My Air Conditioner Failed – So this week it is personal

Our 26 year old York air conditioner failed on Saturday. We had it recharged 2 months ago but it did not hold. It was worth a try because it had never been tapped before. Now we have to get a new one. I spent an hour today taking 2 east facing windows out of service to help cut down on the heat load. They don’t really talk about that here.

So here are the standard tips on cooling your house without AC. I will be doing this for the rest of the week.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/care2/422/10-ways-to-keep-cool-at-home-without-a-c.html

10 ways to keep cool at home without A/C

By Chaya, selected from Hometalk

Posted Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:18pm PDT

Save energy this summer. It’s easy to keep your house cool without air conditioning. Employing a few basic environmentally friendly principals will help keep you cool and will help you save money.

1. Hot Air Out, Cool Air In

The most basic thing you can do to keep your house cooler without air conditioning is to keep as much sunlight out as possible and let cooler air in at night. During the day, keep windows, drapes, blinds or shades closed, especially on the southern and western sides of your home. If you have a porch, you can put up large plastic or bamboo shades to cut down on sunlight.

2. Windows

Use white or light colored window dressings to reflect light. You can also apply reflective slicks to windows to further cut down on light. At night, leave cabinets open as well, as they will store heat.

3. Be a Fan of the Fan

Moving air is cooler air. At night, place fans in windows to bring more cool air in. Ceiling fans can also make a big difference. In terms of cooling, even a one-mile-per-hour breeze will make you feel three to four degrees cooler. In terms of energy savings, if you run a ceiling fan full-blast for 12 hours, you will only spend about $10 a month in electricity. Ceiling fans have two settings, one to pull air up (for winter use), and the other to push air down. Make sure your ceiling fan is blowing down.

4. Turn Your Fan Into an Air Conditioner

Another easy way to cool your home without air conditioning is to place a bowl of ice or a frozen milk jug in front of one or more fans.

5. What’s Hot in Your Home?

It’s one thing to keep hot air and sunlight out; it’s another to identify the appliances in your home that generate heat. If you aren’t at home during the day, it is easier to simply shut off as many electric appliances as possible. If you spend more of your day at home, try to use heat-generating appliances only during the coolest part of the day.

Keeping your electronics on a power strip provides a quick way to “power-down” before leaving for the day.

7. Light Bulbs

:}

Please. If you are still using incandescent lightbulbs you are insane. That means at least 80 member of the House Of Representatives. But then you knew that. Please go to the site and read the rest. Has some interesting links as well.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Green Roads Choked By Contractors – The past always repeats itself

This is a guest post. I concur with it. I can’t post the whole thing here because it is a little long. Please go to the website listed below and read the rest.

http://www.softwareadvice.com/articles/construction/green-roads-construction-are-constractors-our-roadbloc-1070711/

Green Roads Construction: Are Contractors Our Roadblock?

by Derek SingletonERP Analyst, Software Advice
Jul 07, 2011

The buzz of innovative ideas on how to build cheaper, greener roads is all around us. These ideas range from using scrap construction materials and rubber tires to using recycled glass to reduce our reliance on asphalt. While these brainstorms are laudable, they’ve yet to prove themselves in a total life-cycle analysis.

The green construction practices that have a demonstrated track record can’t gain traction because of an archaic contractor bidding process. And herein lies the problem. A problem that we can no longer afford to ignore given the sheer cost and impact of our highway system.

“Our roads are everywhere. Anywhere you turn, you’re automatically on a road. We can’t get away from them. We step outside of our house and we’re on a road. If we go to a National Park, we take a road. People don’t realize this but [building roads] is one of the highest impact things we do.” – Shane Stathert, Think Green Roads

The need for lower impact roads is a pressing economic issue. Each year, we spend roughly 7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on transportation infrastructure. For fiscal year 2010, that amounted to nearly $1 trillion. A key input to these costs is the amount of asphalt we use. But the costs don’t end there.

A typical two-lane mile stretch of highway uses roughly 25,000 tons of crushed stone, which is what makes aggregate (the base layer for roads) one of the most mined materials in the world. Then there’s the CO2 emissions. The 32,300 lane miles of road the United States paves every year emits millions of tons of CO2. Here’s a conservative estimate.

Constructing a single-lane mile of road emits 1,200 tons of CO2. If we assume every mile of road built is single-laned (yeah right, not in America) then building our roads emits 38,760,000 tons of CO2 every year. That’s the same as the annual energy use of 6 million homes. Seriously, 6 million, stop and think about that for a second.

Needless to say, these exorbitant costs – both fiscal and environmental – left many in the industry wondering: how can we reduce expense and still maintain the quality of road construction? Thus, the green road construction movement was born.

Recycled Materials: A Reliable Aggregate Alternative?

With 94 percent of paved roads covered in asphalt, the first obvious target was determining how excessive use of asphalt could be reduced to minimize economic and environmental impacts. One idea that’s gaining a lot of attention in the green construction movement is the use of recycled materials for aggregate.

The logic is simple: pick a material with a good consistency that would normally sit in a landfill, grind it up and you’ve got an aggregate substitute or aggregate base. Popular fillers and aggregate replacements include rubber tires, roofing shingles and even glass.

Using recycled material for aggregate in this way not only saves money, but it also makes use of a material that would otherwise remain unused. A single lane mile of road constructed with rubber tires will use roughly 2,000 tires and save as much as $50,000. It also diverts rubber tires from landfills where they’d otherwise pile up and present a fire hazard or act as a breeding ground for disease-carrying mosquitoes.

But putting what would otherwise be considered trash into our roads raises a healthy amount of skepticism. What happens when the roads break apart? Is it safe for plastics, rubber and used construction material to be exposed to the elements? What if these wash into our water system?

There is a dearth of research on the environmental costs of using such recycled materials for aggregate or mixing them with asphalt. And using recycled rubber is one of the most promoted ways to green a road today. Both the Green Highway Partnership and National Asphalt Association tout recycled rubber as an environmentally safe and viable alternative.

:}

More tomorrow

:}

All Electric Vehicles From Cork City Ireland – Guest post

I get requests for guest posts and links all the time. Some are just pretend commercial sites. If they are on topic and interesting sometimes I give them a link or even a post but the legitimate ones I always put up. This one came in while I was posting about nuclear power and I couldn’t figure out a way to work it in. So here is an interesting guy, Evan Collins take on all electric vehicles.
www.all-electric-vehicles.com
www.facebook.com/allelectricvehicles

All Electric Vehicles: My Search for the Perfect Electric Car (or hybrid, scooter, bicycle, or motorcycle!!)

Have you ever thought about Switching your Transport to an Electric Vehicle?

If you’re like me or the people I know, probably not! … at least not up to recently.

electric vehicles You may have noticed that, as of today, electric vehicles account for a TINY percentage of all the cars, motorbikes, scooters and bicycles on sale.

The thing is, it seems to be becoming more widely believed that electric vehicles will be the main type of transport around the world within 10 years.

electric vehicles
Hi there, my name is Evan Collins. I’m a Mechanical engineering student and live just outside Cork City in Ireland.

Like most guys (and students) my age, I don’t have much of my own money … but I do need to get around!

I got my car licence a couple of years back and that’s what led to me to talking to you here today.

electric vehicles You see, my parents have insured me on their little Peugeot 207 diesel – and while that’s great – I have some ideas of my own for the future when it comes to car ownership.

While I’m not exactly a dedicated environmentalist, I have come to realise that if I want to get my own set of four-wheels – one that I can actually afford in the next couple of years, then I’m going to take a different approach.

Here’s what I’m going to do:

  • Research all of the pros and cons of electric vehicles – what’s on the market now, what will be in a couple of years time?
  • Test-drive what is around now (now I like the idea of that!)
  • Come up with the best recommendations
  • AND share this information with all of you guys through this website

electric vehicles
I reckon the journey will be worthwhile, with lots of chances to test-drive some cool wheels – and maybe even get a chance to buy one (a Tesla would be nice)!

Of course, with electric vehicles, the theory is that they will save loads on fuel and running costs, as well as lowering environmental impact – and I suppose they will, but I aim to have the coolest set of wheels in town!

electric vehicles So, is it possible to find a lively, good-looking, fuel-miserly set of electric wheels at this moment in time? If not, when? One year from now? Two years? By the time of my pension?

Stay with me here – have a look around – see what happened next. And then make your own mind up!

 

 

:}

Nuclear Power Is Not Safe – Not if a jellyfish can shut it down

If people ever woke up to how fragile nuclear power really is we would shut all our reactors down and walk away. There is some kind of “near miss” every year if not several times a year. Pretty scary stuff.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/06/swarm-of-jellyfish-shuts-down-a-scottish-nuclear-power-plant/241269/

Nicholas Jackson

Nicholas Jackson – Nicholas Jackson is an associate editor at The Atlantic. A former media aggregator for Slate, his writing has also appeared in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Texas Monthly and other publications.

The Torness reactors can be primarily cooled by gas, but they still require water pumped in from the North Sea to meet regulations 

JellyfishTorness-Post.jpg

In recent days, we’ve seen nuclear power plants threatened by fires and floods, but this is something new. Both of the reactors at the Torness nuclear power station in Edinburgh, Scotland, were shut down on Tuesday afternoon when a swarm of jellyfish clogged the filters that are fitted over the pipes sucking water into the building. With a clean-up operation already under way, officials expect the plant to be up and running again by next week.

The reactors at Torness, which is a second-generation facility and wasn’t commissioned until 1988, are relatively advanced. But despite being primarily gas-cooled, the reactors still require seawater to keep them at a temperature low enough to comply with safety regulations. The seawater is pumped in directly from that off the eastern coast of Scotland, where temperatures have been stable in recent weeks. And that’s part of one theory attempting to explain the increase in the number of jellyfish in the area: They may have been driven to the normal temperatures as the waters in other parts of the North Sea have been heating up.

:}

If global warming doesn’t get you the nukes might. More next week.

:}

Nuclear Power In The United States Is Dangerous

When are we going to admit that we are sitting on a time bomb. Nuclear power was always a dumb idea…though pushed in part by rocket scientists…and now it is a plague. How else do you explain my waking up to these 2 headlines on the same day?

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E75R19920110628

New Mexico aims to protect US nuclear lab from fire

Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:00pm GMT

Nuclear weapons lab closes due to fire danger

* Fire has potential to double or triple in size

By Zelie Pollon

SANTA FE, N.M., June 28 (Reuters) – New Mexico officials raced on Tuesday to bring in more fire crews and equipment including radiation monitors as an out-of-control wildfire raged near the preeminent U.S. nuclear weapons laboratory.

Firefighters managed to keep flames off Los Alamos National Laboratory property throughout the night on Monday as the blaze continued to grow, reaching 60,741 acres (24,580 hectares), said Lawrence Lujan, a spokesman for the Santa Fe National Forest.

The laboratory will remain closed on Tuesday and Wednesday due to fire danger, lab spokesman Kevin Roark told Reuters.

Fire officials said the so-called Las Conchas blaze had the potential to double or triple in size. Several towns are under mandatory evacuation, including the nearby city of Los Alamos, with a population of around 12,000.

Los Alamos National Laboratory was established at the end of World War II to house the top secret Manhattan Project to build the first atomic bomb. It still serves as home to the nation’s largest nuclear weapons cache.

Situated on a hilltop, 35 miles (56 km) northeast of Santa Fe, lab property covers 36 square miles (38 square km). Today the lab employees nearly 12,000 people in a range of research and development areas.   Continued…

:}

Please read more but it will scare you to death how close to an actual disaster we came. Is this one in the making?

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90052753?Missouri%20River%20flood%20water%20threatens%20Nebraska%20nuclear%20power%20plants

Missouri River flood water threatens Nebraska nuclear power plants

Because of residents’ worry of a nuclear disaster, rumors about the true conditions of the two plants circulate in the state.

The rising Missouri River flood water continues to threaten the two power plants in Nebraska. To assess the situation, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko visited the Fort Calhoun plant on Monday morning.

clearpxl

The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station, located 20 miles north of Omaha, is one of the two nuclear plants in the state being monitored by the NRC because of the threats of inundation from the Missouri River.

The Fort Calhoun plant has been closed since April for refueling. Its parking lot is flooded, plant employees need to walk on a catwalk to reach the facility. An inflatable water-filled barrier that surrounds the plant was punctured by machinery on Sunday, but the plant operators assured residents that key areas of the facility are not in danger of submersion.

However, plant employees briefly switched to diesel backup generators to keep the nuclear fuel at the site cool because the flood water got too close to electrical transformers.

The other plant, Cooper Nuclear Station, is on higher ground and continues to operate. However, reports said the station is close to shutting down because flood water had reached critical levels.

Because of residents’ worry of a nuclear disaster, rumors about the true conditions of the two plants circulate in the state.

The rumors include an alleged two-mile radius no-fly zone declared by the Federal Aviation Administration on the air space around Fort Calhoun because of a radiation leak and the declaration of a Level 4 emergency at the facility.

The plant operators denied the reports.

:}

Did I mention that there now appears to be water leaking into the basement of the facility. More tomorrow if we are still alive.

:}

Russian Nuclear Power Plants Are Old And Dangerous

Just when you thought there could be no more Chernobyls, this report caused the reindeer to stampede.

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Russian+officials+numerous+shortcomings+at+nuclear+plants+near+Finland/1135267043718

Russian officials: numerous shortcomings at nuclear plants near Finland

Inspection report leaked to Norwegian newspaper

Inspections of Russian nuclear power plants have revealed serious shortcomings in the safety of the plants – particularly in the preparations for earthquakes and other natural disasters.
The difficulties emerge in a report by the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company Rosatom, which was acquired by the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.
The paper wrote on Sunday that many of the problems apply to Russian nuclear installations in general. However, the greatest risks are in old reactors located in areas near Finland and Norway – on the Kola Peninsula and the St. Petersburg region. 

In several countries, including Russia, nuclear power plants have undergone “stress tests” following the nuclear accident which occurred at the Japanese plant in Fukushima in March.
Keijo Valtonen, an official at the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Finland (STUK), expects that the results of the inspections conducted in Russia will be available in Finland soon.

Russian officials: numerous shortcomings at nuclear plants near Finland
Russian officials: numerous shortcomings at nuclear plants near Finland
print this

In addition to the earthquake risk the Rosatom report warns of inadequate reserve cooling systems in Russian plants. Nuclear fuel storage facilities were also shown to be inadequate in some places, and there is a shortage of trained maintenance personnel and inspectors in Russia.
The report lists a total of 31 shortcomings.
According to Valtonen, judging from the deficiencies that were listed, the Russians have made an open assessment of the problems. Norwegian experts also feel that the assessments are reliable.

The report also mentions the Sosnovy Bor nuclear power plant near St. Petersburg, which has been a cause for concern in Finland for some time.
The Sosnovy Bor plant uses the same reactor technology as what was used in Chernobyl, where the world’s worst nuclear accident took place in 1986. A mitigating factor in the matter is that the area is not especially prone to earthquakes.
Nuclear safety has also been assessed in Finland, in the wake of Fukushima. According to Valtonen, the risk reports made at the national level are to be given over to international assessment. “If shortcomings are noticed, drawing conclusions is a matter for each individual country.”

Previously in HS International Edition:
Finnish nuclear industry says Japan scenario unlikely in Finland (14.3.2011)
Steam leak brings Unit 1 of Loviisa Nuclear Power Plant to controlled shutdown (21.2.2011)
Finnish nuclear authority investigates problems in online reporting on Japan (15.3.2011)

See also:
People in Sosnovyi Bor discuss constructing new nuclear reactors (8.2.2007)

Links:
Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority Finland (STUK)

:}

Unfortunately more Tomorrow.

:}

We Even Waste Light During The Day – That’s right

The people of the US actually turn on more lights then they need and make there eyes worse from the glare. If you don’t believe me listen to this professor.

http://envirowriters.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/proposal-essay-less-wasted-light-equals-more-energy-savings/

Proposal Essay: Less wasted light equals more energy savings

Posted on April 18, 2011 by David Apperson

The UAF campus uses electricity.  Some of the electricity is used to power fluorescent light bulbs which are much more efficient than incandescent bulbs but because they exist as a load in the power grid, use energy.  How much energy is being used by these lights, is it more than is necessary, and how bright to classrooms and computer labs need to be?  In 2010, UAF created its Office of Sustainability to utilize the $20 per student fee towards sustainable projects.  The goal is to supply the necessary funds to make sustainable projects happen but the projects must be cost effective with realistic financial return periods.  Although bright rooms are convenient, the UAF sustainability club should lobby the Chancellor and Facilities Services to implement a program that systematically removes bulbs from over-lit rooms because it will reduce the energy use of the UAF campus, make indoor conditions more comfortable, and save money.

The simplest way to reduce the energy use for lighting is to remove unnecessary bulbs.  Before someone begins pulling random lights from their fixtures at will, some simple calculations can be done to get “back of the envelope” numbers for a cost-benefit analysis.  The following calculations will use some simple energy units, the kilo-Watt (kW) and the kilo-Watt-hour (kWh).  A kW is a measurement of Power and is defined as 1,000 joules per second, how quickly work is being done.  A kWh is a measurement of energy, a fairly large amount of energy at that, being the amount of work by a one kW source for one hour.  Electricity is sold in kWh, because it doesn’t matter how fast someone or something is using the electricity but how much of it they are using.  Light intensity can be measured in lumens or foot-candles.  A lumen is a measure of the power of light perceived by the human eye and the foot-candle can be considered as the amount of light falling on a surface, being defined as one lumen per square foot.

The first thing to be determined is whether or not rooms are over lit.  If they are, then energy is being wasted.  The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), recommends that in an office setting, the light intensity be between 20 and 50 foot-candles (OSHA).  As I write this essay, I am sitting in the Students of Engineering Computer Lab (SOECAL) in Duckering.  The room is quite bright and approximately 20 ft by 40 ft and holds 15 light fixtures, each containing three fluorescent bulbs.  The bulbs are GE Ecolux Starcoat bulbs consuming 32 Watts and producing 2800 lumens a piece (light bulb).  To determine if this particular room is over lit, the following calculation is made:

It appears that the SOECAL lab is over lit by three times the amount of recommended light for a work office, perhaps other similar classrooms and computer labs are as well.  Since we can assume the SOECAL lab and many other rooms are over lit, it can also be determined how much energy is being wasted and how much it is costing.  The following calculations are performed considering a single bulb for a single hour.

:}

In the room where he is writing no less. More tomorrow.

:}

Wasted Energy – Very cool blog

I started a meditation on wasted energy last Friday by looking at all the energy we waste by “flaring” natural gas at drilling rigs. We burn more than we use. Then I got distracted by the Corps of Engineers opening the Morganza  Spillway which is a huge environmental deal. So I come back to the meditation today. I googled up the issue and this site popped up. It’s a pretty cool blog. They haven’t posted since April so I am hoping I am not hyping a dead blog.

http://wastedenergy.net/

The Palest Green

Posted by wastedenergy on April 6, 2011

Now that enough time has passed to witness what is really happening in Fukushima, I am ready to pass judgment. I notice a lot of other commentators offered their two cents up immediately, as if they could tell the full scale of the disaster from the first few hours. Not me, though. I knew something strange was afoot the instant it happened, but it’s important to keep in mind that one must always do the necessary homework before making ultimate determinations of value. Now that time has come.

The most common argument I see supposed “environmentalists” making in favor of “nuclear power” (which is a misnomer since it is actually a drain on energy over the long run) is that it is “better than coal.” “It’s carbon neutral,” they say, as if to suggest that were the only criterion that mattered, and also as if to ignore the full energy-consumptive effects of the nuclear fuel cycle from mining to ultimate disposal (it’s supposed to get disposed ultimately, right?). But the path to “clean” nuclear energy is laid with many other booby traps, and it takes an eye open to truth and closed to propaganda to catch them all.

In nature, the color yellow often means “Don’t touch me, I will hurt you.”

As I see things today, the quest for nuclear power, hailed as tomorrow’s energy source by those so obsessed with technocracy that they blind themselves to the big picture, represents better than almost any other story our civilization’s descent into madness. We have become truly power-obsessed, seeking cheap thrills today and tossing tomorrow to the winds. Let our children handle the nuclear waste, we keep saying. Well, the children have arrived, and they are ready to take the reins of power now, and we still aren’t any closer to figuring out what to do with this stuff, which keeps piling up in spent fuel pools vulnerable to release into the environment from earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor strikes, acts of sabotage, and all the other hazards that are a natural part of life on Planet Earth. So what makes today’s nuclear scientists so certain that tomorrow we will finally come up with the magic solution that will allow us to seal this stuff forever behind closed doors, especially if we continue to create even more? It’s time to stop kicking the can ever further down the road and face up to the reality we’ve created for ourselves.

Nuclear fission and radiation are natural parts of our existence. Decaying radioactive isotopes are what power the Earth’s geothermal heat, much like nuclear fusion powers radiation from the Sun. We tell ourselves there cannot be a hazard here since it is always around in one form or another. But we overdo it sometimes, and just as with oil depletion, we trick ourselves into thinking what we are doing is perfectly natural by suggesting “there’s always going to be some, so it can’t be so bad.” That is, once again, the continuum fallacy. We presume that just because we cannot draw a clear line between one phenomenon and its much larger version, that there must be no difference at all. The disaster at Fukushima, which has caused radiation levels to spike to millions of times background levels, has proven conclusively that there are real clear and ever-present dangers associated with even the most carefully operated nuclear power reactors, and the silver lining in the event is that it has brought these as well as the dangers associated with the back end of the nuclear cycle into the forefront of discussion and back into clear view. Such a perspective is necessary if we are to take an objective look at the advantages and drawbacks of our different energy options, something many players with vested political and economic interests are not particularly keen on seeing.

:}

Wasting my energy again tomorrow.

:}

Oil And Gas Speculators Are 15-30 % Of The Price

Everyonce in awhile the Peak Oil website finds a real gem of an economic analysis or some other thing related to energy markets and energy consumption. The following is a dandy with the source website as well.

http://peakoil.com/

http://www.econmatters.com/2011/05/speculation-does-not-explain-high-oil.html

Friday, May 6, 2011

Speculation Does Not Explain High Oil and Gasoline Prices? Please!!

By EconMatters

WTI (West Texas Intermediate) Crude Oil futures traded at its lowest in almost two months in New York on Thursday, May 5 in its biggest selloff in two years, plunging 8.6% on the day to below the $100 mark (Fig. 1).  Brent crude on ICE also dropped as much as $12.17, or 10%, which was the largest in percentage terms not seen since the Lehman Brothers financial crisis, and the largest ever in absolute terms, according to FT.

The epic waterfall was partly due to the combination of a strengthening dollar after European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said he wouldn’t raise interest rates, and a surging U.S. first time jobless claim that sent oil, silver and other commodities plunging.

Big Speculators Moving Out

There has been a long debate about how much of a role speculators play in the oil market.  However, this latest big price move in one day strongly suggests something more than fundamentals is at work.

That is, some big players (i.e. speculators) decided to move out of commodities, either to take profits, or for risk off trades, as crude and gasoline market fundamentals have not changed much since the start of the year to warrant such a run-up of prices in recent months (Fig. 1).

Link Between Oil Storage & Speculation??

Some, like Ezra Klein at The Washington Post, and Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, senior fellows at the Cato Institute, have suggested that speculators are not the ones causing high oil and gasoline prices.

For example, in this article, Klein partly quoted Michael Greenstone, an energy economist at MIT, and concluded that:

“Speculators make money by pulling oil off the market, putting it in inventory, and selling it later…So if you’re seeing speculation, you should be seeing a massive run-up in inventory. And we are seeing a bit of an inventory bump, particularly in recent weeks. But not enough of one.”

Taylor and Van Doren also drew a similar conclusion in an article at Forbes stating that since there’s not a massive increase in oil storage to cause a physical supply shortage, so do ‘put away the torches and pitchforks’ as speculators are not to blame for the rise in oil and gasoline price.

Reality Check – Shorts & Paper Barrels

I guess all four gentlemen live right next door to the U.S. Fed in the ivory tower and just as detached from reality.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

New Energy Produced A Bananza – At least for this blog

This is another cool site that popped up after I typed New Energy into Google:

http://www.newenergytechnologiesinc.com/

Welcome to New Energy Technologies Inc.

New Energy Technologies, Inc., publicly traded under the symbol NENE, is focused on the research, development and eventual commercialization of emerging next-generation alternative and renewable energy technologies.

We are developing a novel MotionPower™ technology which generates electricity from the motion of vehicles, and the first-of-its-kind SolarWindow™ technology capable of generating electricity on see-thru glass windows.

. MotionPower™

Our novel MotionPower™ energy harvesting systems generate sustainable electricity by capturing the excess kinetic energy produced by moving cars, small trucks, and heavy commercial vehicles.

Our MotionPower™ devices are engineered to generate electricity from the 250 million vehicles registered in America, driving an estimated 6 billion miles on our nation’s roadways every day

click here to read more…

.

.SolarWindow™

Our first-of-its-kind SolarWindow™ technology enables see-thru windows to generate electricity by ‘spraying’ their glass surfaces with New Energy’s electricity-generating coatings.

These solar coatings are less than 1/10th the thickness of ‘thin’ films and make use of the world’s smallest functional solar cells, shown to successfully produce electricity in a recently published peer-reviewed study in the Journal.

click here to read more…

:}

More tomorrow.

:}