Air Products' Process for CO2 Capture and Clean-up of Byproducts from Burning Coal

We need a clean air fuel and if coal can be it folks will use coal again..

I saw a program the other day that showed how BMW has cleaned up their exhaust from their diesel gas engine. They re-burn the particles in the exhaust pipe for a lot cleaner air out put! I wonder if this could be done with coal too?

Paul: Thanks. Yes, we do need a clean fuel. There have been some ill-reputed attempts at making clean coal power plants, so I feel a bit wary, but at the same time, I'm certainly willing to learn more. Thanks again for reading and taking the time to comment.

Mark, thanks for the update. I don't know much about internal combustion engine design, from an engineering perspective, but this sounds like the same approach used by turbo-charged engines. It would help with efficiency of burning the fuel, which is certainly good, and would provide more power per gallon of fuel, with a smaller engine. It would not, as far as I know affect CO2 emissions or other emissions, except that it would cut down on VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions and the particles that cause diesel smoke, which is a good thing. So, this sounds to me. without yet looking into it further, like a conventional diesel engine that is more efficient and powerful than normal. All are nice, but this would not make a step change in the major issues of CO2 emission or dependence on oil.

Regarding the use of this BMW approach for coal, I think that coal burning is already pretty efficient, but it might need improvement. However, efficient burning, on its own, doesn't address problematic emissions (CO2, mercury, NOx, SOx). I'll take a look and see if I can find out more or have missed something. Thanks for reading and commenting!

JAMES I'VE MINED AND BURNRD COAL. I ALSO WOUKED AS A WELDER FABRCATING ENVIOMENT STACKS. THEY ARE EXPENSIVE AND HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED. THE PRPBLEM IS NOT TECHNOLOGY ITS THE STOCK MARKET RULING THE WORLD (BOTTOM LINE)$$$$$$

Well, I will weigh in with my miniscule amount of knowledge (feel the scales tipping?).

I, too, have heard/read about cleaner coal which sounds possible and certainly worthy of more investigation. I was under the impression that it was a form of re-burning similar to what Mark mentioned in his BMW comment.

I still don't see how any of these forms of energy will be produced to NOT emitt CO2, mercury, NOx, SOx but if we can minimize the VOCs, which if I am not mistaken are the main culprits in childhood asthma and other breathing difficulties, it would be a beginning. In the meantime, while using these new methods of burning old fuels, we need to convince our legislators to dump money into R&D and not Tea Pot Museums and Bridges to Nowhere.

Along the lines of John's comment re: Wall Street...I just recently sold my shares of an OTC stock in a start up company that promised to do what Air Products is promoting. This company had all the markings to be the up and coming "salvation" to our nuclear and fossil fuel burning problems. After months of taking one hit after another I finally called it quits, sold the pittiful remains, and sighed. Not because I had lost money in the stock market, but because we all did.

The best "clean coal" technology I've come across is not a capture and burn or capture and store technology. It is a capture and grow algae technology. This doubles efficiency from coal, while cutting emissions in half. The end product is hydrogen and a biofuel and/or health drink. It is featured in the second part of the third video segment here.

Of course, using coal is only half of the problem. The other half is it's procurement.

Thanks for the detailed comments from so many people!

Morgan, Air Products specializes in gas separation technology (they make pure gases like nitrogen, oxygen, helium, argon, hydrogen, and many others). Some of this is done with selective membranes and diffusion methods. So, by using these membranes (or related technology), the different gases can literally be separated from each other and removed from the effluent gas stream.

In this particular case, as far as I can tell, the CO2 is captured and is available for anything, so it could be used for Steve B.'s suggested capture and grow technology- "capture and grow" isn't the stated plan from Air Products, but it should be perfectly compatible with the technology (as long as I have it right based on a business article). Thanks for the links, Steve!

Dan, good point.

John W., You clearly have an inside track on how the industry works. I'm not sure I completely understood your point (though I think I understood most of it): a high cost for maintaining stacks doesn't surprise me, but I think the key to this new technology is that it eliminates mercury as well as the carbon, sulfur and nitrogen oxides. I'm sure that the costs will be significant, but, if the technology seems like a real breakthrough, there is a good chance that Wall Street will back it (Air Products is a pretty large company and is no stranger to large capital costs for projects). The mercury from coal plants is viewed by many as an extremely serious matter, regardless of their feelings about CO2 emissions. I agree that mercury waste is a serious concern with coal-fired plants, so I'm excited at the prospect of solving all of the key issues with coal (if investors will pay for the construction).

Thanks again for the comments! Jim

James: "I agree that mercury waste is a serious concern with coal-fired plants, so I'm excited at the prospect of solving all of the key issues with coal (if investors will pay for the construction)."

No need for coal, so do away with it, eliminate mercury and CO2 emissions. The idea that coal (or fossil fuels in general) are inevitable is an industry perpetuated myth.

From Solar Revolution.

"The conclusion of the economic inevitability of solar energy has thus far been based on assumptions of improving economics for solar electricity. What has not been assumed is also important to consider.

The analysis supporting these conclusions does not assume that governments will do more to encourage investment in renewable energy or that governments will impose disincentives on the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power....

The conclusions of this analysis do not rest on an assumed significant increase in the price of fossil fuels, though that is the most likely scenario....

Technology breakthroughs are also not assumed (or required) in this analysis. What is required is continued growth in cost-effectiveness and the technical expertise of existing PV technology at recent historical rates." (pp. 15-6).

Steve, I agree with you, and I am all for solar power, but it is going to take a long time, a lot of money, and a lot of land (including some of my favorite deserts) to replace coal, etc., with solar power (or hydrogen-based solutions, geothermal plants, wind power, or anything else, including combinations of these approaches). There is a lot of inertia in the US when it comes to building new plants, some of which may be due to the structure of our tax code and the way that capital improvements are generally taxed. There are other forces at play, of course.

So, I'm not saying we have to use coal (or nuclear power) for electricity, and I have never said these things. It is the case, however, that North America has a lot of coal for the moment, and it is being used, so... I am saying that we do have coal-based electricity now, and it would be comforting to know that coal-powered electricity could be made safer, less polluting (in terms of mercury, etc.), and less of a carbon burden on the atmosphere than it currently is, while we are waiting for the non-coal based infrastructure to be constructed. Hence my interest in the Air Products process.

Referring to john W.'s earlier point, I have no idea if the economics of the Air Products process will inspire financiers to retrofit old plants with the new technology.

Thanks for the continued great links and comments.

p.s. Would it make more sense to go straight to other technologies and bypass coal? From an environmental perspective, absolutely. However, from what I can tell, and some of this I have learned with your help, the capacity of the solar panel industry (for example) is not very large at the moment relative to our total electricity needs (e.g. Nanosolar is sold out of its entire production capacity for several years). Maybe Sam Carana's hydrogen-based approaches can overcome this, but I suspect that financial institutions will be cautious, and will wait for a few new, large-scale plants to be built with different technologies before going ahead to fund a wholesale switch. That doesn't mean I like it, but I suspect we will have to live with this reality for a while, unless even more headway is made influencing bankers and governments. The thing is, it is always easy for people to say "no", so even if banks are refusing to fund new, polluting coal facilities, which some are, this does not mean that banks will rush to fund new, non-polluting, alternative energy plants.

So, I'm just trying to find the right mix of the desirable, the practical and the financially-viable approaches, and I appreciate everyone's contributions to the discussion.

James: "I agree with you, and I am all for solar power, but it is going to take a long tim..."

So also for "clean coal" plants.

James: "...a lot of money..."

We will end up spending $2 Trillion in Iraq to "protect our vital national interests in the region." I don't know that expanding solar needs to take as long as everyone seems to think it will. After all, we did put a man on the moon in a decade.

James: "...a lot of land...."

Not necessarily, unless the current centralized utility structure is the predominate electrical distribution system. Think roof tops (residential and commercial) and interstate/intrastate highway corridors.

James: "I suspect that financial institutions will be cautious, and will wait for a few new, large-scale plants to be built with different technologies before going ahead to fund a wholesale switch."

Actually, private investment capital has flooded into renewables in general, and solar in particular. The only thing that discourages these investments is lackluster federal policies, which continue to favor polluting energy industries. Banks, such as the ones you link, are waiting for a policy lead from the feds, which will not come during this administration.

Please consider that the widespread belief of fossils fuels and nuclear power being indispensible is a myth. The deployment of renewables in the short run is more of a political problem than anything else.

James: "I'm just trying to find the right mix of the desirable, the practical and the financially-viable approaches...."

And that's why by-passing coal is a good idea.

Steve, your comments make a great deal of sense. I was specifically separating VC investing from commercialization: I don't believe that VC funding will come anywhere close to getting the job done to replace our electricity infrastructure, but it will start the job so that things will be in place when the real production scale-up processes begin. VC funding is vital, but it allows companies to go public and come into existence on a significant scale, it doesn't pay for the kind of capital needed for electrical plants. This is fundamentally true: the return on investment time-frame required by VC's is typically 5 years, vastly shorter than the time it will take to recoup capital costs for building a new electrical infrastructure. That is why the banks and government have to be involved.

I think I agreed with you, again, when I mentioned that government policies and tax codes were at the root of the problem. However, I am not sure that the new administration will understand the problem the way you do. While I support the Democratic candidates strongly, I hear too much talk about biofuels to make me completely comfortable, though solar power is in the mix, at least. I only support very specific biofuels, including waste vegetable oil, Sam C's agrichar story, and related approaches. I view most of the rest of the renewable fuel story as a dangerous diversion that doesn't help much at all.

Also, the recent passage of the immunity for illegal wiretapping indicates that, even with a Democratic majority, much remains "business as usual" in Washington, and this doesn't make me happy at all. Efforts to change the tax code to support environmentally-friendly energy production will have a lot of lobbyists fighting hard against them, because the result could be a change in which companies own or make money off of our utilities and their infrastructure.

Yes, ending the war will save a lot of money as well as lives, but we are spending money that we don't have on the war, borrowing from China, etc., so ending the war isn't going to free up money as much as it will allow the US to stop sinking deeper into debt. If we want to continue going deeper into debt, we will have more options, but the cost may not be acceptable to the country on a number of levels.

Furthermore, I don't believe that the actual labor manufacturing and cost of replacing our entire electricity infrastructure can be accomplished in a couple of years. I suspect 15 years is about right, but, however long it takes, we will still have coal-fired plants spewing mercury into the air in the meantime, poisoning people acutely, plus releasing all of the other agents that are damaging to our respiratory systems and environment. So, I would like to see that damage mitigated while the infrastructure changes over. There are no safe levels of mercury...

Regarding the area needed for solar power, the fact remains that there are plans to cover up much or most of the Mojave desert for solar energy, and the last I read, the plans were going forward, so, whether the use of massive amounts of land needs to happen or not, it is (apparently) happening. This is actually an interesting point, because it pits environmentalists against environmentalists: some who want to push for solar energy and some who want to push for saving the desert ecology. I almost suspect that this is a strategy for slowing down conversion to solar energy while pretending to advance it, but maybe I'm over-thinking this.

I certainly know people in California who have solar panels of their roofs. There, they do get state tax credit, and the panels do lower energy bills, though it still takes a while to recover the initial investment.

I'm not sure that I can imagine a roof-top solar solution being significant on a national scale, or even cost effective, unless it is mandated. A few houses here and there just don't make a difference, and I'm not aware of any solar buildings that generate much excess electricity for the surrounding neighborhood. Maybe the new technologies will change that, but most current solar installations that I have seen only supplement the grid, they don't replace it, even for the very building with the solar panels, and those tend to be industrial buildings.

So, while I think I agree with nearly every single point you make, I still can't find an argument that makes me sorry to see a new way of cleaning up coal stack effluent.

Bypassing coal is a great idea, but we didn't bypass it and coal is here for some time. We need to deal with it until it is phased out; that is how I'm looking at this story. I don't in any way want to slow the introduction of solar and other alternative fuels. If it becomes an "either or" question, I'll back the alternative fuels. I don't think we, meaning our financial institutions, have arrived at the "either or" point yet. Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am. Thanks for all of the additional discussion, information and links! I really appreciate your valuable contributions and I hope I'm not being hard-headed in my responses here.

Good discussion, James. Let me make the same comment that I just made under my article Power plant emissions unlawful. As that article discusses, coal-fired power plants will find it increasingly hard to comply with emission standards. Additionally, the price of coal has more than doubled over the past twelve months, as shown on the image below. As at 8 February 2008, spot prices for coal were $US139.44 per tonne delivered into Amsterdam/Rotterdam/Antwerp (DES ARA index) and $125.48 for coal shipped from Newcastle, Australia (NEWC index).

Both the price of coal and the costs of sea and rail transport are expected to keep rising, while the cost of mining is also likely to go up with increasing calls for stricter standards there, as discussed in this article in Orion Magazine, kindly pointed at by Steve above.

Note also that it's hard for coal-fired power plants to adjust their output to supply and demand. Currently, oil generators supply extra power at peak time, sharply increasing the cost of electricity.

So, it makes sense to look at better alternatives. Wind and solar power can provide electricity in abundance, which can be stored in hydrogen and batteries for later usage. This scenario can provide a clean, safe and price-competitive alternative to coal-fired power plants.



As discussed in my recent article Shipping emissions grossly underestimated, we need to get serious about hydrogen. In conclusion, we need a FeeBate policy that discourages polluting practices such as burning fossil fuel, while encouraging clean and safe alternatives such as electricity generated by wind and solar facilities, complemented by storage facilities, such as molten salt, batteries and hydrogen.

James: "I don't believe that VC funding will come anywhere close to getting the job done to replace our electricity infrastructure, but it will start the job so that things will be in place when the real production scale-up processes begin."

True - and we're about there. Scaling up production is the issue. Policies, like this one in Germany, would go along way.

"In the 1990s, the government of Japan developed...a portfolio of tools and programs to stimulate different components of the PV technology supply chain--from production to installation--that have allowed photovoltaics in Japan to attain cost-competitiveness with grid electricity over the last decade. This model of success has created the foundation on hich the worldwide industrial transformation toward distributed PV electricity is based."Solar Revolution, p. 177.

"The Japanese residential PV program expired in 2005, having achieved its goals of making PV cost-competitive with conventional electricity options and building a solid base of manufacturers and installers. It remains to be seen whether the program created a market that can sustain itself and that can maintain its recent historic growth rate of 30 percent per year. Japanese PV manufacturers seem to believe it will, and Japanese producers increased domestic production of PV cells by over 65 percent from 2003 to 2004. Japanese PV manufacturers continue to expand production, increase exports, and set up operations in places from China to Brazil to Mexico." ."Solar Revolution, p. 178-9.

Apparently, the U.S. is behind the curve on this, and that will likely cost us in years to come, so inclined are we to the established industries.

James: "I am not sure that the new administration will understand the problem the way you do. While I support the Democratic candidates strongly, I hear too much talk about biofuels to make me completely comfortable...."

Good point. Be sure to write your elected representatives often. At least, you will have democrats to write to.

James: "...ending the war will save a lot of money as well as lives, but we are spending money that we don't have on the war, borrowing from China, etc., so ending the war isn't going to free up money as much as it will allow the US to stop sinking deeper into debt."

Of course, we're also borrowing nearly $1 Billion a day for oil. On the other hand, I wouldn't think that information technology has been a drain on the economy, but it didn't have to compete with an established industry per se, like renewables do. In the end, I hope the U.S. doesn't continue to let Germany, Japan, Spain and China get the lead on what could be a new economic arena.

James: "I don't believe that the actual labor manufacturing and cost of replacing our entire electricity infrastructure can be accomplished in a couple of years. I suspect 15 years is about right, but, however long it takes, we will still have coal-fired plants spewing mercury into the air in the meantime...."

Not if you convince your elected representatives to vote for policies, like Sam's "feebates". Give these corporations incentives to build out renewables, and disincentives for carbon. Why do we think they would not adapt? Some have already begun to move in that direction on their own. We don't have to be completely transformed in 15 years to make a significant impact on climate change.

James: "the fact remains that there are plans to cover up much or most of the Mojave desert for solar energy, and the last I read, the plans were going forward, so, whether the use of massive amounts of land needs to happen or not, it is (apparently) happening."

That assumes a centralized utility structure like we have now. However, a distributed grid makes blanketing large tracts of land unnecessary. Within a decade, a $5K residential solar system will be available, according to Pernick and Wilder. A national net metering law will change the role of utilities from production to distribution. Be sure to write your representatives about a national net metering law.

James: "I'm not sure that I can imagine a roof-top solar solution being significant on a national scale, or even cost effective, unless it is mandated."

Germany has just done as much.

Also, solar homes are selling well in CA, despite the poor housing market.

James: "Bypassing coal is a great idea, but we didn't bypass it and coal is here for some time."

HA!!! Glad to see I'm not the only one, who falls into this kind of "circular reasoning".

James: "I don't think we, meaning our financial institutions, have arrived at the "either or" point yet. Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am."

I hope you are too. I hope we grow very tired soon of borrowing money to fight wars and feed our oil addiction. BTW, Sam's comment, "...the price of coal and the costs of sea and rail transport are expected to keep rising, while the cost of mining is also likely to go up with increasing calls for stricter standards there..." is extremely important. If we cannot understand that fossil costs keep going up, while renewables keep coming down - then maybe we end up like Enron.

James: "I hope I'm not being hard-headed in my responses here."

Not at all. I think it's just very difficult to get beyond the idea that fossils and nuclear energy are indispensible.

Steve, if more than 10% of Germany's electricity comes from solar power, I'll eat my socks. I've been to Germany many times and have never seen any evidence of this. Did it happen very recently, like last week? Yes, I'll read the link, but not tonight. Then, I'll eat my socks if I need to.

Solar homes in CA may be selling well, but anybody who can buy in CA, even in a down market, is not representative of the rest of the country, and they get tax relief that nobody else does (that wild and crazy Republican, Arnold: what does he think he is a Democrat?). Also, people can move from crummy CA neighborhoods to other states and practically afford the local governor's mansion (I actually know of someone who practically did this, moving from Pasadena to MI, he couldn't find a house expensive enough without really trying).

I still don't get it. Who is going to produce the solar panels if production is sold out, at least for the newest kind (and the economics of older panels are questionable)? In Japan, people are desperate to add solar panels but few can afford it (which I reported on a few months ago). Are we supposed to cease using electricity while we wait for all of the infrastructure to be built? I really have no belief whatsoever in the sanctity of fossil fuels, and I hate nuclear power, I just don't see how the timing will work without a staged retirement of coal plants, and I'd rather not have us all poisoned by them in the meantime.

Anyway, give me a few days to read your links. I'll tell you how tasty the socks were, and, in the meantime, I hope the discussion rages on (in this pleasant manner).

Best wishes, Jim

Sam, sorry for skipping you in the comments!

I read your article about shipping emissions, and I think it is a very important point.

I like your solutions. A lot. Unfortunately, I have spent a large part of my 49 years trying to get elected officials to do what I think is important, and I almost always fail. Is it my fault? Probably, in part, but with notable exceptions, this is an extremely disengaged population we have in the US at present. How else can we explain the pride people have in SUV ownership? How else can we explain that not one single conversation has arisen about gun control after 3 major massacres of innocent people in a week? How else can we explain the fact that Bush hasn't been impeached and put on trial for war crimes (along with his buddies)?

I think that you are vastly underestimating the power of the utility lobbies, but that doesn't mean that I want to be correct in my assessment. I want to be wrong. I just want to be prepared as much as possible for what may be a long fight, in which coal dies a slow death. Kind of like a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I imagine an archetypal lump of coal exclaiming "I'm not dead, or at least not from a metaphorical perspective!"

All the evidence that I know about is that the US will indeed fall behind, and has already fallen behind Europe etc, on many environmental and energy issues (though nuclear power is still a huge part of the European power grid).

I don't dispute what you and Steve say at all, except for the optimism about how fast we can get off the coal bandwagon. Again, nothing would make me happier than being wrong on this point.

To get back to an earlier question I was asked and couldn't answer, and these may be a question for you and Steve:

What should a person look at, specifically, if they want to add solar panels to an existing home (assuming the subdivision rules allow it, which I doubt in my part of the Midwest). What are the real options, and has the return on investment dropped below 10 years?

Thanks for all of the helpful comments and great additions to the discussion!

Steve, I must have skipped part of your text at first, but there was a major series of articles, one of which I think I blogged, just this past September about how Japanese families could not afford solar power in very many cases, no matter how much they wanted it, so that program you referred to seems to have failed. The return on investment is still slow, and the capital outlay is still large, and this is for tiny Japanese homes!

I guess finally, for the moment, I see plenty of evidence that the Federal government is perfectly willing to disobey its own laws, and court orders fro Federal judges, to harm the environment in favor of established big businesses. Will that change with the new administration? Boy do I hope so, but Congress is beholden to lobbies even if Obama isn't. Plus, we may have to purge a lot of Federal judges who were appointed recently in order to uphold the Bush administration's right the break the law, among other things. All documented on my blog...

Just to add some meat to my comments, from my blog, which discusses several articles or fromthis original NPR sourcehere, which appeared in October 2007, and which I quote here:

"Houses with solar panels are still unusual in Japan... Germany wants half of its energy generated by renewable sources by the year 2050...

But how much are the solar panels (in Japan)? About $20,000 dollars. How long would it take to make that money back? In Japan, maybe 20 years... the sales pitch is still awkward...

...houses in Kobe with the solar panels were built by a division of Panasonic, which is trying out a line of energy-efficient houses...

But Yukawa says the price of solar panels still needs to come down by half before homeowners and builders really take the plunge to buy....

The industry is growing quickly — maybe too quickly. Solar companies now consume about as much silicon as the entire electronics industry, temporarily causing the price of silicon to double, pushing costs up, not down."

So, I don't know about you gentleman, but, with a home equity loan, I just replaced the plumbing in my 80-year old house, put on a new roof a year ago, still need to patch the holes in the plaster walls where the pipes were ripped out (and paint, etc). Also (and no sympathy is needed), I was laid off from a high-paying job 4 years ago, putting me in the ranks of the "self-employed and not always paid". I know lots of people in similar situations, and we are very well-off compared to many. With my kids in 7th and 9th grade and college expenses looming, and with income uncertain, it would pretty difficult for me to put in solar panels (unless something changes dramatically, and that could happen with the new government that will sweep Republicans out of Washington, the only problem being will we be able to notice a difference in Congress, even if the White House is a much saner and more capable place?).

I'm on your side, but I'd rather not breathe any mercury, or go (more) broke, while waiting for the revolution. So I'm afraid we need to hedge our bets and protect ourselves from coal while switching over to the alternatives. Again, being proved wrong would delight me (I didn't feel a need to eat my socks after checking the facts, but tell me if you disagree, Steve! There's a clean pair right here, old enough to be GMO free cotton.)

Gee, maybe this should have been a series of articles: I do go on (and on, and on..)! Also, I would have had better editing facilities (though not by much) via article publication rather than commenting.

James - don't eat your socks (unless they're organic ;) I'm checking your information.

James: "But how much are the solar panels (in Japan)? About $20,000 dollars. How long would it take to make that money back? In Japan, maybe 20 years... the sales pitch is still awkward..."

I think your article focuses on Kyocera's silicon cells. Thin film cells, like Nanosolar's cells, which is a different technology. Still, $20K is not a bad price, especially if it is integrated into the mortgage. By comparison, though, you wouldn't think of buying all of your food for the next 20 years now, and yet this is how solar systems are currently sold. I agree that financing and marketing need to be improved.

Still, Pernick and Wilder anticipate a $5K residential solar system by 2015, attributed to expanding advances in nanotechnology.

"While the big players such as Sharp and Kyocera continue to drive down costs, it may be one of the new entrants to really rock the boat with breakthrough technology and significantly lower pricing. Players such as Miasole, Nanosolar, HelioVolt and Q-Cells could be the first to deliver a truly low cost solar cell or module. Watch out for a current or emerging player that can bring the cost of an entire solar PV system to around $2 per peak watt--the equivalent of $5,000 fo an average-sized 2.5-kW (2.5-kilowatt) residential rooftop system, for example. Systems priced at this level would provide electricity at less than 10 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), beating out most customers' retail utility rates throughout the United States. Someone, we believe, is likely to break this price barrier by 2015--paving the way for a low-cost, ubiquitous, solar future."

Note: Nanosolar states, "...we believe (our technology) will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt.

Dale C. commented on another thread

"I don't know if anyone here is interested in First Solar, but they just announced their fourth quarter results. Sales for the quarter are almost four times as high as fourth quarter last year--over $200 million, which is impressive. Do that for four quarters and you're very close to a billion dollar company. Also impressive, they claim that their current cost of production is $1.12 per watt (down 12% from last year).

That impresses me more than Nanosolar's claim of under $1 per watt at a profit because First Solar's cells have been in production for over a year and have a track record. Nanosolar's numbers are lower, but they are still just claims until the company actually gets to full production later this year. That isn't to say they are wrong. They're just not proven yet.

First Solar makes thin film Cadmium-Telluride cells, a slightly different technology than Nanosolar's CIGS. As to what their price at retail is I don't know. In extremely large quantities (over 500 megawatts) I think the price is under $2 per watt. That's still not as cheap as coal, (if you don't count the environmental costs of coal) but it is getting pretty close."

James: "...it would pretty difficult for me to put in solar panels (unless something changes dramatically...."

Sounds like that's a real possibility.

Comparing notes: I just had to put in a new heating/ac system, and paid up for a highly efficient tempstar system. I know this stuff ain't cheap, but my attituted is (and has been) that IF I can stretch to buy these products, I must - in order to make the most responsible choice, and to contribute to new businesses, which are also taking risks on new technologies. Of course, my situation is different. My wife and I retired early a few years ago, thinking we had managed our money well enough to do so. As it is, interest rates are crashing through the floor, and this is affecting us. I am looking for work (not wanting to return to mental health), but finding no one seems to be hiring in the current economic environment. It's tight, and we'll be ok, but it's going to be tight for awhile.

Thanks Steve. I skipped eating the sock as you suggested (anyway, we were out of ketchup).

I recently saw a post that I'll try to track down that was on getting free solar panels. The idea was that there are actually a lot of solar panels that run traffic lights or lights for road signs in remote areas, and many of these are in need of replacement, but they would still work well for home use. So, municipalities or counties could save recycling costs by offloading the panels to consumers. Maybe this is the cheapest way to get more solar power established in homes.

The economic times are not easy, that's for sure. Halting the occasional war here or there would help a lot.

Speaking of war, some day I'll have to relate the story of the swiss chemist who has been working on green explosives and gunpowder. Strange, but true, and it even makes sense in an odd way.

I saw some figures for Germany in an article in The Guardian, 50 people who could save the planet. In this article, it says that electricity generated from renewable energy in Germany is now 12% (compared Britain's 3%), on track to increase to 50% by 2050. Nearly 3% of Germany's electricity now comes from the sun, partly because of a "feed in tariff law", forcing power utilities to buy electricity generated by the public at more than triple market prices; over 300,000 homeowners, farmers and small businesses are now selling electricity to the grid.

According to the article Feed Law Powers Germany to New Renewable Energy Record, 11.5% of German electricity came from renewables in 2006. Wind energy accounted for 6% of Germany's electricity in 2006 (employing 70,000 people with revenues of U.S.$4.5 billion) and 1.5% came from photo-voltaic panels (employing 35,000 with revenues of US$5 billion). The remainder of renewable energy came from hydro (3%) and biogas (1%).

Also note the thermal solar hot water systems, an industry employing 18,000 with revenues of U.S.$1.5 billion per year. This industry is often overlooked, because no electricity is bought or sold, yet it contributes the equivalent of 4.3 TWh per year, or some 1% of total electricity in Germany.

What's also often overlooked is the way houses are built. Positioning a building well can save a lot in heating and air-conditioning. Thermal sinks such as tiles on the floor can radiate warmth in the evening and have a cooling effect during the day. Insulation in walls and ceilings, as well as double and triplle glazing is a cheap way to save energy. Also, shutters can keep the summer sun out. Some people place mirrors in front of windows to let more sun in when it's colder. All such things are rarely included in data for solar energy, but if you add it all up, I wouldn't be surprised if more than 10% of Germany's energy already came from solar power. No need to start eating any socks, though! :)

Steve: "As to what their price at retail is I don't know. In extremely large quantities (over 500 megawatts) I think the price is under $2 per watt. That's still not as cheap as coal, (if you don't count the environmental costs of coal) but it is getting pretty close."

There are many ways to calculate whether solar power was cheaper than coal, but all too often such calculation don't include the cost of the grid itself. Power plants may produce electricity and sell this at 1 cent per kilowatt-hour to the grid, but consumers pay more than 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. Many will pay even more during peak times, when their solar panels actually produce the most electricity. Attractive feed-in tariffs, such as in Germany, could stimulate the industry to mass produce panels, bringing cost down further.

Anticipating this are companies that will install solar panels for you at no upfront cost, such as:
http://renu.citizenre.com

According to an article in Popular Science, Nanosolar can produce panels at a cost of $0.30/watt. Thus, material producing one kilowatt of output would cost $300. Suppose that panel will last for 25 years (the warranty is 15 years) and will deliver the equivalent of 4 peak hours of sunlight per day. That would deliver 1kw*4h/d*365d/y*25y=36,500kWh over its lifetime, so the cost per kWh is 300$/36,500kWh=.008218$/kWh or ~ 0.8 cent per Kilowatt hour. That is less than 1 cent/kwh and cheaper than electricity currently produced by newly-built coal-fired power plants or nuclear plants, even without taking into account the environmental costs, the health dangers, security requirements, etc, etc.

At home, you'll pay more for the panels and you'll have to add extra cost for installation, inverters, batteries, etc, but homes in sunny areas will have more than 4 peak hours of sunshine, while electric cars could provide the necessary batteries. As said, attractive feed-in tariffs - such as in Germany - could help establish a more distributed grid, as described in my article The Distributed Grid.

Thanks Sam and Steve.

Sam, I have to admit to being surprised and impressed by the progress in Germany. I can't find any flaws in your plan.

Steve, I'm sure you are right about the solar cells being used in Japan, and they are old technology, but their production levels have been scaled up more more than for the new versions, even those that are formally "in production". So, the economies of scale and simply availability are still lagging for the most modern solar cells, but, it is absolutely true, as both of you have said, that this is only a question of money: put in enough money and the new solar cells will be cranked out.

I think I'm convinced! No qualifiers, just convinced. Thanks again. This really needs to hit the airwaves and broad-band channels in a big way. It is certainly being under-reported, but you guys are helping a lot to get the word out.

Jim, you earlier spoke about the pride people have in SUV ownership. I believe we should build on that and produce cars and trucks that are strong, clean and good-looking. We've got a window of opportunities to build the next generation of (electric) cars domestically and if we don't see this window we can say goodbye to our entire domestic car industry.

James: "I believe we should build on that and produce cars and trucks that are strong, clean and good-looking. We've got a window of opportunities to build the next generation of (electric) cars domestically and if we don't see this window we can say goodbye to our entire domestic car industry."

Truly. The good news is that Lovins and Hawken are on a transitional advisory council at Ford.

Sam and Steve: this makes a lot of sense and is a great development. I certainly don't think we'll get electric cars accepted if they look bizarre or awkward. The cars need to fit into mainstream ideas design as much as possible or they will be ignored. It looks like it is really happening! Thanks for the updates.

James: "I certainly don't think we'll get electric cars accepted if they look bizarre or awkward."

RMIs "Revolution"

Hmm, I'll be green and a magnet for like-minded but impressionable friends with these wheels (well, maybe just cool, not green, though cool isn't too likely either). Thanks for the link!

"Compression," "transport," and "geological storage" does not sound "clean" to me. Coal is the worse polluter. I applaud Exel Energy in Mn who decided NOT to pursue interest in a coal-fired plant in the Dakotas, creating a strong statement for other companies to follow.

As always, James, a thought-provoking post.

Thanks Charli! I think I wrote this as much to provoke thoughts in myself as for any other reason, and the discussion that followed helped me make some decisions. I agree entirely with your comment about the Dakotas and the example set by Exel Energy!

I'm for any process that will begin cleaning up our air. I still feel that we are wasting a great deal of sustainable energy by not developing the natural energies of sun, wind and water. Wind mills are becoming more popular, and so is solar energy, but many
power plants once run by water have been disassembled and disgarded as not as efficient as burning coal for production of electricity. The water run power plants were
very clean in comparison.