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

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.[

:}

Why Buying Locally Could Save The Planet – Stupid uses of transportation

Why buying your food locally is so important in so many ways. One of corporate capitalism’s goals is for people to lose their common sense. Some forms of food have been moved all over the planet for 20,000 years. Certain forms of food lend themselves to this process nicely. The commodity grains for example have been move by draft animals, boats and now trucks since their mass cultivation began. Even this can be moderated a bit. But to be shipping all manner of food all manner of places in all types of weather is just dumb.

I boil this down to a single sentence. Do I need to eat apples in Illinois in the winter? If I do should it come from Ecuador? (this is true) I have an apple tree in the back yard. Shouldn’t I just freeze some? But then irrational uses of our transportation system is a hallmark of the modern world. But there is more to consider. Local foods encourage carbon sequestration in the plants themselves, their reintroduction into the soil by composting, and the enhancement of your personal health. These are a few things to consider when you buy only food grown within a hundred miles of your house.

Then there is the ethics of factory farming of any living thing. Anyway planting a garden and harvesting local free stuff only makes sense.

:}

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26food.html

The Food Chain

Environmental Cost of Shipping Groceries Around the World

Massimo Sciacca for The New York Times

Kiwis grown in Italy are examined — and damaged fruit is discarded— before being shipped.

Published: April 26, 2008

Correction Appended

Cod caught off Norway is shipped to China to be turned into filets, then shipped back to Norway for sale. Argentine lemons fill supermarket shelves on the Citrus Coast of Spain, as local lemons rot on the ground. Half of Europe’s peas are grown and packaged in Kenya.

In the United States, FreshDirect proclaims kiwi season has expanded to “All year!” now that Italy has become the world’s leading supplier of New Zealand’s national fruit, taking over in the Southern Hemisphere’s winter.

Food has moved around the world since Europeans brought tea from China, but never at the speed or in the amounts it has over the last few years. Consumers in not only the richest nations but, increasingly, the developing world expect food whenever they crave it, with no concession to season or geography.

Increasingly efficient global transport networks make it practical to bring food before it spoils from distant places where labor costs are lower. And the penetration of mega-markets in nations from China to Mexico with supply and distribution chains that gird the globe — like Wal-Mart, Carrefour and Tesco — has accelerated the trend.

But the movable feast comes at a cost: pollution — especially carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas — from transporting the food.

Under longstanding trade agreements, fuel for international freight carried by sea and air is not taxed. Now, many economists, environmental advocates and politicians say it is time to make shippers and shoppers pay for the pollution, through taxes or other measures.

:}

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112801611.html

Want to Shrink Your Carbon Footprint? Think Food.

Transportation choices such as car vs. subway have a big effect on carbon footprint, but experts say food choices have nearly as much impact.

Transportation choices such as car vs. subway have a big effect on carbon footprint, but experts say food choices have nearly as much impact. (By Ramin Talaie — Bloomberg News)

By Katherine Salant

Saturday, November 29, 2008; Page F04

In moving for a year to New York City from Ann Arbor, Mich., a small Midwestern college town, the biggest change for me has not been the shift from a house to a high-rise and a living space that is only one-third as big.

It is the absence of a car.

The difference was apparent the first day. As in previous moves, settling in included many trips to the hardware store for this and that. But this time it was not a simple matter of getting directions and driving there. It was confronting a subway system with 26 different lines. And, after reaching Home Depot and making my purchases, I had to figure out how to get them home. (I learned that most stores in Manhattan offer delivery services for a fee.)

Even the most mundane details of daily life, including meal planning, have changed. In Michigan I had the luxury of “last-minute cuisine,” routinely making a dinner plan at 6 p.m., heading for the grocery store that is a three-minute drive from my house, grabbing a few things and returning home, all inside of 20 minutes. Here the grocery store is a 15-minute walk from our apartment building. The return trip is longer because I am lugging my purchases in a wire shopping cart. With each grocery outing taking at least 40 minutes, I plan ahead and shop for groceries only once or twice a week.

Traveling by subway has not proven to be a timesaver, but the time is allocated differently. On a 60-minute car trip you can while away the time by listening to the radio or music. On a subway you can read. The rush hour is still stressful, but the defensive maneuvers are different. Sandwiched into a subway car, you have to be watchful of backpack-wearing riders who never seem to realize how often their backpacks whack other passengers.

:}

If you want to calculate how much you save by buying locally:

http://www.foodcarbon.co.uk/

Home The food we consume contributes to climate change. The production, packaging and transportation of food all consumes energy and results in carbon emissions which threaten to raise average global surface temperatures.

However, not all foods are equal…

The Food Carbon Footprint Calculator (FCFC) provides the opportunity to calculate the resultant carbon dioxide from the food you eat, called your “Food Carbon Footprint”.

This website also offers personalised and practical ways to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, reducing your impact on climate change.

:}

Global Warming And Now Climate Change – The real term is Global Atmospheric Destabilization and Weather Unpredictability Effects

edit – Oh shoot I forgot it was jam band friday – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBAasek8NR4

One of the stupid things that I hate the most is the phrase “Global Warming”. It is inaccurate, misleading and a bad marketing ploy by the environmental movement. The realization that something was going very wrong with the planet’s atmosphere really dawned on the Earth Sciences people in the 1970s. Up until then the weather broadly read as global climate had behaved pretty predictably. If there was a lot of volcanic activity the earth cooled. If there was very little sunspot activity the earth cooled. If both happened at the same time well a “tipping point” was reached and an Ice Age was formed.

http://www.iceagemovie.com/

But then something happened that was totally unknown. Sunspot activity (sunspot activity is near zero now – watch out) and volcanism pointed towards a cooling period like during the 1400s (commonly called a “little ice age” when crops failed and the black plague ravaged Europe).  But that did not happen. The world kept warming and scientists scrambled to find the causes. We now know that this continued warming trend was caused by greenhouse gases and the effects have gotten worse. My pet bitch here is that when we realized that the climate was being warmed and that the weather would become unpredictable the “leading lights” in the environmental movement declared that we had to have a simple title for the effect or “people” wouldn’t be able to understand it. The effects were too complex. Now in fact in, no sense recognizing their mistake, they call it Climate Change.

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

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

In this divide and conquer world that left the capitalist to stir up pseudo controversies about warming or change without even beginning to address the real problem which is Food and population migrations due to Weather Catastrophes.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkmxNpF44n0&feature=related )

So when you see things like:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6554936.html

Texas’ hardest-hit drought area grows

© 2009 The Associated Press

July 30, 2009, 3:02PM

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1auRCameVY&feature=related )

DALLAS — There’s less drought in Texas, but the areas where conditions are worst actually expanded.

The federal drought monitor map released Thursday shows 61 percent of the nation’s most drought-stricken state is under some form of drought. That’s down from about 68 percent last week and 86 percent a year ago.

About 19 percent of Texas is under the most severe level of drought, up slightly from last week and way up from about 3 percent a year ago.

Nearly 25 percent of Texas is under the worst two categories of drought, mostly in south-central Texas

:}

or

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvp25jA_02jSEcqpsAXUp2_a-NRgD99OGNEG0

Seattle breaks temp record as heat wave continues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MltrnVOG2s&feature=related )

SEATTLE — Northwesterners more accustomed to rain and cooler climate sought refuge from a heat wave Wednesday, as Seattle recorded the hottest temperature in its history and Portland fell just 1 degree short of its own record-breaker.

The National Weather Service in Seattle recorded 103 degrees at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, breaking a previous record of 100 degrees, set in downtown Seattle in 1941 and repeated at the airport in 1994.

Jay Albrecht, a Seattle meteorologist with the service, said it’s the hottest it has been in Seattle since records dating to 1891.

In Oregon, heat records were set in cities across the western half of the state, with Portland topping out at 106 degrees, breaking the old record of 100 for the day but falling 1 degree shy of its all-time record of 107. Portland most recently hit the 107 mark in 1981.

Oregon weather data goes back to the 1850s, although meteorologist Charles Dalton said the 107-degree mark, recorded at the Portland airport, reflects records kept at that site since 1941.

Meteorologist Doug McDonnal in Seattle said the stretch of hot weather has lasted longer than usual. Wednesday was the fifth consecutive day above 85 degrees for Seattle, he said.

Throughout the region, shade, icy treats, ice-cold water, air conditioning units and fans were in high demand.

:}

or

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.coldest.july.2.1103959.html

Chicago Sees Coldest July In 67 Years

Average Temperature Only 68.9 Degrees

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

CHICAGO (CBS)
Have you left your air conditioner in the closet this summer, and worn long pants more often than shorts? If so, you may not be surprised to find out that Chicago is seeing its coldest July in more than 65 years.
The National Weather Service says 2009 has seen the coldest July since the official recording station was moved away from the lakefront in 1942. The average temperature this month in Chicago has been a mere 68.9 degrees.

Even in the years before 1942, when the National Weather Service recorded temperatures at the cooler lakefront, there are only three years that had colder Julys through the 26th.

There have also been far more days than usual with high temperatures less than 80 degrees this year. In 2009, there were 13 days where the temperature did not exceed 80 degrees. Only three Julys in the past 67 years have had more days in Chicago with highs less than 80 – there were 18 such days in 1992, and 14 in 1996 and 2000.

:}

IN THE SAME YEAR (sorry) then you are seeing the beginnings of something unpleasant. Farmers depend on predictability to farm. No farming no food, no food no us. Now that is a pretty simple concept to understand…Global warming however IS an inconvenient truth.

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRRZzQQ6POE&feature=related )

:}

Global Warming, What Would Jesus Do – Between Heaven and Earth is where the problem lives

What does Between Heaven and Earth mean anyway? I mean if Earth is HERE:

www.all-creatures.org/hope/

or here:

www.spacetoday.org/…/TerraAqua/TerraStory.html

or even here:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/LivingEarth/

and heaven is here:

www.kidsastronomy.com/deep_space.htm

Then the point seems a little banal. But if the usage is to attempt the creation tension through the juxtaposition of opposites like “between love and hate” or “between enemies and friends” then I totally understand. It’s like that with global warming.

:}

So there are the people from HEAVEN:

 http://alternativepowerpanel.com/blog/?p=193

birte edwards on 26 Feb 2009 06:44 pm

Between Heaven and Earth

This is one in my Dobehave Series: Save Energy, Be Green, Have More

Heaven and Earth- on Global Warming and Climate Change

You know this issue is so important, and sorry for the title – just me having some fun.

Between Heaven and Earth – that’s where the trouble is … in the atmosphere, you see.

We can’t …. actually we could … be involved in alternative energy without knowing or understanding what’s behind it, but I don’t think that’s a good idea.

I hope you have a little time on your hand, as after this I will show you a little video I found on “between heaven and earth”.

Here’s the video I was talking about.

Do you think there are others who could benefit from knowing this? If so, get them over here. There will be a lot more on alternatives, what we can do here and now.

Oh, if you want all the 20 videos of my Questions & Answers, just sign up at top right for dobehave.

http://alternativepowerpanel.com/blog/?p=12

birte edwards on 25 Dec 2008 02:13 pm

So What’s Between Heaven and Earth – on Global Warming

Final Sci Vis (scientific visualization) Project for junior year
class. Each person in the class had to pick a topic in science and
make a video on it. This is the result of the choice of one student
The student used 3d max for all the animations and edited in Adobe

I was impressed with this video. It may seem a little long, but the
student goes into all aspects that cause global warming, and also
the effects.
The reason I posted this is that it can teach us so much, and also
my gratitude that young people are involved in this issue of global
warming and climate change.I wanted it here on AlternativePowerPanel blog, as this whole issue
lies at the back of alternative power. We are not just talking
about the economic aspects. Other articles and videos will touch
on that as well as on how each and everyone of us can contribute to
create sustainable living and keep the planet blue (or green, if
you want.

Scroll up to view the video.

:}

The there are the people from EARTH:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-4zeHS6g_8&feature=PlayList&p=C03415C86A65D33E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc-BzY09vTU&feature=PlayList&p=11D4E50213231A81&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=37

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-OgF7YNS4A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ozI8TW4he8

:}

Who would you believe?

:}

Solar Cooling – Why Global warming is Sooooo Dangerous

I have argued for a long time that the only demonstrable source of global warming is homo sapien. Why? Because we burn things unnecessarily. We can’t help it. We got started a long time ago and it is all we know. All the other potential sources of global warming are in cooling phases, the Sun, the Earth’s Core, Jupiter and the Moon.  Now of course it could be caused by Aliens shooting raybeams at the Earth and if you want to believe that, fine. So for the long term what we get is a hot wet unpredictable planet that causes a human die back…that is ok at one level. Humans have suffered several “evolutionary bottlenecks” and survived. At one point 50,000 years ago us Sapiens went from a couple million strong to 5,000 over night. You might think that having the Homo population shrink to the size of Riverton, IL is scary enough BUT

But the bigger danger is short term. Because the cooling going on is being masked by our polluting, this can have what is called in statistics a “rebound effect”. According to Statistical Theory (and Quantum Physics) everything fluctuates which puts us in danger of having a really really cold or hot year. Believe it or not since we have been warming for soooo long, the odds are that we have a really really cold year. From a food perspective and actually from a life in general perspective it’s better to be hot than it is to be cold – unless of course you are a Neaderthal. The point being that humans shrank to the equator during the last ice age and just kinda hung around.

Why do I bring this up? Well:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/05/27/solar-minimum.htmlhttp://dsc.discovery.com/space/my-take/solar-minimum-problem.html

Dormant Sun Spills Secrets in Its Sleep

Irene Klotz, Discovery News

 

 

Photo of Sun

Sitting Pretty | Discovery News Video

 

May 27, 2009 — With the sun at its lowest activity level in nearly 100 years, scientists are taking advantage of its quiet state to ferret out some of the more subtle — and occasionally insidious — ways the sun impacts Earth’s climate and atmosphere.

Solar flares and other geomagnetic events on the sun vary in frequency over an 11-year cycle. Now at an unusually low “minimum” in that cycle, the sun is expected to peak in activity in 2013.

“If you thought that the globe was going to warm up because there was more solar activity, you might perhaps expect it to get warmer everywhere, and this is not the case,” said Joanna Haigh, an atmospheric physicist with Imperial College in London.

:}

Even worse:

 

alien life solar system space

Comparison between solar minimum (left) and solar maximum (right) in extreme ultraviolet light (EUV). Huge coronal loops can be seen erupting from the solar surface at solar max, conditions perfect for solar flares and CMEs. The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory’s EIT instrument captured these images 11 years apart Credit: SOHO/NASA

 

 

sun solar flare burst hot gas star burn center solar system earth

Want more? Click here for the rest of the Wide Angle: Solar Maximum. Credit: NASA

 

The sun is being really boring. Nearly 18 months after the “official” start of Solar Cycle 24, observers are looking closely at the ball of hot plasma in the sky asking, “What is wrong with the sun?”

To be honest, we don’t know if there’s something wrong or not; it depends on what your opinion of “wrong” is.

On the one hand, the sun is enduring the deepest solar minimum for a century, perplexing solar physicists, leading to some suggestions the sun may continue its blank stare for some time to come.

As sunspot number is astonishingly low, this means internal magnetic activity must also be low. For some reason, the usual cycle of 11 years from peak to trough — from solar maximum to solar minimum — has been interrupted. The fireworks we experienced in 2003 could be a thing of the past and we might be looking at another Maunder Minimum (an extended period of time from 1645 to 1715 when few sunspots were seen by astronomers).

As magnetic activity is low, this also means there has been a drop in solar energy output. There has been a 0.02 percent decrease in optical light and a 6 percent drop in ultraviolet light if we compare this solar minimum with the last one, 12 years ago. Although we’re not going to freeze any time soon, the suns reduction in output could have consequences for our climate. But no, it won’t save us from carbon-induced global warming, that problem is here to stay.

:}

I was going to work my way through all the energy incentives from the Feds and showing examples of each starting with PAINT your ROOF white…something I have advocated for 30 years but I thought this was more important for today. Jam Band Friday will have to do.

:}

The Day After Memorial Day – In all fairness to the Energy Conglomerates

The US Military is the largest single user of carbon based energy in the World. When you toss in the other worlds militaries, if we just cut the militaries of the world to patrolling borders global warming would backup by decades. Not only that but the Energy Companies are pushed around by the military big time. No military and the pirates take tankers…No Iraq war no Iraqui oil…No defense against China they suck all the world’s resources up like a vacuum cleaner…Do I feel sorry for the Energy Companies or the Military? No they deserve each other I just don’t think we deserve them. GO AWAY.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925

I am not going to reprint the total article here…this guy did a lot of work on graphs and charts and things but it is interesting and he is not the only person to report on this. It is important to note that the Energy Bulletin has been adopted by the Post Carbon Institute (http://www.postcarbon.org/). Wonder when that happened?

Published May 20 2007 by Energy Bulletin
Archived May 21 2007

US military energy consumption- facts and figures

by Sohbet Karbuz

As the saying goes, facts are many but the truth is one. The truth is that the U.S. military is the single largest consumer of energy in the world. But as a wise man once said, don’t confuse facts with reality. The reality is that even U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) does not know precisely where and how much energy it consumes. This is my Fact Zero.

Below I give some facts and figures on U.S. military oil consumption based mostly on official statistics.[1] If you want to reproduce them make sure you read every footnote even if you need to put on your glasses. Also read the footnotes in this article.

FACT 1: The DoD’s total primary energy consumption in Fiscal Year 2006 was 1100 trillion Btu. It corresponds to only 1% of total energy consumption in USA. For those of you who think that this is not much then read the next sentence.

Nigeria, with a population of more than 140 million, consumes as much energy as the U.S. military.

The DoD per capita[2] energy consumption (524 trillion Btu) is 10 times more than per capita energy consumption in China, or 30 times more than that of Africa.

Total final energy consumption (called site delivered energy by DoD) of the DoD was 844 trillion Btu in FY2006FACT 2: Defense Energy Support Center (DESC) sold $13 billion of energy to DoD services in FY2006. More than half of it was to Air Force.

FACT 3: Oil accounts for more than three-fourths of DoD’s total site delivered energy consumption. Oil is followed by electricity (slightly more than 10%) and natural gas (nearly 10%). In terms of fuel types, jet fuel (JP-8)[3] accounts for more than 50% of total DoD energy consumption, and nearly 60% of its mobility[4] fuel.

FACT 4: Nearly three quarters of DoD site delivered energy is consumed by vehicles (or for mobility if you like). Only one quarter is consumed in buildings and facilities.[5]FACT 5: DoD consumed 97 million gasoline gallon equivalent in its non-tactical vehicles and for that it spent 238 million dollars.

FACT 6: In 2006, its oil consumption was down to 117 million barrels (or 320 thousand barrels per day),[10] despite increasing activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FACT 7: In 2006, for example, DESC reports in its Factbook that it sold 131 million barrels of oil (or 358 kbd) to DoD but DoD Federal Energy Management Report states that DoD consumed 117 million barrels (or 320 kbd).[12]

FACT 8: According to 2007 CIA World Fact Book there are only 35 countries in the world consuming more oil than DoD.

FACT 9: There exist no official estimates. Let me know if you see or hear one. According to my most pessimist estimates it is about 150 thousand barrels per day FACT 10: Whatever the true figure oil consumed by the U.S. military does not show up in world oil demand. See for more explanation under item #425 in October 2004 issue of ASPO Newsletter.

:}

For more of this incredibly insightful and well written article please go to the above website and see it..Even the Military is aware that it is seen as a BIG FAT energy PIG, but it is also aware that NO OIL = NO WAR

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/addressing-the-militarys-energy-efficiency/

Addressing the Military’s Energy Inefficiency

 

Report

The folks who gave the world the Hummer, the poster child of fuel inefficiency, want to spawn a new generation of eco-friendly military equipment with cross-over potential in the “civilian sector,” say a group of retired American military officers who released a sharply worded report on Monday calling on the Department of Defense to reduce its “carbon bootprint.”

“The American military gave you the Humvee, and now we’re taking it back,” said retired Adm. John Nathman, the former vice chief of naval operations and an adviser to President Obama, in a conference call on Monday. “You’re going to see some fairly dramatic movement by the Department of Defense in terms of public visibility.”

The report, “Powering America’s Defense,” was published by CNA Analysis and Solutions, a research group based in Alexandria, Va., that issued a previous study on defense and energy security in 2007.

In the new study’s preface, 12 retired military officers lay out the case for weaning the military — and the country — off oil:

Many of our overseas deployments were de?ned, in part, by the strategic decision to ensure the free ?ow of oil, to the U.S. and to our allies. Many of the troops we commanded were aided by air cover from high-thrust delivery systems that only an energy-intense society can provide. Many of these same troops were often burdened and imperiled by battle?eld systems that were energy-inef?cient. Some of the attacks on our troops and on American civilians have been supported by funds from the sale of oil. Our nation’s energy choices have saved lives; they have also cost lives.

As we consider America’s current energy posture, we do so from a singular perspective: We gauge our energy choices solely by their impact on America’s national security. Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy; our dependency and inef?cient use of oil also puts our troops at risk.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking minority member chairman Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, told The Associated Press that he strongly agreed “with the stark conclusions” of the report, whose authors point out that fluctuating oil prices, dependence on foreign resources and an ailing electricity grid imperil national security both at home and abroad.

“Climate change is a threat multiplier,” said Vice Adm. Dennis V. McGinn, a retired officer and former commander of the Third Fleet.

Defense officials have previously described the American military as likely the world’s largest consumer of petroleum products, with an annual outlay in excess of $13 billion.

Each $1 per barrel increase in oil prices translates into $130 million of extra cost.

Calls for the military to address its environmental performance are not new. But in the past year or so, energy efficiency seems have become more of a priority, from a new solar wall installation at Fort Drum to the purchase of a large electric vehicle fleet for military bases.

:}

After all is said and done, are we safer with all this energy consumption? I think not:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/19-9

US Energy Use a National Security Threat: Study

WASHINGTON – US dependence on fossil fuels and a vulnerable electric grid pose a perilous threat to the country’s national security, retired military officers warned Monday in a report.

The threat requires urgent action and the Defense Department should lead the way in transforming America’s energy use by aggressively pursuing efficiency measures and renewable sources, said the report by CNA, a nonprofit research group.

“Our dependence on foreign oil reduces our international leverage, places our troops in dangerous global regions, funds nations and individuals who wish us harm, and weakens our economy,” it said.

“The market for fossil fuels will be shaped by finite supplies and increasing demand. Continuing our heavy reliance on these fuels is a security risk,” said the report titled “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security.”

The authors, top ranked retired officers from the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, also point to the strained domestic electricity network as a possible hazard for US military bases.

“Our domestic electrical system is also a current and significant risk to our national security: many of our large military installations rely on power from a fragile electrical grid that is vulnerable to malicious attacks or interruptions caused by natural disasters,” it said.

:}

Memorial Day – How do the gasoline refiners celibrate our Veterans?

They raise prices. Yup that is right. If you want to go see the Wall or other war memorials on the DC Mall or even go to Arlington Cemetary…you are going to pay more at the pump. They do it every year and no one makes the connection. Soldiers die in energy wars like Iraq and WWII and then they charge loved ones for the honor of visiting their graves…Of course they do the same thing to Labor in the fall. They are equal opportunity thieves.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090522/pl_usnw/consumers_will_suffer_memorial_day_energy_price_hangover__says_consumer_watchdog

Consumers Will Suffer Memorial Day Energy-Price Hangover, Says Consumer Watchdog

To: NATIONAL EDITORS

Contact: Judy Dugan, +1-213-280-0175 (cell), Jamie Court, +1-310-392-0522 ext. 327, or Carmen Balber, +1-202-629-3043, all of Consumer Watchdog

‘Optimism’ Is Driving Energy Prices and Oil, Gas Prices Rise Steeply for Holiday, Despite Oversupply and Low Demand

WASHINGTON, May 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The price of regular gasoline at the pump has shot up 30 cents a gallon nationally in the last month and crude oil has nearly doubled, to $60 a barrel, since its low point in December, according to data from AAA and the federal Energy Information Administration. Steeply rising prices are tough on everyone except energy traders, said Consumer Watchdog.

“The price spike at the pump amounts to a holiday frat party for energy traders and oil companies, with drivers paying for the kegger,” said Judy Dugan, research director at the nonprofit, nonpartisan Consumer Watchdog. “A one-month pump price increase of 15% can only undercut the rest of an economy struggling to show any sign of long-term recovery.”

Analysts cite optimism that U.S. motorists will drive a little more this Memorial Day weekend, expectations that the economic slump has hit bottom and, harking back to mid-2008, the possibility that Nigerian violence will cut oil output. There is very little hard evidence of increased demand, said Consumer Watchdog.

The record spike in oil and gasoline prices in late 2007 and the first half of 2008 helped send the U.S. and world economies over a cliff, said Consumer Watchdog. Even a smaller spike at this low point of job loss and financial fragility will hurt consumers, curbing more economically productive spending. Food prices are also rising in tandem with oil, though at a slower pace.

Find out more at

www.oilwatchdog.org

www.consumerwatchdog.org

SOURCE Consumer Watchdog

:}

There is not much you can do about it but some people are trying to fight back:

http://ase.org/content/news/detail/5597

Memorial Day Weekend, Summer Travelers Can Cut Gasoline Costs in Tough Economy with Drive $marter Challenge Interactive Website, Money-Saving Tips, Resources

For Further Information                                                             
Jessica Lin (202) 530-4346; jlin@ase.org
Rozanne Weissman (202) 530-2217; rweissman@ase.org

http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/default.aspx

Washington, D.C., May 2009 – With the Memorial Day holiday weekend and heavier summer driving season approaching, and with gasoline prices nowhere near last summer’s record highs, thoughts turn to weekend and vacation road trips as a great escape from economic reality.

The Alliance to Save Energy’s interactive Drive $marter Challenge fuel efficiency website provides vacationers and everyday drivers with hundreds of dollars of money-saving gas tips, resources, and myth busters that respond to the call of frugal drivers: Why pay more for gasoline than you have to, particularly in this economy?

Whether you are headed to the big city or the great outdoors or staying closer to home, you can start saving money on gas even before you are on the road with a little advance planning, basic maintenance, and your driving and other choices:

Planning your vacation:

  • Get a customized vacation map with low gas prices along the route. Getting lost while driving in unfamiliar areas could lead to an expensive waste of gas. Resources on the Drive $marter Challenge website (http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/money-saving-tips/fuel-efficient-resources.aspx) can help your family print a customized vacation map that highlights low-cost gas stations along your route. Choose the right vehicle.  If your family has more than one vehicle, drive the car that gets better gas mileage if possible.
  • Rise and shine!  When possible, drive during off-peak hours to reduce gas costs and stress by avoiding stop-and-go or bumper-to-bumper traffic conditions.
  • Investigate other travel options. Consider trains, buses, or public transportation to your vacation destination when possible.
  • Explore new ways to get around at your destination.  Find information on biking, public transportation routes, car sharing, walking, and renting hybrid or fuel-efficient vehicles on the Drive $marter Challenge websiteresources page at http://drivesmarterchallenge.org/money-saving-tips/fuel-efficient-resources.aspx .

Before you leave: maintenance tips

  • Inflate your tires.  Keeping your tires properly inflated improves gas mileage by around 3%.
  • Select the right oil.  Using the manufacturer’s recommended grade of motor oil improves gas mileage by 1 to 2%. Motor oil that says “Energy Conserving” on the API performance symbol contains friction-reducing additives. Change your oil as recommended to extend the life of your vehicle.
  • Tune up.  Fixing a car that is noticeably out of tune or has failed an emissions test can improve its gas mileage by an average of 4%.

On the road: driving tips

  • Decrease your speed.  Gas mileage usually decreases rapidly above 60 mph. Each five miles per hour over 60 mph is like paying an additional 20 cents or more per gallon for gas.
  • Drive sensibly.  Speeding, rapid acceleration (jackrabbit starts), and rapid braking can lower gas mileage by 33% at highway speeds.
  • Use cruise control and overdrive gear.  Cruise control cuts fuel consumption by maintaining a steady speed during highway driving.  Overdrive gear, when appropriate, reduces engine speed, saves gas, and reduces engine wear.
  • It’s a “drag.” Avoid carrying items on your vehicle’s roof. A loaded roof rack or carrier increases weight and aerodynamic drag, which can cut mileage by 5%. Place items inside the trunk when possible to improve fuel economy.
  • Turn down the air.  Operating the air conditioner on “Max” can reduce mpg by 5-25% compared to not using it.
  • Avoid idling, which gets 0 mpg. Cars with larger engines typically waste even more gas while idling than cars with smaller engines.
  • Navigate with a GPS system.  GPS systems can help you find your way and, increasingly, GPS programs can search for low-priced gas at nearby stations.
  • Fill up before returning rental. Rental car companies charge higher gas prices if you don’t fill up the tank before returning the vehicle. Keep your gas receipts in case the company requires receipts to remove a gas surcharge. 

The Drive $marter Challenge website, www.drivesmarterchallenge.org, has been updated with 2009 vehicle models and current campaign partners. The website calculator and all tips will be further updated May 19 with new projected gas prices for the yearThe Alliance to Save Energy is a coalition of prominent business, government, environmental, and consumer leaders who promote the efficient and clean use of energy worldwide to benefit consumers, the environment, the economy, and national security.

:}

:}

Enbridge Energy And The Rape Of The Canadian Oil Sands – Damge that you can see from space

Why are these people?:

http://www.enbridge.com/

News Releases

Enbridge Inc. Announces Change to Webcast Start Time for 2009 First Quarter Financial Results

Enbridge’s Hybrid Fuel Cell Power Plant Featured on Daily Planet and a Finalist in Green Toronto Awards

News Release (PDF – 69.0KB)

Joint energy industry carbon dioxide storage project achieves key milestone

more…

Enbridge Ontario Wind Power Turns on Green Energy in Kincardine

more…

CCS proposals offer significant emission reductions

04.01.2009

Enbridge Announces plans to hold Open Season for proposed LaCrosse Pipeline

:}

Doing this?

can1.jpg

www.solarnavigator.net

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=70fd4398-81ff-4f17-8ad4-d81e1abe8a46

 

Oilsands damage is ignored

In a province running out of conventional oil and gas, Alberta’s oilsands are seen as a lifeline that will guarantee the continuation of our comfortable energy-driven society.

In a province running out of conventional oil and gas, Alberta’s oilsands are seen as a lifeline that will guarantee the continuation of our comfortable energy-driven society.

Too much of the time, people in this province don’t think about the cost of this gigantic oilsands development. It’s easy to do: most Albertans don’t live in, and rarely visit, the northern one-fifth of the province where the oilsands lie. What we don’t personally see or smell or taste, we tend to ignore.

The four-day series on the environmental impact of the oilsands boom written by Journal environment reporter Hanneke Brooymans, which started on Friday, is a valuable corrective to our neglect.

can.jpg

www.wellsphere.com

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/12/canadian_oil_at.php

Canadian Oil: At What Price?

by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 12. 9.05

Most of you are already aware of the damage caused by the burning and the extraction of oil (like the apprehended damage caused by extraction in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, for example). But what about the famous Canadian tar sands? After only two years of digging for bitumen near Fort McMurray in Alberta, Shell has already dug up a pit that is as much as three miles wide and 200 feet deep. 400-ton trucks, said to be the largest in the world, are used to move around all that dirt, and it takes a lot of it since on average 2 tons of tar sand are required to make 1 barrel of oil.

can2.jpg

www.ienearth.org

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/155046/Oil-sands-company-now-says-1606-ducks-diedhttp://www.responsibleminer.com/234/canadian-oil-sands-declared-more-environment-damage.html

Oil sands company now says 1,606 ducks died

04/01/2009 | 06:49 AMEDMONTON, Alberta — A Canadian oil sands company says more than three times as many ducks died last spring on a northern Alberta toxic waste pond than the 500 birds originally estimated.

Syncrude Canada chief executive Tom Katinas said Tuesday the carcasses of 1,606 ducks were collected from the toxic oily waters. The ponds contain waste from the process of separating oil from sand.

Katinas released the updated figure a week after an Alberta court granted the consortium three more months to enter a plea on federal and provincial wildlife charges. – AP

:}

Don’t Believe go look for yourself:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=canadian%20oil%20sands&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=il

:}

Why should we in Illinois care?

http://www.sj-r.com/news/x1092988725/Officials-lobby-for-oil-pipeline-project-might-start-in-early-summer

 

Officials lobby for oil pipeline; project might start in early summer

Environmental groups oppose last phase of Canadian-U.S. energy company’s plan

GateHouse News Service

Posted Apr 29, 2009 @ 12:06 AM

Last update Apr 29, 2009 @ 10:39 AM

SPRINGFIELD —

Construction of a major underground oil pipeline along the eastern edge of Sangamon County could begin as early as this summer.

An energy developer and the Canadian consul general from Chicago are in Springfield this week to seek support for the endeavor as a major boost for jobs and energy security, including a meeting scheduled today with Gov. Pat Quinn.

The first section of the nearly 3-year-old, $350 million construction project has been completed to an area about 50 miles northeast of Peoria.

But the final phase has run into opposition from environmental groups and some landowners, who say the pipeline would only encourage continued reliance on polluting petroleum products and would violate property rights.

“Canada has the second-largest reserves in the world. There’s 170 billion barrels of reserves, and 97 percent are in the oil sands,” said Don Thompson, president of The Oil Sands Developers Group.

:}

Oh Great Now They Are Picking On Smart Meters – Heh pick on someone your own size

There are some nervous Techno nellies out there that see smart meters as stupid or worse dangerous

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124050416142448555.html

 

Smart Meter, Dumb Idea?

New devices promise to cut energy use by giving consumers

more information. Critics say they aren’t worth the cost.

 

Not everyone thinks smart meters are such a smart use of money.

Utilities are spending billions of dollars outfitting homes and businesses with the devices, which wirelessly send information about electricity use to utility billing departments and could help consumers control energy use.

  The Journal Report

  • See the complete Energy report.

Proponents of smart meters say that when these meters are teamed up with an in-home display that shows current energy usage, as well as a communicating thermostat and software that harvest and analyze that information, consumers can see how much consumption drives cost — and will consume less as a result.

Such knowledge, however, doesn’t come cheap. Meters are expensive, often costing $250 to $500 each when all the bells and whistles are included, such as the expense of installing new utility billing systems. And utilities typically pass these costs directly on to consumers. CenterPoint Energy Inc. in Houston, for instance, recently began charging its customers an extra $3.24 a month for smart meters, sparking howls of protest since the charges will continue for a decade and eventually approach $1 billion.

Consumer advocates fear the costs could be greater than the savings for many households. They also worry that the meters will make it easier for utilities to terminate service — so easy that they will disconnect power for small arrearages that wouldn’t have caused a termination in the past.

View Full ImageThe Journal Report: Energy

John Weber

What’s more, the cost to consumers could go beyond the extra charges imposed by utilities. That’s because consumers usually are left to their own devices (literally) when it comes to adding the in-home displays and home-area networks that use data from the meters to control appliances and other pieces of equipment.

“What we’re most concerned about is that consumers realize real benefits from the meters” from the start, says Michelle Furmanski, general counsel for the Texas House Committee on State Affairs, which is considering legislation that could establish more protections against disconnections.

Ms. Furmanski says that her committee is also looking into the lack of information on meter deployments that is available to the public. The utilities have claimed “trade secret” protections for important financial details about their meter programs, including contract terms with vendors. Such secrecy makes it impossible for consumers to analyze why costs for what appear to be similar services vary so much among utilities.

:}

Or There is This:

http://earth2tech.com/2009/03/27/opinion-smart-meters-are-not-the-answer-to-the-us-power-problem/

Opinion: Smart Meters Are Not the Answer to

the U.S. Power Problem

Written by Subodh Nayar

Subodh Nayar is the Chief Operations Officer of Powerline Telco

Empowering consumers with actionable intelligence about their power will not be the outcome of the deployment of smart meters. Rather, it will be exactly what the utilities intend for it to be: a cost-effective way to implement real-time pricing, demand side management and distribution system monitoring.

Why? The buyer and seller of electricity have opposite power consumption interests. We (buyers) want to have control over the total power we consume and independent confirmation we are getting what we pay for. Electric utilities (sellers) seek to maximize the profits from a business model that requires them to generate, transport and deliver a consistent quality of power — regardless of demand — in exchange for a guaranteed rate of return.

Electricity generated on the power grid isn’t stored, so the grid is engineered and operated to meet peak levels of demand, which might only exist for a few hours per month. Without control over demand, responding to demand spikes will cause the quality of power supplied to fluctuate outside accepted norms, i.e., delivered voltage lags outside the 5 percent acceptable quality band, or frequency fluctuates outside its 2 percent quality band. That can only change if demand can be controlled, so utilities want three things from smart meters:

  1. To protect their return on investment (ROI) by not reducing the total amount of electricity sold.
  2. To free up supply reserved for unpredicted variations in peak demand with direct load control. (If the utility was granted direct control over devices with the highest amperage — the air conditioner (40 amps) and the hot water heater (30 amps) — it could shed 70 percent of the average consumer load, temporarily reducing consumption.)
  3. To reshape the demand curve, shifting demand from the peak busy hours to when demand can be met with baseload power (peak load shaving).

Metering has never been intended to reduce overall consumption.

A smart meter could report on whole house electricity usage, but it could not report on the demand from individual household devices. To make intelligent decisions about energy use, measurement should take place at the outlet, in the device or even on the power cable connecting the device to the outlet. This information can also track the quality of the power being delivered, which can affect the life of the device. Current, temperature and time data could be collected inexpensively, using existing technology, and transmitted over an Internet connection to one of the many service providers with a business intelligence platform. This data can be mined to reveal power quality issues that affect consumption. For example, a low voltage reading will tell you that the device will need to draw more current, increasing the total power cost for that device. Or if your dishwasher were drawing a current for longer than similar appliances, that could alert consumers that a maintenance check is in order.

:}

I tend to think of them as just better meters myself. But to the industry itself they WILL give you a back rub and carry you to bed and tuck you in when you fall asleep:

http://www.smartmeters.com/

Smart grid could prevent catastrophic power outages

Monday, 27 April 2009 12:05

Six summers ago on a particularly warm August afternoon, a tree that should have been trimmed triggered the largest power outage in American history.  The problem quickly spread from Ohio throughout the north-eastern United States – eventually leaving more than 40 million people without power.

The economic damages from the massive blackout have been estimated at $6 billion.  Smart grid technology could have prevented it from ever happening.  A digitised power infrastructure would allow consumers, utilities, and power generation sources to communicate for the first time.  In cases where the power grid is stressed, grid operators would be informed of the situation and could react accordingly.

It seems as if the dream of a smart grid may be finally coming true.  President Obama has made the technology central to his “rebuilding America” plan as a way to create new jobs and reduce America’s carbon footprint.  The stimulus package, enacted in February, included $38.7 billion for the Department of Energy (DOE), of which $4.5 billion is to go directly towards smart grid investments.

:}

Personally technology IS as technology DOES. It is how yah use it yah know.

Why Is Exelon Going Solar – Could it be that the Nuclear business is about to go South?

I find it interesting that Three Mile Island just refuses to go away. 30 years later all the damage that happened and the deaths (yes deaths) make Nuclear’s future in the North and West bleak. But those hicks (sorry) in the South well that is another matter. But first: The Improbable :-0

http://www.suntimes.com/business/1540009,CST-FIN-solar23.article

Exelon to build largest U.S. urban solar power

plant on Chicago’s South Side

ComEd parent looks to stimulus money for 10-megawatt photovoltaic building near 120th and Peoria in West Pullman

April 23, 2009

ComEd parent Exelon Corp. plans to build the nation’s largest urban solar power plant on the city’s South Side by year’s end.

A view of a 39-acre plot on the South Side that will be covered in solar panels by Exelon.
(Scott Stewart/Sun-Times)

The planned 10-megawatt solar photovoltaic building would be at an industrial site near 120th and Peoria in the West Pullman neighborhood, Chicago-headquartered Exelon said Wednesday.

The plant’s 32,800 solar panels would convert the sun’s rays into enough electricity to meet the annual energy requirements of 1,200 to 1,500 homes. It would eliminate about 31.2 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions a year, the equivalent of taking more than 2,500 cars off the road or planting more than 3,200 acres of forest, Exelon said.

“This is exactly the type of shovel-ready, community-benefitting project that the Obama administration is touting,” said Thomas O’Neill, senior vice president for new business development at the company’s Exelon Generation.

:}

Did I mention that Mike Madigan might be looking at allowing the major utillities to get back into generation?

 

Madigan: Electric dereg law may need overhaul

Overhaul might protect consumers, House speaker says

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted Apr 15, 2009 @ 11:40 PM

Last update Apr 16, 2009 @ 06:36 AM

The 1997 law that restructured Illinois’ electric industry has failed to live up to its promise, and it may be time to consider an overhaul to protect consumers from volatile power prices, says House Speaker Michael Madigan.

Madigan, a Chicago Democrat, has filed a legislative resolution calling on the Illinois Power Agency to study whether to let utility companies regain the authority to run their own power-generating plants.

Such a move would reverse a key part of the 1997 law often referred to as “electric deregulation.” Under that law, utility companies such as Ameren Illinois and Commonwealth Edison stopped generating electricity and became power-delivery companies only. The companies’ power-generating arms were spun off into separate, unregulated entities.

The thinking at the time was that consumers would benefit because they’d be able to shop for power as they shop for other goods and services, looking for the best deal and saving money. But competition never developed in the residential market, and residential customers have seen their bills increase.

:}

That Mike he is always thinking of us. But this is what they are probably more worried about:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A393821

 

New revelations about Three Mile Island

disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety

The truth behind the meltdown

22 APR 2009  •  by Sue Sturgis

Editor’s note: This story originally appeared in Facing South, the online magazine of the Institute for Southern Studies.



Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pa.
Photo courtesy of Dept. of Health and Human Services

It was April Fool’s Day, 1979—30 years ago this month—when Randall Thompson first set foot inside the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa. Just four days earlier, in the early morning hours of March 28, a relatively minor problem in the plant’s Unit 2 reactor sparked a series of mishaps that led to the meltdown of almost half the uranium fuel and uncontrolled releases of radiation into the air and surrounding Susquehanna River.It was the single worst disaster ever to befall the U.S. nuclear power industry, and Thompson was hired as a health physics technician to go inside the plant and find out how dangerous the situation was. He spent 28 days monitoring radiation releases.

Today, his story about what he witnessed at Three Mile Island is being brought to the public in detail for the first time; and his version of what happened during that time, supported by a growing body of other scientific evidence, contradicts the official U.S. government story that the Three Mile Island accident posed no threat to the public.

“What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported,” Thompson told Facing South. “Hundreds of times worse.”

:}

All of these articles gooooooooooo on and on about the radioactive iodine that was released being huge, that the total amount of released material was larger yet (nobody mentions it but a lot of it went into the river) and that approximately 450 people died. So I am just going to stitch some articles together. You can read the whole thing if you want:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/03-9

That it happened on April Fools day means that there is a god.

:}

Anomalies abound

That a lot of people died because of what happened at Three Mile Island, as the Thompsons claim, is definitely not part of the official story. In fact, the commercial nuclear power industry and the government insist that despite the meltdown of almost half of the uranium fuel at TMI, there were only minimal releases of radiation to the environment that harmed no one.

For example, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the lobbying group for the U.S. nuclear industry, declares on its website that there have been “no public health or safety consequences from the TMI-2 accident.” The government’s position is the same, reflected in a fact sheet distributed today by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency charged with overseeing the U.S. nuclear power industry: TMI, it says, “led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.” [The watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert offers their take on the NRC factsheet here.]

Those upbeat claims are based on the findings of the Kemeny Commission, a panel assembled by President Jimmy Carter in April 1979 to investigate the TMI disaster. Using release figures presented by Metropolitan Edison and the NRC, the commission calculated that in the month following the disaster there were releases of up to 13 million curies of so-called “noble gases” — considered relatively harmless — but only 13 to 17 curies of iodine-131, a radioactive form of the element that at even moderate exposures causes thyroid cancer. (A curie is a measure of radioactivity, with 1 curie equal to the activity of one gram of radium. For help understanding these and other terms, see the glossary at the end of this piece.)

But the official story that there were no health impacts from the disaster doesn’t jibe with the experiences of people living near TMI. On the contrary, their stories suggest that area residents actually suffered exposure to levels of radiation high enough to cause acute effects — far more than the industry and the government has acknowledged.

Some of their disturbing experiences were collected in the book Three Mile Island: The People’s Testament, which is based on interviews with 250 area residents done between 1979 and 1988 by Katagiri Mitsuru and Aileen M. Smith.

It includes the story of Jean Trimmer, a farmer who lived in Lisburn, Pa. about 10 miles west of TMI. On the evening of March 30, 1979, Trimmer stepped outside on her front porch to fetch her cat when she was hit with a blast of heat and rain. Soon after, her skin became red and itchy as if badly sunburned, a condition known as erythema. About three weeks later, her hair turned white and began falling out. Not long after, she reported, her left kidney “just dried up and disappeared” — an occurrence so strange that her case was presented to a symposium of doctors at the nearby Hershey Medical Center. All of those symptoms are consistent with high-dose radiation exposure.

:}

But this has been going on for years…please ignore the nutball survivalist website. It is difficult to get Ken Briggs testimony online. Don’t forget we had Jimmie “the nuke” Carter as President>>>

Nuclear Power Plant Hazard Issues

Are you prepared for a nuclear power plant disaster?

3 March 2001, V3    by Kevin Briggs, Director, USDPI

Observations about the Three Mile Island Nuclear Disaster

“Friday, Saturday, and Sunday were hectic days in the emergency preparedness offices of the counties close to Three Mile Island. Officials labored first to prepare 10-mile evacuation plans and then ones covering areas out to 20 miles from the plant. {USDPI comment:  State and local governments, with support from the Federal government and utilities, currently develop plans that include a “plume emergency planning zone” with a radius of only 10 miles from each nuclear power plant. However, government officials recognize that in a catastrophic incident, a 20 mile evacuation radius akin to what was needed with the Chernobyl disaster may be more appropriate.} The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency recommended Friday morning that 10-mile plans be readied. The three counties closest to the nuclear plant already had plans to evacuate their residents — a total of about 25,000 living within 5 miles of the Island. A 10-mile evacuation had never been contemplated. For Kevin Molloy in Dauphin County, extending the evacuation zone meant the involvement of several hospitals — something he had not confronted earlier. There were no hospitals within 5 miles. Late Friday night, PEMA told county officials to develop 20-mile plans. Suddenly, six counties were involved in planning for the evacuation of 650,000 people, 13 hospitals, and a prison.”

:}

I quote this to say what should have happened immediately. Not 1 day later when the State was notified and not 3 days later when the Feds had been notified. By that time they knew that a good chunk of New York and Pennsylvania were involved so they DID NOTHING.

The damage was done pretty much in the first several hours of the crisis. There is this from 1979 and it is nasty:

http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/11/five-versions-of-truth-for-three-mile.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/SFchp18.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/SecretFallout/index.html
Deaths after Three Mile Island accident (end of March 1979):

US Center for Health Statistics for Pennsylvania in May 1979. A SUMMARY

US Center for Health Statistics for Pennsylvania in May 1979 showed the following (per thousand live births): 147 infant deaths in February, 141 in March, 166 in April, 198 in May. At the same time the number of births had declined from 13,589 in March 1979 to 13,201 in May. For the United States as whole the rate of infant deaths per 1000 live births had declined 11 percent between March and May 1979…., “the Pennsylvania figures for March and May representing an increase of 57 deaths, which was more than three times the statistically expected normal fluctuation of about +/- 16, and thus unlikely to occur purely by chance in less than one in a thousand instances.”

The US Vital Statistics for Upstate New York in 1979. A SUMMARY

The US Vital Statistics for Upstate New York in 1979 (north, northwest, and northeast of Harrisburg some 100 to 200 miles away and in the direction the wind was blowing when the heaviest releases of radiation were occurring.) According to these studies of wind direction the expectation was that “The figures for the rest of the state outside of New York City should have gone up, while New York City should either have shown no change or an actual decline….the numbers showed: Between March and May, infant deaths outside New York City climbed an amazing 52 percent, by 63 deaths, from 121 to 184. For New York City during the same period the number declined from 166 to 129. Again, these changes were many times as large as normal fluctuations, and the number of births changed relatively little, or by less than 10 percent.

What about the data for Harrisburg? A SUMMARY.

“only Tokuhata had the data for the 5-mile and 10-mile zones around the plant, and there was no way that I would be able to obtain them…Warren L. Prelesnik, executive vice-president in charge of administration Harrisburg Hospital provided a list of the monthly infant deaths, fetal deaths, stillbirths, and live births in the Harrisburg Hospital for the previous two years. In February, March, and April of 1979, there had only been 1 infant death per month. But for each of the two months of May and June, there were 4. Effectively, since the number of births had not only remained nearly the same but had actually declined slightly, this was more than a fourfold increase in the mortality rate, or of the right magnitude required to fit the observed 50 percent rise in the more distant area of upstate New York. From an average of 5.7 per 1000 live births in the three months of February, March, and April — before the releases could have had an appreciable effect — the newborn mortality rate had risen to 24.1 for May and 26.0 for June, an unprecedented summer peak that did not occur the previous year. In fact, for May and June of 1978, there had been a total of only 3 infant deaths, while for the same period in 1979 after the accident, there had been 8.As some of my colleagues with whom I discussed these findings agreed, by themselves the Harrisburg Hospital numbers were of course small, and only marginally significant, representing only about one-third of all the births and deaths in Harrisburg. But taken together with the vastly more significant and independent numbers for all of Pennsylvania, upstate New York, New York City, New Jersey, Maryland, and Ohio, there was now a much greater degree of certainty: It would have been much too much of a coincidence — perhaps less than one in a million — for all these different numbers to show the pattern they did.

The time and cause of death due to radiation. What can be expected. SUMMARY

One of the remaining important questions that had to be checked, however, was the time and cause of death? if the excess deaths were connected with the radioactive iodine released from the plant, then they should be associated with underweight births or immaturity, since damage to the fetal thyroid would slow down the normal rapid growth and development of the baby in the last few months before birth. The development of the lungs, which have to be ready to begin breathing at the moment of birth, is one of the most critical phases of late fetal development. Any developmental slowdown would be most life-threatening if it led to the inability of the tiny air sacs in the lungs to inflate and start supplying the blood with oxygen. Failure of the lungs to function properly would therefore lead to immediate symptoms of respiratory distress, and if efforts to treat the baby should not succeed, it would die in a matter of minutes, hours, or days of respiratory insufficiency or hyaline membrane disease. Thus, one would not expect to find as large an increase in spontaneous miscarriages well before birth as newborn deaths within a short time after birth, since the lungs did not need to start functioning until the baby was born. Also, there should be no significant increase in gross congenital malformations a few months after the accident, since by the time the baby in the mother’s womb had reached the sixth or seventh month of development, all the major organs had already fully developed. Thus, only some six to seven months after the accident would one expect some increase in serious physical malformations, since these infants would have been exposed to radiation in the first three months of development of critical-organ formation.

data from the Harrisburg Hospital supported these expectations

State of Pennsylvania Health Department had discovered a rise in hypothyroidism among newborn babies in areas where the radioactive gases from Three Mile Island had been carried by the winds.

:}

Now aren’t you glad you know? More tomorrow on Nukes in the South.

:}