Subsidies For The Oil Companies – The Big Pass Through

As CES’ continues to dissect the State Journal Register’s “guest” OP-ED piece by Dave Sykuta bear in mind that he is just one of at least 50 industry flacks that have probably published the SAME piece in one of their state’s newspapers probably in or near a state Capital near you. These guys coordinate their efforts and if you don’t think there is a global oil conspiracy…THINK again.

** Taxes are the second biggest factor in gasoline prices.  The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents and Illinois adds 19 cents.  Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only nine states that charge a sales tax on gasoline and the only one I know that allows additional local gas and sales taxes.These extra taxes are a massive self-inflicted price increase of almost 24 cents per gallon in Springfield and even more in Chicago, where an  85-cent total gas tax is the highest in the United States. And remember, gas prices include the tax! Consumers’ gas price perception would be different if the sign that says “$3.35 a gallon” said “$262.5 plus tax” as every other consumer item is priced.  According to AAA, the difference between Illinois, with the fifth-highest price, and Missouri, with the fourth-lowest price, is all taxes! Illinois politicians don’t like to talk about taxes. I wonder why.

:}

Well guess who else doesn’t like to talk about taxes:

http://zfacts.com/p/348.html

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil

By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006

But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.

”The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. ”Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ”royalty relief” program.

 
  Oil-Company Profits The price-at-the pump is the sum of all the input costs plus, perhaps, some additional markup because of market power. We can tell if there’s market power by checking the price increases.Because there are 42 gallons / barrel, when the price of oil goes up by $10, say from $55 to $65, the price of gas should go up by $10/42 = 24¢ (popNote). It’s actually gone up faster than this, so we know oil companies are exercising some market power and passing through a “markup,” not just their actual costs.

:}

And if you don’t think that BIG Evil Oil doesn’t coordinate their efforts everyday, then go to this website and see for yourself:

 http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/afarg5.html

Does that sound like the editorial Sykuta “wrote” or should we say plagerized?

 Here are some of the programs you pay for:

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

  • Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
  • Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
  • Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
  • Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
  • Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
  • Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
  • Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
  • The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
  • Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
  • Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
  • Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

It’s easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry “probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country”, according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

:}

So remember, when the Politico’s says that your tax money is going to bridges and roads, think again! It’s really going to the Oil and Gas Companies.

:}

Nuclear Power – Grandma I want to build a nuclear powerplant but no will let me

Why would you want to build a Nuclear powerplant?

Because the world needs electricity and all the cool kids are doing it.

So you think building a Nuclear powerplant will make you cool?

Yah Grandma, they are huge, and shiny and they generate megawatts and they have big cooling towers and stuff!

Well how much clean water to they take to cool the reactor?

Oh hundrens of gazillions of gallons.

Well what are all the little fishes supposed to do when you take their water?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

You know that mining uranium creates lots of toxic waste. What would happen to that?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

You know that uranium is dangerous. What would you do with it when you were done playing with it?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

Well you know, you need to think about that before you start playing with Nuclear power right?

I guesssss Grandma but shucks?

Why don’t you go play outside and we will talk about it more after you think about it.

OK Grandma!

Give us a kiss..

GRANDMA..

Go play now.

:}

Australia has an active antinuclear movement even though though they have no Nuclear powerplants in operation they are a huge source of uranium through the 3 mines in operation. 

:}

http://www.antinuclear.net/

 aussie.jpg

Even the Aborigines know better than to mess around with some things.

Uranium Mining and Aboriginal People -by Vincent Forrester

I follow the culture of my people. We belong to the land. We are the caretakers for the land. Our lifetime on this earth is only a blink in time, so our lifetime is spent protecting and caring for this land for future generations………

…..I want to tell you how I feel about uranium and how the whole nuclear cycle affects our land, our lives, our traditions….The people who I believe to be among the worst affected by the nuclear cycle are my people, the Aboriginal owners of Australia.It is our land which white miners rip apart to extract the poisonous yellowcake, and it is on our land where they dump the polluted tailingsI

It is on Aboriginal land that the British, with support from the Australian government of the time, exploded deadly nuclear weapons, with no regard for our people, their land or their future.
And it is on Aboriginal land that the government is examining the possibility of dumping deadly radioactive waste in untried synthetic rock.

I say to you, when you consider your attitudes to Australian involvement in the uranium industry, that you think first about what you are doing to our people……….

……..what do Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land know of these dangers? Our people in Arnhem Land and throughout Australia are not sufficiently informed about the extent of damages occurring from uranium mining. Nor do we know the extent to which they are being exposed to radiation in the atmosphere. Nor do we know the extent of contamination already present in the food chain.
There is simply no proper information given to Aboriginal people living in the area about the effects of uranium mining on the land. The monitoring scientists have made no attempt to interpret their findings to the affected Aboriginal people………..”

:}

But then there is the mining end of it:

Taxpayers cut BHP fuel bills CATHY ALEXANDER (AAP), CANBERRA The Advertiser 06 May 2008 – “State TAXPAYERS will subsidise the fuel bill of mining giant BHP Billiton by more than $100 million to help it work the world’s largest uranium deposit, a conservation group claims. State TAXPAYERS will subsidise the fuel bill of mining giant BHP Billiton by more than $100 million to help it work the world’s largest uranium deposit, a conservation group claims. ….

……………The foundation estimates the subsidy will be worth $29 million a year to BHP to expand Olympic Dam, where the company also mines the world’s fourth largest remaining copper deposit. “BHP does not need you and me to subsidise their diesel,” ACF executive director Don Henry said……………

…………The subsidy would be worth $117 million over the life of the study, ACF said.
Mr Henry said the fuel tax credits scheme would cost the Government $4.9 billion a year.
He has called on the Government to scrap the subsidy for the mining and transport sectors in next week’s Budget although it should be retained for farmers.
The money saved could be redirected to public transport

:}

And it is pretty ugly just in its own right:

olympic-dam.jpg

Herald Sun Christopher Russell and Nick Henderson May 02, 2008 – “BHP Billiton and the South Australian Government have been forced to scotch rumours of major doubts and delays over the Olympic Dam expansion.
The company said it was on schedule with its planning for the expansion of the copper-gold-uranium mine. Planning was more complicated than first anticipated…………

……….The rumours – reported on a Sydney website and then raised by SA Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith on ABC radio yesterday – said the project was plagued by problems and cost blowouts.

These included that the mine might not go ahead as an open-cut but would only be an expanded underground operation.

The rumours said costs of the pre-feasibility study, under which the company is considering all its options, had increased substantially and that BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers had refused to meet the extra costs……………………………..”.

:}

But then there are these people as well….

Australian antinuclear sites

People for a Nuclear Free Australia www.nuclearfree.com.au

Nuclear Free Australia www.nukefreeaus.org

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom www.wilpf.org.au

CODEPINK -Women for Peace http://home.vicnet.net.au/~codepink/

Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA www.anawa.org,au

NoNukes South Australia www.geocities.com/nonukesa

Nuclear Free Queensland www.nuclearfreequeensland

NORTHERN TERRITORY NEWS http://www.ntnews.info/

The Wilderness Society http://nuclear.wilderness.org.au/

Arid Lands Environment Centre www.alec.org.au

Sutherland Shire Environment Centre NSW http://www.ssec.org.au/

Canberra Region Antinuclear Campaign www.nonukescanberra.org

Independent media Pete’s Intelligence Blog spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

:}

Facts on all aspects of the nuclear industry www.energyscience.org.au

www.greenpeace.org/australia

Friends of the Earth www.foe.org.au

The Sustainable Energy and AntiUranium Service http://www.sea-us.org.au/

Medical Association for the Prevention of War www.mapw.org.au

Jim Green. Nuclear and Environmental research www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/

Opposing US/Australia military operations in Australia arranged in secrecy

www.peaceconvergence.com

:}

Nuclear Power – Daddy can I build a nuclear power plant?

Daddy can I build a nuclear power plant? Germany, China and Abu Dubai are.

Who?

Germany, China and Abu Dubai. They are cool kids at school. I want to be like them.

Well, I suppose….Did you ask your mother?

Yes I did.

Well I suppose…Wait – What did she say?

uhm atm eh duh

What did she say?

She said I cudnt?

You could not young man, speak up!

Well its not fair. She is always saying NO to me!

Why did she say no to you son?

She said it was dangerous and stuff. She always says that.

Yah and she is always right. Now go outside and play! You tried to con me and I don’t appreciate it!

Daaad..

Do not make me put this paper down young man…NOW go out side and play…

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0330-03.htm

Germany’s Greens Disappoint the Anti-Nuclear Movement

BERLIN – Since they joined the federal government, Germany’s Greens have proved a bitter disappointment to the country’s anti-nuclear movement from where it drew much of its original support.

Opposition to atomic power, widely regarded by ordinary people in Germany as an unacceptably dangerous and unsustainable form of energy, has been fundamental to the Greens’ political base.

This week’s huge confrontation between anti-nuclear militants and the forces of the state over a transport of highly radioactive waste across the country underlines the cleft which has now opened up between the Greens’ leadership and that base.

“Atomic state equals police state,” a common slogan of the militants read.

A central plank of the Greens’s coalition agreement with the Social Democrats of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder after the leftwing general election victory of 1998 was a commitment to negotiate a nuclear energy phase-out.

The turning point came last June when, after difficult negotiations, the government reached a compromise deal with the power companies for a phase-out which should see the last atomic plant closed around 2021.

The problem is that the phase-out is both vague and far in the future, as it is based on an average working life of Germany’s 19 atomic power stations of 32 years, and names no final date for the closure of the last of them.

The deal, negotiated by Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, also only provides for an end to the fiercely opposed cross-country convoys of nuclear waste from Germany’s power stations in 2005.

The disappointment with the Greens’ leaders goes beyond a section of the urban middle-class or the young hippie-like fringe from which many of the demonstrators against the “Castor” waste containers came.

It includes people of the Elbe valley region of Lower Saxony whose gentle, wooded countryside has been blighted by the establishment of the Gorleben dump for nuclear waste and the resultant repeated mass confrontations 

:}

And then there are these folks:

http://www.castor.de/12english.html

“Illegal” German nuclear funding challenged

(Translated by Diet Simon)German nuclear opponents criticise the continued government funding of nuclear energy although it is government policy to stop it.They allege that funding is channelled “through the back door” via the European Community, which is still putting billions of euros into helping the nuclear industry.Two groups fighting storage of nuclear waste in their areas say a congress on future energies in the Ruhr city of Essen on 19 February “made frighteningly clear the ambitious nuclear energy targets of the North-Rhine Westphalian government.“A forum on innovative developments in nuclear technology in North-Rhine Westphalia heard that nuclear energy promotion funding in the state flows to it via the detour of the European Community.”The most populous German state has a conservative government formed by the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) of federal chancellor, Angela Merkel.At national level there is an increasingly fractious coalition government between the CDU and Social Democrats. The Social Democrats brought into the coalition the decision to drop nuclear power made when they formed the previous government.The CDU, backed by most industries, has always resisted giving up nuclear power and is trying in various ways to keep it going.

North-Rhine Wesphalia contains many nuclear installations, including Germany’s only uranium enrichment plant at Gronau and a waste dump at Ahaus, both near the Dutch border and owned by power companies.

The Ahaus opponents and the opponents to dumping at the village of Gorleben in north Germany say in a joint statement that a Dr. Werner Lensa of Jülich Research Centre (near Cologne) told the conference about the development aims for future nuclear power stations.

:}

And they have a real cool anti-nuke sysmbol:

what-is-x.gif
:}

Nuclear Power – Mom all my friends are doing it, why can’t I

All my friends have nukes and they are building more. How come I can’t have one? Huh mom, Huh?

Lats see:

They are expensive,

They are dangerous,

They generate waste that is toxic for 1,000’s of years,

It is an inappropriate use of technology,

They are not sustainable,

And I said no!

But Moooom Everyone’s doing it?

I said NO!

Now go outside and PLAY!

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=english&page=index

Réseau “SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE “

Network phasing out the nuclear age

 

An alliance of 821 French organisations

Download our presentation document

If you are a group, please join us!

GATHERING TOGETHER TO CREATE A NUCLEAR-FREE FUTURE

The Network ‘SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE’ is currently the main French antinuclear coalition, with a membership of 821 organizations and 18986 individual subscribers.
It is completely independent, entirely funded by donations and the subscriptions from its members.

Since 1997, 821 organizations have joined our Network “Sortir du nucléaire”.

Our mission is to unite everyone concerned with phasing out nuclear power.

Only  by combining our efforts can we build up enough strength to achieve concrete results.

Our goal is to convince France to phase out nuclear power generation by  :

  •  rethinking its energy policy
  •  improving the efficiency of electricity use
  •  developing alternative and sustainable generation scenarios.

The Network SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE :

  • supports actions for phasing out nuclear power, whether local, national or international,
  • launches petition and information campaigns,
  • is a resource center for nuclear power and sustainable alternatives : information, documents, access to experts and lecturers,
  • informs the public about the dangers of nuclear power and solutions for phasing it out thanks to its website, its quarterly magazine Sortir du Nucléaire and the publication of thematic documents aimed at the general public,
  • has a PR policy and close contact with the media for nuclear-related issues,
  • aims to inform elected representatives, local decision-makers, trade-unions, associations about all nuclear related issues.

Why phase out nuclear power ?

  • A nuclear accident provokes countless victims and leaves vast tracts of land uninhabitable for thousands of years. Is such risk morally permissible ?
  • There exists no possibility of rendering nuclear waste harmless. It remains a hazard for tens of thousands of years and more.
  • The real cost of nuclear power is very high if all the expenses are honestly taken into account : public scientific research, decommissioning of nuclear power facilities, endless management of nuclear waste …
    Part of the radioactive material produced in nuclear reactors has the potential and is used for hostile military use and for atomic bombs.
  • It may be that nuclear power contributes only small amount of greenhouse gases, but its waste contaminates the earth for millions of years. There is no choosing the lesser of two evils. The goal of a responsible, sustainable energy policy should be : no to nuclear, no to greenhouse gases.
  • The large component of nuclear energy in French power generation is an exception : we are the only country in the world to make such a confident bet on nuclear power. Neighbouring countries such as Italy, Germany, Belgium have already chosen to phase out nuclear power. Therefore it is also possible to do so in France.

How can we phase out nuclear

power ?

 :}The Answer to that is very carefully

Then there are all these folks:

http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/frames7.htm

British Columbia shuts door on uranium projects

25 APR’08, VANCOUVER–British Columbia has slapped an official moratorium on uranium exploration and development in the province, reinforcing a long-standing informal ban on the nuclear fuel and dashing the hopes of companies that hoped to take advantage of soaring prices for the commodity. The ban, announced yesterday, makes B.C. a no-go zone for uranium and confirms a moratorium put in place in 1980 by a previous government responding to anti-nuclear sentiment in the province (more from The Globe and Mail)

Navajo Challenge Uranium Mining Permit on Tribal Lands

SANTA FE, New Mexico, April 19, 2008 (ENS)–For the first time in history, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, will be challenged in federal appeals court for its approval of a source materials license for an in situ leach uranium mine. The Navajo communities of Crownpoint and Church Rock, New Mexico will fight the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the permitted company, Hydro Resources, Inc., demanding that they stay off Navajo lands in New Mexico… The communities’ case is being presented with the assistance of the community group Eastern Navajo Dine against Uranium Mining, or ENDAUM, and [2006 Nuclear-Free Future Award recipient] Southwest Research and Information Center (more from Environment News Service)

Inuit halt Aurora in Labrador

9 APR.’08, TORONTO–Aurora Energy Resources Inc.’s hopes of extracting uranium in Labrador were dealt a crippling blow after Inuit in the region imposed a three- year moratorium on uranium mining. The Nunatsiavut government voted 8-7 in favour of the ban which will prevent Aurora or any other mining firm from producing the radioactive metal until at least 2011. Shares of Vancouver-based Aurora plunged almost 34 per cent in response to the vote results, which became effective immediately (more from Andy Hoffman in the Globe and Mail)

:}

:}

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

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

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

End the nuclear age

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:}

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

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

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

http://www.nirs.org/

 generaltop.jpg

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

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

Stop Import of Radioactive Waste!

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

:}

Nuclear Power Is The Future – Probably not…

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

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

Questioning Nuclear Power’s

Ability

To Forestall Global Warming

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or maybe the the Australian Monthly Review?

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

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

:}
:}

A Human Powered Car – What a concept!

Unfortunately I found this out initially from a website that advertises fraud. They are very happy about all those “run your car on WATER Scams”, so happy that they pick the TOP 3 for you. These creeps should be in jail. Another sad thing is that they are WAY better than me at finding cool energy technology. For that reason alone I WILL not tell you their website, but I will post their text from last year.

The Human Powered Car

August 10th, 2007

Human Car Seattle company HumanCar®, founded by Charles S. Greenwood PE, has been developing human powered vehicles for over 30 years. Their showcase creation is the human car, a 4-wheel, 4-passenger vehicle that can achieve remarkable speeds of 60+ mph! Unfortunately the car is not available to the public, the orginal prototype cost $250,000. The stated goal of the project is to develop efficient transportation alternatives that inspire a “sense of an evolving socioeconomical model”. According to HumanCar®, “The time is drawing near when all of the elements – manufacturing, marketing, and product optimization – come together in a cost effective and aesthetically pleasing form.”

For the reel deal, you can go here though I left the link above hot too:

http://www.humancar.com/

 Normally I would post chucks of their website. But it’s all done in Adobe Flash and PDF advanced file types that I can not copy. Fortunately they have a press release so I hope to do something with that.

:}

OKOK due to technival difficulties which transcend the time I have spent on this…NONE of the Press materials came through unscarred. It was transmitted as a ZIP file. I can’t even give you a real address because there is no “contact us” thingy…Maybe these guys aren’t so bright after all…While you wait here are 2 You Tubes about it which are basically the same…one is longer than the other..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=369463415941480101

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xp-923G8i4

Finally something by the inventor himself:

Charles Greenwood P.E. Inventor and Engineer of HumanCar® Inc welcomes you to join us for the launch of the Imagine™ LMV HumanCar®.

The Imagine™ LMV is rocking the world. Get involved. Imagine™ Electric Hybrid Pre-Order Information – The HumanCar® Imagine™ features an exoskeletal safety cage chassis, dual electric motors, variable human power input, Body-Steering™ patented chassis and SyncGuideway™ compatibility as standard equipment. It retails for $15k base. Feel free to email us here for a free pre-order number.

First 100 vehicles “Launch Series” Pre-Orders accepted now. Limited production prototype models are currently in build cycles. We are 6 to 12 months out from scale delivery. (HumanCar Inc. makes three models- the FM4 “Troublemaker”, The Rod, a 10 second 189-mph hybrid race car and the Imagine™ the revolutionary electric/human hybrid)

 

HumanCar® Inc. developing international appeal and The Great Change.

HumanCar vehicles may be used to generate power or transport people.

Deep Forest OREGON, USA: The evolutionary HumanCar® LMV Imagine™ street-legal dual electric motor/human hybrid vehicle in production, ” represents the entry point to the great change” says Chuck Greenwood CEO of HumanCar Inc. ” people globally will be able to solve critical resource problems locally and create individual efforts to reduce and regenerate their own power.”
He goes on to say that SBS Communications of Seoul just shot a documentary at a HumanCar R/D Center. “They were interested in the spiritual aspect and understood when the inventor and engineer of the project, my father Charles Samuel Greenwood, described how pure chi energy is charged to the heart chakra, it was magical. Thus is the nature of the project. The concept that one four-passenger human power interface can generate well over 2k Watts, enough to power a home or help maintain a charge for transportation is magical. The fun part is, it’s a reality” Mr. Greenwood chimes “As a part of the release this February we wanted to supply a FAQ that will answer new followers to the project’s questions.”
An Interview with Mr. Charles Samuel Greenwood P.E. inventor of the HumanCar.
How many bicycles were used to make the FM-4?
 
No Bicycle parts are used in the FM-4.
Where are the pedals?
 

The TWASTA Patent (Team Work and Strength Training Apparatus) defines a mobile – or stationery – full body work out device, for multiple participants. There are no pedals.
How does it handle?
 
BodySteer utilizes more degrees of freedom than leaning – like riding a motorcycle. High speed handling is critical to the safe performance of any vehicle. Why make a 200 MPH chassis/suspension system? Why not? BodySteer is at least as effective as wheel steering – some would say much more effective.
Then why have both front occupants steer?
 
Part of the fun of teamwork is to share tasks. Think of it as Pilot and Co-Pilot. Either can control the vehicle, but there is an exotic sensory input when you feel the others sharing the activity. Dominant/Submissive arrangements work, and so does real-time cooperation.
Do you need a full team?
 
Three people works quite well. Of course, with one or two people you are probably going to want auxiliary power.
Can you tell who is slacking and who is jacking?
 
Instantly.
Why does the FM-4 prototype not have a motor on it?

(Don’t answer that question. Make them go to the site and see.)

We’re hot rod builders, dirt bike riders, bicycling enthusiasts, and we love all kind of sports, with or without machines, with or without electronics. We love healthy people. You and your family will power yourselves down to the store and back. Then watch for some real exciting radical hardware.
____________________XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX______________________
Contact:
HumanCar Inc.
206 280 4772 mobile
http://www.humancar.com/
thehumancar@gmail.com

:}


 

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

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

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

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

 sb50.gif

WORLD SOLAR ENERGY NEWS HEADLINES 


Latest News….


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

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

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

moduleprices08-5.gif 

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

WEEKLY NEWSLETTER:

NBuzz

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

:

EXPO AT SOLARBUZZ.COM
 Find Solar Companies Worldwide

  SITE NAVIGATION      
 MEDIA
SITE SEARCH

}

I Feel Lucky-About Energy Efficiency

This is supposed to be some exciting feature of Google, but its turning out to be just plain boring. I typed in Energy Efficiency and clicked that lucky button. This is what I got:

http://www.nscorp.com/nscportal/nscorp/redirect.html

NS Police Emergency Contact: 800-453-2530
Who to Call
Register for accessNS

  • Customers
  • Investors
  • Media
  • Community
  • Employees
  • Job Seekers

This page either no longer exists or has moved.

:}

That’s right Choochoo Trains. Freight hauling trains at that.

When you go to the home page:

http://www.nscorp.com/nscportal/nscorp/

train.bmp

Of course I just had to click on the NS and the Environment switch with fear and trepidation:

 http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/future/index.html

In the adress you can see The Future:

 hdr_page1.jpg

Norfolk Southern is committed to responsible transportation through:

Environmental Partnerships Recycle / Reuse Programs /Alternate Materials /Materials Management /Hazardous Materials Shipping

The Green Machine
    Carbon Footprint Analyzer

Click here to see how shipping freight by rail reduces your carbon footprint.

 Please note the first web link above is “hot”, and the others are not. It’s kind of a cool site in the sense of when you point at the rest of the “enviro ticks” they automatically pop up on the adjacent screen. The carbon footprint thingy is “hot” too.

 

Well it’s not exactly passenger Light Rail….

:}

Another View Of Corn Ethanol As An Automobile Source – Very bad idea

Study: Ethanol use could worsen global warming


By H. JOSEF HEBERT

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS____________

WASHINGTON — The wide­spread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace be­cause of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into ac­count almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.

“Using good cropland to ex­pand biofuels will probably exac­erbate global wanning,” con­cludes the study published in Sci­ence magazine.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pres­sure to produce biofuels will in­creasingly “plow up more forest or grasslands,” releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decom­position or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to bio­fuels, the study said.

The Renewable Fuels Associa­tion, which represents ethanol producers, called the re­searchers’ view of land-use changes “simplistic” and said the study “fails to put the issue in context.”

“Assigning the blame for rain­forest deforestation and grass­land conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels in­dustry ignores key factors that play a greater role,” said Bob Dinneen, the association’s presi­dent.

There has been a rush to de­veloping biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in De­cember that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.


The new “green” fuel, whether made from corn or other feed­stocks, has been widely promot­ed — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will re­place.

During the recent congres­sional debate over energy legis­lation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater ben­efit of 70 percent less emissions.

The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a num­ber of other institutions main­tains that these analyses “were one-sided” and counted the car­bon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.

“The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions,” said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Pub­lic and International Affairs and lead author of the study.

The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace crop­lands and other carbon-absorb­ing lands, would result in 50 per­cent more greenhouse gas emis­sions, the researchers concluded.

Not all ethanol would be af­fected by the land-use changes, the study said.

“We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste prod­ucts” such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. “And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don’t require too much too fast. Right now we’re making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels.”

:}

But don’t let me decide for you….Check out the raging debate:

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/index.htm

www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm

www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

www.usnews.com/articles/business/car-reviews/2008/01/11/cornethanol.html

www.feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/ethanol-oped.htm

www.petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II

www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

:}