Seven Deadly Sins Revised – Beyond Oil is pretty funny

Posted on March 17, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

This was not what I had planned for today’s Post. But when I saw it on Peak Oil it just kinda reached out and grabbed me (abracadabra):

http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events.html

And Reposted Here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/

So Baby makes three:

Thou shalt not drive an SUV at 70 miles per hour on the freeway, with the air-conditioner running, just to pick up a half gallon of milk at the grocery store.
Thou shalt not waste energy and water by enjoying long hot showers.
Thou shalt not vote for a presidential candidate who does not speak up about peak oil.
Thou shalt not read the writings of Michael Lynch, Daniel Yergin, Jed Mouawad, or ExxonMobil. Pray that they may soon recognize the Truth.
Thou shalt not oppose sainthood for M. King Hubbert. He’ll be St. Marion.
Thou shalt not have more than four grandchildren. Blessed are they that leave no more than two grandchildren. (The Vatican has yet to approve this one.)
Thou shalt not grant priority to those who preach about climate change. Their hearts are in the right place, but their minds are focused on a lesser issue. Change is where it’s at.

Ed: While we’re at it, we can offer an 11th commandment. It’s called the Spitzer Amendment, “Don’t get caught.”

Is Springfield A Green City? Depends on how you define change

Posted on March 14, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Oh you thought I was going to say green didn’t you? Here’s how the story played out in an article by one of Springfield’s best writers:

http://www.sj-r.com

Springfield to use ‘green list’

ranking to attract visitors

By TIM LANDIS

BUSINESS EDITOR

tim.landis@sj-r.com

Springfield made a top 50 list of the nation’s greenest cities for the second year in a row in 2008 thanks partly to construction of a clean-coal power plant, plenty of trees and a smoking ban that took effect before a statewide prohibition. But will the No. 29 ranking by “PopSci” — an online edition of Popular Science magazine — bring the tourists in?

The state’s top tourism officials, and Mayor Tim Davlin, said Thursday they certainly plan to make the attempt. “We’re going to put on a campaign this year. We should be doing a lot better,” said Davlin, pointing out that Springfield ranked 12th when the city broke onto the PopSci list forthe first time in 2007. Davlin said he believes the city could have made it into the top 10 last year, but a citywide smoking ban did not take effect until September. A statewide ban took effect on Jan. 1 this year. PopSci uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Geographic Society’s Green Guide to award cities up to 10 points for green uses of electricity and transportation, and up to 5 points for green living (parks and preserves) and recycling.

And now, the Springfield results:

• Electricity: 5.3.

• Transportation: 3.0.

• Recycling: 4.2

.• Green living: 3.2.

• Total score: 15.7.•

No city earned a perfect 30. Portland, Ore., scored 23.1 to top the list, while Greensboro, N.C., came in at 50 with a score of 10. Joliet, 40, and Chicago, nine, also made the list.

While families aren’t likely to make a day of it at the City Water, Light and Power generation plant on Lake Springfield, Illinois deputy director of tourism Jan Kostner said “green travel” is one of the fastest-growing segments of the tourism industry.

But she said there also needs to be industry standards for awarding a “green” tourism designation.

“One of the problems we have is there’s no gold standard for the industry. You can say you’re green when maybe you’re not,” said Kostner, who was in Springfield for the annual Illinois Governor’s Conference on Tourism.

Tim Landis can be reached at 788-1536.

Tim writes more about the Environment and Energy Issues more better than anyone else in the area. But here is the actual lead on the story:

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2008-02/americas-50-greenest-cities

America’s 50 Greenest Cities

Want to see a model for successful and rapid environmental action? Don’t look to the federal government—check out your own town. Here, our list of the 50 communities that are leading the way. Does yours make the cut?

In the international alliance to fight climate change, the United States is considered the sullen loner. But in the seven years since we rejected Kyoto, changes have begun. Not at the federal level, however. It’s the locals who are making it happen.

Note the not so subtle difference in the leads. President Bush sucks on the environment. Everyone in the world including President-to-be Putin knows that. You’d think with a name like Bush (think: beer commercial Buusssssssh) he’d be better than that. But more than that – the question Tim asks is “how can we exploit this rating”? So what has to change? Well:

1. Springfield’s inability to criticize anybody degrading the environment (by the way according the Pope it’s now a sin).

2. Understanding that exploitation is at the heart of the problem.
< In everything from emissions control to environmental stewardship, cities across the country are far ahead of the federal government, and they’re achieving their successes with ready-made technology. Austin has pledged to meet 30 percent of its energy needs with renewable sources by 2020, aided by planned wind-power installations that will surpass their predecessors in efficiency. Seattle has retrofitted its municipal heavy-duty diesel vehicles with devices that will reduce particulate pollution by 50 percent. Boulder has enacted the country’s first electricity tax to pay for greenhouse-gas emission reductions. Something about the comparative speed of city government—a city-council member can greenlight a project and be cutting the ribbon a year later—leads to bold action, and as cities trade ideas, a very positive sort of mimicry is spreading.The 10 trailblazing civic projects profiled in our list of the top green cities in America are among the most impressive success stories to date—examples of what’s possible when elected officials and local business leaders back up their green visions with scientific know-how, clout and creative funding.

Nor does Tim’s article mention what a real green city would look like:

1. Portland, Ore. 23.1

Electricity: 7.1 Transportation: 6.4 Green Living: 4.8 Recycling/Perspective: 4.8

America’s top green city has it all: Half its power comes from renewable sources, a quarter of the workforce commutes by bike, carpool or public transportation, and it has 35 buildings certified by the U.S. Green Building Council.

2. San Francisco, Calif. 23.0

Electricity: 6.8 Transportation: 8.8 Green Living: 3.5 Recycling/Perspective: 3.9
See how San Francisco turns wasted roof space into power, here.

3. Boston, Mass. 22.7

Electricity: 5.7 Transportation: 8.7 Green Living: 3.4 Recycling/Perspective: 4.9
CASE STUDY: Grass Power
Boston has preliminary plans for a plant that would turn 50,000 tons of fall color into power and fertilizer. The facility would first separate yard clippings into grass and leaves. Anaerobic bacteria feeding on the grass would make enough methane to power at least 1.5 megawatts’ worth of generators, while heat and agitation would hasten the breakdown of leaves and twigs into compost.

Energy News – Why CES’ does not do many original blogs

Posted on March 11, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Just type in Energy News into any Search Engine like Yahoo, MSN or Google and you turn up thousands of pages. 5 entries off the first page are listed below:

http://www.forbes.com/energy/2006/11/27/china-india-energy-biz-energy-cx_pm_1127energy_slide.html

China and India are Asia’s two largest emerging economies. Both have large populations, industrializing economies and rising living standards and energy consumption. This slide show compares energy production, consumption and efficiency of both countries head-to-head and the environmental issues both are confronting as a result of their growing energy use. The numbers are drawn form official statistics, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency and are the latest available full-year estimates. The energy intensity comparison is based on purchasing power parity conversion rates.

Forbes of course pointing out that China and Indian will pretty much kill off our species.

http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080016.html

February 22, 2008 – Vol.12 No. 48

A SOLAR POWERED WORLD?

Arizona Public Service (APS) has announced plans to build a 280-megawatt concentrating solar power plant in the desert 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. The Solana Generating Station, if it were operating today, would be the single largest solar power plant on the planet. Solana, with its thermal energy storage, will be able to operate 24/7 providing power for 70,000 homes.

As big and impressive as it sounds it’s only a tiny fraction of what’s possible: According to the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC), the energy potential from sunlight striking the world’s deserts is 700 times that of the world’s primary energy demand today. Further, solar power generated in the world’s deserts could reach 90 percent of the world’s population. Australia, Asia, Africa, North and South America all have expansive deserts. By satellite measurement there are 13,500,000 square miles (35 million square kilometers) of hot, dry, sunlit desert on the planet.

Like the APS project, solar thermal power generation is the best option for the world’s deserts. Not only is it a time-tested technology that can provide low cost power, cooling water from the plants can be used for desalinization of sea water. (Energy from clean sources is a major global need right now. So is fresh water.)

Further, made of glass and steel there are no supply constraints to solar thermal power generation equipment as with purified silicon needed for photovoltaics.

The TREC concept, known as DESERTEC, is to build solar power plants in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and build power lines – a Euro-Supergrid – connecting the plants to Europe.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/

Let’s see that would be Africa getting ripped off by Europe AGAIN!

Alternative Energy News

The Most Efficient Washing Machines Of 2008

March 10th, 2008 · 1 Comment

At MetaEfficient, I evaluate appliances based on a number of factors, namely: energy efficiency, effectiveness, reliability, and price. This holds true for washing machines, because all of these factors need to be considered and weighed against each other (I’d also like to include lifecycle analysis, but there’s no information available for washers). For raw efficiency data, one can turn to the Energy Star ratings, to work out which machines use the least amount of energy and water overall. Based on the Energy Star data, the most efficient washing machines for 2008 are made by LG Electronics and Kenmore.

Three LG washers received the best Energy Star ratings, and four Kenmore washers followed very close behind the LG machines. These ratings are based on the Modified Energy Factor (MEF) which is a way to compare the relative efficiency of different units of clothes washers (higher is better). The second factor is the Water Factor which is the number of gallons per cycle per cubic foot that a washing machine uses (lower is better). Here is a listing of the highest rated washing machines according the February 2008 update:

This site has a real cool video on its home page, but I could not get it to load up on our Blog. The article is from a sidebar. Please look at the video though.

http://energy.sourceguides.com/news.shtml

Environment: THE ENERGY CRUNCH AND THE PACIFIC ISLANDS

Rising fuel costs mean lost growth for some

Asterio Takesy

Few places have been hard hit by the recent rise in energy costs as the Pacific islands countries (PICs). While the impacts are felt around the world, islands societies are already on a financial razor’s edge—rising fuel costs being more than many can bear.Making matters worse is that an estimated 90 percent of total electricity generation and the fuel for the entire sea, land and air transport in our region comes directly from fossil fuels. In many of our members, fossil fuels represent a full 100 percent across the board.It is estimated that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of crude oil, national incomes for the Federated States of Micronesia and Kiribati reduce by over 4% and by at least 2% in Tonga, Tuvalu, Palau and the Solomon Islands. Considering the price of oil has increased by approximately $45 a barrel since 2002, this translates into at least five years of lost growth for some islands countries.Consider also the impact on the balance of trade. It is estimated that fuel imports are now triple the value of merchandise exports in Kiribati, Samoa and Federated States of Micronesia. In the case of Fiji, its combined export earnings in 2006 from three of the country’s major industries, gold, sugar and textiles, only accounted for two-thirds of the country’s total fuel import bill.

All this points to the continuing need for the development of renewable energy resources throughout the Pacific region (and the world). PICs have the highest renewable energy potential per capita in the world.

We are in the midst of the largest ocean on earth with its unlimited wave, tidal and ocean thermal energy. The tropical wind is always blowing and we are along the Pacific “Rim of Fire” with its potential for geothermal power generation. So why hasn’t adoption of renewables happened more quickly?

Let’s see the Islands of the Pacific have not moved ahead with renewables and alternative generation BECAUSE they are in the stranglehold of the Energy Corporation. Man what a surprise

Again, the above is a side from:http://www.islandsbusiness.com

And finally (wipes brow, takes long drink of water and fans face):

http://www.newenergytimes.com/news/2008/NET27.htm#FROMED

EDITORIALS AND OPINION

1. Editorial: Will India Surprise the U.S. (Again)?

By Steven B. Krivit

A recent lecture tour by Michael McKubre of SRI International, Mahadeva Srinivasan, former associate director of the physics group at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre on low energy nuclear reaction research, and me found an interested and receptive audience at the center and other science institutions in India.

But what’s happening in the U.S. and other more developed nations with LENR research? Rumors reaching New Energy Times suggest that people in the U.S. government are taking notice – but quietly. A few of them now have active LENR research programs.

Only one U.S. government group, the Navy’s SPAWAR San Diego (a different entity from the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.), has published LENR papers (19) and does research openly. Some of the other government groups recently received internal funding to begin research, but they have been told not to publish.

Is this a good thing for science? For the U.S.? Probably not. On the other hand, the science community in India has come to terms with the fact that it missed out on 14 years of research on LENR. Will science leaders in the U.S. and other nations take notice of India’s newfound interest?

Glowing articles about the LENR revival in India have been published in Nature India and New Energy Times. However, no journal papers from India have been published recently.

In 1974, researchers at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Trombay, India, not-so-quietly unveiled a not-so-little secret: They had developed nuclear weapons technology. U.S. intelligence and the rest of the world was caught by surprise. Will India surprise the U.S. again with LENR?

The U.S. may take a wait-and-see attitude with LENR research. The rest of the Western World also may wait. India is not likely to wait. Its people cannot afford to take precious food and burn it in their cars. Their hydro power is maxxed out. Their coal, while plentiful and providing 67 percent of India’s total electrical power, is low-grade and dirty.

Think pollution is bad in Los Angeles? You ain’t seen nothin’ if you haven’t been to a major city in India. They don’t have enough uranium for their current-generation fission reactors, and according to Rajagopala Chidambaram, principal scientific adviser to the government of India, it will take at least another 20 years to bring the next-generation reactors online to take advantage of India’s thorium reserves

Smart people in India understand science, technology, and innovation. And they have ambition and necessity, key ingredients for technological growth.

For those of you who had the patience to read this far Low Energy Nuclear Research has been know as Cold Fusion in the past.

FutureGen Is A Very Bad Idea – sounds like ideas from the past

Posted on February 28, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

How have humans gotten rid of their nasty waste in the past? Well it has always been out of sight out of mind. In the early cities they threw stuff in the river and made piles of it “out in the country side”.

My 2 most favorite modern examples are: 1) the Steel Barrels of Radioactive waste tossed in the ocean off San Francisco. Barrels that would- get this – never rust.

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/farallon/radwaste.html

Farallon Island Radioactive Waste Dump

“There is intense public and media interest in this issue, and we need to have the best information available when we respond to inquiries or participate in discussions on the issue of radioactive waste dumped near the Farallones.”–Barbara Boxer; United States Congress (D-California). June, 1990

Issue

More than 47,800 drums and other containers of low-level radioactive waste were dumped onto the ocean floor west of San Francisco between 1946 and 1970; many of these are in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

and 2) The “reef” they tried to build out of used rubber automobile tires off the cost of Florida which has created a oceanic desert devoid of any life. It is now being cleaned up by volunteer divers.

Idea of making reef from tires

backfires

Four decades later, Florida now considers removing up to 2 million tires

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – A mile offshore from this city’s high-rise condos and spring-break bars lie as many as 2 million old tires, strewn across the ocean floor — a white-walled, steel-belted monument to good intentions gone awry.The tires were unloaded there in 1972 to create an artificial reef that could attract a rich variety of marine life, and to free up space in clogged landfills. But decades later, the idea has proved a huge ecological blunder.Little sea life has formed on the tires. Some of the tires that were bundled together with nylon and steel have broken loose and are scouring the ocean floor across a swath the size of 31 football fields. Tires are washing up on beaches. Thousands have wedged up against a nearby natural reef, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life.

So what does that have to do with FutureGen?

Thursday, February 7, 2008

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

FutureGen developers

hope to revive plan

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS____________

MATTOON — Developers hoping to build an experimental central Illinois power plant

say they’ll try to work with the White House and the Department of Energy to get

the project back on track.

The power and coal companies known as the FutureGen Alliance also will work with Congress

to get money for the $1.8 billion project, said Paul Thompson, chairman of the developers’

group.‘We always want to keep the door open,” FutureGen chief executive officer Mike Mudd said

Wednesday after two days of alliance board meetings in Mattoon. “If that does not come to a

fruitful conclusion, we will work with Congress.”

Those talks aren’t happening

right now, Mudd and Thompson said. Thompson said he requested early in January to meet

with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman but has gotten no response.

Bodman, meanwhile, faced questioning from Congress on Wednesday about the agency’s

decision last week to pull out of the project, taking with it its commitment to fund three-quarters

of the cost.

A DOE spokeswoman said the agency was willing to talk with the FutureGen Alliance about

its plan to restructure FutureGen, which it announced last week. The agency has so far asked

for industry feedback on what it says could be several power plants across the country.

‘While the department continues to maintain open lines of communication on this important

matter, we believe the decision to restructure

FutureGen is the best path forward to demonstrate and commercialize advanced carbon capture

and storage technology,” spokeswoman Julie Ruggiero said in an e-mail.

She did not address Thompson’s request for a meeting with Bodman.

FutureGen is intended to prove a power plant can use coal to generate electricity while

capturing the carbon dioxide in the fuel and storing it underground to keep it out of the

atmosphere.

Government and industry, until last week, had worked together, with the DOE covering 74 percent

of the cost and the FutureGen Alliance covering the other 26 percent and building the plant.

The alliance chose Mattoon in December over three other sites — Tuscola, just north of Mattoon,

andtwo sites in Texas. The project would create thousands of jobs during construction, and 150

once the plant opens.The DOE and the alliance say they talked about the project’s escalating costs

much of last year.

When announced by the government in 2003, FutureGen was billed as a $950 million project,

meaning the Energy Department obligation was $800 million.

The current price tag, the alliance says, is due to the rising cost of building materials. (emphasis added)

Well this is the ultimate out of sight out of mind solution. The form of carbon seqestration that they have proposed to use is dangerous. Deep Well Injection (DWI, all pun intended) may work in some instances. The best proof for DWI is when pumping the poisons into an already proven and toxic well like a deep and depleted oil field. Other than that DWI is a total crap shoot.

http://www.pollutionissues.com/Ho-Li/Injection-Well.html

Injection wells use high-pressure pumps to inject liquid wastes into under-ground geologic formations (e.g., sandstone or sedimentary rocks with high porosity). Many geologists believe that wastes may be isolated from drinking water aquifers when injected between impermeable rock strata. However, injection wells are still controversial and many scientists are concerned that leaks from these wells may contaminate groundwater. As of 1994, twenty-two out of 172 deep injection wells contaminated water supplies.

This applies to the Taylorville Energy Project as well, but more on that later. Shouldn’t we really be asking ourselves why we would be reverting to Gasification, an ancient and obsolete technique, instead of solar, wind, hydro and tidal power. Gasification presents a serious problem. But first what is in coal that makes it obsolete and then why gasification is dangerous.

FutureGen Is A Very Bad Idea – At least as formulated now

Posted on February 27, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

As I have said many times, collaboration between Environmentalists and Industry is never a good idea because the Environmentalists have to sacrifice some of their integrity to participate. We have no time for that now. Every little bit of the Earth that is unsullied is now sacred.

www.futuregenalliance.org

www.futuregenforillinois.com

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen

How can a project that has 2 of its own web sites and a Wikipedia listing be so wrong? Well let’s see COST?

Officials vow to

not give up on

FutureGen

Durbin blames politics for decision to scrap plant

By DAVID MERCERTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHAMPAIGN — Officials promised Wednesday to fight the Department of Energy’s decision to scrap a futuristic, low-pollution power plant planned for central Illinois, but the leader of the state’s congressional delegation seemed resigned to its end.Sen. Dick Durbin said he hopes to fund the $1.8 billion FutureGen power plant through earmarks in the federal budget, but wasn’t optimistic it would work.“If the administration doesn’t support it, we’ve seen that this president is willing to use his veto pen over and over again,” Durbin said. “Without the support of the administration, it’s an uphill struggle.”Durbin spoke not long after Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said publicly what he’d told members of Illinois’ congressional delegation and Illinois economic development officials in a private meeting Tuesday.Rather than spend money on FutureGen, which was to have been built by a consortium of coal and power companies in Mattoon using mainly federal funds, the DOE plans to put its finances into a handful of projects around the country that would demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon dioxide from commercial power plants.“This restructuring … is an all-around better deal for Americans,” Bodman, an Illinois native, said in making the announcement to scuttle the program.The department will now solicit industry applications for participation in the new projects. The idea is for the government to pay for building the carbon capture and storage facilities and industry to build the modern coal-burning power plant. Each project would be designed to capture 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas linked to global warming, officials said.The coal and power companies planning to build the plant, known as the FutureGen Alliance, issued a statement saying it “remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track” but it was unclear how that would be possible without the federal funding.FutureGen was envisioned as a unique research project that would trigger development of a virtually pollution-free coal plant where carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and buried deep beneath the earth.

>
>

For a listing of the last ten AP postings on FutureGen go here.

Click on the Length of Search box and pick Archive, the type in FutureGen in the submit Box and click submit.

The Project escalated in cost from 750,000 million $$$ to 1.8 billion $$$ in a little less than 5 years. That is more than enough to build a “new generation” nuke on the same site. But think about this. What would it actually cost. We all know that typical Utility Construction Projects come in with at least 20% cost over runs and sometime as high as 40% is acceptable. Which means that the real cost would likely hover at just under 3 billion $$$. Can anyone say Too Cheap To Meter???

State Journal Register Runs Fraudulent Energy Advertisement

Posted on February 25, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

I have argued for years that De-Regulation was nothing but allowing fraud and crime back into the Corporate Capitalist System. That is that Snake Oil sales which is marginalized under strict regulation and policing, takes over under lax regulation and no policing. I need look no farther than the Criminal Debacle that was Enron and the failed Savings and Loans thefts to make my point. But now the Thieves can even run Advertising in CES’ local paper. I will not post the Ad here,

because it is obscene. But it is an 8th of a page ad on page 3 of todays paper. The headline is Device MAY Increase Gas Mileage by 22%. The device is called Platinum Gas Saver. According to Consumer’s Reports:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/tires-auto-parts/auto-parts/gassaving-devices-1105-fuel-efficiency-improve-gas-mileage-gas-prices/

their claims are simply lies and have been for 8 years.

Gas savers: Do they really help?With gas prices still high, readers have asked us to weigh in on products that promise better fuel economy. We tested three: Fuel Genie, Platinum Gas Saver, and Tornado. Our advice: Don’t waste your money. They don’t work. This isn’t news. We’ve tested such devices over the years and have not found any that improve fuel economy. The Environmental Protection Agency, whose Web site lists scores of devices that the agency has tested in the past 30 years, including the Platinum Gas Saver, has had similar results.

And then there is the EdenPURE space heater which ran a full page advertisement in the Weekend’s Parade Magazine. Any Electric Space heater takes electricity and converts it to heat. It doesn’t matter how efficiently you do that conversion you can only get a set amount of BTU’s from every watt of power. For a lot less money (say 30 $$$$) you can buy an electric resistance space heater. The other claims, that its totally safe and doesn’t reduce moisture are AGAINST the laws of physics. Any device that uses electricity can catch fire, modern heaters have shut-off valves, and won’t cause burns. Anything that heats air by definition reduces humidity.

Where is the AG’s Office When you need them? These are national advertising campaigns designed to rip off the Elderly and the Poor. But then in George Bush’s world this is just harmless hucksterism.

Pete Seeger Says It All – We just got one place to live

Posted on February 18, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

We just keep screwing it up. Stop lighting things on fire. Stop burning things up. We don’t need to do that anymore.

http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/

Please see this new publication – as the heat turns up.

The Advanced Technology Environmental and Energy Center

Posted on February 7, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

Folks that are trying to move the US into the future..And they are only 200 miles from the home of CES

http://www.ateec.org/aboutus/eec.htm

Advanced Technology Environmental AND ENERGY Center

Environmental Education Center

The Environmental Education Center is located on the campus of Scott Community College (Bettendorf, Iowa) and is part of the Eastern Iowa Community College District (EICCD). The Environmental Education Center is home to several initiatives, including:

Advanced Technology Environmental Education Center (ATEEC), a center funded in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF);
Environmental Safety and Health division of HMTRI, which includes HAZWOPER, Industrial Chemical Spill Response, and many other health, safety, and environmental compliance offerings; and
EICCD’s Health, Safety, and Environmental Technology distance learning program, which includes online and correspondence courses.

Environmental Resource Center

ATEEC was established in 1994 as an NSF Advanced Technology Education (ATE) Center of Excellence to advance environmental technology education through curriculum development, professional development, and program improvement in the nation’s community colleges and secondary schools. The activities of the Center were driven by the following goals.

Strengthen science, math, and technical curriculum and instructional materials supporting environmental technology education;

Strengthen the nation’s environmental technician programs by providing professional development opportunities for faculty of community colleges and high schools;
Strengthen advanced technology environmental education by providing support services for program improvement.

The Center’s vision is to create a national network of community colleges supported through public and private partnerships that prepares an environmental technology workforce to address industry’s needs and to promote the transfer of secondary students to higher education. Since its inception, ATEEC has formed partnerships with numerous organizations, including:

National Science Foundation
Environmental Protection Agency
Partnership for Environmental Technology Education
Department of Labor
University of Northern Iowa
University of Wisconsin
Department of Education
Institute for Museum and Library Services
U.S. Department of Energy
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Private sector companies
Local public libraries and museums

Throughout its history, ATEEC has sought to become a comprehensive national resource providing a range of enabling activities to high schools and community colleges.

The Energy Market has Always Been About Fraud, Ripoffs and Scams

Posted on February 6, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

From the very first shallow pit coal mines to the monumental fraud that is nuclear generated electricity, the history of the energy markets is the same. It’s filled with, fraud, schemes, lies and a 1000 year history of wasted money and burst bubbles.

See for instance, There Will Be Blood

www.paramountvantage.com/blood

or any history of the energy biz:

http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies/a/bush_background.htm

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012650

But when energy prices skyrocket like they are now the cheap hucksters ooze out of the woodwork. I am not even going to put this frauds web page up here for the curious. This was the first page up in a google search of Useful Energy Practices…Shame on google.

FOR THE RECORD YOU CAN NOT USE WATER IN A GASOLINE POWERED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE!

This page may not function properly in Internet Explorer

– please switch to Firefox

Do You Want To Know

RIGHT NOW How You

Can Drive Around Using

WATER as FUEL and

Laugh At Rising Gas

Costs, While Reducing

Emissions and Preventing

Global Warming?

100% water cars are still on the drawing board – but I’m excited to show you

how you can start RIGHT NOW to…

Convert Your Car to

BURN WATER as well

as Gasoline – to Double

Your Mileage!

Did you know that you can convert your car to a water-burning car (Water Hybrid)?

This is a Do-It-Yourself, affordable and SIMPLE technology.

Water is supplemental to gasoline – I have doubled fuel economy in my Toyota Corolla 99 shown below (61 MPG).

SIMPLE to install/remove: the solution you’ve been looking for!

Boost performance while preventing smog.

You’ll discover how to generate free energy in your car.

Here you will find testimonials of happy customers.

You will find out how it works and get your questions answered:

Won’t it damage my car/my warranty?

Not only that but according to MythBusters you can not do it by Electrolisis either. There is no such thing as free energy.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html

When you type in Hydrogen From Water, the first 4 pages are these type scams…SHAME on google again!

Local News Continued – One and Done

Posted on February 5, 2008 by Doug Nicodemus

I have been remiss in posting both the State Journal Register and the Associated Press’ web sites were I steal…oh I mean “fair usage” all of these articles.

http://www.sj-r.com/

http://www.ap.org/

And the latest, while America fiddles the world burns.

U.N. Chief: Adaptation to warmer world could cost $20 trillion

By JOHN HEILPRIN

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS__________

UNITED NATIONS — Global warming could cost the world up to $20 trillion over

two decades for cleaner energy sources and do the most harm to people who can

least afford to adapt, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns in a new report.

Ban’s report provides an overview of U.N. climate efforts to help the 192-nation

General Assembly prepare for a key two-day climate debate in mid-February.

That debate is intended to shape overall U.N. policy on climate change, i

ncluding how nations can adapt to a warmer world and ways of supporting the

U.N.-led negotiations toward a new climate treaty by 2009, U.N. officials said

Wednesday. The treaty, replacing the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012,

could shape the course of climate change for decades to come. The Kyoto pact

requires 37 industrial nations to reduce greenhouse gases by a relatively modest

5 percent on average.Much of the focus has been on the United States, the only

major industrial nation to reject the treaty, and on fast-developing nations such as

China and India.

Many are looking to. next year, when a new U.S. president takes the White House.

The leading contenders in both political parties favor doing more than the voluntary

approaches and call for new technologies that President Bush espouses.

In his 52-page report, Ban says that global investments of $15 trillion to $20 trillion

over the next 20 to 25 years may be required “to place the world on a markedly

different and sustainable energy trajectory.” Today, the global energy industry

spends about $300 billion a year in new plants, transmission networks and other new

investment, according to U.N. figures. Srgjan Kerim, a Macedonian diplomat and

economics professor who is president of the U.N. General Assembly, told

The Associated Press that cutting greenhouse gases alone will not be enough

to pull island nations, sub-Saharan Africa and other particularly vulnerable parts

of the world back from the brink of irreversible harm.

Annie Petsonk, a lawyer for the advocacy group Environmental Defense,

said global warming will mostly affect poor people and minorities, because

the wealthy can spend more to adapt.

But then again it’s money well spent!

Community Energy Systems

Censys.org

Category Archives: burning reduction methods