Ending Yucca discussions with 300 times more efficient reactors

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm - From the Drum

Excitement has recently been rising about the possibility of using thorium as a low-carbon way of generating vast amounts of electricity. The use of thorium as a nuclear fuel was extensively studied by Oak Ridge National Laboratory between 1950 and 1976, but was dropped, because unlike uranium-fueled Light Water Reactors (LWRs), it could not generate weapons' grade plutonium. Research on the possible use of thorium as a nuclear fuel has continued around the world since then. Famed Climate Scientist James Hanson, recently spoke of thorium's great promise in material that he submitted to President Elect Obama:

   The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a thorium reactor concept that uses a chemically-stable fluoride salt for the medium in which nuclear reactions take place. This fuel form yields flexibility of operation and eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements. This feature solves most concerns that have prevented thorium from being used in solid-fueled reactors. The fluid fuel in LFTR is also easy to process and to separate useful fission products, both stable and radioactive. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste.

    (The) LFTR(s) operate at low pressure and high temperatures, unlike today’s LWRs. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR. Higher temperatures enable more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity (50% in LFTR vs 35% in LWR). (The) LFTR (has) the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.

    LFTR(s) are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.

    The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste, and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.

    It is commonly assumed that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready before 2030. That is a safe assumption under "business-as-usual”. However, given high priority it is likely that it could be available sooner. It is specious to argue that R&D on 4th generation nuclear power does not deserve support because energy efficiency and renewable energies may be able to satisfy all United States electrical energy needs. Who stands ready to ensure that energy needs of China and India will be entirely met by efficiency and renewables?

Nor would exhausting the USAEC’s 1969 estimated thorium reserve exhaust the American thorium supply. Even at average concentrations in the earth’s rocks, thorium can be recovered with a good EROEI, without making the cost of electricity impossibly expensive.  Read more from the Drum

Comment 1 of 456  that make inarugable facts.... 
My complaint about renewable advocates is that they tend to not look carefully at their ideas before they turn them into slogans.. it always amuses me when renewables advocates get carried away and imagine that Jevons paradox and the law of thermodynamics can be repealed.

While I favor energy efficiency I am not under any illusion that it can lead to a greatly diminished energy demand. Energy efficient makes energy cheaper, and the history of modern civilization tells us that cheap energy will always find its uses.

Negawatts is a bumper sticker slogan, not a solution to our energy issues. The words "smart grid" are held to have magic powers when spooken or written by renewables advocates, who seldome tell us what a smart grid will and will dont do, and even less frequently tell us what a smart grid will cost.

HVDC lines are expensive as is energy storage. Both are nice, but the expense will be a serious impediment to fighting global warming. Mixing renewables means replicating generating capacity. Replicating energy capacity is also very expensive. Building LFTRs would be far cheaper that as mixed system of renewables. Using existing peaking plants means producing CO2, so it is not a post carbon solution. Electrified transportation will not work well with negawatts. You need more rather than less electricity to make an electrified transportation system work.

Is wind the next ethanol?

Washington Times: Subsidizing any and all energy is NOT the model of economic or environmental sustainable....

As with ethanol, familiarity is likely to breed contempt for wind -  Let's see: a heavily subsidized energy source that needs a mandate to get it over the top. Sound familiar? It should. It's the same situation we were in with corn ethanol a few years ago. Through 2005, ethanol's high cost, among other problems, were such that even a 51 cent per gallon tax credit and other giveaways couldn't enable it to capture much more than 2 percent of the motor-fuel market.

Last year was one of record oil and gasoline prices. Yet ethanol still added to the overall burden on the driving public. In addition, the diversion of corn from food to fuel use raised the price not only of corn itself but of related items such as corn-fed meat and dairy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that up to 15 percent of food price increases from April 2007 to April 2008 were because of the ethanol mandate.

That costly double whammy - higher costs to drive to the supermarket and higher prices once you're there - really soured consumers on the ethanol mandate. It also contributed to global food-price inflation and hardships in the developing world, eroding the already shaky moral high ground that ethanol had held. Surprisingly, many environmental activists piled on, arguing that the "green" benefits of ethanol were overstated and that this once-favored alternative actually contributes to global warming.

Congress has yet to correct its ethanol mistake. The mandated levels rise to 10.5 billion gallons this year and 12 billion in 2010, so the difficulties will only intensify.

Are lawmakers about to make the same mistake with wind energy? As with ethanol, wind is too expensive to expand without a lot of help. Right now, its added cost is an unnoticeable speck on people's electric bills. A hefty mandate would change that.

One often overlooked factor is wind's unreliability. Wind can stop blowing at any time, and it often does during hot summer days when electricity demand peaks. Because people expect electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, additional wind power would need to be backed up with additional conventional sources ready to carry the full load at any time - further raising costs and undercutting the rationale for this alternative.

There's also reason to expect that wind's green status will evaporate. For one thing, the pending proposals would require tens of millions of acres of new wind farms, much of it on land now in its natural state. Environmentalists already object to certain wind-farm sites and transmission-line routes, and their complaints would multiply greatly if wind power expanded. Its claimed global-warming benefits also could come under attack.

Read more at washingtontimes

Idea of reducing greenhouse gases...is nothing at this point. It's politics."

From: Time Magazine - Environmentalists Attack House Global Warming Deal

...House Democrats announced an agreement Thursday that reflects more about the legislative process than the need to stop the planet from heating up.

"It's unacceptable to base this bill on politics, instead of good science,"  leaving it far short of the global warming gas reductions that scientists insist are necessary to stave off catastrophic climate change.


The initial House proposal triggered opposition by many of the biggest polluters, including electric utilities and industries that burn carbon-heavy coal. They would have to obtain permits for each ton of warming gases — chiefly carbon dioxide — limited by the cap. The bill didn't specify how the permits would be allocated or how much those permits might cost.

Environmentalists wanted the government to auction them, with the proceeds used to lighten ratepayer utility bills inflated by the higher costs of running power plants and to subsidize energy efficiency measures.

But Democrats devised a permit allocation system to line up committee support. To woo lawmakers from districts powered by coal-fired utilities in the Midwest and Southeast, the agreement would give away 35% of the permits to electric utilities until 2025 while they make a transition to cleaner fuels or develop carbon capture technology. Research for such technology would be subsidized by billions of dollars raised from government auctions.

The compromise also loosened a requirement on states to generate 25% of their electricity with renewable fuel by 2025. That goal was lowered to 20% by 2020. And, as a concession to Southern states that lack sources of solar and geothermal power, the agreement provides credit for nuclear and hydro generation of electric power.

Another 15% of permits would be given free of charge to energy-intensive factories in the Rustbelt, such as steel, glass, cement, aluminum and paper plants, which would become less competitive internationally if they had to pay for permits. For its part, the hard-hit auto industry would be treated to 3% of the permits to encourage domestic production of electric and fuel efficient vehicles.

Facing blanket Republican opposition, Chairman Henry Waxman had to nail down support from all but six Democrats on his Energy and Commerce. The liberal Californian, predicted passage by the end of next week.

...low targets would "handcuff" the President in talks with European leaders who are considering the more ambitious IPCC goals. Free credits, would free industry from its responsibility to clean up.

Photo from goodmag: Buy Now, Pay Later

Wall Street Journal blows top off Yucca Mountain

From WSJ - Blog
Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste battle over the approximately $30 billion that utilities and their customers have so far poured into the abortive Nevada storage site.

In 2008, Edward Sproat, then the head of the DOE's office of civilian radioactive waste management, said every year of delay in opening Yucca Mountain could expand the government's potential liability by $500 million.

In a nutshell: Since 1982, utility customers have been paying for a nuclear-waste repository that has never come to pass, and which now looks increasingly unlikely. Utilities have been storing their spent fuel in pools near their reactors-a temporary solution that is turning permanent.

They want their money back.

Now pro-nuclear politicians are getting on board. Last month, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced "Rebating America's Deposits Act," designed to force the administration to fix the waste issue once and for all or return the money. A similar bill was introduced in the House this week. Most of the money would go back to utility customers; 25% would compensate utilities for building temporary storage facilities.

The Department of Energy has the duty to pick up spent nuclear fuel, but utilities have been doing the job-at a cost of tens of millions of dollars each. The Nuclear Waste Fund now totals $29.6 billion dollars, but years of under-funding have left Yucca Mountain no closer to opening than when then the program began.

But one thing seems clear: The Obama administration's decision to gut Yucca Mountain doesn't kick the waste issue out of sight. It might even make fixing the waste problem more expensive.

Honda WIN! Kinda FAIL kinda

While GM is taking it to China Honda Begins Production of Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicles at Indiana Plant....
Honda Manufacturing of Indiana, LLC (HMIN) began production of the natural gas-powered 2009 Civic GX at its plant in Greensburg, Indiana.

First introduced in 1998, the Civic GX is the cleanest internal combustion vehicle certified by the EPA—90% cleaner than the average gasoline-powered car on the road today. As a result, the GX is certified by the EPA as an Inherently Low Emissions Vehicle (ILEV). It is the only natural gas powered passenger car available for sale in all 50 states, and is eligible for a $4,000 federal tax credit as a qualified alternative fuel vehicle.

It is powered by a 113-hp (84 kW), 1.8-liter, 16-valve, SOHC i-VTEC 4-cylinder engine built at Honda’s engine plant in Anna, Ohio, and it is designed with a higher compression ratio—12.5:1—to maximize performance from natural gas fuel. The engine develops 109 lb-ft (148 N·m) of torque at 4,300 rpm, and is coupled with a five speed automatic transmission.

It is why CNG cars Kill Hybirds... and cost 1,000's less to maintain and fuel... (click image to enlarge)

Honda Manufacturing of Indiana began Civic GX production just seven months after starting mass production of the 4-cylinder Honda Civic sedan at its new plant in Greensburg, Indiana. The $550 million plant currently employs approximately 1,000 associates and is designed as a zero waste-to-landfill facility.

The Civic sedan also qualifies as an Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (AT-PZEV) as rated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

(Source: Green Car Congress - References: AutoblogGreen)

Honda Insight Hybrid FAIL... by TopGear's Jeremy Clarkson

TopGear's - Jeremy Clarkson Honda Insight Hybrid Review:
" It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more." ...the poor ride, the woeful performance, the awful noise and the spine-bending seats as a price worth paying. But what about the eco-cost of building the car in the first place?

Honda has produced a graph that seems to suggest that making the Insight is only marginally more energy-hungry than making a normal car. And that the slight difference is more than negated by the resultant fuel savings.

...understand it most of the pollution a car will ever cause is during its manufacture so if this uses more energy in manufacture as well, what's the point?

Hmmm. I would not accuse Honda of telling porkies. That would be foolish. But I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.

The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he’s doing the world a favour.

At this point you will probably dismiss what I’m saying as the rantings of a petrolhead, and think that I have my head in the sand.

That’s not true. While I have yet to be convinced that man’s 3% contribution to the planet’s greenhouse gases affects the climate, I do recognise that oil is a finite resource and that as it becomes more scarce, the political ramifications could well be dire. I therefore absolutely accept the urgent need for alternative fuels.

But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt genes of the smug and the foolish. And that pure electric cars, such as the G-Wiz and the Tesla, don’t work at all because they are just too inconvenient.

Read full review at The Sunday Times

Hey it's easy to criticize, but he did make a 70mpg car thats costs only $7,000... so he can make fun of the Honda all day long.

Obama to grant 42 of 48 new mountaintop removal mining permits?

The issuance of these permits and billions invested in oxymoron of 'clean coal' ,... Apparently 'coal is our future.

So much for renewable or sustainable energy, maybe next time.

NEWS:

The Obama administration has cleared more than three-dozen new mountaintop removal permits for issuance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, drawing quick criticism from environmental groups who had hoped the new president would halt the controversial practice.

In a surprise announcement Friday, Rep. Nick J. Rahall said 42 of the 48 permits already examined by the U.S. Environmental Protection had been approved by EPA for issuance by the corps.

"It is unfortunate that, when EPA once again began reviewing proposed coal mining permits earlier this year, alarmists claimed that a moratorium on permit issuance was being proposed,"

"EPA continues to conduct a detailed and rigorous review of all pending Clean Water Act permits for mines in the Appalachian coalfields," the statement said. "We have concluded, under the law, that six projects of an initial 48 permits EPA reviewed will not proceed unless adverse environmental impacts are further reduced.

"We will continue to follow the law and use the best science as we quickly and thoroughly evaluate over 150 pending applications to reduce harmful environmental impacts," the EPA said.

The statement said, the "EPA decided not to provide additional comments on the remaining 42 permits after consideration of the nature and extent of project impacts. Twenty-eight of the projects have two or fewer valley fills. Eleven have no valley fills at all. None have more than six.

"EPA's understanding is that none of the projects would permanently impact high value streams that flow year-round," the EPA said. "By contrast, EPA has opposed six permits because they would all result in significant adverse impacts to high value streams, involve large numbers of valley fills, and impact watersheds with extensive previous mining impacts."

Read ful at greenchange.org

Waste as a Resource... RRRR'$

After Gutenberg, over thousands and thousands of years have developed ways to deal with agricultural waste, there has been more of a problem with what to do with forestry waste and municipal solid waste.

"Today, most American garbage is sent to landfills, some spanning hundreds of acres miles from the cities that generate the refuse. New York City, which tosses about eight million tons of nonindustrial trash each year, trucks much of it to big landfills in states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania."

As previously noted, converting municipal solid waste to energy could reduce the need for landfills while helping to alleviate a dependency upon fossil fuels. A recent story² in the WSJ (Wall Street Journal) about the incineration of municipal solid waste included some interesting facts. For instance, "Today, the U.S. burns 13% of its trash; it sends 54% of its trash to landfills and recycles 33% of it."

1. The best way to deal with trash is to produce less of it. The next-best way is to recycle more of it, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But that still leaves loads of trash, and burning it to produce electricity is better than burying it in a landfill, the EPA says. Incinerating a ton of trash emits at least 35% less greenhouse gas and yields 10 times as much electricity as burying it, according to a recent study by EPA researchers.
2. A bill drafted by Congressional Democrats would give incineration, known as "waste-to-energy," a boost. The bill would require utilities to produce 20% of their electricity from renewable-energy sources and energy-efficiency improvements by 2020. The bill's current version defines waste-to-energy as one form of renewable power.

While such proposed legislation would seem an opportunity for the perpetuation of further abuse by our Congress critters, there may be some good in burning trash to produce heat and electricity when there is good enforcement of well-crafted rules to minimize pollution. Yeah, I know, "Sarcasm on the Internet, how novel!" Notes the WSJ, "Today's incinerators are markedly cleaner than their predecessors, yet they still pollute." And, quoting Marchant Wentworth, a renewable-energy campaigner with the Union of Concerned Scientists, the WSJ warns, "One percent of a very toxic substance is still a very toxic substance."

According to a study by the European Environment Agency, some countries in Europe burn more of their trash for energy since there is less available space for landfills and fewer domestic fossil-fuel resources. Also, upgraded biogas is becoming an increasing portion of total natural gas consumed in some European countries.

 

Still there must be consideration of the amount of and the distance such feedstock must be conveyed, plus consideration of the resources required to prepare the waste stream for energy production. A co-generation facility requires homogeneous waste (not including refuse-derived fuel) to produce electricity and steam or other forms of energy used for industrial, commercial, heating, or cooling purposes. And, all incinerators, which burn solid waste for the purpose of reducing the volume of the waste by removing combustible matter, require procedures for handling ash. Given recent catastrophes with fly ash ponds associated with coal fired power plants, there is the possibility of similar harm from waste to energy facilities without diligent monitoring of appropriate disposal.

Proponents argue that recycling and Waste-to-Energy efforts can be compatible and an opportunity to reduce energy consumed in recycling

Many environmentalists worry that encouraging trash incineration will impinge on recycling efforts. A 2008 study by trash consultant Eileen Brettler Berenyi concluded that trash incineration isn't restraining recycling. Her study, partly funded by the trash-incineration industry, found that U.S. communities with waste-to-energy plants tend to have higher-than-average recycling rates.

 

Read full by jcwinnie

Similar Posts by jcwinnie:

• Seventh Framework Programme
• Kerava Biomass Fueled CHP
• You Paid 83 Million to Sit on Top of a Garbage Dump?
• Co-generation from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators
• Bioenergy Improves Ethanol Plant EROEI

 

76% of Americans have no clue what cap-and-trade means

Rasmussen Reports' new survey has revealed a huge disconnect between the American people and the Obama administration's proposed cap-and-trade climate change legislation.

The survey asked respondents to pick the subject area that the proposed cap-and-trade legislation will deal with: Environment, Health Care Reform, or Wall Street Regulation. A stunning 76% of the respondents were unable to select the correct Environment option. 30% of those surveyed stated that they had 'no idea', while 29% believe that cap-and-trade is a Wall Street regulation mechanism. Health care reform was the choice for 17%.

While the intent of the cap-and-trade legislation is to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases in the USA, there is a considerable amount of skepticism that the proposed bill will have a detrimental effect on the already weakened economy. For individual citizens, the most noticeable impacts of cap-and-trade may be inflated prices for electricity and energy (which is also expected to trickle down to impact prices of food and other consumer goods).

The Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act (the 'cap-and-trade bill') has the potential to permanently alter the American economic landscape. Hopefully the Obama administration will act to reverse the woeful job it has done to date in preparing the American people for this potential carbon-oriented policy.

Read full from redgreenandblue

Image: Caveman 92223 at flickr under a CC License

Water Wars Strike Ahead of Predictions

From GreenOptions:

...inequity in the water distribution system has led to a water crisis in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. This has further led to a spurt in water related violence and in conflicts so shocking, we thought were predicted to take place only in the next 50 years. The local incident mentioned in the news report above was one among many where a mob of about six people killed a family for illegally drawing water from the municipal supply even as onlookers rushed back and forth to collect water before the pipe ran dry. Read more of this story »

Billions for the illusion of clean coal

After advertisers spend millions to fool the public into the idea of clean coal...  Energy Secretary Steven Chu says he will provide $2.4 billion from the economic recovery package to speed up development of technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and factories that burn coal. Chu told a meeting of the National Coal Council on Friday that it's essential that ways are found to capture carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants and industrial sources.  Read more 'Yikes' at: Associated Press Link

 

Providing more subsides to drill oil, bury nuclear and mine coal?

This is my fathers past - no 'change' since the 70's...

 

Chemical industry to work for more safety

Reuters: Chemicals producers and governments agreed on Friday to step up efforts to push for greater safety in chemicals from lead in paint to microscopic substances. But non-governmental organizations (NGOs) said unless the industry and governments come up with more money, agreed targets for cleaning up chemicals by 2020 were unlikely to be met. The week-long conference was held at the governing body of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), which is part ... Link

The cap-and-trade swindle

National Post - The closer the United States gets to adopting a cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, the more frightening it gets.

 

"... As outlined by National Post columnist David Frum this week, the bill would include a system in which carbon emitters could buy the right to continue emitting by purchasing credits from cleaner companies. This is a key feature of cap-and-trade plans, but Democrats have stacked the deck by proposing to award allotments of emission credits, free of charge, to "clean" firms, which could then earn billions by selling them to big emitters."

 

Not because the plan now under debate in the U. S. Congress would complicate the lives of energy producers, or impose new costs on consumers. Those drawbacks might be bearable if the system was truly designed to reduce emissions, and if the expense was reasonable. The alarm results from increasing evidence that emissions have become a secondary concern of a plan whose main purpose is to serve the partisan interests of the Democratic Party.

 

Jim Prentice, Canada's Minister of the Environment, visited Washington this week to warn in no uncertain terms that the proposal before Congress would be a "prescription for disaster" for U. S. trade relations.

 

Read on at National Post

VW broke 119 mpg in 2000. Where the X-Prize?

Back in 2000 (read full press here) VW exceeded 119 mpg in a regular family car.

In 2003 the The Volkswagen Lupo was entered into the Guinness Book of World Records™ for it.

So the question is two part:

Why can no one else (even VW) bring this tech to the US?

And why did VW not win the X-Prize?

From press release (1 November, 2003)

Volkswagen's most economical production car has also recently been placed top for the fourth time in a row, in an environmental car ranking by the prestigious German institute 'Öko-Trend'. This was due not only to its exceptional economy, but also through the environmental consideration demonstrated during the Lupo's production.

Another place in the Guinness World Records™ Book is a major endorsement of Volkswagen's PD ('Pumpe Düse' or unit injector) TDI technology. This system, which uses an individual pump and injector for each cylinder, develops much more injection pressure than common rail, leading to greater efficiency.

The Lupo 3L TDI uses a 1.2-litre TDI PD diesel engine, combined with extensive use of lightweight components and automatic operation of its clutch and five speed gearbox. It is the world's first production car to achieve average consumption of less than three litres per 100 km, which accounts for the '3L' designation in the model's name.

Read more on the Lupo here

Bob Lutz VOLT is a "total crock of sh*t"

GM's Bob Lutz who is famous for stating Global warming is a "total crock of sh*t"...

 

Will be on Letterman show defending his latest 'eco-car' failure the volt.

 

For Green or $Green$ - This a new level of hypocrisy even for Mr. Lutz

 

Kudus Lutz for raising the bar!

GM's hybrid answer? Outsource to China...

In the biggest fail yet to provide small and fuel efficient cars... GM's answer is typical, outsourcing when beaten and after taking BILLIONS of tax payer dollars....

 

General Motors Corp.  (newsvine) plans to begin exports of vehicles made in China to the United States within two years, ramping up China export sales to triple by 2014, reports said Wednesday.

 

The main focus would be on exporting small cars similar to the Chevrolet Spark, the reports said.

 

If true, GM could end up becoming the first automaker to begin exporting to the U.S. from China: previously announced plans by Chinese manufacturers to crack the U.S. market have so far fizzled.

 

Opting to export from China would help the company, now surviving on $15.4 billion in federal loans, to slash production costs and make full use of its huge investments in factories here.  via Reuters newsvine

 

 

Read more on how GM has Failed with your billions...

• White House Report: GM Volt is Not Ready for Prime Time
• What killed the VOLT's and Tesla?
• Not Yours! - 44mpg overall minivan made by GM.
• YEP... Another GM 60 MPG Vehicle We Don't Have...
• G.M. destine to fail over and over again
• While Detroit fails as VW Wins "Green Car of the Year"
• Why GM is failing... a tragic comedy

 

Image credit: CNN

7 amazing facts?

While these are not 'amazing' they are insightful and worth the read.

Some reflect the massive investment into bad ideas we have made and others show how little we have done.

• 7 amazing facts about energy efficiency
• 7 amazing facts about green jobs
• 7 amazing facts about renewable energy
  

The Great Ethanol Scam

BuisnessWeek   Not only is ethanol proving to be a dud as a fuel substitute but there is increasing evidence that it is destroying engines in large numbers.  More than one major transportation-based industry in America besides Detroit is on the ropes. For the fourth time in our history the ethanol industry has come undone and is quickly failing nationally. Of course it's one thing when Detroit collapsed with the economy; after all, that is a truly free-market enterprise and the economy hasn't been good. But the fact that the ethanol industry is going bankrupt, when the only reason we use this additive is a massive government mandate, is outrageous at best.

 

Where's the Logic?

First, the primary job of the Environmental Protection Agency is, dare it be said, to protect our environment. Yet using ethanol actually creates more smog than using regular gas, and the EPA's own attorneys had to admit that fact in front of the justices presiding over the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1995 (API v. EPA).

Second, truly independent studies on ethanol, such as those written by Tad Patzek of Berkeley and David Pimentel of Cornell, show that ethanol is a net energy loser.

Third, all fuels laced with ethanol reduce the vehicle's fuel efficiency, and the E85 blend drops gas mileage between 30% and 40%, depending on whether you use the EPA's fuel mileage standards (fueleconomy.gov) or those of the Dept. of Energy.

Fourth, forget what biofuels have done to the price of foodstuffs worldwide over the past three years; the science seems to suggest that using ethanol increases global warming emissions over the use of straight gasoline. Just these issues should have kept ethanol from being brought back for its fourth run in American history.

Then again, the ethanol lobby and refiners have a solution to ethanol's failure in America: Hire retired General Wesley Clark as your point man and lobby the government to increase the amount of ethanol in our fuel Read full at Yahoo News...

Don't let anybody mislead you: The new push to get a 15% ethanol mandate out of Washington is simply to restore profitability to a failed industry. Only this time around those promoting more ethanol in our gas say there's no scientific proof that adding more ethanol will damage vehicles or small gas-powered engines. With that statement they've gone from shilling the public to outright falsehoods, because ethanol-laced gasoline is already destroying engines across the country in ever larger numbers.

 

 

Chemical within serious REACH

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has announced the start of the first REACH enforcement project. REACH = Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of CHemicals. One goal of the enforcement project is to check if any chemicals are still coming onto the market in the European Union which were not registered by the 1 December 2008 deadline. Registered substances, also known as phase-in substances, may continue to be sold while manufacturers gather and submit the required test data to prove that use and sale of their chemicals is safe. But companies that somehow missed the deadline will be in for a surprise: the law promises that any chemicals which are not registered may not be sold. Only after all data is gathered and submitted can these chemicals once again be sold in Europe. No data, no market.

The EU's REACH legislation has put pressure on other jurisdictions to increase surveillance of harmful chemicals. In the US, EPA has announced that they will pick up the pace of the ChAMP program, which relies mainly on data submitted voluntarily by industry. If you have always thought the government keeps you and your loved ones safe from dangerous products, you may have thought wrong. But thinking right starts now.

Read full at ECHA

Bacteria create aquatic superbugs in waste treatment plants

University of Michigan, — For bacteria in wastewater treatment plants, the stars align perfectly to create a hedonistic mating ground for antibiotic-resistant superbugs eventually discharged into streams and lakes.

In the first known study of its kind, Chuanwu Xi of the University of Michigan School of Public Health and his team sampled water containing the bacteria Acinetobacter at five sites in and near Ann Arbor's wastewater treatment plant.

They found the so-called superbugs—bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics—up to 100 yards downstream from the discharge point into the Huron River. Xi stresses that while the finding may be disturbing, it is important to understand that much work is still needed to assess what risk, if any, the presence of superbugs in aquatic environments poses to humans.

"We still need to understand the link between aquatic and human multiple drug resistant bacteria," said Xi, assistant professor of public health.

Xi and colleagues found that while the total number of bacteria left in the final discharge effluent declined dramatically after treatment, the remaining bacteria was significantly more likely to resist multiple antibiotics than bacteria in water samples upstream. Some strains resisted as many as seven of eight antibiotics tested. The bacteria in samples taken 100 yards downstream also were more likely to resist multiple drugs than bacteria upstream.

"Twenty or 30 years ago, antibiotics would have killed most of these strains, no problem," he said.

Multiple antibiotic-resistant bacteria has emerged as one of the top public health issues worldwide in the last few decades as the overuse of antibiotics and other factors have caused bacteria to become resistant to common drugs. Xi's group chose to study Acinetobacter because it is a growing cause of hospital-acquired infections and because of its ability to acquire antibiotic resistance.

Xi said the problem isn't that treatment plants don't do a good job of cleaning the water—it's that they simply aren't equipped to remove all antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals entering the treatment plants.

Read full from the University of Michigan,

Chu and Patrick Announce $25 Million Wind Technology Testing Center

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Governor Deval Patrick today announced the Department of Energy's intent to award Massachusetts $25 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to accelerate development of the state's Wind Technology Testing Center and create hundreds of new jobs in the area.

The new center will test commercial-sized wind turbine blades to help reduce cost, improve technical advancements, and speed deployment of the next generation of wind turbine blades into the marketplace. State Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles joined Secretary Chu and Governor Patrick for the announcement at the Autoport in Charlestown, the eventual site of testing center.

Hopefully they will ad a few of these doughnuts to the test ;-)

Full story at EERE

Cellulosic ethanol... and prevailing pork politics.

'omitted' an examination of electricity and ethanol “for other policy-relevant criteria such as water consumption, air pollution or economic costs.”

From GreenCar & jcwinnie.biz

it is critical to note that cellulosic ethanol, which does much better than corn ethanol in such assessments, means more emissions and fewer miles traveled than when you employ electric drive powered by electricity generated from biomass.

Notes Elliott Campbell, lead author of a paper published in the 8 May issue of the journal Science, “We found that converting biomass to electricity rather than ethanol makes the most sense for two policy-relevant issues, transportation and climate.”

The results of the study correspond to prior studies commissioned by the Dutch government repeatedly supporting the conclusion that the conversion of biomass to electric power is more efficient, cost-effective and environmentally sound option compared with conversion to liquid fuels. Nevertheless, federal energy and agricultural policy so far continues to support ethanol.

The study by University of California, Merced, Assistant Professor Elliott Campbell along with Christopher Field of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology and David Lobell of Stanford University, found that bioelectricity produces an average 81% more transportation kilometers and 108% more emissions offsets per unit area cropland than cellulosic ethanol. Dutch researchers have obtained similar results. But, then, that’s science, rather than the prevailing pork politics.

 

Billions gone and never mind over 20,000 Americans die every year...

Single payer will save $350 billion annually* and could save 1,000's of lives... but who cares?

From The Single-Payer Taboo: Single payer is only supported by a majority of the American people, physicians and nurses. They like the idea of public funding and private delivery. They like the free choice of doctors and hospitals that many are now denied by the HMOs. There are also great administrative efficiencies when single payer displaces the health insurance industry and its claims-denying, benefit-restricting, bureaucratically-heavy profiteering.

Yet, on Capitol Hill and at the White House there are no meetings, briefings, hearings, and consultations about kinds of health care reforms that reform the basic price inflation, indifference to prevention, and discrimination by health insurers.

There is no place at the table for single payer advocates in the view of the Congressional leaders who set the agenda and muzzle dissenters.

Last month at a breakfast meeting with reporters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded to a question about health care with these revealing and exasperating words: "Over and over again, we hear single payer, single payer, single payer. Well, it's not going to be a single payer.". . .

What is more remarkable is that many more than the 75 members of the House privately believe single payer is the best option. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi are among them. But they all say, single payer "is not practical" so it's off the table...Never mind that 75 members of her party have signed onto H.R. 676-the Conyers single payer legislation. Never mind that in her San Francisco district, probably three out of four people want single payer. And never mind that over 20,000 people die every year*, because they cannot afford health insurance.

Read full from The Single-Payer Taboo

*according to the Institute of Medicine

Ethanol v Electricity

Click here or image for full size

Credit: McDade & Campbell/UC Merced

• thumbnail
• original

Hidden valuable natural resource is being exploited...

From newscientist

 

Click image to see spectrum

Google is backing a political campaign to force the US government to release full details of how one of our most valuable natural resources is being exploited - radio communications spectrum.

 

A post on Google's policy blog lauds a bill being introduced to Congress that would require the Federal Communications Commission to "take a full inventory of our nation's spectrum resources between the 300 MHz and 3.5 GHz bands."

You can already see a representation of how the spectrum is divided in the graphic above, or in pdf form here. But the bill would make available full details of who is using which chunks of spectrum for what, and how efficiently. As the Google post puts it, "is a sizable portion of useful spectrum simply lying fallow?"

 

The internet giant was one of many that lobbied sucessfully to get spectrum freed up by the demise of analogue TV signals allocated to new kinds of mobile devices. That will supposedly allow the development of technology dubbed "Wi-Fi on steroids" by its proponents, and shape our technological future - allowing faster portable connections and high-speed broadband in remote areas, for example.

 

Similarly, making it publicly known how the rest of the radio spectrum is being used, and what is left, could change how we communicate for years to come.

 

DOE Introduces Web-Based Energy Design Tool for Schools.

The U.S. Department of Energy continues to offer a no-cost, online webinar that provides an overview of the Advanced Energy Design Guide (AEDG) for K-12 School Buildings, including recommendations based on climate zones to achieve 30% energy savings over baseline standard in both new and renovation building projects.

Presenters: Paul Torcellini and Shanti Pless of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Duration: This 120-minute webinar includes a 90-minute presentation followed by a 30-minute question and answer session.

Target Audience: The material targets school administrators, engineers, architects, contractors, and designers working on new school building or major renovation projects.

Learning Units: The American Institute of Architects (AIA) members are eligible to receive 2.0 AIA/CES Learning Units (HSW/SD) for successful completion of the training, which will include a short quiz. Directions on how to receive HSW/SDs and CEUs are displayed at the end of the webinar.

Begin webinar now

 

Even with huge tax rebates and design 'borrowed' from Toyota, the Malibu fails...

From fueleconomy.gov

I would not even post this if my inlaws had not purchased the Camry. It is a nice car, but I am holding out until the 'big three' release their 60 mpg fleets hear in the U.S.

Every ad I see in mag and TV are on the 'great new Mailbu Hybrid'... well it looks like a 'cut and paste' of the Camry, but without the extra room or mpg ;-(

Hybrid Compare Side-by-Side
	Remove			Remove
	Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid			Toyota Camry Hybrid
	Hybrid Vehicle			Hybrid Vehicle
	New EPA MPG
	Regular Gasoline 26 City 29 Combined 34 Hwy			Regular Gasoline 33 City 34 Combined 34 Hwy
	MPG Estimates from Drivers Like You
	Average based on 1 vehicle. 28.0			Average based on 17 vehicles. 36.3
	Fuel Economics
Cost to drive 25 Miles	$1.79			$1.53
Fuel to Drive 25 Miles	0.86 gal			0.74 gal
Cost of a Fill-up	$29.95			$32.20
Miles on a Tank	418 miles			526 miles
Tank Size	16.0 gal			17.2 gal
Annual Fuel Cost*	$1076			$917

Did I mention my 93' Prism gets over 38mpg and has the same room as these 'modern answers'... without the complexity. I wonder what they'll cost or if they'll even be running after 200,000 miles. YIKES

Mission to break up Ocean Plastic Island twice the size of Texas

Scientists and conservationists on the expedition will begin attempts to retrieve and recycle a monument to throwaway living in the middle of the North Pacific.

The toxic soup of refuse was discovered in 1997 when Charles Moore, an oceanographer, decided to travel through the centre of the North Pacific gyre (a vortex or circular ocean current). Navigators usually avoid oceanic gyres because persistent high-pressure systems — also known as the doldrums — lack the winds and currents to benefit sailors.

Mr Moore found bottle caps, plastic bags and polystyrene floating with tiny plastic chips. Worn down by sunlight and waves, discarded plastic disintegrates into smaller pieces. Suspended under the surface, these tiny fragments are invisible to ships and satellites trying to map the plastic continent, but in subsequent trawls Mr Moore discovered that the chips outnumbered plankton by six to one.

The damage caused by these tiny fragments is more insidious than strangulation, entrapment and choking by larger plastic refuse. The fragments act as sponges for heavy metals and pollutants until mistaken for food by small fish. The toxins then become more concentrated as they move up the food chain through larger fish, birds and marine mammals.

"You can buy certified organic farm produce, but no fishmonger on earth can sell you a certified organic wild-caught fish. This is our legacy," said Mr Moor

On June the 151ft brigantine Kaisei (Japanese for Planet Ocean) will unfurl its sails in San Francisco to try to prove Mr Moore wrong. Project Kaisei's flagship will be joined by a decommissioned fishing trawler armed with specialised nets.

"The trick is collecting the plastic while minimising the catch of sea life. We can't catch the tiny pieces. But the net benefit of getting the rest out is very likely to be better than leaving it in," says Doug Woodring, the leader of the project.

With a crew of 30, the expedition, supported by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brita, the water company, will use unmanned aircraft and robotic surface explorers to map the extent and depth of the plastic continent while collecting 40 tonnes of the refuse for trial recycling.

"We have a few technologies that can turn thin plastics into diesel fuel. Other technologies are much more hardcore, to deal with the hard plastics," says Mr Woodring, who hopes to run his vessels on the recycled fuel.

Plastics bags, food wrappers and containers are the second and third most common items in marine debris around the world, according to the Ocean Conservancy, which is based in Washington. The proportion of tiny fragments, known as mermaid's tears, are less easily quantified.

The UN's environmental programme estimates that 18,000 pieces of plastic have ended up in every square kilometre of the sea, totalling more than 100 million tonnes. The North Pacific gyre — officially called the northern subtropical convergence zone — is thought to contain the biggest concentration. Ideal conditions for shifting slicks of plastic also exist in the South Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the North and South Atlantic, but no research vessel has investigated those areas. If this exploratory mission is successful, a bigger fleet will depart in 2010.

Mr Woodring admits that Project Kaisei has limitations. "We won't be able to clean up the entire ocean. The solution really lies on land. We have to treat plastics in a totally different way, and stop them ever reaching the ocean." www.algalita.org

Read full Via Times Online

Image results for plastic island in ocean

Report the following images as offensive. Confirm CancelThank you for the feedback.