Utah's Solar Fired Furnace to Power California for Less Than the Cost of Coal or Gas

Editor's Note: With this post we welcome John Pendlebury to Celsias. John lives in Ireland and writes about how technology affects the world.

solarlensIn an arid region of the western U.S. known as the Great Basin, the desert floor has recently been reaching temperatures in excess of 1,300 degrees Farenheit. No, this isn't due to global warming, but perhaps part of the solution to it. A Utah based company called IAUS (International Automated Systems Inc.) has developed a solar lens technology that transmits solar energy with an efficiency of 92%.

A California energy consortium has invested in the first stage of the project. Twenty specially designed solar towers are being erected close to the Great Basin in Delta, Utah. Each tower holds four solar lenses that follow the sun as it crosses the clear blue desert sky. Each lens will focus the sun's rays onto specially designed heat exchangers that will convert the solar energy to super-heated steam. The heat exchangers double as high-efficiency turbines that will drive electrical generators to produce alternating current output. 

Later stages will involve placing 1000 towers over 700 acres of desert. With each tower having a capacity to produce 100 kW of power, the entire field stands to produce close to 100 MW of power when finished. That's enough energy to power 50,000 average Californian homes. Once generated, the power will travel around five miles to be integrated with the U.S. national power grid.

solarpodThe key to the success of the project are the unique thin-film solar lenses. Lenses of this size are typically heavy and expensive to produce.  IAUS have developed a technique of embedding magnifying material into cheap, light, rolled plastic. The plastic is composited into extremely large Fresnel lenses. The lenses are light, relatively cheap to manufacture and easy to maintain. This compares favourably with traditional solar collectors.

The plant is located in one of the best solar locations in the country due to its high altitude and thin air. Solar energy is absorbed as it travels through our atmosphere, so placing a solar energy plant in a rarefied environment allows more solar radiation to be captured. IAUS also point out that the land on which the final solar plant is to be situated is one tenth the price of equivalent land in California. Combined with the comparatively inexpensive cost of the plant equipment, this means that the entire facility would cost roughly half of what a coal fired power plant would cost to construct.

solartowerThe solar power plant will produce no pollutants and any CO2 used in its production will be quickly offset by its operation. Coal, and other fossil fuels must be extracted from the earth and transported to antiquated furnaces for burning, increasing the solar plant's attractiveness, as its fuel is delivered daily by the sun. Although the sun does not always shine on the solar plant, the company believe that using a heat storage mechanism, they can deliver power around the clock at an estimated production cost of 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour. With such competitive production costs, IAUS say that their solar power plant will not only beat the price of coal, but be the first commercial solar power plant to compete favourably with gas powered stations.

Every hour, enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth to satisfy the power needs of the whole planet for an entire year. Yet, at present only 1% of the worlds energy is derived from solar power. Will the Utah solar power plant be the nexus that changes all of that? Let's hope so. IAUS have a similar project under way in Texas and interest in the solar power project has been observed as far afield as China and Australia.

 

Further Reading:

72 comments

If you see any unhelpful comments, please let us know immediately.

First of all: Hi John and welcome to celsias, great article.

This is a great idea. For years I've been moaning about "Why don't they just lay thousands of solar panels in the middle of nowhere, like the desert and take all that energy from it". This project is the next best thing. Now people won't have to listen to me complaining, so now there is even more reasons for this project!

Some of those figures are pretty shocking, e.g. only 1% of our energy comes from solar, and yet we could power the entire planet for a year in an hours worth of solar energy. Simple put, that is disgusting! All that free energy going to waste. I thought humans were getting smarter, seems like we are just getting better at taking things from the planet. What was good to see was that other countries are thinking about taking on similar projects.

What I would like to see in the future is most of the planets energy coming from solar stations like this and (hopefully soon) fusion power plants. Each of these forms of energy production have roughly no waste in there process and have huge potential power outputs.

Bring on the future!

Written in July 2008

Red (anonymous)

Great Article,

I agree with “Richard N” only 1% is terrible but at the same time this is a good start, more projects like this one will hopefully bring an end to coal mining and all going well bring an end to the use of coal altogether. Especially now that there is a cheap efficient way to produce these new lenses I see no reason why this little gem will be the first of many. Plus it’s great that China and Australia are interested now. Maybe we’ll see even more of these great solutions around the planet in the near future.

Keep up the good work John.

Written in July 2008

John P. 194°

Hi Richard,

A lot of countries around the world are looking at solar and other renewable sources of energy, out of necessity. Oil and gas prices are going up all over the world. In the U.K. and Ireland gas prices are rising by 20% and it seems as though that's just the start.

At best estimates it will be the middle of this century before we have a workable fusion technology http://www.fusion.org.uk/. That means we need to switch to existing sustainable technologies before the effects of global warming become irreversible. As you put it so well all that free energy is going to waste. The real tragedy is that the technology is there at the moment to harness it, while we still behave like cave men burning dead plants and animals to stay warm.

Written in July 2008

John P. 194°

Hi Red,

I agree. This is a start, but I don't think it's good enough yet. All over the world entrepreneurs are starting up projects like this one, a lot of them are funded privately with little, if any government support. I think what we need is for governments to start putting heavyweight support behind these projects.

"Maybe we’ll see even more of these great solutions around the planet in the near future." Lets hope sooner rather than later.

Thanks for your support.

Written in July 2008

Red,

"more projects like this one will hopefully bring an end to coal mining and all going well bring an end to the use of coal altogether." All I can say is either way, from the influence of these projects or not, there WILL be an end to coal mining, its supplies are finite, so when the supplies run dry and there are no back-up sources of energy... we are all ******!! Could you imagine paying 10 times (or more) the prices we are now for fuel and electricity. I'd rather not! But as you both said, yeah this project is a start of hopefully something better.

John,

The middle of the century? Wow, that really sucks! I remember reading a lot about this stuff a few years back and while it was cutting edge then, I was sure we could have come a lot further than that. I know there was a team of scientists (with one Irish person, oh yeah :D ) working somewhere in France designing what was the Worlds first fusion reactor, guess this may be no more, or at least won't be finished in their lifetimes, most likely any way.

Well fusion aside, there are the alternatives, like above, so lets hope that these will start kicking off around the World in the very near future.

Written in July 2008

KO (anonymous)

Wait a minute. This is ridiculous. This is simply an effort to set up another BIG UTILITY! Look at pictures of Los Angeles from the early 1900's - before oil and natural gas was discovered there in mid 1920's. If you look closely you will see old style solar water heaters on the roofs of 30-40% of the homes. All Californians need to do is put THEIR OWN 21st Century solar devices up on their own roofs - or yards - or sidewalks - or streets. They don't need to build a new utility to deliver solar energy from somewhere else. Most of them live on prime solar energy real estate. Heck, I live on the wet side of the Cascades in Oregon and I can make solar energy!

Written in July 2008

Ian Turney (anonymous)

Tim Flannery in his book the weather makers projected that if you were to cover 4.5% of the world's deserts in solar panels you could deliver more than the world's energy needs. Not that its a practical solution but the point he was making is that we have the technologies now and if we are smart we can make them work for us, which is pretty much the point you guys are making. Its just frustrating that the decision makers seem unable to act for a whole bunch of reasons and interests.

Written in July 2008

John P. 194°

Hi Ian,
Whenever anyone mentions a book to me I always look up the author. This guy Tim Flannery seems absolutely prolific. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.22/RoosPythonsandT.html

I take your point about the practicalities. At the end of the day governments work for us. I think we sometimes forget that. I think if more people made their representatives responsible for taking action on this issue we'd see more done. By that I mean write to your M.P. of Senator, or go and see them, or ring them and let them know that your not gonna vote for them unless they make change happen.

Sorry to get up on my high horse so-to-speak. Thanks for your comment.

Written in July 2008

Karlamanda Bell (anonymous)

Hi, This is a great article and I love the fact that the technology is cheaper than coal. I thought you might like to check out an Australian solar thermal technology doing well in the US - go to www.ausra.com
I have listed you guys on my blog role at www.ghgblog.com

Written in July 2008

Nikita Kondraskov (anonymous)

The marvelous design is futuristic. It could have been a dream of a genius from the past.

I am looking forward to see it in action.

Written in July 2008

John P. 194°

Hi folks,

Karlamanda.
Thanks for your comments. I'll be sure to check out ausra.com and thanks for the link.

Nikita.
I know exactly what you mean. I'd love to actually see one in action. I imagine it's a thing of beauty. Like some beautiful solar flower.

Written in July 2008

Micah Cochran (anonymous)

"In an arid region of the western U.S. known as the Great Basin, the desert floor has recently been reaching temperatures in excess of 1,300 degrees Farenheit."

There's no way anywhere in the world gets 1,300 degree Farenheit. I highly suspect 130 degrees in the real figure.

Written in July 2008

John P. 194°

Hi Micah,

1,300 degrees Fahrenheit (roughly 700 degrees Celsius) is correct and not 130 degrees as you assume.

See here: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070823005326&newsLang=en

There's a link to a demonstration video at the bottom of the following page:

http://www.iaus.com/AdvancedSolarCollector.aspx

"There's no way anywhere in the world gets 1,300 degree Farenheit." Not naturally I agree. Although I'm not sure what the temperature of lava is, or for that matter geysers.

Thanks for your comment.

Written in August 2008

John P. 194°

My apologies again:

See here instead:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:IAS

It has a link to the page I was trying to include above.

Written in August 2008

Cheaper than coal? (anonymous)

How can you compare the cost of a 100MW solar plant that can only make power 12 hours per day with the cost of a much larger coal plant that can deliver baseload power at any time. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Written in August 2008

CN (anonymous)

I hope they don't have any dust storms there. I would think that could have a negative impact on the output.

Written in August 2008

John P. 194°

Actually you're the second person to refer to this. I wrote in the article "using a heat storage mechanism, they can deliver power around the clock at an estimated production cost of 5 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour."

So their idea is to store power generated during daylight hours and deliver power 24/7 to the grid.

"You're comparing apples and oranges"

I don't agree. I'm comparing clean renewable cheap solar energy to dirty dwindling expensive coal burning.

Written in August 2008

Power production at night (anonymous)

Because these things produce tremendous amounts of heat that can be stored and then used during the night hours to continue energy production. Pretty easily in fact.

Written in August 2008

John P. 194°

When I was a kid we used to use Storage Heaters. I guess the technology has come a long way since then, but still kind of similar to what you're talking about?

Thanks for your comment.

Written in August 2008

Man-Bear-Pig (anonymous)

50,000 homes and only 700 acres to do it. The possibilities are endless.

Written in August 2008

John P. 194°

Yep.

When you think of all the deserts in the world. They're not being used for much else. Projects like this could also create a lot of jobs in areas that need them.

In fact, when I think of it. I remember my dad telling me about how he was taken out of school at 16 and sent down a Lancashire coal mine. It was dirty and dark he said. I don't think he ever liked the dark.

I think renewable technologies have a huge potential to offer clean healthy working environments for people in the energy and mining industries.

Thanks for your comment.

Written in August 2008

Leslie B. 227°

In fact, recent data shows that renewables, and green jobs in general, offer one of the few bright spots in the current economy (at least in the U.S.) and have great potential to help us out of our current economic slump - http://www.celsias.com/article/green-job-market-vibrant-despite-overall-economy/

Written in August 2008

So, after reading all the comments here I can only see benefits from this technology. Anything from helping the economy to the environment, all great areas to help, certainly at this time.

All the bad points I have seen have been either irrelevant, or simple opinion with nothing to back it up. So all bad points are null. As for comparing apples and oranges, hardly! Trying to slate this technology for not being able to generate energy 24/7 is not a good thing. It will store the surplus energy for use during the night, as John has clearly said. But if you look into this area a bit more, you will see that the standard energy generating plants, like coal have the problem that when it comes to the night time, if they keep generating then all that energy can and will go to waste. Batteries can only do so much, and are still very inefficient, hence why there are electricity tariffs, certainly in Ireland anyway.

The Worlds energy demand diminished greatly at night, not completely, but greatly, so to keep generating energy from non-reusable sources is simple a waste. So what if the sun goes away for the night, nothing is wasted by it. Besides, it's always shining on some part of the earths surface.

Written in August 2008

John P. 194°

Hi Richard,

That last point you made really hit home. The sun is always shining somewhere. Imagine if someday we had a truly global power network. Places with surplus energy would have ready markets to sell to. Those energy poor countries, would have an accessible supply.

I'm probably thinking far into the future here, but what the hey.

Thanks for your comments.

Written in August 2008

Gerry Wolff (anonymous)

A great idea.

There is more about "clean power from deserts" at www.trec-uk.org.uk .

Written in August 2008

John P. 194°

Thanks for your comment Gerry. I've had a look at the link you posted. Nice site. Some very interesting ideas.

Written in August 2008

Pat W.

It might be wise to check into IAUS. They have been sanctioned in the past by the SEC for making false and misleading statements.

The Company has never sold a single tech that the tout.

They survive by selling stocks

Written in August 2008

John P. 194°

Hi Pat,

I have looked at the SEC site and see nothing to indicate the sanction to which you refer. Perhaps you would like to provide a direct link to the information.

Thanks for your comment.

Written in August 2008

IAUS sells stock to stay in business. 21 years of failures.
http://tinyurl.com/6b3bns
http://tinyurl.com/6jgz2l
no sales of the turbine.
http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs/06-2001/
sec info
http://tinyurl.com/6q7v8c

JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 4/11/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.830 $0.840 Direct / Direct 566,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 4/10/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.840 Direct / Direct 576,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 4/9/2007 Form 4 S 3,000 $0.900 $0.920 Direct / Direct 586,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 4/5/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.700 Direct / Direct 589,740
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD CFO UT 4/5/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.700 Direct / Direct 492,813
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD CFO UT 4/4/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.710 Direct / Direct 502,813
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 4/4/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.710 Direct / Direct 599,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 4/3/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.750 Direct / Direct 609,740
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD CFO UT 4/3/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.760 Direct / Direct 512,813
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD CFO UT 4/2/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.735 Direct / Direct 522,813
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 4/2/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.710 Direct / Direct 619,740
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 3/30/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.735 Direct / Direct 953,839
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 3/29/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.730 Direct / Direct 963,839
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD CFO UT 3/29/2007 Form 4 S 20,000 $0.730 $0.750 Direct / Direct 532,813
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD CFO UT 3/28/2007 Form 4 S 20,000 $0.710 Direct / Direct 552,813
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 3/28/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.700 Direct / Direct 973,839
JOHNSON, RANDALE OFF UT 3/28/2007 Form 144 100,000 85,000 N/A / N/A
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD CFO UT 3/27/2007 Form 4 S 20,000 $0.730 Direct / Direct 572,813
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD CFO UT 3/26/2007 Form 4 S 20,000 $0.720 $0.760 Direct / Direct 592,813
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 3/26/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.725 Direct / Direct 983,839
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 3/23/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.790 Direct / Direct 993,839
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 3/22/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.820 Direct / Direct 1,003,839
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 3/21/2007 Form 4 S 15,000 $0.820 Direct / Direct 1,013,839
NELSON, J. DAVID ATTY UT 3/15/2007 Form 144 625,000 425,000 N/A / N/A
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 3/1/2007 Form 144 260,000 225,000 N/A / N/A
JOHNSON, LAGRAND TODD OFF UT 3/1/2007 Form 144 267,000 200,250 N/A / N/A
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 2/28/2007 Form 4 S 6,000 $0.940 Direct / Direct 629,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 2/27/2007 Form 4 S 20,000 $0.930 $0.940 Direct / Direct 635,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 2/26/2007 Form 4 S 20,000 $0.870 Direct / Direct 655,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 2/23/2007 Form 4 S 5,000 $0.660 Direct / Direct 675,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 2/22/2007 Form 4 S 5,000 $0.660 Direct / Direct 680,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 2/21/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.670 $0.700 Direct / Direct 685,740
JOHNSON, RANDALE OFF UT 2/19/2007 Form 144 66,000 42,240 N/A / N/A
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 1/25/2007 Form 4 S 15,000 $0.440 Direct / Direct 1,028,839
JOHNSON, NELDON CEO UT 1/24/2007 Form 4 S 18,000 $0.426 Direct / Direct 1,043,839
JOHNSON, RANDALE SEC UT 1/23/2007 Form 4 S 10,000 $0.410 $0.440 Direct / Direct 705,7

Written in August 2008

So John P from Ireland, before you repost a story from a TV news report, do a little digging into the company you are reposting about. This company has claimed to have a lot of technology in the past. You will find that they have talked about being in solar for 7 years now and still no electric power generation anywhere in the world.
example:
http://pesn.com/2005/08/02/9600142_IAUS_Solar/
not ever produced for real life solar production, not even being used by the company. IE no sales of this product. That was their first leap into solar. Now they scaled up their ambitions or their desire to sell their stock at a higher price. IMHO
Google Neldon Johnson
Google Randale Johnson
Google LaGrand Johnson

The company is not hiring for this huge business, look into the backgrounds of the main 3 employees. No Power industry experience. No solar experience.
http://tinyurl.com/6fpxsg
From 1983 to the present, Mr. Johnson has been developing the Self-Check System, AFIM, DWM, and turbine technologies. Also, from 1975 to 1990 he worked at a Ream's Grocery Store and had management responsibilities for operations. Mr. Johnson has real estate holdings, one of which is a building of approximately 25,000 square feet in Salem, Utah.

Randale P. Johnson is the son of Neldon Johnson. He has been an officer since June 1996. His responsibilities include marketing and administration. Mr. Johnson holds an associate degree in Computer Science and has four years of experience in the computer industry. He joined the Company in 1996.

LaGrand T. Johnson is the son of Neldon Johnson. He has worked with the Company since 1987 but started full time in 1996. He graduated with a Bachelor's Degree in chemistry in 1991. He received his Doctor of Osteopathy degree in 1995 from Western University of Health Sciences. He works as CFO and General Manager of the Company and in research and development.

Written in August 2008

Pat W.

John P, Here is one link:

http://securities.stanford.edu/1009/IntlAutomated96/

Here is a quote:

"On September 23, 1998, the Company was notified by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of formal action against the Company, its president, and members of his family for possible securities violations. The action stems from alleged material misrepresentations by the Company and the Company's employees regarding new technology developed by the Company. The Company reached a settlement agreement with the SEC in the amount of $50,000 which has been finalized, paid, and signed by the Court as of January 2005."

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/820380/000109690607001391/ias10ksb063007.htm

It might be wise to read that entire document. There are a few real eye openers.

Written in August 2008

The Truth (anonymous)

I see our mental homunculi (the basher cult) have been busy proving their meritocracy and pettiness on two boards today. They run around like the keystone cops from site to site making sure than anything positive about IAS or the BOD is countered with half truths, exaggerations and lies.

I would like to apologize for these ne'er-do-well dolts, if you knew their history and upbringing you may well feel sorry for them.

The truth

Written in August 2008

Red (anonymous)

MaddDawg – first off, not only have you have shown incredible disrespect to the author of this article, but you have yet to give concrete evidence that this technology is not viable.

The inescapable fact is that almost every fuel source that is being used at the moment is running out. That’s why ideas like these are discussed and encouraged not slated at the first chance.

Companies WILL misrepresent themselves and its sad that it will impress upon the viability of a given technology. It is unfortunate but we should try to see the wood for the trees.

So far you have gone to great lengths to discredit the company involved with this solar technology but if you can provide definitive proof that this company’s idea does not work, fair enough. I will accept that and move on, but your conduct here has been nothing short of disrespectful. To accuse someone of plagiarism in the manner in which you have done you have only served to discredit yourself.

You owe the author an apology.

Richard N said it best “All the bad points I have seen have been either irrelevant or simple opinion with nothing to back it up.”

Written in August 2008

Half truths? I reposted the facts from internet with links. I dont make up the fact that the wind blew down the solar pod last year. I didnt make up the SEC story. I didnt make up background of the Johnson family or their constant stock selling. Half truths? Give it a rest.

John P. retold the same story from the SLC TV news report. At least he put the news report link on his article. But no digging. He parrots the California Consortium. Name it. He parrots developed a solar lens technology that transmits solar energy with an efficiency of 92%. Says who? IAUS the guys selling stock or some verifiable source? How about this line, With each tower having a capacity to produce 100 kW of power, the entire field stands to produce close to 100 MW of power when finished. That's enough energy to power 50,000 average Californian homes. Prove it. This thing isnt even working at the time of the TV news report, just burning cardboard and wood. Hello, that isnt generating electricity, that is just hot air.

The author wants an apology? Tell him to also have the editors comment that none of the FACTS he talks about has been proven, and that he just took his story from the TV news report. At least that is how it appears. That he has not seen it generate electricity and he has no evidence that this company is going to finish this project or have a working long term system in place. IE not proven to work for more than a day or a month or a quarter of a year.

Written in August 2008

<i>So far you have gone to great lengths to discredit the company involved with this solar technology but if you can provide definitive proof that this company’s idea does not work, fair enough.</i>

Tell you what, for a company that has been in business for 21 years and has next to zero revenues, done nothing but milk investors by selling stock, when the produce electricity for over a month, I will stop posting the facts about this companies history.

Written in August 2008

Leslie B. 227°

Here at Celsias we often write about new technologies and upcoming renewable projects. Some pan out and some do not, the point is to inform our readers about what is happening with developing solutions to the climate crisis. We welcome feedback and fruitful discussion from our readers and ask that everyone please avoid personal attacks on the writers or one another.

As far as large scale solar projects of this type go, stay tuned for more this week on others that are being developed. Along with wind, geothermal and fuel cell technology, solar is here and we can expect more of it to come.

Written in August 2008

Don DeGroat (anonymous)

While I don't have much of an understanding concerning these technologies (I am a war veteran and was a fighter pilot in Nam), I can appreciate the effort this company is making. I currently own shares of IAUS and intend to buy more. Thanks for the informative article!

Written in August 2008

Leslie, yes, the point is that this company has been in business for 21 years. Your website is promoting a company that has had lots of BREAKTHROUGHS, LETTERS OF INTENT, but where is the beef? IE the sales.

September 10, 2003
International Automated Systems, Inc. [IAUS.OB] Signs Contracts for its Patented Turbine and Solar Collection System

August 26, 2003
International Automated Systems, Inc. [IAUS.OB] Announces the Construction of the World's First "Bladeless" Turbine

August 15, 2003
International Automated Systems, Inc. [IAUS.OB] is Extending the Deadline for the Letter of Intent for $360 Million Dollar Solar Project Utilizing Its Breakthrough Patented and Patent-Pending Solar Technology

June 24, 2003
International Automated Systems, Inc. [IAUS.OB] Lands Letter of Intent for $360 Million Dollar Solar Project Utilizing Its Breakthrough Patented and Patent-Pending Solar Technology

April 1, 2003
Patent Awarded for Breakthrough Turbine Designed to Produce Low-Cost Hydrogen Fuel and Electricity from the Sun

August 13, 2002
International Automated Systems, Inc. (IAUS.OB) Inks Deal to License its New Breakthrough Turbine to The Hydrogen Renewable Energy Enterprise, LLC

March 25, 2002
Accepting Orders for New Home Mini Power Plant, Powered by Breakthrough Turbine Technology

February 24, 2002
International Automated Systems (IAUS.OB) Announces Test Results of Propulsion Turbine

December 4, 2001
International Automated Systems (IAUS.OB) Announces Biometric System For Airport Security, Based on Patented Technology

November 19, 2001
International Automated Systems (IAUS.OB) Signs First Deal to License "Bladeless" Turbine, Offering Low-Cost, Renewable Energy

August 15, 2003

International Automated Systems, Inc. [IAUS.OB] is Extending the Deadline for the Letter of Intent for the $360 Million Dollar Solar Project Utilizing Its Breakthrough Patented and Patent-Pending Solar Technology

SALEM, UTAH- International Automated Systems, Inc. ["IAS"] (IAUS.OB) has agreed to a thirty-day extension of the original deadline for the Letter of Intent with Titanium Resources Corporation ["TRC"], Calgary
Alberta, Canada.

Written in August 2008

For the nine months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, the Registrant had no revenues or cost of sales. For the nine months ended March 31, 2008, registrant had total operating expenses of $5,687,256 compared to expenses of $6,367,873 during the same nine month period for a year earlier. For the nine months ended March 31, 2008, general and administrative expenses were $5,236,010 compared to $5,857,702 and research and development expenses were $440,971 compared to $510,171 a year earlier. For the nine months, the Registrant had a net loss of $5,885,158 compared to a net loss of $6,367,873 for the same nine month period a year earlier. For the nine months ended March 31, 2008 the net loss per share was $0.20 compared to $0.24 for the same period a year earlier. The decrease in net loss is primarily due to a decrease in general and administrative and research and development expenses.

http://tinyurl.com/6ppznp

Written in August 2008

interesting things to google
iaus breakthrough
iaus contract utah
iaus milestone

Written in August 2008

Just to make clear the post above.
For the nine months ended March 31, 2008, general and administrative expenses were $5,236,010 compared to $5,857,702 and research and development expenses were $440,971 compared to $510,171 a year earlier.

They spent 1/2 a million on R&D and 5 million on admin expenses? Figure out how many employees this family run business has.. Follow the money.

Written in August 2008

The Truth (anonymous)

I see our mental homunculi (the basher cult) continue to prove their meritocracy and pettiness. They will destroy this site by flooding and spamming it making sure that anything positive about IAS or the BOD is countered with half truths, exaggerations and lies.

I would like to apologize for these ne'er-do-well dolts, if you knew their history and upbringing you may well feel sorry for them.

They have redirected the discussion from technologies to personalities and turned this discussion board into a battle ground.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

The truth

Written in August 2008

Don DeGroat (anonymous)

IAUS' solar technologies and future successes may very well put many of the other "pretend" solar competitors out of business. Not to mention big oil would hate to see an IAUS success. It is no wonder that there exists people who will feverishly battle this tiny company. They must really fear IAUS. If they didn't fear IAUS, they wouldn't care what this tiny obscure company does. To me, that makes IAUS a great investment. I'm telling everyone about this and I'm buying more shares.

Written in August 2008

Pat W.

I know Don DeGroat very well, and there is no way that he would be buying shares in IAUS.PK.

He is a well known poster on the RB chat board for IAUS.PK and uses the alias "olskunk".

Very interesting board.

Written in August 2008

Here's some nice pictures of the solar pods in shambles after a wind storm. Cant fight the truth can you "The Truth"?
http://tinyurl.com/6b3bns
http://tinyurl.com/6jgz2l

If you are reading this story of this solar company, just remember there are many people who would like to unload their stock at a higher price. Many of them have been trying to do this for years. Many would like to artificially inflate this stocks value by promoting this company, a company that has been in business for 21 years and has failed to produce products that the world wants or needs, thus no revenues. In my opinion, stay far away from this company.

Here's the truth, they have been in the solar business or power business since 2001 and so far NO revenues from that product stream.

For the nine months ended March 31, 2008 and 2007, the Registrant had no revenues or cost of sales. For the nine months ended March 31, 2008, registrant had total operating expenses of $5,687,256 compared to expenses of $6,367,873 during the same nine month period for a year earlier. For the nine months ended March 31, 2008, general and administrative expenses were $5,236,010 compared to $5,857,702 and research and development expenses were $440,971 compared to $510,171 a year earlier. For the nine months, the Registrant had a net loss of $5,885,158 compared to a net loss of $6,367,873 for the same nine month period a year earlier. For the nine months ended March 31, 2008 the net loss per share was $0.20 compared to $0.24 for the same period a year earlier. The decrease in net loss is primarily due to a decrease in general and administrative and research and development expenses.

http://tinyurl.com/6ppznp

Written in August 2008

Pat W.

Why did IAUS.OB become IAUS.PK?

Perhaps a lack of competent management?

Written in August 2008

<b>but you have yet to give concrete evidence that this technology is not viable.</b>
Sure I have, a single wind storm took out the pods and left them in tangles.
http://tinyurl.com/6b3bns
http://tinyurl.com/6jgz2l

You cant generate electricity if your collectors cant take a little wind. And it is windy all the time in the Great Basin or the Utah deserts.
You want more proof?
The solar pods are supposed to heat a liquid and then run a turbine. The turbine they are using was created by the President of this company, Neldon Johnson in 2001. This breakthrough (cough cough) turbine has NOT ever attracted a single buyer since that time. Why wont it sell? Why does IAUS have no revenues from this breakthrough revolutionary turbine?
Why indeed? Is it because it works so well that we cant have it in operation because it will put it's competitors out of business? The jobs that will be lost. Or is it because it just doesnt work. And if it doesnt work, the solar pod will not work. And if the solar pod does not work, no one is going to be buying this product or buying any electricity from them.

a solar company you should look at.
http://www.ausra.com/
another
http://www.esolar.com/

Written in August 2008

Mary T. (anonymous)

I'm sadened that this discussion board has been dragged down to a rant by sheer ignorance.

Instead of presenting a reasonable measured argument, which is everyones right, these individuals can only rant and seem hell bent on having the last word. They're like two kids that don't want to let anyone have an opinion that differs from their own.

Pat W. started off by pointing out that IAUS had been taken to court by the SEC for making outlandish claims about their products, but he is very selective in what he talks about. He didn't mention that the product in question was a digital modem, nothing to do with solar panels. The author of this article should have pointed this out, but I think it's understandable why he chose not to engage with these bafoons. This was back in the 90's when lots of companies talked about products and never delivered. During the "dot com" boom. This company seems to have paid the price and the fact that they are still trading with the permission of the SEC speaks volumes. Spurred on by his companion he now resorts to common insults to make his point. "lack of competent management"

As for this MaddDawg C. character. Comentators are right to point out that he has accused the author of this article of plagorising the story. However, he obviously didn't read the article properly or listen to the youtube video. If he had he would have noticed that the orginal news report did not even mention the company's name. To his credit the author found out much more information than the original news report contained.

As for selling stocks to raise capital. That's commmon practice in business. People who buy stocks aren't fools and the SEC is not going to allow a company to trade on lies.

I'd encourage everyone not respond to these two individuals in the future. One shouldn't engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Written in August 2008

Hey Mary, what do you think of the wind storm that took out the solar lenses?

Hey Mary, the company raised 6 million in 9 months of stock sales with only 400 thousand going to Research and Development. Where did that other 5.2 million go?

Hey Mary, how many employees work at IAUS? Where is their careers section on their website. They have a how to buy stock section, but no jobs? With billions of dollars at stake the company remains focused around three family members?

Hey Mary, you say that the author deserves credit for finding out the name of the company, wow, he watched the original news feed from the YouTube site where people like you posted the name of the company. That is real research!!
Hey Mary, dont you read, the SEC is too busy to take on a small fry operation in the deserts of Utah?
Hey Mary, please tell us your background with IAUS, are you a shareholder?
And as for the authors article being plagiarized, I never said that, I was saying he parroted a news feed, transcribed the feed whatever, IE he did no research on his own, he just copied the feed into a transcribed written article. If you have a problem with my statement then you really are fishing.
Pats comments about the lack of competent management are dead on. If you cant handle the truth, no sales of the famed bladeless turbine which countless articles have been written about, wait for another year from now when the new solar power plant is still not selling any power or being sold to serious solar companies.

See Mary, I have made no comments about you or the author or the editor that say "battle of wits". If the author or editor dont like my comments like "parroting" which are not personal slams, they are professional then maybe they really dont like FREEDOM of SPEECH where they give a platform for a company like IAUS to have access to maybe unwary investors. But I respect them for keeping this news story alive, for keeping this thread alive. Thus I am proud of their journalistic professionalism. They believe in solar power.. as do I.

If you want to support solar power by voting with your wallet, look for a reputable solar company, or wait to see if IAUS can produce electricity for more than a hour, more than a month. Then buy the stock. See I dont try to restrict freedom of speech with personal slams or ignoring a conversation. YOU DO. Obviously you have something to hide.

Written in August 2008

Pat W.

Mary, are you aware of the history IAUS has of claiming contracts with companies that were not completed? One such was a claim with a company for their U-Check system that was a mere day old. The final result? Nothing ever happened.

Regarding the solar panels, they claimed a huge LOI with a company that did not even have an office and worked only by cell phone.

They claimed another huge contract with a company for a major project in Nevada. Seems however that nothing ever came of that one either. However, they certainly inflated the CEO's resume.

Mary, I love the concept of green energy, hence I have a real problem with scam companies that take the few resources availiable to the legit companies.

Written in August 2008

Logman (anonymous)

"I was saying he parroted a news feed, transcribed the feed whatever"

No you didn't! You wrote.

"So John P from Ireland, before you repost a story from a TV news report, do a little digging into the company you are reposting about."

Reposted means exactly that. And I don't see the difference between reposted, parroted or transcribed. It all means plagiarism. Why don't you look up the word if you don't understand it.

Just because Mary T. and others choose not to engage with you doesn't mean she has something to hide. Our freedom of speech means that we can choose not to talk aswell.

Your so uncool man. You are just ranting. I'm going to follow their example and not respond to you in future, but I bet you can't.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/logorrhea

Logman

Written in August 2008

The Truth (anonymous)

Who is Pat W. ?

He is Don W Degroat, the 14th phony down.

http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies1057.htm

Who is madddawg c?

Robert F Kirk

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=17887488

These men are really sick people.

The truth.

Written in August 2008

Pat W.

A little background on two of the Officers of International Automated Systems:

"Randale and Neldon Johnson both signed Pleas in Abeyance and executed related statements, in which they admitted that they attempted with unlawful force or violence to do bodily injury to Sgt. Smith and were guilty of assault.

http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2005/04/04-4067.htm

Most decent folks do nat assault others, especially family members.

Written in August 2008

Logman, sorry buddy, never said plagiarism.
You're going to have to look up the word copy. You can copy something without there being legal ramifications. Do you get sued when using a copy machine at work? I also pointed out that he posted the original news feed. My point was since he just parroted the original news feed and did no research into the company or the technology, that it would behoove the writer or editors to maybe do a little digging into the company's past and see if they were for real or if they were full of hot air.
Anyways, thank you for the great discussion. I am glad we can agree that copy, reposting, parroting do NOT mean plagiarism. That would require the copied party to come into play and I never said that. Maybe John got permission to transcribe the original? Who knows?
I like asking questions.
Like how much electricity was created with the first solar pod?
How much electricity is the 2001 invented turbine generating?
Do the company officers drive green vehicles or are they still driving around in gas guzzlers? IE are they committed to a green future or are they just riding the next technology bandwagon wave to reap profits? (see my above posts for where the money is going)
In a free country you are allowed to have an opinion and express it. Thankfully the writers and editors value that over your character assassination attempts.
Boy I bet the writer and the editor did not realize they were stepping into a hornets nest.

Written in August 2008

Pat W.

What ever happened to this project?

"
IAUS Inks $150 Million Deal for its New Breakthrough Solar Technology

New Low-Cost Solar Energy

International Automated Systems, Inc. [OTCBB : IAUS] has signed a $150,000,000.00 Purchase and Installation Contract to install a turnkey 100 megawatt power plant for Solar Renewable Energy-1 LLC of Nevada.

The Nevada installation will showcase IAUS’s solar collector lenses which generate steam to its patented turbines for solar thermal generated power. Low-cost energy produced by IAUS’s new solar technology can be used to generate electricity or produce clean fuels such as hydrogen and green methanol (gasoline replacements) at a competitive price. IAUS’s unique thin-film solar panels can be produced at a fraction of the cost of today's photovoltaic solar panels

http://www.iaus.com/news02092006.aspx

Why has IAUS never produced a single watt for them?

This project was supposed to be up and running in Q1, 2006

Written in August 2008

Pat W.

This might cause some worry about investing in IAUS.PK at this point:

IAS's Oppositions to UPEK's Motions are now due on August 26, 2008;

07/16/2008 141 ORDER Re: Hearing and Briefing Schedule for UPEK'S Motion for Summary Judgment RE: Inequitable Conduct and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 7/16/2008. (rlr) (Entered: 07/16/2008)
-------------

Doc 141
OCR extract

ORDER RE HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR UPEK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS

Having considered International Automated Systems, Inc.'s and UPEK, Inc.'s Stipulation to Amend the Hearing and Briefing Schedule for UPEK's Motion for Summary Judgment re Inequitable Conduct and Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs, the Court for good cause hereby enters the following amended hearing and briefing schedule for UPEK's Motion for Summary Judgment that the Patent-in-Suit is Unenforceable Due to Inequitable Conduct and that this Case is Exceptional Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and a Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 ("UPEK's Motions"):

a. IAS's Oppositions to UPEK's Motions are now due on August 26, 2008;

b. UPEK's Replies In Support of UPEK's Motions are now due on September 15, 2008; and

c. The hearing on UPEK's Motions is now scheduled for September 26, 2008 at 11:00 am.

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, THE HEARING AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE IS SO AMENDED.

Dated: July 16, 2008

Hon. Dee Benson

Written in August 2008

Leslie B. 227°

Enough already. This is not an investor site. We appreciate the discussion, but you have all made your points and now it is time to stop. Any further comments that do not add to the discussion in a positive and fruitful way will be deleted by the editor.

Written in August 2008

9 inch mirror burns cardboard and wood too.
" rel="nofollow">
Very cool for the do it yourself solar person.
It melts glass, it reaches 625 degrees Fahrenheit.
Watch the video, I think you will all love the creative graphics and the great music.

Written in August 2008

Solarman (anonymous)

Leslie B, I agree with you. This is about energy technology and sharing ideas. It is not about investment advice. It looks to me like too many people here have a personal agenda. I suggest they take there petty differences and go elsewhere. If not, I agree with you that the editor should take action and clean this board of all such personal attacks.

If the technology works as claimed, it will stand on it's own or fail on it's own if it does not.

Written in August 2008

Dale T. 10°

Leslie, thank you for moderating this board. I have been living a almost carbon free lifestyle for years. I ride my bike to work and the store, I power my house with solar, and I grow much of food I eat. But I am thankful that you have not removed the stock/investment posts, because it is important to keep people from giving solar a bad name. Much like Enron or many of the other corrupt companies that have given stock investments a bad name. You are a very smart and thoughtful person. Keep up the good work. We need more people like you who are making a change for positive solar/green advancement not hoodwinked by smoke and mirrors.

Green thought for the day.
Is it really saving us electricity when we use one time use plastic bottles, aluminum cans, dishes, forks and knives. If it is cheaper, financially, is it cheaper in the long run when we have less fuel, less resources? Do restaurants that have washed dishware bare the costs short term but save the future for the long term?

Written in August 2008

Star (anonymous)

Dale-nobody was criticizing solar, and I daresay it and wind are must develop technologies.

What I and others were criticizing is a company using false claims about its solar technology to promote the sale of stock.
Not only does that divert capital from legitimate enterprises, it also creates the same perception of smoke and mirrors in the industry that you decry.

Written in August 2008

Dale T. 10°

Yes, wind is actually solar since winds are driven by the sun.
And since the wind drives waves, wave power is also solar by definition.
Each have their merits.
Here are some of the pros/cons of each.
Solar: like the above story example uses up valuable land, whereas rooftop installations are the most resource environment friendly. We need more roof top solar. Nature can have a home too.
Wind: Wind power is a form of concentrated solar without the use of land. Negatives is migrating birds run into the mills and they are tall and unsightly. (Regardless of how cool they are to watch and know they are making power)
Wave: In my opinion, one of the worst forms of renewable energy. Corrosion in the ocean is very difficult to stop without nasty chemicals. You also have to run the power from the generator to the shore, electricity loss to the ocean (since salt water is such a great conductor) . You also cover over the ocean with a cap, not a reef, but a cap where valuable solar radiation is supposed to enter the water and do it's magic with the underlying organisms.
Fantastic advances are being made in solar power for roof-tops. That should be our number one source of power, but all types of power have their place. Like a giant smorgasborg to choose from. Let the winner find it's place. Roofs are a giant waste of space. Plus solar will cool in summer and insulate in winter.

Written in August 2008

banjo (anonymous)

I really think they might have something here, but if they don't, they'll just go away.

Written in August 2008

banjo (anonymous)

PESN will be doing an interview with Randy Johnson of IAUS. The interview is scheduled for 8-18-08. Hopefully we find out about this tech.

Written in August 2008

Dale T. 10°

I really think the use of lenses to focus the sun is a non-workable idea. First you have two sides of a lens to keep clean. Second the thing stand up into the wind, no way cheap plastic will withstand, sun, wind, rain, ice, snow and worst of all hail. Terrible idea. These guys are wasting their time out in the desert. We need non-centralized solar not more of the same. The cost of creating the towers themselves will take more time to make the steel than the amount of solar heat they will generate over their lifetime. The payback for this system is years!! Years. The greenest solution is home solar. It has been proven that systems that provide electricity close to where they are being used are more green than lets say, putting these goofy looking jokes out in the deserts and then having put the power over transmission lines across two and one half states.

Written in August 2008

Dale T. 10°

I was doing some research on PESN. It looks like the interviewer is a paid contractor of the company that he is reporting about.
Full Disclosure:
Sterling D. Allan, the author of this PESN story, has an agreement with IAUS to receive a referral fee for individuals who sign up for this program.

We want to go green, it looks like this system is a bust. The search continues.

http://pesn.com/2006/01/18/9600220_IAUS_Solar_Tax_Credit_Program/

Written in August 2008

Peter (anonymous)

MaddDawg, thanks for the good info. I found your posts to be informative and to the point. I would be very surprised if this company produced anything that proved real. Fishy fishy fishy.

Written in August 2008

SolReka (anonymous)

People have neglected to mention the sheer scale of maintaining such an array. How would 1000 of these dishes be cleaned? A massive loss in efficiency will occur from blemished/dirty parabolas.
The maintenance and upkeep are the only hurdles when it comes to bringing such technologies to fruition.

SolReka
http://solreka.com/blog
Brighter Energy Solutions

Written in August 2008

fireofenergy (anonymous)

Centralized electricity is better than expensive rooftop if it creates jobs and emmits no polution. A green grid by Concentrated Solar Thermal is best if you don't mind spending a few bucks more for glass freznel lenses (in this case). I would think that the more expensive stat version (with molten salt tower and the ability to store heat for later generation) would be the way to go. Many people scoff at solar, well, scoff no more! Unlimited potential, just a few bucks more, kinda like nuclear without the hassles!

Written in October 2008

MaddDawg C. (anonymous)

Hey John P. Why dont you do a follow up of this story?
They have produced no power and perhaps your little story helped another scam company sucker people out of their hard earned money. You from your little remote location in Ireland or whatever did no real journalism here. You were suckered and helped the forces of evil do their work. Repent sinner.

Written in April 2010

Add a comment
  • to get your picture next to your comment (not a member yet?).
  • Posted on July 30, 2008. Listed in:

    See other articles written by John »

    72 comments

    Pledge to do these related actions

    Digitize your household, 11°

    Digitize your media and clean up space. Scan paper documents and manuals into TIFF or ...

    Save Energy, Save Environment, 11°

    Reducing your carbon footprint is a click away!! Yes.. there is a fairly simple way ...

    Convert Diesel Garbage Trucks to CNG, LNG and Hydrogen Fuels, 11°

    In the United States approximately 175,000 refuse trucks operate and burn approximately 1.2 billion gallons ...

    Follow these related projects

    Skipso

    London, United Kingdom

    pmbventures

    United States

    Featured Companies & Orgs