Skip navigation
Share conversation: Share via:

Manohar Lal Baharani

Mar 30, 2016


1 |
Share via:

The proposal is an excellent endeavor. Kyoto protocol conceived in 1997, operational 2005, time lines 2008 - 2012 and many more initiatives world wide witnessed growth of new technologies (solar, wind, hydro, geo and more) but hardly any appreciable reduction in GHG and fossil fuel dependence. The pace of penetration of new technologies is the real limiting factor. There are many commitments to be free of fossil fuel with time lines of 2020-2030-2050-2100. But the last two decades have seen that the commitments and actual scenarios are quite at variance. The reasons could be market forces, each countries development pace, impatience of investors / bankers to honor life cycle concepts, difference between technology and projects life cycle and more.

Under the given scenario world wide, I would like to read more updates from the contributors as to how they think to enhance the pace of penetration of new technologies so as to be effective in reducing GHG besides meeting the developmental goals within foreseeable time lines through Net Zero Energy options. Thanks. Best Wishes,



Mariac Pou

May 1, 2016


2 |
Share via:


The geothermal technology system is a very interesting technology , either as a source of energy producing either as energy HVAC. 

The geothermal energy takes advantage also of the nearly unvariable temperature under ground that is part of the relatively reduced price of this energy source. Among other advantages, this technology can be deployed in many regions in the world and it provides safety of supply and affordability 

As the energy HVAC is more economically efficient in urban areas, a possibility for a massive implementation could start in cities and countries that need urgent major reconstruction or new construction areas for different reasons, e.g.: fast developing countries with highesst index of population growth, after armed conflict, natural disasters, country strategic plan in human settlements. 

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage Net  Zero Foundation to pursue the implementation of geothermal technology and also forge partnerships anc cooperation initiatives with public sector in public buildings. 


Mia Pou 

Carlos Emilio Perez Damas

May 15, 2016


3 |
Share via:


Your proposal to run all the world economies on Net Zero carbon emissions is a very commendable cause and it is very much in line with one of the major outcomes of the Paris agreement which states that we must achieve net zero carbon emissions by the year 2050 or before.

You mention Geothermal Heat Pumps (GHP) as one of the primary technologies to help us achieve this objective.

I was wondering if you could provide more specifics about the GHP system that you propose. Is this a proprietary solution from the Net Zero Foundation? What are the main features and characteristics of your proposed solution?

If GHP systems are so much more efficient than the traditional Air Source Heat Pumps, why this technology has not been adopted much more rapidly? is it because GHP systems are more expensive to construct and operate? Are there any other disadvantages that are holding this technology back?

What strategy do you propose in order to promote more rapid widespread adoption of GHP systems for any new and existing buildings?

Also, what are the depths that GHP systems need to be installed underground? Any risks of contaminating underground drinking water resources?

Thanks for your great proposal and wish you all the best to the Net Zero Foundation!


Rick Clemenzi

Jul 5, 2016


4 |
Share via:

Carlos - Excellent questions.

1) Nothing presented about GHP is proprietary, it is just that no one else is really operating at the front edge of this science.  Some of our team do have simulation tools which they have offered to the DOE -- to date, the DOE is not interested, mainly because not enough people at even the DOE understand this front edge of the 'building thermal energy' science.  The intention of this proposal is to see a rapid growth of the Net Zero Carbon field as a whole, and that is why we have come to MIT where we hope there are enough people ready to operate at the front edge of the Net Zero Carbon field.

2) As why GHP has not yet fully overtaken ASHP, that is a bit more complicated.  First, GHP is more complex to install and thus a bit more expensive.  On the other side, the LCC economics are 100% on the side of GHP which is why all new schools etc are GHP.  It will take more understanding on the part of the commercial building owners before the transition will occur.  It is NZF's contention that there is also a significant missing understanding about the long term and strategic impacts of an ASHP dominate world -- we suggest that would essentially be an impossible electric generation scenario in many climate locations creating gigantic winter peaks and thus being not economically supportable.  This is a major issue that almost no one has even noticed yet.

3) GHP is a completely clean ground install.  There are several GHP techniques ranging from 6' deep "horizontal" loopfields to 1500' standing water column wells (e.g., Statue of Liberty).  None of the techniques affect water quality, and installation is highly regulated at all levels of government and industry.

Net Zero Foundation