Now The Environmentalists Have Discovered There Is No Clean In Coal – I am shocked

I believe in carbon sequestration because I believe that carbon and other elements in smokestack effluent can be recycled. That is they can be used for feedstock for algae or concrete. Injecting it into the ground however is not an option. I have said that for 10 years while everyone else was sucking up to the power companies.

 http://www.newsweek.com/id/173086?GT1=43002

Blowing Smoke

Is clean coal technology fact or fiction?

By Daniel Stone | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Dec 9, 2008 | Updated: 8:08  a.m. ET Dec 9, 2008

 A single power plant in western Pennsylvania is one of the 12 biggest carbon dioxide polluting power plants in the U.S. emitting 17.4 million tons annually.

In the elusive search for the reliable energy source of the future, the prospect of clean coal is creating a lot of buzz. But while the concept—to scrub coal clean before burning, then capture and store harmful gases deep underground—may seem promising, a coalition of environment and climate groups argue in a new media campaign that the technology simply doesn’t exist.

The Alliance for Climate Protection and several other prominent organizations—including the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council—launched a multipronged campaign to “debrand” the clean part of clean coal, pointing out that there’s no conclusive evidence to confirm the entire process would work the way it’s being marketed. In the campaign’s TV ad, a technician sarcastically enters the door of a clean coal production plant, only to find there’s nothing on the other side. “Take a good long look,” he says, standing in a barren desert, “this is today’s clean coal technology.”

The campaign was designed to combat the well-funded coal industry, which formed a trade association in April to promote the idea of clean coal. Joe Lucas, a vice president for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, says that the technology does exist, although it’s still in early development stages. “With the current research being done, we think we can get the technology up and running within 10 to 15 years,” he says. Activists like Brian Hardwick, chief spokesman for the Alliance for Climate Protection, aren’t so sure. Hardwick spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Daniel Stone about why the idea of clean coal shouldn’t be considered a solution. 

:}

And it makes for great TV:

http://www.thisisreality.org/#/?p=canary

:}

Of course up till now they have been peddling other “stuff”:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/clean-coal.htm

What is clean coal technology?

by Sarah Dowdey

Coal is the dirtiest of all fossil fuels. When burned, it produces emissions that contribute to global warming, create acid rain and pollute water. With all of the hoopla surrounding nuclear energy, hydropower and biofuels, you might be forgiven for thinking that grimy coal is finally on its way out.

But coal is no sooty remnant of the Industrial Revolution — it generates half of the electricity in the United States and will likely continue to do so as long as it’s cheap and plentiful [source: Energy Information Administration]. Clean coal technology seeks to reduce harsh environmental effects by using multiple technologies to clean coal and contain its emissions.

When coal burns, it releases carbon dioxide and other emissions in flue gas, the billowing clouds you see pouring out of smoke stacks. Some clean coal technologies purify the coal before it burns. One type of coal preparation, coal washing, removes unwanted minerals by mixing crushed coal with a liquid and allowing the impurities to separate and settle.

Other systems control the coal burn to minimize emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. Wet scrubbers, or flue gas desulfurization systems, remove sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain, by spraying flue gas with limestone and water. The mixture reacts with the sulfur dioxide to form synthetic gypsum, a component of drywall.

Low-NOx (nitrogen oxide) burners reduce the creation of nitrogen oxides, a cause of ground-level ozone, by restricting oxygen and manipulating the combustion process. Electrostatic precipitators remove particulates that aggravate asthma and cause respiratory ailments by charging particles with an electrical field and then capturing them on collection plates.

Where do the emissions go?

Carbon capture and storage — perhaps the most promising clean coal technology — catches and sequesters carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from stationary sources like power plants. Since CO2 contributes to global warming, reducing its release into the atmosphere has become a major international concern. In order to discover the most efficient and economical means of carbon capture, researchers have developed several technologies.

Coal isn't going anywhere soon -- it generates half of the U.S. power supply.
Aaron Cobbett/Stone/Getty Images
Coal isn’t going anywhere soon — it generates half of the U.S. power supply.

Flue-gas separation removes CO2 with a solvent, strips off the CO2 with steam, and condenses the steam into a concentrated stream. Flue gas separation renders commercially usable CO2, which helps offset its price. Another process, oxy-fuel combustion, burns the fuel in pure or enriched oxygen to create a flue gas composed primarily of CO2 and water — this ­sidesteps the energy-intensive process of separating the CO2 from other flue gasses. A third technology, pre-combustion capture, removes the CO2 before it’s burned as a part of a gasification process.

:}

Here is where the bullshit starts, “Why would they have to do anything after sequestration?”

:}

After capture, secure containers sequester the collected CO2 to prevent or stall its reentry into the atmosphere. The two storage options, geologic and oceanic, must contain the CO2 until peak emissions subside hundreds of years from now. Geologic storage involves injecting CO2 into the earth. Depleted oil or gas fields and deep saline aquifers safely contain CO2 while unminable coal seams absorb it. A process called enhanced oil recovery already uses CO2 to maintain pressure and improve extraction in oil reservoirs.

:}

A Green Boat – They know how to design things in California – replacement post for 12/1/08

Just think how much less the Great Lakes would suffer if all the Ships plying those waters were made like this?

http://www.baycrossings.com/dispnews.asp?id=2101

Gemini, WETA’s First New Ferry, Reports for Duty

The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) recently announced the arrival of its first new vessel.

Crediting the Bay Area’s innovative mindset, Mary Frances Culnane, WETA’s Marine Engineering Manager, commented, “Local support for ferries allowed WETA to push the technology envelope. The result is a vessel that is the most environmentally responsible ferry boat ever built, surpassing WETA’s emission mandate of 85 percent better than EPA emission standards for Tier II (2007) marine engines.” Other innovative measures to protect the bay and marine life include low-wake, low-wash hulls, solar panels, operating on a blend of biodiesel and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel, and forward searching sonar for avoiding whale strikes. Gemini also includes space for 34 bicycles.

Gemini and her sister ship, Pisces, which will follow in March 2009, are being built at a cost of $16 million under one contract with the Nichols Brothers/Kvichak Boat Building Team. The total cost of the first two vessels is being paid with local toll-bridge funds. Kvichak is also building two additional 199-passenger vessels for WETA that will be delivered in late 2009. In total, these four vessels will eventually be put into service on either the new South San Francisco Ferry Route or the proposed Berkeley/Albany ferry route, and will greatly improve the ability of waterborne transit to move people in the aftermath of a disaster.

For further information go to www.watertransit.org. or contact Shirley Douglas at Douglas@watertransit.org.

P.O. Box 747, Alameda, CA 94501 P 415-362-0717 F 925-215-2520

:}

:}

Instead Of Global Warming It Should Be Called Hot Acid Ocean – Maybe then people would get it..replacement post 11/27/08

Once we kill off the Oceans of the Earth, what shall we do next?

;]

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-Nov-13/is-the-ocean-a-victim-of-global-warming-our-intrepid-reporter-travels-thousands-of-miles–from-moss-landing-to-peru-and-chile–to-crack-an-environmental-crime/1/@@index

Posted November 13, 2008 12:00 AM

Liquidity Crisis

Is the ocean a victim of global warming? Our intrepid reporter travels thousands of miles – from Moss Landing to Peru and Chile – to crack an environmental crime.

A cold, salty wind blows from the west. The gray Pacific Ocean – incubator of slimy life, cycler of nutrients, composer of storms – doesn’t seem like itself lately.

The bully they call El Niño seems to be coming around more often, screwing with every fishery he touches. Niño plays games with the world’s weather, flooding dry Peruvian coastal towns while parching lush Indonesia.

Expanding offshore twilight zones of low oxygen turn fish into refugees and kill whatever can’t swim away. Oregon fishermen pull up buckets of dead crabs while jumbo squid pulse poleward, happier than clams in the suffocating layer. Other warm-water species are hanging out in places that used to be too cool for them. Tropical storms are getting meaner; jellyfish are swarming.

Meanwhile, the mad chemist known as pH is tinkering with the ocean’s ions, making California’s coast more acidic than the psychedelic ’60s. Dolphins file noise complaints, the shells of microscopic snails dissolve, and light-reflecting plankton retreat.

The sea’s weird behavior is a tough nut to crack, but some of the world’s sharpest minds are on the case. Their chief suspect is carbon dioxide, code-named CO2: atmospheric loiterer, weather tweaker, planet heater.

;]

For much more see this article or google “acid ocean” and watch the hits grow.

Newt Gingrich Plans To Save The Earth – Maybe the silliest use of energy yet

So silly in fact that the price of the book has fallen from $20 to $2.39.

http://www.amazon.com/Contract-Earth-Newt-Gingrich/dp/0801887801 

This from a man who does not believe in global warming. This from a man who helped start the “Drill Here, Drill Now” movement. This from a man who adamitly opposes Cap and Trade even though it’s an industry ameliorative. Oh and a forward by the man who once hypothesized that people with black skin have lower I.Q.s then people with white skin color. But don’t listen to me:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0801887801

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars If we pass the test, we get to keep the planet (Everglades), December 6, 2007

Local Book Review by John Arthur Marshall, (JAMinfo@AOL.com); President
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation and Florida Environmental Institute, Inc. www.ArtMarshall.org

A Contract with the Earth: Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple; John Hopkins; 2007

Contract with the Earth is an overdue call for local, national and international action in a time of serious need for we planetary occupants to pay much more attention to what we are doing to the planet (destroying our life support system at a seemingly indiscernible rate, with enormous consequences given ubiquitous inaction). This is the major problem that Contract addresses.

Contract might be summarized as a re-call of Teddy Roosevelt conservationism with emphasis on the authors’ new advocacy of entrepreneurial environmentalism. All this verges on a matter of insistence, which is good, even great, if twice as many folks that are engaged in the present environmental movement read and heed… Then engage at least one neo-conservationist politician on the need to take on stewardship of the environment as a major issue in the current election debates. We can do it!

As the authors astutely note: Everyone ought to participate in discussions of environmental policies and to that end should have a rudimentary understanding of the processes that make a habitable planet.

Of particular importance in the current elections scenario, the authors identify the need to get the environment elevated as arguably the most important issue confronting society today. How can presidential candidates not pay attention to long-term effects of climate change, and the need for conservation and preservation of what remains of our life support system? A bonus is a call for strategic planning, and adherence to planetary needs.

The authors acknowledge that insufficient attention is being paid by politicians, and with the rest of us, lament that the current administration has been a failure here, even with the late attempt at for lasting legacy to cover inaction regarding potential disastrous consequences in the future.

The author’s define the distinction between conservation and preservation in a manner that deserves further consideration. That is left for future readers to discover, in a book that is worth reading, and begging for action by the non-reactive information-overloaded majority.

As President of a tree-planting organization, my most favorite spot in this book is Chapter 8: Renewing the Natural World. This chapter emphasizes the need to preserve rainforests and restore forests and wetlands. Here in Florida we call them forested wetlands, or swamps (lots of cypress and custard apple trees and related species normally in standing water). In the sequence of quotable quotes at the beginning of each chapter, Chapter 8 also holds my favorite quote:

Few are altogether deaf to the preaching of pine trees. Their sermons on the mountains go to our hearts; and if people in general could be got into the woods, even for once to hear the trees speak for themselves, all difficulties in the way of forest perseveration would vanish. John Muir [Founder Sierra Club]; there were also lots of pine trees in Florida. The past-tense is not good.

This quote is an appropriate sequel to another salient section in Chapter 10, with the mention of Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods. Louv amplifies the need for the younger generation to be more exposed to nature, as previous generations were. Something is missing. Louv points out that staying indoors in front of a computer, rather than more exposure to nature, may lead to nature deficit disorder, which he relates to potential attention deficit disorder and maladjustments in life.

As a sixth generation Floridian, following progress of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) I very much appreciate Newt’s observation on page 226:

“Florida has the opportunity to become a laboratory that the entire world studies… There are very few places where you have a complex fragile ecosystem this close to this many people”. Newt, Associated Press, 1997. Recent AP headlines – Everglades Restoration bogged down – is inappropriate.

The authors also recognize that the proximity of massive land-fills (Mt. Trashmore’s we call them) to the Everglades are inappropriate to conservation and preservation of important ecosystems. Currently, local government is considering locating a Mt. Trashmore right next to the Arthur R. Marshall National Wildlife Refuge, a primary subject of CERP implementation. Not only will the landfill be a dominant terrain feature, the creatures this will attract will pose a serious threat to native wildlife, especially wading birds. This could also pose a serious threat to federal funding.

The authors also implore us (again!) to think globally and act locally. OK Palm Beachers, CERP implementation is also about sustaining a viable water supply. This is need to know stuff.

Unfortunately the behavior of government toward CERP, especially in the current federal administration, is much like the authors describe:

The American government, however continues to posture and vent, unable or unwilling to commit or act decisively…. Except possibly to give development overwhelming priority.

If there is one thing that might call for a little reconsideration, it is the authors’ inclination to view technological solutions as sometimes preferable to natural one’s, without mentioning the precautionary principle, an approach advocated by scientists when there is a dearth of knowledge. Scientists caution on reliance of engineered solutions, as there are always unforeseen, usually adverse consequences here. Humankind’s intrusions require natural solutions. Natural solutions are most often perpetual, and the most cost-effective. OK, green energy may be an exception.

At the onset, Contract challenges the readers to take a Test to determine whether (or not) you (the reader) is a mainstream environmentalist. In the end the authors challenge the readers to support the broad principles of the contract, by contributing time and ideas to create together a new kind of environmental movement.

From the Everglades Restoration endeavor, a more widely applicable quote is attributed to the Mother of the Everglades, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, author of Everglades, River of Grass:

If we pass the Test we get to keep the planet!

DISCLAIMER: The Author of this review, an Everglades restoration advocate, is not a professional book reviewer.

John Arthur Marshall
2806 South Dixie Highway, WPB 33405; 561-801-2165
 

:}

On the other hand:

Same old, same old, April 18, 2008

By  Arthur E. Lamontagne
(REAL NAME)   

A lot of rehash of old ideas and trite science. I was disappointed, especially since I have been a big fan of Newt’s philosophies and politics.
:}

If you want to hear what the great man himself thinks try, are you ready for it?, newt.org:

 http://newt.org/AContractwiththeEarth/tabid/220/Default.aspx

:}

Scientist Fred Bortz sees it a little different:

http://www.fredbortz.com/review/ContractWithEarth.htm

I am a scientist, and I vote. To put this review in context, I place myself in the moderate to progressive segment of American politics. But I never let my political views get in the way of interpreting what observation, experiment, and scientific analysis tell me about the world.

For instance, when I reviewed Chris Mooney’s provocative The Republican War on Science (RWOS), my first reaction was skepticism. “Show me the evidence,” I demanded of that book. In the end, Mooney’s thorough research persuaded me that his thesis deserved serious consideration.

RWOS covered a broad range of topics, but the one of greatest concern to me was the political foot-dragging and outright denial of human-induced global warming, especially in the Republican controlled congress and the George W. Bush White House.

I often wrote in my blog that I would listen to any proposed political solution to the problem–liberal, conservative, or otherwise–as long as the discussion began with the best understanding of the science and considered a range of plausible scenarios. Thus I was heartened to learn of this new book by one of the United States leading conservative thinkers, Newt Gingrich, in collaboration with conservationist Terry Maple.

I assumed that I would disagree with Gingrich’s proposed political approaches. But I also assumed that the book will make an important contribution to the debate on global warming. I was correct on both counts. A Contract With the Earth has the potential to move the debate away from whether global warming is occurring and whether human activities are causing it, and move toward issues where conservatives and liberals argue about how best to deal with the problem.

However, I am disappointed that it pussyfoots around the Right’s nonsense about calling global warming a hoax and a liberal conspiracy. Gingrich frequently points fingers at the Left for their “doomsday scenarios.” I disagree with that characterization, though I understand that a warning can be delivered too stridently, thereby turning off the people you hope to reach.

But if turning people away from the solution is a problem, then Gingrich needs to be equally critical of outright denialism on the Right. To deny and obfuscate is far more than simply to “disdain” environmental action, which is about as far as he goes in criticizing his own party. He may not have agreed with leading denier Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, but by remaining quiet he facilitated Inhofe’s misuse of his Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to block action on global warming. In this book, Gingrich is continuing to give Inhofe and his cronies a pass.

In other words, I don’t doubt his sincerity about the need to act, and I don’t question the value of conservative approaches to the solution. But Gingrich is clearly worried about his right flank in this book. Mainstream Republicans have known for some time that global warming is a problem and would welcome some courageous leadership from Gingrich. Instead, many of them will see this as opportunism by someone who wants to be president and thus can’t afford to alienate the Right.

Physicist Fred Bortz is the author of numerous science books for young readers.

:}

Leave it to the Washington Post to get it right:

http://www.powells.com/review/2008_01_04.html

Green Republicans

A review by Juliet Eilperin

Yet they gloss over some of the toughest questions facing international policymakers today, and they compare the environmental records of Bush and former President Bill Clinton in a way that strains credulity.  

On the central question of global warming, Gingrich and Maple are closer to Bush than to most of the world’s business and political leaders. They argue that climate change poses a serious threat and that the United States should reengage in international negotiations. But they question the wisdom of imposing a mandatory, nationwide cap on carbon emissions on the grounds that Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions rose faster than America’s between 2000 and 2004. (It’s worth noting that since 2000, U.S. emissions have risen at 1.5 times the rate they did in the 1990s, not exactly a stunning model of restraint.) Like Bush, Gingrich and Maple rest their hopes on technological innovation: “The world can be changed faster by the spread of brilliant ideas than by any plodding bureaucracy, and we gladly put our faith in such intellectual and social processes.”

In that sense this book is classic Newt, brimming with military metaphors and grand visions of America leading the rest of globe to a brighter future. In environmentalism, as in war, “we must demand a complete and decisive victory,” the authors say. “Renewing the earth is surely one of the greatest challenges this generation has confronted, and we understand how important it is to succeed.”

To show the value of what they call “business partnerships on behalf of the environment,” the authors describe how the Nature Conservancy, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society have made common cause with such corporate entities as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s. As a result, much of the book reads like the kind of corporate advertisement that appears on newspaper op-ed pages. Gingrich and Maple contend that the private sector, not government, holds the answers to the globe’s biggest problems. The question is whether people in places such as Bangladesh can afford to wait and see if they’re right.

Juliet Eilperin is the Post‘s national environmental reporter.

:}

:}

The Topic Of The Week Is Silly Energy Uses – As typed in at Google

I was shocked when I type in Silly Energy Uses into Google and got back 8 out of 10 references to Sarah Palin. But then I thought about it and realised that the Drill Here, Drill Now crowd does look silly, with oil prices in the 50$$ per barrel range and maybe going to 40$$ a barrel. The Saudis, the Ruskies and the Venezualans (should we call them Vennies?) have got to be looking to kill a bunch of Hedge Fund Operators and other bizzilionaires. Though the Brazilians (Brazzies?)got pletty of crap all over their faces too. What in the world are they going to do with all those oil rigs?

I have not had so much laughter and fun since the gas lines in the 70’s and the recession that led up to globalization in the 80s.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/

 htww.png

Sarah Palin’s silly energy speech

When the announcement that John McCain had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate broke across the political landscape like an Alaskan mountain avalanche, many analysts, including yours truly, jumped to the conclusion that her background in energy issues made her a savvy choice in an era of record-breaking oil prices. McCain’s “drill here, drill now” mantra was taking a bite out of Obama’s poll numbers, and the immediate expectation was that Palin would be a potent vehicle for delivering energy-related soundbites.

But it didn’t turn out that way. On Wednesday morning, oil traded at $65 dollars a barrel, more than 50 percent off its July peak of $147. The financial crisis proved more riveting than gas prices, and Sarah Palin’s rocky performance as a debutante on the national political stage swiftly obliterated the conventional wisdom that she could be an asset to the McCain campaign.

 :}

But Palin’s speech is still worth some attention, because it clearly makes the case for why the McCain-Palin agenda is fundamentally wrong for the United States.

Palin started off by acknowledging that “the price of oil is declining largely because of the market’s expectation of a broad recession that would lower demand.” She was absolutely correct to note that “this is hardly a good sign of things to come,” and that “when our economy recovers, and growth once again creates new demand, we could run into the same brick wall of rising oil and gasoline prices.”

(:=} even the Saudis got to get into the act)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523334615277739.html

 LONDON — The slump in oil prices has spread relief among consumers and fuel-reliant industries, but also is squeezing the companies who could invest in new sources of oil — spurring concerns that prices will prompt them to shelve investments.

Industry executives warn that could mean the world will face a dramatic ramping up of prices as soon as the global economy, and demand, begins to rebound.

“Low oil prices are very dangerous for the world economy,” said Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli, the United Arab Emirates’ energy minister, speaking Tuesday at an oil-industry conference in London. 

(:=}

The piece drew many comments but the first is the most rational. Then they decay into the IT CAN’T BE DONE comments from the ignorant right. As usual.

 http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/view/index3.html?show=all

What we need is a commitment to relatively low-tech alternative energy

Solar satellites and fusion energy are pie-in-the-sky ideas that have been around forever and have yielded little practical promise. Existing earth-based solar collector and wind farm technology could provide a substantial percentage of our energy needs right now. Dedicating a few hundred square miles of CA/NV desert land to a massive solar collector that could provide 100% of U.S. electrical needs would be a worthy investment.

 http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/86951-sarah-palins-silly-energy-speech.html

Both the McCain/Palin campaign and the Obama/Biden campaign are making unrealistic promises about the prospect of reaching energy independence. As Obama himself notes, when you consume 25 percent of the world’s oil but own only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, energy independence isn’t ever going to come from expanding domestic production.The difference between the two campaigns is that McCain/Palin is more unrealistic. Obama has made it clear that his energy independence plan will requires massive expansion of alternative and renewable energy resources and huge investments in conservation and energy efficiency, even as he acknowledges that more investment in offshore drilling, nuclear power, and clean coal will also most likely be necessary. (McCain and Palin routinely misrepresent Obama’s position on nuclear power and clean coal, and the vice presidential candidate did so again today.)Palin devoted one paragraph of her energy security policy speech to alternative energy solutions.

In our administration, that will mean harnessing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar. We will end subsidies and tariffs that drive prices up, and provide tax credits indexed to low automobile carbon emissions. We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less. And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.

That’s not enough. True leadership on energy requires devoting more than one paragraph to vague handwaving about wind and solar and greenhouse gas emissions. Economic turmoil and low oil prices may have shunted renewables and conservation off the main track for now, but to quote Palin, “this is hardly a sign of good things to come.”

 :}

But then the real waste of Energy was people trying to “figure out the real” John McCain. He was the guy who wanted to build 100 NUKES and was too old and out of touch to be President.

http://sillyhumans.blogspot.com/

 By TIM DICKINSON Posted Oct 16, 2008 7:00 PM


This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain’s life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers’ powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives’ evangelical churches.

 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.

“I’m going to the Middle East,” Dramesi says. “Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran.”

“Why are you going to the Middle East?” McCain asks, dismissively.

“It’s a place we’re probably going to have some problems,” Dramesi says.

“Why? Where are you going to, John?”

“Oh, I’m going to Rio.”

“What the hell are you going to Rio for?”

McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.

“I got a better chance of getting laid.”
 :}

:}

5 Environmentally Friendly Entrepeneurs Get Awards – Invest now

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4290905.html?nav=rss20

5 Award-Winning

Green Technologies from

 the Clean Tech Open 2008

The envelope, please—the California Clean Tech Open, the Oscars of the green business world, took place at San Francisco’s Palace of Fine Arts last week. Standout clean-tech startups in six categories received $100,000 “startup in a box” packages to help bring their sustainable visions closer to fruition. Here’s a glimpse at some of this year’s luminaries.

Published on: November 10, 2008

 http://www.bottlestone.com/

 BottleStone

Winner of California Clean Tech Open! We would like to give a special thanks to the CCTO Green Building category sponsors: Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. President and CEO Michael Looney speaks to ABC News.

BottleStone is a beautiful, new green surface material made of 80% post-consumer recycled glass. BottleStone provides a green alternative to stone slabs offering the same warm aesthetics of natural stone materials.

http://www.electradrive.net/

Winner of the Transportation Award at the 2008 California Clean Tech Open, ElectraDrive is commercializing an invention to enable the mass conversion of existing cars and light trucks to electric drive.With ElectraDrive, you can benefit from the size and functionality you need from your vehicle, without being tied to the pump.

  • Mile-for-mile, electric power is less than one-tenth the cost of gasoline.
  • We are already energy-independent when it comes to electricity production.
  • An ElectraDrive conversion will liberate your vehicle from foreign oil, and reduce pollution.

At a Glance
ElectraDrive replaces a vehicle’s gas drivetrain.
All-electric traction provides instant torque.
Drive electrically around town, plug in to recharge.
Never worry about running out of juice on longer trips: an onboard generator charges the battery pack.
Fill up only six times a year.
Improve reliability, extend vehicle life.
ElectraDrive will adapt to cars and light trucks of all sizes.
Configure the system to meet your driving needs: performance, efficiency or a blend.

http://www.viridisearth.com/

VIRIDIS EARTH TECHNOLOGIES

Viridis means green. Located in the San Jose Environmental Business Cluster, Viridis Earth Technologies seeks innovative solutions that encourage human activities with minimal impact   on the fragile environment.

Currently, we are developing simple but environmentally effective technologies to reduce the energy consumption of air conditioners. Please contact us for more details.


 

 http://www.cleantechopen.com/app.cgi/teams/directory/view_team/1/242

Focal Point Energy

Solar Hot Water and Steam Generation for Industrial Applications

Competitions

2008 Renewables Winner

Address

1450 Koll Circle, Ste. 105

San Jose, CA 95112

Contact

Taber Smith
1450 Koll Circle, Ste 105

San Jose, CA 95112
Please login to see email and phone information

Description

Focal Point Energy is making a solar hot water and steam generator for industrial applications. In the western US alone, roughly 18 Billion Dollars is spent heating hot water and steam for industrial applications, such as pasteurizing milk. Most of the time, the sun is blaring down on a nearly empty rooftop. Heating water and steam with the sun is very efficient, which can provide the short payback necessary for many of these low-margin businesses. But these industries need large roof systems that are easily installed, maintained, & repaired. Focal Point Energy has developed a roof-mountable, large-scale, high-temperature solar water and steam heater that is low-cost, light-weight, and easily connected into existing industrial boiler systems to provide clean heat without interruption or contamination. Focal Point is changing the way industries generate heat!

 http://www.cleantechopen.com/app.cgi/teams/directory/view_team/1/254

Solar Red

We dramatically lower the cost of residential PV

Competitions

2008 Green Building Runner up

Contact

Joe Augenbraun
609 Gloucester Lane

Foster City, CA 94404
Please login to see email and phone information

Description

Solar hardware costs scale with volume and innovation, while installation costs do not. Because of this, installation will soon become the dominant cost of residential PV systems. The current trend is to lower installation cost by making small evolutionary changes to the existing process. Solar Red disrupts the residential and small installation ecosystem by cutting the cost of installation in half.

:}

:}

Mini nuclear power plant proposals – The BBC scooped the Guardian by 7 years

Wonder who will print this story in 7 more years?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1504564.stm

Scientists funded by Japan’s Atomic Energy Research Institute are developing a nuclear reactor so small that it would fit into the basement of a block of flats.

The reactor, known as the Rapid-L, was conceived of as a power source for colonies on the Moon, New Scientist magazine says. But the 200 kilowatt reactor measures only six metres (20 feet) by two metres (6.5 feet).It uses molten lithium-6 as a coolant in a system which the researchers hope will automatically shut down if it overheats.Planning trouble“In future it will be quite difficult to construct further large nuclear power plants because of site restrictions,” Mitsuru Kambe, head of the research team at Japan’s Central Research Institute of Electrical Power Industry (CRIEPI) told New Scientist.“To relieve peak loads in the future, I believe small, modular reactors located in urban areas such as Tokyo Bay will be effective,” he said.Conventional nuclear reactors use solid rods to control the rate at which the nuclear fuel releases energy and thereby control the temperature of the reactor.

Liquid solution

The rods absorb neutrons, the subatomic particles which keep the nuclear chain reaction going.

But they have to be lowered in and out of the reactor to control it. The Japanese researchers aim to make the process automatic by using molten lithium-6 instead.As the temperature rises in their reactor, the molten liquid expands and rises through tubes into the reactor core, absorbing neutrons and slowing the chain reaction to a safe rate.Mr Kambe was both optimistic and realistic about the future of his team’s work.“Rapid power plants could be used in developing countries where remote regions cannot be conveniently connected to the main grid,” he told the magazine, adding:“The success of such a reactor depends on the acceptance of the public, the electricity utilities and the government.”The reactor would still face the problems of waste transport and disposal associated with larger power stations.

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

Mini nuclear plants to

power 20,000 homes

£13m shed-size reactors will

be delivered by lorry 

  • guardian.co.uk, Sunday November 9 2008 00.01 GMT
  • The Observer, Sunday November 9 2008
  • Nuclear power plants smaller than a garden shed and able to power 20,000 homes will be on sale within five years, say scientists at Los Alamos, the US government laboratory which developed the first atomic bomb.

    The miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material, have no moving parts and will be nearly impossible to steal because they will be encased in concrete and buried underground.

    The US government has licensed the technology to Hyperion, a New Mexico-based company which said last week that it has taken its first firm orders and plans to start mass production within five years. ‘Our goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents a watt anywhere in the world,’ said John Deal, chief executive of Hyperion. ‘They will cost approximately $25m [£13m] each. For a community with 10,000 households, that is a very affordable $2,500 per home.’

    Deal claims to have more than 100 firm orders, largely from the oil and electricity industries, but says the company is also targeting developing countries and isolated communities. ‘It’s leapfrog technology,’ he said.

    The company plans to set up three factories to produce 4,000 plants between 2013 and 2023. ‘We already have a pipeline for 100 reactors, and we are taking our time to tool up to mass-produce this reactor.’

    The first confirmed order came from TES, a Czech infrastructure company specialising in water plants and power plants. ‘They ordered six units and optioned a further 12. We are very sure of their capability to purchase,’ said Deal. The first one, he said, would be installed in Romania. ‘We now have a six-year waiting list. We are in talks with developers in the Cayman Islands, Panama and the Bahamas.’

    The reactors, only a few metres in diameter, will be delivered on the back of a lorry to be buried underground. They must be refuelled every 7 to 10 years. Because the reactor is based on a 50-year-old design that has proved safe for students to use, few countries are expected to object to plants on their territory. An application to build the plants will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission next year

    :}
    :}

    No To 100 Nukes – Thanks for that.

    We waited breathlessly last night to find out if we would be building 50 nukes with a goal of 100. The answer NAH. Energy drenched America may have finally woken up.

    http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/happydays.htm

    [Music and Lyrics by J. Yellen and M. Ager]

    So long sad times
    Go long bad times
    We are rid of you at last

    Howdy gay times
    Cloudy gray times
    You are now a thing of the past

    Happy days are here again
    The skies above are clear again
    So let’s sing a song of cheer again
    Happy days are here again

    Altogether shout it now
    There’s no one
    Who can doubt it now
    So let’s tell the world about it now
    Happy days are here again

    Your cares and troubles are gone
    There’ll be no more from now on
    From now on …

    Happy days are here again
    The skies above are clear again
    So, Let’s sing a song of cheer again

    Happy times
    Happy nights
    Happy days
    Are here again!

    Contact NIEHS (NIH, DHHS)
    Children’s Privacy and Other Disclaimers
    NIEHS Sing-Along Index
    NIEHS Kids Page Main Index

    Witches And Sarah Palin Make For Crazy Energy Policy – Better give the kids their candy or it’s a nasty trick for you

    Witches are so cool. Feared because they were powerful woman who paid no mind to no man. But then some people fear them, well, because they are fearful all the time:

     http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080925_13_ANCH744416

    Palin once blessed to be free from ‘witchcraft’

    By GARANCE BURKE Associated Press Writer
    9/25/2008  9:41 AM

    ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A grainy YouTube video surfaced Wednesday showing Sarah Palin being blessed in her hometown church three years ago by a Kenyan pastor who prayed for her protection from “witchcraft” as she prepared to seek higher office.The video shows Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate, standing before Bishop Thomas Muthee in the pulpit of the Wasilla Assembly of God church, holding her hands open as he asked Jesus Christ to keep her safe from “every form of witchcraft.”“Come on, talk to God about this woman. We declare, save her from Satan,” Muthee said as two attendants placed their hands on Palin’s shoulders. “Make her way my God. Bring finances her way even for the campaign in the name of Jesus. … Use her to turn this nation the other way around.”Palin filed campaign papers a few months later, in October 2005, and was elected governor the next year.

    Palin does not say anything on the video and keeps her head bowed throughout the blessing. She was baptized at the church but stopped attending regularly in 2002

    Come on, talk to God about this woman. We declare, save her from Satan,” Muthee said as two attendants placed their hands on Palin’s shoulders. “Make her way my God. Bring finances her way even for the campaign in the name of Jesus. … Use her to turn this nation the other way around.”

    Palin filed campaign papers a few months later, in October 2005, and was elected governor the next year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj-on3kfWuE 
    :}

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/video-palin-shown-praying_n_128873.html

     Blumenthal, in addition to his on the scenes reporting, posts video of the sermon which Palin references (footage begins at 7:30). In it, the minister implores Jesus to protect Palin from “the spirit of witchcraft.” Earlier, he states, “We need God taking over our education system. If we have God in our schools, we will not have our kids being taught how to worship Buddha, how to worship Muhammad. We will not have in the curriculum witchcraft and sorcery.” He also preaches, “The other area is the media. We need believers in the media. We need God taking over the media in our lives.” 

     :}

    This stuff seems rather ho hum until you go from Halloween to the real world.

    🙂

    MINISTRY STUDENTS: Governor asked them to pray for troops, pipeline.

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”

    Palin asked the students to pray for the troops in Iraq and noted that her eldest son, Track, was expected to be deployed there.

    “Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”

    A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God’s Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

    Palin told graduating students of the church’s School of Ministry, “What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys.” As they preached the love of Jesus throughout Alaska, she said, she’d work to implement God’s will from the governor’s office, including creating jobs by building a pipeline to bring North Slope natural gas to North American markets.

    “God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,” she said.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhs-Faxi55o

    :}

    Now I know what you are thinking, many oil Executives have prayed and prayed that their pipelines got done on time and under budget. But that was so they didn’t lose any money. Sarah’s praying to get the pipelin to happen. Geez, I thought that was Congress and the EPA’s job. Happy Halloween!

    Oh and for a real witch:

     http://bizarrocomic.blogspot.com/

     biz_lesbianwitches_10-31-07_wb.jpg

    Dan he is funny, oh I mean damn – never mind

    :} 

    The Report Says We Can Be Done With Fossil Fuels In 80 Years – My question is do we have that much time?

    The answer is definitely NOT:

     http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn15043-2090-is-the-deadline-for-the-end-of-fossil-fuel-use.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

    World can halt fossil fuel use by 2090

    • 12:13 27 October 2008
    • NewScientist.com news service
    • New Scientist staff and Reuters

    The world could eliminate fossil fuel use by 2090, saving $18 trillion in future fuel costs and creating a $360 billion industry that provides half of the world’s electricity, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and environmental group Greenpeace said on Monday.

    The 210-page study [pdf] is one of few reports – even by lobby groups – to look in detail at how energy use would have to be overhauled to meet the toughest scenarios for curbing greenhouse gases outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    “Renewable energy could provide all global energy needs by 2090,” according to the study, entitled “Energy (R)evolution.” EREC represents renewable energy industries and trade and research associations in Europe.

    A more radical scenario could eliminate coal use by 2050 if new power generation plants shifted quickly to renewables.

    Solar power, biomass such as biofuels or wood, geothermal energy and wind could be the leading energies by 2090 in a shift from fossil fuels blamed by the IPCC for stoking global warming.

    The total energy investments until 2030, the main period studied, would come to $14.7 trillion, according to the study. By contrast, the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises rich nations, foresees energy investments of just $11.3 trillion to 2030, with a bigger stress on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with ex-US Vice President Al Gore, called Monday’s study “comprehensive and rigorous.”

    Dangerous change

    “Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” Pachauri wrote in a foreword to the report.

    EREC and Greenpeace said a big energy shift was needed to avoid “dangerous” climate change, defined by the European Union and many environmental groups as a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution.

    The report urged measures such as a phase-out of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “cap and trade” systems for greenhouse gas emissions, legally binging targets for renewable energies and tough efficiency standards for buildings and vehicles.

    The report said renewable energy markets were booming with turnover almost doubling in 2007 from 2006 to more than $70 billion. It said renewables could more than double their share of world energy supplies to 30% by 2030 and reach 50% by 2050.

    :}

    But it will only cost 17 trillion dollars:

    http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21375/1066/

     Sven Teske, with Greenpeace and co-author of the report, stated, “Unlike other energy scenarios that promote energy futures at the cost of the climate, our energy revolution scenario shows how to save money and maintain global economic development without fuelling catastrophic climate change.”Teske added, “All we need to kick start this plan is bold energy policy from world leaders.” [EREC]Teske concluded, “Strict efficiency standards make sound economic sense and dramatically slow down rising global energy demand. The energy saved in industrialised countries will make space for increased energy use in developing economies. With renewable energy growing four-fold not only in the electricity sector, but also in the heating and transport sectors, we can still cut the average carbon emissions per person from today?s four tonnes to around one tonne by 2050.” [EREC]

    In the foreword to the report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri wrote, “Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” [EREC]

    Dr. Pachauri, who is the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former-U.S. Vice President Al Gore,

     :}

    For more links:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49Q2I820081027