Enbridge Energy And The Rape Of The Canadian Oil Sands – Damge that you can see from space

Why are these people?:

http://www.enbridge.com/

News Releases

Enbridge Inc. Announces Change to Webcast Start Time for 2009 First Quarter Financial Results

Enbridge’s Hybrid Fuel Cell Power Plant Featured on Daily Planet and a Finalist in Green Toronto Awards

News Release (PDF – 69.0KB)

Joint energy industry carbon dioxide storage project achieves key milestone

more…

Enbridge Ontario Wind Power Turns on Green Energy in Kincardine

more…

CCS proposals offer significant emission reductions

04.01.2009

Enbridge Announces plans to hold Open Season for proposed LaCrosse Pipeline

:}

Doing this?

can1.jpg

www.solarnavigator.net

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=70fd4398-81ff-4f17-8ad4-d81e1abe8a46

 

Oilsands damage is ignored

In a province running out of conventional oil and gas, Alberta’s oilsands are seen as a lifeline that will guarantee the continuation of our comfortable energy-driven society.

In a province running out of conventional oil and gas, Alberta’s oilsands are seen as a lifeline that will guarantee the continuation of our comfortable energy-driven society.

Too much of the time, people in this province don’t think about the cost of this gigantic oilsands development. It’s easy to do: most Albertans don’t live in, and rarely visit, the northern one-fifth of the province where the oilsands lie. What we don’t personally see or smell or taste, we tend to ignore.

The four-day series on the environmental impact of the oilsands boom written by Journal environment reporter Hanneke Brooymans, which started on Friday, is a valuable corrective to our neglect.

can.jpg

www.wellsphere.com

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/canadian_oil_at.php

Canadian Oil: At What Price?

by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 12. 9.05

Most of you are already aware of the damage caused by the burning and the extraction of oil (like the apprehended damage caused by extraction in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, for example). But what about the famous Canadian tar sands? After only two years of digging for bitumen near Fort McMurray in Alberta, Shell has already dug up a pit that is as much as three miles wide and 200 feet deep. 400-ton trucks, said to be the largest in the world, are used to move around all that dirt, and it takes a lot of it since on average 2 tons of tar sand are required to make 1 barrel of oil.

can2.jpg

www.ienearth.org

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/155046/Oil-sands-company-now-says-1606-ducks-diedhttp://www.responsibleminer.com/234/canadian-oil-sands-declared-more-environment-damage.html

Oil sands company now says 1,606 ducks died

04/01/2009 | 06:49 AMEDMONTON, Alberta — A Canadian oil sands company says more than three times as many ducks died last spring on a northern Alberta toxic waste pond than the 500 birds originally estimated.

Syncrude Canada chief executive Tom Katinas said Tuesday the carcasses of 1,606 ducks were collected from the toxic oily waters. The ponds contain waste from the process of separating oil from sand.

Katinas released the updated figure a week after an Alberta court granted the consortium three more months to enter a plea on federal and provincial wildlife charges. – AP

:}

Don’t Believe go look for yourself:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=canadian%20oil%20sands&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il

:}

Why should we in Illinois care?

http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1092988725/Officials-lobby-for-oil-pipeline-project-might-start-in-early-summer

 

Officials lobby for oil pipeline; project might start in early summer

Environmental groups oppose last phase of Canadian-U.S. energy company’s plan

GateHouse News Service

Posted Apr 29, 2009 @ 12:06 AM

Last update Apr 29, 2009 @ 10:39 AM

SPRINGFIELD —

Construction of a major underground oil pipeline along the eastern edge of Sangamon County could begin as early as this summer.

An energy developer and the Canadian consul general from Chicago are in Springfield this week to seek support for the endeavor as a major boost for jobs and energy security, including a meeting scheduled today with Gov. Pat Quinn.

The first section of the nearly 3-year-old, $350 million construction project has been completed to an area about 50 miles northeast of Peoria.

But the final phase has run into opposition from environmental groups and some landowners, who say the pipeline would only encourage continued reliance on polluting petroleum products and would violate property rights.

“Canada has the second-largest reserves in the world. There’s 170 billion barrels of reserves, and 97 percent are in the oil sands,” said Don Thompson, president of The Oil Sands Developers Group.

:}

Norway could ban gasoline-powered cars – OK so this is me being a google slut again

(Its Jammin Friday but don’t tell anyone – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0d1HilfLxA )

But I post the title and what follows just to show the difference between a forward looking country concerned about the world and a backward looking State like Illinois as best exemplified by the

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GROUP.

You would think with a name like that they would be concerned about the environment, right? But in the never never land that is Springfield they are more concerned about keeping profits high and the STATE at bay.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2007/05/23/Norway-could-ban-gasoline-powered-cars/UPI-94421179951119/

I also find it interesting that I had to go to the second GOOGLE page to get remotely close to the original article published in 2007 by UPI

:}

OSLO, Norway, May 23 (UPI) — Norwegian lawmakers are working on a proposal that could lead to a ban on the sale of gasoline-powered cars, a published report said Wednesday.

Ruling Labor, Socialist Left and Center party members of the Parliament’s transportation committee have aired the proposal, and the Transport Ministry is determining if such a ban would be legal, Oslo’s Verdens Gang newspaper reported.

“This is not a problem to arrange,” Labor transportation committee member Truls Wickstrom said. “In Brazil over 80 percent of cars sold run on bioethanol.”

“Most of the major car makers are banking on flexi-fuel,” Wickstrom said.

A flexible-fuel vehicle, or dual-fuel vehicle, has two fuel tanks and can alternate between, for instance, gasoline and bioethanol, also known as gasohol.

Banning sales of gasoline-powered cars “would pressure the automobile industry into developing technology faster than it otherwise would,” Center Party committee member Jenny Klinge said.

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T58A2w61dD4&feature=related )

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/norway-considers-banning-petrol-powered-cars/

So this was 2 years ago at least:

Norway Considers Banning Petrol-Powered

Cars

By Frank Williams
October 12, 2007
800px-pivco-piv3.jpg

No seriously. The Kingdom of Norway may become the first nation on God’s green Earth to ban all gasoline-only cars. Citing Brazil’s success with bioethanol as their rationale, Norwegian lawmakers are considering ditching petrol-only machines completely, in favor of biofuel-powered transportation. The United Press International reports that Center Party committee member Jenny Klinge feels banning sales of gasoline-powered cars to her country’s 4.7m residents “would pressure the automobile industry into developing technology faster than it otherwise would.” The Norwegian Transport ministry is trying to determine if such a ban would be legal. Meanwhile, Norway’s many corn, soybean, and sugar cane farmers are excited about the prospects of a new market for their crops.

:}

But here is IERG’s response if you believe Deedee Hirner Executive Director:

http://www.sj-r.com/archive/x1098184794/Letters-to-the-Editor-April-26

Making ‘polluters’ pay a disingenuous idea
Ron Burke’s suggestion for solving Illinois’ budget woes (“OK clean-energy law to help achieve 2 goals,” April 15) sounds painless — “making polluters pay.” He offers this, rather than increasing taxes, to raise billions to shore up state revenues. We believe Burke’s suggestion is disingenuous.

“Polluting businesses” provide gasoline to fuel our cars, electricity for light, heat, computers and high-def televisions, laundry detergents, beverage sweeteners and toothpaste. “Polluters” provide products that we, the consumers, demand. To promote “they” will pay more while “we” pay less is nothing more than a verbal shell game.

Burke states that Illinois is a significant contributor to global warming, and it is time to take responsibility for our emissions. We note that since 1980, Illinois’ population has increased 32 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 101 percent and energy consumption increased 29 percent, while overall emissions decreased 49 percent.

Further, according to the World Resources Institute that facilitated the Illinois Climate Change Advisory Group’s work, since 1990, greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation and residential sectors increased 18 percent and 3 percent, respectively, while those in the industrial energy sector decreased by 14 percent. It would appear that Illinois industry already has, to paraphrase Burke, seized the opportunity to get ahead of the curve.

Congress is expected to act soon on climate-change legislation. We believe the federal, not single- or five-state regional level, is the appropriate place for action. Burke implies opposition to regional regulation stems from a desire to hide. We strongly disagree — over-arching national policy evens the playing field for business and industry across all states.

Finally, a clean-energy law cannot achieve two goals. Proponents of charging for emissions to reduce global warming advocate that fees be revenue neutral. Revenue is not to be retained by government to solve budgets woes, but refunded to energy users to mitigate “negative impacts,” or provide incentives to reduce CO2 emissions.

Deirdre K. Hirner
Executive director
Illinois Environmental
Regulatory Group
Springfield

:}

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kXj1hmDI7Q&feature=related )

Yah THESE PEOPLE

http://www.ierg.org/

REGULATORY GROUP

IERG’s primary objective is the development and negotiation of environmental regulations and laws in Illinois. IERG is committed to the principle that environmental regulation and policy be grounded on sound science and produce demonstrated environmental improvements commensurate with the costs involved for compliance.

Because of the diversity of these regulations – and the way in which responsibilities are spread over state government – IERG is involved with an ever expanding universe of state agencies and departments. To this end, IERG expends effort to actually draft both regulatory language and detailed comments on proposals put forth by the regulatory agencies. On behalf of IERG members, staff is involved early in the effort to provide sound and technically defensible input throughout the regulatory, policy or legislative process.

:}

That Hang out with THESE PEOPLE:


(Expanded Members)

Abbott Laboratories


Robert Wells

Ameren Services Company


Michael L. Menne

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company


Mark E. Calmes

 

Atlantic Richfield Company
Thomas G. Tunnicliff

Aventine Renewable Energy, Inc.
Steve Antonacci

Bunge North America, Inc.
Loren L. Polak
 

Buzzi Unicem USA, Inc.
Kathy Brady

Cabot Corporation


Amy Clyde

Caterpillar Inc.


Patricia Ludewig 

Chrysler Corporation


Mark Werthman

CITGO Petroleum Corporation


Matthew W. Klickman

Cognis Corporation


Maureen Haller

Commonwealth Edison Company


Lorinda Alms  

Conooco Phillips Petroleum Company
Gina P. Nicholson

Corn Products International, Inc.


Alan L. Jirik

Deere & Company


James Nitzschke

 

Dominion Kincaid Generation, LLC


Al Rinozzi

The Dow Chemical Company


Bill Pedersen

Duke Energy
Patrick Coughlin

Dynegy Midwest Generation
Rick Diericx

Electric Energy, Inc.


Bruce Parker

Equistar Chemical, LP


Robert Steele

ExxonMobil Corporation


Robert S. Elvert

 

Flint Hills Resource,. LLC
Gale Newton

Flint Hills Resources (Huntsman)


Mary Steinbach 

G.E. Plastics


Timothy Thompson

General Mills


Theodore M. Slavik

 

Illinois Cement
Gene Hodges

Kinder Morgan Inc.


Thomas J. Bach

Lonza Inc.


Robert E. Miller

Marathon Petroleum Company LLC


Alan Mayo

MGP Ingredients
Bob Taphorn

Midwest Generation EME, LLC


Basil G. Constantelos

 

Morris Cogeneration, L.L.C.
Carolyn Gibson

Nicor Gas Company


Somali Tomczak

Nucor Steel Kankakee, Inc.
Ray Smith

Olin Corporation


Phillip Sutton

ONDEO Nalco Company


Mary Lee

 

Peabody Coal
Bryce West

Peoples Energy


Michael Jouras

Prairie Power, Inc.
Randy Fisher

S & C Electric Company


Robert Sullivan

 

The Sherwin-Williams Company


Paul Barding

  

The Solae Company


Mark Sheppard

Southern Illinois Power Cooperative


Dick Myott

 

Springfield City Water, Light & Power


William A. Murray

Stepan Company


Daniel J. Muno

Sterling Steel Company,  LLC
David Long

Tate & Lyle
Richard Dickinson

United States Steel Granite City Works
Larry Siebenberger

 

Viscofan USA, Inc.
Jack Webster

Waste Management, Inc.
Lisa Disbrow



(Expanded Executive Committee)
Chairman & Manufactured Equipment, Materials,             David Long

Vice Chairman &
Transportation, Equipment &
Services Sector 
Patricia Ludewig

Secretary & Chemicals Sector
Anu Singh

 

Treasurer & Oil Sector 
Bob Elvert      

Utilities Sector
Rick Diericx

Past Chairman & Food & Pharmaceutical Sector           Alan Jirik President & CEO,
The Illinois Chamber
Doug Whitley

IERG Executive Director
Deirdre K. Hirner

:}

Why don’t I just write a Letter to the Editor?  The State Journal Register quit printing mine.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UU8kcEG5I  )

Nuff said.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3jhja8rIMc&feature=related )
:}

Central Illinois Where The Energy Past Confronts The Future – Which will win?

While Scooters and Wind Turbines may be the future the past always tries to claw its way back into the picture. In the past week we have had news about ADM’s efforts to inject poison into Mother Earth, a letter to the SJR indicating that a Carbon Tax would create the End Of Civilization As We Know It, and a team of Lobbyists here in Springfield and Chicago drumming up support for the extension of a pipeline from Peoria to the Wood River Refinery to complete the Rape Of Northern Canada…

Thank God no one suggested a New Nuclear Powerplant or I would have run out of space on this blog.

First ADM:

http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2008/01/04/news/doc477daa5c2edd0528350999.txt

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:22 AM CST
Sequestration project in works at ADM; effort is similar to that planned for FutureGen

DECATUR — A project to test carbon dioxide storage capacity deep below Archer Daniels Midland Co.’s campus is scheduled to begin this spring.

The company will announce today a partnership with the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, which is led by the Champaign-based Illinois State Geological Survey, to work on the $84.3-million project.

It will be one of seven projects the U.S. Department of Energy is funding to demonstrate carbon dioxide, or CO2, storage capacity in underground formations throughout the country. Researchers are looking for uses of carbon dioxide other than emitting it into the atmosphere.

“The whole idea is to understand what is going on in any given area to figure out whether this technique can be safe and effective,” said Robert Finley, director of the Illinois State Geological Survey. “Ultimately this is a technique that we are looking at very carefully to understand what the volume of the CO2 is that might actually be placed in the subsurface.”

The consortium will receive $66.7 million to test a part of the Mount Simon Sandstone, a saline-water-bearing rock formation that has increased in notoriety recently because the FutureGen plant in Mattoon also will test it. The formation runs below most of Illinois, Kentucky and Indiana and part of Ohio.

Beginning in late April, workers will drill more than 6,500 feet below the surface to the rock layer where the carbon dioxide will be stored. The drilling is expected to take about two months to complete, Finley said.

The energy department has awarded $4.2 million in funding for the drilling, Finley said. Another $5.24 million to cover the first year of the project is expected to be awarded within weeks, he said.

The project will inject 1,000 tons per day of carbon dioxide from ADM’s ethanol plant into the ground, Finley said. The layer where it will be injected is about 1,000 feet thick in the Decatur area, Finley said.

Injecting is scheduled to start in October 2009 and be completed in 2012. For two years after that, officials will monitor, take samples and make sure nothing is leaking from the formation.

:}

OK let us see – How can something be CERTAIN and yet Experimental? No one will answer that question. The Illinois EPA which is being investigated by the Federal EPA for Collusion with Polluters gave them a permit in a heartbeat..:

http://myecoproject.org/global-warming-news/sequester-co2-first-us-large-scale-co2-storage-project-advances/

Sequester CO2: First U.S. Large-Scale CO2

Storage Project Advances

April 11, 2009 by Administrator
Filed under Global Warming News

Leave a Comment

One Million Metric Tons of Carbon to be Sequesteres at Illinois Site

(Washington, D.C.) – Drilling nears completion for the first large-scale carbon dioxide (CO2) injection well in the United States for CO2 sequestration. This project will be used to demonstrate that CO2 emitted from industrial sources – such as coal-fired power plants – can be stored in deep geologic formations to mitigate large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) hosted an event April 6 for a CO2 injection test at their Decatur, Ill. ethanol facility. The injection well is being drilled into the Mount Simon Sandstone to a depth more than a mile beneath the surface. This is the first drilling into the sandstone geology since oil and gas exploratory drilling was conducted between 15 and 40 years ago. No wells within 50 miles have been drilled all the way to the bottom of the sandstone, which the storage well will do.

The project is funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity.

“This test represents an exciting step forward in the Department’s collaborative efforts to develop America’s carbon sequestration capabilities,” said Dr. Victor K. Der, Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. “In Decatur, we’re moving from theory to application.”

A collaboration between ADM and the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC), the injection test is part of the development phase of the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships program managed by the National Energy Laboratory (NETL) for the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE).

The project will obtain core samples of the Mount Simon Sandstone during drilling that will be used in analysis to help determine the best section for injection. The sandstone formation is approximately 2,000 feet thick in the test area.

From 2010 to 2013, up to one million metric tons of captured CO2 from ADM’s ethanol production facility in Decatur will be injected more than a mile beneath the surface into a deep saline formation. The amount of injected CO2 will roughly equal the annual emissions of 220,000 automobiles.

:}

What was it that Sarte said about Collaboraters, “shave the women’s heads and shoot the men”. There will be accidents and deaths from this process. THERE ALWAYS ARE in any industrial process. The worst case is explosions and deaths followed by contaminated ground water. If eventually successful, what else will they try to put down there? This is short term planning for short term gain (the hallmark of Corporate Capitolism) at its finest.

You might ask – at what cost?

http://www.adm.com/en-US/news/_layouts/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?ID=2

The $84.3 million project will be funded by $66.7 million from the U.S. Department of Energy over a period of seven years, supplemented by cofunding from ADM and other corporate and state resources.

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) is the world leader in BioEnergy and has a premier position in the agricultural processing value chain. ADM is one of the world’s largest processors of soybeans, corn, wheat and cocoa. ADM is a leading manufacturer of biodiesel, ethanol, soybean oil and meal, corn sweeteners, flour and other value-added food and feed ingredients. Headquartered in Decatur, Illinois, ADM has over 27,000 employees, more than 240 processing plants and net sales for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007 of $44 billion. Additional information can be found on ADM’s Web site at http://www.admworld.com/.

From:
Jessie McKinney
ADM Media Relations
217/424-5413

Download as PDF

:}

Wonder why I wasn’t invited to the April 6th event? This looks promising doesn’t  it?

http://sequestration.org/

Early morning moon over rig.

The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC), lead by the Illinois State Geological Survey, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE) marked a milestone in one of the nation’s first large-scale studies intended to confirm that carbon dioxide emissions can be stored permanently in deep underground rock formations. At a ceremonial groundbreaking celebrating the imminent completion of an approximately 8,000-foot-deep injection well on ADM’s Decatur, Ill., property, officials noted the significance of the DOE funded Illinois Basin-Decatur study.

:}

Looks like NASTY getting ready to happen to me.

:}

Oh Great Now They Are Picking On Smart Meters – Heh pick on someone your own size

There are some nervous Techno nellies out there that see smart meters as stupid or worse dangerous

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124050416142448555.html

 

Smart Meter, Dumb Idea?

New devices promise to cut energy use by giving consumers

more information. Critics say they aren’t worth the cost.

 

Not everyone thinks smart meters are such a smart use of money.

Utilities are spending billions of dollars outfitting homes and businesses with the devices, which wirelessly send information about electricity use to utility billing departments and could help consumers control energy use.

  The Journal Report

  • See the complete Energy report.

Proponents of smart meters say that when these meters are teamed up with an in-home display that shows current energy usage, as well as a communicating thermostat and software that harvest and analyze that information, consumers can see how much consumption drives cost — and will consume less as a result.

Such knowledge, however, doesn’t come cheap. Meters are expensive, often costing $250 to $500 each when all the bells and whistles are included, such as the expense of installing new utility billing systems. And utilities typically pass these costs directly on to consumers. CenterPoint Energy Inc. in Houston, for instance, recently began charging its customers an extra $3.24 a month for smart meters, sparking howls of protest since the charges will continue for a decade and eventually approach $1 billion.

Consumer advocates fear the costs could be greater than the savings for many households. They also worry that the meters will make it easier for utilities to terminate service — so easy that they will disconnect power for small arrearages that wouldn’t have caused a termination in the past.

View Full ImageThe Journal Report: Energy

John Weber

What’s more, the cost to consumers could go beyond the extra charges imposed by utilities. That’s because consumers usually are left to their own devices (literally) when it comes to adding the in-home displays and home-area networks that use data from the meters to control appliances and other pieces of equipment.

“What we’re most concerned about is that consumers realize real benefits from the meters” from the start, says Michelle Furmanski, general counsel for the Texas House Committee on State Affairs, which is considering legislation that could establish more protections against disconnections.

Ms. Furmanski says that her committee is also looking into the lack of information on meter deployments that is available to the public. The utilities have claimed “trade secret” protections for important financial details about their meter programs, including contract terms with vendors. Such secrecy makes it impossible for consumers to analyze why costs for what appear to be similar services vary so much among utilities.

:}

Or There is This:

http://earth2tech.com/2009/03/27/opinion-smart-meters-are-not-the-answer-to-the-us-power-problem/

Opinion: Smart Meters Are Not the Answer to

the U.S. Power Problem

Written by Subodh Nayar

Subodh Nayar is the Chief Operations Officer of Powerline Telco

Empowering consumers with actionable intelligence about their power will not be the outcome of the deployment of smart meters. Rather, it will be exactly what the utilities intend for it to be: a cost-effective way to implement real-time pricing, demand side management and distribution system monitoring.

Why? The buyer and seller of electricity have opposite power consumption interests. We (buyers) want to have control over the total power we consume and independent confirmation we are getting what we pay for. Electric utilities (sellers) seek to maximize the profits from a business model that requires them to generate, transport and deliver a consistent quality of power — regardless of demand — in exchange for a guaranteed rate of return.

Electricity generated on the power grid isn’t stored, so the grid is engineered and operated to meet peak levels of demand, which might only exist for a few hours per month. Without control over demand, responding to demand spikes will cause the quality of power supplied to fluctuate outside accepted norms, i.e., delivered voltage lags outside the 5 percent acceptable quality band, or frequency fluctuates outside its 2 percent quality band. That can only change if demand can be controlled, so utilities want three things from smart meters:

  1. To protect their return on investment (ROI) by not reducing the total amount of electricity sold.
  2. To free up supply reserved for unpredicted variations in peak demand with direct load control. (If the utility was granted direct control over devices with the highest amperage — the air conditioner (40 amps) and the hot water heater (30 amps) — it could shed 70 percent of the average consumer load, temporarily reducing consumption.)
  3. To reshape the demand curve, shifting demand from the peak busy hours to when demand can be met with baseload power (peak load shaving).

Metering has never been intended to reduce overall consumption.

A smart meter could report on whole house electricity usage, but it could not report on the demand from individual household devices. To make intelligent decisions about energy use, measurement should take place at the outlet, in the device or even on the power cable connecting the device to the outlet. This information can also track the quality of the power being delivered, which can affect the life of the device. Current, temperature and time data could be collected inexpensively, using existing technology, and transmitted over an Internet connection to one of the many service providers with a business intelligence platform. This data can be mined to reveal power quality issues that affect consumption. For example, a low voltage reading will tell you that the device will need to draw more current, increasing the total power cost for that device. Or if your dishwasher were drawing a current for longer than similar appliances, that could alert consumers that a maintenance check is in order.

:}

I tend to think of them as just better meters myself. But to the industry itself they WILL give you a back rub and carry you to bed and tuck you in when you fall asleep:

http://www.smartmeters.com/

Smart grid could prevent catastrophic power outages

Monday, 27 April 2009 12:05

Six summers ago on a particularly warm August afternoon, a tree that should have been trimmed triggered the largest power outage in American history.  The problem quickly spread from Ohio throughout the north-eastern United States – eventually leaving more than 40 million people without power.

The economic damages from the massive blackout have been estimated at $6 billion.  Smart grid technology could have prevented it from ever happening.  A digitised power infrastructure would allow consumers, utilities, and power generation sources to communicate for the first time.  In cases where the power grid is stressed, grid operators would be informed of the situation and could react accordingly.

It seems as if the dream of a smart grid may be finally coming true.  President Obama has made the technology central to his “rebuilding America” plan as a way to create new jobs and reduce America’s carbon footprint.  The stimulus package, enacted in February, included $38.7 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE), of which $4.5 billion is to go directly towards smart grid investments.

:}

Personally technology IS as technology DOES. It is how yah use it yah know.

Nuclear Power Goes South – I don’t want to work, it’s jam band Friday

I just want to bang the drum all day….That is a direct quote from Duke Power’s William Griggs when asked why there are 12 nuclear power plant license applications in the south eastern US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZclddLcOYYA
Well maybe not but they sure see it as easy money. Once again to cheap to meter:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40785

ENERGY: Protests Greet Nuclear Power Resurgence in US South
By Matthew Cardinale


A recent protest at the Oak Ridge nuclear plant in Tennessee.

Credit:Nicholas Foster/Atlanta Progressive News


WAYNESBORO, Georgia , Jan 14 (IPS) – Residents and environmental activists are in a bitter dispute with large U.S. energy corporations and the federal government over the safety of nuclear power, as more than a dozen corporations plan to, or have filed, paperwork to open new nuclear power plants, primarily in the U.S. South.

Energy giants like Southern Company, Entergy, and Florida Power and Light are attracted by billions in governmental incentives offered under the George W. Bush Administration.

“There’s a whole suite of incentives being pumped out by the federal government to try and cajole the utilities back into the game,” Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South told IPS.

The U.S. Congress last month passed 38.5 billion dollars in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. “If they can’t pay back the loan, or don’t want to pay back the loan, the government will guarantee the banks up to 80 percent,” Carroll said.

Five sites have already applied for the first combined licensing applications in 32 years, Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told IPS. They are located in south Texas, Bellefonte in Alabama, Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, North Anna in Virginia, and Lee Site in South Carolina.

Four companies have applied for Early Site Permits for sites in Grand Gulf, Mississippi; Clinton, Illinois; North Hanna, Virginia; and Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia.

“We’ve had indications of interest from 12 to 15 other companies,” Hannah said.

The NRC held a public hearing in Waynesboro, Georgia, one of the closest affected cities to Plant Vogtle, on Oct. 4, 2007, to address the NRC’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The NRC must produce the EIS, as per the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act.

The NRC insists the risks posed by nuclear power are small and within federal guidelines. However, activists argue the draft EIS ignores many issues and contend that nuclear power is unsafe.

At a time Georgia is in a historic drought, when residents are being told the state is running out of drinking water, the NRC and other agencies allow over a billion gallons of water per year from the Savannah River to be consumed by the existing Plant Vogtle Units 1 and 2.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzgXpGzVvMU

It could be their enormous water demands that kills them this time but they have never been a very good idea on so many levels.

But here is what the rah rahs had to say about it:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

The Energy Policy Act 2005 then provided a much-needed stimulus for investment in electricity infrastructure including nuclear power. New reactor construction is expected to start about 2010, with operation in 2014.

In February 2007 the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reported that it saw a need for 64 GWe of new nuclear generating capacity in the USA by 2030 – 24 GWe of it by 2020, with nuclear representing some 25.5% of output by 2030.

After 20 years of steady decline, government R&D funding for nuclear energy is being revived with the objective of rebuilding US leadership in nuclear technology. In 1997 nuclear fission R&D was, at US$ 37 million, lower than in France, South Korea, or Canada – only 2% of total energy R&D, which compared pathetically with 68% (US$ 2537 million) of a much larger budget in Japan. From the 1999 budget, this situation has been turned around with various programs including the flagship Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) and also Plant Optimisation. The first 45 NERI grants were awarded in 1999, signalling a reinvigoration of the federal role in nuclear research, following successful conclusion of the advanced reactor program in 1998.

For FY 2008 (from October 2007) the Department of Energy is seeking $875 million for its nuclear energy programs. . The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative for closing the fuel cycle and supporting the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would receive $395 million of this and Generation-IV R&D would get $36 million, chiefly for the very high temperature reactor. The Nuclear Power 2010 program aimed at early deployment of advanced reactors would get $114 million.

For US nuclear plant data, see Nuclear Energy Institute web site, nuclear statistics section.

Contents

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUBvCGBa0B0&NR=1

South Carolina is so confident about building the Nuke that they at least are going to self finance theirs. What happens when an actual State goes bankrupt?

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE51B46920090212

South Carolina regulators OK nuclear

power project

By Jim Brumm

WILMINGTON, North Carolina (Reuters) – South Carolina regulators have unanimously approved a request by the state’s largest utility, South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G), to join with a state-owned utility to build two nuclear reactors.

The South Carolina Public Service Commission vote on Wednesday gave South Carolina Electric & Gas the right to begin raising electricity rates next month to help pay for its portion of the $9.8 billion project.

SCE&G, a subsidiary of SCANA Corp, and Santee Cooper, known formally as the South Carolina Public Service Authority, plan to build the two reactors at the site of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville, about 30 miles north of the state capitol, Columbia.

The commission approval also puts the SCE&G/Santee Cooper project ahead of the other 16 applications filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for a nuclear power plant.

The NRC’s review of the COL applications is expected to take three to four years. It has been three decades since a nuclear power plant was built in the United States.

The South Carolina utilities have contracted Westinghouse Electric Co. — owned by Japan’s Toshiba and Shaw Group — to build the nuclear plant and expect to have the first reactor in operation by 2016.

SCE&G proposes financing its planned $5.4 billion investment in the new power plant by raising rates 0.49 percent in March and another 2.8 percent in October 2009, followed by increases in each of the next 10 years.

The first increase will be about 53 cents a month for SCE&G customers using 1,000 kilowatt hours of power per month, which now costs $107.60, according to SCE&G spokesman Robert Yanity.

As a state-owned utility, Santee Cooper does not need to seek Public Service Commission approval of its investment in the planned nuclear power plant.

:}

Some people take that bang the drum more seriously than they take Nuclear Power:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrwg8bt14k&feature=related

But heh you know how they arrre in the sowth…all gracious, laid back and stupider than well a hog waller:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-03-29-nuclear-power-energy-return_N.htm

Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

The nation’s nuclear power industry — stuck in a decades-long deep freeze — is thawing.

Utilities are poised to build a new generation of nuclear plants 30 years after the Three Mile Island accident, whose anniversary was Saturday, halted new reactor applications. The momentum is being driven by growing public acceptance of relatively clean nuclear energy to combat global warming.

Several companies have taken significant steps that will likely lead to completion of four reactors by 2015 to 2018 and up to eight by 2020. All would be built next to existing nuclear plants.

Southern Co. (SO) says it will begin digging an 86-foot-deep crater this June in Vogtle, Ga., to make way for two reactors after recently winning state approval, though it won’t pour concrete until it gets a federal license, likely in 2011. At least five power companies have signed contracts with equipment vendors. And Florida and South Carolina residents this year began paying new utility fees to finance planned reactors.

The steps signal that a nuclear renaissance anticipated for several years is finally taking shape. Seventeen companies have sought U.S. federal approval for 26 reactors since late 2007. All have enhanced safety features.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjyUrA1sD18&feature=related

Then again if you are a Nuclear Tourist you will have much more to see:

http://www.nucleartourist.com/us/us-plant.htm

That is right IF YOU ARE a Nuclear Tourist:

:}

The following links provide information about each of the nuclear plants in the United States. The first links and maps provide information from the NRC website. The final links are Virtual Nuclear Tourist site and utility pages.

NRC Pages

Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors

Select a triangle showing the location of an operating nuclear power reactor from the map below.

:}

Sorry about the kid and the drum but new Nukes is a lame idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9EHYaMsJhA&NR=1

:}

Why Is Exelon Going Solar – Could it be that the Nuclear business is about to go South?

I find it interesting that Three Mile Island just refuses to go away. 30 years later all the damage that happened and the deaths (yes deaths) make Nuclear’s future in the North and West bleak. But those hicks (sorry) in the South well that is another matter. But first: The Improbable :-0

http://www.suntimes.com/business/1540009,CST-FIN-solar23.article

Exelon to build largest U.S. urban solar power

plant on Chicago’s South Side

ComEd parent looks to stimulus money for 10-megawatt photovoltaic building near 120th and Peoria in West Pullman

April 23, 2009

ComEd parent Exelon Corp. plans to build the nation’s largest urban solar power plant on the city’s South Side by year’s end.

A view of a 39-acre plot on the South Side that will be covered in solar panels by Exelon.
(Scott Stewart/Sun-Times)

The planned 10-megawatt solar photovoltaic building would be at an industrial site near 120th and Peoria in the West Pullman neighborhood, Chicago-headquartered Exelon said Wednesday.

The plant’s 32,800 solar panels would convert the sun’s rays into enough electricity to meet the annual energy requirements of 1,200 to 1,500 homes. It would eliminate about 31.2 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the equivalent of taking more than 2,500 cars off the road or planting more than 3,200 acres of forest, Exelon said.

“This is exactly the type of shovel-ready, community-benefitting project that the Obama administration is touting,” said Thomas O’Neill, senior vice president for new business development at the company’s Exelon Generation.

:}

Did I mention that Mike Madigan might be looking at allowing the major utillities to get back into generation?

 

Madigan: Electric dereg law may need overhaul

Overhaul might protect consumers, House speaker says

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Apr 15, 2009 @ 11:40 PM

Last update Apr 16, 2009 @ 06:36 AM

The 1997 law that restructured Illinois’ electric industry has failed to live up to its promise, and it may be time to consider an overhaul to protect consumers from volatile power prices, says House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, has filed a legislative resolution calling on the Illinois Power Agency to study whether to let utility companies regain the authority to run their own power-generating plants.

Such a move would reverse a key part of the 1997 law often referred to as “electric deregulation.” Under that law, utility companies such as Ameren Illinois and Commonwealth Edison stopped generating electricity and became power-delivery companies only. The companies’ power-generating arms were spun off into separate, unregulated entities.

The thinking at the time was that consumers would benefit because they’d be able to shop for power as they shop for other goods and services, looking for the best deal and saving money. But competition never developed in the residential market, and residential customers have seen their bills increase.

:}

That Mike he is always thinking of us. But this is what they are probably more worried about:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A393821

 

New revelations about Three Mile Island

disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety

The truth behind the meltdown

22 APR 2009  •  by Sue Sturgis

Editor’s note: This story originally appeared in Facing South, the online magazine of the Institute for Southern Studies.



Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa.
Photo courtesy of Dept. of Health and Human Services

It was April Fool’s Day, 1979—30 years ago this month—when Randall Thompson first set foot inside the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa. Just four days earlier, in the early morning hours of March 28, a relatively minor problem in the plant’s Unit 2 reactor sparked a series of mishaps that led to the meltdown of almost half the uranium fuel and uncontrolled releases of radiation into the air and surrounding Susquehanna River.It was the single worst disaster ever to befall the U.S. nuclear power industry, and Thompson was hired as a health physics technician to go inside the plant and find out how dangerous the situation was. He spent 28 days monitoring radiation releases.

Today, his story about what he witnessed at Three Mile Island is being brought to the public in detail for the first time; and his version of what happened during that time, supported by a growing body of other scientific evidence, contradicts the official U.S. government story that the Three Mile Island accident posed no threat to the public.

“What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported,” Thompson told Facing South. “Hundreds of times worse.”

:}

All of these articles gooooooooooo on and on about the radioactive iodine that was released being huge, that the total amount of released material was larger yet (nobody mentions it but a lot of it went into the river) and that approximately 450 people died. So I am just going to stitch some articles together. You can read the whole thing if you want:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/03-9

That it happened on April Fools day means that there is a god.

:}

Anomalies abound

That a lot of people died because of what happened at Three Mile Island, as the Thompsons claim, is definitely not part of the official story. In fact, the commercial nuclear power industry and the government insist that despite the meltdown of almost half of the uranium fuel at TMI, there were only minimal releases of radiation to the environment that harmed no one.

For example, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying group for the U.S. nuclear industry, declares on its website that there have been “no public health or safety consequences from the TMI-2 accident.” The government’s position is the same, reflected in a fact sheet distributed today by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency charged with overseeing the U.S. nuclear power industry: TMI, it says, “led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.” [The watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert offers their take on the NRC factsheet here.]

Those upbeat claims are based on the findings of the Kemeny Commission, a panel assembled by President Jimmy Carter in April 1979 to investigate the TMI disaster. Using release figures presented by Metropolitan Edison and the NRC, the commission calculated that in the month following the disaster there were releases of up to 13 million curies of so-called “noble gases” — considered relatively harmless — but only 13 to 17 curies of iodine-131, a radioactive form of the element that at even moderate exposures causes thyroid cancer. (A curie is a measure of radioactivity, with 1 curie equal to the activity of one gram of radium. For help understanding these and other terms, see the glossary at the end of this piece.)

But the official story that there were no health impacts from the disaster doesn’t jibe with the experiences of people living near TMI. On the contrary, their stories suggest that area residents actually suffered exposure to levels of radiation high enough to cause acute effects — far more than the industry and the government has acknowledged.

Some of their disturbing experiences were collected in the book Three Mile Island: The People’s Testament, which is based on interviews with 250 area residents done between 1979 and 1988 by Katagiri Mitsuru and Aileen M. Smith.

It includes the story of Jean Trimmer, a farmer who lived in Lisburn, Pa. about 10 miles west of TMI. On the evening of March 30, 1979, Trimmer stepped outside on her front porch to fetch her cat when she was hit with a blast of heat and rain. Soon after, her skin became red and itchy as if badly sunburned, a condition known as erythema. About three weeks later, her hair turned white and began falling out. Not long after, she reported, her left kidney “just dried up and disappeared” — an occurrence so strange that her case was presented to a symposium of doctors at the nearby Hershey Medical Center. All of those symptoms are consistent with high-dose radiation exposure.

:}

But this has been going on for years…please ignore the nutball survivalist website. It is difficult to get Ken Briggs testimony online. Don’t forget we had Jimmie “the nuke” Carter as President>>>

Nuclear Power Plant Hazard Issues

Are you prepared for a nuclear power plant disaster?

3 March 2001, V3    by Kevin Briggs, Director, USDPI

Observations about the Three Mile Island Nuclear Disaster

“Friday, Saturday, and Sunday were hectic days in the emergency preparedness offices of the counties close to Three Mile Island. Officials labored first to prepare 10-mile evacuation plans and then ones covering areas out to 20 miles from the plant. {USDPI comment:  State and local governments, with support from the Federal government and utilities, currently develop plans that include a “plume emergency planning zone” with a radius of only 10 miles from each nuclear power plant. However, government officials recognize that in a catastrophic incident, a 20 mile evacuation radius akin to what was needed with the Chernobyl disaster may be more appropriate.} The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency recommended Friday morning that 10-mile plans be readied. The three counties closest to the nuclear plant already had plans to evacuate their residents — a total of about 25,000 living within 5 miles of the Island. A 10-mile evacuation had never been contemplated. For Kevin Molloy in Dauphin County, extending the evacuation zone meant the involvement of several hospitals — something he had not confronted earlier. There were no hospitals within 5 miles. Late Friday night, PEMA told county officials to develop 20-mile plans. Suddenly, six counties were involved in planning for the evacuation of 650,000 people, 13 hospitals, and a prison.”

:}

I quote this to say what should have happened immediately. Not 1 day later when the State was notified and not 3 days later when the Feds had been notified. By that time they knew that a good chunk of New York and Pennsylvania were involved so they DID NOTHING.

The damage was done pretty much in the first several hours of the crisis. There is this from 1979 and it is nasty:

http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/11/five-versions-of-truth-for-three-mile.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp18.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/index.html
Deaths after Three Mile Island accident (end of March 1979):

US Center for Health Statistics for Pennsylvania in May 1979. A SUMMARY

US Center for Health Statistics for Pennsylvania in May 1979 showed the following (per thousand live births): 147 infant deaths in February, 141 in March, 166 in April, 198 in May. At the same time the number of births had declined from 13,589 in March 1979 to 13,201 in May. For the United States as whole the rate of infant deaths per 1000 live births had declined 11 percent between March and May 1979…., “the Pennsylvania figures for March and May representing an increase of 57 deaths, which was more than three times the statistically expected normal fluctuation of about +/- 16, and thus unlikely to occur purely by chance in less than one in a thousand instances.”

The US Vital Statistics for Upstate New York in 1979. A SUMMARY

The US Vital Statistics for Upstate New York in 1979 (north, northwest, and northeast of Harrisburg some 100 to 200 miles away and in the direction the wind was blowing when the heaviest releases of radiation were occurring.) According to these studies of wind direction the expectation was that “The figures for the rest of the state outside of New York City should have gone up, while New York City should either have shown no change or an actual decline….the numbers showed: Between March and May, infant deaths outside New York City climbed an amazing 52 percent, by 63 deaths, from 121 to 184. For New York City during the same period the number declined from 166 to 129. Again, these changes were many times as large as normal fluctuations, and the number of births changed relatively little, or by less than 10 percent.

What about the data for Harrisburg? A SUMMARY.

“only Tokuhata had the data for the 5-mile and 10-mile zones around the plant, and there was no way that I would be able to obtain them…Warren L. Prelesnik, executive vice-president in charge of administration Harrisburg Hospital provided a list of the monthly infant deaths, fetal deaths, stillbirths, and live births in the Harrisburg Hospital for the previous two years. In February, March, and April of 1979, there had only been 1 infant death per month. But for each of the two months of May and June, there were 4. Effectively, since the number of births had not only remained nearly the same but had actually declined slightly, this was more than a fourfold increase in the mortality rate, or of the right magnitude required to fit the observed 50 percent rise in the more distant area of upstate New York. From an average of 5.7 per 1000 live births in the three months of February, March, and April — before the releases could have had an appreciable effect — the newborn mortality rate had risen to 24.1 for May and 26.0 for June, an unprecedented summer peak that did not occur the previous year. In fact, for May and June of 1978, there had been a total of only 3 infant deaths, while for the same period in 1979 after the accident, there had been 8.As some of my colleagues with whom I discussed these findings agreed, by themselves the Harrisburg Hospital numbers were of course small, and only marginally significant, representing only about one-third of all the births and deaths in Harrisburg. But taken together with the vastly more significant and independent numbers for all of Pennsylvania, upstate New York, New York City, New Jersey, Maryland, and Ohio, there was now a much greater degree of certainty: It would have been much too much of a coincidence — perhaps less than one in a million — for all these different numbers to show the pattern they did.

The time and cause of death due to radiation. What can be expected. SUMMARY

One of the remaining important questions that had to be checked, however, was the time and cause of death? if the excess deaths were connected with the radioactive iodine released from the plant, then they should be associated with underweight births or immaturity, since damage to the fetal thyroid would slow down the normal rapid growth and development of the baby in the last few months before birth. The development of the lungs, which have to be ready to begin breathing at the moment of birth, is one of the most critical phases of late fetal development. Any developmental slowdown would be most life-threatening if it led to the inability of the tiny air sacs in the lungs to inflate and start supplying the blood with oxygen. Failure of the lungs to function properly would therefore lead to immediate symptoms of respiratory distress, and if efforts to treat the baby should not succeed, it would die in a matter of minutes, hours, or days of respiratory insufficiency or hyaline membrane disease. Thus, one would not expect to find as large an increase in spontaneous miscarriages well before birth as newborn deaths within a short time after birth, since the lungs did not need to start functioning until the baby was born. Also, there should be no significant increase in gross congenital malformations a few months after the accident, since by the time the baby in the mother’s womb had reached the sixth or seventh month of development, all the major organs had already fully developed. Thus, only some six to seven months after the accident would one expect some increase in serious physical malformations, since these infants would have been exposed to radiation in the first three months of development of critical-organ formation.

data from the Harrisburg Hospital supported these expectations

State of Pennsylvania Health Department had discovered a rise in hypothyroidism among newborn babies in areas where the radioactive gases from Three Mile Island had been carried by the winds.

:}

Now aren’t you glad you know? More tomorrow on Nukes in the South.

:}

If We Stop The Big Spewers We Can Keep The Little Ones – Green lawn mowers

I have always said that if we stopped the polluters with the 10 to 20 story smoke stacks (look around, you know who you are). And we stopped airplanes from polluting then we would not have to worry about lawn mowers, barbecues and hotdog roasts. But still – can’t they see what they are doing to me?

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEOV5vWfSgI

Of course freight trains are big polluters too:

http://www.blackanddecker.com/CordlessMower/

 

The smart, no-mess, no-hassles alternative to gas powered lawn mowers.
Cut the hassle out of cutting your grass with the Black & Decker 24 Volt battery-powered mulching mower. It saves time getting started without the frustrations of pull cords, messing with gas & oil, trips to the gas station, and costly maintenance. And without the fumes and the
spills from gas, you’re also saving the environment from harmful
emissions. And did you hear? It was rated the highest
performing cordless mower in 2008 by a leading
consumer magazine.
Easy to use AND powerful? No brainer!
Benefits of the 24 Volt Cordless Mower

no gasNo Gas to Mess With
– No fuel to store, spill or clean
– No need for tune-ups

easy to startEasy Starting
– No pull cord
– Starts with a pull of the switch

zero emissionsEnvironmentally Conscious
– Zero emissions in your yard
– Energy Star rated – Reduced noise
– No gas needed for operation, no spills
warranty

Service and Support – from the brand you trust

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViC8ZY_-omM&feature=related

No I am not talking about these though I am going to be using one later today

http://www.ecomowers.com/URLrewrite.asp?404;http://ecomowers.com:80/Buy_s/56.htm?gclid=CP_R9Zqn-JkCFSbxDAodngJDFA&Redirected=Y

Sunlawn LMM40 Manual Reel Push Eco Lawn Mower Scotts Classic Reel Lawn Mower Brill RazorCut 38 Push Reel Eco-Friendly Mower
Sunlawn LMM40 Lightweight Manual Push Reel EcoMower
Ships same day
MSRP $179.00
Super Sale! $139.00
You Save $40.00!
Scotts 20 inch Classic Push Reel Lawn Mower
Ships same day
List Price: $169.00
Our Price: $159.00
You Save $10.00!
Brill RazorCut 38 Premium Manual Push Reel EcoMower
Ships same day
List Price: $249.00
Our Price: $239.00
You Save $10.00!
     

Cutting Swath: 16 inches (40cm)

Cutting Height: 0.5 to 2.2 inches

Weight: 19.3 pounds
Blades:  5

Suitable for all North American grasses

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wph_bI10eVk&feature=related

This is What I am talking about…A manly TRACTOR:

http://www.electrictractor.com/

The Ultimate Non Polluting Series of

Electric Tractors


for Towing, Mowing and Moving

Can you go GREEN and still be cost effective?

Of course you can with our Electric Ox series of tractors!

Just look at some of the features and benefits of using our state of the art non polluting technology:

  • Quiet and Emission Free – ideal for indoor and outdoor applications
  • Minimal Operating and Maintenance Costs
  • Increased Productivity
  • Superior Power and Performance
  • Smooth, Intuitive Operator Controls
  • Instant On – No Idling required
  • Versatile Product Line

To learn more about the progress of the Electric Tractor Corporation Click Here.

To learn more about our Electric Ox product line, Click Here.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a248mSVtkM

:}

We are talkin bad boys here:

http://electriclawntractor.com/

Edmond Electric Co. LTD. PDF Print E-mail

Fantastic Investment Opportunity!

Use no more gas to mow your lawn! We offer a reliable, cost effective, and environmentally friendly alternative to conventional gas ride mowers.

About our Company

We are a new company, we became incorporated on Oct 17th 2003, over the last few years we have developed and tested this state of the art design, it will cut up to 2 acres of grass on a 50cent charge,

We have made design changes of a special model for a manufacturer in Europe,

We also are hoping to set-up factories to manufacturer electric tractors in Ontario, Canada, and the US and Europe

We have developed a patent pending special microprocessor controller for the kit: this acts as the brains for the tractor and incorporates the safety and other features of the tractor,

The electric tractor is a real pleasure to operate and you will appreciate the no worries starting in any weather with almost no maintenance features, your neighbours will also appreciate the lower noise levels of your electric tractor.

Sincerely,

Brian Edmond
President
Edmond Electric Co. Ltd
Canada.

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFmrDin4Ovw&feature=related

:}

wowowowowowowowowowow

http://www.modernelectrictractors.com/

Modern Electric Tractors Incorporated

Announcing the first commercially produced battery-operated riding lawn mower built in the United States since Wheel Horse discontinued their models in the mid-1980’s.  The METI Classic.  Please see the Products tab for pricing and specifications.

We have taken the original General Electric Elec-Trak concept and design of the 1970’s, which is proven, and then advanced it. Our first completed model is the METI Classic.  The new METI Classic has a body-style which is very similar to the original Elec-Trak with minor changes. By following the original Elec-Trak design, the new Classic is compatible with the attachments built for the battery-operated Elec-Trak, New Idea, and Wheel Horse series of mowers of the 70’s and 80’s. We have upgraded the electronics, beefed up the frame, raised the height of the rear battery box to accommodate taller batteries, and incorporated a stronger lift.

:}

Now this I can see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0JiS6P1YBY&feature=related

:}

What Can Happen To America If We Don’t Live Within Our Energy Means -South Africa

South Africa the home of the much touted and most used syngas projects in the world struggles to get by.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVLu16lU4iI

Originally started in response to WWI fuel shortages and escalated during WWII for all the obvious reasons …ummm apartheid and the efforts to defeat the ANC and Nelsen Mandella.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwgl4D4s-e4

It has left South Africa  thus:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5315U320090402?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

South Africa says still facing major energy crisis

Thu Apr 2, 2009 1:21pm EDT

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG6CNhGoILs

By James Macharia

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – South Africa’s energy minister said on Thursday the country was still in the grip of a major power crisis despite being able to keep the lights on since a series of blackouts early last year.

Voluntary energy savings had failed to meet the required levels, and the country was risking new power cuts, the Minister of Minerals and Energy, Buyelwa Sonjica said in a statement.

State-owned utility Eskom, which provides 95 percent of the country’s power, has rationed electricity since early last year, but has not cut power since last April.

Sonjica said Africa’s biggest economy was suffering from a perilously low electricity reserve margin or spare capacity.

“The recent lack of blackouts has led to the assumption that our energy situation has been resolved,” Sonjica said.

“Unfortunately this is far from the truth. We are in trouble unless we all begin to take responsibility for our habits of energy wastage.”

Two years ago, Sonjica urged South Africans to save 10 percent of their electricity usage every year for the next five years but so far energy savings were way below that, she said.

Sonjica said a healthy electricity reserve margin was about 17 to 20 percent, to ensure that sudden changes in demand or supply and power-plant maintenance do not cause blackouts.

Eskom said in January the reserve margin was about 8 percent, and has said its long term target is 15 percent.

She said following the success of the Earth Hour over the weekend, and with winter fast approaching, she wanted South Africans to save power to ensure stable electricity supply.

Lights went out in homes across the globe on Saturday for Earth Hour 2009, a global event designed to highlight the threat from climate change.

Sonjica said the Earth Hour initiative would promote awareness that the country still faced a serious energy crisis because South Africa’s record on energy conservation was poor.

“South Africa is one of the least energy efficient nations in the world and the least efficient in Africa,” she said.

“We also hold the number 11 spot on the top 20 greenhouse gas emitters list and are responsible for 42 percent of Africa’s emissions. Every kilowatt of electricity you use produces 1 kg of carbon dioxide; one of the main greenhouse gases.”

Critics say the energy crisis that dented South Africa’s growth and investor-friendly image was caused by the government’s failure to invest in new power generation plants, coupled with surging demand led to the power crisis.  Continued…

:}

I don’t think that sounds so good…SO KEEP TALKING CLEAN COAL BABY…it is a quick way to energy death.

:}

CCS Carbon Capture And Storage – Treating the symptoms not the disease

Let us say that you had an operable form of cancer and your doctor offered you chemotherapy. What would you say to him? Let us imagine that you had a torn tendon and your doctor offered you aspirin as your main form of treatment. What would you say? Actually you would probably CHANGE doctors…

So what would you say to this:

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2188238/

ADM begins carbon capture work

Fri. February 20, 2009; Posted: 03:58 PM

DECATUR, Feb 20, 2009 (Herald & Review – McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) — ADM | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating

Drilling began this week for a carbon dioxide injection well as part of an $84.3 million project beneath Archer Daniels Midland Co. property.Workers have started constructing a well that will reach more than 6,500 feet underground. The drilling of the injection well is expected to be completed in late March or early April.

No objections were filed before a late January deadline for an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency permit approving the process. That clears the way for the drilling equipment to be moved into place, said Sallie Greenberg, Illinois Geological Survey communications coordinator.  The project is intended to capture carbon dioxide from ADM’s ethanol plant, convert it into liquid and pump it underground for storage before it’s emitted into the atmosphere. The U.S. Department of Energy expects 1 million tons of carbon dioxide from the plant to be injected over a three-year period, beginning in early 2010.  The project is intended to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.

http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=172&PHPSESSID=7m93ilb52ngl1vf8bk3sostnd5

Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium receives Phase III funding
Storage, Feb  21  2008 (Carbon Capture Journal)

The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC), and the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) have been awarded a $66.7 million contract from the US DOE.

The funding is to conduct a Phase III large-scale sequestration demonstration project in the Mt. Simon Sandstone.

The MGSC, ISGS, and Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) will work together on this carbon sequestration project, which will involve the capture and storage of CO2 from ADM’s ethanol plant in Decatur, Illinois.

The $84.3 million project will be funded by $66.7 million from the U.S. Department of Energy over a period of seven years, supplemented by cofunding from ADM, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and other corporate and state resources.

The project is designed to confirm the ability of the Mt. Simon Sandstone, a major regional saline reservoir in Illinois, to accept and store 1 million metric tonnes of CO2 over a period of three years.

:}

Already they are a year behind..Why does this sound like a replay of NUCLEAR Power. Delays….Cost over runs….Accidents… All to avoid leaving the nasty stuff in the ground in the first place. Even Scientific America gets into the act:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=can-carbon-capture-and-storage-save-coal

Can Carbon Capture and Storage Save Coal?

Capturing carbon dioxide may be the only hope to avoid a climate change catastrophe from burning fossil fuels

By David Biello

schwarze-pumpe

OXYFUEL: In September 2007 the oxyfuel combustion chamber is lifted into place at the Schwarze Pumpe power plant in Germany–one of the first power plants in the world to capture carbon dioxide.
Courtesy of Vattenfal

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of five features on carbon capture and storage, running daily from April 6 to April 10, 2009.

Like all big coal-fired power plants, the 1,600-megawatt-capacity Schwarze Pumpe plant in Spremberg, Germany, is undeniably dirty. Yet a small addition to the facility—a tiny boiler that pipes 30 MW worth of steam to local industrial customers—represents a hope for salvation from the global climate-changing consequences of burning fossil fuel.

To heat that boiler, the damp, crumbly brown coal known as lignite—which is even more polluting than the harder black anthracite variety—burns in the presence of pure oxygen, a process known as oxyfuel, releasing as waste both water vapor and that more notorious greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2). By condensing the water in a simple pipe, Vattenfall, the Swedish utility that owns the power plant, captures and isolates nearly 95 percent of the CO2 in a 99.7 percent pure form.

That CO2 is then compressed into a liquid and given to another company, Linde, for sale; potential users range from the makers of carbonated beverages, such as Coca-Cola, to oil firms that use it to squeeze more petroleum out of declining deposits. In principle, however, the CO2 could also be pumped deep underground and locked safely away in specific rock formations for millennia.

From the International Energy Agency to the United Nations–sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such carbon capture and storage (CCS), particularly for coal-fired power plants, has been identified as a technology critical to enabling deep, rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. After all, coal burning is responsible for 40 percent of the 30 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted by human activity every year.

“There is the potential for the U.S. and other countries to continue to rely on coal as a source of energy while at the same time protecting the climate from the massive greenhouse gas emissions associated with coal,” says Steve Caldwell, coordinator for regional climate change policy at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

Even President Barack Obama has labeled the technology as important for “energy independence” and included $3.4 billion in the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for “clean coal” power.

Today three types of technology can capture CO2 at a power plant. One, as at Schwarze Pumpe, involves the oxyfuel process: burning coal in pure oxygen to produce a stream of CO2-rich emissions. The second uses various forms of chemistry—in the form of amine scrubbers, special membranes or ionic liquids—to pull carbon dioxide out of a more mixed set of exhaust gases. The third is gasification, in which liquid or solid fuels are first turned into synthetic natural gas; CO2 from the conversion of the gas can be siphoned off.

:}

Then there is this:

NO, NO, NO.  Carbon Capture and Storage is not the answer!  It is treating the symptoms and not the disease.

I recently wrote a blog looking at this same issue:

http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/03/13/carbon-capture-and-storage/Basically, we can take BILLIONS and spend it on burying something underground, or we can spend that money and put it to good use while taking the same amount of CO2 out of the air.

Carbon Capture is short term decision making and thinking that is mainly being promoted by the Coal Industry.  Would you really call Carbon Capture a sustainable practice?

:}

Backed up by this:

http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/03/13/carbon-capture-and-storage/

 

Carbon Capture and Storage – Solution or Fantasy?

(Disclaimer:  the below article is a thought experiment.  I’m not suggesting it as a real solution, but rather a way to analyze two different carbon mitigating strategies.  Enjoy!)

You might have seen the environmental articles recently related to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).  Basically, all CCS does is take the CO2 that coal plants produce, collect it, and pump it underground.  Sounds like a good idea right?  Well, on the surface it does, but let’s dig down into the actual numbers a little bit.

In order to better understand the proposed function of CCS, let’s walk through a comparison of a power generation plant with and without CCS.  I’m going to look at two options:

  • Option 1: 500 MW (capacity before CCS) IGCC (type of coal plant)  with Carbon Capture and Storage
  • Option 2: 500 MW IGCC plant with the money that would be used on CCS to be spent on a wind farm

In comparing our two options, pretend you’re the President of Power Generation Company for planet Earth (this is a made up company.  The point is you base your decisions on what is best for the planet and the people buying your power.  You don’t base your decisions on politics).  In both options the 500 MW IGCC plant is already installed, you are just comparing whether to spend money on carbon capture and storage, or take the equivalent amount of money and use it for another purpose that would help the environment, in this case a wind farm.

You may ask: Why do I want to install a wind farm if my goal is to reduce CO2 (even though your real goal is to do what’s best for Earth)? Because you are all powerful, you are going to figure out how much energy the wind farm produces, then find an old dirty coal plant that produces the same amount of energy, and take that coal plant off line.  Therefore, reducing the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere by enabling the old coal plant to be taken off line, and also helping wind power reach economies of scale.

Installing CCS or a Wind Farm that replaces old Coal:

A recent paper by David and Herzog at MIT estimated the future cost of CCS at $1,145/kw (estimated cost in 2012) of installed power.  So, for the 500 MW  IGCC plant, it would cost $572.5 million dollars to install CCS technology.  Now, you have the option of taking this money and using it to buy a Wind Farm instead.  The American Wind Energy Association states that it costs about $ 1 million to install 1 MW of generating capacity for a wind farm.  Therefore, $572.5 million will enable you to install 572 MW of installed wind energy (with $500 k left over)!

In order to analyze how much CO2 will be kept out of the atmosphere by taking the old coal plant off line, we have to calculate the yearly power output of the wind farm.  To do this, you need what is called a Capacity Factor.  Basically, this is just the percentage of time during the year that a power producing facility produces power at its rated capacity.  The organization National Wind Watch states that in 2003, the average capacity factor for US wind farms was 26.9%.  Therefore, to calculate how much energy the wind farm produces (MWh) during the year:

Yearly Output (MWh) = (installed capacity)*(capacity factor)*(hours in a day)*(days in a year) =

(572 MW)(.269)(24 hours/day)(365 days/year) = 1,347,884 MWh/year

Now we have to use this value to decide how big a coal plant this would replace.  Using the wind farm yearly output and the average capacity factor for Coal plants in the US, which is 73.6%, we can use the above Yearly Energy Output equation to back-solve for the “installed capacity” the wind farm would replace:

Installed Capacity (MW) = (yearly output) ÷ (Capacity factor * hours in a day * days in a year) =

(1,347,884) ÷ (.736*24*365) = 209 MW

Therefore, if you use the $527.5 million dollars it would cost to install CCS on a 500 MW IGCC coal plant for a wind farm, the energy the wind farm produces is equivalent to a 209 MW pulverized coal plant!

:}

I believe the MATH has it…

 :}

Roger Revelle and Freeman Dyson – 2 old guys argue about the obvious

While the world drowns in people. The problems with greenhouse gases, ice melt and oceanic acidification, often lumped together under the term Global Warming, are really the end result of world over population. We are 7 billion now and before it is all over we wlll top out at 10 billion. The Earth only has the sustainable resources to support about a billion people well. Had we limited ourselves to that number, we would have eliminated most poverty and most disease. To do that would fly in the face of every religion known to man and everyone’s biological urge to reproduce. So we blindly let nature do it for us. I have no idea what a human biological die off looks like, and I do not want to be here for it. It will happen.

Dyson

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

Revelle

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Revelle.htm

In the mid 1950s, not many scientists were concerned that humanity was adding carbon dioxide gas ( CO2) to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. The suggestion that this would change the climate had been abandoned decades earlier by nearly everyone. A particularly simple and powerful argument was that the added gas would not linger in the air. Most of the CO2 on the surface of the planet was not in the tenuous atmosphere, but dissolved in the huge mass of water in the oceans. Obviously, no matter how much more gas human activities might pour into the atmosphere, nearly all of it would wind up safely buried in the ocean depths

Dyson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

Global warming

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written

One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.

However, he has argued that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends.

The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in…
As a scientist I do not have much faith in predictions. Science is organised unpredictability. The best scientists like to arrange things in an experiment to be as unpredictable as possible, and then they do the experiment to see what will happen. You might say that if something is predictable then it is not science. When I make predictions, I am not speaking as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my predictions are science-fiction rather than science.

He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC [1]. The letter includes the statements “The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years” and “there has been no net global warming since 1998”. Both statements have been criticised as inconsistent with the data.

He has also argued against the ostracisation of scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that heretics have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress.

Revelle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle

Global warming

Revelle was instrumental in creating the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1958 and was founding chairman of the first Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO) under the Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) and the International Oceanic Commission (IOC). During planning for the IGY, under Revelle’s directorship, SIO participated in and later became the principal center for the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Program. In July 1956, Charles David Keeling joined the SIO staff to head the program, and began measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the Mauna Loa Observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and in Antarctica.

In 1957, Revelle co-authored a paper with Hans Suess that suggested that the Earth’s oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a “greenhouse effect” that would cause global warming over time.[3] Although other articles in the same journal discussed carbon dioxide levels, the Suess-Revelle paper was “the only one of the three to stress the growing quantity of CO2 contributed by our burning of fossil fuel, and to call attention to the fact that it might cause global warming over time.”[4]

Revelle and Suess described the “buffer factor”, now known as the “Revelle factor“, which is a resistance to atmospheric carbon dioxide being absorbed by the ocean surface layer posed by bicarbonate chemistry. Essentially, in order to enter the ocean, carbon dioxide gas has to partition into one of the components of carbonic acid: carbonate ion, bicarbonate ion, or protonated carbonic acid, and the product of these many chemical dissociation constants factors into a kind of back-pressure that limits how fast the carbon dioxide can enter the surface ocean. Geology, geochemistry, atmospheric chemistry, ocean chemistry … this amounted to one of the earliest examples of “integrated assessment”, which 50 years later became an entire branch of global warming science.

Al Gore mentions Revelle as a personal inspiration in a segment of the Academy Award-winning global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Dyson

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/25/freeman-dyson-speaking-out-on-global-warming/

What may trouble Dyson most about climate change are the experts. Experts are, he thinks, too often crippled by the conventional wisdom they create, leading to the belief that “they know it all.” The men he most admires tend to be what he calls “amateurs,” inventive spirits of uncredentialed brilliance like Bernhard Schmidt, an eccentric one-armed alcoholic telescope-lens designer; Milton Humason, a janitor at Mount Wilson Observatory in California whose native scientific aptitude was such that he was promoted to staff astronomer; and especially Darwin, who, Dyson says, “was really an amateur and beat the professionals at their own game.”IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO that Dyson began publicly stating his doubts about climate change. Speaking at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future at Boston University, Dyson announced that “all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated.” Since then he has only heated up his misgivings, declaring in a 2007 interview with Salon.com that “the fact that the climate is getting warmer doesn’t scare me at all” and writing in an essay for The New York Review of Books, the left-leaning publication that is to gravitas what the Beagle was to Darwin, that climate change has become an “obsession” — the primary article of faith for “a worldwide secular religion” known as environmentalism. Among those he considers true believers, Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, whom Dyson calls climate change’s “chief propagandist,” and James Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and an adviser to Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Dyson accuses them of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models that foresee a Grand Guignol of imminent world devastation as icecaps melt, oceans rise and storms and plagues sweep the earth, and he blames the pair’s “lousy science” for “distracting public attention” from “more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet.”http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=33716

In 1975 Roger returned to UCSD to become Professor of Science and Public Policy. For the next 15 years he taught courses in marine policy and population, and he continued to be active in oceanographic affairs. When in 1978 the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) decided to focus its international efforts on a few selected issues, Roger chaired the AAAS group that identified the build-up of heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere as one such issue. As a result, the AAAS Board created the Committee on Climate, and Roger served as its chairman for a decade. The Committee was responsible for the first effort to identify the costs and benefits of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

He received the National Medal of Science from President George Bush in 1991

for his pioneering work in the areas of carbon dioxide and climate modifications, oceanographic exploration presaging plate tectonics, and the biological effects of radiation in the marine environment, and studies of population growth and global food supplies.

To a reporter asking why he got the medal, Roger (10) said, “I got it for being the grandfather of the greenhouse effect.”

It is difficult to do justice to a man with such broad accomplishments. When questioned about his profession, Roger would reply “I am an oceanographer.”

FINALLY

Dyson

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/27/freeman-dyson-on-glo.html

At this point I return to the Keeling graph, which demonstrates the strong coupling between atmosphere and plants. The wiggles in the graph show us that every carbon dioxide molecule in the atmosphere is incorporated in a plant within a time of the order of twelve years. Therefore, if we can control what the plants do with the carbon, the fate of the carbon in the atmosphere is in our hands. That is what Nordhaus meant when he mentioned “genetically engineered carbon-eating trees” as a low-cost backstop to global warming. The science and technology of genetic engineering are not yet ripe for large-scale use. We do not understand the language of the genome well enough to read and write it fluently. But the science is advancing rapidly, and the technology of reading and writing genomes is advancing even more rapidly. I consider it likely that we shall have “genetically engineered carbon-eating trees” within twenty years, and almost certainly within fifty years.

Carbon-eating trees could convert most of the carbon that they absorb from the atmosphere into some chemically stable form and bury it underground. Or they could convert the carbon into liquid fuels and other useful chemicals. Biotechnology is enormously powerful, capable of burying or transforming any molecule of carbon dioxide that comes into its grasp. Keeling’s wiggles prove that a big fraction of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes within the grasp of biotechnology every decade. If one quarter of the world’s forests were replanted with carbon-eating varieties of the same species, the forests would be preserved as ecological resources and as habitats for wildlife, and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be reduced by half in about fifty years.

It is likely that biotechnology will dominate our lives and our economic activities during the second half of the twenty-first century, just as computer technology dominated our lives and our economy during the second half of the twentieth. Biotechnology could be a great equalizer, spreading wealth over the world wherever there is land and air and water and sunlight. This has nothing to do with the misguided efforts that are now being made to reduce carbon emissions by growing corn and converting it into ethanol fuel. The ethanol program fails to reduce emissions and incidentally hurts poor people all over the world by raising the price of food. After we have mastered biotechnology, the rules of the climate game will be radically changed. In a world economy based on biotechnology, some low-cost and environmentally benign backstop to carbon emissions is likely to become a reality.

Revelle

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/9858/Gores_global_warming_mentor_in_his_own_words.html

Revelle had made an even stronger statement just a few days earlier, in a July 14, 1988 letter to Congressman Jim Bates: “Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the climate this year is the result of ‘greenhouse warming.’ As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait another ten or twenty years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.”
Revelle’s writings

In the premiere issue of Cosmos, in 1991, Revelle and coauthors S.F. Singer and C. Starr contributed a brief essay, “What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap.” The three write: “Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective.”

They continue, “Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that ‘. . . those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits.’”

:}
Dyson’s most remarkable quote is that, “I would rather be wrong than vague”.

To which I would respond, “Sir I would rather be right than dead”.

:}