Category Archives: water pollution

The Number 2 Polluter In The United States – Rupert Murdock

Posted on by
1

I know he is an Australian bloke but he owns the media in the US…

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns/

Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming in Tim Dickinson’s “The Climate Killers.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633524/the_climate_killers/2

The Disinformer
Rupert Murdoch
CEO, News Corporation

In 2007, when the world’s most powerful media baron announced his newfound conviction that global warming “poses clear, catastrophic threats,” it seemed as though the truth about climate change might finally get the attention it deserves. Murdoch promised that not only would News Corp. itself become carbon-neutral by 2010, but that his media outlets would explain the urgent need for a cap on carbon emissions. Climate change, he pledged, would be addressed as a sober reality across the News Corp. empire, whether as a plot element on 24 or in a story on Fox News. “I don’t think there’s any question of my conviction on this issue,” Murdoch declared. “I’ve come to feel it very strongly.”

Since then, however, Murdoch and his media operations have become the nation’s leading source of disinformation about climate change. In October, Fox Business ran an extended segment on “The Carbon Myth,” inviting a hack scientist to “make the case” that more carbon pollution is actually “good for the environment.” The Wall Street Journal has continued to lie not only about the reality of global warming but about Obama’s efforts to prevent it, denouncing climate legislation as “likely to be the biggest tax in American history.”

:}

Read the whole article. It is pretty damning.

:}

Oh and I can’t resist, this is the best collection of envirovideos I have ever seen.

http://ecopolitology.org/2010/01/11/the-top-9-viral-videos-of-the-green-movement-1958-2010/

:}

Why The Energy Companies Lobbied Against Healthcare – To stave off Cap and Trade

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/31633532/as_the_world_burns/

 

As the World Burns

How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on global warming

JEFF GOODELLPosted Jan 06, 2010 8:15 AM

Meet the 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming in Tim Dickinson’s “The Climate Killers.”

This was supposed to be the transformative moment on global warming, the tipping point when America proved to the world that capitalism has a conscience, that we take the fate of the planet seriously. According to the script, Congress would pass a landmark bill committing the U.S. to deep cuts in carbon emissions. President Obama would then arrive in Copenhagen for the international climate summit, armed with the moral and political capital he needed to challenge the rest of the world to do the same. After all, wasn’t this the kind of bold move the Norwegians were anticipating when they awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize?

As we now know, it didn’t work out that way. Obama arrived in Copenhagen last month without any legislation committing the U.S. to reduce carbon pollution. Instead of reaching agreement on how to stop cooking the planet, the summit devolved into bickering over who bears the most blame for turning up the heat. The world once again missed an opportunity to avert disaster — and the delay is likely to have deadly consequences. In recent years, we have moved from talking about the possibility of climate change to watching it unfold before our eyes. The Arctic is melting, wildfires are turning into infernos, warm-weather insects are devouring forests, droughts are getting longer and more lethal. And the more we learn about climate change, the more it becomes apparent how enormous the risks are. Just a few years ago, researchers estimated that sea levels would likely rise 17 inches by 2100. Now they believe it could be three feet or more — a cataclysmic shift that would doom many of the world’s cities, including London and New Orleans, and create tens of millions of climate refugees.

Our collective response to the emerging catastrophe verges on suicidal. World leaders have been talking about tackling climate change for nearly 20 years now — yet carbon emissions keep going up and up. “We are in a race against time,” says Rep. Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington who has fought for sharp reductions in planet-warming pollution. “Mother Nature isn’t sitting around waiting for us to get our political act together.” In fact, our failure to confront global warming is more than simply political incompetence. Over the past year, the corporations and special interests most responsible for climate change waged an all-out war to prevent Congress from cracking down on carbon pollution in time for Copenhagen. The oil and coal industries deployed an unprecedented army of lobbyists, spent millions on misleading studies and engaged in outright deception to derail climate legislation. “It was the most aggressive and corrupt lobbying campaign I’ve ever seen,” says Paul Begala, a veteran Democratic consultant.

:}

I Almost Busted My Butt In The Driveway Today – Illinois hovers around zero degrees

Posted on by
2

It’s true. Through laziness and a lack of preparation, we have ice on the driveway. As I was getting out of the car and walking to the house, I slipped on the ice and dumped coffee on my down coat. I did not fall to the ground, but it was close. So why didn’t I just go out and toss salt around to melt it off. Well for one thing it is bad for the plants around the area that you salt. But first I must say:

:}

Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.

:}

Here are some of the problems with “salting” and some alternatives.

http://extensionhorticulture.unl.edu/Articles/SJB/DeIcer.shtml

Good morning! It’s Monday January 4, 2010 at 10:20 AM CT
Articles, Publications and Other Resources

Ice: A Winter Hazard for You
Salt: A Winter Hazard for Your Plants
Slick sidewalks and roads are hazardous. Common de-icing compounds like calcium chloride, sodium chloride (rock salt), potassium chloride (muriate of potash) and urea fertilizer can make ice removal easier but they can also damage your landscape when present in large amounts. Salt and fertilizers in de-icing compounds can cause stunting, leaf burn, ‘witch’s broom’ and root damage in turf, ornamental shrubs and trees. Although salt is applied throughout the winter, most salt damage occurs in late winter and early spring when plants are beginning active growth and excess salts are pulled into the plant.High salt levels also change the structure of soil in runoff areas, causing it to become compacted, restricting nutrients, water and oxygen availability to the plants. Accumulation of salt in the soil over several years may cause progressive decline and eventual death of plants. If you suspect an area in your yard to have high salt levels, a soil analysis should be done to determine the actual salt levels present.Alternatives to tradition de-icing compounds include a new salt-free melting agent called calcium magnesium acetate (CMA). CMA is made from dolomitic limestone and acetic acid (the principal component of vinegar). Studies have shown the material has little impact on plants. Sand or sawdust are also good alternatives to salt for improving traction in slippery surfaces.To protect plants from direct exposure to the spray of salty slush during snow removal, cover them with burlap cloth. Salt tolerant plants should also be planted near the street to block exposure for more sensitive plantings. In runoff areas affected by high salt levels, flushing the soil with 2″ of water over a 2-3 hour period in early spring will help leach much of the salt from the soil. Repeat this procedure 3 days later.

Plants that are particularly sensitive to salt damage include Redbud, Hackberry, Hawthorn, Crab apple, Pin Oak, Red Oak, Littleleaf Linden, Barberry, Boxwood, Dogwood, Spirea, Viburnum, Balsam Fir, White Spruce, Red Pine, White Pine, Scotch Pine, Yew, Arborvitae and Hemlock. Salt tolerant plants should be planted near the street to block exposure for more sensitive plants. A partial list of salt tolerant plants includes Amur maple, Artemesia, common lilac, Japanese tree lilac, Forsythia, ‘Van Houtte’ & ‘Froebel’ spirea, Shadblow serviceberry, and snowberry.

:}

Here is a video that shows how to properly sand your drive…

http://www.ehow.com/video_4427061_using-sand-deice-driveway.html

http://www.ehow.com/video_4427062_using-sand-melt-black-ice.html?pid=1&cp=1

http://www.ehow.com/video_4427063_remove-ice-from-steps.html?cp=1&pid=1

:}

I included that last video to make a point. Notice all that hammering he is doing to the ice. Well that does damage to the surface below it. We have an old three car asphalt and concrete drive way that has seen better days. Last year we let a local guy clear it with a small tractor and a blade. Man, you talk about damage. It took a couple hundred $$$ of asphalt products to stabilize the situation. So part of what I am trying to do is to see if not scooping out the drive will cut down on that damage. Unfortunately the other source of damage is freezing water in cracks on the surface of the driveway. So we are probably going to see as much damage to the driveway from the freezing. Still it will be interesting in the spring to see what it looks like.

OR you could reach for the molasses

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123084701287847257.html

  • U.S. NEWS
  • JANUARY 2, 2009

As Salt Prices Rise, Frozen Towns Reach for Molasses

DOT dot DOT

Many towns are testing new methods to make their ice-fighting more efficient. Officials in Indiana and other states are equipping salt trucks with computers that, based on current air and ground temperatures and other metrics, tell drivers how much salt to drop and for how long.

This past summer, engineers in Ohio’s Hamilton County sought bids to supply about 15,000 tons of salt. The county rejected the first set of bids, which were about 50% higher than the $40 a ton the county paid last year. Two more rounds resulted in quotes of as much as $157 a ton, which would have exceeded the county’s entire $1.5 million budget for snow and ice removal, said Ted Hubbard, the chief deputy county engineer.

The county decided to try to make the 11,000 tons of salt it had on hand last for a winter of de-icing 1,500 miles of road lanes. To stretch it, Mr. Hubbard’s department has been mixing its salt with gritty, non-toxic ash left over from coal-fired power plants.

“When the sun shines on it, it helps attract radiation, therefore it helps melt the snow,” Mr. Hubbard said. “We’re sort of experimenting.” Mr. Hubbard said the ash mixture doesn’t melt the snow as fast, but it does add traction to the roads.

Ankeny, Iowa, a Des Moines suburb, sprinkled garlic salt mixed with road salt on its streets last month after a local spice maker gave the town nine tons destined for a landfill. Public Works Director Paul Moritz said some residents complained the fragrant topping would sicken their cats and dogs. He says he checked with a veterinarian, who told him the pets would have to swallow huge quantities to become ill.

“I don’t mean to be too flippant about it,” said Mr. Moritz, “but I don’t think any dog went out and licked up three blocks of streets.” He says the garlic salt has been effective in clearing roadways.

Paul Simonsen, a maintenance superintendent for the Washington state department of transportation, has been mixing de-sugared molasses into saltwater, creating a gooey mixture that can keep roadways clear for three or four wintry days, he said.

The mix consists of molasses from a local supplier, calcium chloride and brine donated by a local dairy company. Mr. Simonsen had been experimenting with the right proportions and ingredients for several years, blending them in a 1,000-gallon vat and dispersing the liquid with the same salt trucks. He first used it last year on a busy mountain pass in southwest Washington.

dot dot dot

It also for the first time paid $3.50 a gallon for 4,200 gallons of Magic Minus Zero, a de-icing compound made by Sears Ecological Applications Co., of Rome, N.Y.

The liquid, which is formulated from the leftovers of rum-making, is such an effective additive that Pat Doherty, Pingree’s director of public works, said the town has used less than half as much salt as it would have under similar weather conditions.

:}

Garlic Salt…gona be a fragrant spring.

:}

So How Do All The Climate Liars Get To Copenhegan – Is someone paying their way

Posted on by
Reply

No one bothers to ask themselves, “how does a parellel anti-global warming conference get set up in Copenhagen”? We know how the pro-climate people got there. The world’s environmental organizations sent them. Some of them live there or are close enough to drive. The Government people got there on their countries dime as did the UN people. But how did the aptly named Lord Mockton get there? The answer is easy – The Carbon Industry sent them:

http://motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial

Assignment 2020, Climate Change, Copenhagen Climate Talks, Corporations, Environment, Top Stories

In 2006, according to the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans saw “solid evidence” for global warming. By this fall, that figure had dropped to 57 percent—and just 36 percent said they believed that humans are to blame. That’s good news for climate change skeptics and deniers, who have spent years trying to perpetuate the illusion that the reality of climate change is up for debate. Never mind that the scientific consensus is firmly on the side of global warming—for anyone seeking an alternate view, there’s an entire parallel universe where junk science and bogus statistics ricochet through an echo chamber of kooky blogs, “nonpartisan” institutes, and fake “green” and “citizen” groups that are often acting on behalf of the oil and coal industry.

With Copenhagen kicking off and the overblown “Climategate” scandal making headlines, the deniers have even more fodder for their campaign to kill serious action to slow climate change.

Here’s a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.

:}

This is one of the most comprehensive articles I have seen and I urge everyone to read the whole thing. These pricks think they can BURN us off the planet. I hope they are wrong.

:}

Alice In Greenland – Guest poster Jed Morey has his say

Posted on by
1

I rarely have “guest posters”, mainly because nobody asks but also because I like to run my mouth. I forget how I found Jed’s Column but it makes so much sense in such a short space that I actually ASKED Jed if I could use it. How rare is that? So far that would be 2 people Jed and Dan Piraro soooo without further ado (I always wanted to say that…damn).

http://www.longislandpress.com/2009/12/09/alice-in-greenland/

Alice In Greenland

Written by Jed Morey on Dec 9th, 2009 and filed under Columns, Off The Reservation. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Want to take a trip down the environmental rabbit hole? Spark a discussion about climate change and watch human warming reach extremes far greater than any place on the globe.

To the right you have the laughable stance adopted by the conservative movement that humans are having no effect on climate and the atmosphere. At the other extreme are non-scientist policy makers and pundits holding “The End Is Near” signs on every street corner claiming that Iowa and Chad will be beachfront property by the end of next year.

Personally, I’m not qualified to discern which side is closer to representing the truth.

What I do know is that the debate should remain in scientific circles because I have yet to meet anyone qualified to entirely explain the variances in global temperatures. While world leaders are dithering in Copenhagen and arguing over hacked e-mails about tree rings versus thermometers, the public needs to close its ears to the noise produced on both sides of the global warming debate and focus on the tangible aspects of industrial pollution.

You don’t need to be an expert on carbon emissions or reference “parts per billion” to understand that we are seriously screwing up the planet. Public health has been compromised by the rise of industry. While there are several factors that contribute to the decline in public health, much of the discussion centers on energy production and sources because it’s the baseline driver of industry. So let’s look at it.

First of all, there is no such thing as clean coal. True, you can clean coal emissions, but the process of scrubbing coal to burn cleaner is just as much of an environmental disaster. There is no such thing as clean nuclear energy either, for that matter. True, the emissions are carbon neutral, but at some point every nuclear facility must dispose of the spent fuel used in production. The spent fuel must be stored somewhere and wherever that place is, it’s no place you want to be near.

Large wind farms in lakes and oceans are unrealistically expensive and remarkably inefficient. The Danes will tell you differently and espouse the virtues of wind power—just look at the marvel that is Copenhagen—but the fact remains that they are the largest manufacturers of wind turbines and have a vested economic interest in, shall we say, massaging the numbers. However, wind, solar and geothermal energy present viable options on a micro level and should be encouraged in every corner and backyard of the world. Individuals and small businesses need affordable access to clean energy solutions, not just municipalities.

Economically, there is no such thing as cheap oil anymore. Whether or not the Saudis or Venezuelans care to admit it, we have hit peak oil in the largest, most accessible oil fields around the world. Period. Are there places on Earth with large reserves of oil and natural gas? Yup. Is it easy to get to? Nope. Expensive to retrieve? Yup. Environmentally secure to extract? Nope.

As far as Cap and Trade is concerned—please. Giving large corporations and polluters the ability to buy their way out of cleaning their emissions is a lousy practice. Lisa Jackson from the EPA is on the right track by simply drawing a line in the sand and taking it out of the hands of Congress. The message from the Obama administration is clear: Clean it up. If Cap and Trade is allowed to continue one can only imagine Goldman Sachs creating a derivatives market that bundles pollution credits in with mortgages on homes with inefficient boilers and selling them to school boards in Greenland. No more government-backed securities bought by large corporations and sold on opaque markets, especially if they contain something as ethereal as carbon credits.

This is it folks. We have reached the tipping point. The only option heretofore is conservation.

If you wish to comment on “Off the Reservation,” send your message to jmorey@longislandpress.com.

:}

Can’t say it any better than that. By the way those who know me know I disagree with Jed about renewables, broadly stated, to replace fossil fuels but as he says “Cheap nope, time consuming Yup”. Thanks Jed.

:}

The Smirking Monkey Is Going Out Of Business – Please help out

Posted on by
Reply

:}

Community Energy Systems is a nonprofit 501c3 organization chartered in Illinois in Sangamon County. As such we are dependent on public donations for our continued existence. We also use Adsense as a fundraiser. Please click on the ads that you see on this page, on our main page and on our Bulletin Board (Refrigerator Magnets) and you will be raising money for CES. We say a heartfelt THANK YOU to all who do.

:}

Here is a web site that suffered from lack of support, has 4 no 3 no 2 days left, and a point to make:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/25006

Nuclear promises safe, cheap energy, but the truth is less enticing

by Pierre Tristam

| November 17, 2009 – 11:04am

Energy independence is the new creationism; nuclear power its deity. As the head glow for nuclear’s new dawn, you can’t do better than Aris Candris. He’s president and CEO of Westinghouse Electric, the company aiming to build 14 of 25 new nuclear reactors planned in the United States. Candris also sums up everything that’s wrong with the nuclear power industry’s orchestrated revival — the deceptions, the manipulated numbers, the false promises and the sheer swindle of taxpayer dollars for a technology with a lethal past and an unproven future. Candris’ Nov. 9 tribute to nuclear in The Wall Street Journal tells the tall tale.

:}

You can read all of those lies here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489702243465472.html

He pretty much says the same thing no matter where he speaks – More Nukes..More Nukes

Nukes Good – Renewables Bad

:}

Aris says: Only nukes can supply the huge electrical demand. My source is bigger than your source.

Pierre says:

Actually, that’s more true of nuclear, far less so of renewable. Not a single nuclear power plant has been approved and built in the United States since the 1970s. The newest one, Watts Bar in Tennessee, began construction in 1973 and went online in 1996 — a 23-year span that multiplied its initial costs, to $7 billion. Candris gives the impression that a slew of plants are about to be built. Not so. A slew of plants applied for licenses, but only because the federal government is offering up to $1 billion in tax credits per new nuclear plant (once electricity production begins), as long as the application was in by the end of 2008.

:}

Aris says: Nukes planned will come in starting in 2016. My source is faster than your source.

Pierre says:

Look for pigs flying around Turkey Point, too, because Westinghouse’s claims are identical to those of Areva, a French company building what was supposed to be a next-generation nuclear plant in Finland — quick, safe, cheap. The plant, Europe’s first in 30 years, was supposed to open last summer. Finns will be lucky if it’s open by 2012. It was to cost $3.5 billion. The cost is now creeping close to $7 billion and counting.

:}

Aris says: Renewables, conservation, efficiency weak. Look at France.

Pierre says:

But French electricity consumption is 7,200 kilowatts per person per year, 44 percent less than the American consumption of 12,900 kilowatts per person. France is a model — of conservation. (Candris is wrong about France’s independence: it imports all of its oil and natural gas.)In the United States between 1995 and 2008, electricity consumption increased by 22 percent, more than the projected increase over the next 21 years. The country coped without gobs of nuclear power — and can cope again as renewables like wind and solar increase their share of electricity generation, from 5 percent today (compared with nuclear’s 20 percent) faster and safer. Imagine if renewables had the kind of obscene tax subsidies the nuclear industry is receiving.

:}

Aris says: ALL those wimpy girlie technologies  are expensive and US manly Nukes are cheap.

Pierre says:

In fact, nuclear energy is more expensive than solar or wind energy. Take Florida Power & Light’s plan to build two new nuclear reactors sometime over the next 12 years (it’s not clear when, though the company is already socking it to customers by making them pay for construction today. No other state but Georgia allows that con). The projected cost of the two reactors is $18 billion. It’ll certainly go up well beyond that by the time they’re done, but go with the $18 billion figure. The two reactors will produce 2,234 megawatts of electricity. That comes out to $8 million per megawatt at the opening bell. FPL just started operating a 25-megawatt solar-power plant in DeSoto County. Cost: $152 million, or $6 million per megawatt — $2 million cheaper than the projected cost of the nuclear reactors. With wind, it’s even cheaper. A Chinese-American consortium on Oct. 29 announced plans for a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas. Cost: $1.5 billion, or $2.5 million per megawatt. Cheap nuclear power? Demonstrably not.

Keep in mind that wind and solar farms require zero raw materials to operate, and minimal security. Terrorists aren’t about to crash planes into wind turbines or solar panels. Operating a nuclear plant is said to be cheaper than operating gas- or coal-fired plants — but not when security, liability and potential catastrophes are figured into the equation. And for all the safety advances of the past 30 years, the current fleet of about 100 reactors has a projected Chernobyl- or Three Mile Island-like severe accident rate of one every 100 years. Would you like to live near those odds?

The nuclear power industry can’t even persuade its own investors to bet on it, so it’s going after tax dollars and captive customers to pay for its dreamed-up expansion. Simple solution: If nuclear power can make it on its own, fine. But it’s far too dangerous, too uncertain, too costly and too tempting to terrorists to be subsidized by taxpayers and unwilling customers. So far, the nuclear power industry is betting equally and exclusively on public dollars and gullibility. Don’t let it get away with it.
:}

Pierre is right and Aris is wrong. Please support him.

:}

Carbon Sequestration – The ultimate in madness

Posted on by
Reply

Notice they say the “carbon plume may eventually drift (DRIFT) under Ohio”.  Notice the guy says everything will be fine until SOMETHING goes wrong. Notice one of the commentators says that depending on the amount of ammonia used the site could be considered a hazmat accident waiting to happen?

This article is from a very nifty issue of Scientific America:

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/subscribe/sub_search.cfm?ec=ggl07

But to the article:

 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-look-at-carbon-capture-and-storage#cid_CBB2987B-B337-3523-7FEF1219537C766B

 

November 6, 2009 | 9 comments

First Look at Carbon Capture and Storage in a West Virginia Coal-Fired Power Plant [Slide Show]

The world’s first power facility to capture and store a portion of its carbon dioxide has begun operating in Appalachia

By David Biello

 

mountaineer-ccs

CARBON CAPTURE: A relatively small unit in the shadow of the smokestack at the Mountaineer Power Plant in West Virginia has begun capturing carbon dioxide from the plant’s flue gas and injecting it underground for permanent storage.

NEW HAVEN, W.Va.—A 100-story smokestack belches a roiling, white cloud of water vapor, carbon dioxide and other leftover gases after burning daily as much as 12,000 tons of coal at the Mountaineer Power Plant—a total of 3.5 million tons a year. The facility just outside the town of New Haven boasts a single 65-meter-high boiler capable of generating enough steam to pump out 1,300 megawatts of electricity—enough to power nearly one million average American homes a month—continuously. And now roughly 1.5 percent of the CO2 billowing from its stack is being captured in an industrial unit rising from the concrete in its shadow and then pumped underground for storage. In case you were wondering, this last phase is called “clean coal”.

“Mountaineer is the turning point,” says Philippe Joubert, president of Alstom Power, a subsidiary of France-based Alstom, SA. “We believe coal is a must, but we believe coal must be clean.”

View a slide show of the world’s first carbon capture and storage facility in operation

The small stream of flue gas travels to the carbon-capture unit through plastic pipes reinforced with fiberglass and is cooled to between –1 and 21 degrees Celsius from the 55-degree C temperature at which it emerges from the other environmental technology add-ons that strip out the fly ash, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The carbon-capture machine’s loud hum comes primarily from the whirring of fans to further cool the flue gas, along with the steady jostling of the agitator that keeps solids from settling out in the tall tank where the CO2 is captured. There is also the continuous chug of the compressors pressurizing that captured CO2 into a liquid at 98 kilograms per square centimeter. An incessant rumble also emanates from the regenerator stacks, as well, where steam heat and pressure combine to turn ammonium bicarbonate (part of the CO2-stripping process) back into baker’s ammonia (ammonium carbonate), siphoning off the captured CO2 in the operation. A little bit of ammonium sulfate—a fertilizer—is also produced; it is shipped to a farmer’s cooperative just across the river in Ohio.

:}

Simple Method For Beaming Energy From Space – But somebody will get hurt in the process

Posted on by
1

It is Jam Band Friday –

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+can%27t+always+get+what+you+want&docid=1345780778117&mid=16E7403197023CEB494316E7403197023CEB4943&FORM=VIVR10

Everyone in this country has been programmed by rampant science fiction to believe that everything for the future comes from outer space. So the Japanese launch a press release about using a satellite to beam microwaves back to Earth.

http://www.physorg.com/news172224356.html

Let’s see, first you have to clean up the 13,000 pieces of space debris…then you got to up our payload capacity and multiple the number of vehicles available by at least 1,000. Just to START such a project. Hell we can barely generate enough capacity to keep the International Space Station running  which is 160 volts in DC. Which gets us back to this final meditation on “living off the land”. There are somethings we will have to give up on and the first one is Space Flight. Why? Not because of the money and effort that could spent elsewhere. Not because of the hellishness of the logistics. NASA’s dirty little secret is Cosmic Rays. They would destroy any unshielded human and that is why the International Space Station is not in geosynchronous orbit or higher. Stewardesses and Pilots who regularly fly at high altitudes are exposed to enough Cosmic Rays to have a slightly higher chance of developing some cancers. That is why NASA limits the space station stay for astronauts to under a year. But what is the point of going out there?

GROWTH

If we replaced that with

Quality of Life

As a principle the world would be a much nicer and longer lived place.

:}

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+can%27t+always+get+what+you+want&docid=1322404807369&mid=9E85A21DF312D9016FDC57CBDDDC180567D96A9A&FORM=VIVR12

For those of you who want what you need and a simpler life there are many resources out there

http://www.livingoffgrid.org/

Tips for Off-Grid Living – How To Live Off The Grid

Off Grid Solar Power ArrayWelcome to our free online resource for off-grid living.
We are here to help you along in the rewarding challenge of living off of the power grid. Whether you are a veteran off-grider living in an RV or cabin in the woods, a seasoned rural farmer, a third-generation rancher – or someone just looking to get out of the rat race – we have the information you seek.

What to look for when buying real estate off the grid >>

Though sometimes a challenge, the many benefits of living off grid make it all worthwhile. How can one describe the feeling of running your house or business off of clean energy sources like natural gas and propane, or renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydro? Who could explain the effect being out of the city and suburbs has on your sense of well-being? How many of us would enjoy more fresh produce grown organically on our own property?

This website isn’t just about owning property that happens to not be connected to the big power company’s grid. It is about living closer to the land; Being responsible for the culture, values and environment we leave behind to our children; knowing that life was meant to be enjoyed, rather than working in a tiny cubicle to earn enough to accumulate stuff we didn’t need in the first place.

Well, that’s what it’s about for me at least. But more importantly:
What is living off grid about to you?

:}

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

You can even be a Dad and do it:

http://frugaldad.com/2009/04/05/living-off-the-grid/

Living Off The Grid

Ever wish you could just unplug from your current hectic life?  Maybe quit your stressful job, move to a farm with several acres, and spend your remaining time living off the grid.  Yeah, me too.

The problem is that this type of lifestyle seems so simple, but is terribly difficult to pull off these days.  Why?  Because we have become slaves to our stuff – myself included.  We have our houses, our cars, our expensive hobbies, our electronic gadgets, our new furniture, our designer clothes, etc.

We spend the majority of our lives working to pay for the stuff that keeps us from living a life with more freedom.  Along the way we usually manage to accumulate debt buying more stuff than we can afford.  So then we spend even more time working to repay the money we borrowed to buy the stuff that we work to pay for in the first place.  Whew!  It’s a vicious cycle.

farmhouse040509
Photo courtesy of iLoveButter

How To Break The Chains of Stuff?

So how do we break the cycle?  How do we join others who are living off the grid?  It isn’t easy.  I believe the very first step is to stop accumulating stuff.  Draw a line in the sand (or on your front porch), and vow not to allow anything else to enter your home unless it is a necessity or improves your quality of life in some way.  If something qualifies under those two conditions, you must save for it and pay cash.  No more borrowing!

The second step is to take a look around your house, and your budget.  Are you paying for things that you could really live without?  The $40 gym membership, or the $15 Netflix membership, may not seem like much by themselves, but how much of a nest egg would be required just to cover those expenses?  I mentioned the multiply by 25 concept in a previous post.  The idea is that you can estimate how much of your nest egg would be required to maintain your current expenses.  I used Netflix as an example:

:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX1OVXTplos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLRWZG4u24

The movement is not just limited to the US.

http://www.off-grid.net/

Top govt advisor attacks Big Power

Section:

— by Alexbenady, 30 Oct

Simpson: Local hero

Simpson: Local hero

The UK is in the grips of a power cartel, says an insider from the governing UK Labour Party.

That cartel actively hinders the fight against global warming by lobbying for its own narrow commercial interests at the cost of local democracy and the future health of the planet.   It’s an argument that off-gridders and anti-capitalist campaigners will be familiar with. It’s not really what you expect to hear from an advisor to Her Majesty’s Government. Yet it is precisely the belief of Alan Simpson, who occupies a place close to the heart of political power in Britain as  energy advisor to the Secretary of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband and Member of Parliament for Nottingham South.

>>Keep reading Top govt advisor attacks Big Power Your Comments: 0
Submit this story to: Twitter Digg Del.icio.us StumbleUpon:}

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+can%27t+always+get+what+you+want&docid=1346708637036&mid=00EB313253A0B35936F300EB313253A0B35936F3&FORM=VIVR34

Some people even thrive in an “off the grid” living:

http://www.eartheasy.com/blog/2009/06/what-its-like-living-off-grid/

By Greg Seaman Posted Jun 9, 2009

In the summer of 1980, my wife, three-month old son and I moved “off-grid”. We loved living in San Francisco but wanted to live a simpler, more independent lifestyle, and so we bought a small cabin with land on a rural island in the Pacific Northwest. Since there were no services to the island, our home had no electricity. Residents of the island had to create their own electricity or do without.

Now here I sit, almost 30 years later, with the kids grown and their rooms empty, and with some time to reflect on our experience living and raising a family off-grid. But before even considering the challenges and solutions in dealing with our energy needs over the years, one observation seems to leap out: how little things here have changed. We’ve done very little over the years to enhance our energy needs, aside from installing two solar panels last year to power the computer I’m using to write this article. (Alongside my computer on the table here is a kerosene lamp, and a candle for added light.) This lack of change is testament to the feasibility of off-grid living, and my vision for the upcoming years is to keep things pretty much the way they are.

But keeping it simple hasn’t always been simple. We had to learn alternate methods of preserving food, how to build things without power tools, how to cook on a wood stove, how to clean diapers without a washing machine, entertain ourselves without TV, and accept that many common tasks can take longer and be more difficult without electricity. Here are the main challenges we encountered in living off-grid, and how we managed with them.

:}

For much more:

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2650

http://www.coyotecottage.com/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/living-off-the-grid.htm

http://www.bringaboutgreen.com/

:}

Oh yah and the people that made the song famous:

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

:}

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

Posted on by
Reply

Yup, they don’t like it much:

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

The fallacy of peak oil

By Kelly Sloan
THE RIGHT WORD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:}

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

:}

Mormans, Nuclear Waste and the NBA – What do they all have in common?

Posted on by
Reply

Energy Solutions that’s what.

http://www.energysolutionsarena.com/

Construction of the EnergySolutions Arena began June 11, 1990 after several months of conceptual design meetings and negotiations with potential lenders. Sumitomo Trust and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City saw the vision of Larry H. Miller and agreed to fund this new multi-purpose home for the Utah Jazz.
While the “normal” construction period for a project of this type is usually 24 to 30 months, only 15 months and 24 days were available for the completion of the EnergySolutions Arena before the Utah Jazz 1991/92 season opener. This ambitious endeavor was achieved through the cooperation and teamwork of hundreds of individual subcontractors and suppliers and literally thousands of workers both on and off the job site.

Sahara Construction of Bountiful, Utah established a joint venture, O.C./Sahara, with Ohbayashi Corporation for the construction of the 743,000 square foot base building. Sahara also acted as General Contractor for the 7.6 acre pedestrian plaza and the interior tenant improvements within the building. Time constraints required that “fast-track design/build” construction techniques be employed. This method dictates that design is completed as construction is on-going. Responsibility for the structural, mechanical, electrical and civil engineering design was undertaken by the General Contractor. Mechanical and electrical systems were designed and constructed by CCI Mechanical and Western States Electric respectively.
FFKR Architecture/Planning/Interior Design of Salt Lake City worked closely with the construction team to provide design drawings and resolve design issues during the construction process. Based on FFKR’s conceptual design drawings, the General Contractor, with help from its major subcontractors, prepared a guaranteed maximum price contract for the Owner.

Excavation of the 170,000 cubic yards of soil began on an around-the-clock basis as design team members worked feverishly to complete the first design package for the footings and foundations. This process was typical throughout the course of the project as 61 separate bid packages were ultimately prepared.

:}

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

EnergySolutions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

EnergySolutions is one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States. EnergySolutions is a publicly traded company NYSE: ES) based in Salt Lake City, Utah, although it has operations in 40 states. Steve Creamer is the founder and current CEO of the company, which formed from the merger of four waste disposal companies: Envirocare, Scientech D&D, BNG America, and Duratek. The company took over several Magnox atomic plants from British Nuclear Fuels plc in United Kingdom on June 7, 2007.[1]

EnergySolutions owns and operates a licensed landfill to dispose of radioactive waste in Tooele County, Utah and operates another in Barnwell County, South Carolina. The company also possesses technology to convert waste into environmentally safe forms, such as durable glass, and is contracted by the United States Department of Energy to assist in waste conversion efforts.

The company holds the naming rights to EnergySolutions Arena.

Creation of EnergySolutions

Envirocare of Utah purchased the Connecticut-based Scientech D&D division in October 2005.[2] On February 2, 2006, Envirocare announced the $90 million purchase of BNG America a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) based in Virginia.[3] The merged company would change its name to EnergySolutions, with corporate headquarters based in Salt Lake City, Utah. On February 7, 2006, EnergySolutions announced it would buy Maryland-based Duratek, a publicly-traded company, for $396 million in an all-cash deal.[4] The leveraged buyout was financed by banks led by Citigroup, effectively taking the company private.

After the acquisitions, EnergySolutions has 2,500 employees in 40 states with an annual revenue of $280 million.[5] Additionally, EnergySolutions owns two of the nation’s three commercial low-level nuclear-waste repositories, although its primary competitor, Waste Control Specialists, hopes to build a fourth repository in Texas.

Envirocare

Envirocare was founded by Iranian immigrant Khosrow Semnani in 1988. Semnani served as president of the company until May 1997, when Envirocare’s largest customer—the Department of Energy—requested that he step down in the wake of a bribery scandal.[6] Semnani allegedly bribed Utah’s Division of Radiation Control director, Larry B. Anderson, with $600,000 in cash, gifts, and gold coins over several years. Semnani alleged that he was extorted by Anderson, and the two sued each other in civil court. Semnani agreed to testify against Anderson in a plea bargain forcing him to pay a $100,000 fine for aiding in the preparation of a false tax return.[7] Anderson was convicted to serve 30 months in federal prison on tax charges.

In mid-December 2004, Semnani sold Envirocare for an undisclosed sum. Steve Creamer became the company’s new CEO. The deal was financed by private equity firms, led by Lindsay Goldberg & Bessemer of New York, Creamer Investments, and Peterson Partners both of Salt Lake City. Envirocare management promised to drop plans to bury hotter class B and C nuclear waste in Utah in deference to developing political opposition to the company, which was poised to ban the waste anyway.[8] Envirocare’s management and ownership was retained as it made the acquisitions to become EnergySolutions.

Duratek

Based in Columbia, Maryland, Duratek was founded in 1983. In 1990, the company merged with General Technical Services (GTS); the resulting company was known as GTS Duratek[9]. That year, the company formed a joint venture with another firm — Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. — to build a commercial vitrification system.

In 1997, GTS Duratek acquired the Scientific Ecology Group (SEG). In 2000, the company purchased the nuclear services business arm of Waste Management Inc.[10] One year later, the company announced that it was dropping GTS from its name, and was once again known as Duratek.

Duratek was purchased by EnergySolutions at 25.7% premium over the February 7, 2006 stock price when the merger was announced.[4]

:}

Aww they are soooo green. Watching the basketball team from New Orleans play in the desert got them to think about the environment. The one thing that the Morman’s believe that God will never allow men to harm.

http://www.energysolutions.com/

OUR COMPANY

EnergySolutions, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, is an international nuclear services company with operations throughout the United States and around the world. With over 5,500 world-class professionals, EnergySolutions is a world leader in the safe recycling, processing and disposal of nuclear material. EnergySolutions provides integrated services and solutions to the nuclear industry, the United States Government, the Government of the United Kingdom, hospitals and research facilities.

With an unparalleled safety record, EnergySolutions has implemented a comprehensive “Safety First” approach that provides safety for our workers, the environment and the communities in which we operate.

EnergySolutions offers a full range of services for the decommissioning and remediation of nuclear sites and facilities, management of spent nuclear fuel, the transportation of nuclear material and the environmental cleanup of nuclear legacy sites such as the uranium mill tailings site in Moab, Utah. We own and operate several state-of-the-art facilities including a metal melt facility in Tennessee and a low-level waste disposal facility in Utah.

EnergySolutions is committed to reasserting America’s leadership in the global nuclear industry and to helping the United States achieve energy security, reduce carbon emissions and protect the environment. As a clean, safe and affordable source of energy, nuclear power plays a vital role in solving the world’s energy crisis and meeting the nation’s growing energy demand.

EnergySolutions, we’re part of the solution.

:}

Wonder if they have been hiring the MAFIA to bury their waste…oh I mean sink boats loaded with their waste at sea? hmmmm

:}