Planktos. No, it's not where Aquaman was born. Planktos Science is a San Francisco-based company that wants to capture and sequester carbon dioxide in the ocean with iron filings and plankton. An earlier incarnation of the company was dissolved after disagreements among the management team. It also failed to gather funds. Russ George, however, is trying again with Planktos Science. Because there is a lot of interest in the company, here is a republication of an email he sent out to reporters on the latest development and position of Planktos Science: "It's the tip of the dry ice berg "I have read some of the many news reports on the ocean acidification and reef crisis that are presently extant. I beg to differ with the position that reducing our global carbon footprint will help save our ocean bathing beauties, the reefs. It's not that I don't fully support reducing our carbon footprint, I am rather more concerned about the role of the present deadly dose of anthropogenic CO2 already in the air on its way to our surface ocean waters. Those hundreds of billions of tonnes of anthropogenic CO2, the bulk of which we've prescribed and put en route in the past 75 years, is slowly dissolving into the surface ocean. By most accounts CO2 in the atmosphere takes on the order of 200 years to equilibrate with the surface ocean. Hence the pH drop we've been recording is just the proverbial tip of the dry-iceberg. "As the surface ocean absorbs the rest of this deadly dose, regardless of whether we emit more which we surely are doing, the acidification process already destined to occur is more than sufficient to change ocean ecology in far wider and disastrous fashion than merely scalding the bathing beauties at the shore. In fact the devastating effects CO2 has on the ocean is not proceeding only via H2O+CO2=H2CO3 (carbonic acid), there is a secondary reaction wherein CO2 is enhancing the greeness of the planets dry lands. There is is a major benefit our high and rising CO2 delivers to droughty grasses who are losing less water via evapotranspiration, remaining green and growing bushier each spring, and as such are superior ground cover thus reducing topsoil loss in the wind. Tragically that dust in the wind is the major source of vital mineral micronutrients for the open ocean. Prophetically it seems, all we really are is dust in the wind. "So as our reef beauties cry out and dissolve like Dorothy's wicked witch in our acidifying oceans, the acidification will certainly continue for at least another century unabated even if we never emit another molecule of fossil CO2 into the air. At the same time as the oceans suffer this chemical shock treatment, like those we give our swimming pools, they will continue as well to lose their photosynthetic capacity to counter this onslaught. The loss of net primary productivity, NPP, is reportedly 17% in the North Atlantic, 26% in the North Pacific, and 50% in the sub-tropical tropical oceans. "We can find the fundamental proof of the depth of this problem by considering it from the point of view of basic chemical thermodynamics. Indeed we have expended a hundred terrawatts or so burning fossil carbon to put that deadly dose of CO2 into our atmosphere and ocean. No trivial energy savings will serve to counter its certain first principals chemical effects. We can still trust in what the Second Law of Thermodynamics teaches us in that one must balance equations energetically. If we are to address a problem created by terrawatts of energy we must devote terrawatts of energy. In this case those curative terrawatts better be emission free or we are lost. "So where is there a source of emission free terrawatts of curative power we can devote to saving the oceans and help restore the balance of Nature? It is of course ONLY available from photosynthesis and therein lies the course we must chart to restore our oceans as we must surely not simply imagine the damage we've prescribed can simply be ignored and start from the present mortally wounded state. No mere conservation ethic or effort will suffice, we are far to far over the tipping point for that to work. We must replenish and restore ocean photosynthesis for there in the vast living ocean expanse the terrawatts of power, solar power, can be found and used to compete with the H2O+CO2=H2CO3 reaction. There in lies hope if we act now to assist the ocean plants, phyto-plankton, to convert CO2 in the ocean to life instead of death. Without replenished mineral micronutrients, without our determined efforts to administer the antidote, life in the oceans, and on this small blue planet, will surely revert to the cyanobacteroa; state from whence it came. "If you are a religious person you might liken what we need to do as seeking absolution for our sins of emission by our acts of contrition and ecorestoration, otherwise the path to perdition is that of dissolution of those sins into dying oceans," George wrote

I moderated a solar thermal panel at Intersolar on Wednesday with three major players in the rapidly emerging solar thermal market – Ausra's Glen Davis, Acciona's Gilbert Cohen and Josef Eichhamer of Solar Millennium. All of the firms that were on the panel have major contracts to provide power, are building or have built numerous power projects already, and – in the case of Acciona and Solar Millennium – have years of real power generation experience with massive scale solar thermal power plants. These are not naïve startups with hopes of sales but active and successful providers of utility-scale power. All of the participants on this panel used variations of a mirrored-trough style architecture. Ausra’s Glen Davis discussed the significant differences in financing solar thermal projects versus financing wind projects. Here’s a quick rundown of Glen’s major points: Acciona's Gilbert Cohen may have more experience in solar thermal projects than anyone on this planet, which is why we were fortunate that he was able to give us a summary of the real world performance of a project he has seen through from start to finish – the 64-megawatt Nevada Solar One. Here are some photos and videos of the project. Nevada Solar One cost $266 million to build and at $3,700 per megawatt installed represents the lowest cost per watt of any solar thermal project to date. Mr. Cohen sees this price plummeting even further as more experience is amassed and as supply chains become more mature. The plant is producing reliable power right now (if you’re reading this in the daytime) and is actually producing 11 percent more power than predicted. This level of brilliant success will pave the way for more solar thermal projects with confident, motivated financiers. Nevada Solar One (pictured on the right) is producing power today. We also heard from Josef Eichhamer of Solar Millennium who extolled the virtues of incorporating molten salt storage into a solar thermal system. The addition of a Thermal Energy Storage system can add up to seven hours of dispatchable power to a plant profile. This does a lot to dispel any notion of renewable energy being unpredictable. Eichhammer said, “This is firm power, not intermittent.� Some fun salt facts: TES's plant uses 27,500 tons of salt. It's tanks are 14 meters high and 38 meters in diameter. The salt (KNO3) costs about $1,600 per ton. TES allows utilities to meet peak demand with solar power even if the sun is not out. This is especially important in Spain where many of these projects are being built, as Spain has a unique power profile with a peak at midnight! Massive storage tanks for molten salt Thermal Energy Storage (TES) at the Andasol project can be seen in this image. Solar thermal power with thermal storage is here today and with no fuel risks and no carbon footprint should grow faster than anyone has predicted.

Buildings are the George Harrison of green tech. Usually, it's the first two guys--solar and biofuels--that come to mind when the green tech gets debated. Buildings are typically in the "oh yeah, that too" category. But entrepreneurs and VCs are gravitating toward the topic and for good reason. Buildings account for nearly half of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (the emissions come from generating power to run lights and HVAC systems.). Many investors also believe that green buildings will be one of the few sectors in green tech that will not require subisidies. Why? Buildings aren't very energy efficiency so plenty of opportunity exists to cut waste and the components for cutting power aren't orders of magnitude more expensive than conventional parts. Some major contractors have told me constructing a new building to at least low LEED standards only adds about three percent to the overall cost. To prod the industry further, California has just announced a plan to adopt a construction code that will aim to cut energy usage in buildings by 15 percent and water use by 20 percent. Water for landscaping will be cut by 50 percent. The exact regulations for hitting these goals will likely be issued by late 2010 or early 2011. These are subisidies--just regulations, like CAFE standards. Some companies to watch out for? In green homes, keep an eye on for Michelle Kaufman Designs, Zeta Communities, and Living Homes. Then there is Serious Materials (green drywall and energy efficient windows), Cal-Star Cement, Hycrete, Aspen Aerogels (thin, efficient insulation) Luminus Devices and all of the other LED companies, and Ice Energy (ice-powered cooling system) among others. Some of these and more companies will be displaying their products at West Coast Green in September.