Geo-exchange is suitable in scale for small industry

VIA Slashdot

 

Ground-source heat pumps have been around for decades but every year seem to attract more homeowners and organizations who are looking for alternatives to traditional space heating and cooling. They can hook into existing forced hot air and hot water systems but not steam heat.

 

Starting in 2006, nearby Harvard University installed six ground-source heat pumps as part of its Green Campus initiative. Administration buildings and athletic facilities are already online and two more buildings planned.

 

People who go with geothermal are typically either interested in it because it's a clean energy technology or because they're looking to escape fossil fuel prices, said Diona Roberg, the director of operations at Water Energy Distributors, which distributes geothermal systems from ClimateMaster.

 

"Business is out of control--we can barely keep up with it," Roberg said. About half of the customers go geothermal to cut heating and cooling costs. But the other the half "don't care what it costs, they just want to do green," Roberg said. The family-owned business has doubled in size over the last four years.

 

Open and closed loop
Strictly speaking, what's often called a "geothermal system" is a misnomer because it implies tapping the heat in the Earth, something already done at large scale to supply electricity to utilities. This geothermal energy--and its offshoot enhanced geothermal--works only works in certain geographies and uses different technology.

 

Regardless of type, though, ground-source heat pumps are considered one of the most efficient forms of heating and cooling.

 

The International Ground Source Heat Pump Association, based in Stillwater, Oklahoma, said geothermal is 50 percent to 70 percent more efficient for heating than other systems. The U.S. Department of Energy says that a ground-source heat pump uses 25 percent to 50 percent less electricity than conventional heating and cooling systems.

 

Roberg said that the maintenance costs for geothermal are half the cost of traditional heating and cooling systems. The payback on geothermal systems, which used to be about seven years, is now typically four years, she said. Recently passed federal renewable energy incentives now include $2,000 per year tax credit.

 

"Even though heat pumps and geothermal space conditioning has been around for a while, it's still considered very much a new market and as such, there aren't nearly enough contractors and engineers," he said, adding that an installation can require coordinating different contractors. "Unfortunately, until you have a one-stop-shopping solution, it's not going to become nearly as ubiquitous as it could be."

Read full at Cnet

Change - The day before tomorrow

"One of the great liabilities of history is that all too many people fail to remain awake through great periods of social change. Every society has its protectors of the status quo and its fraternities of the indifferent who are notorious for sleeping through revolutions. But today our very survival depends on our ability to stay awake, to adjust to new ideas, to remain vigilant and to face the challenge of change." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Big Oil: 'World has reached peak petroleum'

VERY Gristy

It's amazing enough that the normally staid International Energy Agency recently said we've run out of time. Now Business Wire reports:

According to a new survey by BDO Seidman, LLP, one of the nation's leading accounting and consulting organizations, 48 percent of chief financial officers (CFOs) at U.S. oil and gas exploration and production companies agree that the world has reached its peak petroleum (liquid hydrocarbon) production rate or will reach it within the next few years, while another 52 percent disagree with that statement.

The point is, it is not just the "peakists" who think we have a big, big problem. And it's not just the CFOs. The CEO of Royal Dutch/Shell emailed his employees, "Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand." The CEO of French oil company Total S.A., said that production of even 100 million barrels a day by 2030 will be "difficult." The CEO of ConocoPhillips said, "I don't think we are going to see the supply going over 100 million barrels a day."

Remember, the problem is far graver than it appears for one simple reason: Replacing oil in the transportation sector requires strong government action two decades before a peak because of the time needed to replace vehicles and fuel infrastructure. That was the conclusion of a major study funded by the Bush Department of Energy in 2005 on "Peaking of World Oil Production" [PDF]. The report notes:

The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.

Read full at Grist

What's Hot About Geothermal Power

FROM triplepundit

Green, Clean Operation

Geothermal energy is all the rage these days, with the talk of its capability to solve all our energy woes. I had a chance to visit The Geysers, North America's largest Geothermal operation (generating about 40% of the geothermal power in the US) and I've gotta tell you, I'm more fired up than I was before. (I can't promise not to throw a couple more bad puns in there before this post is through but I hope you'll bear with me)

Geothermal power produces emission free, steam-based energy by utilizing heat from the earth's core. It is so cool. Each plant will have a slightly different set-up based on the rock formations below the surface, but here's how it works at the Geysers. Two miles below the surface of the earth is hot magma (say it with me: liquid hot mag-ma). One level above that is a porous seabed rock, filled with thousands of tiny cracks. The water from the ancient seabed is filtered through those cracks, and heat from the magma turns that water to steam. The plant works by drilling a narrow hole down 2 miles to the porous rock level, and the steam shoots up the hole. Pressure from the steam turns a turbine, and then, boys and girls, electricity is made.

Big Money, Big Power
The Geysers is operated by Calpine, an energy generation company in northern California. Calpine operates 19 power plants at the Geysers, employs 350 full time staff, and is capable of generating 725 megawatts of power-- enough to power 40,000 homes! The firm also has a fleet of natural gas powered plants. All in all, it's one of the cleanest power generation companies in the US, and it supplies about 20% of California's renewable energy. Renewable energy is big business in California, where the state's utilities are required to source 20% of their power from renewables by 2010 as well as 33% by 2020. This means that locally produced clean power like geothermal will continue to be in high demand. The high demand is evidenced by a higher premium for renewable energy-- around 11c/kwh for renewable power compared to an average price of around 7.5c paid for energy that doesn't meet the renewable standard. (source)

Closed Loop System
Over time, that steam, the bread and butter of a geothermal operation, can be depleted, since it's blowing out at a constant rate. The Geysers plant has been operating since 1960-that's a lot of hot air. The folks at Calpine have figured out an innovative way to replenish their cash cow. They have contracted with the city of Santa Rosa as a handy disposal for wastewater produced there. 4,015 million gallons of treated wastewater make the 40-mile trek each year to the Geysers, where it's sent down old shafts to refill the porous rock layer. This water quickly becomes heated and goes up the operational vents as steam. The whole process can take an hour or a day-it's tough to tell for sure because it depends on where the water goes 2 miles underground, but it's pretty fast all around.

Old Faithful Plugging Away
Whenever I go on tours like this I'm always struck by how not ecologically minded the folks working at the plant are. At the Geysers, each plant is maintained by a single tech who works a 12 hour shift. The tech we spoke to had been working at the plant for 25 years-and he gave Homer Simpson a run for his money with mutton chops, 70s child molester glasses, suspenders over Carhartts and an expression on his face somewhere between surprise, irritation, and boredom at the presence of these environmentalists drooling over his plant. This man was no treehugger. But he doesn't have to be. The Geysers has been operational since the 60s not because it's green or trendy but because the economic model for producing electricity makes good business sense. These are the types of solutions we really need for the green revolution.

You don't have to have big plants to tap into geothermal power, either.

Using geothermal wells and heat pumps you can basically cut the heating/cooling energy used by a house to (to, not by) a third. That should make them very lucrative for any new buildings. Despite their high initial costs, their effectiveness makes them pay the upfront cost back in a couple of years and past, that—pure profit.

Living large in less

More Photos »

GARY CHANG  grabbed a handle near the wall-mounted television, pulling a section of the wall itself toward the center of the room. Behind it, a small countertop with two burners, a sink and a spice rack appeared. Opposite the countertop, on the back of the now-displaced wall, he lowered a hinged worktop made of a lightweight laminate of honeycombed aluminum. Suddenly, he was standing in a kitchen.

 

This room — the "maximum kitchen," he calls it — and the "video game room" he was sitting in minutes before are just 2 of at least 24 different layouts that Mr. Chang, an architect, can impose on his 344-square-foot apartment, which he renovated last year. What appears to be an open-plan studio actually contains many rooms, because of sliding wall units, fold-down tables and chairs, and the habitual kinesis of a resident in a small space. As Mr. Chang put it, "I glide around."

 

Mr. Chang, 46, has lived in this seventh-floor apartment since he was 14, when he moved in with his parents and three younger sisters; they rented it from a woman who owned so much property that she often forgot to collect payment.

 

These days, he uses a hydraulic Murphy bed of his own design, hidden behind a sofa during the day. "That old routine of folding out the bed is similar in spirit to what I do today," he said. "But the reasons are different. Then, it was just necessary. Now, it's all about transformation, flexibility and maximizing space."

 

MR. CHANG'S experiment in flexible living began in 1988, when his family moved into a bigger apartment a few blocks away, with his grandparents and uncles.

 

Read more from the NY Times

Decaying Nuclear Powered Soviet Era Lighthouses

From Dinosaurs and Robots :

Soviet Union decided to build a chain of lighthouses to guide ships finding their way in the dark polar night across uninhabited shores of the Soviet Russian Empire. So it has been done and a series of such lighthouses has been erected. They had to be fully autonomous, because they were situated hundreds and hundreds miles away from any populated areas. After reviewing different ideas on how to make them work for a years without service and any external power supply, Soviet engineers decided to implement atomic energy to power up those structures. So, special lightweight small atomic reactors were produced in limited series to be delivered to the Polar Circle lands and to be installed on the lighthouses. Those small reactors could work in the independent mode for years and didn't require any human interference, so it was very handy in the situation like this. It was a kind of robot-lighthouse which counted itself the time of the year and the length of the daylight, turned on its lights when it was needed and sent radio signals to near by ships to warn them on their journey. It all looks like ran out the sci-fi book pages, but so they were.

From the Department of Bad Ideas, an impressive piece of engineering and construction executed by some very cold Russians. Sure, it made sense for the time. And maybe micro-nuclear plants still do make sense in some pragmatic, world politics vacuum sort of way.

Abandoned Russian Nuclear Lighthouses

 

Release of the California Biodiesel Multimedia Evaluation Tier I Report

Air Resources Board is releasing the California Biodiesel Multimedia Evaluation Tier I Report prepared by the University of California, Davis and the University of California, Berkeley for the California Environmental Protection Agency and the Multimedia Working Group.  

 

To download this document, please visit our Fuels Multimedia Evaluation website:
http://wwwarb.ca.gov/fuels/multimedia/multimedia.htm. 

Focus on Energy program honored

FROM jsonline.com

 

Wisconsin is one of four states whose energy programs have been recognized with national awards by the Clean States Energy Alliance.

 

The state Focus on Energy program was honored for its biogas digestion program, which provides technical assistance and financing for farmers looking to develop anaerobic digesters that convert cow manure into energy.

 

"Focus on Energy deserves wide recognition for tapping into an underused renewable resource in a way that not only generates clean energy but also helps farmers financially and improves the environment," said Mark Sinclair, CESA executive director.

 

The award was presented earlier this week.

 

Congrats Patrick Keily!

Top 7 alternative energies listed

The US could replace all its cars and trucks with electric cars powered by wind turbines taking up less than 3 square kilometers?

 ...in theory, at least.

 

That's the conclusion of a detailed study ranking 11 types of non-fossil fuels according to their total ecological footprint and their benefit to human health.

 

The study, carried out by Mark Jacobson of the atmosphere and energy programme at Stanford University, found wind power to be by far the most desirable source of energy. Biofuels from corn and plant waste came right at the bottom of the list, along with nuclear power and "clean" coal.

 

The energy sources that Jacobson found most promising were, in descending order:

• Wind

• Concentrated solar power (mirrors heating a tower of water)

• Geothermal energy

• Tidal energy

• Solar panels

• Wave energy

• Hydroelectric dams

 

To compare the fuels, Jacobson calculated the impacts each would have if it alone powered the entire US fleet of cars and trucks.

 

He considered not just the quantities of greenhouse gases that would be emitted, but also the impact the fuels would have on the ecosystem - taking up land and polluting water, for instance. Also considered were the fuel's impact on pollution and therefore human health, the availability of necessary resources, and the energy form's reliability.

 

"The energy alternatives that are good are not the ones that people have been talking about the most," says Jacobson.

 

"Some options that have been proposed are just downright awful," he says. "Ethanol-based biofuels will actually cause more harm to human health, wildlife, water supply, and land use than current fossil fuels."
Biofuel concerns

 

Jacobson says it would take 30 times more space to grow enough corn to power the US fleet than would be needed to erect enough wind turbines, while bioethanol would produce more greenhouse gases than wind power.

 

"Putting people to work building wind turbines, solar plants, geothermal plants, electric vehicles, and transmission lines would not only create jobs but also reduce costs due to healthcare, crop damage, and climate damage - as well as provide the world with a truly unlimited supply of clean power," he says.

 

Read full from newscientist

Fiscal Year 2009 Brownfields Job Training Grants Announced

Thirteen communities in 12 states will share $2.6 million in job training grants geared toward cleaning up contaminated properties and turning them into productive community assets. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under its Brownfields Program, is awarding grants of $200,000 each to non-profit organizations, workforce investment boards, and state and local governments. The grants will teach environmental assessment and cleanup job skills to individuals living in areas near brownfields sites in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. 

 

For more information, visit the EPA Brownfields Website at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields

 

 

 

Paulson: Use Free Trade to Fight Climate Change?

Posted by Keith Johnson (Wall Street Enviroguy)

 

For what it’s worth, outgoing Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has some ideas: Embrace free trade, not protectionism, if global environmental progress is the goal.

 

Speaking at an event organized by Washington, D.C. think tank Resources for the Future, Sec. Paulson offered a defense of the Bush administration’s—and his own—approach to climate policy, with a special nod for the $2 billion clean-tech transfer fund he helped create under the umbrella of the World Bank.

 

In that line, Secretary Paulson reserved his harshest language for punitive trade policies he says impede environmental cooperation between rich and poor countries.

 

Slapping “carbon tariffs” on imports coming from countries that don’t tackle greenhouse-gas emissions—an idea repeatedly floated in Washington—“would be a dangerous path to go down,” Sec. Paulson said. “I strongly oppose that,” he said, since it would fly in the face of one his favorite causes, greater economic and environmental engagement with China. “There’s no hope” of curbing global greenhouse-gas emissions unless China and other developing economies play ball, he said.

 

World Trade Organization rules might make so-called carbon tariffs illegal anyway. But existing rules provide for plenty of other perfectly legal tariffs that also hamstring green goals, he said, such as stiff tariffs on the export of environmental technologies.

 

“Those are morally and economically wrong,” Sec. Paulson said, adding for good measure that they are “extraordinarily stupid and counterproductive.” link to full

 

 

From the Comments
I love your title “Use Free Trade to Fight Climate Change”.
It perfectly illustrates the lack of science and understanding in the whole global warming hysteria.
One cannot stop climate change. There is absolutely nothing that human beings can do to stop the climate from changing.
One can stop human pollution and carbon emissions (in theory), but the climate is constantly changing, one way or another.
More than 10,000 years ago, all of Canada and the northern 1/3 of the US was covered in a giant glacier, this melted due to global warming, more than 9,900 years before the industrial revolution.
Hope this helps.
Comment by get real - January 13, 2009 at 11:55 am

Prices for rooftop solar systems fall as supply grows

Here's a bright spot in an overcast economy: Solar panel prices are tumbling.

 

Prices for rooftop solar systems, including installation, already have fallen 8% to 10% since October and are expected to drop another 15% to 20% this year.

 

Fueling the trend are an oversupply of worldwide manufacturing capacity and lower demand, especially in Spain and Germany, which have been growth engines for the industry.

 

For U.S. homeowners, effective prices are likely to plunge by more than 50% after figuring in a bigger federal tax credit that took effect Jan. 1.

 

"The era of extremely expensive (solar) modules is over," says analyst Nathaniel Bullard of research firm New Energy Finance.

 

Solar consumers can reap even bigger gains if they can buy in a recession.

 

Until this year, homeowners who bought solar systems were eligible for a tax credit that shaved system prices 30%, but the credit was capped at $2,000. Last fall, Congress renewed the 30% credit and removed the cap, lopping thousands more dollars off solar price tags.

 

In California, which accounts for nearly 70% of the U.S. solar market, a typical 4-kilowatt, $32,000 solar energy system cost a homeowner about $23,000 last year after state and federal incentives. This year, if prices sink as expected, that system is likely to cost $10,000 to $12,000.

 

Read more from usatoday

Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008...

First-of-Its Kind Study: Medicare for All (Single-Payer) Reform Would Be Major Stimulus for Economy with 2.6 Million New Jobs, $317 Billion in Business Revenue, $100 Billion in Wages.

 

Establishing a national single-payer style healthcare reform system would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy, according to the findings of a groundbreaking study released today. It may be viewed at www.CalNurses.org.

 

The number of jobs created by a single-payer system, expanding and upgrading Medicare to cover everyone, parallels almost exactly the total job loss in 2008.

    * Create 2,613,495 million new permanent good-paying jobs (slightly exceeding the number of jobs lost in 2008)
    * Boost the economy with $317 billion in increased business and public revenues 
    * Add $100 billion in employee compensation
    * Infuse public budgets with $44 billion in new tax revenues 

 

read the full study  l  view more charts

Dirt-Cheap Gas in 2009: Be Careful What You Wish For

Oil costs a third of what it did in July, and prices keep dropping. That may seem like a godsend now, but we'll pay through the nose later.

 

Today, oil, at over $40 a barrel, costs less than one-third what it did in July, and some economists have predicted that it could fall as low as $25 a barrel in 2009.

 

Prices that low -- and their equivalents at the gas pump -- will no doubt be viewed as a godsend by many hard-hit American consumers, even if they ensure severe economic hardship in oil-producing countries like Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Kuwait and Venezuela that depend on energy exports for a large share of their national income. Here, however, is a simple but crucial reality to keep in mind: no matter how much it costs, whether it's rising or falling, oil has a profound impact on the world we inhabit -- and this will be no less true in 2009 than in 2008.

 

The main reason? In good times and bad, oil will continue to supply the largest share of the world's energy supply. For all the talk of alternatives, petroleum will remain the number-one source of energy for at least the next several decades. According to December 2008 projections from the US Department of Energy (DoE), petroleum products will still make up 38 percent of America's total energy supply in 2015; natural gas and coal only 23 percent each. Oil's overall share is expected to decline slightly as biofuels (and other alternatives) take on a larger percentage of the total, but even in 2030 -- the furthest the DoE is currently willing to project -- it will still remain the dominant fuel.

 

A similar pattern holds for the planet as a whole: although biofuels and other renewable sources of energy are expected to play a growing role in the global energy equation, don't expect oil to be anything but the world's leading source of fuel for decades to come.

 

Keep your eye on the politics of oil and you'll always know a lot about what's actually happening on this planet.

Low prices, as at present, are bad for producers, and so will hurt a number of countries that the US government considers hostile, including Venezuela, Iran and even that natural-gas-and-oil giant Russia. All of them have, in recent years, used their soaring oil income to finance political endeavors considered inimical to US interests. However, dwindling prices could also shake the very foundations of oil allies like Mexico, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, which could experience internal unrest as oil revenues, and so state expenditures, decline.

 

No less important, diminished oil prices discourage investment in complex oil ventures like deep-offshore drilling, as well as investment in the development of alternatives to oil like advanced (non-food) biofuels. Perhaps most disastrously, in a cheap oil moment, investment in non-polluting, non-climate-altering alternatives like solar, wind and tidal energy is also likely to dwindle. In the longer term, what this means is that, once a global economic recovery begins, we can expect a fresh oil price shock as future energy options prove painfully limited.

 

Clearly, there is no escaping oil's influence. Yet it's hard to know just what forms this influence will take in the year. Nevertheless, here are three provisional observations on oil's fate -- and so ours -- in the year ahead.

 

Read Full From alternet

Steven Chu "greater, more committed push towards energy independence, and with it a more secure energy system.''

Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate scientist who is President-elect Obama’s choice to be energy secretary, said in testimony prepared for his Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday that high oil prices were a threat to the economy, saying that “last year’s rapid spike in oil and gasoline prices not only contributed to the recession we are now experiencing, it also put a huge strain on the budgets of families all across America.’’ He called for a “greater, more committed push towards energy independence, and with it a more secure energy system.’’

 

He had told the Wall Street Journal last September , “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,”

 

And he has said point blank that some of the technologies that Federal dollars are pursuing would be nice to have, but are not today ready for use, either because they are too expensive to be practical, or not demonstrated to be safe. In this category he puts. sequestering the carbon dioxide from power plants, recycling nuclear fuel to reduce its volume and recover unused fuel, and making ethanol from cellulose ­ essentially woody wastes or non-crop plants.

 

Read Full By Matthew L. Wald NY Times

 

 

Haase - Mr. Chu is 'dead on' many energy and environmental issues... Like Mr. Chu, I would not want all my comments viewed as a singular viewpoint on these subjects. Issues are not as simple as a paraphrase they publish about your ideas.

 

'boost the price of gasoline?' - Unless we slowly embrace the reality of the 'true cost' of fuels we will be hit with $200 a barrel gas before 2012. Mr. Chu is wisely suggesting a offensive plan to stabilizes these cost to families as they hit the 'true price'.

 

Unless tactical offensive measures on energy independence are taken, we will hit an oil bubble that makes the financial market crash look like a hiccup'.

Conservationists take EPA back to court over ballast water

Conservationists waging a decade-long legal battle to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate ship ballast water just like any other pollutant are headed back to court.

 

Environmentalists last summer won a drawn-out lawsuit forcing the EPA to regulate ballast water under the Clean Water Act, and the EPA has responded to that court order by requiring ships to flush their ballast tanks in mid-ocean to expel any unwanted organisms.

 

That does not go far enough, according to the conservation groups that filed suit Monday. They note that ballast tank flushing is already required for ships entering the Great Lakes, but it isn't effective enough to protect the lakes or the nation's coastal waters.

 

The Great Lakes are now home to more than 180 invasive species, and the overwhelming majority of invasions in the past few decades have arrived as stowaways in ship-steadying ballast tanks.

 

Nina Bell, executive director of Oregon-based Northwest Environmental Advocates, one of the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, said the EPA is giving the shipping industry "a free ride at the expense of the environment and taxpayers."

 

"Not only did EPA pass up this tremendous opportunity to protect the country from invasive species discharged in ships' ballast water, it violated the Clean Water Act at the same time," Deborah Silvas, director of the Stanford Law School Environmental Clinic, said in a statement. "The law does not allow EPA to do what's politically expedient; it requires what is necessary to protect our waters."

 

Read Full By Dan Egan of the Journal Sentinel

 

Using mouthwash could increase risk of cancer by nine times, claim scientists

MOUTHWASHES containing alcohol can cause oral cancer and should be removed from supermarket shelves, a dental health study claims.
Scientists say there is now "sufficient evidence" that such mouthwashes contribute to an increased risk of the disease.

 

'The ethanol in mouthwash is thought to allow cancer-causing substances to permeate the lining of the mouth.' 

 

Michael McCullough, associate professor of oral medicine at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who led the study, said: "We see people with oral cancer who have no other risk factors than the use of (mouthwash containing alcohol], so what we've done is review all the evidence.

 

"Since this article, further evidence has come out, too. We believe there should be warnings. If it was a facial cream that had the effect of reducing acne but had a four to fivefold increased risk of skin cancer, no-one would be recommending it."

 

Professor McCullough, chair of the Australian Dental Association's therapeutics committee, said the alcohol in mouthwashes "increases the permeability" of the mucus membrane to other carcinogens, such as nicotine.

 

A toxic breakdown product of alcohol called acetaldehyde that may accumulate in the oral cavity when swished around the mouth is also a "known human carcinogen," he said.

 

Top-selling mouthwashes contain as much as 26 per cent alcohol.

 

Smoking and alcohol are well-established risk factors in causing cancer, but the use of mouthwash containing alcohol is more controversial.

 

Prof McCullough and co- author Dr Camile Farah, director of research at the University of Queensland's School of Dentistry, recommended mouthwash be restricted to "short-term" medical use or replaced by alcohol-free products.

 

The review reported evidence from an international study of 3,210 people, which found daily mouthwash use was a "significant risk factor" for head and neck cancer – irrespective of whether users also drank alcohol or smoked.

 

But the effects of mouthwash were worst in smokers, who had a ninefold increased risk of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx. Those who also drank alcohol had more than five times the risk.

 

"The public should not worry." Last night, a spokeswoman for Johnson & Johnson Ltd UK, the manufacturer of Listerine, said: "There is no scientific evidence to support an association between the use of alcohol- containing mouthwashes, such as Listerine, and an increased risk of oral cancer."

    * Source: The Scotsman

Researchers Develop Super-Efficient LED Light

cleantechnica:

LED light bulbs are already more efficient than your average bulb, but researchers at the Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a new kind of LED that exhibits both improved energy efficiency and lighting performance. The researchers‘ polarization-matching LED shows an 18 percent increase in light output and a 22 percent increase in wall plug efficiency (the amount of electricity that the LED converts into light).

 

Renssalaer’s LED is more powerful thanks to a reduction in “efficiency droop”, which makes LEDs most efficient when receiving low-density electrical currents and least efficient when higher density electrical currents are received.

 

The research team figured out that the region of the LED where light is generated contains materials with mismatched polarization. By reducing the polarization mismatch, electron leakage can also be reduced, thus increasing energy efficiency. So Renssalaer’s researchers introduced a new design with better matched polarization. As expected, they saw a reduction in efficiency droop and electron leakage.

 

Since LED lights are not yet entirely mainstream, advances made now can easily be implemented in both current and future LED installations.

 

Read full at: physorg

76% of Federal Renewable Energy Support Went to Ethanol in 2007

From: Environmental Working Group [VIA Treehugger (image: EWG)]

Considering that the incoming Obama administration’s energy policy looks to favor second generation biofuels, wind, solar and geothermal power to a greater degree than previous policy, these statistics cited by the Environmental Working Group as much a reminder of things past as much as a warning on how not to do things in the future. Nonetheless, it is useful to, as the EWG puts it, “take a hard, clear-eyed look at...corn-based ethanol’s stranglehold on federal renewable energy tax credits and subsidies. This how things looked in 2007:

Ethanol Got $3 Billion in 2007
According to data EWG dragged up from EIA information released in April of 2008, in 2007 the ethanol industry received $3 billion in federal tax credits, which biodiesel received $180 million, and solar, wind and geothermal combined received $750 million. For those keen on percentages, that’s 76% for ethanol and 19% for solar, wind and geothermal.

America Can Do Better
Saying that “America can do better” and citing oft-heard reasons for corn-based ethanol not being all it was once claimed to be (limited potential for offsetting meaningful amounts of fossil fuels, dubious carbon emission reduction claims), the EWG is calling for politicians to 1) “phase out tax credits for corn ethanol and subsidize biofuels only if they show clear promise to meet strict climate and environmental protection standards;” and 2) “rebalance the US renewable energy and energy conservation portfolio to favor options that do the most to reduce fossil fuel use, safeguard the environment, spur more widely-shared economic development and increase energy security.”

While I'm right there with EWG in thinking that the US would do well to put corn ethanol behind it, move forward to better sources of renewable energy and concentrate even more on energy conservation, and stop being so beholden to Big Corn in general—so right on for the EWG in what they are advocating—is anyone else a bit tired of all the recommendations for what Barack Obama should or should not do? Let's all give the man until February 1 to get innaugurated and settle in to his new abode before again telling him what he ought to be doing.

The changes we need to make sustainable energy a reality:

• Phase out tax credits for corn ethanol and subsidize other biofuels only if they show clear promise to meet strict climate and environmental protection standards.
• Rebalance the U.S. renewable energy and energy conservation portfolio to favor options that do the most to reduce fossil fuel use, safeguard the environment, spur more widely-shared economic development and increase energy security.

More: Environmental Working Group

Top 11 compounds in US drinking water

VIA-  newscientist  A comprehensive survey of the drinking water for more than 28 million Americans has detected the widespread but low-level presence of pharmaceuticals and hormonally active chemicals.

Little was known about people's exposure to such compounds from drinking water, so Shane Snyder and colleagues at the Southern Nevada Water Authority in Las Vegas screened tap water from 19 US water utilities for 51 different compounds. The surveys were carried out between 2006 and 2007.

The 11 most frequently detected compounds - all found at extremely low concentrations - were:

• Atenolol, a beta-blocker used to treat cardiovascular disease

• Atrazine, an organic herbicide banned in the European Union, but still used in the US, which has been implicated in the decline of fish stocks and in changes in animal behaviour

• Carbamazepine, a mood-stabilising drug used to treat bipolar disorder, amongst other things

• Estrone, an oestrogen hormone secreted by the ovaries and blamed for causing gender-bending changes in fish

• Gemfibrozil, an anti-cholesterol drug

• Meprobamate, a tranquiliser widely used in psychiatric treatment

• Naproxen, a painkiller and anti-inflammatory linked to increases in asthma incidence

• Phenytoin, an anticonvulsant that has been used to treat epilepsy

• Sulfamethoxazole, an antibiotic used against the Streptococcus bacteria, which is responsible for tonsillitis and other diseases

• TCEP, a reducing agent used in molecular biology

• Trimethoprim, another antibiotic

The concentrations of pharmaceuticals in drinking water were millions of times lower than in a medical dose, and Snyder emphasises that they pose no public health threat. He cautions, though, that "if a person has a unique health condition, or is concerned about particular contaminants in public water systems, I strongly recommend they consult their physician".

Christian Daughton of the EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory says that neither this nor other recent water assessments give cause for health concern. "But several point to the potential for risk - especially for the fetus and those with severely compromised health."

Daughton says the contamination surveys help people realise how they are intimately and inseparably connected with their environment. "The occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the environment also serves to make us acutely aware of the chemical sea that surrounds us," he says.

 

Modern life

While the US government regulates the levels of pathogens in US drinking water, there are no rules for pharmaceuticals and other compounds, apart from one: the herbicide atrazine. The atrazine levels measured by Snyder and colleagues were well within federal limits.

Snyder says water utilities could make drinking water purer. But the costs of "extreme purification" - far beyond what is needed for safety alone - are huge in terms of increased energy usage and carbon footprint. Ultra-pure water might not even be safe, adds Snyder.

The widespread occurrence of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors reflects improved detection techniques, rather than greater pollution, says Snyder. Contamination is a fact of modern life, he adds.

"As we continue to populate and aggregate, our wastes will certainly accumulate where we live," he says. "We as a species have decided to live a modern life, with pharmaceuticals, plastics, transportation - therefore we must accept that there will be a certain degree of contamination."

Journal reference: Environmental Science and Technology, in press

Quote of the week... 'poor econonmics will contiune to disolve hopes for clean or sustainable energy.'

"You don't ever want to let a crisis go to waste: it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid." - Rahm Emanuel

 

WILL THE EXTRA SPENDING BE ON THINGS WE NEED?
If you hire your neighbor for $100 to dig a hole in your backyard and then fill it up, and he hires you to do the same in his yard, the government statisticians report that things are improving. The economy has created two jobs, and the G.D.P. rises by $200. But it is unlikely that, having wasted all that time digging and filling, either of you is better off.

 

People don't usually spend their money buying things they don't want or need, so for private transactions, this kind of inefficient spending is not much of a problem. But the same cannot always be said of the government. If the stimulus package takes the form of bridges to nowhere, a result could be economic expansion as measured by standard statistics but little increase in economic well-being.

 

... Over the last century, the largest increase in the size of the government occurred during the Great Depression and World War II. Even after these crises were over, they left a legacy of higher spending and taxes. To this day, we have yet to come to grips with how to pay for all that the government created during that era — a problem that will become acute as more baby boomers retire and start collecting the benefits promised.

 

Read more by nytimes.com

 

---

 

Haase - What does this have to do about EHS?

 

'continued unregulated econonmic and overrun govenment spending will dissolve any and all hopes for clean or sustainable energy in our future' - Haase

 

In an ERA without basic health care or employment for over 10% of our nation we will have NO choices but to sacrifice necessary environmental, energy and just to protect the suffering.

 

UNLESS we make the right choices by investing in environmental and energy sectors that grow our jobs and GDP. It is VERY possible, but I have observed no 'realistic ideas for actual change or anything remotely different from decades old environmental and energy programs that failed horribly.

Gas Fight: T. Boone Pickens and FedEx Square Off

Much awesomeness by Keith Johnson

Dallas billionaire T. Boone Pickens and FedEx Corp. chief executive Fred Smith are now duking it out—over, of all things, the virtues of natural gas as a transportation fuel.

Since announcing the "Pickens Plan" in July, the oilman-cum-wind power booster has spent over $60 million, along with countless hours zig-zagging the country in his corporate jet, to promote his plan for using wind power and natural-gas vehicles to break the country's foreign-oil habit. The Oklahoma-born oil magnate insists the U.S. could cut its oil imports by one-third in 10 years by mandating that all new long-haul trucks dump diesel in favor of liquefied natural gas.

But Mr. Pickens has his opponents, including FedEx CEO Fred Smith, who favors electrification of the transporation fleet. Mr. Smith argues that hybrids are the way to go, and is putting his money where his mouth is. With 80,000 motorized vehicles, FedEx now boasts the largest fleet of commercial hybrid trucks in North America.

Without naming Mr. Pickens, the company's director of sustainability, Mitch Jackson, upped the ante on Sunday with a blog item blasting natural gas as transport fuel of the future. After citing a list of reasons against using natural gas instead of diesel, Mr. Jackson concludes that "substituting one fossil fuel for another may mean we're shifting our energy supply, but it doesn't necessarily mean we're going anywhere."

Mr. Pickens then let rip with a rebuttal that accuses Mr. Jackson of making a "flawed argument" by misunderstanding the country's natural-gas reserves and overstating the value of diesel hybrids.

"Not only does Jackson need to do more homework on the domestic availability and clean air benefits of natural gas," Mr. Pickens writes in his Daily Pickens blog, "he needs to realize that deploying vehicles that use slightly less foreign oil - vehicles that have little testing or are not available in the marketplace – will not solve America's energy crisis."

 

Lithium Unicorns and Alternative Energy Storage

Petersen -Last summer, I questioned whether global lithium supplies would be adequate to satisfy exponential growth in the Li-ion battery sector. I raised the question because of a 2006 report, "The Trouble with Lithium" written by William Tahil of Meridian International Research, which concluded that world lithium reserves were not sufficient to sustain EV manufacturing using Li-ion batteries and suggested that Zinc-Air and NaNiCl batteries might be better choices. 

 

 To quote Shakespeare, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

 

I am gravely concerned when Li-ion battery executives use a report that would not pass muster with the SEC as proof that their companies don't face any supply issues, particularly when the report acknowledges that price increases will be required to justify the resumption of mining and processing of alternative resources.

 

If Mr. Lifton's description of the cost of producing lithium from spodumene is even close to accurate, the happy talk about future "economies of scale" that we hear from Li-ion executives is not entirely honest.

 

They're talking about unicorns and supporting their position with a report that would not pass muster with the SEC. While I was willing to remain quiet about raw material supply issues in the past, I think I smell smoke. I believe these resource issues need to be studied in depth by independent experts before we follow the yellow brick road over the edge of a cliff.

 

I'm a believer in the upside potential of companies like Exide (XIDE), Enersys (ENS), C&D Technologies (CHP) and Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) because they use plentiful domestic raw materials to make inexpensive products. In light of the Lifton interview, I think companies like Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) and Ener1 (HEV) may face raw material supply risks that investors don't fully understand. I'm not as concerned about China BAK (CBAK), Advanced Battery Technologies (ABAT), Hong Kong Highpower (HPJ) and Valence Technology (VLNC) because China also has significant lithium salt deposits.

 

However, I think pigs will fly before we see China exporting raw materials to the U.S.

 

Read full by John Petersen here

List of power plants with coal ash ponds

Power plants in each state with coal ash ponds and the amount in tons stored, according to an Associated Press analysis of Energy Department data from 2005, the latest year statistics were available. Read list here FROM BUSINESSWEEK

Exxon to Obama "Let's be realistic about timeframes. Let's not fool ourselves."

VIA planetark 

 

WASHINGTON - Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson said on Thursday it would be difficult to meet President-elect Barack Obama's goal to significantly boost U.S. alternative energy production.

 

In a speech at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, Obama said he wanted the United States to double its output of alternative energy sources during the next three years as part of his plan to revive the American economy.

 

"I think that's going to be very challenging to do," Tillerson told reporters following a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington.

 

He said the United States will not be able to double biofuels output during that period and there was not enough manufacturing capacity to build the wind turbines needed to meet Obama's goal.

 

"I'm not wanting to be critical of his aspirational goal. Aspirational goals are good because they challenge us all to go out and find the right answer," Tillerson said of Obama's plan.

 

But he added: "Let's be realistic about timeframes. Let's not fool ourselves."

 

Despite calls for more alternative energy use, he said, "for the foreseeable future" the world will rely on oil and natural gas for 60 percent of its energy needs.

 

Renewable energy sources, which include solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, biofuels and other biomass, accounted for 7 percent of U.S. energy supplies in 2007, according to the Energy Department.

 

Tillerson said the slowdown in the global economy would be temporary and then strong energy demand from emerging nations will return.

 

He also said that even with the weak economy, Exxon remained committed to investing in projects to meet future energy demand.

 

He said the company was sticking with its $125 billion capital spending budget planned for the next five years, despite the steep drop in oil prices and the global economic slowdown. Any changes to the capital spending budget will be announced in March at a meeting with analysts, he said.

 

Separately, Tillerson reiterated that it would be better for Congress to pass climate change legislation that levies a carbon tax to curb greenhouse gas emissions, instead of imposing a complicated cap-and-trade system that allows businesses to buy and sell pollution permits to spew emissions.

 

Tackling climate change is a top priority for the incoming Obama administration and the Democratic-majority Congress.

 

Tillerson said a carbon tax, which could be tacked on to fuel supplies and electricity consumption, was the most efficient way to reflect the cost of carbon.

 

By comparison, a cap-and-trade system is difficult to verify, requires new government regulators and "a Wall Street of emissions brokers," he said.

 

Crops absorb livestock antibiotics, science shows

Consumers have long been exposed to antibiotics in meat and milk. Now, new research shows that they also may be ingesting them from vegetables, even ones grown on organic.

 

While there are restrictions on use of raw manure in U.S. organic farming because of concern over bacteria, no such rules are in place regarding antibiotics or hormones. Not all organic growers use manure with antibiotics, but many do, said Gupta. Even if a product has the USDA organic label, it still might harbor traces of antibiotics. [Correction 1/6/09: FDA was changed to USDA]

 

For half a century, meat producers have fed antibiotics to farm animals to increase their growth and stave off infections. Now scientists have discovered that those drugs are sprouting up in unexpected places.

 

Today, close to 70 percent of the total antibiotics and related drugs produced in the United States are fed to cattle, pigs and poultry. Although this practice sustains a growing demand for meat, it also generates public health fears associated with the expanding presence of antibiotics in the food chain.

The Minnesota researchers planted corn, green onion and cabbage in manure-treated soil in 2005 to evaluate the environmental impacts of feeding antibiotics to livestock. Six weeks later, the crops were analyzed and found to absorb chlortetracycline, a drug widely used to treat diseases in livestock. In another study in 2007, corn, lettuce and potato were planted in soil treated with liquid hog manure. They, too, accumulated concentrations of an antibiotic, named Sulfamethazine, also commonly used in livestock.
 
As the amount of antibiotics in the soil increased, so too did the levels taken up by the corn, potatoes and other plants.

 

“Around 90 percent of these drugs that are administered to animals end up being excreted either as urine or manure,” said Holly Dolliver, a member of the Minnesota research team and now a professor of crop and soil sciences at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. “A vast majority of that manure is then used as an important input for 9.2 million hectares of (U.S.) agricultural land.”

 

Manure, widely used as a substitute for chemical fertilizer, adds nutrients that help plants grow. It is often used in organic farming.

 

The scientists found that although their crops were only propagated in greenhouses for six weeks--far less than a normal growing season--antibiotics were absorbed readily into their leaves. If grown for a full season, drugs most likely would find their way into parts of plants that humans eat, said Dolliver.
 
Less than 0.1 percent of antibiotics applied to soil were absorbed into the corn, lettuce and other plants. Though a tiny amount, health implications for people consuming such small, cumulative doses are largely unknown.
 
“The antibiotic accumulation in plants is just another negative consequence of our animal agriculture industry and not surprising given the quantity fed to livestock,” said Steve Roach, public health program director for the non-profit Food Animal Concerns Trust.

 

There are serious societal implications regarding the discoveries already made and the questions yet to be answered, Gupta concluded.
 
“We are a chemical society and humans are the main user of pharmaceutical products,” said Gupta. “We need a better understanding of what takes place when chemicals are applied to sources of food and must be more vigilant about regulating what we use to grow food and what we put in our bodies.”

    

Read full from: environmentalhealthnews.org

Welcome Exelon Corporation...

Our site stats indicate that you have a key interest in the information on this site along with countless other energy and government institutions.

 

The key to insuring a safe, secure and stable energy future is putting this information into correct context.

 

If you ever need more clarification or data on a subject, just shoot me a request.

 

Thanks for visiting,

 

'no silver bullets'  Just implementation of solid core programs that offer the greatest return on investment while securing the safety of our people, prosperity of our nation and the protection of our planet. - Haase

 

 

 

Orange drinks with 300 times more pesticide than tap water

Fizzy drinks sold by Coca-Cola have been found to contain pesticides at up to 300 times the level allowed in tap or bottled water.

 

A worldwide study found pesticide levels in orange and lemon drinks sold under the Fanta brand, which is popular with children, were at their highest in the UK.

 

The research team called on the Government, the industry and the company to act to remove the chemicals and called for new safety standards to regulate the soft drinks market.

 

The industry denies children are at risk and insists that the levels found by researchers based at the University of Jaen in southern Spain are not harmful.
Fanta

 

The study uncovered pesticides in some fizzy drinks at up to 300 times the level permitted in tap water

 

The average level of the total pesticide contamination of the British drinks was 17.4 parts per billion  -  34.6 times the EU maximum residue level for water.

 

Coca-Cola GB insisted the products are safe. A spokesman said: 'All of the drinks tested meet the safety regulations relating to food products made from agricultural ingredients, which include drinks with fruit juice as an ingredient.

'The generally miniscule levels that were detected were well within the acceptable daily intake levels and these findings should reassure consumers there is no safety issue here.'

 

Read full from The Daily Mail

Nuclear one set forward two steps back

New York Times - TWO decades after the $6 billion Shoreham nuclear power plant was closed, the Long Island Power Authority has announced plans to hire a consultant to advise it on what to do with a 58-acre waterfront property where the plant’s decommissioned remains are located.

 

Mr. Law said all options would be on the table except one: The state law that created the authority prohibits a nuclear plant, he said, and therefore none will be considered.

 

“But the fact of the matter is, Long Island still cannot be evacuated,” a key factor in the plant’s closing.

 

The Shoreham plant, announced by the Long Island Lighting Company in 1965 and tested at low power in 1985, was shuttered in 1989 in a deal between the company and Gov. Mario M. Cuomo. Lilco later merged with Brooklyn Union Gas to form the KeySpan Corporation, which in turn was acquired by British-owned National Grid two years ago.

 

The closing of the Shoreham plant followed years of protests that evacuation would be impossible in the event of an accident at the 800-megawatt plant. Lilco sold the plant to LIPA for a ceremonial $1 in 1992. The authority assumed the $6 billion plant debt.

 

The authority’s 1.1 million customers have never received energy from the Shoreham plant, the only fully licensed nuclear power reactor never to go into commercial operation, and are still paying off its remaining debt.

 

On Dec. 1, a decision by the United States Supreme Court set back prospects for a new natural gas supply at Shoreham, a supply Mr. Law and others said was a prerequisite for a gas-powered generating station there. The court refused to hear an appeal by Islander East, a natural gas pipeline company half-owned by National Grid, of a lower court ruling upholding the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection’s denial of a clean water permit needed for the project to proceed.

 

The gas line would have run under Long Island Sound from Branford, Conn., to near the Shoreham site.

 

Edward P. Romaine, a Suffolk County legislator from Center Moriches who is on the advisory committee, said the property should become a solar energy park or what he called a green research facility.

 

But existing solar technology works best when it is near the user, experts say. An example would be solar panels on roofs of commercial buildings.

 

The Shoreham property’s location on Long Island Sound between Shoreham and Wading River is not considered favourable for wind turbines. Experts say that for Long Island, only offshore areas in the Atlantic Ocean have enough wind to make commercial turbines feasible.

 

Two small wind turbines LIPA installed on the Shoreham property have had mixed records and were not turning on a recent morning in light winds.

 

As LIPA plans for its 58 acres, National Grid is considering what to do with its 800-acre property and “how best to dispose of it down the road,” said Steven L. Zelkowitz, its executive vice president for business development and energy.

 

In 2003, local residents objected to an $800 million proposal by American Ref-Fuel to incinerate New York City garbage at the site that was brought in by barges. The project did not advance. Area residents have also opposed a ferry terminal at Shoreham because of road traffic.

 

Please read full via - New York Times

Corn, Coal or Chernobyl?

At what price does America equate the importance of nuclear power with perceived global power and its continual waging of war?

Such energy policy makers argue that one is naive to think that we could supplant a substantial portion of traditional power sources with renewable energy sources. For example, Triple Pundit opines that “only a fool would believe we could transition our energy infrastructure over the course of one presidential term.”

Yet, Triple Pundit further states:

And only a bigger fool would seek to stall progress by arguing this transition will be too difficult to integrate, and is therefore not worth doing. Especially when you consider the fact that almost all of our power needs can be generated from renewable energy resources.

And, it is an even more important clarification, since 8 years of Bush have left us desperately fighting to save the planet from catastrophic 5-7°C warming by 2100. With much higher global emissions than 8 years ago, and a lost decade of inefficient, polluting infrastructure built at a cost of many trillions of dollars, we now have much less time.

After a lost decade of inefficient, polluting infrastructure built at a cost of many trillions of dollars, we now have much less time or money.

Furthermore, nuclear power plants have a long lead time from planning to power production and are capital intensive (at a time when capital funding is dwindling). OTOH, true renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal can be brought on line in less time and less capital.

Read full via - After Gutenberg

DOE Releases Groundbreaking Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Database

VIA - EERE 

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program has developed and released a database that provides up-to-date information on marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy in the United States and around the world.

 

The database represents a groundbreaking effort in terms of breadth and depth of information on companies, technologies, and projects within the marine and hydrokinetic industry. The database includes wave, current, and ocean thermal energy conversion technologies. The fully searchable database allows the user to search among both technology types and specific projects, based on a number of criteria including geographical location, resource type, and technology stage or project status. Users can easily access details on a device or project's size, dimensions, and mooring methods, as well as project details, including information on permitting, power purchase agreements, partnerships, or even an interactive GPS mapping feature that allows the user to pinpoint certain project locations worldwide

 

Visit the Marine and Hydrokinetic Technology Database Web site.

 

Obama, Vilsack and Salazar: The Ethanol Scammers' Dream Team

Robert Bryce - Over the past few weeks, Obama’s delusions about ethanol have become even more pronounced. On December 16, Stephen Power of the Wall Street Journal reported that Obama’s transition team has been talking to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) -- the trade group funded by the corn ethanol producers -- about a bailout for the ethanol industry. Two days later, Obama announced that the former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, would be the next Secretary of Agriculture and that Colorado Senator Ken Salazar would be the next Secretary of Interior. Announcing the selection, Obama said Vilsack and Salazar would be part of the “team we need” to strengthen rural America, create “green jobs” and “to free our nation from its dependence on oil.”

 

The fact that Obama continues to repeat this line about “dependence on oil” shows a near-complete ignorance of the scale of America’s energy needs. The U.S. currently has about 251 million registered motor vehicles, 8,200 commercial aircraft, 224,000 general aviation aircraft, and 12.7 million recreational boats. And nearly every one of those machines runs on oil.

 

Vilsack and Salazar are long-time biofuels boosters. While governor of Iowa -- America’s biggest corn and corn ethanol, producing state – Vilsack promoted corn ethanol production and “cellulosic” ethanol which can be made from various plant sources. During his run for the White House, which ended in early 2007 when his campaign ran out of money, Vilsack said he wanted to have the US producing 60 billion gallons of renewable fuel per year by 2030. (Current US production, nearly all of it from corn ethanol, is about 10 billion gallons.)

 

Both Vilsack and Salazar have been strong proponents of cellulosic ethanol. And they continue to support cellulosic ethanol even though the commercial viability of the fuel continues to be doubtful. Rapier points out that in February 2007, the federal government handed out $385 million in grants to six cellulosic ethanol projects. But today, only one commercial plant is actually under construction, and that project, owned by Georgia-based Range Fuels, has been delayed.

 

Fine. Let’s look at the numbers for cellulosic ethanol.

 

Let’s assume that the U.S. wants to replace 10 percent of its oil use (by volume) with cellulosic ethanol. The US consumes about 320 billion gallons of oil per year. New ethanol companies like Coskata and Syntec are claiming that they can produce about 100 gallons of ethanol per ton of biomass, which is also about the same yield that can be garnered by using grain as a feedstock.

 

The math is straightforward: to produce 32 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol would require the annual harvest and transport of 320 million tons of biomass. Assuming each trailer holds 15 tons of biomass, that volume of biomass would fill 21.44 million semi-trailer loads. If we further assume that each trailer is 48 feet long, the column of trailers holding that quantity of feedstock would stretch almost 195,000 miles – that’s nearly the distance from the earth to the moon.

 

The corn ethanol industry is a scam. Cellulosic ethanol is a sham. And yet Obama and his appointees continue to promote the false notion that these fuels are the answer to America’s energy challenge.

 

Obama’s right. We do need change, particularly in our energy discussion... Read more via the Energy Tribune  (Graphic by Seth Myers)

Why our energy answer will be nuclear power

Huffington Post, 2008 - Obama, Exelon, and their consultant, David Axelrod. A partnership made in heaven for the nuclear giant Exelon, which has given "at least $227,000" to Obama's campaign that eventually got them legislation from the Illinois Senator written with their best interests in mind. . .

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.". . .

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. . .

Frank M. Clark, executive vice president to Exelon, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director there, are among his largest fund-raisers, according to the Times. John W. Rowe, also an Obama contributor, is chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the nuclear power industry's lobbying group.