Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Coming Baseload Power Crisis

By Thomas Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation
April 17, 2008   |   30 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

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

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

30 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 30
April 17, 2008
The word "crisis" is used far more often than is justified based on semantics, and such hyperbole tends to diminish credibility. Its usage here seems to be such a case; why should we believe that there will be a crisis in baseload power? Usually one hears of concerns (Note the distinction between a concern and a crisis) about the availability of peaking power rather than baseload power. Nuclear, coal, biomass, etc. all offer readily affordable baseload power, and in a pinch one can always rely on methane-based generation for baseload power (although it is expensive) for a larger fraction of the time--many methane-based power plants are only used a small fraction of the time when overall demand it high. The reliance on intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar may well lead to shortages of peaking power but it is hard to see how their use will lead to limitations in baseload needs....
Comment
2 of 30
April 17, 2008
One huge advantage that nuclear and fossil-fuel plants have is that you can site the power plant near the energy demand and you only have to more the fuel. Traditional geothermal resources are not always conveniently located near to demand and it is much harder to transmit electricity that it is to transport fuels. Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) including "hot dry rocks" (HDR) energy extraction schemes, while interesting, are not likely to become viable solutions for quite some time, even if significant research is devoted to them, and may never be economically viable in many locations--HDR approaches still require optimal rock formations (which Australia is blessed with by which many locations lack) and significant quantities of water (which also is a significant restriction).
Comment
3 of 30
April 17, 2008
Blakeslee states "To make matters worse, coal prices have quadrupled since 2003." It is true that coal prices have increased by significant factors in many (but not all) countries in recent years. However, fuel is only one component of the cost of electricity generation, and generation of electricity by coal power plants is expected to remain one of the cheapest sources of electricity generation (provided one ignores the environmental costs--which may be unwise attitude, but is not a rare one) for quite some time. No one should hold their breath waiting for the price of coal to cause coal power plants to become scarce.
Comment
4 of 30
April 17, 2008
Blakeslee states "The failure of the Futuregen 'clean coal' project is the nail in the coffin of the coal power boom." Unfortunately, almost nothing could be further from the truth; China, India, and many other countries continue to rely on coal for a large majority of of their NEW electricity generation plans. Additionally, ~40% of current world electricity production comes from coal, and no one is likely to phase out these power plants before they have to. Thus, CO2 sequestration from coal (and methane) power plants remains one of the few viable possibilities for dramatic reductions in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Blakeslee also states "The problem is that every ton of coal burned produces 3.7 tons of CO2! the idea of transporting and hiding forever that much CO2 was ludicrous from the start." This is another truly strange notion. Even if one neglects the possibility of ocean storage, reasonable estimates of potentially viable storage sites indicate there is space (in old mines, old wells, etc.) to store ALL the CO2 resulting from electricity generation for hundreds of years--which should be more than enough time to move to a more-optimal energy solution. The primary difficulty with sequestration is in developing cost-effective technology for the initial capture, and it is a great misfortune that US efforts in that direction have been delayed.
Comment
5 of 30
April 17, 2008
I like geothermal, but you don't have to use questionable statistics to make other things look worse than they are. Nuclear may have had a capacity factor of 71% back in the 1970s, but in 2007 the capacity factor for U.S. nuclear plants was 91.5% according to
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/gensum.html

Coal prices have quadrupled since 2003? Where? According to
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t5p01p1.html
US coal imports averaged $31.65 per short ton in 1st quarter 2003 and $50.51 per short ton in 4th quarter 2007. That's a 60% percent increase, not 4x.
Comment
6 of 30
April 18, 2008
Thomas I really appreciate your articles. I wish you could do us a favor and give us some information on how we can dig our own geothermal energy plant. I call this goethermal instead of geothermal because I know it is the best choice for the planet. I want to know what kind of drilling equipment is needed. What tyoe of bits? Is it the same equipment they use to drill for water, for Oil? Is it possible to use explosives once hard rock is encountered to help the drilling progress? Facts like how deep do we have to drill? How to contain the nasty gases from leaking out? How much energy does it take to drill a Goethermal Well? What size motors are required to do the work? How about using volcano's for geothermal sites? I see a great horizon coming for Goethermal such as cars and trucks are battery driven and there are sections of road on our highways that provide a metal strip of connective track where our vehicles can ride along for a 100 mile to 200 stretch and have the vehicles recharge while they are in motion, so they can make their next leg stretch and so forth in making the distance in transportation efficiency. We need facts on how to do stuff, not so much who grants this much money, which politician does what. Certainly the earth belongs to everyone, and if I want to have a goethermal in my part of the world, I should have that right. Just think is GBush offered Iran Geothermal what need for their Nuclear ambitions? But what need for any nuclear ambitions that the US supports. Our quack politicians, and quack Oil executives are really the problem enablers to our energy plight. But I am certain if more people have the facts to Goethermal we will become more than a force to deal with, but be a clear online choice of achievement.
Comment
7 of 30
April 18, 2008
to blakeslee:
Let me explain what storage of solar thermal is: You have a generator which, say can produce 100 mw of electricity reqyuring, say, 300 mw of thermal energy. You have a solar field which can produces 600 mw of solar energy. You immediately use 300 mw to run the generator. You save the 0ther 300 mw for whatever period of time the sun shines (less excess in morn and eve) and then you use this stored hot fluid to run the generator after the sun goes down. Now, depending on how much you oversize the solar field, you can run for 1, 2, 10, even 100 hours or more.
Comment
8 of 30
April 18, 2008
Congratulations !
Thomas, this is real and it is clear thinking !

The misinformation and distractions in the media, by politicians and industrial leaders are shocking.
You can see, unfortunately, comments often do not get your true message !

Also the "true costs" of fossil, nuclear and renewable energies will demonstrate that only
"Geothermic Power"
can offer all the cures without side-effects required that our growing global population can survive on our planet.

I mean with "Geothermic Power" not the - by the 2007 MIT report - recommended depending on inefficient and obsolete deep-drilling technologies and EGS.

"Geothermic Power" can extract for the first time temperatures up to 500 degrees Celsius from far deeper regions of the earth crust.
The 3-meter diameter vertical tunnel connected to a new GPP ( GEO Power Plant ) can supply 2,000 [MW] at almost any locations for 2,0 [¢/kWh].

Several locations are already in progress, but not in the Western Hemisphere ! Why ? Because nobody is listening and scientists do not dare to ask concrete questions !!!

More information is available, if you enter on the first page of "YAHOO.com" in the upper address bar only "TURBOJACK.COM" or "GESO.BIZ".

Any questions ? E-mail to : eric@turbojack.com.

Yours,
Helmut.
04-18-2008
Comment
9 of 30
April 18, 2008
Continued
Since the global temperature peaked in 1998 according to recent observations, could the model projections be wrong? I have raised the following question with a number of GW alarmist, including Al Gore and the Royal Society without a response. Perhaps you can provide answers.
Question1
-has any projection used by the IPCC or other GW advocates forecasted, predicted or otherwise foreseen a cooling period or a little ice age in the future?
Question 2
-could any of the current computer models with their climate theories, complex assumptions, complex climate models and positive feedback loops forecast, predict, or foresee a cooling period or litttle ice age in the future?
Question 3
-since a rather steady state CO2 content had little or no effect on the earth's cyclical climate for 10,000 years and the recent warming trend has moderated since 1998 while the atmospheric CO2 increased are the repeated iterations of the computer models falsifying the role of CO2 in the earth's climate? Repeated iterations of the Mandelbrot set equation drives the results to infinity or zero. it is possible that the GW computer simulations drive the result to ever higher temperatures just by how the assumptions on the CO2 effect are designed, weighted and looped , isn't it.
Comment
10 of 30
April 18, 2008
The thrust of this article rests in the absolute belief that CO2 is the cause of a warming trend that had been experienced from the 1970s until 1998 when the it peaked, paused and appears
to be reversing.The fact is that over the last 10,000 years, the CO2 level has varied, but only within a 40 PPM range, at most. Then a the CO2 increases by 100 PPM with the beginning of the industrial age which blamed on human activity without any verifiable scientific data to justify the conclusion. Theso-called rational for demonizing CO2 is the result of computer generated climate scenarions based on theories, assumptions and positive feedback. (As dealing in ppm may be a concern to some the CO2 content of the atmosphere is in the range of 0.03 to 0.35 percent.).
The role that a presumed variable plays in any process can be deduced by holding it constant while other variables are allowed to increase or decrease. And then allowing the presumed variable to increase or decrease while observing its effect on the process,ie climate change.If the earth's climate is considered a process then the effect of CO2 can be studied as follows:
Assuming that CO2 level effects the climate process then for 10,000 years CO2 had been essentially constant while the earth has undergone at least four or possible more major climatic shifts between extreme cold, little ice ages,warm and extreme warm periods.Next during the last 100 years the CO2 level has increased, approximately 100ppm total, while the mean average global temperature has remained relatively constant for the last 10 years, no increase but a recent slight decrease.
Any scientist or process engineer reviewing such results would conclude that the CO2 level has no or very little effect on the earth's cyclical climate change. To Be coninued
Comment
11 of 30
April 18, 2008
Storage doesn´t change the fact that the sun doesn´t shine 24/7. You will stiil get only 18% of the kilowatt-hours because that´s all the sun gives you. The power you are going to draw at night will have to be taken from the peak output at midday to heat up your thermal storage. Desert locations and tracking can get you up to 25% but you still have to have baseload for rainy weather. Wind or sand storms can wreak havoc. With geothermal almost everything is underground so you´re not covering your deserts with expensive hardware.
Comment
12 of 30
April 18, 2008
It is a serious misconception to state that the capacity factor of solar power averages 18%.

The 5MW solar pond power plant at Bet Ha'arev next to the Dead Sea incorporates several days' thermal storage capacity, and has been producing power nearly continuously since 1983. Indeed -- it was officially switched on at midnight. The 64 MW Nevada Solar One, the Solucar plant near Seville (both operational since 2007) and the 50 MW Andasol plants in Granada all include several hours of thermal storage in a molten salt mixture -- enabling the last ones to produce full power for 7.5 hours from storage. Solar Tres and the 100 MW Eskom plant near Upington will have 15 hours of such storage and are designed to produce full power continuously throughout most of the summer months.

The 280 MW plant planned for completion in 2011 at Gila bend will also include several hours of thermal storage.

The reason why the California solar thermal electric plants (except SEGS 1) do not include storage, is simply that demand there peaks in sunshine hours -- due to air-conditioning.
Comment
13 of 30
April 18, 2008
There is a renewable solution to baseload electric generation; read "A Solar Grand Plan" in Jan 2008 Scientific American - available online. With solar thermal, overnight storage and integrated with fossil for coverage in several cloudy days in a row, the southwest U.S. can produce all the electricity the country needs on less than 10,000 square miles; and ship it economically on high voltage dc where needed. We need a serious look at this grid now! And we need interest from consumers in the East (who can own the generation facilities if they want in the west) to support this approach - rather than trying to solve the electrical energy crisis locally. Oil is imported 6000 miles from unfriendly places. Why not import electricity 2000 miles from the "friendly" southwest?
Comment
14 of 30
April 18, 2008
Where to begin? So many people trying so hard to resist the simple idea of using the earths own constant source of renewable energy.
Coal prices have only begun their rise. Just as oil reserves got more and more expensive because the untapped ones were expensive to get, much of our massive coal reserves are spread in a thin layer under the landscape, which has to be destroyed to dig it out. US domestic coal prices are so heavily subsidized that prices are deceptive. Here is a reference on what China is paying: http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-9870400-54.html
Yes, there is lots of space underground. The problem is the economics of getting the CO2 from the power plant to that space. Building the powerplant on top of a cavern, as Futuregen proposes, is more of a problem than locating geothermal plants above temperature anomalies.
The reason the CO2 weighs more than the carbon burned is that two heavier oxygen molecules from the air have to be sequestered along with each carbon. Nature sequestered that carbon as coal in the first place! Nature has also provided us with all the free, constant energy we need in the form of underground atomic reactions. Why is it we fight so hard to continue burning up our sequestered carbon?
As to availability of atomic power, trade association figures inflate availability by removing shutdown plants from the calculation. Some claim 97% availability for geothermal using that method but I quoted a more reasonable 90%. Atomic power is so heavily subsidized that it is hard to know the real cost of fuel but the world price went from $10 in 2002 to $135 in 2007. With energy inflation running wild, building powerplants that require no fuel is a very smart move.
Comment
15 of 30
April 18, 2008
Jean VIncent asks above: "Why not develop cost-effective EGS instead [of carbon sequestration] , as Thomas suggests?"
EGS is an interesting technology, and certainly should be looked into, but in the near term it isn't going to be able to replace coal-fired power plants so these will continue to be built. Once someone builds a coal-fired power plant they expect to be able to use it for about 50 years. It will be far far easier to convince owners of such plants to refit them for CO2 capture than it will be to ask them to decommission them early just to help the environment. Sequestration is admittedly an inelegant solution intended as a stop-gap measure until better ones come along, but it is an approach that we just might convince developing countries to adopt in time to mitigate some of the expected effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Comment
16 of 30
April 18, 2008
This guy has no business writing articles that are meant to be taken seriously. Although some of his aims may be laudable, he uses too many exaggerations/incorrect "facts" to support his case. As Carolyn L. pointed out, nuclear's availability and capacity factors are now well over 90%. In a previous article Blakeslee used a similar, incorrect number for nuclear. I say he should be banned from writing further articles here because as many have already pointed out, he has no credibility.
Comment
17 of 30
April 18, 2008
Geothermal energy may have potential to provide reliable base load power. However, the supply of abundant base load power from distant locations is only part of the solution to the future power and energy mix of the nation.

Your negative ratings on wind and solar shows lack of knowledge of how these sources of energy play a role at present and in the future. Displaying such ignorance while advocating a preference can lead to questions about your credibility.

You are not too well informed about the characteristics of wind energy. There is a seasonal and
diurnal pattern to wind. During the "wind season" the energy is available almost continuously while during the "off wind season" the diurnal pattern comes into affect due to the temperature shift that occurs in the evening hours (cooler air interaction with the warmer terrain).

As for solar PV, its use at urban locations helps to relieve the overloaded power distribution infrastructure and lower transmission losses during times of peak power demand.

Utilization of both technologies has led to the growth of numerous business enterprises that employ professionals working in the fields of R&D, manufacturing and plant O&M services. As demand for wind and solar PV based power plants grows exponentially one see a 'win-win situation. Economic growth based on utilization of 'green' technology!
Comment
18 of 30
April 18, 2008
The efficiency of utility-scale concentrating solar power plants is far higher than the 18% quoted for 'solar'. Granted they have to be in areas (mostly) remote from population centres, but CSP should be a part of the mix of renewables that ultimately must and will replace coal and nuclear for electricity generation. With heat storage they can (and do) provide power generation during cloudy periods and even in darkness.

Article recently in GeoTimes gives a good overview:

http://www.geotimes.org/apr08/article.html?id=feature_solar.html
Comment
19 of 30
April 18, 2008
How do you get 3.7 tons of CO2 from burning one ton of coal? The only thing I can see by eliminating coal in the near future is there are going to be alot of people without power or there will be alot of brownouts. The vast majority of the people won't like that. Not all people are true environmentalist. We can't the voice of a few dictate the masses.
Comment
20 of 30
April 18, 2008
Steven,

You write "The primary difficulty with sequestration is in developing cost-effective technology for the initial capture, and it is a great misfortune that US efforts in that direction have been delayed."

Why not develop cost-effective EGS instead, as Thomas suggests?

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- A. Einstein.
Comment
21 of 30
April 19, 2008
I found Tomas' article excellent for the reason that he brings up a topic that most discussions on renewable energy either (A.) don't understand, or (B.) overlook. This topic is how the integrated electricity utility grid works.

Most renewable energy discussions (and even government policies) view renewable energy options in a stand alone perspective (micro basis). This is incorrect. Renewable energy options must be viewed on an integrated grid basis (macro basis) of the type of fossil fuel generation the nenewable will displace.

We discuss this at our webpage:http://www.treepower.org/biomass/quickfacts.html

As this webpage discusses, the key environmental objective of renewable energy must be to displace coal fired generation (primarily CO2 and NOx). In achieving this objective, not all renewable energy options are equal -- where options like geothermal and biomass are much more effective than solar and most wind projects to displace coal fired base load generation.

Solar and most wind projects typically displace peaking or intermediate natural gas fired generation on the integrated grid.
Comment
22 of 30
April 19, 2008
WOW, so many responses I could only catch a glimpse of each one. Typical stuff.

My question is, how can an investment firm be 'non profit'? Is everything called a 'foundation' non profit?

I'm thinking this is equivalent to being considered a church, in the tax sense.
Comment
23 of 30
April 19, 2008
Steven,
Thank you for your measured response which in a way confirms my contention that modeling computer generated climate calculations is not science but best estimates and theoritical guesswork on future weather happenings, ie wrong about 'El Nino' in 1998. (Also wrong about hurricane forecasts for three consecutive years, 2005, 2006 and 2007). Since the 'El Nino' weather system, a cyclical occurrence known to the Incas as it had an effect on their fishing and named by Spanish conquistodors in the 1500s after the Christ child since it usually started around Christmas(they didn't coin 'La Nina' since the opposite of 'El Nino' was considered normal) it shows how little scientists know about weather and climate. And yet major decisions effecting the future are being based on what might be termed 'best guess' or 'junk' science. Also there are only man-made production limits on oil as there are large reserves in the US both onshore and offshore which cannot be utilized because the oil industry is tied down, like Gulliver by the Lilliputians, by threads of inane environmental rulings and NIMBY property owners.
Comment
24 of 30
April 19, 2008
The spike in coal prices is due more to a sharp increase in demand than to a shortage of coal ore--new mining capacity does not get added instantaneously. In the longer term coal price increases should be more modest than those of recent trends. This is in marked contrast to oil, where production limits are a serious problem. A transition to non-fossil-fuel (nuclear and various renewables) generation isn't going to be driven largely by coal price increases.
Comment
25 of 30
April 19, 2008
E. Patrick Mosman:
The 1998 temperature peak was due, in part, to an unusually strong El Nino effect that year. The global average temperature record clearly has a slowly rising background with short term oscillations, such as El Nino effects, superimposed. The rising background, which is very clear if one, for instance, plots a 5-year running average to smooth out the short-term effects, is the real worry. Furthermore, arctic and antarctic temperatures are rising significantly faster than the global averages, which should be cause for concern. Quantitative climate change modeling is a difficult task partly because long term changes in the concentration of the most important green-house gas, i.e., water vapor, are apparently correlated with atmospheric CO2 and CH4 levels in subtle ways. The qualitative correlation of CO2 concentrations to climate change are pretty convincing and it would be irrationally reckless not to put some effort into exploring alternative energy systems given the significant likelihood that all the modelers are not completely off base. That we need a "Manhattan Project-like crash program" in geothermal development as Blakeslee suggests or 400+ Billion dollars in subsidies for PV and CSP covering tens of thousands of square miles of the south west as Shapiro (and the references he cites) suggests, is arguable, but it is surely prudent to reduce reliance on fossil fuels....
Comment
26 of 30
April 20, 2008
E.Patrick Mosman:
Modeling is quite different from ab initio calculations, but it is surely science. Proper interpretation of modeling results is key. If a model does not include short term fluctuations such as the el Nino effect, and very long term fluctuations such as those that cause ice ages, etc., it should not be expected to accurately predict fluctuations on such time scales, but the model may be quite reliable in predicting the targeted behavior.
Much, but certainly not all, of the climate modeling is of little value; however, much of the work in many scientific fields, especially new ones, is of little value. Science has very effective mechanisms for filtering out junk.
One thing I have never seen is a reliable model predicting it is safe to dramatically alter the composition of the atmosphere. We could quibble all day about the reliability of the many models that predict it isn't safe to do so, but one should be at least a little concerned about the uncontrolled experiment we are currently conducting on the environment.
Comment
27 of 30
April 21, 2008
Continued
Where are the scientists in reporting that the the global temperature has remained constant over the last decade even though CO2 has continued to rise? Where are the scientists in failing to report that the CO2 remained relatively constant for 10,000 years as the earth's climate cycled between cooling periods, warm periods, little Ice ages and extreme warm periods and today as the CO2 increases the earth's temperature has remained constant for a decade? And where the scientists in telling the public that 2007 Southern Hemisphere winter was one of the coldest on record and the 2007-2008 winter in China, large parts of the US, Canada, Europe, particularly Southern Europe, and the Mid-East have suffered record low temperatures and heavy snow falls?
Please go back to the earlier post and answer the three questions raised about climate modeling since attempting to justify the results by reasoning that while the forecasts are wrong in the near term future,i.e,. ten years, the long term results should be accepted which defies any scientific logic.
Comment
28 of 30
April 21, 2008
Steven,
Are you trying to say that climate models that cannot accurately predict the climate changes for the last 10 years,1998 to present, are "quite reliable in predicting the targeted behavior" for 25, 50 or 100 years in the future? What exactly is "targeted behavior" the result that one expects or requires to achieve or accompolish a non-scientific goal?
If science weeds out junk where are the scientists in reporting that Mr. Mann's "hockey stick" global warming curve which was the 'holy grail' of global warming and the bases for the IPCC's CO2 hysteria was a gigantic hoax, discredited by two scientific reviews undertaken after the US Congress forced Mr. Mann to reveal his up-to-then secret algorithms, data sources and analysis methodology?
Where are the scientists in pointing out the British Court's decision that the Al Gore's movie contained nine,or eleven by some counts, inaccuracies, was a propaganda film and could not be shown in the British Schools without explanation and guidance on the eleven errors? Where are the scientists in questioning if American students are still being propagandized by being forced to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" without proper guidance on the inaccuracies? to be continued
Comment
29 of 30
April 22, 2008
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0429-03.htm
Comment
30 of 30
April 22, 2008
Mr. Blakeslee -

Thank you for an informative, thought-provoking article.

Perhaps your frustration with, and the RE community's palpable disdain for the fossil fuel industries has hindered your ability to see one or more rationales for continuing subsidies to those industries:

a. Notwithstanding all the enthusiasm for RE, and notwithstanding the laudable progress being made in RE, FF will, for the forseeable future, continue to provide this country's (and the world's) baseload. The challenge is to manage FF's decline in such a manner as to ensure minimal disruptions during transition. Right now, RE is neither ready nor able to "pick up the load". Efficiency remains paramount.

b. If we are truly approaching a tipping point with regard to CO2 emissions, coal MUST be shut down first. Insofar as we are already stuck with the nuclear waste burden for some 10,000 years, another 50 - 100 years of nuclear waste hardly matters. What DOES matter is reducing CO2 emissions, fast. Nuclear currently provides 19% of US generation. Nuclear capacity should be expanded, and aging nuclear plants replaced with newer ones.

c. Domestic US oil production has been declining steadily since 1970. Such production as we do have, both onshore and off, has been made possible by enhanced drilling and recovery techniques, courtesy of the very oil companies we all love to hate.

Returning to your article, and Enhanced Geothermal Systems, isn't it reasonable to suggest that the same drilling expertise which has sustained the oil companies (and our fuelish habits) for so long will be channeled into EGS? Who knows more about enhanced drilling that the US oil industry?
Clearly not foreign, NOCs (Nathional Oil Companies).

Final thought: GWB had a geothermal system on his Crawford, Texas ranch long before public opinion shamed Al Gore into actually doing the things he's been preaching about.....
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Sign Up

Thomas Blakeslee

View Thomas Blakeslee's Profile
About: Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in P... more »

Thomas's Articles

Safe Nuclear Power: Leave it in the Earth!
Greening Deserts for Carbon Credits
Importing Solar Power with Biomass
More »

Recent Opinion & Commentary

Will 2012 Finally be the Year of the Strong Grid?
Saving Birds and Bucks: Wind States Its Case
60,000 Californians Urge CPUC Action on Net Metering
Large-scale Molybdenum Electrodes for Manufacturing CIGS Solar Cells
Yesterday's Solar Eclipse – Tomorrow's Healthy Solar Industry

Advertise With Us

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access Featured Total Access Partners
 
AltaTerra Research Information & Technology Management Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE) Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative ClearEnergy Inc. Magnum Energy Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters