Technical Feasibility is the Easy Part

A couple of people have now written to ask for comments on the story from Green Car Congress about the Polish CO2 to methanol scheme. Here is the story:

Report: Polish Power Plant and University to Cooperate on CO2 to Methanol Trial

Here is the bit I immediately focused on:

Nazimek says his “artificial photosynthesis” process is based on the photocatalytic conversion of water and carbon dioxide under deep ultraviolet light. Synthesis of 1 kmole (32 kg) of CH3OH from CO2 and H2O requires 586MJ of energy, according to Nazimek’s calculations. (Methanol has a HHV of 22.7 MJ/kg, or 726 MJ/kmole).

So the implication there is that you are getting more energy in the form of methanol than you put into the system (input of 586 MJ for an output of 726 MJ), for a positive net energy. However, like the Steorn system, this interpretation would unfortunately violate the laws of thermodynamics. Perhaps something has been lost in the translation. Otherwise, either all of the energy into the system is not being measured, measurements are being done inconsistently, or there is some other error.

Here is one problem. Methanol's high heating value (HHV) is quoted above. However, when considering energy that you can practically get out of a system one should not use HHV. Why? Because that presumes that you have condensed the water from the combustion products and taken everything back down to room temperature (25 C). That doesn't happen in practice. Just feel the exhaust coming out of your auto.

So the comparison of energy input into the system to HHV for the output can be misleading. If you consistently use HHV for input and outputs, then you should get a consistent answer for the net energy, but if you mix lower and higher heating values you could easily conclude that you are creating energy when in fact you are simply subtracting apples from oranges.

Having said that, I think artificial photosynthesis has great potential for energy production. I have often speculated on this. Natural photosynthetic efficiency is very low, but it does result in captured solar energy in plants all over the world. Plants do take CO2 in and convert to biomass. The trick is that they do take in more BTUs in the form of solar energy (and maybe also energy in the form of fertilizer) than are found in the the biomass they produce.

So I am in no way trying to diminish the work. This sort of work needs to be done. I just want to inject a dash of reality into the energy balances. It's like I tell people all the time - you can in fact run a car off of water. You can turn combustion products like CO2 and water back into fuels of all sorts. The catch in both of these cases is that you must always input more energy into the system than you can get back. That's how the laws of nature unfortunately work.

So while technical feasibility can often be easily demonstrated, there are many more hurdles that must be jumped before you would operate a scheme like this in practice. For instance, what is the source of energy? If you are using sunlight, then it may be perfectly acceptable to input 100 BTUs of sunlight and get back 10 BTUs of liquid fuel. But it wouldn't be a good idea to input similar quality fuels and get back fewer BTUs.

A second consideration is energy required to purify the final product. The story above indicates that the product is in water at a 15% concentration. This is quite similar to the concentrations of ethanol that corn ethanol producers make and then have to purify. The water has to be removed, and it takes energy to do that. So even if I had a perfect conversion of 1 BTU of energy input to 1 BTU of energy out, the net energy will fall as I input energy to purify the final product. (A 3rd major consideration is the capital costs, which keeps many fine ideas in the lab).

So in conclusion, technical feasibility of so many of these schemes is not in question. (Of course as was the case with Steorn or (possibly) with Cello, sometimes technical feasibility itself is the problem). But beyond technical feasibility are all sorts of considerations that can render a seemingly wondrous invention into something that never escapes the lab. If you hone in on the mass and energy balances of the system (a chemical engineer's bread and butter), you can often see why a promising experiment in the lab won't work in practice.

Cello: A Lesson in Due Diligence

People sometimes ask me how - if they don't have any particular technical expertise - one determines whether companies are making fraudulent claims. I tell them that the simple test of "If it looks too good to be true..." will work in the vast majority of cases. In the case of Cello Energy, that sniff test could have saved investors some money. Here's what happened.

I haven't written publicly about Cello Energy, but I have exchanged several e-mails with people about their claims. I have long been on the record stating that I do not think the prospects for commercialization of conventional cellulosic ethanol are very good. Any time I hear people promising to produce renewable fuel for $1/gallon (or less!), I generally think that those people making those promises are either severely deluded or committing fraud. Cello made these sorts of promises. Cello said they could make $16 a barrel renewable fuel from cellulose - which works out to be 38 cents per gallon.

About six months ago I received an e-mail from someone within the U.S. government asking for comments on the Cello technology (which they described as cellulose to diesel, not ethanol). We ended up exchanging 17 e-mails discussing the technology. I got some general information (publicly available) on what they were doing, and while the person inquiring was skeptical, he took a tour of their plant and told me "it does seem that his plant does do what he says it does, and that he [inventor Jack Boykin] did indeed invent the invention of the century (it is difficult to verify a technology with a simple plant walk through). And there is this nagging thought - could this really be true (it seems too good to be true)?"

In my first response, I noted that it had elements of two technologies I was familiar with, but "seems very similar to CWT's thermal depolymerization technology." That technology of course resulted in bankruptcy because it simply could not do what the inventors claimed it could do. I also added "It works, it is just a lot more expensive than advertised."

In the next exchange, I noted that I would take a very hard look at their energy balance: "Grinding to an extremely fine state can be pretty energy intensive, and then they are adding heat to the process. Have they made it clear how the energy inputs compare to the energy in the final product?"

In additional follow-ups, I noted that they appeared to have a problem with their energy balance. They claimed that they could produce a certain number of gallons of fuel from a ton of biomass, but the feedstock didn't have as many BTUs as did the final fuel. So I noted that unless there were other energy inputs "that claimed number does not seem possible."

I was asked if it was reasonable that they would have spent $12 million on a plant that didn't actually work, and I responded: "I have seen people throw away more than $12 million on an idea that doesn't work. It just depends on whether it appears to work, and whether the scientist/engineer who is the inventor is a good salesman."

Now despite all of these e-mails, I couldn't say with 100% certainty that their technology did not work. I just saw a lot of warning flags, and wanted to point out some things that he should probably look into. I didn't hear back from him for a long time, but then I saw a story that said that Vinod Khosla had invested in the company. I wrote and asked for an update, and here was part of his reply:

I have assessed a couple different aspects of the technology such as the energy required for grinding. My analyses suggest that they cannot do what they say that they can do because the energy demand is too great. While my analysis shows that grinding down to the fine size that the process requires would require several times more energy than what the entire process consumes, the inventor reassures me that because most of the grinding occurs in the liquid phase using hot product as the liquid, the energy demand from grinding is vastly reduced. While what the inventor says is possible, I cannot verify it.

So he validated my concerns about the energy balance, but the inventor assured him that he had found a way around that sticky problem. (If it were only that easy; to do the grinding in hot liquid!) So far, this one still isn't passing the sniff test, but once again I don't have enough information to conclude that fraud is taking place. But I have enough information that I would be hard-pressed to give them any money.

But now a jury has ruled that they have indeed committed fraud. Two really good stories on this from earth2tech:

Lessons from the Cello Energy Biofuel Fraud Case: Do Your Homework

Cello Energy Leaves 50M-Gallon Gap in Feds’ Ethanol Targets

From the first story:

As far as speed bumps for cellulosic ethanol ventures go, this one’s a doozy: Jurors in a federal court have ordered Cello Energy, a biofuel startup run by Alabama’s former ethics chairman, Jack Boykin, and backed by both Silicon Valley cleantech investors Khosla Ventures and pulp maker Parsons & Whittemore Enterprises, to pay more than $10.4 million in a fraud case.

Cello reportedly accepted a $2.5 million investment from P&W in 2007 to help finance its first plant. Several months later it received a $12.5 million investment and a pledge for up to $25 million for construction and operation of additional plants from Khosla. Cello agreed to use discounted wood waste from the company as feedstock, but “a string of witnesses testified that samples of the fuel allegedly produced at Cello’s facility…were derived entirely from fossil and not renewable sources,” the Alabama Press-Register reports. This week a jury in Mobile, Ala., decided that Boykin’s original claims (made with his partner and son Allen Boykin) were fraudulent.

The second story sees a silver lining here. If the targets fall short of projections, there will be even more money available for cellulosic ethanol (but I still think there is confusion here over whether this is an ethanol or diesel process; I think the claimed process is actually cellulosic diesel):

As the research firm ThinkEquity notes in a new report, if cellulosic ethanol production falls short of the U.S. EPA’s estimate of more than 100 million gallons next year, new incentives are supposed to kick in to support production the fuel as part of the proposed Renewable Fuel Standard update, or RFS2, which is slated to increase the amount of renewable fuels that must be blended into gasoline.

In the event of a shortfall (not enough renewable fuels to meet minimum blend requirements), ThinkEquity wrote in its report late last month that the EPA can sell credits that would increase the value of cellulosic ethanol to a minimum price of about $3 per gallon (up from ethanol futures’ current $1.77 per gallon).

The story notes that the reason for the EPA's 100 million gallon estimate was that they were counting on 70 million gallons from Cello! I have said it before, and I will say it again loudly: CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IS NEVER GOING TO MEET THE PROPOSED RAMPED UP PRODUCTION LEVELS. Too many uninformed boosters have done too little due diligence, and we get all sorts of ridiculous expectations. Back to the first story above, they noted how careless investors were in throwing down money on the project:

...P&W and Khosla Ventures weren’t exactly diligent. The excuse? P&W CEO George Landegger said he trusted Boykin after he promised to invest his own money in the $25 million project. For Khosla Ventures, whose founder Vinod Khosla has called cellulosic biofuel his “real love” and invested in more than a dozen biofuel companies, due diligence was not necessarily a deal breaker, and according to emails revealed in court between Khosla and partner Saul Kaul, Boykin refused to give the investors enough time for due diligence. That made the deal “nerve-wracking” for Kaul, but Khosla wrote, “Great job on this one. Herculean effort. But my bet is it will pay off.”

My bet is that it won't. I think Khosla and the others have simply been scammed. While I appreciate Khosla's desires to "to use his wealth to fight the war on foreign oil and for energy independence", sometimes it feels like he is just scattering a lot of money around in the hopes that something - anything - will work. In this case, it looks like he was betting on a miracle, another in a long line of companies claiming "game-changing technology." Maybe things will turn out OK. But this entire story has all the earmarks of so many biofuel pranksters who came, promised, fleeced investors, and failed. I can promise you one thing: Whether they make fuel or not, it won't be for $16/bbl.

As I noted in my previous entry, one of my jobs going forward with my new company is to make sure we don't get tangled up in situations like this. But based on the limited information I had, I would have steered us clear of Cello. On the other hand, I will continue to look for companies that can actually deliver on their biofuel promises. So feel free to send me your $25 million. It will be in good hands. :-)

“Your Passion is Energy”

Saying Goodbye Again

Today is Independence Day in the U.S., but I am spending it in the Netherlands without my family. This has become an all-too-familiar situation for me. I have spent far too many birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays in remote locations away from my family. The time has come to rectify that situation.

Most of my career has revolved around energy. But about a year and a half ago, I decided to try something slightly different. I left my job with ConocoPhillips in Aberdeen, Scotland (and I explained the details behind the decision here), said goodbye to friends and colleagues there, and boarded a plane to the Netherlands. This is where I have spent about half my time since then.

But that chapter is coming to a close. On Monday I will leave Amsterdam for the flight back to Texas. I have made this trip around 20 times in the past 18 months, but I am making the trip for the last time in my current role as Engineering Director for Accsys Technologies. This trip was my farewell tour, and I said my goodbyes to a fine engineering team.

The past year and a half has been both interesting and challenging. We are a small company, so I found myself doing more cross-functional work than at any other time in my career (e.g., writing HR policies). We were staffing up, so I also interviewed numerous people for all sorts of positions. Because our company was the first (and still only) to commercialize our technology, we encountered some unique engineering challenges.

As I look back, I am proud of what my engineering team has accomplished. They have vastly improved our process in the past two years, and we climbed a steep learning curve. We managed to increase the throughput of our plant in Arnhem by a third, while at the same time cutting our energy inputs. With all sincerity, our successes came about because I have a clever and dedicated team of engineers.

And while I believe strongly in the product that we have developed, my job involves about 50% travel. I have engineering teams based in Dallas and in the Netherlands, and I have to try to keep a presence in both locations. I knew that I could keep that up for a while, but not forever. If I continue with this schedule, I will grow old forever haunted by the lyrics to Cat's in the Cradle.

I have been fortunate over the years to have had a number of different job opportunities present themselves. In the past six months I began to more seriously listen to inquiries. I decided if the right one came along - and it enabled me to spend more time with my family - then I would make a change. The right opportunity has come along.

Future Plans

If I had to describe my ideal job, it would be to bring sustainable energy technologies to the world. I would do a lot of technology evaluation, visiting with universities, small companies, inventors, and entrepreneurs. The goal would be to identify the renewable technologies that I feel can compete in the long-term, and then work to facilitate that future.

One of the most brilliant engineers I have ever met (who will also be a future colleague), recently introduced me to a very successful businessman who has been in the energy business for decades. Because he greatly values his privacy, I will not divulge his name nor the companies he has been involved with. Suffice to say that his vision is long-term, he is realistic, and he has a long track record of successfully building companies. When I met with him, I discussed my current job, and then we started talking about our views on the future of energy. He made a comment that I often hear when I am discussing energy: "Your passion is energy. You should follow your passion."

After much discussion, which included meetings in Houston, Hawaii, and Hamburg - it was clear that my goals and views were very much aligned with his. We saw a similar future, but were both quite realistic about the challenges of realizing that future. The primary objective for both of us wasn't to create wealth, but instead to see our current unsustainable way of life nudged toward something more sustainable. We are both concerned that we are leaving a mess for our children to clean up, and we believe we can build something better for them.

I have therefore decided to join forces with him, and will leave my current job on August 1st. I will continue to assist Accsys/Titan Wood with their technology on an as-needed basis, but my primary energies will be focused around the conversion of biomass into value-added products. The specific end product will depend upon the particulars of a situation. I firmly believe that biomass can work, sustainably, in specific niches. As fossil fuel prices rise, the niches will grow as long as the biomass technologies are not heavily dependent upon fossil fuel inputs. We plan to establish ourselves in some of those niches.

I have written in this blog about some of the technologies and companies that we will be involved with. (In fact, it is a long story, but one of my articles was what led to the initial contact, which occurred almost 3 years ago). Other technologies, which I have felt had great potential, I haven't written about. I am still not yet going to write about them, as we are busy establishing ourselves in various areas and establishing dialogue with different companies. But as one of my new colleagues likes to say "We are technology agnostic." That simply means that we are open to different technologies and won't base our business around a single technology.

I will relocate to Hawaii with my family. I estimate that my travel will drop from the current 50% to around 10%, meaning I will get to spend much more time with my family. Based on our plans, when I do travel, I expect my travels will take me to Germany, which is familiar territory, but also to some areas I have not seen, like Southeast Asia.

Why Hawaii? Hawaii offers a unique laboratory for renewable energy. Hawaii has very good renewable resources (sun, wind, geothermal, ocean thermal, biomass, etc.), and no fossil fuel resources. Hawaii should have a small bias toward renewable energy relative to the rest of the U.S., since all fossil fuels must be shipped in for power and transport. And because of the year-round growing season, I can do a lot more experimentation there both with gardening (which I love to do) and with energy crops.

I won't go into specific details right now about our efforts. We aren't ready for that yet. Some parts of the business are already far along, and others are just starting. But we won't be messing around with pie-in-the-sky technologies. That will be one of my key roles: To make sure we are focused where we need to be focused and not wasting our time working toward dead ends.

Thermodynamics Wins Again

Back in 2006, the Irish company Steorn announced that they had discovered a “a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy.” A magnetism-based perpetual motion machine is what it amounted to, which would clearly violate various physical laws, such as the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. Steorn put an advertisement in the Economist after announcing their new technology, seeking qualified experts to form a “jury” to validate their claims.

The jury is in. The laws of science do not fall so easily:

Irish 'energy for nothing' gizmo fails jury vetting

An Irish company had promised it could deliver non-polluting, virtually cost-free power but an international jury said yesterday it did not work.

Scientists doubted the claims and, when the company resisted calls to release precise details of how Orbo worked, it asked an international panel of experts to adjudicate on the device.

Steorn organised a panel of 22 independent scientists and engineers from Europe and North America chaired by Ian MacDonald, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of Alberta.

“The situation was we had engaged them in February 2007 and went through a process with them,” Mr McCarthy said. Two years have passed however and the jury clearly decided that enough was enough.

It posted an announcement on its website http://stjury.ning.com that it was disbanding.

“The unanimous verdict of the jury is that Steorn’s attempts to demonstrate the claim have not shown the production of energy,” it stated. “The jury is therefore ceasing work.”

Undeterred, Steorn rejected science and announced that they would proceed toward licensing their technology by the end of 2009. No joke.

What If I'm Wrong?

Risk Assessments

I spend a lot of time playing "What if?" We all do this. I do this when I am driving - "What if that car at the next intersection pulls out in front of me?" - when I am working - "What if that high pressure line ruptures?" - and at home - "What if I wake up and find the house is on fire?" I also spend a lot of time pondering the question "What if there are energy shortages in the near future?"

When we do this, we are generally trying to understand the potential consequences of various responses to a given situation. This sort of exercise is a form of risk assessment, and it is a very important tool for making decisions about events that could impact the future. Sometimes the consequences are minor. If I choose not to take an umbrella to work and it rains, there is probably a small consequence. If I choose to pass a car on a blind hill, the consequence may be severe, and may extend to other people.

In this essay I will explore the implications of the question: "What if my viewpoint is wrong?"

What If I'm Wrong About Peak Oil?

I guess it was my training as a scientist that emphasized to me that conclusions are tentative (I was two years into a Ph.D. in chemistry before I decided the job prospects were better for a chemical engineer). They are subject to revision as additional data come in, and you have to always be willing to consider that you may be wrong. But acknowledging that I could be wrong has to go hand-in-hand with the consequences of being wrong.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the possible consequences of peak oil. My view on peak oil is that it presents an enormous challenge for humanity, that we will begin to face these challenges within 10 years, and that there is no easy solution. I see spiking oil prices and the subsequent fallout as a prelude to what lies ahead. These views have influenced my profession, where I have chosen to live, what I read, and what I say to others. Fear of peak oil has influenced some people not to attend college, or to quit their jobs and move away to remote locations. It has even caused some people to decide against having children. But what if I am wrong about the timing of peak oil? What are the consequences?

For me, this one has low consequences. If I am wrong and we have adequate oil supplies for the next 40 years, then perhaps I live a more frugal life than I might have otherwise. I prefer to walk, ride a bike, or take a train instead of hopping into a car to drive some place. When I drive, I probably drive a smaller car than I would have otherwise. Then again, I have always been frugal, so perhaps I would have done all of these things regardless. The one thing that it may have impacted upon in a major way is my interest in energy.

But if I am right, then I have plans in place to manage the impact as well as I can. Those plans start with minimizing my energy consumption. It is my small insurance policy. If the worst case doomers turn out to be right, then there isn't a lot I can do except try to make sure my family and I are in circumstances that minimize the risk. Further, I have done a lot of work that is aimed at improving our energy security in the years ahead. That work includes promoting renewable energy technologies that I think can make a long-term contribution, but also arguing for conservation, and better utilization of our own natural resources. So if I am correct, then I have chosen to work on things that have the potential to mitigate the consequences.

But what if the other side is wrong? Government agencies devoted to monitoring our natural resources often reassure us that there is plenty of oil for decades to come. But what if the government, industry, etc. turn out to have missed the mark on peak oil? In that case I think we will be in for a lot of trouble.

If the peak comes quickly and the decline is steep, I believe we will be wholly unprepared. There is not a cheap, easy substitute for oil. Much higher prices will be inevitable in such a situation. Industries - such as the airline industry - won't be prepared and we will see perhaps entire industries go bankrupt. While I do believe that over time we can transition to natural gas vehicles (and our supplies of natural gas look adequate for a while), that will take some time. If the government is wrong and the peak happens much sooner than expected, we will be in for a very difficult transition period.

What If I am Wrong on Global Warming?

Another question I think a lot about is "What If I am Wrong on Global Warming?" To me, this one is more complicated. If the Al Gore contingent is correct, then we are facing some very major problems. As I have written before, I don't expect us to be able to rein in carbon dioxide emissions, so I see a future with ever higher atmospheric CO2. And while I tend to come down on the side that human activity is contributing to global warming, the scientist in me reminds me that "conclusions are tentative."

On the one hand we have potential global devastation if Al Gore is correct (because again, I believe carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to climb). On the other hand are those who believe that human activities play little or no role in global warming. They view the opposition as putting global economies at risk by putting a price on carbon emissions. While I think global devastation is a much worse consequence than economic stagnation, the impact of that could be pretty severe as well.

So we have two camps, each of which thinks if the other side gets their way it will lead to global disaster. So we get a lot of vitriol in this debate, which I don't like. I don't know what the ultimate outcome on this one will be, but one thing I don't want to see is the debate stifled by placing derogatory labels on those with whom you disagree.

I never discount the possibility that I could be wrong about something. I would say that precious few of my views are embedded in granite. That's why I write this blog; to discuss, debate, learn, and change my mind when reason dictates that.

Tariffs in the Climate Bill

A number of people have written to ask why I haven't commented on the climate bill. There are two reasons. First, the House and Senate versions are very different, so the final form may not resemble the version the House just passed. Second, I haven't had the time to read through much of it.

There was one issue that I considered quite important, but I didn't know whether it was in the bill. Jim Mulva was recently quoted as saying that the climate bill would impose higher taxes on domestic fuel versus imports. While we can agree that Mulva's comments are self-serving, I also believe that most people would oppose a bill that shifts more of our fuel supply to imports.

While I know the goal here is to favor renewable energy, what happens if it can't fill a void left if the new bill discourages domestic production? The void will be filled by imports. Prices will also rise, so some of the void will be filled by conservation. But in order to keep the playing field level, I really liked the idea proposed by Jeff Rubin: If you place a carbon tax on domestic production, you can place a carbon tariff on imports. This idea was discussed in my review of his book Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization.

I hadn't heard any discussion of this until today. From Steven Mufson of the Washington Post:

Obama Praises Climate Bill's Progress but Opposes Its Tariffs

President Obama yesterday said that the House took an "extraordinary first step" by passing a climate bill on Friday, adding that he hoped it will "prod" action by the Senate and predicting that the legislation could make renewable energy "a driver of economic growth."

But he said he hopes that Congress will strip out a clause that would impose a tariff in 2020 on imports from countries without systems for pricing or limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Obama went on to suggest that there were other protections built in that will keep the playing field level. I would like to know what those are. I can understand how tariffs would do it (although enforcement raises some sticky questions). But I have heard enough double-speak on energy policy that I want to see the fine details of how the playing field will be kept level.

Make no mistake: This bill is a tax increase. That's the basis for the political opposition. But I have long advocated a tax increase on fossil fuels to slow the rate at which we are using them up (and to make renewables more competitive). So I don't oppose the bill on the basis that it is a tax increase. On the other hand I can't say that I endorse it, because I haven't read it. I certainly believe there are more efficient ways of raising carbon taxes than this. I still think - perhaps naively - that my proposal to tilt the tax code toward higher fossil fuel taxes and lower income taxes would be more attractive than this.

Geothermal's Earthquake Problem

In a recent post - It's Always Something - I argued that for seemingly every renewable option, there is a trade-off. In that particular essay I was discussing a recent report that suggested that jatropha curcas - which I have written about as an intriguing option for renewable, liquid fuels - has very large water requirements. It is also poisonous, and was banned as an invasive species by the Western Australian State government. So as the title suggested, there always seems to be a catch with any of these options.

Geothermal energy is one of the most promising renewable energy technologies. There are a number of commercial geothermal plants already in operation (the U.S. is the world leader in geothermal energy), and the economics are much more favorable than some of the other choices. Geothermal electricity makes a much larger contribution to the electricity mix than does solar power, and does not suffer from the intermittency issue. A 2006 report from NREL (PDF warning) concluded that the potential for domestic geothermal energy at a depth of 2 miles (3 kilometers) is 30,000 times all current annual U.S. energy usage.

But while the current plants in operation utilize geothermal energy that is close to the surface, tapping deeper into the earth would hugely increase the geothermal potential. The only problem is that this sort of deep drilling can cause earthquakes. From the New York Times:

Deep in Bedrock, Clean Energy and Quake Fears

BASEL, Switzerland — Markus O. Häring, a former oilman, was a hero in this city of medieval cathedrals and intense environmental passion three years ago, all because he had drilled a hole three miles deep near the corner of Neuhaus Street and Shafer Lane. He was prospecting for a vast source of clean, renewable energy that seemed straight out of a Jules Verne novel: the heat simmering within the earth’s bedrock.

All seemed to be going well — until Dec. 8, 2006, when the project set off an earthquake, shaking and damaging buildings and terrifying many in a city that, as every schoolchild here learns, had been devastated exactly 650 years before by a quake that sent two steeples of the Münster Cathedral tumbling into the Rhine.

Hastily shut down, Mr. Häring’s project was soon forgotten by nearly everyone outside Switzerland. As early as this week, though, an American start-up company, AltaRock Energy*, will begin using nearly the same method to drill deep into ground laced with fault lines in an area two hours’ drive north of San Francisco.

The New York Times article goes into a lot of detail about why the deeper geothermal techniques cause earthquakes, but it also gives a good overview of the geothermal potential. I think the solution to this - if they can't come up with techniques that don't spawn earthquakes - is to only tap geothermal in relatively uninhabited locations. There are lots of places in the Western United States that have very low population densities, but very high geothermal potential.

Regardless, geothermal is one of those options that I think is around for the long haul, and won't require endless subsidies in order to be competitive.

* As a footnote, AltaRock Energy is a company that Vinod Khosla has invested in. AltaRock also has some information at their site about how geothermal works.