Richard Branson today announced a $25M prize for the first viable means of “scrubbing the atmosphere of billions of tons of carbon gases from the atmosphere.”

It’s a big challenge, sort of the same spirit of the Ansari X Prize that gave $10M to the first non-government organization to reach space with manned flights twice within two weeks.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Carbon Prize | 25 Million | Atmosphere Scrubber

In what has become one of the latest examples of the Bush Administration’s difficulty with matching their actions to their words, the geothermal program at the Department of Energy will receive funding this fiscal year of $0 if the budget passes as is. This is a national tragedy in the making as we are unable (or unwilling) to make use of all the assets we have to drive toward energy independence.

Why is geothermal important? I’m glad you asked. Geothermal power is the only renewable capable of baseload generation – meaning, it’ll be there when you flip your TV on (you do expect it to come on, right?) Solar, wind, biomass, and hydro are all less than baseload as they are affected by external factors (sunlight, wind, and drought.) Geothermal power generation in a closed system is zero emission. In an open system, it’s still far less than 1% as polluting as coal generation. The recent MIT study demonstrated there is more than enough heat stored in the Earth’s crust for us to harvest to power the nation (and indeed, the world.) You would think that a power source with these attributes would be at or near the top of any energy policy’s priorities.

When one considers the size of the Department of Energy’s proposed budget, the ridiculousness of this action becomes clear: The total budget is $24,300,000,000 or $24.3 BILLION. The size of the geothermal program? $0.0022B or $22 MILLION. The amount budgeted for maintaining our nuclear capability? $9.4 billion. The amount set aside to clean up the environmental messes we’ve already made? $9.4 billion. The amount budgeted for basic science? $4.4 billion (this is a good thing, but geothermal must be part of the research program.) $3.1 billion is budgeted for energy efficiency and supply programs. Fundamentally, I have nothing against other renewable programs being funded (an aside, solar funding is flat, wind has been cut 10%, hydro and geothermal have been cut altogether; hydrogen, biomass, and “clean coal” have all seen big increases in funding.) But I do have heartburn with failing to fund the one renewable electricity generation source that stands a chance of displacing aging, dirty coal plants.

The geothermal program is a rounding error in a budget of this size. The program deserves to be funded an order of magnitude more per year in order to realize the potential of the geothermal resources inside our border, not eliminated. The solution to this budget mess is clear, cut “clean coal” research by $250 million and use it to fund geothermal at the right level. After all, if coal pollution is cut by anything less than 99%, it’s still more polluting than the dirtiest geothermal resource. This is a matter of priorities and, as usual, the Bush Administration is confused in what is in the national interest by why is in the interest of their big money donors (see TXU and the $11 BILLION dollar coal construction binge in Texas.) Politics clearly play a role in this as well as Harry Reid (D,) US Senator from Nevada (home to huge amounts of geothermal potential) is the Senate Majority Leader, the Administration is aiming to hurt him at home and/or use that as a lever to get something else in the future if they cave on the geothermal research request.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter why this is happening. The action signals the end of US government support for geothermal as a renewable energy source. A resource that could over the course of 50 years displace the entire coal electricity generation infrastructure in the United States with the attendant environmental benefits. And that’s the point, isn’t it? Geothermal is being sacrificed on the altar of “clean coal” – if ever there was an oxymoron, it is “clean coal.”

We’ll watch closely to see what changes happen in the proposed budget, but we’re not hopeful. If you would like make yourself heard on the subject, write your local Congressial representative and your Senators.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: DoE | FY07 Budget | Geothermal Slashed

In California, the answer is 1.

Garden variety compact fluorescent light bulb


Yesterday it was widely reported in local media that Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has proposed a bill to outlaw the sale of incandescent lightbulbs in California after 2012. Instead of the traditional incandescent bulb invented by Edison and improved thereafter; compact fluorescent and led bulbs would take their place. These newer technologies provide up to 75% energy savings for equivalent lumens.

The downside is that each bulb costs more upfront than incandescent counterparts, but the upside is that over the lifespan of the bulbs the energy savings coupled with their longevity will provide payback many times over. An additional criticism of the new technologies is that the emitted light is “harsher” than incandescent bulbs. When electric bulbs were introduced 130 years ago, arc-lights were harsh, incandescent bulbs to “soft”, and gas lights were stinky, dangerous, and dim. Technological progress has a way of dealing with each challenge over time.

While I hate to see government intrude in our lives with legislation over how we choose to light our homes and businesses, natural market forces are taking too long to force this change. This is probably a good thing for both eco-s, ecology and economics.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Energy | Light Bulb | Legislation

The Oil Drum published this long and detailed entry from the Engineer Poet on how to replace our dependence on fossil fuel and get to carbon neutrality using an enhanced biomass system coupled with electricity generation, fuel cells, and battery transport power. If you don’t have time for a long read, are data averse, or have attention deficit, the referenced post might not be for you…

This is an old post by net standards, published at the end of November of last year, but certainly is filled with interesting data. Now I don’t subscribe to the “solve the energy crisis in one fell swoop” approach, but this post did make me think that perhaps more is possible in big hunks than I’ve been allowing. Even so, this is is a grandiose proposal that would require 20 years or more to implement, if it even could be implemented. But the ideas are worth exploring as realizing even 10% of the benefit would make a difference.

The thesis of the post is: “The US can replace our fossil fuel dependence with sustainable fuel and positively impact our carbon footprint – but, not with our current approach, assumptions, or reward system.” The author then goes on to outline at length why our current situation and approach is flawed, current consumption and conversion of energy to work, outlines an improvement using biomass with several outputs including charcoal, ethanol, and electricity, tackles the issue of carbon capture from the atmosphere, then outlines plans for electricity and transportation, and finally ties it all together.

If you’re at all interested in this subject area, this is must-read content. Thanks to Bruce for passing this along.


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Biomass | Carbon Capture | Comprehensive Plan

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a suicidal act is one that is “dangerous to oneself or to one’s interests; self-destructive or ruinous.” By this standard, the coal boom that is currently sweeping America is the atmospheric equivalent of a swan dive off a very tall building. At precisely the moment that scientists have reached a consensus that we need to drastically cut climate-warming pollution, the electric-power industry is racing to build more than 150 new coal plants across the United States. Coal is by far the dirtiest fossil fuel: If the new plants are built, they will dump hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year for decades to come — virtually guaranteeing that the U.S. will join China in leading civilization’s plunge into a superheated future.

That’s a quote straight from Jeff Goodell contributor to Rolling Stone magazine. Now I know there are technologies (gasification for instance) that can make coal cleaner than it has been, but that’s still orders of magnitude more polluting than renewable options available. What if, instead of doing “the easy thing” of investing in more coal plants we did “the right thing” and rechanneled that money into renewable plants (a mix of geothermal, wind, biomass, and solar?)

Here’s the thing, according to the US Department of Energy, for each 1,000,000 kwh (1 MWh) of electricity generated by burning coal, 1,000 kg of carbon and around 14 kg of NOx and SOx are released into the atmosphere. Let’s say we make coal 50% less polluting, great. But that would still result in 507 kg of pollutants produced per MWh.

We’re obviously not as smart as we purport to be…


If you liked this entry, Digg It!
Technorati Tags: Energy | Pollution | Coal