A new MIT-led study on high-temperature geothermal potential in the United States concludes that there’s a lot more we should be doing to tap this energy goldmine. What we’re talking about here are what MIT calls “enhanced geothermal systems” that capture heat miles under the Earth’s surface and turns that thermal energy into electricity. This should not be confused with low-temperature geothermal or “Earth systems” — another large, untapped energy source — that use ground-source heat pumps or so-called “geoexchange systems” to provide heating and air conditioning for homes and buildings.

News.com has a summary of the study in this story. One of the research panelists behind the study is the University of Calgary’s Michal Moore, who is a former commissioner with the California Energy Commission and a former chief economist with the U.S. government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. I’ve got a call into Dr. Moore and I’m hoping he can tell me if there’s anything in this U.S.-focused study that could be extrapolated for Canada.

The study’s concluding recommendation is compelling: “Based on growing markets in the United States for clean, base-load capacity, the panel thinks that with a combined public/private investment of about $800 million to $1 billion over a 15-year period, EGS technology could be deployed commercially on a timescale that would produce more than 100,000 MWe or 100 GWe of new capacity by 2050. This amount is approximately equivalent to the total R&D investment made in the past 30 years to EGS internationally, which is still less than the cost of a single, new-generation clean-coal plant.”

The study’s panel urges U.S. authorities to begin making this investment ASAP, given the “enormous potential” and technical progress that has been achieved so far in the area. “Having EGS as an option will strengthen America’s energy security for the long term in a manner that complements other renewables, clean fossil, and next-generation nuclear.”

The beauty with high-temperature geothermal is it provides baseload power, like hydro-electric and nuclear, so unlike solar and wind there’s no intermittency issues. Also, the waste heat from electricity generation can be used for district heating and hot water. Another bonus is, like hydro-electric, once the facility is built it lasts for several decades without the need for any fuel. The only company in Canada I know of that’s serious about this business is Vancouver, B.C.-based Western Geopower.

It would be so nice if we could develop more of this geothermal in the United States and Canada. I had the opportunity two years ago to visit Iceland for a tour of its geothermal facilities. It was a eye-opening experience, particularly the opportunity to swim in the Blue Lagoon — basically a lagoon filled with the tolerably hot water that’s a byproduct of a facility’s operations (see picture accompanying this post — which I took).

Check out The Gristmill Blog for a summary of Vinod Khosla’s cleantech predictions for 2007. Among other things, he predicts that this year will be the year of cellulosic ethanol, and that we’ll see the first ethanol IPO announced (taking place in 2008). I should point out that we might have an ethanol IPO in Canada before that time if speculation about Greenfield Ethanol turns out true. And who knows? Perhaps SunOpta will decide to spin out its cellulosic ethanol technology business? Then there’s Biox, of course, and its whole biodiesel play… oh, and Lignol Innovations, which is expected to go public with a reverse takeover… but I digress.

Check out The Gristmill Blog for a summary of Vinod Khosla’s cleantech predictions for 2007. Among other things, he predicts that this year will be the year of cellulosic ethanol, and that we’ll see the first ethanol IPO announced (taking place in 2008). I should point out that we might have an ethanol IPO in Canada before that time if speculation about Greenfield Ethanol turns out true. And who knows? Perhaps SunOpta will decide to spin out its cellulosic ethanol technology business? Then there’s Biox, of course, and its whole biodiesel play… oh, and Lignol Innovations, which is expected to go public with a reverse takeover… but I digress.

Joel Makower has a great commentary about the whole “carbon neutral” bandwagon and how every corporation wants to jump on. The problem, he says, is we don’t really have a standard definition of what the term means, meaning any company can make the stretch by calling themselves or their services carbon neutral. He fears the rush to use the term as a marketing tool will water down the meaning, and at the same time discourage what we really need to do: reduce our energy consumption. Makower has a great anology, comparing a company claiming that a service is carbon neutral to a person who orders a Diet Coke with their Big Mac and Fries. The idea is to reduce calories, not just offset them. Are we doing ourselves a disservice by using claims of carbon neutrality as an excuse for our excess consumption? It’s worth the four-minute read.

Joel Makower has a great commentary about the whole “carbon neutral” bandwagon and how every corporation wants to jump on. The problem, he says, is we don’t really have a standard definition of what the term means, meaning any company can make the stretch by calling themselves or their services carbon neutral. He fears the rush to use the term as a marketing tool will water down the meaning, and at the same time discourage what we really need to do: reduce our energy consumption. Makower has a great anology, comparing a company claiming that a service is carbon neutral to a person who orders a Diet Coke with their Big Mac and Fries. The idea is to reduce calories, not just offset them. Are we doing ourselves a disservice by using claims of carbon neutrality as an excuse for our excess consumption? It’s worth the four-minute read.