For anyone who didn’t watch 60 Minutes this last Sunday, I’ll explain why you should watch the video.

The Bloom Box is a fuel cell designed to provide homes electricity from a box the size of a stack of 15 cd/dvds that costs about $3000.  The fuel cell does emit CO2 when fueled by carbon based fuels, but it creates twice as much electricity as traditional natural gas generators. This means that substituting these methane powered fuel cells for coal power plants could cut CO2 emissions by 75%. Deploying small, off grid Bloom devices further reduces transmission loses and grid costs associated with delivering power.  A successful Bloom Box, could have a huge impact on on a world increasingly run on electricity.

Will it work? Well they’ve got systems running at Google, eBay and FedEx in northern California and they’re funded by Kleiner Perkins, et. al. for $400 Million. That makes it seem like it’s coming soon. If this works, my only question is could we capture enough methane, from bio sources to power society without continuing to add CO2 from burning “mined” fuels?

Check out this video:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

As i write this article, the dispute between Russia’s Gazprom and the Ukraine Naftogaz is heading toward it’s second week and many contries, especially in central and southeastern Europe are suffering.  The suffering takes the form of economic losses due to fuel shortages and the human toll of the millions who rely on this gas to heat their homes and cook their food.  This crisis help focuses on the most important, non-environmental problem with fossil fuels: If you don’t have enough of the fuel in your country, you can fall victim to the whims of the market such as the $150 barrel of oil last summer and Gazprom/Naftogaz dispute today. 

The solution to these sorts of problems can be summerized in two words: Renewable Energy or even Green Energy if you prefer.  Yes, combining green power sources to replace dependence on fossil fuels allows local solutions to local problems.  In the current situation, it’s easy to cut off the supply of gas to Ukraine, but i doubt(i equivocate for humor’s sake)  the same can be done to stop the wind, sun and available biogas from supplying Ukraine’s needs. 

Since oil embargo of 1973, the facts have demonstrated that local sources of energy are more secure than those imported from far away lands.  Green energy might not supply the least expensive kilowatt hour of electricity, but it keeps money that is now being sent oil and gas suppliers in your own country.

Oh yeah, did I mention that replacing natural gas with green energy will reduce Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and help fight global warming too?  Let’s hope that the opponents of fighting climate change jump on the “keep the money at home” bandwagon and help hasten the end of our dependence on hydrocarbon fuels.

If you find yourself more concerned with US energy independence and not just global warming, the prospect of clean burning natural gas (methane) has to sound pretty good.  Even a number of dedicated environmentalists include the use of methane, albeit recovered from agriculture and landfills, as part of a green energy plan.  Unfortunately, that’s where the similarities end.  The energy industry and the domestic development industry aren’t interested in recovery methane that currently leaks into the atmosphere.  The industry is particluarly interested in drilling to release gas trapped in rocks under Pennsylvania another nearby states, called the Marcellus Shale.

There are numerous problems with this approach, first and foremost is that it adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. It is true that methane burning generates about 30% less CO2 than a gasoline engine, mile for mile and that it would be better for the planet to displace gasoline with methane, but unless and until the vast majority of methane leaking from landfills, coalmines, oil wells and agriculture is being burned for power, drilling new gas well, just adds more GHGs to the atmosphere.  The second problem and the scariest one right now, is that the method for recovering this gas from the rock formations, commonly called “Hydro Fracturing”.  Hydro fracturing sounds innocent, just pump water down the hole under pressure, crack the rock and free the methane to float to the top of the well where it is collected, cleaned and sold.  Well this is where the dirty secrets come into play, the “Hydro” in Hydro Fracturing, it’s more than just water, it also includes benzene, methanol, diesel fuel and other toxic chemicals, which the exploration companies are refusing to indentify, citing their formulas are trade secrets.  It is feared that these known carcinogens and others yet to be indentified will contaminate underground water tables, destroying the resource. The leading exploration companies using these method in the US include Haliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services.

So, while it would be great reduce dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions by burning methane, it really only makes sense if it takes advantage of leaking methane.  When you add in the possible damage to the water tables in the exploration areas, green energy seems worth the extra efforts and costs upfront.