Nuclear Power Is The Ultimate Massive Boondoggle – Why would we do such a thing?

As Schmacher said in Small Is Beautiful, “Using uranium to boil water to generate steam to generate electricity is like using a firehose to spray an ant off a toilet seat. It is an inappropriate use of technology.” Which was a nice way to say that Nuclear Power Plants are stupid.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

End the nuclear age

Nastya, from Belarus was only three years old when she was diagnosed with cancer of the uterus and lungs. According to local doctors the region has seen a huge increase in childhood cancer cases since the Chernobyl disaster.

Greenpeace has always fought – and will continue to fight – vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

We need an energy system that can fight climate change, based on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Nuclear power already delivers less energy globally than renewable energy, and the share will continue to decrease in the coming years.

Despite what the nuclear industry tells us, building enough nuclear power stations to make a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would cost trillions of dollars, create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste, contribute to further proliferation of nuclear weapons materials, and result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade. Perhaps most significantly, it will  squander the resources necessary to implement meaningful climate change solutions.  (Briefing: Climate change – Nuclear not the answer.)

“Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on this planet.”
Patrick Moore, Assault on Future Generations, 1976

The Nuclear Age began in July 1945 when the US tested their first nuclear bomb near Alamogordo, New Mexico. A few years later, in 1953, President Eisenhower launched his “Atoms for Peace” Programme at the UN amid a wave of unbridled atomic optimism.

But as we know there is nothing “peaceful” about all things nuclear. More than half a century after Eisenhower’s speech the planet is left with the legacy of nuclear waste. This legacy is beginning to be recognised for what it truly is.

Things are moving slowly in the right direction. In November 2000 the world recognised nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in The Hague. Nuclear power was dealt a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001.

:}

If you are bored now, you can watch this advertisement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOI-Va5aU3U

And then there are these folks who have been at it since the beginning of time:

http://www.nirs.org/

 generaltop.jpg

Welcome to Nuclear Information and Resource Service& World Information Service on Energy

NIRS/WISE is the information and networking center for people and organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy issues.

Stop Import of Radioactive Waste!

Activists in Utah held a rally at a local Italian restaurant to bring attention to EnergySolutions’ application to import 20,000 tons of radioactive waste from Italy to the U.S. The waste would come in through the ports of Charleston, SC and New Orleans, LA, be shipped to Tennessee for incineration, other “processing” and “recycling.” Some would be dumped in regular trash in Tennessee and some sent to Utah to be buried.

Tell the NRC to deny Energy Solutions application. Public comment period ends June 10, 2008.
For more information, click here.

 

 

“We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power.”

7,381 signers. Add your name!
432 U.S. org. signers so far
153 intl. org. signers so far

 

 Note: NIRS relies on contributions from people who use and/or appreciate our services for 1/3 of our annual budget. Your support is crucial! You can donate online by clicking the “Donate” button, or you may mail your tax-deductible check to NIRS. We thank you for your support.  NIRS is located at 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912; 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); fax: 301-270-4291; E-mail NIRS. WISE-Amsterdam is at P.O. Box 59636, 1040 LC Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 31-20-6126368; fax: 31-20-6892179; E-mail WISE. Web: www.antenna.nl/wise. Our NIRS Southeast U.S. office is at P.O. Box 7586, Asheville, NC 28802; 828-675-1792, E-mail NIRS Southeast office. Worldwide NIRS/WISE relay offices. Photo captions on the page header

:}

Nuclear Power Is The Future – Probably not…

People who tout Nukes as the Future take for granted that there is fuel out there.

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421123231.htm

Questioning Nuclear Power’s

Ability

To Forestall Global Warming

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2008) — Rising energy and environmental costs may prevent nuclear power from being a sustainable alternative energy source in the fight against global warming, according to a new study.


    In the article, Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf investigate the “eco-efficiency” of mining and milling uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. Advocates of nuclear power claim it has the potential to mitigate global warming. Detractors, however, link it to dangers such as proliferation of nuclear weapons and problems such as permanent disposal of nuclear waste.

The study points out that supplies of high-grade uranium ore are declining, which may boost nuclear fuel’s environmental and economic costs, including increases in energy use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, newly discovered uranium deposits may be more difficult to extract in the future — a further drain on economic and environmental resources.

“The extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs, such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and broader social issues,” the authors say. “These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium milling and mining.”
 

Don’t believe me? What about the guys and gals at MIT?

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/080201furber-warf-plotkin.php

Or maybe the the Australian Monthly Review?

The following article on “The Future of Nuclear Power” by Robert D. Furber, James C. Warf, and Sheldon C. Plotkin, scientists with a long history of addressing this issue, seeks to lay bare the realities of nuclear power. Although much more difficult to read than the typical MR article, we encourage all of our readers to study it closely. Its conclusion?: “any building of new [nuclear] plants would be a serious mistake….the future of nuclear power, as we know it, is very poor at best.”

The careful analysis of Furber, Warf, and Plotkin thus points to the irrationality of current proposals to resort massively to nuclear power as an answer to global warming. In order for nuclear power to make a dent in the global warming problem it would be necessary to build hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world, each one taking ten years to construct, and each an enormous hazard to the earth, generating radioactive wastes lasting for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. The most important principle of environmental thought is that of safeguarding the earth for future generations. To turn to nuclear power as a solution to global warming would be to abandon that trust.—Ed.

:}
:}

I’ve Always Wanted To Get A Buzz ON – But this early in the morning?

:}This is One of the Cool Sites I visit often. If for no other reason than to check the falling price of Solar Photovoltaics.

Some of the links are active below, if you want to use them but it’s easier to just go there and do that.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/index.asp

 sb50.gif

WORLD SOLAR ENERGY NEWS HEADLINES 


Latest News….


May 5, 2008
Munich, Germany: Centrosolar and Qimonda in Cell Manufacture Joint Venture
 
May 2, 2008
Boading, China: Yingli Signs Module Contract with Eiko Trading
May 2, 2008
Novato, CA, USA: iPower Completes PV System for Flora Springs
May 2, 2008
Albuquerque, NM, USA: SkyFuel Secures Funding for Solar Thermal Power Technology

voltaic Module Survey Retail Prices   (DEC 2001 – MAY 2008)

 Photovoltaic Module Survey Retail Prices   (DEC 2001 – MAY 2008)

moduleprices08-5.gif 

 Photovoltaic Module Survey Retail Prices   (DEC 2001 – MAY 2008)

WEEKLY NEWSLETTER:

NBuzz

 PRICE SURVEY:  MAY 2008
Solar Electricity  21.29 cents per kWh
 UNCHANGED

:

EXPO AT SOLARBUZZ.COM
 Find Solar Companies Worldwide

  SITE NAVIGATION      
 MEDIA
SITE SEARCH

}

One Of The Best Articles Ever On Green Automobiles – The ins and outs of biofuels and electric cars

US News is my hero:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/01/11/the-pros-and-cons-of-8-green-fuels.html

The Pros and Cons of

8 Green Fuels

Our dossiers detail which fuels

are overrated—and which

could power your next car

By Rick Newman

Posted January 11, 2008


 

After years of talk, rising oil prices—combined with global-warming concerns and a disdain for foreign oil—have finally set the stage for breakthroughs in alternative fuels. To see how the hottest new technologies stack up, click on each fuel for a rundown of its attributes and flaws, or click on the topics on the left to see how various fuels compare:

  • What is it?
  • What’s good about it?
  • What’s bad about it?
  • Where would it be most useful?
  • How much will it cost?
  • When’s it coming?
  • What’s taking so long?
  • Who’s doing it?
  • Could it be a silver bullet?

What is it?

Corn Ethanol
A fuel derived from the sugars in corn and other plants. Pure ethanol is usually blended with gasoline. “E10″—10 percent ethanol—is common today. E85—85 percent ethanol—is the highest practical blend; some gas is still required for combustion in most climates.
Cellulosic Ethanol
A biofuel refined from cellulose, the fibrous material that makes up most of the plant matter in wheat, switch grass, corn stalks, rice straw, and even wood chips.
Biodiesel
A renewable fuel made from vegetable oil or animal fats, including soybeans, canola oil, and even used cooking oil. It’s sometimes mixed with conventional, petroleum-based diesel to help cut down on tailpipe emissions.
Clean Diesels
Diesel is refined from petroleum, like gasoline, but the pollution it produces is harder to control. “Clean diesel” vehicles burn the fuel more efficiently and trap pollutants better. New low-sulfur diesel fuel also pollutes less—much like unleaded gasoline, compared with leaded.
Hybrids
There are several kinds of hybrids. In general, today’s models have a battery-powered electric motor that drives the car at slower speeds and a gas engine that kicks in at higher speeds. The engine also helps recharge the battery, along with energy captured from the rotation of the wheels during deceleration.
Plug-In Hybrids
Same principle as for ordinary hybrids: There’s an electric motor and a gas engine, except that the battery powering the motor would be recharged from an electrical outlet, at home or someplace else. The motor would power the car until battery power waned. Then the gas engine or another secondary power source would kick in.
Electric Vehicles
Any car with a battery-powered motor—including every variety of hybrid—is an electric vehicle to some extent. A pure electric vehicle would be run entirely by the battery-powered motor.
Hydrogen/Fuel Cells
The concept is similar to hybrids: an electric motor would drive the car much of the time. In this case, the motor would be charged by something under the hood called a fuel-cell stack, which converts hydrogen and oxygen into electricity that flows to the battery. The on-board fuel would be hydrogen.

Top

Primary sources: Automotive News, Union of Concerned Scientists, dieselforum.org, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, American Automobile Association, Renewable Fuels Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Biodiesel Board, Center for Automotive Research.

 

Please note, I did not include ALL of the article here but each link for the topic should take you to a longer article which takes you through each category list at the top of the article. For the attention challenged please click on the main US News link at the beginning of this post. Each category is laid out in linear bullet fashion. Either way its one hell of a piece.

Wind Electrical Generation In Illinois – #1 in 2007

We installed the most generation capacity in the nation in 2007! Yahoo

http://www.illinoiswind.org/news/index.asp

wind.gif

News


Section 9006 Program Funds for Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements
Posted 3/7/2008 1:56:33 PMThis message is from Molly Hammond, USDA Rural Development- Illinois, April 7,2008USDA published a notice yesterday (4/6/08)in the Federal Register announcing it is accepting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2008 to purchase renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements for agriculture producers and rural small businesses in eligible rural areas. Funding will be available in the form of grants, guaranteed loans, and combined guaranteed loans and grant applications. For FY 2008 there is approximately $15.9 million in funding for competitive grants and $205 million in authority for guaranteed loans. Funding for grant and loan combination packages will be funded from the same allocation as loan guarantees.I have attached the Federal Register document to this email. Please read it carefully. Pay particular attention to the mention of the Environmental Assessment. The environmental process should begin right away. Please contact me for information on environmental requirements for specific projects. This year there will be two competitive grant cycles. The first deadline is April 15, 2008. Applications that are not funded in the first competition will automatically be considered under the second competition. Grant applications in the second cycle are due no later than June 16, 2008. Loan applications and grant/loan combination applications will be evaluated on a bi-weekly basis until June 16. These will be funded on a first-come first-serve basis. I would suggest submitting a combination application as soon as possible. Please note that combination applications must score at least 84 points to remain eligible.

Please see the following websites for more information on the program:

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/farmbill/index.html – Section 9006 website

A copy of the regulation can be found at the above website, but a more reader-friendly version is available at this link: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/regs/regs/pdf/4280b.pdf

Application templates and other useful items can be found at the Environmental Law and Policy Center website. Please note that this is not a USDA Rural Development website.

www.farmenergy.org

http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/provider_search.asp – Link to a list of grant writers.

I look forward to working with you, and feel free to contact me with any questions.

Molly K. Hammond
USDA Rural Development – Illinois
Business Cooperative Specialist
Phone: 217-403-6210
Fax: 217-403-6215

But Illinois is not without resistance.

Rail splitter project may

 `

be caught in turbulence

By TIM LANDIS

BUSINESS EDITOR

tim.landis @sj-r.com

One of the nation’s largest developers of wind energy hopes to have 67 turbines churn­ing out electricity by the end of this year along a stretch of interstate highway about 50 miles north of Springfield.

The $175 million to $200 million Rail Split­ter Wind Farm would produce enough power to meet the annual needs of 30,000 homes.

“Assuming we get approval, we hope to begin construction in May and to have the project online by the end of this year,” Bill Whitlock, a project manager for Horizon Wind Energy, said Wednesday.

Whitlock said the company plans to file for a construction permit in Logan County or,-Monday, and already has filed in Tazewell County for the right to build on 11,000 acres of farmland shared by the two counties.

The site is on both sides of Interstate 155 near the community of Delavan, between Lin­coln and Peoria. Whitlock said 38 of the 380-to 390-foot towers — the state Capitol, by com­parison, is 361 feet to the top of the dome — would be in Tazewell County and 29 would be in Logan County.

Whitlock said the company also continues to negotiate leases with farmers whose land is needed and is exploring markets for the power.

Horizon Energy’s first major project in cen­tral Illinois, the 240-turbine Twin Groves Wind Farm near Bloomington, ran into a va­riety of legal challenges, including from landowners, before it began producing elec­tricity last year.  The U.S. Department of Energy r nois at 16 among the top 20 states for wind-energy potential.

But the head of the Illinois Wind Working Group — a consortium of utilities, rural elec­tric cooperatives, farm organizations and eco­nomic development agencies — said Wednes­day he expects commercial wind farms to re­main controversial.

“There are probably going to be lawsuits, and counties really have to be careful to make sure they follow legal procedures,” said David Loomis, who also is an associate professor of economics at Illinois State University in Nor­mal.

Even on a residential scale, wind turbines can be a touchy subject with neighbors, ac­cording to Bill Fabian, owner of Midstate Re­newable Energy Services in Champaign. The home-based business has sold about a dozen residential turbines the past two years.

“You always have the proximity issue with neighbors who may not be as enthused about wind power as you are,” Fabian said.

He said the typical home unit costs $15,000 to $19,000. The tower is usually 60 feet, tall enough to get above most treetops.

“I think it’s going to remain mostly a niche market for residents who can not only afford it, but have the commitment to make it work,” he said.

Officials in Logan County have estimated the Rail Splitter project could generate about $234,000 in tax revenue the first year. The Tazewell County Zoning Board of Appeals has set three public hearings in April on the pro­posal.

GateHouse News Service contributed to this report. Tim Landis can be reached at 788-1536.
:}

But Sangamon County? The leader in all things innovative? Not so much…

Flat ground won’t work

By TIM LANDIS

BUSINESS EDITOR

tim.landis@sj-r.com

It isn’t for a lack of wind. But Sangamon County is considered too flat in most spots when it comes to commercial wind development.

Nearly a year and a half since the county approved rules for wind-tur­bine construction, exactly two per­mits have been approved. Both were for what amounted to do-it-yourself home projects in the wind industry.

“It was for two mini-systems,” said county zoning and building ad­ministrator Randy Armstrong.

The wind rules were approved in the fall of 2006 after a commercial developer approached the county about the possibility of a local wind firm. After the initial inquiry, noth­ing more was heard, Armstrong said.

“They said they were interested, so we thought maybe we’d better get something on the books,” he said.

The director of the Illinois Wind Working Group at Illinois State University explained that potential turbine sites are graded ,m a scale of 1 to 7. The higher the number, the more suitable the area for com­mercial wind development.

“Most of Illinois is a class 3-plus or a 4. Usually, a class 3 or 4 is the minimum they’d consider to be commercially viable,” David Loomis said.

Loomis said Illinois also has the advantage of large population cen­ters that make it financially feasible to build projects at lower wind speeds compared to sparsely popu­lated states such as North Dakota that rank at a “6” or higher.

But he said the suitability of ter­rain varies considerably, even from county to county.

“If you look at McLean County (Bloomington-Normai), you’d say, ‘Gee, it’s as flat as Sangamon County. But in reality, there’s a slow rise upward, and it ends in a ridge on the eastern side of our county,” he said.

The Rural Electric Convenience Cooperative, based in Auburn, is waiting for equipment to begin con­struction of a single wind turbine on a reclaimed coal-mine site about 30 miles south of Springfield, along Interstate 55 at Farmersville.

The turbine would supply about 500 homes.

Tim Landis can be reached at 788-1536.

:}

Cars That Kill – How the gasoline powered car has destroyed the planet.

Most people when considering the Automobile as an environmental plague think mainly of oil and its various impacts. While it’s true that the vast network of oil drilling platforms, the refineries and the gasoline spewed by billions of internal combustion engines from D13 Catepillars to Leaf Blowers has befouled the world. But lets not forget that the refining of oil led to the creation of plastics which now bob up and down all over our oceans. The creation of Rubber Tires led to the enslavement of huge tropical regions of the world. The energy consumed just to make the damn things is incredible. But what about the impact of the world’s population commuting to work?

Suburbs and Bedroom communities have been called the single largest misallocation of resources since the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China. We all know what happened to those folks…..

http://www.howestreet.com/articles/index.php?article_id=6219

In preparation for doing a post on the locals that are competeing in the Progressive Automotice XPriz here is another look at the world ending car:

Originally published here:

http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/

By:

Whiskey and Gunpowder is your source for up to date financial editorial and insight into the effect finance has over the world of commodities.

Together, with Jim Amrhein (personal liberties), Byron King (economics with historic and geologic intertwinings), Dan Amoss (macroeconomic trends and institutional analysis), Adrian Ash and Ed Bugos (gold markets), and Jamie Ellis who covers everything in between. Plus a rotating cast of characters that keep up the standard of excellence in both content and delivery that Whiskey & Gunpowder insists on providing its readers.

Featuring insightful articles that explore a range of topics including commodities, politics, technology, nature, history and anything else our writers could possibly dream up, Whiskey & Gunpowder offers the kind of analysis that the mainstream media will never give

:}

Turn the Curve”By Byron King
April 16, 2008

Every automobile on the roads of the world reflects a long and complex chain of industrial production and energy usage. Yet we live in a world where many of the highest quality resources and energy supplies have already been exploited. And lower quality resources are more expensive to extract and exploit, if they are even available. So the world’s automobile industry is in the midst of a revolution in both resource availability and energy consumption.

Thinking about Basic Materials and Energy

Today the automobile business is vast. It is a global industry that has evolved by leaps and bounds in the 100 years since Henry Ford made his famous remark in 1908 about building “a car for the great multitude.” The worldwide customer base includes at least a billion people — spread over six continents — who have income sufficient to buy a car or small truck. According to figures assembled at the MIT Sloan Automotive Laboratory, there are about 700 million automobiles and light trucks in the world. About 30 percent of those vehicles are in North America.

Every car requires steel, aluminum, copper and lead. Each car requires rubber, plastic, and myriad of other petroleum and natural gas by-products. And there is much else in the long industrial ladder of automobile production. Just think in terms of the energy that goes into processing materials, fabricating parts, building components, assembling a finished product, and all the transportation along the way. In addition to the basic energy and material resources that go into manufacturing an automobile, the sheer number of vehicles reflects a lot of fuel tanks to fill with gasoline and diesel. And this does not even touch on the energy and resources that go into building road systems.

While America dwaddled,

There has been even more progress in the fuel efficiency of diesel engines over the past 25 years. Diesel power trains are no longer the sooty, “knock-knock” devices that they were back in the days of disco. Most cars sold today in the European Union (EU), for example, are powered with clean-burning, fuel efficient, smoothly running diesel engines. In fact, the demand for diesel fuel in Europe is such that EU refineries routinely ship surplus gasoline to sell into the North American market. And in North America the relatively low prices for gasoline throughout the 1980s and 1990s discouraged the use of diesel engines.

So there have been significant improvements in automobile power train efficiencies over the past couple of decades. But have these improvements translated into any overall reduction in demand for fuel? No. In 2007 motor fuel consumption in the U.S. was high as it has ever been. (Although according to the American Petroleum Institute, demand for motor fuel may be at a plateau due to price increases at the pump in 2006 and 2007.) In the past 25 years we’ve seen more people driving more cars for more miles. But compounding the fuel issue, the cars that people are buying and driving tend to weigh more and offer higher performance.

The Future of the Automobile

(sad but true even these folks think there is one)

It helps to view the age of the automobile — and its future — as a systemic whole. And some social critics are out in front of the broad discussion, with a sharp focus on the automobile and what it has brought us as a society. James Kunstler, for example, author of highly regarded books such as The Geography of Nowhere and The Long Emergency, believes that the car-dependent suburban build-out of the U.S. may be “the greatest misallocation of resources in all of human history.” That is, in an era of expensive energy and scarce resources, a car-dependent culture has no real future and is in fact a hindrance to progress in other directions. That is quite a viewpoint, well-presented by Kunstler in his writing. It’s depressing, but it sure gets your attention.

And criticism of the automobile culture is not confined just to social commentators like Kunstler. Another remarkable indictment comes from no less an automotive insider than Prof. John Heywood, the director of the MIT Sloan Automotive Laboratory. He has stated that “cars may prove to be the worst commodity of all.” According to Prof. Heywood, cars are “responsible for a steady degradation of the ecosystem, from greenhouse emissions to biodiversity loss. What’s worse, even if we improve vehicle efficiency, turn to fuel hybrids or make rapid advances in hydrogen-based fuel technologies, the scale for slowing down the degradation may run to the decades. Turning the curve won’t be easy.”

You can agree or disagree with the broad themes of Jim Kunstler or John Heywood. But there’s no argument with one of Prof. Heywood’s points. Wherever we are going, it will not be easy to “turn the curve.” Looking forward, the oil just is not there to fuel cars in the future in the way that we did it in the past. So a lot of people are going to have to do things differently.

Worldwide, the automobile industry has seen the handwriting on the wall. Fuel is expensive, and is getting more so with each passing year. So the industry has invested tens of billions of dollars in improving engine and power train efficiency. In addition, auto designers are coming up with new ways to eliminate weight and drag. (At higher speeds, up to 70 percent of the energy used to turn the wheels on a car goes just to push the air out of the way of the chassis.) The auto industry is looking towards different sorts of fuels, and moving towards what is called fuel-flexibility.

Hopefully this will lead us to a great new investment in the car of the future.

Until we meet again…
Byron King

:}

:}

State Journal Register – They publish a very good editorial calling for efforts to combat Global Warming

I like this approach as an educational tool.

Our opinion: It’s foolish to do nothing about climate change

Published Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Last week, representatives from more than 160 countries started meeting in Bangkok to discuss an international climate treaty to replace the decade-old Kyoto Protocol. Again, the United States is shying away from a leadership role. Some of our concerns have merit — we can’t commit economic suicide while China goes sprinting by.“The primary concern is the so-called leakage issue,” U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson told The Associated Press. “If you take commitments and you have energy intensive industries, they might want to move to other countries which don’t have commitments.”

Signing on to an agreement that then sends our industry fleeing to countries that don’t commit to pollution control would make no sense. Yet arguably our grumbling isn’t getting us anywhere, either.

Which makes us wonder: If an asteroid was hurtling toward Earth would the Bush administration likewise sit on its hands? Would it argue that since the asteroid is a naturally occurring event there’s nothing man should do to prepare for, or mitigate, its impact?

Of course not.

So I wrote this letter trying to support their point, sigh….they did not publish it so I’m putting it up here.

:}

Editor

State Journal Register

One Copley Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

 

Emailed – 04/14/08

 

Dear Editor:

 

Thanks for your recent Editorial supporting attempts to help prevent Global Warming. There is no need to apologize for supporting such efforts though, because when America stops doing things that make no economic sense, America makes money and produces jobs every time. We do 2 things that are creating Global Warming.

 

The first thing that we Americans do that is leading us to Global Warming is we “throw things away”. How much economic sense has that ever made? Think about it. We pay good money for stuff and then throw part of it away. We buy things in packaging and we throw it away. We buy food and we throw part of it away. We buy coal and then we throw part of it out the smoke stack. We buy gasoline and throw part of it out the tailpipe. So if we quit throwing things away we automatically make money and I might add create jobs to deal with all that stuff we now throw away.

 

The second thing we do that is leading us to global warming is we “burn stuff up”. Plain and simple, we strike a match and burn something up that we paid good money for. Why not just stack some paper money on the ground, pour a little gasoline on it and strike a match? We burn coal, uranium and natural gas to make electricity. There are many ways to generate electricity without burning things. Yet we persist. We burn gasoline to transport our things and ourselves. We know that there are other ways to do this, and yet we persist. If we stop burning things up, we would save money and create jobs. Conservation is not bad for any economy.

 

So the next time you throw something away or you “strike a match” look at your hand and ask yourself, “Do I really want to do that?” Join us at www.censys.org.

  

Doug Nicodemus

948 e. adams st.

riverton, IL  62561

629-7031

dougnic55@yahoo.com

Solar Power Rocks – This is a pretty cool site

The nice people at Solar Power Rocks asked me to link up with them. AWWWWW somebody else loves CES! Anyway they are going to explain html LINKS to me so I can try to do it.

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/

In the mean time this is todays post:

Solar power rocks RSS Feed Get our RSS Feed


Find a Solar Installer


Solar Power Calculator


Solar in San Francisco


Archives


Resources


Our Mission


Add Solar Power Rocks Technorati Favorites


About the Editors:
Dave Llorens
Dan Hahn


Wear us out!


  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa

     

    California Bay Area Solar Market Analysis

    Posted on April 16, 2008 by Dan Hahn.
    Categories: Solar Trends.

    Bay Area Solar Map

    We’ve noticed that there’s been quite a bit of chatter and advertising dollars thrown into solar in the bay area over the past year or so. For instance, we were just at a San Francisco Giants game last week and couldn’t help but notice the numerous PGE ads for their solar installation at AT&T park urging homeowners to consider the switch to solar. Glitzy ads from large oil companies (ahem, right right, “energy companies”) also emblazoned large billboards with solar elements. Well, the incentives in California are so good, that we started to wonder how many homeowners out of total in the bay area are already on board. So, it’s time for some good ol’ fashioned data analysis of the Bay Area residential solar market. The figures below were generated from data sourced by one of Dave’s colleagues. See the sources below for more info on their lineage.

    As you can see from the image above, Contra Costa county accounts for just about half of the solar installs in the bay area over the past 3 years. The other counties pale in comparison. However, you can see from the chart below that there is a substantial way to go to penetrate the rest of the bay area market. While Contra Costa county does account for half of those installs, consider that that county is only about 2% saturated!

    Key Assumptions

    1. Size, Installed Price and # of installs numbers based on solar installs from 11/05 -1/08 –See

    http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/emergingrenewableslindex.html

    2. Population and Households data based on 2006 ACS Census estimates –See
    http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/
    for details

    3. Penetration calculated as % of households with solar.

    [Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

    McCain’s Gas Tax Proposal – So the time for us has just about ran out

    John McCain like every other Republican in America wants to avoid what their 30 years of dereliction of duty has wraught. Nixon, Regan and Bush (my version of lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) all increased our dependence on oil and easy Chinese money. Bush in particular ushered us to the brink of a world depression. Grover Norquist, who wants to take us back to the 1930s is about to succeed:

    http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_norquist.html

    BILL MOYERS: If states refuse to raise taxes to fix some of those problems we’ve just seen, that certainly won’t bother my next guest. He’s a sworn opponent of all taxes. He’s also the most powerful man in Washington not to hold a public office.

    Officially, Grover Norquist heads an organization called Americans for Tax Reform where for almost 20 years now he has crusaded for lower taxes and less government. Unofficially he’s been the linchpin in Washington for the conservative revolution that now controls the government. His weekly meetings of activists became the politburo of strategy where all stripes of conservatives bear their differences in order to bury their hatchet in Democrats. From the Christian coalition to log cabin Republicans to the National Rifle Association on whose board he sits, this Harvard graduate keeps the troops on mission and on message. His success prompted Senator Hillary Clinton to muse aloud, if only Democrats had a Grover Norquist. Welcome to NOW.

    GROVER NORQUIST: Glad to be with you.

    BILL MOYERS: Well, you do have it all. You have the White House, the Congress, the regulatory agencies, the courts more or less. The last time Democrats, liberal Democrats, held that kind of power, they made some mistakes like the war in Vietnam that they couldn’t sustain the support of at home, emphasized parochial interests at the expense of the sort of bedrock universal values of American society. What are the errors you think conservatives running everything could make?

    GROVER NORQUIST: I think it’s very important to always make sure that you’re talking to the entire coalition and to as many Americans as possible; not to go chasing after one little group or another. The Democrats would bring new groups into their party and not notice that larger groups are going out the back door. And so what I try and do whenever I work on an issue or work with political leaders is make sure that when you’re talking about a new approach, how does that…how does the entire coalition view that new approach? Is there a better or different way to do it that irritates fewer people and that satisfies a larger constituency?

    BILL MOYERS: And that’s what you did at your Wednesday morning meetings? Those meetings became famous, for all kinds of conservatives being in there hammering things out.

    GROVER NORQUIST: And we now have 27 versions of that at the state capital level, including one in New York City. So we’re taking the model of the “leave us alone” coalition from the national level to the state level as well.

    BILL MOYERS: “Leave us alone?”

    GROVER NORQUIST: Um-hmm. Look, the center right coalition in American politics today is best understood as a coalition of groups and individuals that on the issue that brings them to politics what they want from the government is to be left alone. Taxpayers, don’t raise my taxes. Property owners, don’t restrict or limit my property. Home schoolers, let me educate my own kids. Gun owners, don’t restrict my Second Amendment rights. All communities of faith, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, people want to practice their own religion and be left alone to raise their own kids.

    BILL MOYERS: Do you have any sympathy for those states we just saw a few moments ago? Under the president’s plan, those states do not expect any direct aid from Uncle Sam. Do you have any advice for them?

    GROVER NORQUIST: Sure, two things. The most important thing for President Bush and the federal government to do is to create a pro-growth economic policy because its economic growth that brings in more revenue for states and local governments. At the state level what they really have to do is take a long run view and limit the growth of spending, put limits on how much you spend. And then California, the state owns a whole bunch of land and other things that it could sell off it doesn’t need, and it needs to figure out which of those government jobs need to be in government, and what can be privatized or contracted out.

    BILL MOYERS: You’re on record as saying, my goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bath tub. Is that a true statement?

    And the Holy Satanic trilogy of George Mason University, Southern Methodist University and the University of Chicago have supplied all the intellectual fire power. SMU is where George Bush, jr. will try to lock up his presidential papers and avoid jail,

    :}

    Oh but I digress…One of the finest posters at The Oil Drum JoulesBurn who Blogs at:

    http://satelliteoerthedesert.blogspot.com/

    Had this little cutey today:

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3855#more

    McCain’s Gas Pains: Gas “Tax Holidays” A Good Idea?

    For immediate release from John McCain’s campaign:

    John McCain, who just hours earlier proposed a “tax holiday” in which the 18 cent federal tax on gasoline would be suspended during the summer driving season, has reconsidered and has instead proposed that the U.S. gallon be redefined to be equal in volume to the current U.S. quart. “This will immediately lower the price at the pump by 75%, providing visible relief to millions of Americans”, quipped McCain. “I rejected the idea of setting it equal to the liter, for obvious reasons”.When questioners suggested that this move wouldn’t actually change how much consumers spend to fill their tanks, McCain responded “Well, neither would my previous proposal”.

    In unrelated election news, the McCain campaign announced that P.T. Barnum has been posthumously appointed as their policy director. Also, Hillary Clinton has proposed a suspension of the law of gravity, at least during the summer flying season, to help the beleaguered airline industry. Barack Obama reportedly had no comment on these suggestions, other than to say that Americans are definitely “atwitter” about gas prices.

    We interrupt this vacation from reality with the following observations…(under the fold…)

    • As gasoline is a commodity for which prices are determined by supply and demand, lowering the price without increasing the supply will likely increase demand (usage). Prices will rise again to compensate.
    • The 18.4 cents per gallon that is now flowing into the US treasury, and which is then spent building roads, bridges, and mass transit, will instead flow to oil companies — particularly those in foreign countries, since the US imports over half of its oil.
    • Targeting the current gasoline tax instead for the development of alternative transportation and ways of using energy more efficiently will provide more lasting solutions to the current energy and economic crises than short-term attempts to fix the problem.

    For Better Or Worse – it is true, someone should take my scanner away

    :}Its true. Our children should be worried. Our grand children? They shoul be very afraid.
     better-or-worse.jpg

    :}

    Oh to see more: http://www.fborfw.com/strip_fix/