Bomin Technologies – Intelligent Energy Systems

This unique and interesting company has recently come to our attention, and may be of interest, for their technology, for their business model, and as a potential business partner and/or investment.

( This summary was adapted from company materials.)

Bomin is a privately-held Swiss-American company that develops, makes and sells Intelligent Energy Systems for buildings. Sales have grown from $2M in 1994, when the Company was formed, to $9.7M in 1997 (average growth rate of more than 64%). Sales were $12.6M in 1998, and are expected to continue growing at more than 30% a year.

Bomin was initially established in the mid-80’s as a developer of technology. Results are now moving into the market, and the company is evolving into a broad based platform for commercialization of innovative energy-related products through an international network of business partners. Bomin’s executive team combines international expertise in business operations, corporate finance and technology commercialization.

Bomin’s products improve efficiency and benefit the environment in three market segments:

– Intelligent Lighting – daylighting and controlled lighting systems, which bring sun or natural daylight into buildings and control the use of artificial light;

– Intelligent Heating – solar thermal-based products, which harness the sun for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, cooling and power generation; and

– Intelligent Control – hardware and software products which improve energy efficiency in pumps, co-generation units and other energy consuming devices.

Bomin is also bringing to market a pipeline of proprietary breakthrough technologies developed in their German and US labs.

– HEATPULSE is a stirling engine that uses mid-temperature waste heat from power generators or industrial processes, or from biomass.

– SUNPULSE is a low-temperature stirling engine developed for application in a solar-powered water pump and a refrigeration and air-conditioning system, for use throughout the developing world.

The company is seeking to raise additional capital to increase sales and marketing of existing products, enable the purchase of several identified acquisition candidates, and further product development and commercialization. An offering memorandum will be provided to qualified parties.

I also have an 13 page Executive Summary (Word document) that I can send on request.

A great deal of information is available from the company’s website at

UFTO’s Contact: Nicholas Parker, Chairman ( in Toronto)

Capacitive Deionization of Water – A Lot Closer

UFTO first noted this unique water purification technology in January 1995 (see below to review the basic concept), and again in March 1997, when a license was issued to a commercial firm. The company, Far West, has made tremendous progress, and now appears to stand ready to move out in a big way with the commercial development of Capacitive Deionization Technology (CDT). (The name CDI belongs to something else, so the company has adopted the new shorthand CDT.)

The process operates at low voltage and low pressure, does not require membranes or pumps (and so is less sensitive to corrosives), and can operate at high water temperature (so, for example, boiler water can be treated hot). The technology is modular and scalable, with additional capacity or greater filtration accomplished by simply adding more elements, either in parallel or series.

The technology itself has been dramatically improved, with one tenth the weight and one-twentieth the cost of the original devices. New designs don’t require the aerogels to be supported on a substrate, and a clever technique maintains separation with essentially no structural elements.

The business prospects are strengthened by the arrival of a new president with the right experience and connections to restructure the company, raise money, and move forward aggressively with manufacturing, demonstration projects, and joint venture and marketing agreements worldwide.

Initial focus areas are ultrapure process water, ground and waste water treatment, contaminant removal/concentration, and brackish water treatment for drinking water. There is also a demonstration project underway on utility boiler water. Seawater desalination is also a priority.

A prominent story in “Developments to Watch” in Business Week appeared in the March 15 issue, and the response has been tremendous.

The company website at has a vu-graph presentation with considerable detail about the technology and applications, and a business plan is also available on request.

Far West is a public company (FWST), as an OTC-Bulletin Board stock. (There has been a sudden rise in volume and price yesterday and today!) The company is raising $10 Million through a preferred stock offering.

Contact: Dallas Talley, President

Subject: UFTO Note — Capacitive Deionization licensed
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997

Livermore has given a license for CDI to a small water company in Tucson, AZ who’ve formed a subsidiary, Terra Research Corp., to pursue applications. The parent company is publicly traded OTC – Far West Group, which does water drilling and pumping and supplies.

Here is the UFTO writeup about CDI, when Livermore first announced it:

January 1995
Desalination and Waste Water Treatment by Capacitive Deionization (CDI)

On December 20, 1994, LLNL announced a new way to deionize water. The huge effective surface area of carbon aerogels makes feasible the straightforward and well known process of capacitive deionization. Water containing salts, heavy metals or even radioactive isotopes flows through a series of electrochemical cells. An electric potential is applied across the electrodes, which attract the charged ions.

The electrodes are metal plates coated with the aerogel, the high surface area of which allows them to absorb large quantities of ions, which are released later into a small volume “rinse” stream. CDI offers significant benefits over traditional deionization processes, such as reverse osmosis, ion exchange or evaporation. These involve high energy use, reliance on acids and bases, production of corrosive secondary wastes, and use of troublesome membranes. Compared with traditional desalination techniques, CDI could reduce the energy requirement by as much as 100-1000 times.

Potential applications include: treatment of boiler water in power plants, electric residential water softeners, desalination of sea water, waste water treatment (i.e. volume reduction, notably of radioactive wastewater, by a factor of 1000), and more.

A desktop test unit has been operating at LLNL for some time. A patent was filed in May 1994.

Public Interest R&D

This paper was just published in Utilities Policy, on a timely subject which is of interest to many of you. The authors will have reprints available, and have supplied me with an electronic copy of the (15 page) manuscript, from which I extracted the following excerpts. The complete paper is 10 pages as published.

Contact: Carl Blumstein, 510-642-9588,

“Public-Interest Research and Development in the Electric and Gas Utility Industries,”
Utilities Policy: Volume 7, Issue 4, 21 April, 1999, pages 191-199
Carl Blumstein, University of California Energy Institute
Stephen Wiel, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

An unintended consequence of the restructuring of the electricity industry in the U.S. has been a sharp decline in expenditures for R&D by investor-owned utilities. This paper examines how the public interest may be damaged by this decline in R&D expenditures and discusses some of the strategies that could be employed to mitigate the damage.

The restructuring of the electricity industry has been accompanied by a sharp decline in R&D expenditures by investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which have fallen by more than 45% between 1993 and 1996. The trend in the U.S. … is consistent with trends in other countries where the electricity industry has been or is being restructured.

A key driver of this trend is competitive pressures to cut costs. “While cuts are occurring across the board, RD&D departments are particularly vulnerable because in most cases research projects are not considered essential to the operation. In addition, the value of RD&D projects are difficult to quantify and often seen as a long-term investment. These trends are particularly prevalent for IOUs positioning themselves to increase profits for shareholders.” (Schilling and Scheer 1997) While, in retrospect, this trend does not seem surprising, it was certainly not an intended consequence of restructuring. Intentions notwithstanding, policy makers are now confronted with the questions: (1) how will this decline affect the public interest and (2) if some of the effects are adverse to the public interest, what mitigating steps, if any, should be taken?

This paper is intended to stimulate discussion on these questions by examining some of the issues in detail. First, we define public-interest R&D and illustrate the definition with some examples. The examples also give some idea of what may be lost if utility R&D expenditures continue to decline. Then we examine some of the issues that would be raised by efforts to mitigate the decline in utility expenditures for public interest R&D. These issues, which we explore using a series of examples, are funding, governance, and scope. Finally, in a brief conclusion, we discuss our concern that public interest R&D is likely to suffer some serious damage if action is not taken. However, we believe that there are likely to be many workable solutions to the problems we pose.

Technological change is an important contributor to economic growth and R&D is an important contributor to technological change. Any sharp decline in R&D expenditures is, at the least, a cause for concern. On the other hand, restructuring is moving the business of electricity generation decisively toward competition. If history is a guide, this competition will be conducive to innovation. New R&D investments may be forthcoming from the competitors or their suppliers. Thus, concern with the current decline in R&D expenditures should focus on the R&D, if any, that will not be adequately provided by the competitive market. Especially at risk are R&D funds for projects that, from a societal perspective, have measurable public benefits but that private markets will probably be unable to support because these public benefits cannot be appropriated by private firms.

In current discussions about utility industry restructuring this type of R&D has come to be known as public-interest R&D. Among the areas where the benefits of public-interest R&D may be important are health, safety, environment, energy efficiency, and “pre-commercial” technical information. Many R&D projects have both private and public benefits.

Strategic options [to provide] post-restructuring R&D support mechanisms [are discussed], with a description of funding, governance and scope, followed by an analysis of pros and cons. The four options offered are – Direct Industry Control, – Industry Directed Not-For-Profit, – Publicly Directed Not-For-Profit, and – Direct Government Control. These four are not mutually exclusive and do not begin to exhaust the possibilities.

We … conclude … that none of the options described above is sufficient by itself to provide for public-interest R&D after restructuring. In the past, public-interest R&D was sustained by a mixture of public and private, regulated and unregulated, and federal and state institutions and support mechanisms. Today, in the midst of restructuring, it is not surprising that some of these arrangements are being disrupted given the profound institutional upheavals now happening in the energy industry. Public-interest R&D is likely to suffer some serious damage if actions are not taken to deal with these disruptions.

The purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion concerning what actions to take. The situation is complex, but the problems are by no means insoluble. Indeed, we think there are likely to be many workable solutions. Our hope is that discussion will begin to identify some of the better solutions and will contribute to the evolution of a new mixture of public and private, regulated and unregulated, and state and federal institutions and support mechanisms that will enable public-interest R&D to continue providing benefits after restructuring.

N. Amer Power Quality Equipment Markets


“North American Markets for Power Quality:
The Top 50 Equipment Suppliers and Service Providers,”
Research Publication: 5621-27, March 1999 (approx. 400 pages; Price: $4450)

Frost & Sullivan, in collaboration with Power Quality Magazine, has produced this major new report. It was written by a friend and colleague, Jane Clemmenson, whose qualifications include many years of experience in the field of power quality, business development, joint venture development, strategic partnering, and technology transfer. She is considered a power quality industry expert, dating back to the mid 80’s when she managed the utility consulting practice at SRI. She has been quoted in Business Week and The Wall Street Journal. She can be reached in Berkeley CA at 510-848-8002,

!!! By special arrangement, UFTO Client companies are being !!!
!!! offered a 25% discount on the purchase price of this report. !!!

Contact: Alex Lopez, Frost & Sullivan,, 650-237-6514, and mention UFTO.

More information is available at:

In addition, I have a PDF version of the brochure which includes the complete table of contents (which at this time is missing from the brochure available on line.) The materials below are from Frost & Sullivan.

Announcement of the Study (prepublication)

Until now, the market for power quality equipment and services has not been described in total. Studies have focused on narrow segments of the market in isolation. A comprehensive view of the market is necessarily broader and includes analysis of competitive and synergistic forces that operate between technologies and segments of the market. A broad view also provides a vantage point for understanding existing industry partnerships and alliances, for spotting merger/acquisition candidates, and for planning corporate strategy. The “Power Quality 50” provides valuable insight on competitors and identifies which companies should be the focus of competitive benchmarking.

The report defines the total power quality market in the United States and Canada, including revenue estimates, growth rates, industry leaders and market share, for the following equipment or aggregated categories of equipment:

* transient voltage surge suppressors
* power conditioners, including isolation transformers and power distribution units, voltage regulators, motor generators, and harmonic filters
* uninterruptible power supplies
* energy storage systems for power quality applications, including superconducting magnetic energy storage systems, battery energy storage systems, mechanical storage systems including flywheels, and capacitor and ultracapacitor systems
* low- and medium-voltage static transfer switches and custom power products
* power quality test and measurement instrumentation and software including hand-held, portable and transportable, and permanently installed types
* software for power quality analysis and power management software
* a qualitative discussion of the market for standby generators in UPS backup applications will be included

The services market is evolving and with deregulation of the electric utility market, energy service companies (ESCOs) are becoming more active in the front end of equipment sales. Future bundling of power quality equipment into power contracts is likely. The report includes revenue estimates, growth rates, industry leaders and market share for ESCO-provided services, vendor-provided services, and independent consulting. The role of architect-engineer and electrical contracting firms is discussed.

A synthesis section describes how these various segments of the equipment and services market compete or act synergistically. The top 50 equipment suppliers and service providers are identified and profiled, with attention to industry leaders in each segment of the market and the total power quality market. Profiles describe each industry leader in terms of its product lines and market share. Profiles also include company history, ownership and affiliations, facts and figures, financials where available, and a discussion of strategies in the marketplace.

Portions of the F&S press release:

“Cross-Segment Competition and New Entrants Challenge Power Quality Market Participants”

Cross segment competition is becoming evident in the power quality market as the debate continues about whether it is more cost-effective to protect end-user equipment at the point-of-use, at a branch circuit, or at a facility level. Small, medium and large-scale solutions are available for different applications, and customer education and marketing is essential. Vendors must now educate themselves about products that compete directly with their own, as well as possible alternative products.

Another challenge that is covered in the study is the entrance of new players such as Siemens, Hewlett Packard and General Electric, who bring with them money and strong corporate backing, say the authors of this study. In addition, the recent consolidation of several large companies has heightened competition.

The power quality market is comprised of over 200 companies, half of which hold identifiable market share in one or more segments of this study. The top equipment suppliers and service providers constitute the Power Quality 50, a term originated by Power Quality Assurance and Frost & Sullivan. The Power Quality 50 accounted for 60.2 percent of the total market in 1997.

It is important to recognize the contributions of companies to particular subsegments where they may be market leaders, no matter how small these companies are with regard to the total market. The top contributors on the basis of 1997 revenue in one or more subsegments makes up Frost & Sullivan’s 50 Market Leaders. This study contains detailed profiles of each company listed in the 50 Market Leaders.

This new study, North American Markets for Power Quality: The Top 50 Equipment Suppliers and Service Providers, addresses the major challenges and issues affecting growth in the market. Frost & Sullivan’s objective is to show how these implications impact the market and to assist equipment manufacturers and service providers in better preparing for a successful future.

This research has integrated the Market Engineering consulting philosophy into the entire research process. Critical phases of this research include: Identification of industry challenges, market engineering measurements, strategic recommendations, planning and market monitoring. All of the vital elements of this system help market participants navigate successfully though the power quality industry.

A news story from the F&S website (available free if you register):

“Primary Restraints in the North American Power Quality Protection Equipment Markets”

The power quality protection equipment markets consists of the following four segments:

– transient voltage surge suppressors (TVSSs)
– power line conditioners (PLCs)
– voltage regulators (VRs)
– shielded isolation transformers

In 1998, the North American market revenues reached $1.4 billion and the market is expected to experience healthy growth throughout the forecast period. Although the markets for power quality protection equipment are growing, manufacturers need to also be aware of several issues which are restraining the revenue growth.

One of the primary restraints affecting the revenue growth of power quality protection equipment is the movement towards the UPS market, based largely on the misconception that they address all power quality problems. In reality, UPSs do not regulate and maintain voltages to electronic equipment nor do they act as an alternative power source. They typically only receive the actual raw electrical power coming in through the sockets. While this misconception has increased the demand for UPSs, it has created a decreasing demand for power quality protection equipment. The incorporation of UPS features into these devices could bring in more revenues for these market segments.

Another restraint that manufacturers should be concerned about is the lack of technological innovation in these products. While the technologies in computers and electronic equipment are continuously and rapidly changing, the technology in power quality protection equipment has remained much the same over recent years. A relative lack of breakthroughs has caused manufacturers to spend valuable resources on other product lines, and decreasing their focus on these products. The power quality protection equipment discussed in this market has remained relatively the same in both appearance and function.

Finally, the third restraint that should be of concern for manufacturers is the general lack of end-user awareness and understanding of the need for power quality protection. Potential and existing end users must become aware and knowledgeable about the possible causes and problems of what is coming through the electrical sockets. Without the appropriate knowledge, customers will most likely not make the best decisions regarding their power problems. A possible effect of this is that by not knowing what power quality protection products are available, consumers may select low-end products to protect their expensive equipment. Using such products can lead to loss of money and damaged equipment.

These are the three issues restraining growth in the North American markets for power quality protection equipment. Manufacturers must create and develop strategies to stay ahead of their competitors and on top of their markets. To learn more about this market, as well as the issues to be aware of, consult Frost & Sullivan’s recent study 5801-27, North American Power Quality Protection Equipment Markets.

Innovators Dilemma – Disruptive Technologies

This editorial is from the March issue of Power Engineering magazine, and does a nice job introducing an important recent book, while pointing out some major implications for the energy utility industry.

Power Engineering is a Pennwell publication, with free subscriptions.

Thanks to John Zink for providing UFTO with an electronic copy. John, whom many of you may know, tells me he is retiring on May 15. We’ll miss him.

As for the points raised, is the utility industry paying too little heed to new technologies? Do you agree that the only way is to establish small independent subsidiaries? I’ve also included the review from


Warning: Disruption Ahead

by: John C. Zink, Ph.D., P.E., Managing Editor

Three years ago in Power Engineering I identified what I called “strategic technologies.” I listed distributed generation, energy storage and direct current devices as having the potential to create a paradigm shift (a term I have grown to hate) in the power generation business. In later issues I added electric vehicles and hydrogen technologies to the list because of their similar potential to reformulate the way we think of power generation, distribution and use. I recently discovered a more-definitive work that sheds light on this topic.

A 1997 Harvard Business School book calls such new technologies “disruptive technologies” and examines their characteristics in-depth. The book, The Innovator’s Dilemma ? When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail by Clayton M. Christensen, also offers some advice to companies that wish to profit from these disruptive technologies. I think it deserves a look.

The book describes entrenched technology as “sustaining technology.” Companies develop and refine their major products as desired by their customers, continuing to become more efficient while continuing to upscale their offerings. This process increases profit margins and, hence, company expectations and hurdle rates for new products. However, at some point the market does not need further upscale capabilities in these bread-and-butter products. At that time competition shifts to such things as reliability and delivery time and then, ultimately, to price. When the product reaches this mature stage, the business has turned into a commodities business, and profit margins begin to erode.

Unfortunately, revolutionary new products—the disruptive technologies—are not in the pipeline at these companies. Their product pipeline contains only the unneeded future upgrades to their current offerings. Christensen notes that companies which have a solid competitive position in a sustaining technology are seldom able to simultaneously develop a disruptive technology. This is certainly true in the “upscaling” part of the product cycle. The disruptive technologies, while still in their formative stages, usually have high prices and limited capabilities. They cannot serve the company’s upscale market, nor can they meet the company’s profit requirements.

The book observes that the only way companies with established technologies can exploit disruptive technologies is to establish small, independent subsidiaries with lower profit-margin and market-size expectations.

It is not hard to postulate the development of distributed generation or electric vehicles (EVs) following the disruptive technologies model. For example, EVs are now too limited in range and too expensive to displace internal combustion engine cars. There are niche applications, e.g. city buses, where EV efficiency, life-cycle cost and non-polluting nature give them an advantage, but they cannot now satisfy much of the automobile market. As fuel cells and microturbines develop and begin to fill the role of battery charger for hybrid vehicles, these gradually chip away the performance disadvantage of existing EVs, but they are still not price competitive. However, some begin to recognize hybrid vehicles’ potential application as energy storage devices or as distributed generation devices to provide home electricity when not being used for transportation. Aggressive companies may recognize synergies with their businesses and offer not only clean, economical transportation, but also clean, economical power for the home from the same device.

The auto companies, while experimenting with EVs, are not able to bring about the breakthrough because they see EVs as only a niche transportation market. Electric utilities, while seeking new off-peak “appliances,” appreciate the potential of EVs but are not interested in the next generation, the hybrids, because they do not fit the central station generation market. Thus, the door is open for totally separate companies to get into the auto companies’ and utilities’ cash registers. A disruptive technology has struck again.


What do the Honda Supercub, Intel’s 8088 processor, and hydraulic excavators have in common? They are all examples of disruptive technologies that helped to redefine the competitive landscape of their respective markets. These products did not come about as the result of successful companies carrying out sound business practices in established markets. In The Innovator’s Dilemma, author Clayton M. Christensen shows how these and other products cut into the low end of the marketplace and eventually evolved to displace high-end competitors and their reigning technologies.

At the heart of The Innovator’s Dilemma is how a successful company with established products keeps from being pushed aside by newer, cheaper products that will, over time, get better and become a serious threat. Christensen writes that even the best-managed companies, in spite of their attention to customers and continual investment in new technology, are susceptible to failure no matter what the industry, be it hard drives or consumer retailing. Succinct and clearly written, The Innovator’s Dilemma is an important book that belongs on every manager’s bookshelf. Highly recommended.

Book Description
THE INNOVATOR’S DILEMMA takes the radical position that great companies can fail precisely because they excel at the commonly accepted practices of good management.

It demonstrates why outstanding companies like Xerox, IBM, Sears, and DEC that had their competitive antennae up, listened astutely to customers, and invested aggressively in new technologies still lost their positions of market dominance. And it shows companies today how they can avoid a similar fate.

Drawing on patterns of innovation in a variety of industries, the author argues that good business practices-such as focusing investments and technology on the most profitable products that are currently in high demand by the best customers-ultimately can weaken a great firm. He shows how truly important, breakthrough innovations, or disruptive technologies, are initially rejected by customers who cannot currently use them. This rejection can lead firms with strong customer focus to allow their most important innovations to languish. The fatal disability in these firms is their failure to create new markets and find new customers for these products of the future. As they unwittingly bypass opportunities, they open the door for more nimble, entrepreneurial companies to catch the next great wave of industry growth.

Many companies now face the innovator’s dilemma. Keeping close to customers is critical for current success. But long-term growth and profit depend upon a very different managerial formula. This book will help managers see the changes that may be coming their way and show them how to respond for success.

New Reports on PIER, DG, Carbon

Here are three new items of interest:

– Calif PIER Program 1998 Annual Report
– GRI Distributed Generation Forum; Booklet
– New DOE Carbon Sequestration Report

PIER Program’s 1998 Annual Report is now available

The Public Internet Energy Research (PIER) Program’s 1998 Annual Report is now available on their Web site. The report can be downloaded as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file and the executive summary can be read on line. Go to:

The appendices contain descriptions of all projects funded to date.

GRI Offers Overview Document; Reopens Distributed Generation Forum to New Members

The Distributed Generation Forum (1997-1998) concluded two years of work to provide its thirty-three members with a strong understanding of their opportunity for penetrating the distributed generation market. The final meeting of Forum (1997-1998) was held in Mesa, Arizona on March 4-5, 1999. The existing members have urged the continuation of the Forum for another two years. The Forum attempts to maintain membership at thirty companies to provide for extensive dialog among the members. The Forum will accept applications for two-year memberships which will begin in the second quarter of 1999.

The Distributed Generation Forum was established at the end of 1996 to bring together gas and electric utility representatives with manufacturers of small power generation technology for discussion and analysis of the emerging changes in the electric power industry and the future role for distributed generation technology. During its first two years of operation the Forum completed parallel analyses of electric industry restructuring and distributed generation technology and markets. In addition to the analytical work conducted by Onsite Energy Corporation and George C. Ford & Associates, the Forum invited speakers from industry, government, and research organizations to discuss technical, regulatory, and economic aspects of the market.

The Forum has released a public document highlighting key market opportunities and critical issues. “The Role of Distributed Generation in Competitive Energy Markets”, March 99, is a 15 page booklet that does a good job summarizing DG issues.

To request a free copy of the booklet, and to get more information about the forum, contact (preferably by email, and include your mail address):

Dan Kincaid, GRI Business Development Manager, Power Generation, 773-399-8338

He can also send you a Forum prospective members package. Current members are Allison Engine Co., Allied Signal, C.A.G.T., Llc, Caterpillar Inc., Coltec Industries, Com/Energy Enterpr., Consumers Gas Co., Cummins-Onan, Duke Energy, Edison Tech. Solutions, Electricite De France, Elliott Energy Sys., Florida Power & Light Co., Gas Research Institute, Illinois Power Co., Onsi Corporation, Nipsco, Peco Energy Co., Pan Canadian Energy, Siemens Westinghouse Corp., So. California Gas, Solar Turbines, Southwest Gas Co., Transalta Utilities, Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical, Unicom Energy Svcs., Union Gas, Union Electric, Woodward Governor

(See UFTO Note 7/15/97 “Distributed Generation–Recent Developments” for background)

DOE Reports on State of the Science Of Carbon Sequestration

On April 12, DOE released a 200-page “working draft” report as a starting point to set priorities and identify specific directions for R&D activities. DOE plans to convene a public workshop in late May or June to begin developing a joint government-industry-academia “road map” for future carbon sequestration research and technology development.

The report identifies key research needs in several aspects of carbon sequestration, including technologies for separating and capturing carbon dioxide from energy systems and sequestering it in the oceans or geologic formations, or possibly by enhancing the natural carbon cycle of oceans and terrestrial ecosystems such as forests, vegetation, soils, and crops. It also describes advanced options for chemically or biologically transforming carbon dioxide into environmentally safe, potentially marketable products.

The report is available in electronic form from the Office of Fossil Energy web site at

or the Office of Science’s web site at (select “Carbon Management”). A limited number of printed copies are also available from the DOE Fossil Energy Communications Office at (202) 586-6503.

DOE will announce details on the upcoming workshop as soon as they become available.