While demand increases, supply decreases and the inexorable rise in energy prices takes place, the need to offset energy demand becomes a matter of national security. The movie “Oil Storm” may be a work of fiction, but it illustrates how vulnerable our supply chain could be. Funny thing is, even before Katrina, we were already almost at the fictional $70 dollar a barrel market price set at the beginning of the movie’s first major supply disruption, when a main oil pipeline is severed by a hurricane. Maybe a hurricane doesn’t sever a pipeline, but any Category 4 or 5 will cause enough collateral damage that it becomes a disruption. This is especially true for New Orleans. (2) The predictions for Rita’s aftermath are pretty grim with 5 dollar a gallon gas.

There are so many variables in the global supply chain that can affect prices, the odds of something bad happening are very high. Today it could be a Nigerian oil workers strike, tomorrow it could be a hurricane, next day a rumor of a threat of a terrorist strike in Saudi Arabia and the next day something else. It could even be something totally out of left field like Pat Robertson advocating the assassination of the head of state of one of our largest oil suppliers. What if it really happens, what then? Even in a best case scenario, the price will still go up at an accelerating pace.

The market will likely respond with a menu of alternative energy vehicles as higher oil and gas price points are reached. The likely common denominator for many of them will be that they are recharged or refueled using an electrical power source. This will place unique new demands on an already over taxed electrical supply infrastructure. When this happens, we will have a direct challenge to offset electrical demand and which then will be an even greater matter of national security. I used to have high hopes for a hydrogen economy (3), maybe the MDI air cars (4) will work.

Due to the fragile nature of our electrical supply infrastructure, the “major event” (5) black out that occurred several summers ago was expected. It was not a question of if it would happen, but when. This summer’s heat wave has probably put the utility operators on the razor’s edge again. Sometimes, it seems like everything you depend on works as long as one extra person doesn’t turn on that air-conditioner. That’s pretty thin.

Frank Clemente is a Senior Professor of Sociology and Energy Policy, Penn State University. His sobering assessment (6) of what our future holds for natural gas (NG) seems pretty serious. I would like to ignore him, but he is too much of an expert. Is the NG problem a harbinger of peak oil? If you won’t believe Frank, how about one of the top oil and gas experts on the planet? This administration certainly thinks so.

Matthew Simmons (7) has been a key advisor to the Bush Administration, Vice President Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force and the Council on Foreign Relations. He says, “I think basically that now, that peaking of oil will never be accurately predicted until after the fact. But the event will occur, and my analysis is leaning me more by the month, the worry that peaking is at hand; not years away. If it turns out I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But if I'm right, the unforeseen consequences are devastating. But unfortunately the world has no Plan B if I'm right. The facts are too serious to ignore.” Now that Frank and Mr. Simmons have delineated our big oil and NG problems, let’s talk about big solutions.

The following recommendations represent the largest single way to flatten the demand curve. Without them, there is no way to keep pace with a diminishing supply of NG and a housing/population boom not to mention no Plan B if something happens to our oil supply. The potential minimum annual economic impact can be derived by adding up every square foot of public building space operated by your city or school system and multiply by $.50. This figure is based on current energy prices and an average of building energy use surveys performed on a large municipal school system. The same would apply to any corporation or school system with a large real estate portfolio.

The Good News

With 4% of the world’s population using 44% of the world’s energy supply, Americans use and waste more Btu’s than any society at any time on the planet. Lowering building energy demand may be the biggest single way to offset electric demand. It has been estimated that energy lost just from leaky windows alone is the Btu equivalent of our annual domestic oil supply from the North Shore.

The irony is this: During the time of the Apollo missions, Americans paid for the development of a performance based technology that has been in their midst for decades. If it had been fully transferred by the building industry or legislated into use when it first became available, we might be living in a different world. Americans could have reduced HVAC energy consumption to between 75 % and 85% of what we currently use for all new construction built over the last three decades. I know it sounds outrageous and too good to be true but allow me to explain a few things. Right now, Amory Lovins may be the only one of you ready to believe me.

Right now we are funding research and development for a new hybrid lighting technology at Oak Ridge National Labs. (8) This is another government transfer technology that is just becoming available. Fiber optic cables for light distribution should have the advantages of a day lighting system without the typical problems of unwanted thermal transfer. Lighting costs may also be greatly reduced. Hopefully it will be adopted by the market more quickly.

Michael H. Nicklas FAIA, owner of Innovative Design (9), is one of the top designers of school buildings in the country and a national expert in the field of sustainable architecture. He publicly admits architectural day lighting techniques can be subject to years of trial and error by any given architect when lecturing on his experience with High Performance School Buildings.

Supply siders will always lobby for more power plants, but standardizing a performance based methodology for dramatically lowering energy demand in new buildings can have a profound effect on the property owner and the economy. While the President speaks of new refineries and nuclear plants, the following recommendations represent one of the best risk aversion strategies available to a property owner in a world with rising energy prices.

Performance Based Building Acquisition (PBBA): A Better Mousetrap

“Performance Based Building Acquisition” (PBBA) can produce superior buildings for the property owner. This term covers all the professional services, building products, codes and standards typically involved with new construction with the addition of guaranteed energy performance. Highly efficient buildings can be achieved when PBBA is applied to the design, construction and commissioning of new buildings. With PBBA, risk aversion is built in since savings increase as energy prices get higher.

PBBA is a design/build process for new buildings starting at the conceptual phase and continuing through the design, construction and commissioning phases. It should not be confused with “performance contracting” which typically involves energy saving retrofits to existing buildings. It can be cost prohibitive to fix all the possible mistakes in an existing building. PBBA requires that the right technology must be implemented with the right execution. This requires an architect or engineer to provide quality control on the job site during the construction phase to insure and certify that the thermal envelope and mechanical systems are installed according to specification. There are few good options for reducing energy use after a building is completed.

Legal Environment

Laws have been passed in my state of Tennessee and others to encourage performance based professional design and build services. Unfortunately, they have been used almost exclusively for “performance contracting” and they remain rarely utilized for new construction. This may be due to a general lack of understanding as to how a building’s energy use component should relate to the bid process in acquiring new buildings. The Attorney General for the State of Tennessee has produced opinion # 05-015, dated February 5, 2005, in an effort to clarify Tenn. Code Ann. 12-4-115. It is entitled “Contracts by Local Governments and Similar Entities for Energy Related Services”. The official opinion is that it applies to both new construction and performance retrofits to existing buildings.

Inconsistent Results and Industry Short Comings

Energy use in new buildings is subject to many variables of the “Building Delivery System” (BDS) used in America. This can easily result in one building using twice as much or more energy than a building of the same size, function, design and located in the same climate. Associated with this is the inability of the building industry to predict the energy use of a building prior to construction to within limits that permit meaningful economic decisions by the property owner or lender. This may represent millions of dollars to large institutions, corporations, Real Estate Investment Trusts or state governments or billions to a government entity such as the US Department of Defense and our nations collective school systems.

Building Rating Systems

There are two major ratings systems for buildings: Energy Star and LEED. There have been some fundamental differences between them. The EPA/DOE government sponsored Energy Star (10) rating is performance based. The US Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program (11) is industry led, based on prescriptive standards and is the realm of the architects. The largest portion in LEED certification is building energy use, which can be as high as 35 points out of 100. This score has been based on a prescriptive standard not a performance standard. Other LEED qualifications are concerned with reducing a building’s environmental footprint and can often be in conflict with budget constraints, unless the property owner is committed to this. I hope more property owners adopt them both. I especially hope ASHRAE will work with the USGBC until an energy performance standard emerges within the LEED certification program. That’s the best of both worlds.

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

Another important acquisition problem is how the building industry is segmented with architects designing thermal envelopes and engineers designing HVAC systems. This segmented industry approach virtually insures no one will be accountable for the resulting energy performance.

Some members of ASHRAE (12) have become aware of this industry shortcoming as evidenced by an article in the December 2001 ASHRAE Journal entitled “The Impact of Air-tightness On System Design, by Wagdy A.Y. Anis, AIA. It concludes with, “ Where does the architect start and the engineer stop in building envelope design? A colleague, Fred Wacjs, Member ASHRAE, tells me (partly because it’s true and partly because I am an architect) that the building envelope is part of the mechanical system. The building envelope is designed by architects, who most of the time, do not realize the interaction between the envelope and the mechanical system. It is then built by many contracting trades to what they think is required by the design, without particular concern for air-tightness. For this reason, more education and knowledge in this area is needed, and an informed collaboration is essential between all, particularly when the desired result is air-tightening of the building envelope.”

What the author didn’t realize is that PBBA methodology includes the thermal envelope and has been refined for application in buildings for over three decades. This same line of thought applies to the thermal performance of a building as well.

ASHRAE President

In his inaugural address and paper “Building Services and Refrigeration Vital To Buildings in International Communities”, presented to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London, 16th October 2003, Richard H. Rooley (13) , president of ASHRAE, recognizes that, in Europe, performance standards are commonly used and he questions whether prescriptive standards can effectively continue in multi-disciplinary standards (of the building trade).

Current State of the Art

An analysis of Clearview Elementary School (14) in Hanover, Pennsylvania, shows where we are at best in the scenario for a prospective building owner. This school building incorporates the best of what the industry has to offer in terms of design, computer modeling, construction oversight and building start-up. By the LEED certification standard, it ranks as one of the top three elementary schools in the nation. It was regarded highly enough by the Department of Energy (DOE) to be submitted in international competition.

However, when its actual performance was analyzed, the energy use was almost 50% higher than predicted by the energy modeling software. Energy use was so high that Energy Star minimum certification requirements could not be met. So, here is a building that by design is one of the highest rated in the nation, whose performance could not be predicted within 50% and cannot meet performance certification minimums. It should be obvious therefore, that more emphasis should be on performance. When applied to PBBA, energy modeling software can be off by as much a 40%.

Establish Energy Use Objectives at Building’s Conception

Where does this leave the building owner who is the only one that has a long-term interest in the energy use of a prospective building? At the mercy of a building delivery system over which they have little understanding and no control. Does a building owner have any solution to this dilemma? Yes! Before the property owner contracts for any architectural, engineering or construction services, they must establish energy performance objectives in terms of Btu’s per square foot per year for their building and make sure someone in the BDS is accountable for meeting these performance objectives.

Rocket Science for Buildings

The PBBA methodology was transferred from performance contracting used by the aerospace industry during the Apollo years. When transferred to the building industry, it represents a significant return on the taxpayers historic investment in the NASA space program. In the late 1970’s, it found its first expression as applied to design/build commercial construction and was trademarked the “Synergy System”. (15)

This synergy relates to a whole building design and construction approach where the performance of the whole system is greater than what is expected from the sum of its parts. This is what energy modeling software doesn’t factor in. PBBA has become highly refined over several decades. It has enjoyed a history of repeatable and successful results.

Using only conventional building materials, efficiencies have improved from an HVAC energy use cost of 20 cents per square foot per year for the first office building in 1980 to 6.9 cents per square foot per year for Boles Hall, a school administration building at Centre College in 1997. How much does your building’s HVAC cost to operate per square foot per year?

Better Doesn’t Have To Cost More

A commercial building with a Synergy System costs nearly the same or less to build, operates at the same comfort level, meets all indoor (CFM) clean air requirements, yet it will cost less than half to operate.

Global Warming and Environmental Impact

Global warming finally alarms the Pentagon. Maybe we all have something to worry about. Considering how PBBA impacts global warming, pressure could build from this issue as well. Environmental impact can be defined in terms of tons of air pollution per year per square footage. Coal burning steam plants represent the main energy source of electrical production in America.

Using the Synergy System results in an average annual avoidance in air pollution of about 100 tons per 10,000 square feet of building space. If applied to just one year of new construction in the US, the volume of pollution avoidance is staggering to contemplate. If one looks back 30 years at what might have been accomplished when the technology was first available, the tons of air pollution that could have been avoided becomes astronomical. Global warming cannot be solved without a group effort at the user end and cooperation from energy suppliers, legislators and the building industry.

The True Cost of Building Ownership

There is another important aspect of PBBA for a building owner or lender. The true cost of ownership projected over time can now be established prior to construction. It can be an invaluable tool for a bank’s loan origination committee and would enable the property owner qualify for and obtain larger buildings. This methodology has been used to accurately predict and further guarantee the maximum energy use of a proposed building prior to construction for decades. I guess it’s the best kept secret in real estate.

Energy Accountability

Historically, no one has been accountable for the resulting energy use in new construction, thus an energy use guarantee is unheard of in the building industry. Three common answers from the industry have been “it can’t be done”, “it isn’t done” or “we don’t do that.” The fact is that it can be done, it is done, and has been a trademark of the Synergy System for 25 years. In case your wondering if your government knows about this, the DOE gave it an award for energy innovation back in 1985.

The current BDS is a collection of architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, materials suppliers, and codes administrators, none of whom really have a vested interest in a building’s energy performance. Shouldn’t someone be accountable? What do you think Mr. Property Owner?

Industry Standards and Change

Claiming energy use can be accurately predicted and guaranteed early in the building acquisition process may sound radical to most architects and engineers. It is revolutionary. Energy performance standards meet with much resistance in an industry that is ruled by prescriptive standards. The building industry can be very conservative and may not accept change well, especially when energy accountability is perceived as increased liability.

Also, the performance of a Synergy System and claims attendant to it do not resemble anything they were taught in the classroom. Rather than embracing an important technological innovation, it has often been resisted. It’s the difference between an industry based on a box and one that creates its own box in order to solve a certain problem. For example, keeping an astronaut alive in a thin walled spacecraft, that sees outside environmental extremes from 300 degrees F to negative 450 degrees F.

Skeptics say, “It sounds too good to be true.” But it truly is that good. Fortunately, there are decades of documented data and case studies to support my “outrageous” claims. The data and case studies basically confirm what Amory Lovins says about buildings in a recent article in the September issue of Scientific American. (16) Personally, I would like to arrive at his vision of the future before an Apocalypse.

Impact for Universities and School Systems

Nowhere could a greater impact be felt than in our school systems. Even greater energy efficiencies can be demonstrated in a large school building (200,000+ sq. ft.). How many high school principles would like to have an extra $100,000 to $200,000 each year for their educational programs? Depending on the performance of other buildings in their portfolio, the typical savings to a school system or college campus should exceed 50 cents per square foot per year as well. Some public colleges are given an energy budget by a State Board of Regents. Depending on how poorly their buildings perform it can be over $ 2.50 per square foot per year. In these exceptional cases comparative savings could be in excess of $ 2.00 per square foot per year.

School systems are under pressure all across the nation with a record enrollment of 49.5 million. Student population is expected to increase until 2014. Furthermore, the growth is taking place in areas least equipped to handle it. New school construction is a major issue. How they are built is just as important. Can we afford not to adopt PBBA?

Sustainable Campus Programs

Sustainable architecture is fundamental to a sustainable society. While Americans wait for the next crisis, certain cities, universities and school systems can become national leaders in sustainable campus design. (17) Not just the well endowed ones. PBBA’s competitive capital cost levels the playing field so everybody can join in.

Here’s the Deal

The HVAC energy use cost is guaranteed to be less than 25 cents per square foot per year at current energy prices. PBBA can be accomplished with conventional building materials. PBBA capital cost will be very close to that of conventional construction, once a school building reaches 15,000 to 20,000 square feet. When an economy of scale is reached, comparative capital cost can be virtually the same. In the case of the Synergy System, this is a real guarantee backed by a warranty bond, which pays 75% of the cost of energy if it exceeds the guaranteed amount. Thus, the risk for trying something different is eliminated. There is nothing to be scared of. But like the ASHRAE article says… “an informed collaboration is essential between all, particularly when the desired result is air-tightening of the building envelope.”

Macro-Economic Impact

On a macro-economic level, the impact becomes quite profound. If we wish to examine the effect of entire communities built exclusively with PBBA, we could compare two identical communities with identical power plants on separate local grids. One would be built entirely with the above mentioned performance standards and the other not.

If the conventional community saturates the electrical supply when 1,000,000 homes and 100,000 commercial buildings are on-line, the PBBA community could continue to build 1,000,000 additional homes and 200,000 more commercial buildings before an equal electrical demand would exhaust the same supply.

With a larger customer base, if the utility must raise the unit price of electricity, it will have a minimal economic impact on the end user. If both communities are building at the same rate, the PBBA community will have a much flatter growth curve on the demand side, which makes long range planning much easier. The utility in the conventional community must instead spend millions to upgrade capacity at a much faster rate. It is for these reasons, PBBA is an essential component to future economic growth.

Return On Investment

Unique to the world of energy savings and off setting with renewables, the return from investment in PBBA occurs the day the building is commissioned and will be greater than any renewable energy system for the near future. Hopefully, renewable technologies will continue to improve in price and efficiency until they are more economically viable. Until then, energy efficiency through PBBA is a guaranteed given. Returns from some renewable technologies such as geo-thermal are much less certain and at best will take much longer. Data from performance based office buildings, health spas, group housing facilities, classroom buildings and convenience markets suggest a potential 80% per square foot reduction in building demand for gas heat or for heating oil in the northeast.

Geothermal and Renewable Energy Choices

There is an interesting scenario developing in the use of geothermal HVAC systems (18) in schools in our region of Kentucky and Tennessee. The geothermal approach is being actively promoted by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), East Kentucky Power Cooperative and the Kentucky Department of Education. There are likely 30 or more geothermal schools that TVA has analyzed and a report was rough drafted in the fall of 2004. The final report is still unavailable.

Data acquired on 13 geothermal elementary schools in Kentucky shows little difference in energy use when compared to schools often many years older and operating with conventional HVAC systems. A high percentage of new schools in Kentucky (less than 5 yrs old) have Energy Star ratings of less than 10. A minimum of 75 is required for Energy Star certification. The Kentucky Department of Energy has just initiated a study of this issue. To date, only one school in Kentucky has been found to be Energy Star certifiable. Geothermal HVAC systems cost about $ 4.00 more per square foot in capital costs than conventional HVAC systems. The database suggests, that if the thermal envelope of a school building is done correctly a geothermal HVAC system will use more energy annually than a much simpler, less costly HVAC system. Will it take the school systems another 15 or 20 years and millions more to figure this out?

Specialized Expertise or The Lack Thereof

In lieu of specialized engineering expertise, there are new building products, which by design may approach the performance of the thermal envelope in a Synergy System. Very rarely does anything revolutionary happen to something as common as a concrete building block. The emergence of “insulated concrete forms” (ICF’s) would be that revolution.

One of the best may be the one developed by Insulated Masonry Systems International, formerly a Phoenix, AZ based Company, now a shareholder Company with the management located in Cincinnati, OH. Dr. Rudolf Strobel, a former employee of the Procter & Gamble Company, is the acting president of IMSI. Dr. Strobel, during his long time scientific career as a biochemist and inventor of numerous patents, also has gained expertise in molds and myco-toxins. (19)

According to Dr. Strobel, most organic matter that acquires a moisture content of 12% (or more) and maintains this percentage for at least 12 days (or more), is prone to produce unsightly mold mycelia derived from the growth of ubiquitous mold spores. Paper coated dry wall is especially prone to provide an ideal growth medium for molds. This phenomenon has become known as the "Sick Building Syndrome" (SBS), which has led in the past and still is leading to numerous lawsuits against the Building Enterprise. This is due to the negative health effects of allergy-prone inhabitants and depending on the severity and type of mold contamination, to also perfectly healthy inhabitants of such mold contaminated buildings. Because wood framing and plywood can be exposed to rain early in the building phase, mold spores are often built into the walls during the conventional construction process. That way when a pipe leaks in a wall, the mold spores are already there.

The IMSI block offers so many different advantages and cost savings associated with a building, it’s kind of an economic and ergonomic no-brainer. First there are labor savings because the IMSI block is dry stack and can be laid much faster. Typically 5 IMSI blocks can be laid in the time it takes to mortar a conventional concrete building block.

It comes with its own insulation, which is one of its best features. It is very easy to install and is located on the inside of the building blocks and thus protected from the elements, mold, termites and rodents. The structure coat provides improved vapor tightening. In total, there is a significant labor and material savings for homebuilders, with reduced liability from the finished product.

Building owners can often find they own a building that was constructed with code violations. This occurrence is made worse through lack of enforcement. Water damage and mold problems often occur and are believed to be a costly maintenance and repair factor for some HUD housing developments and federal & state government entities.

Have you ever bought a million dollar home only to find the foundation springing leaks and growing mold a few years later? These common problems can be addressed with building material selection as well as design and building operation. By eliminating the need for organic substances such as wood framing and drywall, that’s why the IMSI wall system is termite proof, rodent proof and mold proof. If you like white, it never needs painting. This is about as maintenance free as it gets. It also has a sound deadening effect that is ideal for classrooms.

Many buildings in this country have a very short service life and often have to be replaced within 50 years. There is a very large energy cost associated with new construction. The service life of this wall system could be well over 100 years. The IMSI block is currently being evaluated for use in a Synergy System.

Safety: But is it tornado and hurricane proof?

Destructive weather events seem to be increasing in frequency and severity all around the country. It is the opinion of many experts that this is the beginning of a twenty-year trend. Commercial buildings and private dwellings built with the IMSI Block System feature flood and fireproof walls. They are also highly resistant to seismic activity and resist wind loads up to 250 mph. Since dwellings have doors and windows, even buildings constructed from concrete walls offer no protection from flying debris. For this, special tornado/hurricane proof rooms are prescribed by the Federal Emergency Administration (FEMA). The IMSI Wall System lends itself ideally for the construction of such rooms. This is achieved by filling one of the insulation cavities (usually the outside cavity) with a 4000 lb. mortar.

One thing is for certain: if you are behind these walls when a tornado or hurricane hits, it may be the safest place to be above ground. IMSI wall sections were tested for resistance to debris impacts at Texas Tech. University. This consisted of firing 2x4’s end to end at over 100 mph into the wall section. Result: lots of splinters, but no damage to the wall. This might be a good idea for those who must live in harm’s way, but still want to live and still want something to go back to.

If the Gulf Coast communities had been built this way, there would have been less than a 5% property loss to existing structures. I saw 100-year-old pictures of Galvaston, Texas after a hurricane on CNN the other day, and then they flashed back to the current devastation along the Gulf Coast. It looked exactly the same. Both had piles of lumber strewn across the landscape as far as the eye could see. It was as if we have learned nothing in all that time. If we are going to build a new New Orleans, and we absolutely must, it can and should be built to a hurricane resistant standard. I wonder what General Honore thinks. I am not trying to eliminate his job, just lighten his workload.

Conclusion

If someone had the cure for cancer, would it bother you if they were a sole source contractor? This can also be a barrier to competitively bid public building projects, such as schools. Very few architects and engineers fully understand the PBBA process at this time. The road to performance standards may be bumpy at first, but this is an idea whose time has come. It is time for community and industry leaders to lead. It is time for consumers to demand it. Maybe it’s too late to save the planet, but I think we should try.

Finally, how do you sell something that sounds too good to be true? Maybe it has to be given away. If you are an individual or corporation involved in philanthropy and would like sponsor a PBBA school building or build some hurricane proof housing or have further questions about the products and services mentioned in this article, you can contact me. If you are a mega bucks corporation operating a substantial real estate portfolio, investing in the due diligence to determine if what I’m saying is even possible is certainly worthy of pursuit. But knowing what it will do for your bottom line is priceless! Walmart, are you listening? Any patriots out there want to save America? What about your piece of it?

References:

(1) http://www.peakoil.net/ 
 

(2) http://www.stratfor.com/news/archive/050903-geopolitics_katrina.php
 

(3) http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=284
 

(4) http://www.theaircar.com/
 

(5) http://www.usgbc.org/News/usgbcinthenews_details.asp?ID=270&CMSPageID=159
 

(6) http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1050
 

(7) http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/people/matt_simmons
 

(8) http://www.ornl.gov/sci/hybridlighting/
 

(9) http://www.innovativedesign.net/
 

(10) http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomanager
 

(11) http://www.usgbc.org/
 

(12) http://www.ashrae.org/
 

(13) http://www.thedwyers.co.uk/ashrae/rooley1003.htm
 

(14) http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/32680.pdf
 

(15) http://www.energysystems.com/
 

(16) http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00009794-FCDB-1304-B72683414B7F0000
 

(17) http://www.eeexchange.org/sustainability/content/e5.html
 

(18) http://www.geoexchange.org/publications/tenn.htm
 

(19) http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/65/7/3175

To join in on the conversation or to subscribe or visit this site go to:  http://www.energypulse.net

Copyright 2005 CyberTech, Inc.