This I Believe – This is brought to you by a very inattentive listner

It’s true. I have been driving around in my car this week and listening to local Public Radio Station WUIS. They have been calling on people to write a This I Believe essay. The deadline was tomorrow.

http://wuis.org/

That generally does this:

 

Impact of Layoffs

February 3, 2009 — The Firestone Tire Company announced it would close its Decatur production plant back in 2001, displacing more than 12-hundred workers. Last week, another major employer, Caterpillar, announced it would be cutting jobs at its plants in Decatur, Aurora, and East Peoria. Robert Hironimus-Wendt is a sociology professor at Western Illinois University. He conducted extensive research on those Firestone workers in the months following their layoffs. In an interview with WUIS’s Jenna Dooley, Hironimus-Wendt says the experience of the Decatur workers provides some insight into the current state of the job market…

:}

Was doing this:

http://www.wuis.org/artsentertainment/TIB_2009.html

Deadline for essay entries: Thursday, February 5, 11:59 p.m.

Entries can be delivered to:
WUIS – This I Believe
One University Plaza, MS WUIS 130
Springfield IL 62703

Or they can be e-mailed to:
WUIS@uis.edu
Questions?:
Call (217) 206-6403

March 9-20 Essays are broadcast at 7:55 a.m. & 4:45 p.m. on WUIS
WUIS encourages area high school seniors to enter the This I Believe essay contest designed to capture their viewpoints and share them with the community. During the spring 2009 semester, some area high schools have even used the This I Believe high school curriculum in their English classes.

In February, a judging panel meets to read the submitted essays and ultimately select ten winners, who will record their essays under the supervision of WUIS News Director Rich Bradley. The winners will each receive $100 scholarships from The Rotary Club of Springfield Sunrise.

Listen to the winning esays on WUIS at 91.9 FM, 89.3 FM or stream them here at WUIS.org March 9-20, weekdays at 7:55 a.m. and 4:45 p.m.:}

Feeling like a fool because I had already written my essay and everyone will tell you I AM NOT a high school student, I went to National Public Radio:

http://www.npr.org/

Who normally does this:

U.S. To Cap Executive Pay
For Recipients Of Bailout Funds

President Obama announced rules limiting executive pay to $500,000 a year for companies getting taxpayer bailout funds. In addition to the salary cap, there will also be restrictions on bonuses, payouts or “golden parachute” severance packages for companies accepting taxpayer assistance.

So I scroll down past Arts and Entertainment, past Breaking News, Past a cute little article on Conquering A Baker’s Fear of Yeast, past Most Popular, past Listen Now – Helene Grimaud’s Bach, past an amusing little article – Obama Meets Spidey: The Intervention, past Sports (about a woman and her sail boat  – whew hew) and there finally was This I Believe

Which is:

http://www.thisibelieve.org/index.php

What is This I Believe?

 

This I Believe is an international project engaging people in writing, sharing, and discussing the core values that guide their daily lives. These short statements of belief, written by people from all walks of life, are archived here and featured on public radio in the United States and Canada, as well as in regular broadcasts on NPR. The project is based on the popular 1950s radio series of the same name hosted by Edward R. Murrow.

 :}

So I submitted this:

This I Believe. We must love the Earth more than we ever love ourselves. Science fiction is a myth. We are stuck on this planet for the rest of our great great grandchildren’s lives. Yet we squirt poisons into the air and the water like it doesn’t matter. Like birds and fish are not food.  We use poisons on our soil to plant food. If we are not very careful soon the Earth shall tire of this. A new dominant species shall replace us. This is a practical matter this love. Past generations of humans had their faults but they were not disrespectful of Planet Earth. They sailed its waters. They traveled its land. They enjoyed its wonders without plunder. Every child should be taught from the time they are born that walking is better then riding. That riding a bicycle is better than riding on mass transportation. That taking mass transportation is always better than riding in a car. That cars when used should have more than one person in them. Every Child should be taught that there is no Away in “throwing things away”. That litter is not tolerated. That recycling of everything is mandatory. That Garbage dumps are an affront to God.

 

We humans have depended upon the dead for our energy. That is all fossil fuels are. Coal, Oil and Gas are the products of long ago dead forests. That is why they stink. We can no longer release them into the air. We should leave the dead to rest in peace. Burning things up is a primitive behavior worthy of Neanderthal and early Humans. It is unworthy of us. We are surrounded by energy. Our World travels at 27,000 miles an hour causing Aurora Borealis to crackle at the poles. Our Moon exerts enough power on our planet to lift water 25 feet in the air. Our Sun Burns at 27 million degrees and plasma bursts forth at 2 million degrees. It inundates the surface of this planet with 27 gigawatts of power a day in photons. Our winds blow daily. Why in the stratosphere they howl as the Earth rotates. Humans burn at 98 degrees. With properly built homes and adequate nourishment we could heat our homes with ourselves. Ironically the earth is cool at a given depth and we can cool ourselves with it when it is hot. We are engulfed with resources that we squander daily while half the world’s population lives in squalor and ignorance. This will only truly change when we use the energy that we have been given, not what we can dig up.

 

We can begin this change by the simple act of not doing. If for one day everyone just stopped drinking gasoline the world would begin anew. If for just one day we did not throw anything away but our love for each other, and if everyone celebrated Earth Day in awe for all we have been given, the damage could be undone. This I believe.

:}

Maybe someday you will hear it on the Radio, but I got my doubts. They said no rants…

:}

Will Barack Obama Make A Great President? If he stands as tall on the environment and energy as he talks

He has said some very good things on the “Green Economy” or Sustainability. If he does what he says he will be a great President. If he doesn’t, he won’t be a great President. Simple as that.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Environment.htm

Barack Obama on Environment

Democratic nomine for President; Junior Senator (IL)

Government should invest in clean energy & green jobs

Q: What would you do for the environment?OBAMA: It is critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it?s an opportunity, because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily. It can be an engine that drives us into the future the same way the computer was the engine for economic growth over the last couple of decades. We can do it, but we?re going to have to make an investment. The same way the computer was originally invented by a bunch of government scientists who were trying to figure out, for defense purposes, how to communicate, we?ve got to understand that this is a national security issue, as well.

McCAIN: We can move forward, and clean up our climate, and develop green technologies, and alternative energies for battery-powered cars, so that we can clean up our environment and at the same time get our economy going by creating millions of jobs.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008

Willing to suspend ethanol subsidy to keep food prices down

Q: Ethanol usage in gas is criticized for raising food prices. Would you be willing to change ethanol subsidies so that people are not using corn for ethanol, & lowering food prices?A: We?ve got rising food prices here in the US. In other countries we?re seeing riots because of the lack of food supplies. So this is something that we?re going to have to deal with. There are a number of factors that go into this. Changes in climate are contributing. There?s no doubt that biofuels may be contributing to it. My top priority is making sure that people are able to get enough to eat. And if it turns out that we?ve got to make changes in our ethanol policy to help people get something to eat, then that?s got to be the step we take. But I also believe that ethanol has been a important transitional tool for us to start dealing with our long-term energy crisis ultimately. Over time we?re going to shift to cellulosic ethanol, where we?re not using food stocks but we?re using wood chips & prairie grass.

Source: Meet the Press: 2008 ?Meet the Candidates? series May 4, 2008

Genesis teaches stewardship of earth: sacrifice for future

Q: Could you give an example of how you relate your faith to science policy?A: One of the things I draw from the Genesis story is the importance of us being good stewards of the land, of this incredible gift. And I think there have been times where we haven?t been [good stewards], and this is one of those times where we?ve got to take the warning seriously [about climate change]. And part of what my religious faith teaches me is to take an intergenerational view, to recognize that we are borrowing thi planet from our children and our grandchildren. And this is where religious faith and the science of global warming converge: We have to find resources in ourselves to make sacrifices so we don?t leave it to the next generation. We?ve got to be less wasteful, both as a society and in our own individual lives. I think religion can actually bolster our desire to make those sacrifices now. As president, I hope to rally the entire world around the importance of us being good stewards of the land.

 :}

And he has been saying these things all campaign long:

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/30/obama_factsheet/

Obama on the Issues

A look at Barack Obama’s environmental platform and record

In the early months of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, enviros were skeptical of his (now heavily qualified) support for coal-to-liquids technology and unvarnished enthusiasm for ethanol, but he earned their respect with his aggressive climate and energy plan. The plan centers on a cap-and-trade system that aims for 80 percent emission reductions from 1990 levels by 2050 and calls for auctioning 100 percent of the pollution permits. It also includes a $150 billion investment to boost clean energy and create green jobs, along with fine-grained proposals to boost efficiency, build a smart electricity grid, and encourage public transportation. Enviros have also applauded Obama’s refusal to endorse a gas-tax holiday and his now somewhat qualified opposition to offshore oil drilling. Obama earned an 86 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters for his first three years representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate (a lower score than might have been because he missed some votes while campaigning for president).

:}

These folks are a good start:

http://enviros.barackobama.com/page/content/enviroshome

enviros.jpg

Welcome to our new website, Environmentalists for Obama!

Now, more than ever, our nation and world needs a strong environmental leader as President. The challenges posed by global warming and energy needs can only be solved by someone with a proven commitment and ability to engage all people in the critical effort to provide a safe, clean future for America. Barack Obama’s dedication to the environment has been well-established during his years as a state legislator and U.S. Senator. Environmentalists for Obama know that he is the answer to the tough challenges facing us today.


We represent people from all walks of life who are eager for a leader who will promote innovative solutions and reach across partisan and societal divides in our race to save the planet. Join us now to support Barack Obama’s vision for a cleaner, more secure future.

And please join the discussion on our blog. We only ask that participants show consideration and respect for each other. The Environmentalists for Obama blog is not an expression of the positions of Barack Obama or the campaign.

:}

Suzlon S. 88 Wind Turbine Has A History of Failure

I wish I had a web Sitation for the orginal story that caught my attention, but I can not find it on the web. The actual story ran in the State Journal Register on November 29 in the business section titled “Bureau board bans S88 turbines written by Karen Newey of the Gatehouse News Service.

I find sitations for in here:

http://www.windaction.org/news/18748

and here:

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x81180400/Bureau-County-bans-companys-turbines-after-blade-breaks

OF THE JOURNAL STAR

Posted Nov 11, 2008 @ 07:48 PM

Last update Nov 12, 2008 @ 08:11 PM


Editor’s note: The Bureau County Board this week voted to not allow Walnut Ridge Wind LLC to use S88 turbines produced by India-based Suzlon on seven turbines located in Bureau, Manlius and Walnut townships. The board approved conditional use permits for those turbines. The information was incorrect from a story in some editions of Wednesday’s paper.PRINCETON — Bureau County officials want to try and ensure that a wind turbine failure like what was experienced on a farm southwest of Wyanet last month doesn’t happen again.The Bureau County Board this week voted not to allow future wind farm developments to use the S88 type turbines produced by India-based Suzlon Energy.”I am personally making the motion (to exclude Suzlon) due to the uncertainty of their turbines,” ESDA and zoning committee Chairman Bill Bennett told the board at its meeting Monday. Bennett later amended his motion to the S88 model.

The request comes after a 140-foot fiberglass blade weighing 6 1/2 tons broke off at the stem where the blade connects to the turbine and crashed to the ground Oct. 22 on farmland leased by AgriWind LLC, which operates a small-scale wind farm composed of four 3.1 megawatt turbines. The turbines apparently had a defect, and Suzlon officials said the blades on all four turbines were scheduled to be replaced.

:}

This is not the first time that Turbine has had blade problems:

http://www.windaction.org/pictures/14798

Suzlon S88 turbine failure

October, 2006
Credits: Scott Riddlemoser

Description:

Catastrophic equipment failure at the wind energy facility near Lake Wilson, MN in September and November 2006.

 s88.jpg

:}

To read more about these failures:

energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/documents/18946/CFERS%20recon%201.pdf

There are net hints that they had trouble in Germany as well, but how big is the problem?

http://www.articlearchives.com/north-america/united-states/1713929-1.html

Suzlon to provide Rs 100 cr for retrofit program in Q4.

Publication: The Economic Times
Date: Tuesday, March 4 2008

MUMBAI: Suzlon Energy has reported retrofit program to resolve blade cracking issues discovered during the operations of S88 turbines in the US. The retrofit program involves the structural strengthening of 1,251 blades on S-88 turbines, of which 930 blades are already installed while the remaining blades are in transit.

 

The retrofit program will be carried out by maintaining a rolling stock of temporary replacement blades, to minimize the downtime for operational turbines, and will completed in six months. The total estimated cost of the retrofit program is at Rs 100 crore, for which a provision will be made in Q4 of FY08.

:}

There Is More Happening in Louisiana Than Brad Pitt – Go BeauSoleil

No offense meant because Pitt, Branford Marsealus and Harry Connick Jr. are doing great things in New Orleans but this is amazing…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsuziBrNeO4&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

http://www.beausoleilhome.org/

solar-home.jpg

Welcome home

BeauSoleil, meaning “Beautiful Sun” in French or simply “Sunshine” in Cajun French has provided the inspiration and name for the University of Louisiana at Lafayette‘s Solar Decathlon Team. The BeauSoleil Louisiana Solar Home will serve as a culturally resonant, uniquely regional work of architecture and eventually a marketable prototype for the 2009 U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon competition held on the Mall in Washington, DC. The competition will showcase the BeauSoleil Louisiana Solar home’s role as not only a cultural expression but a technological hybrid that advances the traditional homebuilding in our region.

The BeauSoleil Louisiana Solar Home team mission is to design and build a Solar Decathlon house that uses renewable energy sources in a culturally resonant form that also serve as a building model for other locations throughout the world facing similar climactic and natural challenges to those we face in Louisiana. Join us and our sponsors as we bring together the Cajun culture with the future of homebuilding, energy consumption and design. The Solar Decathlon is a worldwide competition between 20 colleges and universities to design, build, and operate the most attractive and energy-efficient solar-powered home.

Ed Begley, Jr. And His Bicycle Powered Toaster – Is this really good for the environment?

Is Ed Begley, Jr.  Silly? The answer is not so easy to discern.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkFr9XWaKuU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28_3Rzw-VCA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPECtUoeqP8

September 17, 2007 5:01 AM PDT

Human energy harvesting–

a very silly idea

Posted by Peter Glaskowsky

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9779334-7.html

Power to the people” was a popular rallying cry among anti-establishment activists in the 1960s.

“Power from the people” appears to be the latter-day equivalent.

The theory behind the slogan is that humans move around a lot, and the only result of all this motion is that the humans end up in a different place.

According to some, this isn’t good enough.

The MIT News reports that two MIT graduate students in architecture have proposed to extract energy from the motion of humans through public spaces such as train stations:

A responsive sub-flooring system made up of blocks that depress slightly under the force of human steps would be installed beneath the station’s main lobby. The slippage of the blocks against one another as people walked would generate power through the principle of the dynamo, a device that converts the energy of motion into that of an electric current.

But if there’s enough motion to provide harvestable energy, there’s enough motion for the humans to notice. Ever walked along a pedestrian suspension bridge that bounced under your feet? It takes more energy to walk on such a surface than it does on a rigid surface.

Where does that energy come from? From you, of course. It’s like carrying a parasite that takes a little bit of your energy. In fact, this approach is also called parasitic power generation. By keeping the parasite fed, you get a little more tired and you eat a little more food. In effect, you become a highly inefficient motor that runs on food.

Food calories are inefficient to produce. A wheat field is a giant biochemical solar panel that turns a small part of the sun’s energy into chemical compounds that you can eat.

And then those compounds have to be kept cool and transported large distances, then cooked and eaten. By comparison, traditional electric power generation is hugely more efficient.

So when you see celebrity Ed Begley Jr. using a stationary bicycle to turn a generator to power his toaster, remember that this is a crime against the environment–not environmentalism.

The same goes for parasitic energy generation–it creates exceptionally expensive energy. Nevertheless, there are places where this approach is entirely appropriate.

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

Piezoelectric energy harvesting

The piezoelectric effect converts mechanical strain into electrical current or voltage. This strain can come from many different sources. Human motion, low-frequency seismic vibrations, and acoustic noise are everyday examples. Except in rare instances the piezoelectric effect operates in AC requiring time-varying inputs at mechanical resonance to be efficient.

Most piezoelectric electricity sources produce power on the order of milliwatts, too small for system application, but enough for hand-held devices such as some commercially-available self-winding wristwatches. One proposal is that they are used for micro-scale devices, such as in a device harvesting micro-hydraulic energy. In this device, the flow of pressurized hydraulic fluid drives a reciprocating piston supported by three piezoelectric elements which convert the pressure fluctuations into an alternating current.

Piezoelectric systems can convert motion from the human body into electrical power. DARPA has funded efforts to harness energy from leg and arm motion, shoe impacts, and blood pressure for low level power to implantable or wearable sensors. Careful design is needed to minimise user discomfort. These energy harvesting sources by association have an impact on the body. An international Workshop is organized by Virginia Tech on Piezoelectric Energy Harvesting [2] every year which reviews the past developments and current state of the technology .

The use of piezoelectric materials to harvest power has already become popular. Piezoelectric materials have the ability to transform mechanical strain energy into electrical charge. Piezo elements are being embedded in walkways [3] [4] to recover the “people energy” of footsteps. They can also be embedded in shoes [5] to recover “walking energy”.

Pyroelectric energy harvesting

The pyroelectric effect converts a temperature change into electrical current or voltage. It is analogous to the piezoelectric effect, which is another type of ferroelectric behavior. Like piezoelectricity, pyroelectricity requires time-varying inputs and suffers from small power outputs in energy harvesting applications. One key advantage of pyroelectrics over thermoelectrics is that many pyroelectric materials are stable up to 1200 C or more, enabling energy harvesting from high temperature sources and thus increasing thermodynamic efficiency. There is a pyroelectric scavenging device that was recently introduced, however, that doesn’t require time-varying inputs. The energy-harvesting device uses the edge-depolarizing electric field of a heated pyroelectric to convert heat energy into mechanical energy instead of drawing electric current off two plates attached to the crystal-faces. Moreover, stages of the novel pyroelectric heat engine can be cascaded in order to improve the Carnot efficiency.

 http://humanbatteries.com/

(:=}) The Human Batterry site is a movie site using a flash player technique. It argues that many houses use 3,000 watts a day that can be offset by energy harvest. There is also a game where you can generate electricity from typing on the key board of your computer. (:=})

 http://www2.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MPRV.2005.8

This month’s Works in Progress column has four contributions. The first examines how harvesting environmental energy in sensor networks changes the way an application developer views energy management, and discusses prototype devices. The second proposes devices that combine energy harvesting and data acquisition. The third explores novel approaches for optimizing the power extracted using piezoelectric materials. The final one explores kinetic and thermal energy harvesting from human users’ activities.

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=857199.858024

As the power requirements for microelectronics continue decreasing, environmental energy sources can begin to replace batteries in certain wearable subsystems. In this spirit, this paper examines three different devices that can be built into a shoe, (where excess energy is readily harvested) and used for generating electrical power “parasitically” while walking. Two of these are piezoelectric in nature: a unimorph strip made from piezoceramic composite material and a stave made from a multilayer laminate of PVDF foil. The third is a shoe-mounted rotary magnetic generator. Test results are given for these systems, their relative merits and compromises are discussed, and suggestions are proposed for improvements and potential applications in wearable systems. As a self-powered application example, a system had been built around the piezoelectric shoes that periodically broadcasts a digital RFID as the bearer wal

http://www.citeulike.org/user/ingedwar/article/2940413 

Over the past few decades, the use of portable and wearable electronics has grown steadily. These devices are becoming increasingly more powerful, however, the gains that have been made in the device performance has resulted in the need for significantly higher power to operate the electronics. This issue has been further complicated due to the stagnate growth of battery technology over the past decade. In order to increase the life of these electronics, researchers have begun investigating methods of generating energy from ambient sources such that the life of the electronics can be prolonged. Recent developments in the field have led to the design of a number of mechanisms that can be used to generate electrical energy, from a variety of sources including thermal, solar, strain, inertia, etc. Many of these energy sources are available for use with humans, but their use must be carefully considered such that parasitic effects that could disrupt the user’s gait or endurance are avoided. This study develops a novel energy harvesting backpack that can generate electrical energy from the differential forces between the wearer and the pack. The goal of this system is to make the energy harvesting device transparent to the wearer such that his or her endurance and dexterity is not compromised. This will be accomplished by replacing the strap buckle with a mechanically amplified piezoelectric stack actuator. Piezoelectric stack actuators have found little use in energy harvesting applications due to their high stiffness which makes straining the material difficult. This issue will be alleviated using a mechanically amplified stack which allows the relatively low forces generated by the pack to be transformed to high forces on the piezoelectric stack. This paper will develop a theoretical model of the piezoelectric buckle and perform experimental testing to validate the model accuracy and energy harvesting performance.

:}

:}

If It’s Good Enough For The Queen Why Not Us – America is always behind

Maybe that will change with a Democrat in the White House:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/technology/queen_turbine.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092212

Her majesty’s big,

honkin’ windmill

The Queen of England is buying

 the world’s largest wind turbine,

which towers over Big Ben and

will light up thousands of British

homes.

By Todd Woody, senior editor

Last Updated: September 22, 2008: 12:15 PM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) — It’s been a century or so since Britain ruled the waves, but Queen Elizabeth II will soon reign over the wind. Earlier this year the Crown Estate, which manages royal property worth $14 billion and controls the seas up to 14 miles off the British coast, agreed to purchase – for an undisclosed sum – the world’s largest wind turbine.

It’s a 7.5-megawatt monster to be built by Clipper Windpower of Carpinteria, Calif. Now the Royal Turbine is getting even bigger: Clipper has revealed to Fortune that Her Majesty’s windmill has been supersized to ten megawatts, producing five times the power generated by typical big turbines currently in commercial operation. The giant’s wingspan stretches the length of two soccer fields. At 574 feet, the turbine soars over Big Ben and roughly equals 111 Queen Elizabeths (the actual queen) plus one corgi stacked on top of one another.

The Queen’s turbine will displace two million barrels of oil as well as 724,000 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. This prototype will be the flagship for Clipper’s Britannia Project, an effort to create a new generation of massive-megawatt turbines to be placed on deep-sea floating platforms. When the windmill goes online in 2012 somewhere off the British coast, it could power 3,700 average homes.

 http://gizmodo.com/5053873/queen-of-england-buying-the-worlds-largest-wind-turbine

 We don’t know how much it cost her, but word is that the Queen of England has put down some mega-bucks to buy the world’s largest wind turbine. The 10-megawatt monster machine built by Clipper Windpower of Carpinteria, California will have a wingspan larger than two soccer fields and will stand 574 feet tall when completed. The windmill is expected to displace two million barrels of oil as well as 724,000 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. It will also serve as the flagship for Clipper’s Britannia Project, an effort to produce massive new turbines on deep-sea floating platforms. If all goes as planned, the Queen’s windmill will light up thousands of British homes starting in 2012.

:}

Presidential Energy Policy – What if Community Energy Systems was running for President?

What would our collective Presidential Energy Policy look like? :

1. Ban the sale of Gasoline and Diesel as of January 2015, except 1 gallon containers and Heavy Transport Trucks.

2. Ban Diesel and Gasoline sales to Heavey Transport Trucks by 2018.

This would allow everyone to keep mowing their grass and having their backyard barbeques while the USA shifts its transportation capacity to cleaner safer fuels.

3. Ban the Burning of coal in Electrical Generating Stations in 2020.

That would require switching all those plants to another fuel source, probably natural gas.

4. Fund 3 Hot Rocks Power Stations. One in California to replace Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, One to replace Clinton Nuclear Power Plant in Illinois and one to replace Savannah Nuclear Power Plant in Georgia. This would begin the proceess of Converting our economy to geothermal energy on existing sites where Nukes should not be in the first place.

This would proceed for all Nuclear Power Plants in the nation.

 5. Create and support manditory energy conservation programs in both the residential market and the commercial market to reduce their consumption by 50%.

Lets insulate and modernize our world.

6. Order all Landfill operaters and Waste Haulers to begin the mining of all landfills and dumps for metals, glass, plastics and and paper products. Compost the rest.

7. Mandate that all materials be recycled with the goal of a steady state materials economy in the USA by 2020

8. Using tax incentives to increase the Market share of solar, geothermal and wind generation by 25% per year until the USA is largely energy self sufficient.

9. Create a maglev train system in the USA

10. Create a light rail system in the top 50 major markets.

11. Ban the sale of diesel fuel to the railroads in 2025.

12. Open the Yucca Mountain repository by Executive Order if necessary and order all spent nuclear materials to be stored there.

To pay for this I would cut the military budgets of the following services: reduce the Navy to 2 active Fleets, one on the West Coast, one on the East Coast; reduce the Army to 4 batallions; reduce the Airforce to 4 Airwings; leave the Marines alone.

To pay for these policies I would slash the Pentagon staff in half, and the “spying budget” by 1/3.

To pay for these policies I would close the Federal Office of Education. Then I would start in on some of the stupid Federal Budget items that we as tax payers fund, like closing the National Helium Repository in Texas. We sure won’t need the Strategic Petroleum Resevre.

This program would create million of new good paying jobs. Put this country back to work and not flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Barack Obama Beats John McCain – On Energy Policy that is and it wasn’t even close.

And it really did not have to be this way. One substitution could have changed the balance. If instead of 45 Nuclear Generating Stations he would have said 45 Hot Rocks Stations, then he would have generated as much capitol, created as many new jobs and generated as much electricity as his 45 Nukes. In fact it would have made him greener than Barack who I pointed out has “put in a little bit” for everybody and ends up maybe not getting the job done. The other place that Barack wins is with energy conservation. It is a big part of his plan and is nowhere in John’s. So all in all Obama’s plan is the best.

This is no endorsement. There is more to the Presidency than Energy Policy. Foreign Policy,  Military Policy, and Fiscal Policy are probably more important for his initial year in office. But Energy relates to all of those issues in an integral way.

And Obama has come so far:

www.obamamagazine.com

obama1.jpg

weblogs.newsday.com

obama3.jpg

 barackobama.imagelibrarys.com

obama2.jpg

www.politicogod.com

obama4.jpg

:}

The last one is my all time favorite because it was taken in Metropolis Illinois, during the Superman Festival. 

:}

Barack Obama’s Global Warming Policies – OH he calls it Climate Change as well

Obama’s Climate Change Initiatives are kinda short, but at least he addresses energy conservation. This in a country that should only use 9% of the world’s energy but uses 25% instead.

 http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#emissions

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families.
  • Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change. Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) — the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world’s largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.

« Return to New Energy for America

 Create Millions of New Green Jobs

  • Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source — Energy Efficiency.Obama and Biden will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal — to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from projected levels by 2020.
  • Weatherize One Million Homes Annually. Obama and Biden will make a national commitment to weatherize at least one million low-income homes each year for the next decade, which can reduce energy usage across the economy and help moderate energy prices for all.
  • Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.
  • Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.

« Return to New Energy for America

:} 

Well at least with Obama it is short enough that people will likely read through it. Still there is the nasty Cap and Trade stuff that will do no good for anyone. We are up against some very hard changes that we need to make in our industrial infastructure. Coal and Oil just won’t cut it as energy sources anymore. Clean Coal technology is a myth. While Obama talks about cutting emmission by 80% he does not say whether that is current emmissions or the 1990 emmission levels. Again there is just enough GOOD energy policy here to give one hope, but enough BAD energy policy here to think that he is pandering again.

AND the Winner is? Try back on Monday this has tuckered me out. 

:}

The Down Side To Wind – It’s not like passing gas

OK so it is Friday and I miss Weird Bird Friday.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080924-pf-wind-energy.html

5 Myths About Wind Energy

By Michael Schirber

Wind energy might be the simplest renewable energy to understand. Yet there are misconceptions about what makes the wind industry turn.

The United States now has nearly 17,000 megawatts of wind power installed, which can supply about 1.2 percent of the nation’s demand for electricity, according to a recent report from the Department of Energy (DOE).

With these numbers projected to grow in the coming years, it might be good to be aware of a few myths that are blowing in the wind.

1. Wind is cheap

No one owns the wind, so it might seem like wind energy should cost less than other technologies that require costly fuel, such as coal or natural gas, to operate.

However, the initial investment for wind energy is high.

2. America is way behind the rest of the world

Denmark gets 20 percent of its energy from wind. Germany has the most wind turbines of any country. China is set to nearly double its wind energy capacity in just one year.

3. Wind turbines are loud

Wind turbines used to be loud, but newer designs are less so.

4. Wind turbines kill birds

This one is actually true, but the problem is not as bad as some people claim.

The impression that all turbines are dangerous to birds comes from Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in California. This was one of the first big wind farms, and unfortunately it was placed in a migratory bird pathway, Moriarty said.

5. Any house can own a windmill

Unless you have a good chunk of land around your house, it’s probably not a good idea to get a wind turbine. If it’s too close to buildings or trees, the wind will be turbulent and won’t produce the power that it’s supposed to.

:}

And if you think that isn’t enough Myths well hell:

http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

Wind Energy

Top Myths About Wind Energy

Many people make many claims about wind turbines and the effects that they allegedly have. We’ve collated our favourites and given the answers.

  1. Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the British countryside
    Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of electricity supply must come from renewable sources. Wind power is currently the most cost effective renewable energy technology in a position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind turbines are all that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK’s electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and 1,500 offshore.
  2. Myth: Wind farms won’t help climate change
    Fact: Wind power is a clean, renewable source of energy which produces no greenhouse gas emissions or waste products. The UK currently emits 560 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the key greenhouse gas culprit, every year and the Government target is to cut this by 60% by 20501. Power stations are the largest contributor to carbon emissions, producing 170 million tonnes of CO2 each year2. We need to switch to forms of energy that do not produce CO2. Just one modern wind turbine will save over 4,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually3.
  3. Myth: Building a wind farm takes more energy than it ever makes
    Fact: The average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3-5 months of operation4. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for more than 20 years and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental costs. Wind energy is a form of development which is essentially reversible – in contrast to fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.
  4. Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
    Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%5 . A modern wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the course of a year.
  5. Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work
    Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK’s transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation’s workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.
    Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation’s electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6. In fact, this is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20% of total electricity supply.
  6. Myth: Installing wind farms will never shut down power stations
    Fact: The simple fact is that power plants in the UK are being shut down, either through European legislation on emissions or sheer old age. We need to act now to find replacement power sources: wind is an abundant resource, indigenous to the UK and therefore has a vital role to play in the new energy portfolio.
  7. Myth: Wind power is expensive
    Fact: The cost of generating electricity from wind has fallen dramatically over the past few years. Between 1990 and 2002, world wind energy capacity doubled every three years and with every doubling prices fell by 15%7. Wind energy is competitive with new coal and new nuclear capacity, even before any environmental costs of fossil fuel and nuclear generation8 are taken into account. The average cost of generating electricity from onshore wind is now around 3-4p per kilowatt hour, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p)9. As gas prices increase and wind power costs fall – both of which are very likely – wind becomes even more competitive, so much so that some time after 2010 wind should challenge gas as the lowest cost power source.
    Furthermore, the wind is a free and widely available fuel source, therefore once the wind farm is in place, there are no fuel or waste related costs.
  8. Myth: The UK should invest in other renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency instead of wind power
    Fact: Wind energy’s role in combating climate change is not a matter of either/or. The UK will need a mix of new and existing renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures, and as quickly as possible. Significant amounts of investment have been allocated for wave and tidal energy development, and these technologies, along with solar and biomass energy, will have an important role in the UK’s future energy mix. However, wind energy is the most cost effective renewable energy technology available to generate clean electricity and help combat climate change right now. Furthermore, developing a strong wind industry will facilitate other renewable technologies which have not reached commercialisation yet, accumulating valuable experience in dealing with issues such as grid connection, supply chain and finance.
  9. Myth: Wind farms should all be put out at sea
    Fact: We will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to meet the UK’s challenging targets on climate change. At present, onshore wind is more economical than development offshore. However, more offshore wind farms are now under construction, with the first of the large-scale projects operational at the end of 2003, and prices will fall as the industry gains more experience. Furthermore, offshore wind farms take longer to develop, as the sea is inherently a more hostile environment. To expect offshore to be the only form of wind generation allowed would therefore be to condemn us to missing our renewable energy targets and commitment to tackle climate change.
  10. Myth: Wind farms are ugly and unpopular
    Fact: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and whether you think a wind turbine is attractive or not will always be your personal opinion. However, studies regularly show that most people find turbines an interesting feature of the landscape10. On average 80% of the public support wind energy, less than 10% are against it, with the remainder undecided. Surveys conducted since the early 1990’s across the country near existing wind farms have consistently found that most people are in favour of wind energy , with support increasing among those living closer to the wind farms.
  11. Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
    Fact: There is no evidence to suggest this. The UK’s first commercial wind farm at Delabole received 350,000 visitors in its first ten years of operation, while 10,000 visitors a year come to take the turbine tour at the EcoTech Centre in Swaffham, Norfolk. A MORI poll in Scotland showed that 80% of tourists would be interested in visiting a wind farm. Wind farm developers are often asked to provide visitor centres, viewing platforms and rights of way to their sites.
  12. Myth: Wind farms harm property prices
    Fact: There is currently no evidence in the UK showing that wind farms impact house prices. However, there is evidence following a comprehensive study by the Scottish Executive that those living nearest to wind farms are their strongest advocates12.
  13. Myth: Wind farms kill birds
    Fact: The RSPB stated in its 2004 information leaflet Wind farms and birds13, that “in the UK, we have not so far witnessed any major adverse effects on birds associated with wind farms“. Wind farms are always subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and BWEA members follow the industry’s Best Practice Guidelines and work closely with organisations such as English Nature and the RSPB to ensure that wind farm design and layout does not interfere with sensitive species or wildlife designated sites. Moreover, a recent report published in the journal Nature confirmed that the greatest threat to bird populations in the UK is climate change14.
  14. Myth: Wind farms are dangerous to humans
    Fact: Wind energy is a benign technology with no associated emissions, harmful pollutants or waste products. In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the world15, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind turbines. In response to recent unscientific accusations that wind turbines emit infrasound and cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects16, says: “I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines. To say that there is an infrasound problem is one of the hares which objectors to wind farms like to run. There will not be any effects from infrasound from the turbines.”
  15. Myth: Wind farms are noisy
    Fact: The evolution of wind farm technology over the past decade has rendered mechanical noise from turbines almost undetectable with the main sound being the aerodynamic swoosh of the blades passing the tower. There are strict guidelines on wind turbines and noise emissions to ensure the protection of residential amenity. These are contained in the scientifically informed ETSU Working Group guidelines 199617 and must be followed by wind farm developers, as referenced in national planning policy for renewables18. The best advice for any doubter is to go and hear for yourself!

:}

THERE ARE JUST SOOOO MANY MYTHS – STELLA STELLA ok so there really only is a lot of talk sigh…

 http://www.wind.appstate.edu/windpower/myths.php

Dispelling Common Myths

about Wind Power

Compiled by the Wind Working Group

Myth #1: Wind turbines are unusually harmful to birds.

Although birds do infrequently collide with turbines, wind energy poses less of a threat to birds than many other commonplace structures. In fact, the National Audubon Society has stated that it supports the development and use of wind power. Based on numerous studies that have taken place in  New York, Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, Wyoming, Minnesota, and California, collision with turbines result in 1-2 bird deaths or less per turbine per year. For comparison, each year at least 60 million birds die in collisions with vehicles; at least 98 million in collisions with buildings and windows; and at least 4 million in collisions with communication towers. Important consideration should be given to placement of wind turbines to ensure that turbines are not located along migratory bird flight paths or the flight paths of threatened or rare species.
Consider the alternatives; bird deaths that result from fossil energy based power production:

  • Tall smokestacks- A study at a single Florida coal fired power plant with four smokestacks recorded an estimated 3,000 bird kills in a single night during a fall migration.
  • Oil spills at sea – In a single oil shipping accident, – the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska’s Prince William Sound – more than 500,000 migratory birds perished, or about 1,000 times the estimated annual total in California’s wind power plants.
  • Additional threats to birds from other energy sources include: mercury emissions from coal fired power plants; global climate change resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels; acid rain resulting from coal fired power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx and; destruction of habitat as a result of mining activities associated with the coal, gas, oil and uranium industries.

Myth #2: Wind turbines are noisy.

Today’s large wind turbines make less noise (about 45 decibels-dB) than the background noise you hear in your own home (50 dB)! According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), today an operating wind farm at a distance of about 750 to 1,000 feet is no noisier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room.

Myth #3: Many wind turbines are necessary for minimal power generation.

Improved technology has enabled far fewer turbines to produce more electricity. The standard output of a turbine grew from .5 mW in 1995 to 1.5 mW in 2003.

Myth #4: Wind turbines are unattractive

In North Carolina, a study to determine public attitudes towards wind energy was recently conducted. The study found that 77.1% of participants who had seen first hand a utility scale turbine said that they liked its appearance. Studies from numerous US states and other countries report that a majority of people think wind turbines are graceful, elegant structures. Many people find turbines to be interesting features in the landscape, enhancing the vista overall. In the UK, the British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit attractions.

Myth #5: Conventional power sources are less unsightly and environmentally harmful than wind turbines.

Wind turbines cause little damage to the surrounding environments beyond the footprint of the facility and transmissions system and are much less unsightly than conventional power sources.

For comparison, consider the following:

  • Conventional power sources require acres and acres of land for unsightly power plants that spew pollutants from smokestacks. In addition to the electric generating facility itself, the plants also require on-site fuel storage facilities and access to cooling water, both of which require additional land.
  • Construction of hydropower dams floods riverside lands, permanently eliminating riparian and upland habitat.
  • Most generating facilities also produce solid waste by-products of combustion that can be toxic. Solid wastes from power plants are typically dumped into a landfill, another way in which a generating facility impacts land as it extends its environmental footprint beyond the boundaries of the power plant site.
  • Mountain top removal strip mining – the process of blasting off entire mountaintops in order to extract thin seams of coal – can strip up to 10 square miles and dump hundreds of millions of waste into as many as 12 valley fills that can be 1,000 feet wide and 1 mile long.
  • Conventional power sources rely on the combustion of fossil fuels which are largely responsible for the 78% decrease in visibility from natural levels that has occurred in the southern Appalachian Mountains. In the Great Smokey Mountains National Park, summertime visibility averages only 16 miles, and on many days air pollution reduces the visibility range to less than 5 miles. In this case, one might prefer to see a few turbines on top of a mountain than not be able to see the mountains at all.

Myth #6: Wind power will destroy mountain vistas.

Placement of wind turbines should be restricted so as to not detract from places of important scenic beauty. Potential areas that should be excluded from turbine placement consideration are:

  • National Parks
  • State Parks
  • National Forest lands
  • View shed buffers along the Appalachian Trail
  • View shed buffer zones along the Blue Ridge Parkway
  • Spruce-Fir Forest lands ( one of the most unique and endangered ecosystems in the Appalachian region)

Wind turbines should be located where there are:

  • Existing communication towers
  • Existing transmission lines
  • Other forms of existing structures

Myth #7: Wind power will decrease property values in surrounding areas.

Views of wind turbines will not negatively impact property values. A recent study on the economic impacts of wind power states that, “based on a nation-wide survey conducted of tax assessors in other areas with wind power projects, we found no evidence supporting the claim that views of wind farms decrease property values.” Other studies, conducted in both the US and abroad, have made similar findings.

Myth #8: Wind Energy will negatively affect tourism.

Large turbines have been found more often to be a positive influence on tourism. The British Wind Energy Association notes that wind farms in the UK are popular tourist attractions, with thousands of people each year flocking to visit them. In Australia, the wind farms are highlighted as one of the attractions for visitors amongst other historical and scenic points of interest. A Scottish study found that nine out of ten tourists visiting some of Scotland’s top beauty spots say the presence of wind farms makes no difference to the enjoyment of their holiday, and twice as many people would return to an area because of the presence of a wind farm than would stay away. Yet another survey of more than 300 visitors to Argyll, Scotland found that 91% of visitors said the presence of wind farms in the area made no difference to whether they would return.

Myth #9: North Carolinians don’t support wind power.

North Carolinians are in favor of developing wind power in our state. A recent study on public attitudes towards wind power in Western North Carolina found that Western North Carolinians are favorably disposed toward the development of a wind energy industry in the Appalachian Mountains. They want more of their future electricity derived from renewable sources and less from fossil fuels. The study also found that, by over 2 to 1, western North Carolinians do not believe that ridge top turbines should be prohibited. 3 out of 4 study participants feel that if a ridge top already has existing cell towers, they would not mind adding a wind turbine to the clutter. An even higher ratio believes a person should be allowed to erect a turbine on his/her own property for residential use.

References and Contact Info

This fact sheet was prepared by the North Carolina Wind Energy Working Group, February 2003. For more information contact: Amber Lynn Munger (828) 216 2362 or Michael Shore (828) 254 7359


1“Facts about Wind Energy and Birds,” American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WEandBirds.pdf
2 “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A summary of existing studies and comparisons to other sources of avian collision mortality in the United States.” National Wind Coordinating Committee (NWCC) Research Document, 2001. http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf
3 “Facts about Wind Energy and Birds,” American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/WEandBirds.pdf
4 National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Wind Power Market Update, Feb 2003 at http://www.eere.energy.gov/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/wpa/wpa_update.pdf
5 Grady, D., “Public Attitudes Toward Wind Energy in Western North Carolina: A Systematic Survey.” 2002.
16 From powerscorecard.org: http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=7
7 “Blueprint for Breathing Easier; Southeast Strategy for Clean Air,” Environmental Defense, 2002. http://www.cleanenergy.org/air/breathingeasier.pdf
8 Grover, S. for EcoNorthwest, “Economic Impacts of Wind Power in Kittitas County.” Portland, OR, 2002.
9 View this study at: http://www.bwea.com/pdf/mori_briefing.pdf
10 Grady, D., “Public Attitudes Toward Wind Energy in Western North Carolina: A Systematic Survey.” 2002.

:}:}