As part of a new study on wave power, the University of Exeter and Tel Aviv University have come up with a system that predicts the power of waves in order to maximize wave energy devices' ability to generate energy from the sea. The researchers found that this system could potentially double the amount of wave energy generated by a device.Phys.org reports, "The research focused on point absorbers, commonly-used floating devices with parts that move in response to waves, generating energy which they feed back to the grid. Point absorbers are already known to be much more efficient in the amount of energy they produce if their response closely matches the force of the waves and previous research has looked at trying to increase this efficiency. However, this is the first study that has focused on increasing the device's efficiency by predicting and controlling internal forces of the device caused by forthcoming waves."
An Illinois beekeeper whose bee hives were stolen and allegedly destroyed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture has stirred up a hornet's nest with his questions on why the state did this, and most importantly, what they did with his bees.
The state claims the bees were destroyed because they were infected with a disease called foulbrood.
But when the 58-year apiary keeper had his hearing—three weeks after the removal of his bees without his knowledge—the state's "evidence" had disappeared, leaving more questions than answers about the raid on the beekeeper's hives.
Some people, including the beekeeper, Terrence Ingram, suspect the raid has more to do with Ingram's 15 years of research on Monsanto's Roundup and his documented evidence that Roundup kills bees, than it does about any concerns about his hives.
Interestingly, the state's theft targeted the queen bee and hive he'd been using to conduct the research.
This awesome boat, dubbed Firefly, is a six-person boat that is powered entirely by the sun. The first Firefly was built in 2010 by Dan Baker who decided to construct his own pontoon to cruise around Fraser Lake, British Columbia. Originally the Firefly was powered by two trolling motors and a car charger, but today it’s the ultimate 100% solar-powered lake boat. The Firefly got its name from the 900 LED lights that are positioned on the top of the boat.
Read the rest of The Firefly is a 100% Solar-Powered Boat That Only Costs $2900!
While China’s build‐out of “smart cities” is significantly smaller than the hype might suggest, it still represents a $153 billion opportunity across 54 projects, mostly in the southern and eastern provinces. This week’s graphic appeared in a report (client registration required) published in March by Lux Research’s China Innovation Intelligence Service. It illustrates analysis revealing that over half – 31 – of China’s smart city projects are slated to unfold in cities that in 2010 yielded a minimum GDP of USD 100 billion (Tier A) and USD 60 billion (Tier B).
In terms of the speed at which these projects are unfolding, 15 are already under construction. Another 21 were announced with details such as investment amount, smart city applications involved, project deadline, and even participating suppliers. Fifteen additional smart city projects rated an official announcement, but few details to date. Finally, three Tier C cities – with a minimum 2010 GDP of USD 15 billion – have expressed an intention to launch projects, but haven’t formally announced them yet.
The recent thunderstorm wind event which caused widespread wind damage from Ohio to the mid-Atlantic coast has, rather predictably, led to claims that global warming is the root cause.
Known as a “derecho“, these events are indeed uncommon, but have always been around: the term was originally coined in 1888 in a study of thunderstorm wind damage which occurred in 1877.
In fact, one of the most famous events occurred when global temperatures reached a minimum, back in the 1970’s. Known simply as “The Storm”, it occurred 35 years ago today, on July 4, 1977. There were widespread blowdowns of trees (see the photo, above). Even though the event occurred over relatively unpopulated areas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the highest recorded wind speed was an astonishing 115 mph, officially recorded with an airport anemometer.
Compare that to the derecho event of last week, which occurred over heavily populated areas: the highest measured wind speed in the extensive list of reports at the Storms Prediction Center was only 92 mph, and even that was on a home weather station, and so is unofficial.
So, why all the fuss over last weeks storm? Because it didn’t hit flyover country. Tens of millions of people were affected, and millions went without power.
instituteforenergyresearch.org - With expiration of the current Farm Bill looming at the end of this year, Congress is working on a new version that will lay the groundwork for the next five years of U.S. agricultural policy. However, those hopeful that the new measure will reflect Congress’ newfound interest in fiscal restraint will be disappointed. Just like previous Farm Bills, the Senate version of the bill contains plenty of handouts for the ultimate agricultural special interest group: biofuel producers.
In 2005 and 2007, Congress created a guaranteed market for billions of gallons of biofuel a year. Yet despite having already provided biofuel producers with a mandate that people use their product, Congress is looking to sweeten the deal with even greater amounts of taxpayer-funded subsidies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under the Senate version of the Farm Bill, “spending on the energy programs covered in the legislation would total $1.5 billion—an increase of $780 million over the 2013-2022 period above estimated expenses for those programs under the baseline.” Unsurprisingly, much of this increased spending will be for programs related to biofuels, and the majority of biofuel spending would be mandatory. This means that Congress would not have to include these amounts in the annual appropriations bills. These programs include:
Continuing these subsidies would ultimately mean millions and millions more taxpayer dollars of pure waste. After all, biofuel is not new technology. Many of the automobiles made in the 1800s ran on ethanol, and there was cellulosic ethanol production in the United States during World War I. Furthermore, the United States has vast oil resources and is in no danger of running out of oil for at least the next century.
Moreover, biofuels are simply not efficient enough to power a modern industrial economy. After all, if biofuels were efficient, they would not need subsidies and mandates to compete with other sources of energy. But even with subsidies and mandates, such as the Renewable Fuels Standard, biomass currently provides for only 4.5 percent of U.S. energy consumption. Moreover, biofuel blends like E85 (which is 15 percent ethanol) provide about 30 percent less power than gasoline, meaning cars drive fewer miles for the same amount of fuel.
Another problem with Congress’ plan for ethanol lies in the diversion of corn crops from food to fuel. During 2005, the year that Congress enacted the original RFS ethanol mandate, the average price of corn on the commodities market was $1.96; in 2011, it was $6.01, which is an increase of over 200 percent. To remedy the problem of rapidly escalating corn prices, Congress created a mandate in 2007 for cellulosic ethanol—which is biofuel made from non-food sources—and required refiners to blend cellulosic ethanol in fuel. But in classic fashion, Congress created another problem in its attempts to fix the old one. Cellulosic ethanol is inefficient and expensive, and despite the mandate to blend 250 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol last year into our fuel supply, late in the year the Energy Information Administration still couldn’t determine if any was even produced.
Even though cellulosic biofuels don’t exist commercially, refiners were fined $6.8 million by EPA last year for not using this phantom fuel. This is a perfect example of how federal policy with seemingly good intentions can go horribly wrong. And of course, farmland used for producing cellulosic ethanol might be reallocated from food crops, which would still pose the problem of increasing food prices.
Cellulosic biofuels are a boondoggle for Americans any way you look at it, and the 2012 Farm Bill has the potential to further the charade that is subsidized and mandated ethanol.
A Solar Panel on Every Roof?
In U.S., Still a Distant Dream
For nearly four decades, the University of Michigan has monitored the prevalence of smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders in the United States in its report "Monitoring the Future." The most recent findings suggest that drug use among teens—particularly the consumption of tobacco and alcohol—is not nearly as prevalent as during the hard-partying (and DARE-saturated) 1990s
...The twin reactor plant between San Diego and Los Angeles has long been a source of lower-cost power, but its complex and costly mechanical troubles have raised questions that might have seemed unrealistic just months ago.
"Shutting down the plant, at the end of the day, might not be the worst-case scenario for shareholders or customers," says Travis Miller, director of utilities research at equities analyst Morningstar Inc.
Two decades ago, San Onofre's Unit 1 reactor was shut down and then dismantled when owners faced the prospect of swallowing a $125 million bill for upgrades and repairs. Oregon's Trojan nuclear plant closed its doors in 1993, rather than replace steam generators that had leaky tubes.
Now, similar issues will be on the table for San Onofre's two remaining reactors, shuttered as engineers try to figure out how to stop unprecedented decay in generator tubes that carry radioactive water. The plant hasn't produced electricity since Jan. 31.
• Under half of all US health spending is by private companies - 46.9%. But it has the highest rate for health insurance in the world - 67.8% of all private spending. Which means the rest comes from out of pocket expenses, ie paying for health as you go
In the first installment of this series, I reviewed U.S. and global oil reserves according to the 2012 BP Statistical Review of World Energy. The second installment covered oil production, and the third looked at global consumption trends. Today, I look at the growth of global carbon dioxide emissions since 1965. A great deal has changed over the past 46 years.
In the U.S., the public is bombarded with messages about climate change. One may get the impression that if we only stop the next pipeline and slow down the growth of Canada’s oil sands, we are one step closer to victory. But this is really akin to fighting a small local skirmish while a war rages on the other side of the globe. But the skirmish does not change the outcome of the war. I am going to take up this theme in a follow-up column, but for now let’s examine what’s going on in the world.
First, here is the global carbon dioxide emissions picture:
The graph shows that the growth rate in emissions over the past decade is faster than that of previous decades — indicating carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated in recent years. Prior to 2002, the incremental annual increase had never reached 1 billion new metric tons of carbon dioxide. Since 2002, 1 billion incremental tons have been added three times: In 2003, 2004, and 2010.
In fact, 2010′s addition of 1.58 billion new tons globally is the largest annual increase on record. The incremental increase over the past decade was at least 0.87 billion new tons on 4 other occasions. Only once during the decade — in 2009 in response to recession — was there a measured year-to-year decrease.
One reason I think climate change advocacy has been so ineffective is that most advocates are misinformed about the present mixture of global carbon emissions. The next figure tells the tale:
This figure closely resembles the coal graph from World Energy Consumption Facts, Figures, and Shockers because in fact global coal consumption is the largest contributor to rising carbon dioxide emissions. Asia Pacific is the source of 45% of global carbon dioxide emissions, and is on a growth trajectory to reach 50% by the end of the decade. In the U.S., coal consumption is on the decline because new supplies of natural gas are displacing coal in power plants. The change has been so dramatic that since 2006, the U.S. is the world leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions:
US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector … and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector.
One bit of irony here is that some environmental groups are seeking to stop fracking altogether, or have otherwise fought against the expansion of natural gas. However, if they were successful this would in the short-term absolutely mean a return to coal and an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. (Wind and solar will make large contributions long-term, but in the short term can’t displace idled coal plants). So emissions in the U.S. have declined despite misinformed environmental obstructionism.
The next graphic shows the picture in the rest of the world:
While each region’s total is far less than Asia Pacific’s 15 billion tons of emissions in 2011, the trends are the same. Developing countries are increasing their emissions as they increase standards of living.
One question that often comes up concerns the historical U.S. contribution to the atmospheric carbon dioxide inventory. Developing countries will point to historical U.S. emissions and argue that these emissions enabled U.S. development. They don’t believe it is in any way fair to restrict their development since developed countries have already emitted huge quantities of carbon dioxide.
There is truth to this argument. From 1965 through 2011, U.S. cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide were 255 billion metric tons. That is enough carbon dioxide to raise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past 46 years by 18 parts per million (PPM) from just the U.S. contribution. (See Footnote for calculation).
As a region, Asia Pacific has added even more cumulative carbon dioxide than that since 1965 at 287 billion metric tons. EU countries added another 203 billion tons. But as far as countries go, the U.S. has by far the highest cumulative emissions since 1965. China is in 2nd place at 133 billion tons, but no other country even breaks the 100 billion ton barrier. Globally, cumulative emissions since 1965 are 1.0 trillion tons, which should have increased (according to the calculation in the footnote) atmospheric carbon dioxide by 73 ppm. And if we cross-check the data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, we see that atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 320 ppm in 1965 and is just above 390 ppm in 2012.
The U.S. also has much higher per capita emissions than developing countries and EU countries. In 2008, the U.S. had the 12th highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, but due to decreases in recent years are probably further down the list now. Based on the newly-released BP data, here is how the U.S. compares to the rest of the world:
We can see that despite the decline in carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S., we are still far above the EU and the developing world. Therein lies a problem. While we can acknowledge our historical emissions, and recognize that we still emit a lot of carbon dioxide per person, how exactly does this help the developing world? One answer I sometimes hear is “We have to provide the blueprint.” It is one thing to imagine that developing countries could develop without increasing their use of fossil fuels, but the reality is that even the developed regions have not shown that it can be done. We are so accustomed to our way of life and the high carbon emissions that it entails that we can’t begin to imagine how to show a country that emits 1/10th of what we do how to improve their standard of living without increasing their emissions.
Developing countries seek the same modern conveniences—dishwashers, televisions, computers, and cars—enjoyed by the developed world and which are currently powered mostly by fossil fuels. We can imagine that they can improve their standard of living without increasing their fossil fuel consumption, but what do we have to point to in order to show that it can be done? Even Iceland — which many believe to be a country that is largely running on renewable energy — has carbon dioxide emissions in line with the rest of the EU, and far above those of the developing world.
It is a quandary, and I not only see no easy answer — I see no viable answer period that doesn’t involve shutting down development in developing countries. This is why I am extremely skeptical that carbon emissions will be reined in. I might feel differently if there was not such a wide gap between the developed world and the developing world, but I believe over time that gap will close as the developing world’s emissions continue to increase. Given that overall emissions from the developing world are already much higher than those of the developed world, small increases in the standard of living have the potential to hugely increase global carbon dioxide emissions.
Footnote: According to this analysis, the average amount of CO2 emissions that causes an atmospheric increase of 1 ppm is 14.138 billion metric tons of CO2. The U.S. contribution of 255 billion tons over the past 36 years would then contribute 255/14.138 = 18.1.
Link to Original Article: Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Facts and Figures
Tom Konrad CFA
 |
| The Tesla Model S, from the unveiling on 26-Mar-2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
An EV for the 1%
The chatter among electric vehicle (EV) enthusiasts and investors is all about the launch of the Tesla (NASD:TSLA) model S. A cool ride, no doubt, but not many of us are ever going to buy a sedan that starts at $49,900, even after the $7,500 tax subsidy.
Fortunately for the rest of us, this week also brought news about two much more affordable EVs.
An EV for the 99%
Chicago EV enthusiasts will soon not have to stump up $50K to ride an EV, they’ll be able to ride an EV for just $2. That’s because the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) just placed the first order for two of New Flyer Industries’ (OTC:NFYEF, TSX:NFI) recently launched battery-electric transit bus. The CTA will pay $2.2 million for the buses, and will begin a pilot program to understand how they will operate in Chicago’s harsh climate.
.... The reporter was shown a Kandi tw0-seater, and Kandi’s mini-EVs were identified by a local power company official (which is a partner in the program) to “possibly” be promoted as they are “more suitable for city driving.”
Another official stated that the rental fee would be low and affordable to working class families. Previous articles have put the monthly rental at 800 yuan a month, or about $126, a price which includes free charging and battery exchanges. At such low rental prices, Kandi’s $7,500-$8,000 EVs will clearly be favored over their competitors’ EVs, all of which cost more than $20,000. The next-cheapest competitor, the
Within hours of yesterday's monumental Supreme Court ruling upholding the 2010 health care reform law, environmental law scholars were already pondering whether it could have an impact on the Clean Air Act.
Their answer? A qualified "yes."
They focused on two elements of the decision.
...Some see similarities between the Medicaid provisions in the health care law and how the federal government interacts with states over of their role in enforcing the Clean Air Act via so-called state implementation plans, known in U.S. EPA lingo as SIPs.
The federal government has in the past sought to withhold highway funding unless a state plays ball, although disputes have always been settled, according to environmental law experts.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that the Medicaid section of the law was unconstitutional if existing funding was withdrawn if a state didn't want to expand its Medicaid program as part of the 2010 reforms.
"Congress has no authority to order the states to regulate according to its instructions," he wrote. "Congress may offer the states grants and require the states to comply with accompanying conditions, but the states must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer."
Congress cannot "penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding," Roberts concluded.
Rather than placing the burden on consumers to prevent disease caused by chemicals, shouldn’t the burden be placed on those who profit (handsomely) from their use?
By Christina Medina and Rebecca Fuoco, crossposted from California Progress Report
On Sunday an unusual and quirky red carpet award show in Hollywood brought the normally faceless and intangible issue of chemical exposure and regulation to life. The Third Annual “Toxies”, an event put on by Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles and Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy, featured actors in colorful costumes in-character as toxic chemicals accepting “awards” for the harm they are doing to the American public.
D.W. Moffett who stars in the ABC Family series Switched at Birth and TV Land’s Happily Divorced emceed the event portraying Tex Doolittle, an agent who promotes positive PR for the chemicals by twisting or even denying evidence of their toxicity, the role played in real life by chemical industry lobbyists.
The theatrics of the costumes, red carpet interviews, and acceptance speeches told a story of the overwhelming amount of toxic or untested chemicals (“bad actors”) and their myriad usages (“roles”) in our homes and environment. Halogenated Flame Retardant, dressed in a super hero cape representing her purported (but inaccurate) life-saving fire squelching, accepted her award for “Best Replacement in a Series” by thanking her lobbyists for keeping her in furniture and baby products by altering her chemical formulas and names several times to escape regulation.
Spinning a human twist on the issue made our exposure to these invisible threats more vivid. Simply promoting shopping and personal hygiene tips to avoid these chemicals would be a feeble campaign against this goliath issue. Instead, event coordinator Ana Mascarenas, ended the ceremony by calling for support for the Safe Chemicals Act, Safe Cosmetics Act, and other state and national measures that can help prevent and clean up toxic chemical exposures.
Whereas the upstream solution focuses on reducing the entry of chemicals to homes in the first place, most national and local public health programs use a downstream approach. Instead of limiting production of potentially hazardous chemicals or even requiring manufacturers to submit any toxicity information on new chemicals, the U.S. government spends most of its environmental health resources providing information to consumers on how to reduce exposure to the chemicals already in their homes. Countless glossy pamphlets are produced each year instructing concerned individuals to take on strict, time-consuming, and quite often expensive house cleaning, food washing, personal hygiene regimens, and shopping guides to prevent chemical ingestion and inhalation.... Please continue reading at: http://generationgreen.org/2012/06/are-toxic-chemicals-in-your-home-your-problem/
