusted methane had not been used to generate electricity. In this case PG&E is also buying the renewable energy (either through buying the electricity or the cleaned up gas).

Q: What impact will this project have on air quality in the San Joaquin Valley?
A: Local air quality is a critical concern of both PG&E and California Bioenergy. Both companies believe in improving local air quality and combating global climate change.

We believe that both are achievable and that we can meet local air quality requirements while at the same time capturing and destroying the methane generated by the cows. We are working closely with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to demonstrate a new technology that burns the methane in an engine and releases a very low level of "criteria pollutants," in particular NOx.  Our technology partner is PMSI (www.pmsi-inc.com).

The Air District has seen the technology and thinks it is impressive and very well developed.  In addition, the District feels that California Bioenergy's professional approach to owning and operating digester power plants should make them a strong partner for dairymen, who can stay focused on their dairy operations while CalBio brings their expertise in power generation and the protection of air quality.

Q: What are the economic impacts of this project?
A: PG&E is doing something that is innovative. One of the roles the ClimateSmart program serves is to be an early leader in supporting new companies and new industries that will decrease greenhouse gas emissions.  PG&E's ClimateSmart program, by contracting for livestock methane projects as a promised buyer of GHG emission reductions, provides the guarantee of future revenues (paid once the project is approved and successfully running). PG&E's investment provides an incentive to development companies, like CalBio, to invest their time and money.

Posted by: Jonathan Marshall

Some 3,500 people assembled on Friday at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, long associated with research on the hydrogen bomb, to celebrate a facility that could advance efforts to use the same physical principles to create vast amounts of electrical power for peaceful ends. 

The lab's National Ignition Facility is by every account a stunning scientific and engineering achievement. But to what extent it will convert the promise of fusion power into affordable energy remains a huge question mark. The same is true of its French-based competitor, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER).

Nuclear fusion, the source of power for the Sun and other stars, is also the source of most power on Earth today in the "fossilized" form of oil and coal that derived from plants. It also drives renewable wind and solar power. But directly creating clean, concentrated and controllable fusion power on earth would be a stunning breakthrough and a giant step forward in fighting global warming.

Fusion proponents say, rightly, that they have made tremendous strides in understanding how to control a source of energy that, by its very nature, fiercely resists control. Critics say fusion power today remains where it has been for the past half century--about 20+ years from becoming a commercial reality. With every yard of progress, the goal posts seems to recede apace.

The $3.5 billion Livermore facility cost nearly triple the original estimate in 1994. It took 7,000 workers, 3,000 contractors and a dozen years to build, and won't be fully operational until 2010. When it gets up to full power, the stadium-sized structure will focus 192 lasers--emitting the same amount of energy consumed by 10 billion 100-watt light bulbs in one second--on a tiny hydrogen target. If all goes well, the hydrogen, heated it to 100 million degrees centigrade, will fuse into helium and release a great deal of energy.

It will require another huge feat of engineering, of course, to turn that energy into usable form at a reasonable cost.

Meanwhile, over in France, an international effort is underway to create a fusion reactor controlled by a magnetic doughnut that squeezes hydrogen until it fuses. The ultimate goal is to generate about 500 megawatts of thermal power, or about 10 times more than needed to run the machine.

Like Livermore's facility, the ITER reactor boasts some amazing statistics. Each of its giant magnetic coils weighs 360 tons, about the same as a fully loaded Boeing 747-300 jet. The reactor as a whole will weigh 23,000 tons, three times the Eifel Tower. It is being built on a platform the size of 60 soccer fields, will require the removal of 2.5 million meters of earth, and will rise 19 stories. It will create temperatures of 150 million degrees centigrade, ten times those at the core of the Sun.

But the ITER reactor, also like Livermore's facility, is running behind schedule and over budget. Its first major experiments likely won't take place until 2025 and the latest estimated cost of construction is about double the $7 billion promised in 2006.

As Scientific American noted, "If ITER succeeds, it will not add a single watt to the grid. . . . and some veterans in the field predict that 20 to 30 years of experiments with ITER will be needed to refine designs for a production plant."