Central Illinois Where The Energy Past Confronts The Future – Which will win?

Posted on April 30, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

While Scooters and Wind Turbines may be the future the past always tries to claw its way back into the picture. In the past week we have had news about ADM’s efforts to inject poison into Mother Earth, a letter to the SJR indicating that a Carbon Tax would create the End Of Civilization As We Know It, and a team of Lobbyists here in Springfield and Chicago drumming up support for the extension of a pipeline from Peoria to the Wood River Refinery to complete the Rape Of Northern Canada…

Thank God no one suggested a New Nuclear Powerplant or I would have run out of space on this blog.

First ADM:

http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2008/01/04/news/doc477daa5c2edd0528350999.txt

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:22 AM CST
Sequestration project in works at ADM; effort is similar to that planned for FutureGen

By CHRIS LUSVARDI, Staff Writer
clusvardi@herald-review.com

DECATUR — A project to test carbon dioxide storage capacity deep below Archer Daniels Midland Co.’s campus is scheduled to begin this spring.

The company will announce today a partnership with the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, which is led by the Champaign-based Illinois State Geological Survey, to work on the $84.3-million project.

It will be one of seven projects the U.S. Department of Energy is funding to demonstrate carbon dioxide, or CO2, storage capacity in underground formations throughout the country. Researchers are looking for uses of carbon dioxide other than emitting it into the atmosphere.

“The whole idea is to understand what is going on in any given area to figure out whether this technique can be safe and effective,” said Robert Finley, director of the Illinois State Geological Survey. “Ultimately this is a technique that we are looking at very carefully to understand what the volume of the CO2 is that might actually be placed in the subsurface.”

The consortium will receive $66.7 million to test a part of the Mount Simon Sandstone, a saline-water-bearing rock formation that has increased in notoriety recently because the FutureGen plant in Mattoon also will test it. The formation runs below most of Illinois, Kentucky and Indiana and part of Ohio.

Beginning in late April, workers will drill more than 6,500 feet below the surface to the rock layer where the carbon dioxide will be stored. The drilling is expected to take about two months to complete, Finley said.

The energy department has awarded $4.2 million in funding for the drilling, Finley said. Another $5.24 million to cover the first year of the project is expected to be awarded within weeks, he said.

The project will inject 1,000 tons per day of carbon dioxide from ADM’s ethanol plant into the ground, Finley said. The layer where it will be injected is about 1,000 feet thick in the Decatur area, Finley said.

Injecting is scheduled to start in October 2009 and be completed in 2012. For two years after that, officials will monitor, take samples and make sure nothing is leaking from the formation.

OK let us see – How can something be CERTAIN and yet Experimental? No one will answer that question. The Illinois EPA which is being investigated by the Federal EPA for Collusion with Polluters gave them a permit in a heartbeat..:

http://myecoproject.org/global-warming-news/sequester-co2-first-us-large-scale-co2-storage-project-advances/

Sequester CO2: First U.S. Large-Scale CO2

Storage Project Advances

April 11, 2009 by Administrator
Filed under Global Warming News

Nuclear Power Goes South – I don’t want to work, it’s jam band Friday

Posted on April 24, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

I just want to bang the drum all day….That is a direct quote from Duke Power’s William Griggs when asked why there are 12 nuclear power plant license applications in the south eastern US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZclddLcOYYA
Well maybe not but they sure see it as easy money. Once again to cheap to meter:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40785

ENERGY: Protests Greet Nuclear Power Resurgence in US South
By Matthew Cardinale

A recent protest at the Oak Ridge nuclear plant in Tennessee.

Credit:Nicholas Foster/Atlanta Progressive News

WAYNESBORO, Georgia , Jan 14 (IPS) – Residents and environmental activists are in a bitter dispute with large U.S. energy corporations and the federal government over the safety of nuclear power, as more than a dozen corporations plan to, or have filed, paperwork to open new nuclear power plants, primarily in the U.S. South.

Energy giants like Southern Company, Entergy, and Florida Power and Light are attracted by billions in governmental incentives offered under the George W. Bush Administration.

“There’s a whole suite of incentives being pumped out by the federal government to try and cajole the utilities back into the game,” Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South told IPS.

The U.S. Congress last month passed 38.5 billion dollars in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. “If they can’t pay back the loan, or don’t want to pay back the loan, the government will guarantee the banks up to 80 percent,” Carroll said.

Five sites have already applied for the first combined licensing applications in 32 years, Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told IPS. They are located in south Texas, Bellefonte in Alabama, Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, North Anna in Virginia, and Lee Site in South Carolina.

Four companies have applied for Early Site Permits for sites in Grand Gulf, Mississippi; Clinton, Illinois; North Hanna, Virginia; and Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia.

“We’ve had indications of interest from 12 to 15 other companies,” Hannah said.

The NRC held a public hearing in Waynesboro, Georgia, one of the closest affected cities to Plant Vogtle, on Oct. 4, 2007, to address the NRC’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The NRC must produce the EIS, as per the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act.

The NRC insists the risks posed by nuclear power are small and within federal guidelines. However, activists argue the draft EIS ignores many issues and contend that nuclear power is unsafe.

At a time Georgia is in a historic drought, when residents are being told the state is running out of drinking water, the NRC and other agencies allow over a billion gallons of water per year from the Savannah River to be consumed by the existing Plant Vogtle Units 1 and 2.

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

It could be their enormous water demands that kills them this time but they have never been a very good idea on so many levels.

But here is what the rah rahs had to say about it:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

The Energy Policy Act 2005 then provided a much-needed stimulus for investment in electricity infrastructure including nuclear power. New reactor construction is expected to start about 2010, with operation in 2014.

In February 2007 the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reported that it saw a need for 64 GWe of new nuclear generating capacity in the USA by 2030 – 24 GWe of it by 2020, with nuclear representing some 25.5% of output by 2030.

After 20 years of steady decline, government R&D funding for nuclear energy is being revived with the objective of rebuilding US leadership in nuclear technology. In 1997 nuclear fission R&D was, at US$ 37 million, lower than in France, South Korea, or Canada – only 2% of total energy R&D, which compared pathetically with 68% (US$ 2537 million) of a much larger budget in Japan. From the 1999 budget, this situation has been turned around with various programs including the flagship Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) and also Plant Optimisation. The first 45 NERI grants were awarded in 1999, signalling a reinvigoration of the federal role in nuclear research, following successful conclusion of the advanced reactor program in 1998.

For FY 2008 (from October 2007) the Department of Energy is seeking $875 million for its nuclear energy programs. . The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative for closing the fuel cycle and supporting the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would receive $395 million of this and Generation-IV R&D would get $36 million, chiefly for the very high temperature reactor. The Nuclear Power 2010 program aimed at early deployment of advanced reactors would get $114 million.

For US nuclear plant data, see Nuclear Energy Institute web site, nuclear statistics section.

Contents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUBvCGBa0B0&NR=1

South Carolina is so confident about building the Nuke that they at least are going to self finance theirs. What happens when an actual State goes bankrupt?

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE51B46920090212

South Carolina regulators OK nuclear

power project

By Jim Brumm

WILMINGTON, North Carolina (Reuters) – South Carolina regulators have unanimously approved a request by the state’s largest utility, South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G), to join with a state-owned utility to build two nuclear reactors.

The South Carolina Public Service Commission vote on Wednesday gave South Carolina Electric & Gas the right to begin raising electricity rates next month to help pay for its portion of the $9.8 billion project.

SCE&G, a subsidiary of SCANA Corp, and Santee Cooper, known formally as the South Carolina Public Service Authority, plan to build the two reactors at the site of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station near Jenkinsville, about 30 miles north of the state capitol, Columbia.

The commission approval also puts the SCE&G/Santee Cooper project ahead of the other 16 applications filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined construction and operating license (COL) for a nuclear power plant.

The NRC’s review of the COL applications is expected to take three to four years. It has been three decades since a nuclear power plant was built in the United States.

The South Carolina utilities have contracted Westinghouse Electric Co. — owned by Japan’s Toshiba and Shaw Group — to build the nuclear plant and expect to have the first reactor in operation by 2016.

SCE&G proposes financing its planned $5.4 billion investment in the new power plant by raising rates 0.49 percent in March and another 2.8 percent in October 2009, followed by increases in each of the next 10 years.

The first increase will be about 53 cents a month for SCE&G customers using 1,000 kilowatt hours of power per month, which now costs $107.60, according to SCE&G spokesman Robert Yanity.

As a state-owned utility, Santee Cooper does not need to seek Public Service Commission approval of its investment in the planned nuclear power plant.

Some people take that bang the drum more seriously than they take Nuclear Power:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrwg8bt14k&feature=related

But heh you know how they arrre in the sowth…all gracious, laid back and stupider than well a hog waller:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-03-29-nuclear-power-energy-return_N.htm

Nuclear power inches back into energy spotlight

By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY

The nation’s nuclear power industry — stuck in a decades-long deep freeze — is thawing.

Utilities are poised to build a new generation of nuclear plants 30 years after the Three Mile Island accident, whose anniversary was Saturday, halted new reactor applications. The momentum is being driven by growing public acceptance of relatively clean nuclear energy to combat global warming.

Several companies have taken significant steps that will likely lead to completion of four reactors by 2015 to 2018 and up to eight by 2020. All would be built next to existing nuclear plants.

Southern Co. (SO) says it will begin digging an 86-foot-deep crater this June in Vogtle, Ga., to make way for two reactors after recently winning state approval, though it won’t pour concrete until it gets a federal license, likely in 2011. At least five power companies have signed contracts with equipment vendors. And Florida and South Carolina residents this year began paying new utility fees to finance planned reactors.

The steps signal that a nuclear renaissance anticipated for several years is finally taking shape. Seventeen companies have sought U.S. federal approval for 26 reactors since late 2007. All have enhanced safety features.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjyUrA1sD18&feature=related

Then again if you are a Nuclear Tourist you will have much more to see:

http://www.nucleartourist.com/us/us-plant.htm

That is right IF YOU ARE a Nuclear Tourist:

The following links provide information about each of the nuclear plants in the United States. The first links and maps provide information from the NRC website. The final links are Virtual Nuclear Tourist site and utility pages.

NRC Pages

Map of the United States Showing Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Reactors

Select a triangle showing the location of an operating nuclear power reactor from the map below.

Sorry about the kid and the drum but new Nukes is a lame idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9EHYaMsJhA&NR=1

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

Posted on April 23, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

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

BY CHERYL V. JACKSON Staff Reporter

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

By ADRIANA COLINDRES

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.

Peak Oil I Love YOU…Leanan does an amazing job

Posted on April 16, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

It is rare well at least medium rare that I give credit where credit is due but the Peak Oil folks and Leanan in particular deserve so much credit. Day in and Day out..NO MATTER what the price of oil or gasoline…they still believe that we are running out of the stuff. That is great because WE ARE:

http://www.peakoil.com/

From the paranoid:

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=47647

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0415/p13s01-wmgn.html

Economic slump provides

tinder for global conflicts

With more people pushed into poverty,

the probability of armed rebellions increases around the world.

By David R. Francis | Columnist

The new director of the National Intelligence Agency caused something of a stir last month when he warned Congress: “The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications.”

On that theme, Hampshire College professor Michael Klare sees the world economic meltdown as already prompting “economic brush fires” around the world and worries whether these could prove “too virulent to contain.”

It seems as if the lyrics “trouble, trouble, trouble” from Meredith Willson’s “The Music Man” have become too real in today’s world.

Last November Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank Group, noted that the global financial crisis would hit hardest the “poorest and most vulnerable” in the developing world. At that time, Mr. Zoellick calculated another 100 million people around the world had been driven into poverty as a result of soaring food and oil prices. These prices have eased. Nonetheless, hundreds of millions in poor nations must try to balance household budgets on incomes of $2 a day or less.

Now he’s forecasting the world economy will shrink by 1 to 2 percent this year, with difficulties possibly extending into next year. That’s much worse than the bank group’s forecast last year. It will be the first time world output has actually declined since World War II. And each 1 percent decline

in developing-country growth rates pushes an additional 20 million people into poverty, Zoellick reckons.

“The political ramifications [of rising poverty] will be great … though hard to predict,” says John Sewell, a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in Washington. Before the election last fall, he assembled a group of experts who urged the incoming president to streamline the nation’s development tools. These are now spread among 12 government departments, 25 government agencies, and almost 60 government offices. “No one is in charge,” the group held.

Powerful droughts around the world could cause food shortages, reversing a dramatic drop in global poverty that the economic crisis recently halted, worries Mr. Klare, an expert on peace and world security.

In Africa and in East Asia, population growth also adds to economic pressures.

As for brush fires, the driest tinder lies in eastern European states such as Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bulgaria, he says. There, the people in fragile democracies had the notion that rising prosperity in the 1990s and up to 2006 would continue forever. Now the money from the West has dried up and gone home, leading to an economic bust.

“That is what is driving them to rage,” says Klare. “The promises have been taken away.”

To the paradoxical:

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=47644

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30240000/

Renewable energy’s environmental paradox

Wind and solar projects may carry costs for wildlife

Sandy Seth, via Friends of the Bosque del Apache via AP

Sandhill Cranes fly in formation into the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge near Socorro, N.M., last year. Environmentalists have raised concerns that the birds’ habitats could be affected by a planned sun and wind power transmission line.

WASHINGTON – The SunZia transmission line that would link sun and wind power from central New Mexico with cities in Arizona is just the sort of energy project an environmentalist could love — or hate. And it is just the sort of line the Interior Department has been tasked with promoting — or guarding against.

If built, the 460-mile line would carry about 3,000 megawatts of power, enough to avoid the need for a handful of coal-fired plants and to help utilities meet mandated targets for use of renewable fuel. “We have to connect the sun of the deserts and the winds of the plains to places where people live,” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said recently.

But the line would also cross grasslands, skirt two national wildlife refuges and traverse the Rio Grande, all habitat areas rich in wildlife. The graceful sandhill crane, for example, makes its winter home in the wetlands of New Mexico’s Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, right next to the path of the proposed power line. And much of the area falls under the protection of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

To the pusillanimously positive:

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=47643

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/action-plan-for-50-how-solar-thermal-can-supply-europes-energy

April 15, 2009

Action Plan for 50%:

How Solar Thermal Can Supply Europe’s Energy

The solar thermal sector’s strategy to reach a 50% contribution

to Europe’s space and water heating requirements by 2050.

by David Appleyard, Associate Editor

London, UK [Renewable Energy World Magazine]

The research efforts and infrastructure needed to supply 50% of the energy for space and water heating and cooling across Europe using solar thermal energy has been set out under the aegis of the European Solar Thermal Technology Platform (ESTTP). Published in late December 2008, more than 100 experts developed the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA), which includes a deployment roadmap showing the non-technological framework conditions that will enable this ambitious goal to be reached by 2050.

A strategy for achieving a vision of widespread low-temperature solar thermal installations was first explored by ESTTP in 2006, but since then the SRA has identified key areas for rapid growth. These focus points include

the development of active solar buildings, active solar renovation, solar heat for industrial processes and solar heat for district heating and cooling. Meanwhile, amongst the main research challenges is the development of compact long-term efficient heat storage technology. Once available, they would make it possible to store heat from the summer for use in winter in a cost-effective way.

The ESTTP’s main objective is to create the right conditions in order to fully exploit solar thermal’s potential for heating and cooling in Europe and worldwide.

As a first step for the development of the deployment roadmap and of the Strategic Research Agenda, ESTTP developed a vision for solar thermal in 2030. Its key elements are to establish the Active Solar Building – covering 100% of their heating and cooling demand with solar energy – as a standard for new buildings by 2030; establish the Active Solar Renovation as a standard for the refurbishment of existing buildings by 2030 (Active Solar renovated buildings cover at least 50% of their heating and cooling demand with solar thermal energy); supply a substantial share of the industrial process heat demand up to 250°C, including heating and cooling, desalination and water treatment; and achieve broad use of solar energy in district heating and cooling.

They got it covered. My hat’s off to you.

OIL – What is it good for?

Posted on April 8, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

Paraphasing Edwin Starr:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv5BYEOQYLo

I have this theory that the oil market is broken. I predicted that gasoline prices would spike this summer NO MATTER what the price of oil. In other words the price of oil has been decoupled. I think it is the result of speculators driving the price up last year past 3$$ a gallon. The Saudi’s always said that that was a “psychological barrier” for Americans. Maybe they were right and the speculators were stupid.

http://www.fool.com/shop/newsletters/18/ecap.htm?logvisit=y&source=esagglkey3750099&cid=1632&engine=Google&eftype=search&keyword=hot+energy+stocks&ef_id=1833:3:s_e95cd744d62b001fd04577be09445718_2900154008:DDtLCkGvMaAAAAk1hdEAAAAI:20090408154724&bounce=y&bounce2=y A Motley Fool Stock Advisor special report

Search results for: » hot energy stocks «
See free report below for more information…

FREE Report!

“The Only Energy Stock You’ll Ever Need”

Obama’s “Repower America” initiative will pour hundreds of billions into new energy projects — creating an estimated 3 million NEW U.S. jobs over the next two years!

Domestic natural gas production will surge… In fact, CNBC claims Obama’s administration “should be a boon to natural gas producers.” Today may be your one-time chance to get in early on the coming “Natural Gas Boom.”

Find out the name and ticker symbol of the leading manufacturer of natural gas pipelines and highly specialized equipment for tapping new natural gas wells in a new FREE report from The Motley Fool called, “The Only Energy Stock You’ll Ever Need!”

To claim your copy of this premium stock report just click the “Click Here, It’s Free” button below and you’ll instantly access our latest and best research, FREE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-bA9FYB8HY&feature=related:}

http://www.fool.com/

Is It Time to Buy Oil?

By Anand Chokkavelu
April 3, 2009 | Comments (14)

Recs

97

Even Warren Buffett has been bamboozled by oil.He admitted it in his latest annual report to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A) — the holding company he runs. In his own words: “I bought a large amount of ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) stock when oil and gas prices were near their peak. I in no way anticipated the dramatic fall in energy prices that occurred in the last half of the year.”Specifically, he made the bulk of his purchases during the six months ending Sept. 30, 2008 — you know, the same time in which oil prices peaked near $150 a barrel.

The price of oil is now around $50 a barrel, and ConocoPhillips’ stock price has tanked in lockstep with the oil freefall. Buffett clearly bought oil too early. But is it still too early for us to buy up oil stocks now?

Now may be the time

Those bullish on oil point to the inevitability of “peak oil,” arguing that the time will come when we hit the peak of global oil production. From that point on, we’ll be able to pump less and less oil out of the ground. In economic terms, we’ll face decreasing supply.

Meanwhile, bulls argue that demand will increase greatly, as China and other emerging markets fuel their economic growth with oil. On average, each person in the U.S. consumes about 25 barrels of oil a year; each person in China consumes just more than two. That’s a lot of possible future demand.

And all of us amateur economists know what happens when you restrict supply while simultaneously increasing demand: prices rise.

But then again …

Um, weren’t these the same arguments made when oil was at $147 a barrel? Yup. At that price, all these favorable supply and demand assumptions were baked in, and then some. The subsequent price fall highlights that we’ll only make great returns if we buy at low prices.

With oil prices at a third of their summer highs, oil plays are certainly tempting now. Getting in at steep discounts to the prices Buffett paid is a wonderful thing. However, when we look back in time, we see that current oil prices are four times the lows of the late 1990s.

In other words, looking at price movements by themselves just isn’t that helpful. We need to estimate oil’s intrinsic value.

How do we do that?
Beyond bubbles and busts, oil should sell at its marginal cost of production, plus some profit. Unfortunately, that’s not easy to calculate with much precision. Some oil sources are really easy to find and extract (traditional onshore) while others are especially onerous (especially oil sands and deepwater).

AND YET From the same source:

Oil falls to near $48, following stocks down

By Associated Press
April 8, 2009 | Comments (0)

Recs

1

Oil prices fell Wednesday, weighed by weaker stock markets and waning optimism that the U.S. economy will soon recover from its severe recession.Benchmark crude for May delivery fell $1.09 to $48.06 a barrel by afternoon in Europe in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract fell $1.90 on Tuesday to settle at $49.15.Oil and stock markets have dropped this week, winding back March’s big rally, as investors eye what could be a grim first quarter U.S. corporate earnings season.

Oil traders often look to stocks as a measure of investor sentiment about the overall economy. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 2.3 percent Tuesday. Asian and European markets also dropped Wednesday.

Alcoa Inc., the world’s third-largest aluminum maker, reported a loss of $497 million for the first three months of the year as revenue dropped 44 percent. Alcoa was the first blue chip company to report first quarter earnings and is considered an indicator of upcoming results from other firms.

“The rally we saw in oil and equities was based on optimism that all the fiscal stimulus will be effective in sparking demand down the track,” said Toby Hassall, an analyst with Commodity Warrants Australia in Sydney. “But we haven’t seen much evidence of that yet.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DIp7ew_z8I&feature=related

CCS Carbon Capture And Storage – Treating the symptoms not the disease

Posted on April 7, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

Let us say that you had an operable form of cancer and your doctor offered you chemotherapy. What would you say to him? Let us imagine that you had a torn tendon and your doctor offered you aspirin as your main form of treatment. What would you say? Actually you would probably CHANGE doctors…

So what would you say to this:

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2188238/

ADM begins carbon capture work

Fri. February 20, 2009; Posted: 03:58 PM

DECATUR, Feb 20, 2009 (Herald & Review – McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) — ADM | Quote | Chart | News | PowerRating —

Drilling began this week for a carbon dioxide injection well as part of an $84.3 million project beneath Archer Daniels Midland Co. property.Workers have started constructing a well that will reach more than 6,500 feet underground. The drilling of the injection well is expected to be completed in late March or early April.

No objections were filed before a late January deadline for an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency permit approving the process. That clears the way for the drilling equipment to be moved into place, said Sallie Greenberg, Illinois Geological Survey communications coordinator. The project is intended to capture carbon dioxide from ADM’s ethanol plant, convert it into liquid and pump it underground for storage before it’s emitted into the atmosphere. The U.S. Department of Energy expects 1 million tons of carbon dioxide from the plant to be injected over a three-year period, beginning in early 2010. The project is intended to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that contributes to global warming.

http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=172&PHPSESSID=7m93ilb52ngl1vf8bk3sostnd5

Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium receives Phase III funding
Storage, Feb 21 2008 (Carbon Capture Journal)

– The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC), and the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) have been awarded a $66.7 million contract from the US DOE.

The funding is to conduct a Phase III large-scale sequestration demonstration project in the Mt. Simon Sandstone.

The MGSC, ISGS, and Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) will work together on this carbon sequestration project, which will involve the capture and storage of CO2 from ADM’s ethanol plant in Decatur, Illinois.

The $84.3 million project will be funded by $66.7 million from the U.S. Department of Energy over a period of seven years, supplemented by cofunding from ADM, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and other corporate and state resources.

The project is designed to confirm the ability of the Mt. Simon Sandstone, a major regional saline reservoir in Illinois, to accept and store 1 million metric tonnes of CO2 over a period of three years.

Already they are a year behind..Why does this sound like a replay of NUCLEAR Power. Delays….Cost over runs….Accidents… All to avoid leaving the nasty stuff in the ground in the first place. Even Scientific America gets into the act:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=can-carbon-capture-and-storage-save-coal

Can Carbon Capture and Storage Save Coal?

Capturing carbon dioxide may be the only hope to avoid a climate change catastrophe from burning fossil fuels

By David Biello

schwarze-pumpe

OXYFUEL: In September 2007 the oxyfuel combustion chamber is lifted into place at the Schwarze Pumpe power plant in Germany–one of the first power plants in the world to capture carbon dioxide.
Courtesy of Vattenfal

Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of five features on carbon capture and storage, running daily from April 6 to April 10, 2009.

Like all big coal-fired power plants, the 1,600-megawatt-capacity Schwarze Pumpe plant in Spremberg, Germany, is undeniably dirty. Yet a small addition to the facility—a tiny boiler that pipes 30 MW worth of steam to local industrial customers—represents a hope for salvation from the global climate-changing consequences of burning fossil fuel.

To heat that boiler, the damp, crumbly brown coal known as lignite—which is even more polluting than the harder black anthracite variety—burns in the presence of pure oxygen, a process known as oxyfuel, releasing as waste both water vapor and that more notorious greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO₂). By condensing the water in a simple pipe, Vattenfall, the Swedish utility that owns the power plant, captures and isolates nearly 95 percent of the CO₂ in a 99.7 percent pure form.

That CO₂ is then compressed into a liquid and given to another company, Linde, for sale; potential users range from the makers of carbonated beverages, such as Coca-Cola, to oil firms that use it to squeeze more petroleum out of declining deposits. In principle, however, the CO₂ could also be pumped deep underground and locked safely away in specific rock formations for millennia.

From the International Energy Agency to the United Nations–sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), such carbon capture and storage (CCS), particularly for coal-fired power plants, has been identified as a technology critical to enabling deep, rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. After all, coal burning is responsible for 40 percent of the 30 billion metric tons of CO₂ emitted by human activity every year.

“There is the potential for the U.S. and other countries to continue to rely on coal as a source of energy while at the same time protecting the climate from the massive greenhouse gas emissions associated with coal,” says Steve Caldwell, coordinator for regional climate change policy at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a Washington, D.C. think tank.

Even President Barack Obama has labeled the technology as important for “energy independence” and included $3.4 billion in the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for “clean coal” power.

Today three types of technology can capture CO2 at a power plant. One, as at Schwarze Pumpe, involves the oxyfuel process: burning coal in pure oxygen to produce a stream of CO₂-rich emissions. The second uses various forms of chemistry—in the form of amine scrubbers, special membranes or ionic liquids—to pull carbon dioxide out of a more mixed set of exhaust gases. The third is gasification, in which liquid or solid fuels are first turned into synthetic natural gas; CO₂ from the conversion of the gas can be siphoned off.

Then there is this:

ckmapawatt at 10:27 PM on 04/06/09

NO, NO, NO.  Carbon Capture and Storage is not the answer!  It is treating the symptoms and not the disease.

I recently wrote a blog looking at this same issue:

http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/03/13/carbon-capture-and-storage/Basically, we can take BILLIONS and spend it on burying something underground, or we can spend that money and put it to good use while taking the same amount of CO2 out of the air.

Carbon Capture is short term decision making and thinking that is mainly being promoted by the Coal Industry.  Would you really call Carbon Capture a sustainable practice?

Backed up by this:

http://blog.mapawatt.com/2009/03/13/carbon-capture-and-storage/

Carbon Capture and Storage – Solution or Fantasy?

(Disclaimer: the below article is a thought experiment. I’m not suggesting it as a real solution, but rather a way to analyze two different carbon mitigating strategies. Enjoy!)

You might have seen the environmental articles recently related to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Basically, all CCS does is take the CO2 that coal plants produce, collect it, and pump it underground. Sounds like a good idea right? Well, on the surface it does, but let’s dig down into the actual numbers a little bit.

In order to better understand the proposed function of CCS, let’s walk through a comparison of a power generation plant with and without CCS. I’m going to look at two options:

Option 1: 500 MW (capacity before CCS) IGCC (type of coal plant) with Carbon Capture and Storage
Option 2: 500 MW IGCC plant with the money that would be used on CCS to be spent on a wind farm

In comparing our two options, pretend you’re the President of Power Generation Company for planet Earth (this is a made up company. The point is you base your decisions on what is best for the planet and the people buying your power. You don’t base your decisions on politics). In both options the 500 MW IGCC plant is already installed, you are just comparing whether to spend money on carbon capture and storage, or take the equivalent amount of money and use it for another purpose that would help the environment, in this case a wind farm.

You may ask: Why do I want to install a wind farm if my goal is to reduce CO2 (even though your real goal is to do what’s best for Earth)? Because you are all powerful, you are going to figure out how much energy the wind farm produces, then find an old dirty coal plant that produces the same amount of energy, and take that coal plant off line. Therefore, reducing the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere by enabling the old coal plant to be taken off line, and also helping wind power reach economies of scale.

Installing CCS or a Wind Farm that replaces old Coal:

A recent paper by David and Herzog at MIT estimated the future cost of CCS at $1,145/kw (estimated cost in 2012) of installed power. So, for the 500 MW IGCC plant, it would cost $572.5 million dollars to install CCS technology. Now, you have the option of taking this money and using it to buy a Wind Farm instead. The American Wind Energy Association states that it costs about $ 1 million to install 1 MW of generating capacity for a wind farm. Therefore, $572.5 million will enable you to install 572 MW of installed wind energy (with $500 k left over)!

In order to analyze how much CO2 will be kept out of the atmosphere by taking the old coal plant off line, we have to calculate the yearly power output of the wind farm. To do this, you need what is called a Capacity Factor. Basically, this is just the percentage of time during the year that a power producing facility produces power at its rated capacity. The organization National Wind Watch states that in 2003, the average capacity factor for US wind farms was 26.9%. Therefore, to calculate how much energy the wind farm produces (MWh) during the year:

Yearly Output (MWh) = (installed capacity)*(capacity factor)*(hours in a day)*(days in a year) =

(572 MW)(.269)(24 hours/day)(365 days/year) = 1,347,884 MWh/year

Now we have to use this value to decide how big a coal plant this would replace. Using the wind farm yearly output and the average capacity factor for Coal plants in the US, which is 73.6%, we can use the above Yearly Energy Output equation to back-solve for the “installed capacity” the wind farm would replace:

Installed Capacity (MW) = (yearly output) ÷ (Capacity factor * hours in a day * days in a year) =

(1,347,884) ÷ (.736*24*365) = 209 MW

Therefore, if you use the $527.5 million dollars it would cost to install CCS on a 500 MW IGCC coal plant for a wind farm, the energy the wind farm produces is equivalent to a 209 MW pulverized coal plant!

I believe the MATH has it…

Australia Feeling The Effects Of Global Warming – There is a reason they call it downunder

Posted on February 6, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

In Victoria the temperature has been above 44 degrees all week and they are forecasting another week of 40+ temperatures. Power is failing, trains have stopped running because tracks are buckling under the heat . It’s just scorching. And it seems that the people are not the only ones suffering.

Check out these photos of a little Koala which just walked onto a back porch looking for a bit of heat relief. The woman filled up a bucket for it and this is what happened!

Kinda dark but:

Getting better:

About right:

But see this is actually the effects of Global Warming. We are burning the animals and plants off this planet UP.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36900

For those who track their local temperatures using the Celsius scale, 40 degrees is a daunting number. In early February 2009, residents of southeastern Australia were cringing at their weather forecasts, as predictions of temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) meant that a blistering heat wave was continuing.

This map of Australia shows how the land surface temperature from January 25 to February 1 compared to the average mid-summer temperatures the continent experienced between 2000-2008. Places where temperatures were warmer than average are red, places experiencing near-normal temperatures are white, and places where temperatures were cooler than average are blue. The data were collected by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite. While southern Australia was scorching, a similarly large area of northern and central Australia was several degrees cooler than it was in the previous nine years. The cool anomaly across that region is probably linked to the above-average rainfall the area has received during this year’s wet season.

Land surface temperature is how hot the surface of the Earth would feel to the touch in a particular location. From a satellite’s point of view, the “surface” is whatever it sees when it looks through the atmosphere to the ground. That could be the sand on a beach, the grass on a lawn, the roof of a building, or a paved road. Thus, daytime land surface temperature is often much higher than the air temperature that is included in the daily weather report—a fact that anyone who has walked barefoot across a parking lot on a summer afternoon could verify.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) called this heat wave “exceptional,” not only for the high temperatures but for their duration. One-day records were broken in multiple cities, with temperatures in the mid-40s. In Kyancutta, South Australia, the temperature reached 48.2 degrees Celsius (118.8 degrees Fahrenheit). Many places also set records for the number of consecutive days with record-breaking heat.

It will only get worse.

EdenPure Nothing But A Fraud – As one lady said, “I wouldn’t give one of these to my worst enemy”

Posted on February 3, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

Years of lawlessness have left us with a situation similar to the 1920s when it was legal to peddle snake oil. EndenPure should have been busted for Advertising Fraud and Consumer Fraud years ago, but because of deregulation they keep getting to peddle their crap.

http://www.edenpurestore.com/

As heard on the Paul Harvey Radio Show and television features across the nation. The EdenPure^TM is a remarkable new advanced portable heater can cut your heating bill up to 50% and pay for itself in a matter of weeks!

A major cause of residential fires in the U.S. is due to portable heaters. The EdenPure ^TM uses a new advanced quartz infrared heating system that never reaches a temperature that can start a fire.

The outside of the EdenPure ^TM only gets warm to the touch, never hot… so its safe around children and pets. Children can play on it and pets can actually sleep on it while operating without harm!

It makes me puke just to put their stuff up. BUYER BEWARE…Here is what actual purchasers had to say.

www.topnews.in

Are they reliable?:

http://searchwarp.com/swa278556.htm

» left by disapointed from cleve, OH (6 days 19 hours ago.)

My First Edenpure 500 just broke for the second time ! first time in warranty, pain in the butt to send back. Now, out of warranty, and only in my second ‘winter’ season. It was only used for about 4 to 4.5 months the first season, stored nicely, and taken care of…What a rip off. WAY TOO expensive. Cleveland, OH – cheaper to turn the GAS thermostat up for REAL and Quiet heat. Darn expensive lesson.

left by Craig in Washington from Vancouver (5 days 11 hours ago.)

This article has convinced me NOT to purchase one of these.. much less three. I live in the Pacific NW and our power costs are very low compared to other parts of the country so the cost to operate is not the reason for my decision NOT to buy. It would be because overall.. it appears that the reliability is TRASH. Also, it appears the customer service is severly lacking.

Thank you all for exposing this for what it is… a non-performing, HIGH Cost Sham. I feel sorry for those who buy it without looking it up on the web to find out how badly it works in real life. There claims are not truthful. Just read these testimonials… and their ads… “Heats a large room in minutes with even heat wall to wall and floor to ceiling”. WHAT A CROCK!

Thank you for your attention.

gjha.org

Does it save money?:

http://www.infomercialratings.com/product/edenpure_heater_reviews

Do Not buy electric bill up $100.00 first month

1/31/2009 – pam of western NY ~ West Almond, USA writes:

I purchased this unit after watching the infomercial, claiming how the unit would reduce my heating bill. We are using this to heat a 15 x 12 bedroom for extra heat only. We have a [] wood stove (best stove out there) to heat the rest of the house (it keeps it at 70 to 75 degrees and its been over 80 also. Keeping it on a low setting (3 bars) to heat the bedroom at 65-68 degrees has made our electric bill jump from $132 to $265 in one month. we even purchased a new [] refrigerator and got rid of my 1985 sub zero refrig the previous month. I would not get one of these for my worst enemy! What a waste of money! I am trying to retun this as I write the review.

Senior Citizens Scammed By Edenpure

1/31/2009 – Lark&Bertha of West Virginia, USA writes:

We purchased 6 Edenpure heaters: 2 for us, 2 for my stepdaughter, and 1 for each of my two other daughters. With the price of oil the way it was, this seemed the way to go for heat and economy. Well, all of our electric bills have more than doubled. My husband abd I are on Soc.Sec. fixed income and on a budget with the elec. company. I know that this winter has been really cold, but the elec. co. said that the Co. that makes Edenpure heaters lies to the public in their ads, that no way will the heaters cut your bills! I’m going to try to return the heaters, but since the 60-day return period is over, I don’t think we will have much success. Scammed? You bet we were. For what we paid for all 6 heaters, we could have bought oil for the winter! I guess the old saying is right: If it seems to be too good to be true, it is! Disappointed and cold in W. Va.

Electri bill tripled

1/29/2009 – Michelle of Mi., USA writes:

Bought the Edenpure Heater in Nov.2007. The electric bill was higher but assumed it was due to sub-zero temps. I had a problem with the heater in Nov.2008, returned item and was shipped a new one. Bill in Nov.$257.00, Bill in Dec. estimated $218.00. Bill in Jan. $593.40. We’ve had some very cold weather. But this was advertised to save on heating costs. It has cost me more. I now have to make payments bi-monthly just to chip away at this outrageous bill. I work, I feel real sorry for people who are in a tight financial bind.

Could you ever save money?:

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2008/11/edenpure-heater.html

According to the grand daddy of them all, Consumer Reports, IF YOU LOWER YOUR THERMOSTAT 17 DEGREES.

As I have said before it is not even a good space heater. I advise against space heaters. You could heat your own house with your body heat alone if it was properly insulated. But if you insist on buying one the EdenPure ain’t it:

http://www.wcpo.com/content/news/localshows/dontwasteyourmoney/story/EdenPure-Other-Space-Heaters-Tested/PdondT-tOkKTOuXc3gCxLw.cspx

Is the EdenPure Amazing?

The results of the test of the heavily advertised EdenPure were not promising.

The $400 EdenPure ended up at the bottom of the ratings. It was the worst performing of 20 space heaters tested.

Top Performing Heaters

Top rated: The Honeywell Electric heater HZ-519, for just $60.

It’s normally sold by Home Depot and Amazon.com, among other stores, but has been in very short supply, due to Consumer Reports’ review.

The EdenPure people should be in jail…

www.bestblogsite.org

Why Are We Doing All This Home Improvement Anyway – Well to save money of course but..

Posted on January 22, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

To save our grandchildren as well..

http://www.livescience.com/environment/090121-antarctica-warming.html#comments

Antarctica Is Warming:

Climate Picture Clears Up

By Andrea Thompson, Senior Writer

posted: 21 January 2009 01:04 pm ET

: This illustration depicts the warming that scientists have determined has occurred in West Antarctica during the last 50 years, with the dark red showing the area that has warmed the most. Credit: NASA

The frozen desert interior of Antarctica was thought to be the lone holdout resisting the man-made warming affecting the rest of the globe, with some areas even showing signs of cooling.

Some global warming contrarians liked to point to inner Antarctica as a counter-example. But climate researchers have now turned this notion on its head, with the first study to show that the entire continent is warming, and has been for the past 50 years.

“Antarctica is warming, and it’s warming at the same rate as the rest of the planet,” said study co-author Michael Mann of Penn State University.

This finding, detailed in the Jan. 21 issue of the journal Nature, has implications for estimating ice melt and sea level rise from the continent, which is almost entirely covered by ice that averages about a mile (1.6 kilometers) thick. The revelation also undermines the common use of Antarctica as an argument against global warming by contrarians, Mann said.

For more see the rest of this article and:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4307829/Antarctica-is-warming-faster-according-to-scientists.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50I4G520090120?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Never mind this:

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/01/21_seasons.shtml

Summer peak,

winter low temperatures now arrive 2 days earlier

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 21 January 2009

BERKELEY — Not only has the average global temperature increased in the past 50 years, but the hottest day of the year has shifted nearly two days earlier, according to a new study by scientists from the University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard University.

July
Map of average distribution of global temperatures for July Febuary
The average distribution of global temperatures for July and February. Because the sun is further north in July, the warm bulge of high temperatures is shifted into the northern hemisphere in that month. In the Northern Hemisphere, warm temperatures extend farther north on land than over ocean in the summer and cold temperatures extend farther south on land than on the ocean in the winter. (Image by Alexander R. Stine/UC Berkeley; data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia )

Just as human-generated greenhouse gases appear to the be the cause of global warming, human activity may also be the cause of the shift in the cycle of seasons, according to Alexander R. Stine, a graduate student in UC Berkeley’s Department of Earth and Planetary Science and first author of the report.”We see 100 years where there is a very natural pattern of variability, and then we see a large departure from that pattern at the same time as global mean temperatures start increasing, which makes us suspect that there’s a human role here,” he said.

Although the cause of this seasonal shift – which has occurred over land, but not the ocean – is unclear, the researchers say the shift appears to be related, in part, to a particular pattern of winds that also has been changing over the same time period. This pattern of atmospheric circulation, known as the Northern Annular Mode, is the most important wind pattern for controlling why one winter in the Northern Hemisphere is different from another. The researchers found that the mode also is important in controlling the arrival of the seasons each year.

Whatever the cause, Stine said, current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models do not predict this phase shift in the annual temperature cycle.

Details are published in the Jan. 22 issue of the journal Nature.

Oil Speculators At It Again – This time instead of fooling with contracts they are actually fooling with the tankers themselves.

Posted on January 14, 2009 by Doug Nicodemus

Is there no end to the criminal ingenuity of Wall Street. It’s not enough that they destroy the mortgage market or sell all our jobs over seas, they just have to squeeze every dollar out of their grandmother’s social security check.

http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=45530

http://marketplace.publicradio.org//display/web/2009/01/09/pm_contango/?refid=0

Investment banks hoarding oil

Fifty million barrels of oil are just sitting around on supertankers. They’re not getting unloaded because investors are waiting for the price of oil to go up. Mitchell Hartman explains.

TEXT OF STORY

Bob Moon: Now here are some millions that haven’t raised the ire of Congress — 50 million… Barrels of oil. They’re sloshing around on huge supertankers right now. They’re not going into port, not getting unloaded. They’re just waiting, for the price of oil to go up. It’s a financial play known as “contango.” A lot of investors are getting into the act. Marketplace’s Mitchell Hartman explains.

Mitchell Hartman: “Contango” refers to a market condition in which the future price of a commodity is higher than the cost of buying it today. Right now, investors can lock in oil futures contracts to get paid $46 a barrel in March. They can fill a supertanker right now for just $41 and change. It’s pretty cheap to keep the tanker floating around in the ocean. When it unloads in the spring, the investors make a tidy profit: more than $3 a barrel.Daniel Yergin is author of the Pulitzer-winning book, “The Prize.” He says there’s a glut of oil right now, caused by the global recession. But futures prices are going higher, because OPEC has promised to cut production. And, says Yergin, oil traders are reading something else in the economic tea leaves.>Daniel Yergin: There’s a bet here that all of the stimulus, new economic programs, are going to work, and that by the second half of the year, we’re going to move out of recession, back into economic recovery, and that demand will start rising for oil again.

:}
For more please go to the PBS site and listen to the report. For a different point of view:

http://www.supplyexcellence.com/blog/2009/01/13/oil-price-fundamentals-contango-opec/

Oil Price Fundamentals: Don’t believe the hype

January 13th, 2009 · by Bob Zieger ·

Last week, Marketplace had an interesting report on the growing trend of “contango” in the oil industry. For those of you who are not familiar with the practice, contango occurs when investors sit on a commodity because the future price is higher than the spot price. In this case, that results in full oil tankers sitting offshore, waiting for the price to rise before they unload their 50 million barrels onto the market. So a quick buck is made by those holding the inventory on the high seas, but what happens when those barrels eventually reach a port ? We’ve got a glut of material again, which forces prices down. This type of profit-taking merely adds to the volatility of the market, but has little influence on macroeconomic fundamentals.

Frankly, it seems as though the oil/energy sector has the most interesting bag of tricks when it comes to speculation, rhetoric, and other market manipulation. But all the headline grabbing stories aside, oil is just like other commodities in that pricing is governed by supply and demand. While contango, Somali pirates, and accounting tricks can be a source of market volatility, these games don’t have a long term impact on pricing.

The POINT for us is that they are “messing around” like mice worrying at a hole. Practicing. If someone doesn’t hit them with a broom, sooner or later they will succeed.

For more on Cantango and other disgusting practices:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/contango_backwardation.asp

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/01/super_contango.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/11/11/crudes-credit-contango/

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47633

Please note Goldman Sachs says oil will hit 102$$ per barrel by the end of the year and I have said that oil will hit 130$$ a barrel by next summer. I wonder whose right?

Community Energy Systems

Censys.org

Category Archives: stupid old men