Interviews

An Altenews Interview with Tyson Slocum, Director of the Energy Program at Public Citizen

Tyson Slocum is the Director of the Energy Program of Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen, a “national non-profit public interest organization” which focuses on public policy. Mr. Slocum has testified before Congress, been widely quoted in print, and has also appeared on television. He is a major critic of the oil and nuclear industries and an advocate of alternative energy. We spoke to him about policy issues relating to renewable energy.

Tyson: I have been working at Public Citizen on energy for 6 years. My background has been on the job, education and knowledge.

Altenews: What does the energy program of Public Citizen do, and what are your major accomplishments?

Tyson: The main purpose is to get affordable reliable clean energy in the United States. Our main successes, which have been numerous, focus on trying to encourage stronger regulation on energy markets, limiting subsidies to fossil fuels, getting more investment in alternative clean energy. We have done a number of major investigations, into Enron, Westar Energy, and others, and we frequently testify before Congress. We have strong Capitol Hill relationships, and we are active in the news media.

Altenews: what do you think needs to be done in the energy sector to promote alternative energy?

Tyson: First we need to end all subsidies that go to fossil fuels, spend that money on renewable energy, and make our energy consumption more efficient, by implementing stronger fuel economy standards, better incentives for households to use alternative energy, bigger investments in mass transit, things like that.

Altenews: Which kinds of alternative energy do you like, and which do you dislike?

Tyson: Wind and solar are the best. We have concerns about biomass and ethanol. With biomass, depending upon the type, it is not necessarily clean. If the objective is clean energy, biomass entails burning trash, incinerating recycled materials, and results in air emissions. With ethanol, there is a lack of adequate agricultural sustainability, growing the corn, and refining the ethanol.

Altenews: Do you believe in the theory of Hubbert’s peak of oil, and if so, when do you think peak oil will happen?

Tyson: We do believe in the general theory. Oil is a finite resource. I don’t know if we’ve achieved peak oil yet, I don’t think we have, but it’s just a matter of time. All major oil fields are declining in production, and we’re not finding new oil fields. Global consumption keeps growing at a breakneck pace.

Altenews: Could you talk about your reporting that the Renewable Fuels Association had lied about its spending and lobbying?

Tyson: We saw that they were underreporting their true lobbying expenditures, which results in the public having an incomplete picture of the presence of the lobbying organization. The public should know about the entities trying to influence legislation.

Tyson: We have problems with the levels of subsidies they’re receiving. Other cleaner alternatives aren’t getting as much attention. We have problems with large profitable companies getting large subsidies, they should not be receiving large financial subsidies from American taxpayers. It’s one thing for struggling small farmers, another if it’s large corporations.

Altenews: What is your stance on mileage and weight requirements for cars, and how big an impact could that have on the environment?

Tyson: We’d like to see mileage standards increased incrementally over the next decade to 40 miles per gallon. That would reduce oil consumption by one-third. That would be huge savings.

Altenews: Which is best, electric cars, ethanol-powered flex-fuel cars, or hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars?

Tyson: Hydrogen has a lot of promise, as a zero-emission fuel. The challenge is in creating hydrogen, it takes a lot of energy. That is why we support green hydrogen, using renewable energy to meet our hydrogen needs.

Altenews: What do you think of the policies of the Environmental Protection Agency?

Tyson: They’ve been privatizing the needs of large energy companies, not the needs of citizens. The Bush administration has been very aggressive about privatizing the needs of corporate America. The corporations’ agenda is at odds with the health and welfare of American communities. We need a greater focus on stronger regulation. We need to regulate carbon dioxide, which the Bush administration is fighting. That is the number one contributor to climate change.

Altenews: It says on your website that the big oil companies are responsible for the high price of oil. What arguments do you have to support that?

Tyson: Like our website says, the oil companies are enjoying the largest profits in American history. There is a direct correlation of record high prices and record high profits. Because of recent mergers, we have uncompetitive markets here, and companies are using their market positions to price-gouge consumers.

Altenews: Do you think that big oil companies are trying to prevent alternatives to oil from emerging?

Tyson: Yes, I think that they have been using their political muscle to discourage adequate funding of alternatives.

Altenews: Your website says that you oppose nuclear power. Why can’t the government find a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste?

Tyson: The Federal government solution so far is to designate a single radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain. There are serious safety and security issues with that. Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store it, and you have to truck or train the waste in. There are many security concerns. These are problems inherent in nuclear power, which produces hundreds of tons of radioactive waste, which sticks around for hundreds of thousands of years.

Tyson: We need a Federal renewable energy standard, and to mandate increased reliance on wind power. That is a more efficient way to go about it than through tax incentives and things like that. We’re very supportive of solar power, the same as wind. We need to mandate increased use of it.

Altenews: Wind power has been hurt by the “not in my backyard” attitude. Should there be a law to prevent that?

Tyson: No, Nimbyism is a very controversial thing, but love it or hate it, the fact is that it is an essential component of a functioning democracy. People who live in a community should have the right to say what gets built in their community, you do need to allow local communities some ability to have input. Lately under Bush there are a number of laws that have curtailed the ability of local communities to have a say. I think that’s wrong.

An Altenews Interview with Mark Emalfarb, Founder and CEO of Dyadic (Symbol: DIL), and Dr. Glenn Nedwin, PhD, Dyadic’s Chief Science Officer.

Dyadic (AMEX, Symbol: DIL) was founded by Mark Emalfarb as a company that supplied jeans makers with tools for stone-washing blue jeans. The company evolved from a clothing company into one of the premier bioscience corporations, specializing in the creation of enzymes, as stated in the company motto “From jeans to genes.” Dyadic is now on the cutting edge of making enzymes for the production of cellulosic ethanol, and they also make enzymes from which a variety of fossil fuel-based products, such as chemicals and plastics, can be replaced with biomass-based substitutes. Mr. Emalfarb is assisted by his Chief Science Officer, Dr. Glenn Nedwin, who has a long history of working in the bioscience industry, and also holds a PhD in biochemistry from U.C. Riverside and an M.S. from MIT. I spoke with Mr. Emalfarb and Dr. Nedwin about the history of Dyadic, the development of cellulose-based ethanol, and how cellulosic ethanol can one day replace gasoline.

Mark: Look at the April presentation, on the Dyadic website (www.dyadic-group.com).

The goal of Dyadic is not just to make cellulosic ethanol, it is to create enzymes to produce glucose from biomass in order to replace not just ethanol, but all petroleum produces. There are companies making methods to displace all petroleum products, with bacteria that eats glucose and makes polyesters and various plastics as well as most other petroleum-based products. Such companies include Iogen, Abendoa (which has a DOE grant), Cargill, Nature Works, and Metabolix (which is going public). The goal is to make every petroleum product from glucose, to use less petroleum and to take advantage of the future peak oil shortage of petroleum. It is not just about cellulosic ethanol, which is the tip of the iceberg. However, cellulosic ethanol will have a vital role to play in creating fuel in the future.

Altenews: I know that your company motto is “from jeans to genes.” How did Dyadic get started, and how did Dyadic go from being a clothing-related company to being a bioscience company?

Mark: We started supplying Levis and other blue jean manufacturers with pumice, telling them how to stonewash better. We made $4 million in 1987. Then Novozymes, the world’s largest enzyme company, was able to displace pumice for stonewashing. That is like what we are doing with sugars to displace petrol, ethanol, and plastics. What happened was that we became a distributor for Novozymes. If a dinosaur was going to become extinct it might as well be us. We talked to Wrangler and others about how to wash jeans with enzymes, our market shrunk, there were more distributors, so we decided to make our own enzymes. We needed to know how to make enzymes when we were, as you say, a clothing company, so we looked around the world, and saw who were the experts in making enzymes. We landed at Moscow State University, after we had looked at Stanford and MIT. The Berlin wall was falling, all of a sudden Russian scientists needed to be hired, so we hired these scientists to keep them on commercial products. The government never came up with the money they had promised us, so we put in our own money. We needed enzymes to break down cellulose, and methods to make those in large volumes at low cost, so we found a fungus, one growing on the ground in Russia. This one could be used to grow cellulose more efficiently, from cotton, wood and trees, and to get xylan. We developed this fungi, which could do the job making cellulase. It was a fungi scavenger on the floor, it secreted an enzyme to make the sugar that it lived on, that is how it metabolized. We needed to put it into overdrive, we couldn’t make commercial quantities of enzymes using the natural fungus, so we took it to the U.S. from Russia, and we bred it, using mutagenesis. We used UV to kill off 99% of the spores, then we found the one to make what we wanted, and we bred a fungus that made more cellulase. Cellulase is the enzyme, cellulose is the polymer, it chops it into glucose. Xylanase breaks down xylans. Those are fermentable sugars. Cellulose and xylans are the two major ones from plants. There are microbes like yeast that make cellulose into ethanol. Dupont makes polymers like Sorona, and Cargill Nature Works engineered microbes that turn glucose to biodegradable plastics. We can make fermentable sugars cheaply from plant materials, through our enzymes that make it cost effective and efficient. We can make large volumes cheaply in fermenters. We have the tools to work with the fungus, to put genes in and take genes out, we know how it makes them, what levels it makes them at, and we can make it cheaper and more efficiently. We have made those enzyme mixtures for textiles, pulp and paper, animal feeds, cotton, wheat and barley. We have a broad based knowledge and expertise in breaking fiber down, we have the fungus organism that can be grown. We have been doing that since 1996. We have all the tools to put in and take out, to make better enzymes, to drive the price down. Every type of plant material has a different structure, and needs a different cocktail of enzymes.

Altenews: You have said that your enzyme will work on Douglas Fir trees. Will the product work on Poplar as well as Douglas Fir?

Mark: Each particular form of biomass requires a different pretreatment and a different enzyme, and produces a different kind of sugar. We can’t develop an enzyme for every kind of tree, instead we develop enzymes for the kinds of biomass for which there is a demand. We develop a specific enzyme to go with a specific pretreatment to produce a specific glucose. We could develop an enzyme for any kind of biomass that can be fermented to produce sugars.

Altenews: I know that you believe that Dyadic can expand not just by producing cellulosic ethanol, which you say is “just the tip of the iceburg,” but by replacing all petroleum-based products with biomass-based products, and in your presentation you give a list of various petroleum-based chemical compounds that can be replaced with biomass-based chemicals. Aside from replacing gasoline, could you give a list of the major petroleum-based products that you hope to replace with biomass-based products?

Glenn: Look at the slideshow that goes with the presentation. There are hundreds of those. I can give you examples of four things happening today. DuPont’s Sorona can be made into plastics and textiles. Using engineered micro-organisms, Cargill is making polylactic acid, and biodegradable plastics. ADM and Metabolix are making PHA, biodegradable plastics. When you unlock the sugar, glucose, that is locked up in polymer cellulose, which can be converted into sugar, you can make these things. When you unlock the sugar with enzymes, cellulasics to break down the cellulose, once you have the sugars, you can train the micro-organisms to make chemicals, or ferment it into ethanol.

Altenews: Could you replace most petroleum products, including fuels and chemicals, with biomass-based replacements?

Glenn: Probably. The DOE looks into this. What it comes down to is the economics. We replace chemicals processes, making novel products, and a large extent of them can be replaced.

Altenews: I know that you produce many different enzymes, and that each enzyme goes with a specific pretreatment of a specific kind of biomass to produce a specific kind of sugar. Which kinds of biomass do you think have the best potential for creating cellulosic ethanol?

Glenn: There are many opportunities. Fiber and BBGs are now made in ethanol plants, there is sugarcane bagasse, wood pulp, and citrus peels. In the longer term: energy crops, switchgrass, which is high density, corn stover, leaf straw, rice straw, agricultural residue. In the short term you have to collect the biomass, in the long term there will be energy crops dedicated to it.

Altenews: Do you think that cellulosic ethanol will one day be able to compete with gasoline in terms of price?

Glenn: Yes. It is cheaper to make it now. The cost is $1.20/gal to make cellulosic ethanol, and gas is $3/gal.

Altenews: I know that Dyadic participates in a Department of Energy research grant. How important is it for the government to support renewable energy development?

Glenn: Huge, absolutely huge. There is some risk involved, so we need the government to continue to support it, for the economics. If you want to take this as a national security issue, 30% of the imported oil that we use can be replaced with carbohydrates and sugars, if you have the will to do it. They should mandate 10% ethanol in gas in all states, mandate that and you’ll get there. There is enough biomass to do it.

Altenews: Will cellulosic ethanol one day replace corn-based ethanol in America?

Glenn: Absolutely, it will, no question. We will run out of corn, there will be competition between fuel and food and feed markets. Cellulosic ethanol will make farmers happy, anyone can grow those crops, the feedstock is everywhere, you can grow it anywhere you can grow a crop, not just where you can grow corn.

Altenews: Are you partnering with any other companies to help develop or manufacture your cellulosic ethanol?

Mark: We haven’t disclosed that. There are some oil, agricultural and chemical companies that have needs, and we have tools to get the job done. We hope that we can get together to help solve the problem, because agricultural, chemical, petroleum, and ethanol companies all have same issues, they have to get beyond corn, get to cellulosic ethanol, and they need the enzymes. There are few people in the world who have these enzymes, it was a 10 year journey for us to get here, and we believe we are meeting that need. There are few people who could attempt to do that right now, it would take 5 to 10 years to get to where we are, with the evolution of the fungus. From the natural fungi, when they break down plants, those enzymes break down the plants into sugar, and it is inefficient, mother nature evolved that fungus over millions of years, to secrete enzymes that break down wood and fiber. They live off that sugar, the fungi that does this better than others. We found our C1 fungus on a forest floor, took it back to America, used mutagenesis, did the breeding, made it more productive, changed its structure. It was hard to culture and grow, too thick and viscous, we had to modify it to make it amenable to large scale production, able to make more and more protein. We changed the morphology of the structure, of that fungi, magnified it 100 times. The protein comes from the tips of it, so now we have 100 micro-hairs instead of one long hair, we can stir it up better, it has more tips, it produces more protein, the cells are smaller, we can put more tips in, make it more amenable to large scale production. We went from 1 quarter gram/liter of protein, to 80-100 grams/liter today. We can do that in 5 days in a tank, it is can be cultured, stirred, grown with low oxygen, agitated. We have an improved strain, improved fermentation process, a prolific fungus, a variety of enzymes, molecular tools. We can make more, put more copies in, isolate tools from the fungus, insert and delete DNA, get more of what we want, and less of what we don’t want. We have spent over a decade developing this tool, manipulating the fungus, making different mixtures, modifying it, programming in ways to break down different biomass substrates, like corn stover, sugarcane bagasse, dried distillers grain. Everything needs a different mixture and cocktail of enzymes, and you have to create big volume at low cost, to improve the economics. To make fermentable sugars, you need a prolific fungus, one that is totally programmable.

In addition to the efforts for pulp and paper, cellulase, barley and wheat, we make therapeutic proteins, medicines. We are not just a cellulosic ethanol play, although we have been doing that for years, not just for food, pulp and paper, animal feedstock, and biofactories. We sequenced the genome of C1 to find new genes to make better enzymes at higher levels and more affordable. We can make antibodies and other things we want to make. We are working with the Scripps Research Institute, reprogramming the fungus to make antibodies and therapeutic drugs. We are 6 years into that journey, we can do it in 1/3 the time, grow C1 in 150,000 liters since 1996, we have a million cells grown, 10 times larger scale volume in 1/3 time, and nutrients to feed C1 are cheap. There are some challenges using this fungus, but we are overcoming those. Right now we are expressing genes for antibodies, and an enzyme protease for laundry detergent. You just need to chew up the protein. We have tools we put in, we can knock out the protease gene, and we recently reported being able to express antibodies at good levels. We are moving along the therapeutic path. The fungus can help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we can make cheaper sugars from biomass, and help humankind by making these proteins in large volumes affordably. We will bring down the cost of healthcare, make better cheaper drugs, and we are also making enzymes for the pulp and paper industry, biorefining of pulp and paper. We get 20-60% energy savings, the ability to make stronger fibers, and when you put that into the manufacturing process, it saves trees and rainforests, we can use recycled fiber more efficiently and cost effectively, and the water is cleaner. We displace chemicalss in the process. We can make more animal feed, help feed more of the world, use inedible grains for fuel rather than cattle feed, break down grains more efficiently. When you are converting polymers into sugars, think about barley and wheat, betaglucanate breaks down into starch and xylose. You can feed the animals less, make more effective use of the grain. How much corn gets digested will change, if you digest it all you need to eat less, so you use less grain, and you feed more people.

Altenews: How important is the ability to make ethanol from cellulose in order to achieve energy independence?

Mark: It’s obvious we’re addicted to oil, and we need alternatives to oil. Near term as a source for transportation, the more ethanol that displaces oil the better. Replacing petroleum with sugars and glucose is critically important, both as a country and as a world. Everyone is growing plants and has waste, and we have methods to break plant materials down, cost effectively and abundantly, to displace as much petroleum as possible, and become energy independent, like Brazil. If Brazil can do this why can’t America? We need political will, with every senator and governor on board. We need concerted, continual effort, and we have to drive that home.

An Alternative Energy News Source Interview with Jennifer Gangi, the Program Director of Fuel Cells 2000

Jennifer Gangi is the Program Director of Fuel Cells 2000, an educational resource for hydrogen fuel cell commercialization. We spoke to her about how soon fuel cell cars will hit the market, how fuel cells work, the economics and technology of making hydrogen fuel, and the meaning of the phrase "the hydrogen economy."

Altenews: Your purpose is to help hydrogen fuel cell commercialization. How did you arrive at this type of job?

Jennifer: I actually answered an ad for a writer – the ad was very vague, just said that a writer was wanted to write about technology. I have an English background but had been working for a few years at a PR firm that handled only high-tech clients – computer graphics, animation, that sort of thing. I have been here for almost 7 years and have been the Program Director of the Fuel Cells 2000 program for the last 4. It is really rewarding working to promote something that can truly change the world both environmentally and economically. Everyone involved in this industry really believes in the potential of fuel cells and hydrogen, and that is inspiring.

How did Fuel Cells 2000 get started, and what are your major accomplishments?

Fuel Cells 2000 began in 1998, as a program of Breakthrough Technologies Institute, a non-profit in Washington, DC. Our website, www.fuelcells.org has won several awards and accolades from : Awesome Library (www.awesomelibrary.org), a collection of the top 5% sites in the field of K-12 education; The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, www.scilinks.org), sciLINKS^®; and Popular Science magazine, as one of the “50 Best of the Web” Sci-Tech Sites in October 2000.

I think our major accomplishment is lasting as long as we have while not compromising on quality/service – we are the leading non-aligned source for fuel cell information and offer a lot of things for free that companies/organizations try and sell. For a small non-profit, we have some tremendous resources on our website – the Fuel Cell Match Maker Message Board (job/resume postings), Fuel Cell Career and Education Center, searchable databases, interactive maps, presentations, reports, images, links to other resources, product and comparison charts, you name it.

How long will it be until research and development creates hydrogen-powered cars for use by the general public?

The technology is here – it works. My coworkers and I saw the Honda FCX driving down G Street in Washington, DC on our way to lunch the other day. The challenges now are lowering the cost and increasing the driving range of the vehicles – people don’t want to sacrifice what they are used to. Most automakers are saying somewhere between 2010-2015. I think a lot of education has to be done while the research/development is taking place to help reach that goal.

A lot of innovative research is being done at the university level. There are numerous colleges and universities with fuel cell and hydrogen programs and research centers working with both industry and government to move the technology forward.

There are a lot of educational kits and some backup units available now. www.fuelcellstore.com is a great site to see what is out there for purchase.

There has been a lot of activity in the fuel cell and hydrogen arena as of late – lots of research, demonstration, sales and advancements from both larger fuel cell developers and smaller start-up companies – I would be hard pressed to pick just a few. Right now, I am excited to see a lot of well-established and well-known companies getting involved in the demonstration of fuel cells – UPS, FedEx, Wal-Mart, Verizon, Sheraton, etc. This really helps with both the research/development side of fuel cells but also with education, which is a big obstacle. When people read about a company that they have heard of, or in small towns, know someone who either works there or they drive by it every day - that really helps break down some of the educational barriers. When my friends from home or my mom flag articles on fuel cells and actually know what they are reading, I know things are changing.

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that takes advantage of the natural attraction that hydrogen has for oxygen. In structure, a fuel cell is much like a battery: it has two electrodes separated by an electrolyte. But in use it is very different from a battery. A fuel cell will not “run down” and never needs recharging. A fuel cell will provide useful electricity and heat as long as hydrogen fuel is supplied.

In a PEM fuel cell, hydrogen is fed to one electrode, and oxygen, or air, is fed to the other. Encouraged by a catalyst, both the hydrogen and oxygen give up their electrons (they become ions). The hydrogen passes through the electrolyte to the oxygen side. But the electrons cannot pass through and must take a path around the electrolyte. In the process, they can be harnessed for useful work. Finally, the electrons, hydrogen and oxygen all reunite to form water.

Well, I would say that although we are happy that the government is funding hydrogen and fuel cell research, that no, there isn’t enough. I would love to see the government step up and become more active in actually purchasing fuel cells – placing an order for vehicles for government fleets, installing back up units at government facilities, etc. DoD had a few successful programs for funding and installing stationary fuel cells at military bases and other location sites around the country. Those programs provided crucial data on fuel cell operations, maintenance and siting. Hydrogen and fuel cells offer a lot of potential to reduce emissions and our dependence on foreign oil, create jobs and put the U.S. at the forefront of the industry and can help bolster energy security and our energy infrastructure. No more blackouts, brownouts or electricity outages – I think the government should be installing them in areas prone to hurricanes and blackouts.

At the state level, a lot of states are stepping up to the plate and offering tax incentives, rebates, funding for research, etc. We just compiled a state-by-state analysis of hydrogen and fuel cell activity and 47 states and the District of Columbia have some sort of program, demonstration or legislation promoting fuel cells and hydrogen. There are several states vying to be the leader in the United States, even the world, with regards to fuel cells and hydrogen. In some instances, states are offering more funding than the federal government.

What are the best commercial uses for a hydrogen fuel cell? Are there other uses besides transportation?

There are many great commercial applications for fuel cells besides passenger vehicles. In the transportation arena, fuel cells are being demonstrated in forklifts and scooters, both proving to be cost-effective and providing numerous benefits over conventional power sources. Fuel cell APUs (auxiliary power units) can drastically reduce emissions for tractor-trailer trucks that idle on the roadside for hours at a time.

Backup power is also a great application for fuel cells – for telecommunications, radio and 911 towers – they are durable, reliable and last longer than batteries. Fuel cell generators offer a quiet and clean alternative to loud and smoky diesel generators for camping and other backup power uses.

What technology is being developed to make hydrogen storage safe so that fuel cells can become widely used?

The issue with hydrogen storage isn’t safety, it is storing enough hydrogen to provide a 300-mile (or more) range per tank. That is one of the main barriers to overcome before the fuel cell vehicles can become commercialized. There have been numerous tests to prove that hydrogen is as safe, if not safer than other fuels.

In order to be effective, fuel cells need a steady supply of hydrogen at a competitive price. Where do you think that hydrogen fuel is going to come from?

That is hard to say – in the short term, most likely from reforming of natural gas. The great thing about hydrogen is that it can come from a wide array of feedstocks. In Japan, many hydrogen stations have been installed and opened, all generating hydrogen from a different source. This is a good way to see which feedstocks are more efficient, cleaner, cheaper. etc. Solar and wind powered electrolysis of water and nuclear are all possibilities as well.

A great source of hydrogen is methane or anaerobic digester gas – many landfills, wastewater treatment plants, breweries and farms are using the waste products of their respective industry to serve as a source for hydrogen to power a fuel cell. This is a highly efficient and clean approach – capturing the waste and using it for power. With fuel cells, you can also capture the excess heat and use it for space heating or for hot water.

How much electricity is required to make enough hydrogen to be the equivalent of a typical full tank of gas?

A very rough figure would be about 60 kWh per gallon, so 15 gallons (typical tank) = 900 kWh. Remember that a fuel cell is 2-3 times more efficient than an internal combustion engine, so even though it takes energy to make hydrogen, you are getting more energy out of the fuel you use. Well-to-Wheel analyses compare the entire pathway of producing, storing, distributing and utilizing fuel. They can compare efficiencies and energy needs for the many different hydrogen production methods as compared to different fuels and vehicle technologies. Well-to-Wheel studies have found that most, but not all, of the fuel cell vehicle/fuel combinations being considered achieve significant energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission benefits over existing and other advanced technologies. The best performing fuel cell vehicles and fuel combinations do far better than the alternatives. Fuel Choices for Fuel-Cell Vehicles: Well-to-Wheels Energy and Emission Impacts by Michael Wang combines and analyzes all of the Well-to-Wheels studies. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/260.pdf

Some hydrogen advocates say that hydrogen fuel should be made from nuclear power, while others say it should be made from renewable energy, and some say wind power. Which do you think would be best?

I am interested in learning more about the possibilities of nuclear power but don’t know too much about the specifics or potential drawbacks (waste?) just yet. Generating hydrogen from renewable sources would be ideal, but in the short term, may not be the most cost effective way to get the technology out there. I would hope that eventually we can achieve that, though.

There are several biological species, including termites and various kinds of bacteria, that naturally produce hydrogen. Do you think biological production of hydrogen will be a major contributor to fuel supply?

I am not sure it will be a major contributor, but it is an innovative and natural way to produce hydrogen. There is a lot of really cool research in this area right now.

What does the phrase "the hydrogen economy" mean? When and where might "the hydrogen economy" happen?

To me, the phrase ‘hydrogen economy’ means we are generating power domestically, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and weaning ourselves off of petroleum-based fuels. Hydrogen has a lot of potential to fuel our cars, buses, buildings, electronic appliances and anything else that uses power – the best part is that it can be done with low-zero emissions, reliability, and scalability, all while increasing energy security and jobs.

The hydrogen economy is already starting to happen in Iceland. Canada is striding ahead with hydrogen research and development. Countries in Asia are working hard on fuel cells for both stationary and transportation applications. Here in the U.S., 14 states have developed a hydrogen roadmap, with 3 more developing them. California has taken the lead, but many states are following suit. The hydrogen economy is definitely possible and offers a very bright future for the word.

Altenews Interview with Brian Hughes

Brian Hughes has a BS in Engineering from West Point and an MS in Petroleum Engineering from the University of Texas. He has worked as a petroleum engineer for Shell, and as an independent consulting engineer for eighteen years. He currently heads Tatonka Oil and Gas, a company involved in coal bed methane and shale oil exploration. He is an expert in coal bed methane, one of the areas of independent oil and gas exploration that is becoming exciting for investors. We talked to him about coal bed methane technology, exploration, and economics, and how coal bed methane can help the environment and developing countries.

Will coal bed methane become a major rival of traditional natural gas?

Yes. Coal bed methane will be a significant competitor to conventional natural gas, very much so. The potential resources of coal bed methane contained in world coal greatly exceeds known conventional natural gas resources. It is sometimes in multiple quadrillion cubic feet. In many conditions coal bed contains three times more than gas in equivalent thicknesses of limestone and sandstone.

What is coal bed methane?

Coal bed methane is a byproduct of the coalification process. It consists of almost pure methane, in the majority of fields. There are two types of coal bed methane, biogenic and thermogenic. Biogenic gas is formed by bacterial action in the coal. Thermogenic gas is formed by heat and pressure. Sometimes there are minor constituents of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. The coal bed methane requires very little processing in the majority of instances and is pipeline quality gas, especially the biogenic gas.

How do you produce coal bed methane?

Coal bed methane is kept within coal by pressure. To produce the gas the water in the coal bed has to be removed, generally by using pumps. As pressure is reduced, the gas desorbs from the coal, flows to the well, and flows up the casing. At the wellhead, the flow rate is measured, and the gas is collected and compressed for transmission via pipelines to household, commercial and industrial users hundreds to thousands of miles away.

Is coal bed methane like natural gas in its composition?

Yes, coal bed methane is almost identical to what we call ‘natural gas’ in its final form; basically, it is just methane (CH4), without the more complex molecules (ethane, propane, butane) found in trace amounts in ‘natural gas’ delivered to homes and industries. CBM has a heat content a little higher than 950 btu/cf, which is the same btu content in cooking stoves.

What is the CBM extracted from?

Primarily from bituminous and sub-bituminous coals. Lignite, which is a lower rank than sub-bituminous, generally has limited permeability and gas content. You need to get to the sub-bituminous coals to have a significantly better possibility to produce coal bed methane. In general, permeability decreases and gas content increases with increasing coal rank.

What technology developments are needed for better CBM extraction?

No special technology is needed. The Powder River basin in Wyoming started using water well technology; in other basins, modified conventional oil and gas technologies were used. The most significant technology used was specialized pump controllers, which allows the operator to monitor production rates of pressures. In some of the deeper coal bed methane basins hydraulic fracturing and to a limited degree cavity completions are used to complete the wells.

What does the price of natural gas have to be for feasible economic extraction of CBM?

That depends upon the cost structure of the basin. For the Powder River basin in 2000, it was about $2 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) break even cost. Now, the break-even cost is probably closer to $4/mcf. It depends on drilling costs, services, and costs to collect and transport the CBM.

Where are the best coal bed methane opportunities?

The most prolific coal bed methane production is from the San Juan basin in New Mexico and Colorado. The Black Warrior basin in Alabama was first. The basin with the most number of wells drilled is the Powder River basin in northeast Wyoming. There are many other basins around the U.S., Canada, and the rest of the world. There are commercial coal bed methane projects around world in addition to those three major basins.

How much coal bed methane is there?

A lot. According to the USGS in 2000, the US CBM resource is about 700 trillion cubic feet (tcf), of which they estimated about 100 tcf to be economic. The US consumes about 22 tcf per year, so CBM presents the equivalent of at least a 5 year supply to our country.

World-wide estimates of CBM resources range from 6,000 to 24,000 tcf, with the former Soviet Union estimated to have two thirds of the resource. China’s resource is estimated at about 1,000 tcf.

Are the coal bed methane resources concentrated or scattered?

There are single huge deposits, and it is also throughout the world, all over the world. A coal basin that has not been degassed will have coal bed methane. Whether it is economically producible is another question.

What is the most exciting thing about the industry?

The vast majority of initial exploration and development activity is done by fairly small companies. The largest companies with exposure to coal bed methane is ConocoPhillips, followed by Marathon and Pioneer. It wasn't until the mid '90s that the industry expanded significantly outside of San Juan and Black Warrior basins. It can be classified as a young industry.

Where is the area with the best CBM potential?

In the Rocky Mountains of North America. The Rocky Mountains are often called the Persian Gulf of natural gas because of the amount of gas contained in unconventional gas deposits, such as CBM, tight gas sands, and fractured shales.

Is there an association of CBM producers?

Not solely for CBM producers. However, the oil and gas industry has several associations in the Rockies, such as Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Colorado Oil and Gas Association, and IPAMS, which do include CBM as well as other producers.

When did CBM start?

It first started in the late '70s and early '80s. A significant amount of research was needed to make it viable, as existing conventional oil and gas technologies were largely incompatible with CBM development.

How long will it be until coal bed methane rivals or outproduces traditional natural gas?

Unconventional natural gas, which includes tight gas sands and CBM, outproduced conventional onshore US natural gas sources beginning in 2004. And, CBM production is now about 25% of the unconventional supply, or about one eighth of the total supply.

What do you look for in a CBM site?

I look for areas that have significant retained or produced permeability. The three most important concepts in defining an economic coal bed methane are coal thickness, gas content and saturation, and permeability.

I look for basins that have extensional tectonics, characterized by normal faulting, wrench faulting, and rifting. Many of the basins in the Rocky Mountains are subjected to substantial compressive tectonic forces, which can be very detrimental to coal permeability. The foreland basins such as Powder River Basin of Wyoming have not seen significant compressive forces, except in limited areas. Other basins, such as the Sand Wash Basin of Colorado and San Juan Basin, have high permeability because of a large wrench fault systems.

The basins of southern Africa have coals that have significant permeability because they were deposited in an active rift basin, and have been subjected to recent rifting and related faulting. Other basins, such as the western Green River basin of Wyoming and parts of the Canadian Rockies have limited potential for CBM production because of the effects of compressional tectonics.

What is a rift basin?

Rift basins are formed where the crust was pulling apart in an active rift zone, which is usually related to plate tectonic activity.

What are the major factors in CBM extraction?

Permeability and coal thickness are primary factors. The third factor to look for is gas content and relative saturation. The capacity of the coal to hold CBM is a function of its rank, and is quantified by its adsorption isotherm. With increasing pressure the coal will hold more gas up to a measured capacity. Economic production occurs quickly when, at a given depth and pressure, the target seam has a gas content either at or very close to the isotherm, which is ‘saturation’. As dewatering begins to lower the reservoir pressure, gas production occurs rapidly. If the target seam is undersaturated at a specific depth, significant water production must occur to reduce the reservoir pressure to allow gas production to commence. In many cases this can exceed three years. Even then, depending on the pumping and water management costs, CBM production can be economic.

How long does it typically take to see CBM production after a site is found?

It now takes from 3 months to a year and a half to permit and drill a well. Permitting is the big time requirement. Drilling and completion only takes about two days in the shallow Powder River Basin, to a week or so for deeper CBM wells. After the well is drilled and completed, and if the coal is saturated with gas, production can commence in just days to a few weeks. If undersaturated, there may never be any CBM production. That's a function of permeability, thickness, gas content and saturation.

What makes the US the most developed in coal bed methane technology?

The independent oil and gas companies in the US.

Have you been helped or hurt by government policy?

There are currently no regulatory or tax incentives. The industry was kick-started by section 29 of the tax code in the late '80s and early '90s, but today people understand CBM well enough for no government incentives to be required. There are many regulatory disincentives, such as the time and effort needed to obtain drilling and water discharge permits. This certainly slows down our ability to develop CBM, and in places prevents development due to economic impacts of the regulations.

Which Senators support CBM and which oppose it?

Wyoming Senators are for it. Massachusetts and California Senators are against it, despite massive use of natural gas in their states.

There’s not been a direct vote on CBM in Washington, but there are plenty of indirect votes in congress. For example, take the votes on ANWR; both Democrats and Republicans have said “no” to developing a resource crucial to our country’s energy supply.

Natural gas is also a crucial resource, and my guess is that most of those same politicians that voted against ANWR would also vote “no” to further natural gas development, including CBM.

The politicians and bureaucrats are heavily pressured by the anti-development crowd to vote and say no. The US needs new natural gas and CBM supplies developed in the US. Without that, we will face shortages, unless we’re willing to import a lot more liquefied natural gas. A dollar spent in the US on oil and gas production is a dollar less that goes overseas to the Middle East, Venezuela and other energy exporters.

Has the government hurt coal bed methane in any ways?

We have been hurt by the Bureau of Land Management bureaucracy, and by the environmental bureaucracies in the Federal and State governments. Just in the ways we've been able to permit and produce the wells, opposed for specious reasons at best. Bureaucrats have said to us that their goal was to get rid of oil and gas development.

Is coal bed methane the most exciting thing in alternative oil and gas exploration?

Coal bed methane is the most exciting area in independent oil and gas right now. Wells are shallow enough that very small companies can get started into coal bed methane.

One of the companies that I helped found was Pennaco Energy, focused in the Powder River basin of Wyoming, which was subsequently purchased by Marathon. There the average well depth in the first years was about 800 feet, and within three years Pennaco was producing over 100 million cubic feet of gas per day, from many hundreds of wells.

One of the drawbacks to early CBM development was lack of infrastructure in the Rocky Mountains; this caused the wellhead price to suffer substantially from the ‘basin differential’. Since then a number of new gas pipelines have been completed throughout Rockies, opening significant production capacity in Powder River, the Sand Wash basin, and other basins that transfer to these pipelines.

In what ways should coal bed methane appeal to environmentalists?

Compared to developing coal for heating or electricity in the US, CBM has a smaller environmental ‘footprint’. This includes the amount of surface disturbance and air emissions.

Overseas, one small coal bed methane well in Africa is the equivalent of 300,000 trees. Coal bed methane helps stop deforestation in third world countries. A lot can be eliminated by one small coal bed methane well, so environmentalists dead set against CBM will like it if they become informed. In Wyoming, Montana, and throughout the US, many environments are against all oil and gas development and they won't listen to reason.

In what ways do you remove both the CBM and the coal from a coal bed?

You remove the coal bed methane and then remove the coal, for example in the Black Warrior basin. Degassing the mines takes place first.

Are there mainly a few large companies doing CBM, or mainly many small companies?

Small companies start the majority of coal bed methane projects, and large firms acquire them. It is very labor intensive, and the overhead of large companies make coal bed methane not viable. Small independent CBM producers might drill 1,000 wells in one year, which is about the number that Shell drills in a year.

Is having the ability to drill more wells a good thing?

Yes, it’s essential and necessary. Gas wells have production rates that naturally decline over time, and that decline must be replaced to maintain or increase total gas production. The US consumes about 22 tcf per year, and this is expected to grow to 25 tcf per year within 10 years.

Decline rates depend on the type of gas reservoir; for CBM reservoirs, this can be 7% to 25% per year. In other words, CBM well production rates can be expected to halve every 3 to 10 years, and we have to drill 7% to 25% more wells annually just to keep up with declines from existing wells.

Are there CBM sites all over the world, or mainly in North America?

There are a lot of CBM projects around the world, in Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa. Australia, China, India, Indonesia is huge, Columbia, Venezuela. Southern Africa has as much gas as North Africa, it is just contained in coal beds. For example in Southern Africa, coal bed methane could help raise the standard of living in developing nations. The largest cause of lung cancer in developing nations is wood

smoke, replacing wood burning fires with clean burning coal bed methane will potentially reduce lung cancer significantly in those countries. Coal bed methane is a resource that is hard to export, it has to be used in the country where it is found, which has a positive benefit in the balance of payments for those countries. Rather than importing electricity in Zimbabwe, it could be self sufficient in electricity. Coal bed methane can also be made into fertilizer. If subsistence farmers in Africa had the fertilizer that they require then famine would be eliminated. Rather than aid agencies pouring hundreds of millions in, creating infrastructure for coal bed methane has the very real possibility of eliminating famine in those countries.

"The Skeptical Environmentalist" is a good book, it has a couple of good chapters about lung cancer in Africa. It has a quote: "the stone age didn't end because of lack of stones, the fossil fuel age isn't going to end because of lack of fossil fuels."

There is a development scenario called coal mine methane, when there is a gas outburst and an explosion at a coal mine, as often happens in China. The reason for the outburst is that the coal has low permeability so gas cannot escape rapidly enough. Trying to develop coal bed methane in those areas is almost always not economic. Coal mine methane drainage is typically done with horizontal holes drilled inside the mine, underground. It is very rarely economic for the coal mine, based on gas sales alone.

Tight gas and fractured shale technology is coming and will be big. The most exciting thing is that a small startup company can be very successful with coal bed methane. You're not spending $2 million per well, you can spend $500,000 per well, in the Powder River if everything goes right it's $150,000 per well. There is a low cost of entry, but if you don't know what you're doing it can get out of control, that's why some companies in Powder River aren't making money.

The Bakken Shale of Montana and North Dakota is the current ‘hot’ play for shale oil development and production. The Bakken Shale has been a tremendous oil source, with estimates of over 400 billion barrels of oil generated. Within the Bakken, there is a zone that has greater quartz content and porosity, which tends to develop fractures and is the oil reservoir. Horizontal wells are drilled to cross these vertical fractures, and can produce over 1000 barrels per day as a result. In one area of Montana, initial productions from horizontal wells average over 400 barrels per day, plus 400 mcf gas per day.

An Alternative Energy News Source Interview with Solar One's Jamie Paquette and Chris Neidl

Solar One is a New York City organization that promotes environmental responsibility and sustainable living through imaginative outreach methods. Calling themselves a “Green power, arts and education center,” with the purpose of “inspiring New Yorkers to become environmentally responsible city dwellers,” Solar One has a variety of programs, including environmentalist education, arts, and music activities. We visited Solar One, which is located at the Stuyvesant Cove Park on the East River near 1^st Avenue and 23^rd Street, during their CitySol event, an open-air solar-powered music show surrounded by booths providing info, food, arts and crafts. At the event, which was very lively and popular, we spoke with Solar One staff members Jamie Paquette and Chris Neidl inside the Solar One building (which is a solar-powered energy efficient building), about a variety of environmentalist topics.

Jamie: Solar One started in 2000 when New York City was looking for someone to maintain a park, the Stuyvesant Cove park. The parks department didn’t want to take the park, so they looked for a nonprofit to take it, and they wanted an environmental learning center. What happened was, our parent organization, the Community Environmental Center, based in Queens, won a contract with the city, and got a lease to run this project. The lease we have for the space costs us $1 per year for 30 years, for maintaining the park and running the environmental learning center. The lease process was finalized in 2002, in 2003 we put up the building. The Community Environment Center spun off a new organization for this project, a new nonprofit, that was in 2003. The Solar One company was created in 2004, but we’ve had programs since 2003, in arts and education, since then we’ve been expanding, doing new and different things.

Jamie: I started working on this five years ago. I had the interest, but I didn’t have an environmental background per se, I was brought on to do writing and fundraising. Since then I’ve grow with the project, learned as we’ve gone. We started with nothing, and have grown from the ground up. We have a building, a stage, we run events throughout the year. This job is my background.

Chris: I studied geology at the University of British Columbia, I took a planning course, in energy systems infrastructure. I dabbled in renewable energy, attended symposiums. Professionally I started two years ago, I made a career move, went to California, took classes, worked at the Solar Living Institute. In March 2005 I moved to New York City, and was hired at Solar One. Since then the staff has grown, the scope of the programs has grown.

Altenews: What are some of the ways that Solar One tries to educate people about green building?

Jamie: We have an education program, that we started for school kids, K through 12. We have a curriculum, on energy and the environment, we bring classes over here. We developed this curriculum with the help of the National Energy Education Development (NEED), a national program that develops curriculums. All the programs are for free, any school that wants to come can come. We use what we have, buildings, renewable energy, green buildings, we started with that, expanded to an evening programs for adults. We do the Green Renter program for New York City renters, people who are not owners but are interested in the local environment. We do a lot like that, we have lectures once a week, 25 to 30 per year, we get a good turnout. We also run outreach, fund things to get people here, work with a lot of other organizations. We are a small organization, we maximize partnerships. There are a lot of great organizations in New York, and we take advantage of that. We have a CFL tipping point project, using high school students to sell compact fluorescent light bulbs, it’s a way to get kids involved, learn job skills, it has a basic environmental message. Going in and changing a light bulb, that’s a part of day to day life, it’s a small step, and then you take it to the next level. We cover a wide variety of topics, the Green Renter series, composting, light bulbs, food production, green investing, transportation, congestion pricing.

Chris: The Hearst building, Bryant Park, those are LEED rated. The Stillwell Avenue subway station, near Coney Island, is covered in solar panels. There is the Ice House in Bushwick, it’s a retrofit of a 19^th century factory, with six units, they have solar panels, radiant heating, green features. Battery Park City has a green mandate standard, they’re conglomerating buildings to try to build a neighborhood.

Altenews: Could you describe the green features and solar panels of the Solar One building?

Jamie: The solar panels are a 3 kilowatt array, thin film, on the older side, it is 6 or 7 years old. This building was first used in 2000 for Earth Day, the building is reused, made of recycled aluminum, all low VOC (volatile organic compounds) paints, we have better indoor air quality from the paint, the indoor air quality is good. We have linoleum floors, natural fiber, no petroleum based products. There is a low flush toilet in bathroom, and a waterless urinal, which uses a less dense fluid to take urine down, it uses no water whatsoever, saves thousands of gallons of water per year. Those are becoming more popular, for office buildings, and other things. The stage is recycled, from fashion week, we reclaimed it. The overhang outside has passive heating and cooling, it blocks sun in the summer, and lets the sun in during the winter. We use compact fluorescent light bulbs, and energy star computers. The building is made out of SIPS, structurally insulated panels, they trap heat or cool very well, and reduce energy use.

Jamie: Number one, from a basic health standpoint, green buildings are healthier, there is no off gassing, no oil or gas burned on site, you save greenhouse gases. It is cheaper to run, reduces energy use, water use is minimized. It is more expensive to build but cheaper to live in. There are environmental benefits, the use of resources, the reuse of products, the amount of energy expended overall is lower. Green buildings procure materials locally rather than having them shipped in, that reduces oil use, reduces truck and plane pollution, I think that 500 miles is the LEED standard, you are supposed to get materials from 500 miles away or closer.

Jamie: That is tricky, because NYSERDA has incentive programs to cover the cost of installing, and there are tax credits for on-site energy generation. It depends on the type of panels. What is more important than upfront costs is payback, how long will this take to pay for itself, and the payback period is upwards of 20 to 30 years. If you can get that down to a 10 or 5 year period, it becomes more attractive, saving money in a reasonable amount of time.

Jamie: We are not a lobbying organization, we are not big enough. There are some federal programs, we don’t have all the info, if more money were put into R&D it would put the cost down. We don’t do policy as an organization, we encourage but we do not lobby.

Altenews: How important is green building and solar power to stopping climate change?

Jamie: Most of the focus is on cars, trucks, automobiles, people don’t always understand the high percentage of energy use buildings account for, 30 to 40 percent in this country. Plug-in appliances and heating and cooling can have a huge impact, the equivalent of automobiles, and it is something that people have more control over. It is not just solar, a mix of things is needed. Solar is easy to integrate into buildings, it has more of a history than geothermal or hydrogen fuel cells, solar plays a big part in that, the solar technology is there, it is being refined at a quicker pace, it is easier to integrate, more adaptive, like the Soler building, building solar into the side of the building, it is part of the structure of the building, that is unique thinking.

Altenews: How much energy could be saved and how much less oil would be used if the majority of Americans adopted green building and solar power usage?

Jamie: That is hard to say, the folks at NYSERDA might know that, they know about retrofits and new construction, they have good answers, and there are studies on their website, nyserda.org. I don’t know off the top of my head, everything has energy benefit or cost. We do not have an exact goal, the LEED rating is not tied to specific goals. The more you do, the more effect it has. The simplest choices, like windows and insulation, have huge repercussions.

Altenews: If you had to pick one thing to recommend to people, what would it be?

Jamie: Light bulbs and appliances, they are the simplest things. Put in compact fluorescent light bulbs, they pay for themselves, you don’t have to change them for years. The cost has come down, you can get 6 for 10$, and they use 20-30% of the energy of a standard bulb, and last 5 to 10 times as long. Energy star appliances, efficient air conditioners, they save money, reduce energy use, are not a burden on grid. The city is looking at having to build more power plants for New York City for the next 6 years.

Jamie: This is the second one of these this year, we had one last year, and what we hope the impact is, is for people to come and have fun. It is different from Earth Day, where you hand out literature, maybe people read it and maybe they don’t. Here people come and see that sustainability isn’t all negativity and global warming and gloom and doom, it can be music and food and clothing and products that are sustainable, it is not all bad news. A lot of people are doing interesting things, and make a positive difference, and that shows in positive way. This is a different type of event. We get people for a different reason, not for obligation, they are here to have fun, and everything else they get they learn better. This is an arts program, a dance festival and arts festival, we get people here for the performance, and if it is powered by solar, it becomes more real to people, they see the application rather than the abstract concept.

Jamie: There is ConEd Solutions, they are here today. They do green energy, they work with NewWind Energy of Pennsylvania that owns windmills. ConEd sells wind power to New York.

An Alternative Energy News Source Interview with Professor Beckman of the Solar Energy Lab

Interviewed by Russell Hasan

Altenews.com

Professor Emeritus William A. Beckman is the Director of the Solar Energy Lab (SEL) of the University of Wisconsin - Madison. He received his PhD in 1964 and has gone on to become one of the internationally recognized leaders in the field of solar technology. Last year he won awards from both the ISES and ASES solar energy societies. We spoke with Professor Beckman about the solar silicon shortage, reducing pollution, helping developing countries, and technical aspects of solar technology.

Altenews: On the subject of the history of solar energy, who are the pioneers of the creation of solar technology, and what were the major historical events in the development of solar energy?

Beckman: The major technical advance was done at MIT in late 30s and early 40s, and into the 50s, under the direction of Professor Hoyt C. Hottel, and he had two major grad students who continued it. They were B. B. Wortz and Austin Whillier. Whillier continued for many years, he laid down foundations for all solar thermal, house heating and water heating. They were the leaders.

Altenews: How long have you been the Director of the Solar Energy Lab?

Beckman: I started in 1963. Professor John A. Duffie was director at the time. The Solar Energy Lab is the oldest continually operating solar lab in the world. Duffie retired 20 years ago, and I started then. I am still director now, although I officially retired from teaching.

Altenews: Last year you received an award from the International Solar Energy Society. What was that award for?

Beckman: There were a number of awards last year. There was the H. C. Hottel award, a couple years ago, and the Farrington Daniels award. Farrington Daniels was a chemistry professor here at the University of Wisconsin. He was a major force in the Manhattan project. After the war he was interested in helping impoverished nations, so he started working in solar energy research. He was a founding member of the International Solar Energy Society, he was its first president, and he supported the society not just with his own efforts, he supported it financially. He was a founding father of a major solar energy society.

Altenews: What do you consider to be your biggest achievement in the field of solar energy research?

Beckman: Personally, the publication of solar energy textbooks. The first one was in 1974, continuing on until last Friday, when I sent final revisions to the next edition due out in August. The name of the book is “Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes.” In all honesty we have the international solar energy book market sown up, it has been for 30 years, and that’s why most people know me and Duffie, who passed away last year.

Altenews: What have been the major advancements in solar technology during your time with the Solar Energy Lab?

Beckman: Well, things that I’ve had nothing to do with would be photovoltaic, problems in material science, physics. We were not involved in that, we have been involved in photovoltaic in the engineering part, such as how big, how much power, irregularity of sunshine, predicting the performance of solar energy systems, to design intelligently, for least cost or maximum power, we’ve done that for 30 years. The process we developed in the lab created two major software programs used internationally. One is called F-Chart, which predicts performance of solar heating systems, and it is used extensively by industry and government. The other is TRNSYS, transient simulations, this is doing detailed studies of solar energy dynamics, to graph the complete process of what’s happening.

Altenews: Your website lists a study by the Solar Energy Lab concerning reducing emissions to reach levels required by the Kyoto Protocol. Which solar technologies do you see as having the greatest impact on reducing pollution?

Beckman: It’s clear that solar water heating would be the country’s best choice in reducing pollution, in my opinion, because to heat your water by a typical family of 4 generates as much CO2 as a family car, and we can easily cut that in half with solar water heating. It would be virtually impossible to cut that in half on cars. Solar water heating is economically attractive, you save money with solar water heating, and that goes for the whole country. There is enough sun to do it.

Altenews: How does a solar water heater work?

Beckman: A solar water heater uses a metal plate with water tubes connected to it. A glass cover over the top allows solar energy to pass and heat the plate which in turn heats the water. The cover reduces the losses (both convection due to the wind and infrared radiation). The back side of the plate is insulated. There is a pump in the system that pumps cold water from the bottom of a storage tank (looks like a conventional hot water heater) through the collector and the hot water is directed back to near the top of the tank where hot water is stored. In cold climates we pump glycol through the collector and
exchange heat with water in a heat exchanger located inside the house.

Altenews: What factors determine the efficiency of a solar panel?

Beckman: For electrical generation, the inherent efficiency of photovoltaic, which depends on materials and manufacturing skills. A PV (photovoltaic) cell is typically 15% efficient, can be as low as 8%, lab cells can be as high as 30%. It is the dollars per watt that is important, not the efficiency, what costs less is a better buy. It is a materials and manufacturing problem, the question of how efficient. 25 to 30% is probably impossible in a manufacturing environment, it is extremely difficult in the near future. Solar thermal, the design of solar collectors, problems in fluid mechanics and heat transfer, is what half of my book is about, predicting solar systems. I have only one chapter on photovoltaic, thermal has more engineering decisions.

Altenews: There have been reports of a shortage of silicon that has had a negative impact on solar cell manufacturing. What do you think has caused this shortage, and when do you think it will end?

Beckman: It is not the silicon. Most of the cells are made by rejected wafers from the computer chip industry, if it is not quite suitable for a $400 chip, they sell it to PV manufacturers, and their value is much less. There hasn’t been much excess, it is a problem in supply. I believe that there are facilities developed just for silicon cells. PV cells are not just made of silicon, there are other materials involved, none of which are in shortage.

Altenews: There have been reports that Germany and Japan are more advanced in solar technology than the United States. How do you think the U.S. ranks compared to other countries in terms of solar innovation?

Beckman: Well, as public policy the EC (European Community) has really pushed solar technology, even though their climate is worse for it than the U.S. They have nothing like Arizona, it is more like Schenectady New York. There is not much sun, but they really pushed hard to get people to think environmentally about the benefits of solar. There are lots in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and no systems going up in the U.S. In technology in photovoltaic, Japan took the lead because they were smart, they put solar cells in calculators, that gave them a fairly large market in which to learn to make efficient cells. Bell Labs invented these things, so we should have had the best chance of doing something with it, but the Japanese took it over for commercializing it. Germany is not ahead of us in PV, but Japan is, and Germany is ahead in solar thermal. Japan has gone a different route in thermal, with batch heaters, they heat during the day, but are not good sitting all night long, when they use water heated by electricity. When the sun is out there is a collector, they use that. There are lots of those systems. Most of the increase in use in China is solar water heating.

Altenews: Do you think that there is enough funding for solar research from the United States government?

Beckman: Absolutely not. They are putting less and less money in every year. I have not been following dollar values, but I know solar thermal money is tiny, it supports a couple of people. Photovoltaic get more, but it is pretty minor compared to nuclear research.

Altenews: It has been claimed that in one hour the Earth receives enough solar power to fulfill the energy needs of the planet for one year. Is that true?

Beckman: I’ve seen comments like that. Most of that falls in the Pacific Ocean. It is probably true but I would have to do some calculations. That is not a useful idea. Enough sunlight falls on a house to heat and cool, what comes in in a year is enough to do everything in your house. There are some zero energy houses, most of those use solar thermal and PV.

Altenews: Is making solar energy mainstream just a matter of building more solar power plants and installing more solar home systems, or are advances in solar panel efficiency needed?

Beckman: I don’t think technology is holding us back, it’s education. When is the last time we heard the President say we should push solar energy? I don’t recall that being said, or any of them doing anything like that. We need broad-based education, for example California is putting a lot of effort into promoting solar. Wisconsin is doing very little. Most states are behind California. One of the reasons is that California is using our software to predict the performance of systems sold, for rebates.

Altenews: Your website says that in its early years the Solar Energy Lab was concerned with solar energy in developing countries. In what ways can solar power help Third World Countries?

Beckman: Well, in the generation of electricity, at the household or village scale, it is much cheaper to bring in PV panels, for individual houses or a village, to supply electricity for a few light bulbs and radios, that is much cheaper than to bring in power lines. A large part of the world is still without electricity, so solar can make an impact in remote villages. Bigger scale solar thermal systems can generate electricity. There is a very large system in the Mojave desert, built by an Israeli company called LUZ, at Kramer Junction, in the 1980s. It was since bought by FPL. It is also called SEGS, solar energy generating system. It is still producing electricity, and it is hooked to the California grid. That system can be replicated in Africa or India, where villages have no power, and small systems could bring substantial power, using the sun instead of coal.

Altenews: What changes and innovations do you see in the future of solar energy?

Beckman: The general problem is, nobody knows about solar water heating. They have to advertise, pound on doors, and spend lots of money to sell water systems. If state or federal government were to bring solar water heating to the public eye, it would be a good thing, selling costs would disappear, people would come to their door. Getting government involved in educating the public is not technological, but it will make solar really go.

An Alternative Energy News Source Interview with Connecticut State Senator Edward Meyer

Connecticut State Senator Edward Meyer was recently elected to represent the 12^th Senate District of Connecticut, including Guilford, Branford, and Durham. He has both a B.A. and a law degree from Yale University. Meyer served as a Federal prosecutor under Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and then served for four years in the New York State Assembly. He also served for 23 years on the New York State Board of Regents. A Democrat, he is the Vice Chair of the Environment Committee in the Connecticut General Assembly, and during his time as State Senator he has proposed three Acts relating to alternative energy: an Act exempting biodiesel from the petroleum tax, an Act exempting biodiesel from the motor vehicle fuels tax, and an Act exempting renewable energy products from the sales tax. We spoke to him about biodiesel, the ethanol tariff, and renewable energy.

AENS: Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. What are you doing as Vice Chair of the Environment Committee to save the environment in Connecticut?

EM: Well, I’m doing several things. My district is on the Long Island Sound, and I am doing all I can to preserve the Long Island Sound against a variety of assaults. There is a plan to build a liquid natural gas terminal in the middle of the Sound off of my district. If that terminal, which is 150 feet high and 4 football fields long, if that terminal ever exploded, the dangerous terminal holding liquid natural gas could affect the ecology of the Long Island Sound for a generation. Second, utility companies are trying to run power lines from my district to Long Island, the proposed location through the Thimble Islands goes right across beds of shellfish, which are very important to the life of the shellfish and to the fisherman who use them. Third, the Hammonasset river empties into the Long Island Sound, and the multinational company Unilever intended to dump its waste into the Hammonasset river, and with the help of others I was able to block that intrusion. Those are local examples, and on a statewide basis, I am one of the leaders of trying to preserve open space, the preservation of farmland, and other open space, which is not commercialized. Everywhere in the country we have the problem of urbanization, and suburbanization. The diversity that we get from open space is so important, and I have sponsored legislation to help owners who preserve open space.

AENS: You proposed two acts to lower state taxes on biodiesel. Why do you like biodiesel?

EM: Well, a year ago I had never heard of it. Then a young aggressive constituent came to me, laid out the story, that largely from vegetable oil we can make a fuel that sharply curtails greenhouse gases, and is an alternative to petrol products. It seems to me that is the direction we should be going in. It is a little more expensive than regular diesel, so we needed to find ways to make it less expensive, and I proposed a bill to declare it an alternative fuel exempt from the sales tax. We have not put a marketing plan for it in yet, it is so new, but it is exciting because it can be used in any engine that uses diesel, in all power equipment, and in home heating oil. We are looking at trying to promote the market for biodiesel, and the question is, do we mandate the percentage of biodiesel in all fuel made for diesel engines? Connecticut doesn’t like mandates from the state.

AENS: In addition to the two acts you proposed to lower the state tax on biodiesel, you also proposed an act to lower the sales tax on renewable energy products. How were your biodiesel and renewable energy Acts received by your colleagues in the Connecticut General Assembly?

EM: Uh, I don’t think they were received particularly well. The petroleum lobby is strong in Hartford, and renewable energy is viewed as idealistic. We’ve done very little in this country for decades to use renewables, and there is a reason for that, politicians don’t like it, and some of it may not be efficient. Wind for example may not be efficient unless you have a huge number of the turbines. The jury is still out on some kinds of renewable energy, but I’m going to try to be a leader in Connecticut in bringing renewable energy to the attention of the public.

AENS: Are there any other laws relating to renewable energy that you would like the Connecticut General Assembly to pass?

EM: We have other pending legislation, but I don’t feel I know enough about it to talk responsibly. Lots of our energy bills get caught up in the Energy Committee. The Energy Committee is a joint committee of the House and Senate, and it is chaired by two legislators who are not particularly open to alternative energy. For example, there is the issue of building more power generation plants, the utilities in Connecticut are on Connecticut radio every day urging the legislators to go back in a special session and pass bills to give the utilities more generation power.

AENS: The state of Connecticut recently made plans to be one of the first states in the country to run a hydrogen-powered bus. Do you have any views on hydrogen power?

AENS: Where do you stand of the issue of removing the tariff on ethanol imported to the United States?

EM: I haven’t studied those tariffs specifically, but my overall philosophy is of open markets without tariffs. I am generally opposed to tariffs. Tariffs are a very significant issue for those of us in politics, some industry and labor fight strongly for tariffs, but in general I would prefer a competitive marketplace, free of ethanol tariffs.

AENS: What do you think the government, at both the state level and the federal level, should be doing to promote renewable energy right now?

EM: Well, I’m very simple about this, I think that we need the following factors: education of the public about renewable energy, much more is needed so that the public becomes a supporting force, because Congressmen usually follow their constituents, so an educated public is very important; secondly, we need to apply R&D funds, so that we develop the most efficient energy forms, much of that comes from research and development; and third I advocate pilot programs, where you take a particular market or region or industry and you run a program on a pilot basis, report the results, and then see if you can apply it on a broader plain. Renewable energy could be effective by entering the field that way.

AENS: What do you see as the political value of renewable energy, and is it something that politicians should run on in the upcoming elections?

EM: I don’t know that politicians can run on it, unless it’s carefully articulated, but it has got tremendous political appeal, because of the cost of energy, with gas over $3/gallon, home heating oil has also jumped up, and the extreme unrest in the Middle East suggests that we should look for renewable energy not dependent on the Middle East. We get a lot of oil from Venezuela, and we have questionable relationships with that country. The idea that we have to get oil from Alaska and that whole concept of the exploration of Alaska bothers me, putting more pumps into the ocean also bothers me. I think there can be a public presentation of renewable energy that will have traction if factually presented, and during the election I will use this as one of my key points. We came out of the last legislative session with no energy program, and I think we’re right in Connecticut and the rest of the country for renewable fuels and renewable energy.

An Alternative Energy News Source Interview with Cape Wind Spokesman Mark Rodgers

Cape Wind was planning a major renewable energy project, a large wind farm off the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts to provide power to Cape Cod and the neighboring islands. Everything was going well, until a group of senators including Democrat Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts snuck an amendment into a Coast Guard Bill that would give Governor Romney, who opposes the project, the ability to veto it. We talked to Cape Wind about their fight in Congress, their campaign to save their wind farm, the history of wind power, and the future of American energy.

AENS: Why are Senator Stevens of Alaska and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts opposed to your wind farm?

CW: In Senator Kennedy’s case, most people suppose it has something to do with the location of his residence, which is six miles from the site. The site is closest to land there, and on a clear day he would see a half inch of wind farm off the horizon, the distance of a thumb to an index finger. That is the basis of his opposition, although he talks about other, technical things.

AENS: Is Senator Kennedy being a hypocritical liberal by opposing an environmentalist project just because it is near his house?

CW: Well, I’m not going to answer that as stated, but let’s say there is a Senator who says he supports wind power, is calling for more of it, and then there is a wind power project in their area, and they say “no, not here.” This calls their support into question. Wind power doesn’t get built out of words, it gets built out of steel in the ground in a windy location. Cape Wind could provide three fourths of the electricity demand to Cape Cod and the islands, and there is potential for Senator Kennedy to take a leadership position that would match his rhetorical support, with substantial renewable power delivered to his home, and this would make Massachusetts a global leader in offshore renewable energy. We hope that over time Senator Kennedy will reexamine his position.

CW: Well, in independent poling we get three to one or six to one in support for Cape Wind. There is overwhelming support for Cape Wind in Massachusetts.

CW: Well I think our opponents understand that there is strong support in Congress for expanding domestic renewable energy. Bush has talked about this, as well as others in Congress talking about it. This week Congress is reacting to higher oil prices, and there is recognition by our opponents that legislation against Cape Wind can’t be done in the open. They have attempted to pass legislation in conference, with a small number of decision makers. I hope that will not be enough, and when the reauthorization goes to the House and Senate, there will be broad opposition to this language and it will be rejected.

AENS: Which Senators have come out against the amendment and in support of your wind farm, and is there any way for them to remove the amendment at this point?

CW: Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Energy Committee ranking Republican Senator Domenici, Senator Kerry here in Massachusetts, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island, and there is a much bigger list, those are the ones that come to mind.

CW: Well, the most important thing is talking to our friends. We are blessed and fortunate, because there is strong support from environmental organizations, labor organizations, trade organizations, and health organizations. We are working our network, talking about what’s going on, coordinating. We had a broad coalition that held a press conference to announce a letter to Congress, and they are meeting with members of Congress. Ultimately this is about more than a company, it is about a new direction this country could take to do energy projects that matter, and deliver clean power. The exciting field of offshore holds potential, there is a lot of support and outrage about backdoor politics by our opponents.

AENS: If the wind farm were to be built, how big would it be and how much electricity would it produce? Also, is it true that it would be the biggest wind power project in the country?

CW: I don’t think so, full capacity will be 454 Megawatts, with an average 170 Megawatts. Some large wind farms in California have more than 700 Megawatts, but those may have multiple owners, so for a single owner it is possible that this is on top, it is confusing to answer that question. 170 Megawatts represents 3/4ths of the average electric demand for the area of Cape Cod and the islands. That is 170,000 homes, a substantial amount of power. We use General Electric offshore wind turbines, 130 of them on shallow water, in the Horseshoe Shoal, in Nantucket Sound, and the wind turbines would be six football fields apart from one another on that shoal.

AENS: Whose idea was it to build this wind farm, and why was Cape Cod chosen as the site?

CW: When our company decided to do wind power in New England, we looked at a wind resource map of New England. It was clear that resources are in two places, the mountains of northern New England, or coastal offshore locations, and there is no better location than offshore Cape Cod. Other companies are in the mountains, so we chose the road less traveled, offshore. Europeans have been doing offshore wind dating back to ‘91, so back in 2000 our engineers met with the Europeans, planning the next generation of wind power, and learned from their experience. We learned that the most important criteria is strong wind, shallow water, and protection from north Atlantic storm waves. We looked at a map of the New England coast, because we are a Massachusetts-based company, and there was no better site than Horseshoe Shoal, which is sheltered, with shallow water and strong wind. We were aware that windmills on Cape Cod are part of its cultural history, there are store signs with windmills everywhere, every town has a street called Windmill Point, there were one thousand windmills in Cape Cod in the 1700s and 1800s, and they are revered tourist destinations. Then we turned to fossil fuels, but there is a rich tradition of people working with the wind to help power the Cape Cod economy. If you support the wind economy here, you know that we can downsize Arab fossil fuel, Cape Cod has the worst air quality in Massachusetts, it is the area most at risk from global warming, and they stand to gain a lot from clean locally produced energy, keeping with tradition and facing long-term challenges.

CW: I would recommend that people go to our website (capewind.org), there are prominent specifics of what you can do. The specifics change as the situation evolves. There are public commentaries on the environmental impact statement. The best thing people can do, regarding the Stevens amendment reauthorization act, is to contact your Senator or member of Congress, and tell them to speak out against the provision when it comes to the floor, or to not vote for the bill that contains that language.

An Alternative Energy News Source Interview with Peter Tertzakian
Interviewed by Russell Hasan

Peter Tertzakian is the author of “A Thousand Barrels A Second,” an insightful, penetrating analysis of the history of energy and the pending oil crisis. He is an expert in the field of oil analysis and is the chief energy economist of ARC Financial Corporation. We spoke with Mr. Tertzakian about oil prices, renewable energy, and the future of global oil demand.

AENS: When do you think that the Hubbert Peak, (the point at which oil production will begin a steady and permanent decline) will happen, and why do you think it will happen then?

PT: You have to be careful about what that applies to. If you are talking about light sweet crude oil, it is close, maybe five years from now, or now. If you are talking about oil in general, you have to remember that there are many grades, many types of oil, and Hubbert’s Peak may be far away. Society doesn’t consume oil, it consumes fuel, which can be made from many different things, such as biofuel. Hubbert’s Peak is interesting for talking about light sweet crude, but for broader oil it is less relevant. As it becomes more difficult to make light sweet crude, prices will rise.

AENS: Has oil exploration and production technology improved enough for us to find major new fields?

PT: The technology has improved, like three-dimensional seismic, and it will enable us to find more. But the sites found are getting smaller and smaller, deeper and deeper, many are offshore, and we are finding more oil, but not cheaper oil, so the decline rate is getting steeper.

AENS: Where are the potential big fields?

PT: The Gulf of Mexico has potential. But where the oil can be found is not just geology, it is geography and it is geopolitical. Finding oil has become a political exercise, geopolitical intrigue blankets geology, exacerbating finding oil. Technology will play at role, but at some point it is not about technology.

AENS: What do you think oil production and consumption will be like in the next few years?

PT: Consumption will grow every year, as it has during 140 of the last 147 years. As the economy grows, consumption grows, the only question is by how much. For a healthy economy, by one and a half million barrels per day.

AENS: How high do you think the price of oil will go?

PT: Difficult to say. It depends upon geopolitics of the Middle East. If Iran goes miliary, it may be over $100/barrel. If Iran stays peaceful, not so high. There are qualitative factors. It may be more useful to ask what is the floor price, the price below which it won’t go, and over the next few months that may be $60.

AENS: Why do you think that renewable energy won’t be the magic bullet that will satisfy energy demand after oil?

PT: By “magic bullet” I mean something that can quickly substitute for oil on a large scale. Renewable energy is unlikely to do that in the next five to ten years. I am not saying that it can’t play a role, but not in the next five to ten years. There are several reasons for this. First is scalability. Second, most renewable energy is for electrical production, not transportation, which is the real problem. Third, the huge base infrastructure of oil is difficult to displace. Fourth, demand for energy is growing, so the renewable energy that is introduced is absorbed, and is not offsetting base consumption, so demand for oil will continue to grow over the next five to ten years. Fifth, oil is difficult to beat, it’s utility is hard to match, most renewable energies don’t have compelling utility. However, good renewable energy companies have a bright future, and there are good investment opportunities. Can renewable energy change the world energy landscape in the next five to ten years? No, not enough to change supply and demand.

AENS: Let’s talk about Canadian oil sand. How high does the price of oil have to be for oil sand to be profitable?

PT: That answer requires caution. For an existing facility, the operating cost is $15-20 per barrel. For a proposed facility, with inflation, a new oil sand facility would need $45 per barrel or up to be economical.

AENS: What potential do the Canadian oil sands have to satisfy world oil demand, and how long will it be until Canada becomes a significant oil producer?

PT: It already is. Canada is the ninth largest producer in the world, and the largest exporter to the United States. World demand is growing, and the production of oil sand will grow by two million barrels per day over the next ten years, while demand will grow one and a half million barrels per day, so the Canadian oil sands will only satisfy fifteen months of oil demand.

AENS: What areas and companies in energy do you see as the best investment opportunities, and what companies are you investing in?

PT: Alternatives with scale and distribution potential are worth investing in. Biofuel pipelines, if they have low cost with distribution. Uranium, because of new nuclear plants being proposed. Oil and gas companies with a bias for low cost producers. Some of the oil companies have high cost. I invest in companies with low cost. Oil sand, because it is politically stable. I don’t invest in solar, but solar has potential.

AENS: Do you think that enough is being done to promote renewable energy by government?

PT: It’s all relative. Relative to consumption, no, you have to understand the breadth and depth of our addiction to oil, and not enough is done to ease consumption. People should be told to conserve, to drive smaller vehicles, as this is the lowest hanging fruit for easing oil demand.

AENS: Which kind of renewable energy do you think has the most potential and could become the most economically feasible for large-scale use?

PT: I have to be cautious, because I am not an expert across the spectrum. In which markets? There is no clear answer, but a lot of money is going into biofuels, so that may be best.

AENS: Which do you think has the best chance of alleviating gasoline prices: hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid cars, or ethanol?

PT: Can I answer none of the above? The answer may be hybrid, but what is really needed are lighter weight cars. Lighter cars could bring tremendous fuel economy. We don’t need a high tech solution, we need to convince people to buy lighter vehicles, like a passenger car instead of an SUV or pickup truck. The fuel economy of a light car is the same as a hybrid.