Community Energy Systems

Censys.org

Community Energy Systems

Category Archives: natural gas

Residential Energy Audits – You have to start somewhere

Posted on by
Reply

Anytime is a good time to check out your domicile for energy consumption. Much of this can be simpler than people let on. Yes, there are differences between renters and homeowners. I think that everyone should do it EVEN if you do not pay your own bills. Maybe especially if you do not pay your bills. Somebody does. The point is that ALL energy is valuable if you are concerned about the health of the planet. Americans are energy hogs that need to go on a diet. There are websites that will help you do an audit. Your utility will probably do an audit for a small fee. There is even software out there that will do the audit and keep track of your energy use afterwards so you can see the effects of you energy saving efforts. I will cover all of that.

The first step is getting vary familiar with you energy environment and this is as simple as a piece of paper and a slender candle. Step one is to make a complete list of the energy using devices. This includes your furnace, your air conditioner, your major appliance, and even some minor appliances. On that paper write down the age of each appliance, the condition of each appliance and your guess as to how much of your energy load that device consumes. Please check the furnace and the air conditioning filters, especially if you just moved in. They need to be clean and that could be your first job.

http://www.fypower.org/res/energyaudit/diy.html

Do-It-Yourself Home Energy Audit

You can easily conduct a home energy audit yourself. With a simple but diligent walk-through, you can spot many problems in any type of house.

When auditing your home, keep a checklist of areas you have inspected and problems you found. This list will help you prioritize your energy efficiency upgrades.

The following text comes from “A Consumer’s Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,” which is at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website.

Heating & Cooling Equipment

Inspect heating and cooling equipment annually, or as recommended by the manufacturer. If you have a forced-air furnace, check your filters and replace them as needed. Generally, you should change them about once every month or two, especially during periods of high usage. Have a professional check and clean your equipment once a year.

Replace Old Equipment

Furnace

If the unit is more than 15 years old, you should consider replacing your system with one of the newer, energy-efficient units. A new unit would greatly reduce your energy consumption, especially if the existing equipment is in poor condition. Check your ductwork for dirt streaks, especially near seams. These indicate air leaks, and they should be sealed with a duct mastic. Insulate any ducts or pipes that travel through unheated spaces. An insulation R-value of 6 is the recommended minimum.

:}

There are many places on the web that can help you with this.

http://www.diynetwork.com/topics/energy-saving/index.html

Here is a tip that they won’t tell you. Call your HVAC and Appliance Dealer and ask them questions. If you don’t have an HVAC person and a local appliance dealer that you can trust, find one. You need to know this stuff in case of an emergency. If you are a renter ask your landlord who they use and let them know you are interested in saving energy. They should appreciate that. Once you determine who they are (ask for friends recommendations, compare prices etc.) then call them and ask them about your equipment and energy savings differences between what you have and what you could have. Also ask them about percentages of usage between your different equipment.

:}

If you live in Springfield and you want an audit done for you CWLP offers one cheap and if you follow their recommendations they will rebate the cost.

http://www.cwlp.com/energy_services/ESO_services_programs/home_energy_audit.htm

:}

What A Year For Energy And Related Fields – Cash for Clunkers, Caulk for Clunkers

Posted on by
Reply

Everywhere you look there are things a poppin.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24280/page1/

The Year in Energy

Liquid batteries, giant lasers, and vast new reserves of natural gas highlight the fundamental energy advances of the past 12 months.

By Kevin Bullis

Monday, December 28, 2009

With many renewable energy companies facing hard financial times (“Weeding Out Solar Companies“), a lot of the big energy news this year was coming out of Washington, DC, with massive federal stimulus funding for batteries and renewable energy and programs such as Energy Frontier Research Centers and Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (“A Year of Stimulus for High Tech“).

Credit: Roy Ritchie

But there was still plenty of action outside the beltway, both in the United States and around the world. One of the most dramatic developments (“Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map“) was the rush to exploit a vast new resource; new drilling technologies have made it possible to economically recover natural gas from shale deposits scattered throughout the country, including in Texas and parts of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Advances in drilling technology have increased available natural gas by 39 percent, according to an estimate released in June. The relatively clean-burning fuel could cut greenhouse gas emissions by becoming a substitute for coal. Natural gas might even provide an alternative to petroleum in transportation, especially for buses and taxis–if only policymakers could take advantage of the new opportunity.

Meanwhile a number of technologies promise to cut down on emissions from coal plants. Feeding heat from the sun into coal plants could at once increase the amount of power that can be generated from a given amount of coal and reduce the cost of solar power (“Mixing Solar with Coal to Cut Costs“). And technology for capturing carbon dioxide (“Scrubbing CO2 Cheaply“) and storing it (“An Ocean Trap for Carbon Dioxide“) is finally emerging from the lab and small-scale projects into larger demonstrations at power plants, even while researchers explore potentially cheaper carbon-capture techniques (“Using Rust to Capture CO2 from Coal Plants“).

:}

I hate to Post The Whole Thing, but it’s so good.

This year was also the year of the smart grid, as numerous test projects for improving the reliability of the grid and enabling the use of large amounts of renewable energy got underway (“Technology Overview: Intelligent Electricity“). The smart grid will be enabled by key advances, such as superconductors for high-energy transmission lines (“Superconductors to Wire a Smarter Grid“) and smart networks being developed by companies such as GE (“Q&A: Mark Little, Head of GE Global Research“).

Cellulosic ethanol–made from biomass such as grass rather than corn grain–moved closer to commercialization, with announcements of demonstration plant openings (“Commercializing Garbage to Ethanol“) and scientific breakthroughs that could make the process cheaper (“Cellulosic Ethanol on the Cheap“). But at the same time, a number of companies are moving beyond cellulosic ethanol to the production of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel from biomass–fuels that can be used much more readily in existing infrastructure and in existing vehicles. Exxon-Mobil announced substantial investments in algae-based fuels (“Big Oil Turns to Algae“). Remarkably, one startup declared its process–based on synthetic genomics and algae–could allow biofuels to replace all of transportation fuels without overwhelming farmland (“A Biofuel Process to Replace All Fossil Fuels“).

:}

So? It’s the end of the year – sue me…

Still, most people think biofuels will only supply a fraction of our transportation needs (“Briefing: Transportation“). To eliminate carbon emissions and drastically curtail petroleum consumption will require plug-in hybrids (“Driving the Volt“) and other electricity-powered vehicles (“Nissan’s Leaf: Charged with Information“). Advances that could double (or more) the energy capacity of batteries and lower their costs could one day make such vehicles affordable to the masses. These include new formulations such as lithium-sulfur batteries (“Revisiting Lithium-Sulfur Batteries“), metal-air batteries (“High-Energy Batteries Coming to Market“) such as lithium-air batteries (“IBM Invests in Battery Research“), and batteries that rely on nanowires and silicon (“More Energy in Batteries“). A novel concept for super-fast charge stations at bus stops could make electric buses practical (“Next Stop: Ultracapacitor Buses“).

Getting the electricity to charge these vehicles–without releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide–could be made easier by a number of advances this year. A new liquid battery could cheaply store energy from wind turbines and solar panels for use when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing (“TR10: Liquid Battery“), making it practical to rely on large amounts of renewable electricity. Vast arrays of mirrors (“Solar Thermal Heats Up“) are being assembled in the desert to convert solar heat into electricity, and photovoltaic solar farms for converting light directly into electricity (“Chasing the Sun“) are getting a boost from the federal stimulus money. And researchers are finding ways to increase the efficiency of solar cells (“More Efficient, and Cheaper, Solar Cells“) and are discovering new photovoltaic materials to make solar power cheaper (“Mining Fool’s Gold for Solar“). And although progress on nuclear power is moving slowly, some advances on the horizon could help this low-carbon source replace fossil fuels (“TR10: Traveling-Wave Reactor“). Researchers even fired up the world’s largest laser system–one that’s the size of a football stadium–for experiments that could lead to a new form of fusion (“Igniting Fusion“).

Last, and almost certainly least, researchers have decided to look beyond the conventional sources of renewable energy–solar, wind, and waves–to hamsters. Researchers at Georgia Tech fitted the rodents with zinc-oxide nanowire jackets (“Harnessing Hamster Power with a Nanogenerator“), and watched as they generated an electrical current while scratching themselves and running on a wheel. See a video of the powerful hamsters here.

:}

Kevin Bullis is a journalistic GOD

http://www.shinygun.com/story.php?id=128

:}

Oil Bubble – No way! There would have to be a Market in Oil for there to be a Bubble

Posted on by
Reply

There is no such thing as supply and demand in the liquid carbon fuel markets so it is tough to argue that there was a “Bubble” per se in the run up to 140 $$$ oil. For instance, oil spikes and gas hikes are being blamed on a “weak dollar” but in fact should be attributed to the fact that 2 major refineries in the US have been shut down and a 1000 workers laid off. In the case of the oil spike, speculators clearly ran up the price. Nearly 25% of the oil mysteriously “disappeared” from the market, only to reappear as the market fell. Those are the classic “finger prints” of a speculator driven rip off. But some people want to fog the headlights with argle bargle.

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161551563

An oil bubble

Mary King

Monday, November 2nd 2009

Following on last week’s topic, some have suggested that maybe, like the housing bubble in the US, the spike in oil prices and their subsequent collapse could have been an oil price bubble that also pulled up the prices of natural gas.

First, we should examine the phenomena that govern the life cycle of the economic bubble-its start, growth and eventual collapse. There is no consensus on what causes a bubble. Further, one view is that a bubble can only be identified after it has manifested itself in all of its stages. It is not clear-cut since even now after the collapse of oil prices there are still questions as to whether there was an oil economic bubble. (Did we have a housing bubble?).

One thesis is that high market liquidity is necessary, though not a sufficient condition for its start. This encourages people to invest in a particular asset both to preserve the value of their money in the face of inflation, but also to sometimes sell at a higher rate later to make, as it were, a killing.

What was of particular concern in the US housing bubble is that people were persuaded to enter into mortgages that they could not really afford while the prices of the assets were rising. High liquidity encourages mark-up inflation across the board and investing in a bubble suggests that such activities may also be seen as hedges against headline inflation.

At the peak of the bubble the price fetched by the asset is far greater than the real market value, even to produce it from scratch. When the bubble bursts, prices fall and many are left with an asset, say, houses, for which they hold inverted mortgages whose values are far in excess of what the asset is worth.

Also, the mortgagee may not be able to service these assets and we have heard stories of people returning the keys of houses to the banks and walking away in the aftermath of a bubble. Looking back at the investment frenzy of the bubble many commentators have remarked on the herd instinct of the investors -more like a stampede as the herd races towards a cliff.

Last week’s article demonstrated that because of the absolute elasticity of the supply of paper-oil on the futures market, this market on its own, without reference to the economic fundamentals of the physical-oil market, cannot support a bubble. Therefore, the evidence, if any exists, has to be sought in the physical market.

In order for speculators to influence the trend price of physical-oil, futures and index investors have to continue to buy large quantities of physical-oil and hold these quantities off-market. There is no evidence that this occurred and if it did it would have to be immense quantities to manipulate a worldwide physical market as large as the present crude oil market.

Yet because of Peak Oil a bubble in oil prices could be established. Oil inventories were not excessive and any increase that there was can be explained away by the fact that oil use, particularly in China and India, also increased, impacting positively on the associated inventories.

Another test for an oil bubble (Stuart Sandiford in the Oil Drum, “Is Oil in a Price Bubble”) is the rate at which the asset price increased and if this was faster than exponential growth a bubble is in the making.

:}

dot dot dot (as they say)

If one were to examine the depreciation of the US dollar (the currency in which oil/gas prices are quoted) then with the US dollar now pegged at 1.09 Euros, the lowest it has been for seven months, it is clear that oil price adjustment is in part related to producers trying to counteract the depreciating US dollar and (temporary) stockpiling.

As the US dollar depreciates the TT dollar (tied to it) also depreciates, compounding its local depreciation against the US dollar. Thus our foreign revenues will reflect this US dollar depreciation, stockpiling and the resulting price volatility.

maryking@tstt.net.tt

:}

:}

Peak Oil To The Oil And Gas Crowd Is Like Turds In The Punch Bowl

Posted on by
Reply

Yup, they don’t like it much:

http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20091014/OPINION/910139986/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062

The fallacy of peak oil

By Kelly Sloan
THE RIGHT WORD

The onset of this week in Denver has been witness to a conference hosted by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, a collection of hand-wringers, theorists, and computer-modelers (co-founded, incidentally, by none other than Randy Udall, brother of U.S. Senator Mark Udall), who subscribe to the proposition that the world has reached, or will soon reach, the point of maximum oil production. This historic juncture, the theory asserts, will serve to signal the beginning of the end of the fossil-fueled society, as worldwide demand transcends supply, resulting in a steady, irreversible decline in oil production, terminating at the moment when the very last thimbleful of crude is cajoled out of the ground.

Like virtually all successful fallacies, this one incorporates a large measure of truth; as a finite commodity, the world oil supply will, eventually, be exhausted. Insofar as this is the case, the theory is valid — all other factors remaining fixed, there WILL come a point in time where demand outstrips supply, and production thereby enters a terminal decline phase. The question, of course, is WHEN this will occur.

The most strident peak-oilers postulate that the date is imminent; indeed, many say it has already come and gone. The problem with their reasoning is best illustrated through an example from economic history.

In 1803, Thomas Robert Malthus presented the second edition of his “Essay on the Principle of Population.” In it, he laid out his theory that the rate of population growth would outpace the rate of increase in the food supply. He predicted that famine would ravage the earth in short order.

What Malthus forgot to consider was the role of technological advances in the food production industry. The Agricultural revolution spurred by improved tools, seeds and techniques, enabled many more people to be fed by the labor of many fewer people (and on less acreage).

In a similar vein, the proponents of peak oil tend to overlook some key factors: advances in drilling, exploration, production, and conveyance of oil and natural gas have served to make available sources which as little as a decade ago were considered unrecoverable, and hence not included on peak prediction spreadsheets. Horizontal and directional drilling capabilities, breakthroughs in well logging and evaluation technologies, and advances in production techniques serve as a few examples of innovations which have increased accessibility to, and improved recovery of, hitherto unobtainable resources.

Also conveniently ignored in the petro-doomsday scenarios, are the roles played by unconventional sources, such as oil sand, oil shale, and tight gas formations. For instance, Canada’s oil sands, which at last count hold more than 170 billion barrels of recoverable oil located in northern Alberta, were thought, 40 years ago, to be too expensive and technologically prohibitive to produce on a widespread, commercial scale. Today, oil sands production, both through mining, and in situ (in place) production, using modern techniques such as Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage, accounts for nearly 10 percent of U.S. oil imports, or half of Canadian oil exports. And conservative estimates place the number of recoverable barrels in our own oil shale at between 500 billion and 1.1 trillion (with a ‘T’). To put that in perspective, consider that the lower number represents roughly triple the proven resources in the Middle East.

:}

I think you get the idea…but apologists for the renewable industry? Wow I never would have guessed that.

:}

T. Boone Pickens Talks But Soros Walks –

Posted on by
Reply

This one said this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=abOXC_XubeyU

Soros to Invest $1 Billion in Clean Energy, Form Advisory Group

By Katherine Burton and Jim Efstathiou Jr.

Oct. 12 (Bloomberg) — Billionaire George Soros, looking to address the “political problem” of climate change, said he will invest $1 billion in clean-energy technology and donate $100 million to an environmental advisory group to aid policymakers.

Soros, the founder of hedge fund Soros Fund Management LLC, announced the investment in Copenhagen on Oct. 10 at a meeting on climate change sponsored by Project Syndicate. The group is an international association made up of 430 newspapers from 150 countries.

“I want to apply rather stringent criteria to the investments,” said Soros in an e-mailed message. “They should be profitable but should also actually make a contribution to solving the problem.”

Soros’s announcement comes two months before 190 nations will gather in the Danish capital for a final round of negotiations on a new climate treaty that includes provisions to finance clean- energy projects in developing nations. Talks last week in Bangkok were marked by a dispute between richer and poorer nations over whether to renew or abandon the Kyoto Protocol, the only existing global agreement to reduce carbon dioxide, which is blamed for global warming.

Soros, whose own wealth accounts for much of the approximately $24 billion his New York-based firm oversees, didn’t provide any details in his speech on the type or scope of investments he might make. Michael Vachon, his spokesman, wasn’t available to comment on his specific plans.

10-Year Initiative

Soros, 79, also will establish the Climate Policy Initiative, a San Francisco-based organization to which he will donate $10 million a year for 10 years.

:}

The other says he wants us to keep burning carbon based fuel..just his carbon based fuel:

http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

New jobs from renewable energy and conservation.

Any discussion of alternatives should begin with the 2007 Department of Energy study showing that building out our wind capacity in the Great Plains – from northern Texas to the Canadian border – would produce 138,000 new jobs in the first year, and more than 3.4 million new jobs over a ten-year period, while also producing as much as 20 percent of our needed electricity.

Building out solar energy in the Southwest from western Texas to California would add to the boom of new jobs and provide more of our growing electrical needs – doing so through economically viable, clean, renewable sources.

To move that electricity from where it is being produced to where it is needed will require an upgrade to our national electric grid. A 21st century transmission grid which will, as technology continues to develop, deliver power where it is needed, when it is needed, in the direction that it is needed, will be the modern equivalent of building the Interstate Highway System in the 1950’s.

Beyond that, tremendous improvements in electricity use can be made by creating incentives for owners of homes and commercial buildings to retrofit their spaces with proper insulation. Studies show that a significant upgrading of insulation would save the equivalent of one million barrels of oil per day in energy by cutting down on both air conditioning costs in warm weather and heating costs in winter.

A domestic fuel to free us from foreign oil.

The Honda Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicle is the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle in the world according to the EPA.

Conserving and harnessing renewable forms of electricity not only has incredible economic benefits, but is also a crucial piece of the oil dependence puzzle. We should continue to pursue the promise of electric or hydrogen powered vehicles, but America needs to address transportation fuel today. Fortunately, we are blessed with an abundance of clean, cheap, domestic natural gas.

Currently, domestic natural gas is primarily used to generate electricity. It has the advantage of being cheap and significantly cleaner than coal, but this is not the only use of our natural gas resources.

By aggressively moving to shift America’s car, light duty and heavy truck fleets from imported gasoline and diesel to domestic natural gas we can lower our need for foreign oil – helping President Obama reach his goal of zero oil imports from the Middle East within ten years.

Nearly 20% of every barrel of oil we import is used by 18-wheelers moving goods around and across the country by burning imported diesel. An over-the-road truck cannot be moved using current battery technology. Fleet vehicles like buses, taxis, express delivery trucks, and municipal and utility vehicles (any vehicle which returns to the “barn” each night where refueling is a simple matter) should be replaced by vehicles running on clean, cheap, domestic natural gas rather than imported gasoline or diesel fuel.

A plan that brings it all together.

Natural gas is not a permanent or complete solution to imported oil. It is a bridge fuel to slash our oil dependence while buying us time to develop new technologies that will ultimately replace fossil transportation fuels. Natural gas is the critical puzzle piece that will help us to keep more of the $350 to $450 billion we spend on imported oil every year at home, where it can power our economy and pay for our investments in wind energy, a smart grid and energy efficiency.

It is this connection that makes The Pickens Plan not just a collection of good ideas, but a plan. By investing in renewable energy and conservation, we can create millions of new jobs. Developing new alternative energies while utilizing natural gas for transportation and energy generation; securing our economy by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and keeping more money at home to pay for the whole thing

:}

I know which one I’d pick…How bought you?

:}

A Volkswagen In Every Basement? What are you offloading

Posted on by
Reply

This was an eye catching headline and hundreds of bloggers posted it. But what are they really accomplishing here. If the people have electric water heaters maybe they are accomplishing something. If the people have gas water heaters then the impact is much less. You have off loaded an inefficient gas heater for an efficient one. But if you installed a solar water heater well…then you would be doing something. This is just a publicity stunt…AND apparently it worked:

http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/284909,volkswagen-plan-would-rev-up-power-for-apartments.html

Volkswagen plan would rev up power for apartments

by Aurelia End Aurelia End – Wed Sep 9, 11:06 am ET

Salzgitter,Germany – Automotive giant Volkswagen and a small German power company unveiled Wednesday a plan to build up to 100,000 mini power stations in apartment house basements. The generators would run off more or less the same natural-gas- powered engines as those that currently drive some

Volkswagen Golf cars. Exhaust heat from the engines would warm up water for showers and central heating.“It’s a true revolution in the electricity business,” said Christian Friege, chief executive of Lichtblick, a small “green energy” supplier to homes and offices which teamed up with
Volkswagen for the project. The plan, sealed with an agreement at Volkswagen’s Salzgitter factory in northern Germany, is a challenge to big utilities that generate power with huge steam turbines driven by nuclear or coal heat. Germany’s infrastructure could help make the plan a reality, with gas, mostly drilled in Siberia, already being piped to most city streets in Germany. Volkswagen said the “green” internal-combustion engines it has developed for cars were quiet enough to operate in building basements and emitted 60 per cent less carbon dioxide than comparable thermal power plants. Lichtblick, based in Hamburg, is a company with 550,000 customers and a focus on supplying non-nuclear electricity. Engineers said the key to the system’s success would be a home power station’s efficiency, with up to 94 per cent of the energy in the gas used for heating or to make electricity, whereas gas-fired power plants only use 40 to 60 per cent..

:}

This was YAHOO’s take on it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090909/ts_afp/germanyclimatewarmingtechnologycompanylichtblickvw_20090909151116

Home power plants project unveiled in Germany

 

Home power plants project unveiled in Germany

AFP/DDP – A technician of German automaker Volkswagen’s adjusts a mini gas-fired power plant at the VW plant …

by Aurelia End Aurelia End – Wed Sep 9, 11:06 am ET

BERLIN (AFP) – An ambitious project was unveiled in Germany on Wednesday to install mini gas-fired power plants in people’s basements and produce as much electricity as two nuclear reactors within a year.

The Hamburg-based renewable energy group Lichtblick and its automaker partner Volkswagen say the plants would produce not only heating and hot water but also electricity, with any excess power fed into the local grid.

The two firms said the concept of “SchwarmStrom” (literally, “swarm power”) would allow Germany to abandon nuclear and coal power stations sooner and help compensate for the volatility of renewables like wind and solar power.

The plants also reduce harmful carbon dioxide emissions by up to 60 percent compared to conventional heat and electricity generation, they added in a joint statement.

In the coming year the programme will install 100,000 of the mini plants, producing between them 2,000 megawatts of electricity, the same as two nuclear plants, Lichtblick and VW said.

“SchwarmStrom is revolutionising power production in Germany. It clears the way for more renewable energy and an exit from power from nuclear and coal,” the statement added.

:}

These people ran it too:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/10/0246238

http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20090909-21821.htmlhttp://www.france24.com/en/20090909-home-power-plants-project-unveiled-germany

http://www.german-info.com/press_shownews.php?pos=Economy&pid=1600

:}

Happy Birthday To Oil, Happy Birthday To Oil, Happy Birthday To OOOOOOil

Posted on by
Reply

Happy birthday to you…You belooooong in a zoo. Actually you made Zoos absolutely necessary as ARKS for the species that our use of oil has driven either to extinction or near extinction.

 http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/oilat150/

Wired Science News for Your Neurons

Happy 150th, Oil! So Long, and Thanks for Modern Civilization

 

  • By Alexis Madrigal Email Author
  • August 27, 2009  |
  • 2:39 pm  |
  • Categories: Energy

shootingthewell

One hundred and fifty years ago on Aug. 27, Colonel Edwin L. Drake sunk the very first commercial well that produced flowing petroleum.

The discovery that large amounts of oil could be found underground marked the beginning of a time during which this convenient fossil fuel became America’s dominant energy source.

But what began 150 years ago won’t last another 150 years — or even another 50. The era of cheap oil is ending, and with another energy transition upon us, we’ve got to scavenge all the lessons we can from its remarkable history.

“I would see this as less of an anniversary to note for celebration and more of an anniversary to note how far we’ve come and the serious moment that we’re at right now,” said Brian Black, an energy historian at Pennsylvania State University and and author of the book Petrolia. “Energy transitions happen and I argue that we’re in one right now and that we need to aggressively look to the future to what’s going to happen after petroleum.”

When Drake and others sunk their wells, there were no cars, no plastics, no chemical industry. Water power was the dominant industrial energy source. Steam engines burning coal were on the rise, but the nation’s energy system — unlike Great Britain’s — still used fossil fuels sparingly. The original role for oil was as an illuminant, not a motor fuel, which would come decades later.

Before the 1860s, petroleum was a well-known curiosity. People collected it with blankets or skimmed it off naturally occurring oil seeps. Occasionally they drank some of it as a medicine or rubbed it on aching joints.

Some people had the bright idea of distilling it to make fuel for lamps, but it was easier to get lamp fuel from pig fat or whale oil or converted coal. Without a steady supply, there was no point in developing a whole system and infrastructure dedicated to petroleum.

Nonetheless, some Yankee capitalists from Connecticut were convinced that oil could be found in the ground and exploited. They recruited “Colonel” Edwin Drake, who was not a Colonel at all, mostly because he was charming and unemployed. He, in turn, found someone skilled in the art of drilling, or what passed for it in those days.

Drake and his sidekick “Uncle Billy” Smith started looking underground for oil in the spring of ‘59. They used a heavy metal tip attached to a rope, sending it plummeting down the borehole like a ram to break up the rock. It was slow going.

On Aug. 27, 1859, at 69 feet of depth, Drake and Smith hit oil. It was a big deal, but the Civil War stalled the immediate development of the rock oil industry.

“When the discovery happened, the few people who were there and not involved in the war, went around and bought all the property they could and had outside investors come in,” Black said. “But the real heyday of the development happened from 1864-1870. It’s that 11-year period when the little river valley was the world’s leading supplier of oil.”

derrickforest

The “little river valley” in western Pennsylvania earned the nickname Petrolia. Centered in the Oil Creek valley about one hundred miles north of Pittsburgh, the wells of Pithole, Titusville and Oil City pumped 56 million barrels of oil out of the ground from 1859 to 1873.

:}
Though there is some question about whether it was the first well in the world or even in the US:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=whither-the-oil-age-150-years-of-bl-2009-08-27 

And let's get the record straight. The Drake well was not
the first oil well in the U.S. Historical geologic research data
my father paid for circa 1979 pegged a well outside Oneida Tenn.
as the first producing oil well in the U.S. It preceeded the
Drake Well by a couple of decades or more (I believe the well
was struck around 1819 but I am going from memory as I read the survey
a long time ago). Unfortunately it was deep in mountainous terrain
making it nearly impossible to commercialize. Plus there wasn't
much of a use for oil yet. The well was accidental - they were actually
after water. The survey mentioned the Drake well as being considered
the first viable commerical well. But the Drake well definitely was
not the first oil well in the U.S. Dad commissioned the survey because
of a good oil producing lease on the mountain that over looks
Huntsville Tenn. In fact, the land was leased from Bobby York - one of
the grandsons of Alvin York. Yes, that Alvin York, a.k.a. "Seargent York"
 of WWI fame.

:}

Even then there were people who thought that the mass consumption of oil would cause big problems:

http://www.enotes.com/earth-science/arrhenius-svante-august

Arrhenius, Svante August (1859-1927)

Swedish chemist

Svante August Arrhenius was awarded the 1903 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his research on the theory of electrolytic dissociation, a theory that had won the lowest possible passing grade for his Ph.D. two decades earlier. Arrhenius’s work with chemistry was often closely tied to the science of physics, so much so that the Nobel committee was not sure in which of the two fields to make the 1903 award. In fact, Arrhenius is regarded as one of the founders of physical chemistry—the field of science in which physical laws are used to explain chemical phenomena. In the last decades of his life Arrhenius became interested in theories of the origin of life on Earth, arguing that life had arrived on our planet by means of spores blown through space from other inhabited worlds. He was also one of the first scientists to study the heat-trapping ability of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in a phenomenon now known as the greenhouse effect.

Arrhenius was born on February 19, 1859, in Vik (also known as Wik or Wijk), in the district of Kalmar, Sweden. His mother was the former Carolina Thunberg, and his father was Svante Gustaf Arrhenius, a land surveyor and overseer at the castle of Vik on Lake Mälaren, near Uppsala. Young Svante gave evidence of his intellectual brilliance at an early age. He taught himself to read by the age of three and learned to do arithmetic by watching his father keep books for the estate of which he was in charge. Arrhenius began school at the age of eight, when he entered the fifth-grade class at the Cathedral School in Uppsala. After graduating in 1876, Arrhenius enrolled at the University of Uppsala.

:}

Why The Automobile Is Stupid – It had to be invented in America

Posted on by
Reply

America is the home of instant gratification. There IS nothing more instant than the automobile and capitalism and nothing more American than the car. At no time in the history of humans have people been able to go some place distant at a whim. The Odyssey remains a famous work precisely because it takes Odysseus 10 years to get home and he never got out of the eastern Mediterranean. For a historical perspective it took mankind 50,000 years to get around the world. Yet I can just get in my car and for a few hundred dollars drive to California. How dumb is that…better yet how irresponsible? For that priviledge 32,000 people (roughly) a year die. That figure has not changed since 1962.

That is again roughly 1,536,000 people. That is more casualities then most major wars. Driving put the casual in casualities. Staggering numbers when compared to Vietnam, or Korea and especially compared to the various  incursions in the Arab or Persian Gulf (Iraq, Kuwait, and I include Afghanistan). So let me be clear, I hate the internal combustion engine and not just the one under your hood. But cars do not make any sense no matter what powers its drive train, whether its bio-diesel, electricity or water. It is a bad use of resources. If you need to cover long distances…take the damn bus. If you have to get to the store RIGHT NOW…take your bike. You want to go really really long distances…take the freakin train… But every last one of us having a 2000 lb. car (many weigh much more) that carries 50 lbs. of fuel (usually much more) and transports one 300 lb. human (usually much less) is just stupid. There really is no other way to characterize it dumb dumb dumb.

Please also do not misunderstand me. As long as people have traveled they have died in transit. Think the Titanic here, sometimes in spectacular numbers:

http://www.titanic-facts.com/

:}

But:

A traffic collision is when a road vehicle collides with another vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or geographical or architectural obstacle. Traffic collisions can result in injury, property damage, and death.

Terminology

Phrases commonly used to describe collisions include: auto accident, car accident, car crash, car smash, car wreck, motor vehicle accident (MVA), motor vehicle collision (MVC), personal injury collision (PIC), road accident, road traffic accident (RTA), road traffic collision (RTC), road traffic incident (RTI), smash-up and fender bender.

As the factors involved in collisions have become better understood, some organizations have begun to avoid the term “accident,” as the word suggests an unpreventable, unpredictable event and disregards the opportunity for the driver(s) involved to avoid the crash. Although auto collisions are rare in terms of the number of vehicles on the road and the distance they travel, addressing the contributing factors can reduce their likelihood. For example, proper signage can decrease driver error and thereby reduce crash frequency by a third or more.[1] That is why these organizations prefer the term “collision” rather than “accident”.

However, treating collisions as anything other than “accidents” has been criticized for holding back safety improvements, because a culture of blame may discourage the involved parties from fully disclosing the facts, and thus frustrate attempts to address the real root causes.[2]

Background

Road crashes causing death, injury, and damage have always happened since animals were domesticated. History tells people who were the victim of such incidents. Louis IV of France died in 954 after falling from his horse, as did at least two kings of England: William I (William the Conqueror) in 1087 and William III in 1702. Handel was seriously injured in a carriage crash in 1752.[3]

The British road engineer J. J. Leeming, compared the statistics for fatality rates in Great Britain, for transport-related incidents both before and after the introduction of the motor vehicle, for journeys, including those by water, which would now be undertaken by motor vehicle:[4] For the period 1863–1870 there were: 470 fatalities per million of population (76 on railways, 143 on roads, 251 on water); for the period 1891–1900 the corresponding figures were: 348 (63, 107, 178); for the period 1931–1938: 403 (22, 311, 70) and for the year 1963: 325 (10, 278, 37).[4] Leeming concluded that the data showed that “travel accidents may even have been more frequent a century ago than they are now, at least for men“.[4]

Irish scientist Mary Ward died on 31 August 1869 when she fell out of her cousins’ steam car and was run over. She is believed to have been the world’s first motor vehicle accident victim.

 

 

A truck crash.

In the United States the calculable costs of motor-vehicle crashes are wage and productivity losses, medical expenses, motor vehicle damage, employers’ uninsured costs, and administrative expenses. (See the definitions for a description of what is included in each component.) The costs of all these items for each death (not each fatal crash), injury (not each injury crash), and property damage crash was: Average Economic Cost per Death, Injury, or Crash, 2006: Nonfatal; Disabling Injury; $55,000; Property Damage Crash (including nondisabling injuries) $8,200; Death; $1,210,000; Expressed on a per death basis, the cost of all motor vehicle crashes—i.e. fatal, nonfatal injury, and property damage—was $5,800,000. This includes the cost of one death, 197 property damage crashes (including minor injuries, 54 nonfatal disabling injuries). This average may be used to estimate the motor vehicle crash costs for a state provided that there are at least 10 deaths and only one or two occurred in each fatal crash. If fewer than 10 deaths, estimate the costs of deaths, nonfatal disabling injuries, and property damage crashes separately.

Defined in sections 2.3.4 through 2.3.6 of the Manual on Classification of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (7th Edition) ANSI Standard D16.1-2007 are defined by severity motor vehicle injuries Estimates are given here of the costs by severity of injuries. http://www2.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/estcost.htm

Road incidents result in the deaths of an estimated 1.2 million people worldwide each year, and injure about forty times this number (WHO, 2004).

:}

OR:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_your_Car!

Divorce your Car! Ending the Love Affair with the Automobile (New Society Publishers, ISBN 0-86571-408-8), written by Katie Alvord and with a foreword by Stephanie Mills, proposes that automobiles have lost their value as a convenience and have become a hindrance, even an addiction. “Today’s relationship with the automobile inflicts upon us pollution, noise, congestion, sprawl, big expenses, injury, and even death. Yet we continue to live with cars at a growing cost to ourselves and the environment.” [1] There are several arguments for her thesis presented throughout the text as well as some suggestions for how to wean one’s self from automobiles.[2]

Reception

The book was well received by critics and has been hailed by environmentalists as a realistic description of the current situation in which we live. Alvord cites many sources throughout the text to back up her claims, however there have been complaints that some of them are biased, originating from sources with an apparent agenda, such as Asphalt Nation. Jay Walljasper of Utne Reader claims the book is “A clear-headed approach to reducing or even eliminating our dependence on cars, Divorce Your Car! [is] full of common sense and fresh insight.”

About the Author

Katie Alvord, born in northern California, is a freelance writer, environmentalist, and avid bicyclist. A graduate of the University of California at Davis and with a Master’s degree from the University of California at Berkeley, Alvord has worked with many non-profit agencies focused on environmental issues. She has had articles printed in such publications as E Magazine, Wild Earth, and The Urban Ecologist. In 1992 she received several awards, including the Clean Air Champion award, for her self documented experience of divorcing her car while living in a rural part of Sonoma County, California.[4]

[edit] Main Points

[edit] Supporting Arguments

In the book, Alvord states that air pollution from cars is damaging to the health of humans directly because of contaminants in pollution and indirectly through the destruction of the environment and contribution to global warming.[5] Oil spills, acid rain, and dirty rivers are some of the results of widespread use of cars, according to Alvord. The destruction from oil spills can wreak havoc on entire ecosystems.[6] In addition to the cost of the car, an owner can expect to pay much more in repairs and upkeep throughout the car’s life.[7] Additionally, tens of thousands of people die every year from car crashes, and hundreds of thousands are injured.[8]

[edit] Solutions

Alvord proposes that there are benefits to walking, cycling and using mass transit beyond saving the Earth, such as exercise, money conservation, and self reliance.[9] By modifying land use, financial policies, and urban infrastructure, efficiency can be increased world wide and society can learn to function without a car in every household.[10] With the advent of the Internet and decreasing phone prices, it is more efficient to work from home or video conference online in many circumstances, and just as effective. This not only reduces pollution but can save money for businesses.[

:}

Run Like Hell The Pollution In The Atmosphere Will Kill Us – But there is no place to run

Posted on by
Reply

and the people who are doing the pollution are lying to keep on doing it. As you know this week I have (it’s) been examining phrases with (jam) hell in them to avoid thinking about how (band) bad things are about to get here on Planet Earth. Now it appears that even if we stop today the oceans will continue to acidify for years (friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySO-gryuO-c) and that means a huge loss of food.

http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/Hellphrases.htm

Run like Hell seems to imply really really fast. Like you can run from hell? Or as the song says “get out of hell before they know you are there”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBcY9HGqehE&feature=related

But there is also something in the phrase that implies that you not look back,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntm1YfehK7U&feature=related

And you you do not stop running until you can run no more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRcQZ2tnWeg&feature=related

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

:}

Yet the Energy Industry continues to lie through its teeth about our real choices:

 http://www.alternet.org/water/141202/energy_industry_threatens_water_quality,_sways_congress_with_misleading_data/

Energy Industry Threatens Water Quality, Sways Congress With Misleading Data

By Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica. Posted July 9, 2009.

The industry is misleading the public into a false choice between the economy and the environment.

The two key arguments that the oil and gas industry is using to fight federal regulation of the natural gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing — that the costs would cripple their business and that state regulations are already strong — are challenged by the same data and reports the industry is using to bolster its position.

One widely-referenced study (PDF) estimated that complying with regulations would cost the oil and gas industry more than $100,000 per gas well. But the figures are based on 10-year-old estimates and list expensive procedures that aren’t mentioned in the proposed regulations.

Another report (PDF) concluded that state regulations for drilling, including fracturing, “are adequately designed to directly protect water.” But the report reveals that only four states require regulatory approval before hydraulic fracturing begins. It also outlines how requirements for encasing wells in cement — a practice the author has said is critical to containing hydraulic fracturing fluids and protecting water — varies from state to state.

One recommendation in that report flies in face of industry’s assertion that its processes are safe: hydraulic fracturing needs more study and should be banned in certain cases near sensitive water supplies.

Hydraulic fracturing — where water and sand laced with chemicals is injected underground to break up rock — is considered essential to harvesting deeply buried gas reserves that some predict could meet U.S. demand for 116 years.

In 2005 hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, based on assurances that the process was safe. But a series of ProPublica reports has identified a number of cases in which water has been contaminated in drilling areas across the country, and EPA scientists say they can’t fully investigate them because of the exemption.

Now, Congress is considering legislation to restore the Environmental Protection Agency’s oversight of the process. And industry — leveraging its money and political connections — is using the recent reports to fight back.

Since January at least five studies have been published making the case that state laws (PDF) are adequate and that new regulations could hamper exploration (PDF), raise fuel prices and eliminate jobs. Three of the studies were paid for by the Department of Energy and produced by consulting firms that also work with the industry. One of the DOE reports (PDF) was written by the same person who authored a study for the Independent Petroleum Association of America (PDF)

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx3DtXyEqrE

If you are in England you might want to give these folks a try:

http://www.souththamesgas.co.uk

http://www.allaspectsltd.co.uk/services/plumbing-services/

Dave Stern likes them.

:}

There Is Something In The Attic And It’s Alive II – Roof Leaks are so much fun

Posted on by
Reply

I ended up where I started off. I started with a badly leaking roof in the big shed. I moved on to a leaky basement. Finally I paid 11,000 $$$ for a leaky roof.

It’s Jam Band Friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo_0UXRY_rY

Now a traditional home owner would have been calling their lawyer and loading their shotguns, Cathy is an electrician and I am a carpenter so on the second leak we called Dean our roof guy and expressed our displeasure. In the mean time I had been trying to figure out what was going on. I had to take out a bunch of wet insulation. The more I tracked the water up the roof, the more it veered toward the gable vent that I had assumed was sealed and insulated.

http://www.customcopperdesigns.com/Product_Catgs/Gables/index.html

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yGCHPmfqT0&feature=related

Our 2 eve vents were the  triangular ones listed at the bottom of the page. I got this horrible feeling in my gut. Slowly the horror grew. I had an energy monster living in my attic! Me an energy expert had the equivalent of a 4 x 4 ft. hole in my wall in my attic. I knew I had to kill it but the previous owners of the house (who should be shot) had presented me with serious problems. I tried to take the ceiling panel down to get a quick look and discovered that the panels were all beveled. That is the ceiling panel was trapped by the sloping panel which was trapped by the knee wall panel which was trapped by the carpet tack strips from the old carpet…%$&#@*! Is what I said over and over again..

http://mtlcontracting.com/finished_attics.htm

www.hunnewellhomes.com/remodeling.asp

http://s93883215.onlinehome.us/adamjaneiro/2007_09_01_archive.html

:}

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

YOU know exactly what I mean. Everyone has a friend that grew up in the attic. So by the time I basically got 2 whole 4 ft wall and side panels off I was a mixture of pissed, curious and freaked. But it got worse. I made the mistake of pulling the roof panel down with the slope pointing towards me and when I got about half the panel down I was hit in the face with dirt and dust like I had never seen. I let go of the panel and dashed downstairs to wash my face. Then I went out on the front porch, shook my clothes off and brushed my hair out. Now I was nearly out of my mind. I dashed back upstairs to see what in the world had just happened to me. There on the floor were thousands of hornets nests! I looked up at the open unscreened gable vent in disbelief. I mean open to the outside world and only stoppered by an 1/8th inch piece of cheap 1950’s wood paneling. 1953 to be exact. What idiots.

:}

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

I got up in the ceiling and looked back the other way. What I saw was a long tunnel formed by the ceiling panels and the roof and ANOTHER unscreened totally open vent at the other end. Then I looked up at a light in the sky – open, though screened continuous ridge vent. I started throwing things around the room, stomped downstairs and called Cathy at work. I screamed for awhile until she got me calmed down. She said, can you fix it? I said yah but I shouldn’t have to. She said, yah right and hung up the phone. The woman has no sense of humor. So then I pulled down the other panel. I scooped up three trash cans full of bees nests.

http://www.virginmedia.com/digital/science/pictures/insect-photography.php?ssid=8

www.dorlingkindersley-uk.co.uk/nf/ClipArt/Ima..

http://gardenplotter.com/rospo/blog/2007/03/old-attics.html

At the west end of the house I even found 2 dinner plate sized wasp nests even though my biologist father claims that wasps and hornets will not cohabitate.

http://pestcontrolcanada.com/INSECTS/wasp_and_hornet_control.htm

http://www.aardvark-ie.com/wasps.htm

Then I sealed the vents with black plastic, caulk and staples. I stuffed the space with R-17 insulation and put the wood panels back in place. I have no idea how to seal up a ridge vent that should not be.

Here is how the pro’s do it:

http://www.onthehouse.com/wp/20030929

Since gable vents usually are architectural elements, it generally is best to seal them from the interior with a piece of plywood, thus preserving the architectural integrity of the home and eliminating the need to make a siding patch.

:}

More on getting rid of the ridge vent Monday.

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

:}