With higher population growth rates and less established energy infrastructures than their first-world counterparts, there’s no question that developing nations will play a major role in dictating which energy technologies become the most widespread over the next century. 

While existing fossil fuels like coal and oil offer relatively inexpensive means for these nations to expand their energy resources, they also carry with them the specter of heat-trapping gases, and vulnerability to the prices of a rapidly fluctuating market.  Renewable resources avoid these issues, but bring in fewer kilowatts for the money.

So which is the best solution? For Nicaragua, the answer is both. With help from oil-rich Venezuela, the country has made a short term investment in fossil fuels to power itself until longer-term investments in hydroelectric and geothermal power can take a larger role in its energy network. Upon the completion of all projects, the Nicaraguan government expects to have enough surplus energy to sell to its neighbors. 

The jump to investments in renewable energies could make a huge contribution to political stability, with a budget devoid of worries about oil crises or carbon taxes. And the immediate boost in energy resources should help keep the country stable until then. It’s a best-of-both worlds arrangement and may serve as a model for other nations in the future.

Photo by Flickr user Trees for the Future

While I’ve loved seeing the waves of commuters switching over to mass transit to escape the pinch of higher gas prices, as well as the ever-more obvious impacts of a large carbon footprint, consensus around the country seems to be that transit systems are overcrowded, underfunded, and behind schedule. 

Meanwhile, transit chiefs and commissioners all seem to get to work in taxpayer-funded company cars—excuse me, I meant taxpayer-funded SUVs. Yes, they may be hybrids, but still; it doesn’t exactly inspire rider confidence to hear transit spokesmen say they need a company car to “quickly respond to emergencies or other events." Might as well say "don't use transit if you're in a hurry."

The solution here is obvious, and has been a maxim in the software word for years: dogfooding. What good does it do riders if the people in charge of transit system have no first-hand experience with conditions on the line? If transit agencies want the same success the tech sector has seen, the solution starts at the turnstile, not the driver’s seat. 

As the clientele for such services as green auditing, many companies offering such services have found themselves with a shortage of trained help. Strategic Sustainability Consulting (SSC), based in Maryland, has begun offering training for green auditors. Those auditors who complete the course will be 'Certified SSC Green Auditors.'

The first session is at the end of August, in Washington D.C. and the fee is $2,500. Another is scheduled for January, with more to come. The training program is based on SSC's Green Audit methodology and will culminate in a certification from SSC, valid for one year. SSC's classes will be made up of consultants who want to provide auditing services to small businesses, especially those organizations that don't have the resources to dedicate personnel to green strategies.

"We've been providing SSC Green Audits for more than two years, offering our small business clients a cost-effective, reliable way to assess their current environmental performance and identify ways to go green," said Jennifer Woofter, the president of SSC in an interview with GreenBiz. "Now, we're offering consultants across the country the opportunity to learn our methodology and apply it with their own clients."

Woofter has seen the demand for green auditors rise sharply since she founded SSC two years ago. SSC works with 250 freelance consultants and is looking to add to that number. She expects to take on at least 20 new projects by October. SSC expects to certify between 60 and 75 consultants each year through the training program, and will most likely hire from that pool. But consultants who wish to work on their own — or use their skills for their current employers — will also benefit from the training course. The course covers such topics as calculating an organization's carbon footprint, gauging an organization's green weaknesses and strengths and determining employees' attitudes towards green processes.

"One of the most valuable tools in our Green Audit arsenal is our ability to benchmark clients' carbon footprints," said Woofter. "Instead of a seemingly random number of greenhouse gas emissions, we can tell you how your company stacks up against other similar organizations. That makes it easier to understand where you rank on the 'green' scale, and how much work you need to do."

The course also provides auditors with a variety of tools to complete projects, including templates and calculators. They will also have access to SSC's practices and processes.

Image — SSC

Segetis execs are keeping quiet about whether they're hiring Jim Stoppert, a former Dow and Cargill executive, but Stoppert is scheduled to represent the company next month at the Pacific Rim Summit on Industrial Biotechnology and Bioenergy. Industry sources are saying that Stoppert will step up as Segetis' next CEO, but interim CEO Doug Cameron and founder Sergey Selifonov have made no comment.

Segetis is a green chemistry start-up based in Minnesota, working on processes to make substitutes for products typically made from petroleum — plastics, solvents and other specialty chemical — from agricultural feedstocks. The company has already made a reputation for being fairly quiet about its plans. Last year, Segetis received $15 million in funding from Khosla Venture, as well as Cameron, who is Khosla Ventures' chief scientific officer.

Stoppert would be a fairly ideal match for Segetis. During his time at both Dow and Cargill, Stoppert worked with industrial bioproducts. Since his time at the chemical giants, Stoppert has also done a stint as the CEO of NatureWorks, a company using a corn-based plastic replacement for toys, containers and other products.

With the recent boom among green start-ups, it seems likely that such a move by Stoppert would be only the first of many such job changes. Executives from large energy and chemical firms are likely to make the move to cleantech companies with good prospects.

Image — Segetis

New Carbon Finance has released a report that indicates that cheap carbon credits will soon be a thing of the past. The energy research firm is specifically pointing to abatement projects for both N2O and HFC-23 — projects that are very nearly tapped out because the large returns on the credits from such projects led to higher interest.

N2O and HFC-23 are easier to clean up than other greenhouse gases and have more drastic affects as well. These factors, combined with the relatively inexpensive costs of reducing these emissions — approximately $1.50 to clean up the equivalent of one ton of CO2 — have made them a very lucrative variety of carbon credits. The going rate for carbon credits is closer to $30 per ton. But in China, where the majority of the world's N2O and HFC-23 are emitted, 80 percent of N2O emissions that can be reduced through carbon offsets are either developing credit programs or already have them in place. The same is true for all HFC-23 in China.

To meet the Kyoto Protocol targets, New Carbon Finance expects to see more money being directed to renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, rather than carbon credits. The research firm estimates that $14 billion will go to renewable energy and energy efficiency by 2012.

Image — New Carbon Finance

The record food prices seen thus far this year have had massive and broad-sweeping effects. Biofuel production from food crops, thought to be responsible for anywhere between two percent and 30 percent price spikes, has trickled off, in favor of cellulosic and algal-based fuel solutions. In less stable regions of the world, rioting and other forms of political instability have become widespread, and millions of dollars in aid has been pledged to help alleviate the crisis. 

But in other parts of the world, where cash crop agriculture is integral to the economy, the soaring fuel prices have triggered something of an economic boom. And nowhere has this boom been more pronounced than Argentina, one of the world’s largest soybean producers. But if the gains from this boom are not properly reinvested, the country could just as quickly find itself in a crash as precipitous as its rise was meteoric.

With applications ranging from biofuels to seasonings to protein food bases products, soybean demand has brought on record prices—currently $660 a ton. As you might expect, this has spurred many Argentinean farmers to dedicate more land to soy, and less to other traditional staples such as corn crops, fruit groves, and cattle cultivation. This trend toward monoculture brings on risks both economic, such as recession in the face of a price drop, and biological; a blight.

Though the use of soy strains genetically engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosphate had initially been thought to reduce the risk of biological threats to the soy crop, instead, overuse of the fertilizer has resulted in outbreaks of glyphosphate-resistant weeds, while polluting the groundwater, and weakening nutrient-poor soils in some areas of the country.  Making a bad situation worse, some farmers are clearing rainforest to create more arable land for the lucrative crop. Not only does this create land-use-change global warming, but it also contributes to a number of secondary issues, such as erosion and loss of biodiversity.

If the fruits of today’s current soy boom are contribute to Argentina’s long-term economic future, some of the profits must be reinvested into the agricultural infrastructure to ensure lasting productivity. A moderate windfall tax on soybean crops could fund a subsidy to incentivize  farmers in other markets to continue production of non-soy crops. Requirements that large-scale soy operations employ local labor, rather than displacing already impoverished farmers with increased mechanization, could reduce the spread of poverty and the release of greenhouse gases.

Most importantly, agricultural education and government oversight at the most local level could help prevent excessive herbicide use and deforestation, ensuring the long-term viability of farmlands, regardless of fluctuations in commodity exchange prices.  Though these measures would all reduce capital gains from the soy boom in the short term, the ecologically and economically sustainable level of growth they foster will not only reduce the damage a boom-and-bust cycle might have on a developing nation like Argentina, but also establish a model for future earth-friendly development in agriculturally based economies worldwide.

Photo by Flickr user Luis Argerich

The ads tout scenic vistas and the license plates say “Vacationland,”  but unlike their compatriots to the south, the people of Vinalhaven, Maine, have no qualms about the impact of nearby wind turbines on the local tourism economy.  The quintessential combination fishing village and summer getaway voted overwhelmingly to approve a 3-to-5 megawatt offshore windfarm. 

While the project’s acceptance may owe less to environmental concerns than it does to the to disproportionately high price of power in the islands, which lie some 10 miles offshore, the vote nevertheless sets an important precedent as so-called “summer colonies” across the eastern seaboard struggle to balance a lucrative tourism industry with desire to produce clean, renewable power.

It may now be that green power has become such a cause célèbre among the summer residents and visitors to these communities, that towering wind farms may draw as much commercial traffic as the undeveloped seascapes ever did. As exciting a development as that may be, it might be best to temper enthusiasm. First, so that communities aren’t motivated build wind farms for tourists in not-all-that-windy areas, and second, so that the existing short supply of wind turbines is not exacerbated.

With clear and overpowering demand among consumers for cleaner running, alternative-fuel vehicles, the internal combustion engine seems to have been left in the dust, so to speak.  But while newer, sexier vehicle technologies may steal the spotlight, there’s still something to be said for the plain old gas-powered car.

Take the newly-formed British carmaker Axon Automotive.  The company is building itself around a compact car that gets 80 miles-per-gallon, all without the assist of an expensive and somewhat complicated hybrid engine system.  Because the vehicle runs on such a well-known and widely produced technology, more money can be spent on green touches elsewhere, such as the carbon fiber body, or an infinitely variable transmission.

There’s still the issue of heat trapping emissions, but the technological advancements in other areas have dramatically reduced it—Axon’s vehicle pumps out a mere 190g per mile. In areas far from charging stations, or in rural areas where trips within the range of the average BEV are infeasible, highly-efficient internal combustion vehicles may still offer consumers the greenest options for their lifestyle and paycheck.

South Korea needs power. The country is the world's 10th largest energy consumer and watched its spending on oil, coal and natural gas soar 60 percent in six months. South Korea is committing to do something about their energy crisis, though: they're raising the national investment in alternative energy development by 60 percent this year.

That boost will bring South Korea's investment to 194.4 billion won ($193 million). The Ministry of Knowledge and Economy issued a statement saying that the money would go to biofuels, solar and wind power. The South Korean government has set a goal to bring the country to approximately 20 percent self-sufficiency. It is currently 4.2 percent self-sufficient. South Korea must import its crude oil, and is currently the 5th largest importer of crude oil. Reducing the country's despendence on outside oil even slightly will make a major difference in South Korean energy costs.

South Korea is expected to be the second fastest growing market for solar energy for the next four years according to a JP Morgan report. It's expected to grow 89 percent, though those estimates were made before today's announcement. It is not impossible that South Korea's renewable energy market could grow even beyond those estimates.

Photo — Stuck in Customs

Deloitte has just released a whitepaper on developing corporate responsibility and sustainability strategies. The paper, "The Risk Intelligent Approach to Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability," offers information on the risks and rewards of such strategies with minimal jargon, making the argument for companies to make themselves more sustainable. It starts with an analogy that just about every business person will be comfortable with: "...You could pore over producer and commodity price indices, scrutinize interest rates and share price trends, and examine labor and wage statistics. Or you could just order yourself a beer."

The paper follows up with a demonstration of sustainability issues as seen through the cost of a beer, making a potentially complex topic relatively simple.

As a consulting firm, Deloitte offers a variety of services. It has relatively recently began advising clients on the benefits of sustainability. This whitepaper ties in directly with that section of Deloitte's business.

"Smart executives know that both threats and opportunities will present themselves in this new era of corporate responsibility," said Eric Hespenheide, Deloitte & Touche LLP's Global Leader for Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability in a press release. "A risk intelligent approach encourages risk taking for reward, and such an approach to CR&S will yield benefits that extend far beyond the "feel-good" aspects of corporate responsibility. Furthermore, a successful CR&S program does not need to drain corporate resources. In fact, if strategically positioned and efficiently deployed, CR&S can help drive bottom-line profitability."

The whitepaper is available for free as a PDF you can download from Deloitte's website.

Image — Deloitte

While partisan politics may be interfering with proper analysis of the science behind global warming, it’s clear that neither party is willing to let anything stand in the way of greening up their conventions this election season—including fried food. 

That’s right: the Democrats have urged local restaurants to steer clear of unhealthy and environmentally unfriendly foods during their convention stay in Denver. The Republican response: the Democratic effort is "elitist and out of touch." The Republicans, for their part, aim to continue the conservationist tradition begun by Theodore Roosevelt by slashing paper and energy use, and holding the convention in an energy-efficient building. 

There’s really no end to the green cred one-upsmanship this year: the Republicans are using bicycles, the Democrats are buying carbon offsets. The Republicans are using biodegradable banners, the Democrats are recycling theirs into handbags. 

So who ultimately gets the win? Anyone concerned about the environment. Regardless of which party actually cuts the most carbon at their yearly fiesta, energy is being saved at both, setting a powerful precedent that I hope organizers of other national-level events will feel compelled to follow. 

It seems like just about anything can be a biofuel these days: lawn clippings, algae, even poplar trees.  At this rate, you might as well head out to the swampy area in your backyard and chop down the cattails down for processing, right?

Well, you might be dead on with that assumption.  A team of researchers at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University is investigating the potential that the humble cattail, already a fixture in swamps across the northern hemisphere, may have use as a biofuel feedstock. 

While cattails and other common marsh plants play a vital role in purifying swampy waters, the group appears to believe that the plants can be successfully culled and processed as they age, allowing stands of cattails to continue with their purification process, while providing a valuable source of ethanol as well.

Because cattails grow so abundantly and ubiquitously, and because ethanol burns so cleanly, I could see small-scale cattail processing plants potentially powering back yard grills and even lawn mowers, should this new energy source prove as promising as it currently seems.

I've been meaning to write about an article, called Climate Repair Made Simple, I saw in last month's Wired magazine on geoengineering as a solution to climate change. The piece nicely details the history of the concept and covering both sides of the argument, but kinda misses the point.

If you aren't familiar, the basic idea of atmospheric geoengineering is to use large amounts of sulfur dioxide to reflect sunlight, counteracting the effects of mounting atmospheric carbon dioxide. Every once in a while, nature demonstrates the idea for us by blowing the top off a volcano, as it did with Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which cooled global temperatures by half a degree Celcius.

Some scientists worry that unintended consequences may occur, decreasing precipitation, destroying ozone, and increasing acid rain. However, it should be said that humanity's carbon-rich lifestyle is already causing havoc in all of these areas.

I did have a problem, however, with Wired's assertion that geoengineering means that "Americans can drive their gas-guzzling SUVs to their hearts' content, and China can build as many coal-powered electricity plants as it wants." I'm sorry, exactly what planet are you on?

Geoengineering is not the solution to global warming. It is a stop-gap that will buy us time to replace fossil fuels with renewables. And let's not forget all of the other environmental and health issues caused by coal and oil.

Still, it's a much better showing than their article a few months ago, which I panned for completely missing the mark in arguing for a carbon-only strategy.

The models seem to show that the negative consequences will be minor compared to the planetary meltdown promised by global warming. As much as I hate the geoengineering to offset our past geoengineering, I think we have to seriously consider it.

But make no mistake, geoengineering the climate is not a substitute for drastically reducing CO2. It's just not that simple.


Bonus Link: A TED talk by environmental scientist David Keith making the argument for strato-seeding is also worth a look.

Fabrik, the creators of both storage hardware and software, has announced a new external drive, the SimpleTech [re]drive. According to Fabrik, the [re]drive may just be the greenest external drive produced.

The materials used to construct the [re]drive are far more sustainable than most of its counterparts. It's manufactured using bamboo and recyclable aluminum to construct the enclosure. It's energy-efficient and resource-concious to the point that even the power adaptor is Energy Star rated. The [re]drive needs significantly less power than other drives, as well.

Many businesses rely on external drives, such as the [re]drive to back up data as well as provide some level of portability in the event of a emergency. The [re]drive is ideal for such uses — it can store up to 500 GB of data. The price tag is $159.99, which is a little higher than the cost for similar drives with no claim to sustainability (top of the line 500 GB external drives are generally priced around $140). Fabrik is definitely charging a premium for its green product, but not a large one. Considering that just a few years ago, $150 wasn't out of line for a much smaller drive, Fabrik's pricing makes sense.

Fabrik has even thrown in their its backup service as an incentive for the purchase of a [re]drive. The green external drives are on sale now.

While I doubt the [re]drive is going to have a lot of appeal for big businesses that already have data storage plans in place, it seems ideal for small business owners. Many are looking for external drives that provide a relatively cheap way to back up data. The fact that the [re]drive uses less electricity is an added selling point — these days it seems like people are looking for every opportunity to reduce their utility bills by even the smallest amount. It's not a matter of being energy efficient. It's an issue of flat out affordability for the average business owner. It just happens that energy efficient is synonymous with eco-friendly.

Fabrik is definitely focusing on the green nature of its product, though. "Many consumers are concerned with helping solve the most important environmental issue of our time - protecting our planet from the threats of climate change," said Matt McRae, vice president of marketing at Fabrik, in a press release. "At Fabrik, we’re making an effort to support the environment, while adapting our products to better meet consumer needs and interests. We know we have a lot more work to do across the board as a company, but we’re committed to change and hope we’ll make a small dent in improving the environment - through our products, services, partner choices and company best practices."

Image — Fabrik

Investors are getting a little concerned about Tata Motors' plans. Tata is in the process of bringing out what will be the world's cheapest car — the Nano — and just announced that they'll have an electric model of the Nano out during the current fiscal year.

The company is also looking to raise $1.7 billion so that it can pick up Ford's Jaguar and Land Rover businesses at current rock bottom prices. Investors are worrying whether Tata is biting off more than it can chew. Quite a few investors are selling the stock. Interestingly, though, there are a few investors that are picking up the stock, saying that the stock is going to explode as part of the overall boom in India's economy.

Despite the support Tata is getting from some investors, however, the company's stock is getting lower rankings from analysts. Motley Fool, a well known investment website, has marked the stock down from five stars to four stars.

Investors were comfortable with Tata's proposals to build electric cars. It's the company's choice to take on production of gas guzzlers like Land Rover and Jaguar that is making investors back away — it's a choice that just doesn't seem like good business in the long run as more car buyers switch to hybrids and other auto options.

Photo — Bbjee

Iberdrola Renewables announced today that it signed a deal to sell the entire output of the first phase of the company's Dry Lake wind farm. An Arizona utility company, the Salt River Project, is the buyer.

Iberdrola expects that the Dry Lake Wind Project will be the first wind farm built in Arizona. The farm will be built on a combination of private, state and federal lands, approximately 18 miles northwest of Snowflake. Iberdrola Renewables is based in Portland, Oregon, but is actually a subsidiary of a Spanish power utility, also name Iberdrola.

The Salt River Project has been signing quite a few deals lately. In June, the project signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with Raser Technologies for geothermal power. Richard Hayslip is the associate general manager of Sustainability, Risk Management, Environmental Services & Land Management for Salt River. Hayslip said in an interview with Cleantech that Salt River Project has been looking for an Arizona-based wind energy project. "Adding wind energy to our resource mix will provide more clean energy for our customers while at the same time helping to increase the overall renewable energy supply in Arizona."

Iberdrola plans to start construction on the Dry Lake wind farm in 2009, and to have the wind farm operational in 2010. The plans for the farm include 30 wind turbines generating 63 megawatts.

Photo — Fieldsbh

After shattering record after record through the first few months of this year, the price of oil has corrected somewhat in recent months, settling to around $125-a-barrel after hitting highs of nearly $150 in June. 

While this price reduction should eventually translate into lower gas prices for consumers, it’s important to note that the current cost is roughly twice what it was at this time last year, and reflects investor concern over the ability of Americans to buy gas during the present economic downturn. Economic recovery and increased demand due to heating oil this winter may yet send the oil price higher, and though renewable technologies become a larger part of America’s energy picture every day, it’s clear that the high oil prices remain a source of hardship for many American families. 

The Bush Administration and others have suggested additional offshore drilling to increase Americas access to oil, but an even larger oil asset may lie further north: a recent USGS survey indicates the Arctic region contains over 90 billion barrels of oil. Put in real-word terms, this find, if all other oil sources were cut off, could fuel the United States at its current level of oil consumption for well over a decade. Clearly, this enormous source of non-OPEC oil could be a valuable asset in relieving the current American fuel crunch. 

However, even with recent advances in environmentally-friendly offshore drilling, drilling in the Arctic could carry more burdens than its ability to relieve high oil prices are worth. For starters, the claims to the seabed in the Arctic—and thus the oil beneath it—are extremely unclear. Russia, which is already one of the world’s largest oil producers, and whose economy depends heavily on the oil industry, has already staked a claim. If the past foreign policy of the current Russian government is any indication, they will not relinquish it easily.

Furthermore, there is something of a perverse incentive to Arctic oil production. Until recently, Arctic drilling was an economically unrealistic option. Not only was the price of oil lower, so less profits could be eked from new operations, but weather and ice conditions in the Arctic region presented huge engineering challenges to any prospective extraction.  Only the recent recession of the Arctic ice sheet, a phenomenon widely associated with the warming effects of oil-combustion byproduct carbon dioxide, has made Arctic oil operatons economically feasible. 

So while the temptation may be high to boost domestic oil production by using such a large resource, the negative effects should prevent any Arctic “gold rush.” Instead, a better use of the Arctic petrochemical resource might be as a source of liquid natural gas fuel, which, while it still produces substantial amounts of carbon, reduces many of the smog, ozone, and particulate matter problems associated with traditional gasoline and diesel fuels.  While it may not be a fix-all solution to the current energy crisis, the recent natural gas finds in the Arctic can still play a major role in America’s clean energy future. 

Photo by Flickr user Arni Valur

Despite operations spanning several continents and a commander-in-chief largely unconcerned with the subject, the US Army has announced that it will be attempting to reduce its carbon “bootprint” down to 30 percent of current levels by 2015.  Aside from slowing the negative effects of global warming, the Army also anticipates that the program can cut costs and save lives as well.

Examples of the plan in action can be seen across the Army’s operations.  Mock cities used for combat training are now built from recycled shipping containers, cutting waste material and energy use, as well as dropping the price tag from $400,000 to $25,000. 

In foreign operations, the Army realized that upwards of 85 percent of its power consumption was being used for air conditioning; an inexpensive spray-on foam for tents improved insulation and slashed consumption by nearly 50%.

As with its TIGER program currently being tested in Iraq, above all else, the Army’s energy-saving measures are designed to protect troops. The less energy a combat unit needs, the less fuel needs to be transported to it, and therefore the end result is fewer troops in harm's way. 

It’s a fairly well-established fact that local tends to be green: the carbon reductions in transport alone tend to see to that. But what about products that generally aren’t produced locally, such as tools and hardware supplies and tools? A collection of tool-sharing Internet sites may have the answer.

Launched in France in late 2007, the Zilok sharing site now allows people to locally rent almost anything, from hockey skates to handsaws.  The site already boasts some 20,000 members in the US alone, and has a presence in several major cities. Similar sites, such as Craigslist and Irent2u, also offer rentals at low rates. Tool rental service can be especially useful, because while many people have a small kit of tools around the house, very few have the complete collections needed for most home projects.

DIY repairs can be a great way to improve the energy efficiency of your home, without dramatically inflating your carbon footprint—or deflating your wallet—in the process. The presence of sharing sites like this allow people to carry out repairs and home improvements without incurring the monetary or carbon expenses of hiring a contracting crew.

I don't think I've ever written a post on hydrogen tech. It seems like a technology that's never quite going to get here, especially when alternatives like electric cars seem so much simpler. But my interest was piqued when I read a press release promising $2.47/gallon hydrogen.

Global Hydrogen, Inc., says it has created a process for producing hydrogen from water that uses much less electricity than other systems. The company says that the most efficient setups take around 53 kWh to make 1 kilogram of hydrogen, while theirs does the same with 41 kWh at 90%+ efficiency.

The key to this feat is using an ultra-low voltage technique that employs a special electrolyte. For the wonky details, you can watch a handheld video narration by Dr. Linnard Griffin, the inventor.

As for the $2.47/gallon claim, Global Hydrogen says that 1 kilogram of hydrogen is equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline. Honestly, I'm not sure if they're talking about the energy contained or using some other measure. Still, they note that other processes produce hydrogen at $3.20/gallon.

If these guys really can produce hydrogen at much lower cost, I might have to start taking fuel cell news a little more seriously. I might even set up a Google Alert.