My friend Tom Rand has a short but no less interesting video filmed during a presentation he gave recently in Toronto. Rand helped build a “green hotel” that emits a quarter of the emissions of a comparable hotel. The workhouse behind this approach is geothermal, and Rand said it can be done in a way where energy savings exceed the monthly payments on a long-term low-interest loan. Now, the key is to get that cheap loan. Rand said it’s up to the federal and provincial governments to backstop such loans and mandate the banks to lend the money. It would help, he added, if use of this technology was mandated where it was appropriate. This, as Rand says, is low-hanging fruit that we’re simply not picking. Instead, with each new building or home we build we’re letting this ripe-for-picking fruit fall on the ground. Rand, it should be pointed out, is behind another move to have the government sell green bonds that would help fund these kinds of projects, or backstop the low-interest loans required to do them. It’s all perfectly logical, but I guess politics is never as logical as it could be.

Click here to watch the short video.

But Alter NRG decided it was a nice opportunity to diversify its business, considering the plasma gasification market still requires some time to mature. Company president and CEO Mark Montemurro said Alter NRG has the balance sheet and executive team that will help CED or “CleanEnergy” grow its business, which today sits at $6 million in revenues. “From a cash position, the acquisition provides for more stable and near-term revenue and cashflow from geoexchange installations which will be enhanced by the larger but less predictable plasma gasification equipment sales,” the company said.

I wrote about CleanEnergy a few years ago, when the company was just getting started. Back then, its primary focus was to work with homebuilders that wanted to include geoexchange systems as an option for new homebuyers. One of its first projects was in 2006 with Ontario-based Marshall Homes, which offered geothermal and solar thermal as an option in one of its subdivisions. These days, CleanEnergy is busy installing geoexchange systems for hotels, schools, commercial office buildings, and high-end homes. It still works with builders, but will also work directly with large customers.

Alter NRG knew it had to come up with some way of generating cash flow. Selling gasification systems is a risky business and has long sales cycles, while selling geoexchange systems can take place in a rapidly maturing market that is currently supported with generous government subsidies. Sales cycles are shorter, allowing for cash flow. So while it might seem like an odd fit for NRG, it could turn out to be a wise acquisition.

Meanwhile, I’m encouraged to see interest in tapping geothermal energy as a byproduct of oil and gas production in the Canadian west. A British Columbia-based company called Free Energy International has signed a deal with an undisclosed oil and gas exploration and production company in Alberta, in an area known as Swan Hills. Free Energy will build two 1-megawatt geothermal plants that take hot water — a co-product of oil and natural gas during the pumping process —  and extract the heat from it to generate electricity. The $7 million project will tap wells that are around 9,000 feet deep, and temperatures of the fluids can easily reach 170 degrees F in high volumes. After the heat is extracted from the water using heat exchangers, it is used to run an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) power plant. The water is later pumped back into the ground. Free Energy will build, own and operate this binary cycle plant and the oil company has agreed to buy all the electricity produced for the same rate it was paying to a previous supplier.

I’m hoping this new approach will catch on in Canada’s oil patch, the same way it’s being tried out in Texas. Indeed, a new Calgary-based company has recently been formed called Borealis Geopower, which was recently awarded $2.6 million from the Alberta Energy Research Institute to develop a similar project in the province. “Hot water resource is readily available through the existence of numerous deep, end-of-life oil and gas wells in the Canadian Foothills and the use of hot water resource for electricity production has the potential to increase energy efficiency and offer carbon offsets for the oil and gas companies,” Borealis states on its Web site.

These are the kinds of geothermal projects that could really take off, particularly if companies such as Borealis and Free Energy can prove them to be economical for oil companies trying desperately to reduce their carbon footprints as cap-and-trade approaches. If they can demonstrate this works, it will also capture the attention of the Alberta and Canadian governments. Having 100MW-plus geothermal plants built in Canada would be nice, too, but this kind of distributed geothermal energy generation makes oodles of sense and should be pursued with vigour.

Been crazy busy this past week but there’s been no shortage of interesting news in the cleantech and green energy space, so I’ll summarize a few of them here instead of doing individual posts. BTW: Hope everyone is enjoying their summer.

Click to the next page to read about General Fusion’s new infusion of cash, new fluids that can make enhanced geothermal more efficient, a McKinsey report that details the incredible payback of investments in energy efficency, and a University of Calgary report that says Alberta would benefit tremendously by plugging into electric transportation.

* Vancouver-based General Fusion, which is trying to build a low-budget nuclear fusion power reactor, raised $9 million from private investors, which triggers a $4.5 million grant from Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It’s enough to get it through the first two-year phase of a four-year project that will see it design and build a test fusion reactor that can demonstrate “net gain.” Projected cost: $50 million. The company is aiming to build a 100 megawatt prototype power plant five years later — sometime before 2020, at least — which would beat the ITER project in France by, oh, two decades. And at an estimated $500 million it would come in at a fraction of the cost. Go, boys, go! (See MIT Technology Review story here).

* Another MIT Technology Review story takes a look at work being done at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on a new type of heat-absorbing fluid that could be used with binary-cycle geothermal power projects to boost efficiency by 20 to 30 per cent. The fluid is a mixture of organic liquid and metal nanoparticles bonded by organic “linkers.” Researchers figure that the heat-trapping efficiency of the mixture, when used as a working fluid in a closed loop to extract heat from a primary fluid (i.e. the hot water pumped from underground) can improve the economics of enhanced geothermal power projects, either by allowing a plant to be built with a smaller heat exchanger (a big part of a plant’s cost) or by reducing the depth of drilling required to access heat in rock (i.e. the fluid allows the plant to do more with less underground heat). It may sound boring, but this is potentially a huge breakthrough for geothermal.

* I encourage you to read Joe Romm at Climate Progress and his post about a new report from consultancy giant McKinsey, which has found through comprehensive analysis that a $520 billion (U.S.) investment in energy efficiency in the United States through to 2020 would yield energy savings of more than $1.2 trillion — in other words, a payback of $680 million billion. “Such a program is estimated to reduce end-use energy consumption in 2020 by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs, roughly 23 per cent of projected demand, potentially abating up to 1.1 gigatons of CO2 annually.” McKinsey wisely included co-generation/CHP as part of its analysis — a crucial component that’s too often overlooked. As Romm points out, the savings and CO2 reductions are even more impressive considering McKinsey’s analysis doesn’t even touch on the transportation sector and potential for reductions there.

* Over at the University of Calgary, meanwhile, a report has been released that shows it would be a no-brainer for Alberta to embrace plug-in hybrid vehicles. “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could release 40 to 90 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta than conventional passenger vehicles,” researchers found. It’s an interesting conclusion, given that over 90 per cent of Alberta’s power generation comes from fossil-fuel based resources — coal, natural gas and oil — the highest in Canada. Now, we’ve seen studies before that suggest even with 100 per cent coal you still get emission reductions, but nowhere near 40 per cent, let alone 90 per cent. Getting those levels, researcher say, requires “smart charging systems” that could make the most of Alberta’s growing wind resources. In other words, an infrastructure that would know to charge cars only when the wind is blowing, typically at night. Of course, the potential for smart charging applies to any jurisdiction, but it’s good to see folks in Alberta giving it serious thought.

Solution simple: Let the company broaden its energy offerings so it can pursue geothermal, solar thermal and other green energy offerings beyond just pilot projects. Yes, Enbridge’s current restrictions were created to ensure fair competition, but if others could do what Marshall Homes envisions, why aren’t they stepping up? (I should say, however, that local electric distribution company Veridian Connections is interested in working with Marshall, but the problem with working with LDCs is that you’re limited to a smaller service territory. Go outside that territory and you have to start all over again with a new LDC). Unleashing Enbridge could make a difference. Few companies have the scope, reach, engineering know-how and clout to take the district heating concept, so popular in Europe, and make it an attractive offering to builders of new subdivisions throughout the province.

See my column here discussing the Marshall Homes project and the role that Enbridge could play, if permitted.

The U.K. plant is expected to be operational by 2012. Needless to say, this approach could easily be done throughout Alberta, particularly in the oil sands, even in some locations in Ontario and other provinces. If the U.K. can do it, hell, certainly there are parts of Canada that can. In late May the Obama administration committed $140 million to geothermal demonstration projects, $80 million for enhanced geothermal R&D, and $100 million for new drilling techniques and innovation.

And Canada? The big goose egg.

The data is old — dating back to 1985 and earlier — but the Geological Survey of Canada is beginning to put together an inventory of geothermal resources across the country. The first study, published online last month in the journal Natural Resources Research, calculated total potential geothermal energy down to 250 metres. One of the most interesting findings, however, was that the temperature gradient wasn’t as steep as historically expected. The reason, the researchers concluded, is that  increases in surface temperature due to global warming was causing the first 50 metres of subsurface to also warm. It means the gap between temperature 50 metres down and temperature 100 metres and 200 metres down has narrowed. (See Toronto Star article here, in which researcher Stephen Grasby says in some locations shallow subsurface temperature has increased by a few degrees Celsius).

They put a positive spin on this finding, suggesting that there’s more thermal energy for home and residential heat-pump systems to tap, and that this energy will displace the use of fossil fuels. Hardly something to cheer about, however, given the initial causes of the warming.

Across Canada, it was found that total potential resource down to 50 metres was the equivalent of 190 million barrels of oil, roughly the size of recoverable oil-sand reserves. Of course, only a small fraction of that could ever be tapped economically because of its distributed nature. But certainly, where there’s population, the renewable resource is there to exploit.

Grasby said another study in the works will estimate likely recoverable shallow geothermal reserves, while a third “EGS” study to be published later this year will estimate total potential high-temperature geothermal reserves down to seven kilometres. But as you’ll read in the Toronto Star article, we’ve got to get some updated data if we are to seriously pursue the geothermal and EGS power generation opportunity in Canada. Funding is needed for the collection of new data from the field and studies must to done to identify high-priority areas for development and to craft the regulatory framework that would support that development.

Alison Thompson, executive director of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association, told me $1 million in funding would support 30 or so studies that could be turned around in less than six months. Without this kind of up-to-date research it will be difficult to take the industry to the next stage — i.e. project development — because the data will be needed to convince politicians and senior-level bureaucrats that the area is worthy of serious attention and funding.

Just $1 million. It’s not much when compared to the billions being devoted to carbon capture and storage research and development. Funny thing is that geothermal has much more potential to displace natural gas use in the oil sands — and avoid associated GHG emissions — than anything CCS can deliver over the next decade.

BTW: The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association will be holding its first major industry conference in decades on April 22, which is appropriately Earth Day. The buzz or lack of buzz at this conference will be a good barometer of how serious Canadian politicians and industry folk are about pursuing the geothermal opportunity. Stay tuned.

The Pembina Institute came out with a report this month that explores the many ways Alberta could transition away from coal and toward more sustainable and cleaner forms of electricity generation. I was most impressed with the section on geothermal, given that in Canada there hasn’t been much interest in this renewable source of power, with the exception of yours truly and a dozen or so industry and academic folks who are trying to draw attention to this immense opportunity.

According to the Pembina report, “very little information has been gathered on the size of Alberta’s geothermal potential,” however “research data that is available shows that the potential is enormous.”

Pembina says there is an estimated 21 billion gigawatt-hours of energy released every year below the surface of Alberta at depths of less than 5 km. “Even with the conservation assumption that only 0.5 per cent of this potential is recoverable, it represents the equivalent of roughly 14 million megawatts of generating capacity.” That, it goes on the point out, is more than 1,100 times the current total installed generating capacity of Alberta. This doesn’t even include depths greater than 5 km, which could be tapped using enhanced or “engineered” geothermal systems (EGS).

When Pembina explores the barriers to implementation, we get explanations such as “lack of awareness” and “uncertain resource” because of insufficient research and data. There is also the issue of uncertain costs, not so much with conventional geothermal but with the use of EGS. Another barrier is the challenges of drilling to depths of several kilometres.

The first two barriers, of course, shouldn’t be there in the first place. There’s no reason why we can’t raise awareness and conduct more research around this promising form of renewable energy. Sadly, it’s not on the radar of federal politicians (though, to their credit, some bureacrats are working away in the background).

I met up with Canadian Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt last week, and when I mentioned geothermal as an opportunity in Alberta she was a deer in headlights. Meanwhile, her colleague Jim Prentice, environment minister, spent much of a speech last week in Calgary downplaying the potential of renewables and talking up the need to “do no harm” against companies in the oil patch. Let me repeat: This guy is environment minister.

On the other two barriers — uncertain costs and drilling challenges — Pembina had this to say:

On costs…

Costs are no less certain than CCS which has already received significant public investments both provincially and federally. The potentially vast scale of geothermal resources in Alberta warrants significant consideration in this same vein.

On drilling:

While wells of 1 or 2 kilometers deep are the norm in Alberta, many wells in Alberta are drilled to depths of 4 km and some as deep as 7 km. Alberta has significant experience in drilling and experimenting with new drilling techniques. Existing research programs should shift from conventional petroleum drilling to geothermal. Research dollars currently allocated to developing drilling capability in the oil patch should be reallocated to applying existing knowledge to geothermal applications.

It did, however, estimate the cost at $70 per megawatt-hour on the assumption 10,000 MW of geothermal was developed in the province. That’s slightly cheaper than its estimates for wind, which is variable. Geothermal, on the other hand, is more valuable as a baseload power source.

Bottom line: Let’s stop ignoring this amazing resource.

But it appears the federal government — or its scientists, at least — are beginning to take notice. I recently had an e-mail exchange with Stephen Grasby, who is a geologist with the Geological Survey of Canada (part of Natural Resources Canada). I had asked Grasby about a rather primitive map of Canada’s geothermal resources that he had prepared, and whether there were more details behind it. He assured me it was “just a first order of approximation” and that the department is “currently working on a series of maps that provide contoured temperatures at different depths.”

Grasby conceded there’s “very little data” for temperatures deeper than 4 kilometres anywhere in the country. “So the best we can do is extrapolate temperature gradients,” he said, adding that the survey also has enhanced geothermal (EGS) on its radar. “The EGS is an exciting opportunity but we know little about the potential in Canada as of yet. Currently we are assessing what data and knowledge on geothermal potential we have as the previous Geothermal Energy Program was ended in 1985 and there is some consideration being given to restarting some activities on that front.”

It’s a small, but positive step. Now, more than ever, is the time to start pressuring the federal government to move faster and more decisively in this direction. The opportunity for renewable baseload power generation in this country is too significant to ignore.

Then I get this notice in my inbox, with the headline: “Potential oil fields being opened for exploratory drilling in the Atlantic Northeast of Iceland.” Wah? Apparently the Icelandic government made a decision in January to open up drilling and is holding a conference next week to talk about the opportunity. “We have high expectations of finding oil in the Dreki area since scientific research has indicated that valuable oil resources may be found there,” said Iceland’s Minister of Industry Össur Skarphédinsson. “We therefore urge all parties interested in new oil fields in northern areas to attend the conference in Reykjavik.”

Is this depressing or what? If there was one country I figured could stick to its guns, I would have said Iceland. Now, it risks being a hypocrite where it was once a leader.