Mass. plant will make natural gas from coal

A Cambridge start-up that converts coal to clean-burning natural gas will take its cutting-edge process to the next step, building a $25 million demonstration plant near Fall River to ready their technology for full-scale commercial production.

GreatPoint Energy Inc., is scheduled today to unveil its plan to develop the project, which includes a research center, at the Brayton Point power station in Somerset, a coal-burning plant owned by Dominion, a Richmond, Va., utility and energy company. GreatPoint will create more than 100 jobs at its new facility after completion in about a year.

"This is where we are going to demonstrate our technology to the world," said Andrew Perlman, GreatPoint's chief executive. "This is going to be the most leading-edge gasification center anywhere."

The development of the demonstration plant and research center represents a milestone not only for the company, but also the state and its burgeoning alternative energy sector. GreatPoint is considered among the nation's most promising alternative energy firms, and recently raised $100 million from investors, one of the industry's biggest venture capital rounds ever.

For Massachusetts, GreatPoint's selection of Brayton Point over sites in three other states further solidifies its position as a leading center of alternative energy technology, an emerging sector that employs an estimated 14,000 in the state. It also indicates the sector is maturing, moving closer to commercial production that could mean even more growth for the sector and state employment.

"This isn't a few hippies in the backwoods," said Warren Leon, director of the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust, which finances alternative energy projects. "GreatPoint is showing that creative new technologies are starting to hit the big time."

The demonstration plant will produce natural gas on a small scale as a way to test and refine the process for full-scale commercial production. Once the technology proves ready for commercial production, Massachusetts could reap another benefit too: lower energy costs. Massachusetts companies and residents pay among the highest natural gas rates in the country. Perlman said his firm's process can produce natural gas for about half the cost it now sells for.

"One of our major economic challenges is the high cost of natural gas," said state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles, "and this is potentially a game-changing technology."

GreatPoint uses a proprietary catalyst to convert coal, petroleum coke, a refining byproduct, and organic material, such as switch grass, into methane, a clean-burning natural gas that can be transported through existing pipelines and burned in existing equipment. The process prevents the release of carbon dioxide, a so-called greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, and captures other byproducts, such as sulfur, which can be reused by chemical makers.

The combination of environmental benefits and the ability to use the gas with existing equipment has attracted venture firms as well as traditional energy companies, such as AES Corp. of Arlington, Va., and Suncor Energy, Inc. of Calgary, Alberta, as investors. Coal is among the most plentiful, but also dirtiest energy sources, and solving the pollution problem is "one of the Holy Grails of the clean energy movements," said Jim Matheson, general partner at Flagship Ventures, a Cambridge venture capital firm that invests in alternative energy companies.

Flagship hasn't invested in GreatPoint.

"If you figure out a way to use coal cleanly, it's a huge opportunity," Matheson said. "Maybe they'll solve it, maybe they won't, but they're going after it in a very deliberate way."

GreatPoint was founded in 2005, and now employs about 45 in Cambridge and at a small pilot program near Chicago. The Chicago-area workforce will be consolidated into the new facility.

Perlman said the firm selected Massachusetts because of its access to engineering and technical talent at MIT and other universities, and the efforts of Governor Deval Patrick. During a meeting on energy this year, Patrick brought GreatPoint together with Dominion, one of the nation's biggest power generators. Dominion, which has a small investment in GreatPoint, is providing the site and technical support for the project, said Diane Leopold, a Dominion vice president.

"We don't believe coal is going to go away," said Leopold, "and we want to find a way to use coal that's extremely clean."

Source - Boston Globe.

What Does 'Energy Security' Really Mean?

by dyergin
At the conclusion of last year's G8 summit in Scotland, Russian President Vladimir Putin said to the other leaders of the G8 industrial nations, "We cannot ignore the question of overcoming poverty and the fight against terrorism." But "the key issue for the next summit" would be energy security. Setting the agenda was certainly his prerogative as the incoming "president" of the G8. Moreover, he did it from a unique perspective. For, he added, "If you put together Russia's energy potential in all areas, oil, gas, and nuclear, our country is unquestionably the world leader."

The turbulence in the year since has earned "energy security" its place as the No. 1 item for this weekend's meeting here. There was the huge shock that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita delivered to the Gulf of Mexico energy complex, the continuing loss of 20% of Nigerian oil output from domestic insurgency, Russia's temporary interruption of natural gas supplies to Ukraine at the beginning of this year, the chronic impairment of Iraqi oil output, Hugo Chavez's warnings about cutting off Venezuelan supplies to the United States, and the recurrent threats by some Iranian leaders to unleash an "oil crisis" (even if other Iranians deny any such intent). Fueling the anxiety, of course, has been the 60% rise in oil prices, to the mid-$70s a barrel, since the beginning of last year.

The world has changed much since the concept of "energy security" emerged in the 1970s. But agreeing on its importance is not the same as agreeing on what it means. Consuming countries declare that they want "security of supply"-that is, reliability and availability of energy at reasonable prices. Exporting countries, whether Russia or in the Middle East, turn it around and talk about "security of demand"- sufficient access to markets and consumers to justify future investment (and protect their national revenues).

Probe further and the differences become even sharper. For Russia, energy security is about the state's retaking control of the "commanding heights" of the energy industry and extending that control downstream, over the critical export pipelines that provide a substantial part of government revenues. For Europe, today's concerns center not on oil, but on natural gas and on the debate about dependence on gas from Russia. For Japan, the question is quite different-how to compensate, in running the world's second largest economy, for the absence of virtually any domestic resources. For China and India, it is assuring that energy does not hold back the economic growth they need for development and to avoid social turbulence.

In the United States energy security has had a double focus. One is offsetting any future Middle East-style disruptions. The other is achieving that oft-cited goal of "energy independence"-first set out by Richard Nixon in 1973-even as the United States in the years since has gone from importing a third of its oil to 60%.

So what, then, are the principles and policies that will underpin "energy security?" Some of them are embedded in the security system that was set up in the 1970s to either avoid or mitigate disruptions such as the 1973 oil embargo. There was a further objective, now generally forgotten: to avoid the kind of bruising political and economic scramble that threatened to fracture the Western alliance. This system included the establishment of the International Energy Agency, the creation of emergency stockpiles such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, increased communication and much better information, and the development of procedures for sharing supplies in the event of a disruption (the last of which was activated briefly to offset lost supplies after Katrina and Rita). If there was a single overarching principle, it was the importance of diversification, in terms both of sources of oil and in increased use of other energy supplies. And this principle of diversification remains the essential starting point for any thinking on energy security.

But the system must incorporate new realities. First, energy security needs to be extended to the safety of the whole infrastructure and supply chain-recognizing the vulnerabilities that come from terrorism, war, brigandage, and natural disasters. That is the lesson of Katrina and Rita. It is not just oil and gas coming out of the ground; it is also pipelines, refineries, and, critically, electricity, which is fundamental to everything else. Global supply chains are only going to become more complex in the years ahead. Today, about 40 million barrels a day of oil cross oceans in tankers; within 15 years, that will be 70 million barrels. Over the same period, liquefied natural gas volumes will triple on the high seas. And there are critical chokepoints: 20% of the world's oil supplies flow through the Strait of Hormuz; 80% of Japan's and Korea's oil and half of China's pass through the Strait of Malacca.

Given their importance and scale, the safety of these supply chains requires a "security margin." It also requires increased cooperation among governments, and between companies and governments. This last is no easy thing; nor is it clear who will bear the additional costs.

A second, urgent need is to bring China and India into the energy security system. There is much talk of a clash between the United States and China over oil. But there is nothing inevitable about it. Commercial competition need not turn into national rivalry. A fundamental reason for establishing the International Energy Agency in the 1970s was to modulate that mad scramble to preempt barrels. This contest threatened not only to rip apart the Western alliance, but also sent oil prices - after the Iranian Revolution-to what is still their highest level ever. The innovations of the 1970s transformed the scramble into more durable cooperation. That same kind of approach is needed now with the emergence of these two huge (and anxious) consumers in the world market.

The investment framework itself is part of energy security. Reasonable, stable, and predictable investment regimes are required if funds and technology are going to flow into the development of new resources. Governments that focus on short-term revenue maximization will shortchange themselves, as well as their consumers, over the longer term. That definitely needs to be on the table in St. Petersburg.

Energy security should also include enhanced efficiency in the use of energy. There is much more to accomplish here, and it too ought to be a major topic at the G8 summit. US energy efficiency has doubled since the 1970s. A great contribution will result from greater efficiency in China and Russia (which use far more energy per unit of gross domestic product than does the United States), and in Western Europe and Japan (which can become more efficient).

Diversification can go much farther than development of "non-OPEC" fuels. Today, there is a more robust menu of alternatives, including the making of liquid fuels either out of natural gas or from the application of biology in ways that are still being developed in the laboratory.

There's another principle that is important and perhaps startling: self-restraint. When disruptions occur, tempers flare, suspicions mount, and the specter of manipulation comes quickly to the fore. In such circumstances the temptation becomes very strong for governments to manage markets. But so often the most sensible policy is to resist that temptation. Large, flexible markets are the shock absorbers that promote energy security. Disruptions are disruptions; once they occur, the objective is to rebound as quickly as possible. Markets, with their decentralization and ingenuity, can speed adjustment more quickly and effectively than more interventionist approaches.

Finally, energy security requires a larger perspective. Whatever may be said about energy independence, the truth is that there is only one global oil market, and the United States is part of it. Moreover, energy markets, like the rest of trade and finance, are ever more internationally entwined. Energy security does not reside in a realm of its own, but is part of the larger pattern of relations among nations. How those relations go will do much to determine how secure we are when it comes to energy.

About the Author

Daniel Yergin, chairman of CERA, received the Pulitzer Prize for "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" and the United States Energy Award for lifelong achievements in energy and the promotion of international understanding. Vist CERA.

Article Source: Content for Reprint

ExxonMobil chairman focused on a different kind of green: "Oil will meet growing energy demand"

Conventional energy sources will have to meet the bulk of the world's energy requirements in the coming decades, ExxonMobil chairman Robert C. Olsen declared at Offshore Europe today.

As reported in Energy Current, Olsen speaking on global energy demand said, "By 2030, worldwide energy demand will be almost 40 percent greater than today, close to 325 million oil equivalent barrels per day. And that assumes we will achieve an energy efficiency improvement of nearly 45 percent by the end of the outlook period.

"Most of the growing demand for energy will occur in developing countries where 80 percent of the world's population lives, as they move toward industrialized societies. Access to energy will not only lead to more economic growth in the developing world, but also assist with improving living standards for the many people who lack even the most basic of necessities. One billion people today lack safe drinking water and 1.6 billion lack electricity."

He said that about 80 percent of the world's energy needs through 2030 will continue to be met by fossil fuels, and that by that time wind and solar, although enjoying rapid growth, will still only account for one percent of the global energy supply.

Olsen continued, "So it will be the conventional energy sources, oil, natural gas and coal, that will need to meet the bulk of the world's energy requirements over the coming decades. And the resources are available. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there are more than 3 trillion barrels of conventional, recoverable oil across the globe. When non-conventional forms are taken into account, such as shale oil and heavy oil, the estimated resource base grows to more than 4 trillion barrels.

"When you consider that since the dawn of the oil industry we have collectively produced just 1 trillion barrels, you can see that recourses are adequate for the foreseeable future. The challenge lies in access and timely development. We no longer find and produce oil and gas in the manner our forefathers did in the 1800s. Our industry has evolved over time and it will be the continued emphasis on technological advancements that will be critical to our future successes."

###

Electric deregulation fails to live up to promises as bills soar

BENTON, Ill. — This wasn't supposed to happen with deregulation. Electric bills were supposed to go down. Instead, Ellie Dorchincez can almost see the dollars evaporating every time she turns on the lights or opens the freezer at her small Farm Fresh grocery store.

Her electric bill, which used to be about $800 a month, has jumped to $1,800. She's shut down a large freezer of frozen treats and now closes the store an hour early to cut costs but fears she still may have to raise prices and lay off some workers.

"I'm just trying to figure any way that I can right now to keep my business afloat," Dorchincez said. "My life is at stake here."

The cause of her distress is a common problem: the failure of deregulation to deliver its promise of lower electricity prices. In many states, it's had the opposite effect with sharply higher rates — 72% in Maryland, up to 50% in Illinois.

Not one of the 16 states — plus the District of Columbia — that have pushed forward with deregulation since the late 1990s can call it a success. In fact, consumers in those states fared worse than residents in states that stuck with a policy of regulating their power industries.

John Shelk An Associated Press analysis of federal data shows consumers in the 17 deregulated areas paid an average of 30% more for power in 2006 than their counterparts in regulated states. That's up from a 24% gap in 1990.

The idea was to move from a monopoly situation to robust competition for electric customers, with backers promising potentially lower rates in state after state.

"We are good at taking money out of people's pockets, but seldom can somebody rise on the floor and say we are going to save people billions over a specific course of time," Illinois state Sen. William Mahar, a lead proponent of electric deregulation, said when his chamber passed a deregulation bill in 1997.

But competition, especially for residential and small business customers, rarely emerged...

Utilities say markets are still adjusting to many years of artificially low rates that drove potential competitors away. They point to states like Illinois, where rate caps just recently were lifted and where there already is talk of reinstating them.

Consumer groups, however, say deregulation has had a chance to prove itself. In Texas, for example, competition did develop after rate caps ended — but the energy prices remained higher.

The AP analysis was based on the average electric rate that residential consumers paid each year from 1990 to 2006, according to numbers provided by the U.S. Department of Energy. Numerical and percentage changes in utility rates of both deregulated and regulated states were compared.

The analysis found more than a widening price discrepancy. Consumers in deregulated states also have suffered from bigger price swings, as rate caps in place when deregulation began in the late 1990s were lifted in the last couple of years.

Now those states' lawmakers are scrambling to figure out how to provide short-term relief for consumers while coming up with a long-term approach to get lower and more stabilized prices.

Ideas range from continued rate freezes — vehemently fought by utilities — to re-regulation of the industry.

"We said back then it was a raw deal for consumers. We now know it was a raw deal for consumers," said Johanna Neumann of Maryland Public Interest Research Group.

But an industry official argues that such comparisons don't adequately show the peaks and valleys in rates during that time, and among individual states. And utility executives say that over the last decade, rates in deregulated and regulated states have generally increased at similar levels, thanks largely to sharp spikes in fuel costs — not deregulation.

John Shelk, president of the Electrical Power Supply Association trade group based in Washington, D.C., says all states have seen large rate increases in the last decade, largely because of the increased price of natural gas and building power plants.

The average U.S. price for natural gas used by the electric power sector tripled from $2.76 per million Btus in 1997 to $8.21 per thousand cubic feet in 2005, a peak year for natural gas prices, according to federal energy statistics. Prices dropped slightly in 2006 but are projected to rise again over the next two years.

Utility officials say natural gas prices, environmental regulations, property taxes, the cost of building nuclear plants and other expenses in states that deregulated had already driven prices higher than in other states.

But years after many states deregulated, the rate gap between those states and regulated states had widened even more, experts and consumers advocates say, because consumers in deregulated states were left paying market prices — even though in many cases no competitive market existed.

"Now they're trying to come to grips with the reality that the market isn't working as well as they thought it would," Ken Rose, a senior fellow with the Institute of Public Utilities at Michigan State University, says of decision-makers in deregulated states.

Shelk says consumers in states like Illinois are seeing "sticker shock" because their rates were artificially low for years, and that forced a large increase to get back to market prices when rate caps were lifted.

"It's kind of like pulling the Band-Aid off," Shelk said. "I think you can fault the design that said you can roll these rates back and freeze them."

He predicts that the rate gap between deregulated and regulated states will shrink in the next few years when regulated states in the Southeast that rely heavily on coal-fueled power see prices soar under heavier environmental restrictions.

"It's so easy to focus only on the here and now ... and draw the wrong conclusions, which is 'Oh, gee, we're going to be better off regulating,' because we're not," Shelk said.

Shelk also contends that deregulation has been successful in states like Texas because, despite price jumps there, the competition has kept rates lower than they would have been under monopoly conditions, and still has produced a more predictable market for utilities and customers.

Exelon executive vice president Betsy Moler said rates in all states, regardless of their regulatory structure, have soared about 34% since 1996, mirroring fuel cost increases. That should overshadow critics' blame of deregulation, she argues.

"It's really not about deregulation," Moler said. "It's all about the cost of fuel."

Yet the last decade saw extended rate freezes in many states, and more recent data shows a returning gap between regulated and deregulated states once those freezes end.

Illinois' deregulation plan froze rates for 10 years. The freeze ended in January and rates immediately soared 30% to 50% for millions of people. Some have seen their bills double and even triple.

In Carterville in southern Illinois, Dorothy Petersen is looking for a second job to supplement her $1,000-a-month income after seeing her electric bill more than double, to $450.

A single mother with four kids — all with health or development problems — Petersen is heating only the kids' rooms and turning off lights.

"If it was just me, it wouldn't matter. There's things I could do," Petersen said. "But I have these kids."

Maryland faced a 72% rate increase last summer, until lawmakers stepped in and cut the initial jump to 15% to 25%. Now consumers must pay the remainder this summer, and advocates fear problems for the most vulnerable citizens — seniors, low-income households, working families.

Texas residents like recent retiree Bill Sebenoler of Arlington have more utility choices under deregulation, but that hasn't kept prices down. Sebenoler said his bill reached nearly $500 in September 2006, up 82% from a year earlier.

"It's irritating as hell, and that money would go somewhere else," Sebenoler said. "Something ain't working right."

Consumers in Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut have seen rate spikes in recent years, putting their rates among the nation's highest. That led to more than 25,000 electricity shutoffs in Rhode Island last year, a new state record, said Henry Shelton of the George Wiley Center advocacy group.

In Montana, Ed Eaton says he and other consumers have seen a 40% increase since rate caps were lifted in 2001. Eaton said he's cut expenses by eating more canned tuna for meals.

"I probably could have turned this into a weight loss program and benefited," said Eaton, a former state employee.

Deregulation was sold to state decision-makers as a boon for everyone. The thinking was that by separating electricity generators from distributors and letting the market determine prices, competition would thrive and customers would benefit from better choices and lower rates.

Experts and advocates acknowledge that some consumers have seen those benefits.

In some states, large industrial and business users have seen increased competition, giving them the ability to switch to other utilities. Residential users in states such as Texas also have a few more options. But besides a small group of commercial users, consumers in deregulated states have seen a disappointing result.

Instead of competition producing lower rates, the choices are between high or higher prices. In some states such as Illinois, residents have no choice but to get their power from one or two mega-utilities, who are passing on soaring costs for the power they're buying.

ComEd, for example, has about 3.3 million residential customers in and around Chicago, while Ameren covers 1.2 million customers in central and southern Illinois. Combined, they control about 98% of Illinois' investor-owned market, according to the Illinois Commerce Commission.

"In terms of price, you can't see the customers benefiting," said Rose, the Michigan utility expert.

Utilities say they're not to blame for consumers' higher costs.

Since they no longer produce their own power, the utilities in Illinois, for example, say they've simply passed on their higher purchasing costs to consumers, resulting in the higher rates.

While some of the generation companies have ownership ties to the retail utilities like ComEd and Ameren, Illinois regulators note they have strict rules to ensure affiliates do not trade information or conspire on pricing.

The utilities also note that they warned consumers last year about the pending increases and offered assistance through some financial aid and a phase-in plan.

"I think we've done all the things we know how to do as a utility to soften the transition into the new rates," ComEd CEO Frank Clark said in February.

The poster child of deregulation failure is California, which saw a combination of skyrocketing rates and service problems before scrapping the experiment.

Some other states such as Virginia tried deregulation but rejected it after it didn't provide lower rates.

States that did embrace deregulation now are trying to figure out what to do next.

In Illinois, lawmakers are debating rolling back rates to 2006 levels and freezing them for up to three years. They're also negotiating with the utilities for millions of dollars in rate rebates for consumers hit hardest by the increases.

Re-regulating the market is a popular idea. State-owned utilities are another possibility. Utilities and their advocates are urging caution for states considering dumping deregulation.

They say competition couldn't thrive under rate caps but should now that many of those caps have been lifted and the market is determining rates.

The utilities also warn that any further rate rollbacks and caps could create financial disaster, sending them quickly into bankruptcy if they're forced to buy power at higher costs than they can recoup from customers.

Even so, consumers like Dorchincez are looking for relief now.

In addition to the problems at her grocery store, Dorchincez got hit at home, where her bill jumped from $230 to $700. She's looking to cut back wherever she can — turning down the store's thermostat, shutting off other freezers and soda machines, turning off lights in the parking lot.

Consumer advocates say states should be able to see the folly that deregulation created and should act soon to prevent more consumer suffering.

"It's never going to work.

There's never going to be robust competition created," said David Hughes of Citizen Power, an advocacy group covering Pennsylvania and Ohio.

"It just doesn't lend itself to the volatility of the marketplace."

By Ryan Keith, Associated Press

Future of incandescent bulb dims as energy-efficient options gain power

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- If U.S. lawmakers have their way the lights may soon go out on Thomas Edison's greatest invention -- the incandescent light bulb. The 19th century inventor brought illumination to the world's fingertips but according to Congress his invention isn't efficient enough for an age anxious about energy supplies.

Edison figured out how to create light by feeding electricity to a slender piece of metal inside a bulb until it was hot enough to glow. But little of the energy consumed during this process is used to produce light."

Only 10% of the power used by today's incandescent bulbs is emitted as light, while the other 90% is released as heat," Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said when she introduced her legislation to ban standard light bulbs. To eliminate this waste, Harman has proposed legislation that would effectively eliminate incandescent light bulbs from store shelves nationwide as early by 2012.

Her proposal was incorporated as part of an energy bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month. A Senate energy bill passed in June does not contain a similar provision but does express support for raising the efficiency standard of light bulbs over the next 10 years. The two chambers will try to reach a compromise on energy legislation in the fall.

Though the incandescent light bulb has logged more than 125 years as the reigning light technology with little competition, lawmakers supporting the legislation see the 4 billion light-bulb sockets in American homes as an obvious way to curtail energy consumption and reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Democratic lawmakers think compact florescent lights and other lighting technology under development can fulfill the nation's lighting needs more efficiently.

"By simply replacing the light bulbs in their homes, our constituents will be saving money in addition to energy," Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said during the House floor debate this month.

If every U.S. home replaced one light bulb with a compact florescent light, the country would save more than $600 million in annual energy costs, according to the government, which has a Web site with information on compact florescent bulbs. Visit the site.

Not everyone is willing to shatter Edison's legacy. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, has criticized the provision, saying it turns the government into the "light bulb police business."

Other legislators think compact florescent technology hasn't come far enough and that it fails to provide the same quality of light as incandescent bulbs. Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., has compact florescent bulbs in his home but says they are not the equivalent of incandescent bulbs.

"They are not very bright. They are not good for reading," Peterson said on the House floor. "They buzz sometimes, they just buzz like a transformer."

Still, a concerted marketing effort by lighting manufacturers such as Royal Philips Electronics which hope to sell these alternative lights, has emboldened lawmakers to push for a total parting with the incandescent bulb.

The legislation would mean a change in consumer buying habits for an overwhelming majority of U.S. homes.

"This will mean a complete transformation of the [lighting] market," Jim Presswood, energy advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council said.

Second time around

The House energy bill would mandate an increase of more than 30% in the lumens produced by standard 60 watt to 100 watt bulbs, between 2012 and 2014. Lumens are a measure of the total amount of light generated. A standard 100-watt bulb produces about 1,600 lumens.

"What we know as today's incandescent light bulbs would not be able to meet this standard," Jeff Harris, vice president of programs at the Alliance to Save Energy, said in an interview.

Current compact florescent lighting technology would be able to meet this requirement, according to Presswood. These compact florescent lights use less electricity to produce ultraviolet light that is transformed into visible light.

Compact florescent lights may seem like an unlikely savior to those who remember their debut in 1979. They were a consumer flop and made little headway in the U.S. in the 1980s and '90s amid complaints of bulb burnout, poor light quality, buzzing noise and high prices. Since then they have seen a quirky redesign and now resemble the shape of a cork screw.

Certain enhanced halogen lights -- known as halogen incandescent lights -- which are also sold today would meet the standards set in 2012 and 2014, said Harris.

These lights are 30% more efficient than today's incandescent bulbs. "It is incandescent technology but an improved incandescent," Harris said.

In 2020, the standard would step up dramatically and lights would need to emit at least 300% of the brightness emitted by the 100 watt incandescent bulbs available today. Incandescent bulbs will be unable to meet this standard but compact florescent light technology should be able to, experts say.

Anticipated advances in so-called LED lighting -- light comprised of semiconductor light-emitting diodes -- could bring another option to the market.

Long-term savings, higher cost up front

Supporters see the provision as a way to pare rising consumer energy costs. "Since indoor and outdoor lighting accounts for up to 15% of energy use in the average residence, inefficient light bulbs can consume large amounts of excess energy," Inslee said during the House floor debate.

The savings that come from switching bulbs can add up, Harris said, though consumers will have to lay out a bit more cash up front when buying them. Compact florescent lights and halogen incandescent lights cost in the $2 to $3 dollar range but both last longer than incandescent bulbs, Harris said.

The 2012 to 2014 standards would bring a savings of about 30% to the lighting part of homeowners' electricity bills, Harris said. The 2020 standard would lift the savings to around 75%.

A manufacturer of florescent bulbs, has a calculator on its Web site that lets users determine the savings that comes with replacing bulbs. Replacing 10 of the standard 60 watt bulbs and five 100 watt bulbs with equivalent compact florescent lights would save a homeowner $120 a year or $656 over the life of the bulbs, according to the site. Check out the calculator.

The environment will also benefit if the standard light bulb heads into retirement, according to supporters of the legislation. Using less energy means less demand for electricity, which in the U.S. is predominantly generated by power plants that run off of large amounts of coal and natural gas.

One energy-efficient bulb can prevent the release of over 450 pounds of greenhouse gases, according to Harman. The 2020 standard in the House energy bill would slow the growth of U.S. emissions by roughly 104 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, or 1.4% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2005.

Corporate market the key?

Not everyone thinks the government needs to intervene to make compact florescent lights take off and the corporate rather than the residential market may be the key to making a serious cut in energy consumption.

"New CFL bulbs are becoming more mainstream without the need for government intervention," according to a July 31 analysts' note from Thomas Weisel Partners LLC.

"We see a gradual increase in replacement rates with new low power usage bulbs over time. We see a big market for residential replacement but believe the corporate market is where to make the biggest dent," the report continued…

The International Race to Mine the Moon

Lab experiments suggest that future fusion reactors could use helium-3 gathered from the moon.

At the 21st century's start, few would have predicted that by 2007, a second race for the moon would be under way. Yet the signs are that this is now the case. Furthermore, in today's moon race, unlike the one that took place between the United States and the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s, a full roster of 21st-century global powers, including China and India, are competing.

Even more surprising is that one reason for much of the interest appears to be plans to mine helium-3--purportedly an ideal fuel for fusion reactors but almost unavailable on Earth--from the moon's surface. NASA's Vision for Space Exploration has U.S. astronauts scheduled to be back on the moon in 2020 and permanently staffing a base there by 2024. While the U.S. space agency has neither announced nor denied any desire to mine helium-3, it has nevertheless placed advocates of mining He3 in influential positions. For its part, Russia claims that the aim of any lunar program of its own--for what it's worth, the rocket corporation Energia recently started blustering, Soviet-style, that it will build a permanent moon base by 2015-2020--will be extracting He3.

The Chinese, too, apparently believe that helium-3 from the moon can enable fusion plants on Earth. This fall, the People's Republic expects to orbit a satellite around the moon and then land an unmanned vehicle there in 2011.

Nor does India intend to be left out. (See "India's Space Ambitions Soar.") This past spring, its president, A.P.J. Kalam, and its prime minister, Manmohan Singh, made major speeches asserting that, besides constructing giant solar collectors in orbit and on the moon, the world's largest democracy likewise intends to mine He3 from the lunar surface. India's probe, Chandrayaan-1, will take off next year, and ISRO, the Indian Space Research Organization, is talking about sending Chandrayaan-2, a surface rover, in 2010 or 2011. Simultaneously, Japan and Germany are also making noises about launching their own moon missions at around that time, and talking up the possibility of mining He3 and bringing it back to fuel fusion-based nuclear reactors on Earth.

Could He3 from the moon truly be a feasible solution to our power needs on Earth? Practical nuclear fusion is nowadays projected to be five decades off--the same prediction that was made at the 1958 Atoms for Peace conference in Brussels. If fusion power's arrival date has remained constantly 50 years away since 1958, why would helium-3 suddenly make fusion power more feasible?

Advocates of He3-based fusion point to the fact that current efforts to develop fusion-based power generation, like the ITER megaproject, use the deuterium-tritium fuel cycle, which is problematical. (See "International Fusion Research.") Deuterium and tritium are both hydrogen isotopes, and when they're fused in a superheated plasma, two nuclei come together to create a helium nucleus--consisting of two protons and two neutrons--and a high-energy neutron.

A deuterium-tritium fusion reaction releases 80 percent of its energy in a stream of high-energy neutrons, which are highly destructive for anything they hit, including a reactor's containment vessel. Since tritium is highly radioactive, that makes containment a big problem as structures weaken and need to be replaced. Thus, whatever materials are used in a deuterium-tritium fusion power plant will have to endure serious punishment. And if that's achievable, when that fusion reactor is eventually decommissioned, there will still be a lot of radioactive waste.

Helium-3 advocates claim that it, conversely, would be nonradioactive, obviating all those problems. But a serious critic has charged that in reality, He3-based fusion isn't even a feasible option. In the August issue of Physics World, theoretical physicist Frank Close, at Oxford in the UK, has published an article called "Fears Over Factoids" in which, among other things, he summarizes some claims of the "helium aficionados," then dismisses those claims as essentially fantasy.

Close points out that in a tokamak--a machine that generates a doughnut-shaped magnetic field to confine the superheated plasmas necessary for fusion--deuterium reacts up to 100 times more slowly with helium-3 than it does with tritium. In a plasma contained in a tokamak, Close stresses, all the nuclei in the fuel get mixed together, so what's most probable is that two deuterium nuclei will rapidly fuse and produce a tritium nucleus and proton. That tritium, in turn, will likely fuse with deuterium and finally yield one helium-4 atom and a neutron. In short, Close says, if helium-3 is mined from the moon and brought to Earth, in a standard tokamak the final result will still be deuterium-tritium fusion.

Second, Close rejects the claim that two helium-3 nuclei could realistically be made to fuse with each other to produce deuterium, an alpha particle and energy. That reaction occurs even more slowly than deuterium-tritium fusion, and the fuel would have to be heated to impractically high temperatures--six times the heat of the sun's interior, by some calculations--that would be beyond the reach of any tokamak. Hence, Close concludes, "the lunar-helium-3 story is, to my mind, moonshine."

So, is He3-based fusion untenable? In fact, Close is correct in his claims about how impracticable both deuterium-helium-3 fusion and pure helium-3 fusion in tokamak-based reactors would be. But there might be alternatives. For example, Gerald Kulcinski, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has maintained the only helium-3 fusion reactor in the world on an annual budget that's barely into six figures.

Kulcinski's He3-based fusion reactor, located in the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin, is very small. When running, it contains a spherical plasma roughly 10 centimeters in diameter that can produce sustained fusion with 200 million reactions per second. To produce a milliwatt of power, unfortunately, the reactor consumes a kilowatt. Close's response is, therefore, valid enough: "When practical fusion occurs with a demonstrated net power output, I--and the world's fusion community--can take note."

Still, that critique applies equally to ITER and the tokamak-based reactor effort, which also haven't yet achieved breakeven (the point at which a fusion reactor produces as much energy as it consumes). What's significant about the reactor in Wisconsin is that, as Kulcinski says, "We are doing both deuterium-He3 and He3-He3 reactions. We run deuterium-He3 fusion reactions daily, so we are very familiar with that reaction. We are also doing He3-He3 because if we can control that, it will have immense potential."

The reactor at the Fusion Technology Institute uses a technology called inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC). Kulcinski explains: "If we used a tokamak to do deuterium-helium-3, it would need to be bigger than the ITER device, which already is stretching the bounds of credibility. Our IEC devices, on the other hand, are tabletop-sized, and during our deuterium-He3 runs, we do get some neutrons produced by side reaction with deuterium."

Nevertheless, Kulcinski continues, when side reactions occur that involve two deuterium nuclei fusing to produce a tritium nucleus and proton, the tritium produced is at such a higher energy level than the confinement system that it immediately escapes. "Consequently, the radioactivity in our deuterium-He3 system is only 2 percent of the radioactivity in a deuterium-tritium system."

More significant is the He3-He3 fusion reaction that Kulcinski and his assistants produce with their IEC-based reactor. In Kulcinski's reactor, two helium-3 nuclei, each with two protons and one neutron, instead fuse to produce one helium-4 nucleus, consisting of two protons and two neutrons, and two highly energetic protons.

"He3-He3 is not an easy reaction to promote," Kulcinski says. "But He3-He3 fusion has the greatest potential." That's because helium-3, unlike tritium, is nonradioactive, which, first, means that Kulcinski's reactor doesn't need the massive containment vessel that deuterium-tritium fusion requires. Second, the protons it produces--unlike the neutrons produced by deuterium-tritium reactions--possess charges and can be contained using electric and magnetic fields, which in turn results in direct electricity generation. Kulcinski says that one of his graduate assistants at the Fusion Technology Institute is working on a solid-state device to capture the protons and convert their energy directly into electricity.

Still, Kulcinski's reactor proves only the theoretical feasibility and advantages of He3-He3 fusion, with commercial viability lying decades in the future. "Currently," he says, "the Department of Energy will tell us, 'We'll make fusion work. But you're never going to go back to the moon, and that's the only way you'll get massive amounts of helium-3. So forget it.'

Meanwhile, the NASA folks tell us, 'We can get the helium-3. But you'll never get fusion to work.' So DOE doesn't think NASA can do its job, NASA doesn't think that DOE can do its job, and we're in between trying to get the two to work together." Right now, Kulcinski's funding comes from two wealthy individuals who are, he says, only interested in the research and without expectation of financial profit.

Overall, then, helium-3 is not the low-hanging fruit among potential fuels to create practical fusion power, and it's one that we will have to reach the moon to pluck. That said, if pure He3-based fusion power is realizable, it would have immense advantages.

My.TechnologyReview.com: