Nuclear Energy Hoax and Its Hucksters

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) just posted an outstanding article, repurposed from their print publication Extra, that chronicles the media's inattention to the glaring problems of nuclear power. The purported revival of nuclear energy is being heralded as a dramatic and important advance in the fight against global warming, but, as this article points out, the problems of nuclear power run the gamut from excessive costs to unacceptable risks. Karl Grossman, a professor of journalism at the State University of New York College, in this article, Money is the Real Green Power, points out:

“With a very few notable exceptions, such as the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. media have turned the same sort of blind, uncritical eye on the nuclear industry’s claims that led an earlier generation of Americans to believe atomic energy would be too cheap to meter,” comments Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “The nuclear industry’s public relations effort has improved over the past 50 years, while the natural skepticism of reporters toward corporate claims seems to have disappeared.”

The risk scenarios are also regularly downplayed, though the potential disasterous effects of a meltdown are mind-numbing.

As to the risks, the mainstream media’s handling—or non-handling—of the U.S. government’s most comprehensive study on the consequences of a nuclear plant accident is instructive. Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences 2 (known as CRAC-2) was done by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 1980s. Bill Smirnow, an anti-nuclear activist, has tried for years to interest media in reporting on it—sending out information about it continually.

The study estimates the impacts from a meltdown at each nuclear plant in the U.S. in categories of “peak early fatalities,” “peak early injuries,” “peak cancer deaths” and “costs [in] billions.” (“Peak” refers to the highest calculated value—not a “worst case scenario,” as worse assumptions could have been chosen.) For the Indian Point 3 plant north of New York City, for example, the projection is that a meltdown would cause 50,000 “peak early fatalities,” 141,000 “peak early injuries,” 13,000 “peak cancer deaths,” and $314 billion in property damage—and that’s based on the dollar’s value in 1980, so the cost today would be nearly $1 trillion. For the Salem 2 nuclear plant in New Jersey, the study projects 100,000 “peak early fatalities,” 70,000 “peak early injuries,” 40,000 “peak cancer deaths,” and $155 billion in property damage. The study provides similarly staggering numbers across the country.

And it's pretty clear that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission plays number games with accident probabilities, as discussed in this well-documented, heavily footnoted article from Greenpeace USA, The Probablility of a Nuclear Accident.

Why are the major media so enthusiastically supportive of nuclear power? Just follow the money trail:

What are the causes of the media nuclear dysfunction? The obvious problem is media ownership. General Electric, for one, is both a leading nuclear plant manufacturer and a media mogul, owning NBC and other outlets. (For years, CBS was owned by Westinghouse; Westinghouse and GE are the Coke and Pepsi of nuclear power.) There have been board and financial interlocks between the media and nuclear industries. There is the long-held pro-nuclear faith at media such as the New York Times.

There are abundant alternatives to nuclear energy that are genuinely clean, safe, and sustainable. But, don't expect to hear this from the mainstream media.

"Gasoline" by Sheryl Crow

For a change of pace, here is a bit of musical dystopia from Sheryl Crow (the just-released album is titled "Detours", the tune, "Gasoline")... The message: "We're soon going to be running on empty..."



The site where this was posted, takepart, steers their audience toward action-oriented participation in solving the problems of the day. It's worth a look... They also provide a link where a good overview of peak oil is provided: The Oil Drum.

Some of the lyrics from Gasoline:

It was the summer of the riots

And London sat in sweltering heat

And the gangs of Mini Coopers

Took the battle to the streets

But when the creed was handed down

For no more trucks and no more cars

They threw cans of petrol through the windows at Scotland Yard…

…When the Mounties stormed the palace of the Saudi family

They held them up for ransom

Without disturbing their high tea

But their getaway was shaky

They stalled in the Riyadh streets

Cause you can’t make it very far

When your tank is on empty

And the Winning Photovoltaic Is...

In an effort to quantify the efficiency, related emissions, and the hidden energy costs of the leading photovoltaic technologies, the Brookhaven National Laboratory and Columbia University recently conducted an extensive life-cycle assessment. Comparing data from companies that make single-crystal, multicrystal, ribbon silicon solar cells, as well as the thin-film CdTe photovoltaic systems just introduced to the market, the study, described in an Environmental Science and Technology article, produced a clear winner.

The analysis took into account frames, cables, and other necessary support materials, as well as the energy required for manufacturing under three scenarios, each with a different proportion of electricity coming from coal, natural gas, or other sources. The team based their assumptions on ground-mounted systems under southern European light conditions, over 30-year lifetimes.

In the end, the CdTe photovoltaics came out on top. With more efficient energy conversion and the lowest cost, the technology used less energy and had fewer emissions overall, despite some Cd emissions during the manufacturing process. However, emissions from fossil-fuel-powered electricity dwarfed those Cd emissions by orders of magnitude.

For access to the complete manuscript, Emissions from Photovoltaic Life Cycles, click here.

Phenomenal Growth in Wind Power Generation

The year 2007 was a banner year for new wind projects, as reported by the Environment News Service. The total wind power generating capacity rose by 45 percent and bolstered the economy by more than USD 9 billion.

Randall Swisher of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) commented:

"This is the third consecutive year of record-setting growth, establishing wind power as one of the largest sources of new electricity supply for the country.

"This remarkable and accelerating growth is driven by strong demand, favorable economics, and a period of welcome relief from the on-again, off-again, boom-and-bust, cycle of the federal production tax credit for wind power."

In this strong growth climate, wind turbines are selling out as quickly as producers can build them. Growth in 2008, however, will depend strongly on extension on the federal production tax credit, according to AWEA.

Gaming Renewable Energy

The business culture in the United States overwhelmingly touts the virtues of a free market economy, but in practice what we have is a corporate nanny state (closely related to the conservative nanny state). This is particularly the case when it comes to power generation. The rules of the game, especially when it comes to renewable energy, are skewed in favor of the power utilities to the expense of the individual.

In a biting Truthout article, Renwables From the Bottom Up, Craig Morris compares the situation in Germany (where individual and small-scale renewable energy is thriving) to the United States (where net metering and other schemes limit the participation of the public). The profits of the utilities are assured, while the ability of small-scale producers to get a fair market value for energy they put back into the grid is restricted. Some free market...

In this article, Morris says:

Utilities also like net-metering because it imposes an artificial cap on the size of systems. In other words, it keeps the competition small. If your meter runs backward for the year, you may not even get the full retail rate for the excess power you produced, if you get anything. So if you conserve electricity at home, make sure you do not put too many panels on your roof lest you get nothing for your investment.

No wonder solar is moving slowly in the US. What we need is fair competition between energy providers and citizens - as cloudy Germany has. As a result of different legislation, Germans are not only the world leader in wind power, but also in solar, and their biomass sector grew by 55 percent in 2006. They don't use net-metering for solar or a tax credit for wind as we do. Rather, the secret to their success is that they empower citizens to compete with utilities eye-to-eye.

Remember deregulation? Where we failed, Germany succeeded. Since 1999, Germany's electricity and gas markets have been "liberalized," i.e. open for competition not only between corporations, but between corporations and citizens. Retail rates have remained stable, not skyrocketed, and there have been no rolling brownouts. On the contrary, Germany has only around 20-30 minutes of power outages on average each year - among the lowest blackout figures in the world. Renewables now make up 13 percent of the country's electricity supply - and this share is rising by around two percent per annum.

The German system does not pander to the vested interests of powerful utilities. Rather, utilities have to pay citizens a "minimum price" (floor price) set by the government for renewable power. The price is based on what power from a typical renewables generator would cost (cost of system divided by probable output); the retail rate on which net-metering is based is irrelevant here. Germans need only make sure that their systems are well designed and properly installed to turn a profit on their investments.

We desperately need to change our energy production policies to counter the rising spectre of global warming, but it's not an easy thing to do when somebody at the top is gaming the system.

The Energy Impacts of Meat

If you put the ethical issues aside (not an easy thing to do, because the ethical issues are monumental), the subsidized production of a commodity that Americans consume two or three times a day has far-reaching impacts. Meat, a commodity that contributes to a large number of environmental and health problems, is becoming increasingly popular outside the U.S. as well, a fact that is multiplying livestock production problems.

In an article written for the New York Times, Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler, Mark Bittman (who strenuously reminds readers that he is not a vegetarian) outlines the problem from a number of perspectives.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

Just this week, the president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the country’s rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government says, 1,250 square miles were lost.

So how much energy does meat production require? The answer is eye opening.

To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Grain, meat and even energy are roped together in a way that could have dire results. More meat means a corresponding increase in demand for feed, especially corn and soy, which some experts say will contribute to higher prices.

Averting global warming is going to take more than switching light bulbs and driving a hybrid. It's going to require re-examining some of our most cherished habits--including the kind of food we put in our mouths.

Drought and Nuclear Power

The prospect of water wars and extended drought as a side effect of global warming places the nuclear power industry in an increasingly untenable position. As nuclear power proponents try to cast the moribund technology as a carbon-free power source to lead us out of the global warming crisis, real-world concerns cast a different light on nuclear futures.

As reported by The Associated Press and reposted on CommonDreams.org, droughts across the Southeast United States could force serious power reductions or plant shutdowns this coming year. The rivers and lakes that supply the cooling water essential to plant operation are at extremely low levels.

Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.

“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”

The current situation mirrors the crisis that occurred in Europe during the heat wave in 2006. Countries dependent on nuclear power often had to reduce power or shut down as the temperatures soared. Buying electricity from other sources in this type of situation is very expensive.

During Europe’s brutal 2006 heat wave, French, Spanish and German utilities were forced to shut down some of their nuclear plants and reduce power at others because of low water levels - some for as much as a week.

If a prolonged shutdown like that were to happen in the Southeast, utilities in the region might have to buy electricity on the wholesale market, and the high costs could be passed on to customers.

“Currently, nuclear power costs between $5 to $7 to produce a megawatt hour,” said Daniele Seitz, an energy analyst with New York-based Dahlman Rose & Co. “It would cost 10 times that amount that if you had to buy replacement power - especially during the summer.”

There are many other reasons why nuclear power doesn't make sense (safety concerns, waste disposal, scarcity of uranium ore, cost overruns, terrorist threats), but sometimes the issue is basic and inescapable: without abundant water, nuclear power plants can't operate.

Short-Sighted Automakers Ignore Indicators

Back in 1973 when a worldwide oil crisis was triggered by OPEC, U.S. automakers plodded unimaginatively along, trying to use the same forumula for success that had worked for the last fifty years--during the years of cheap oil when gas guzzlers ruled the road. In comparison, Japanese automakers invaded America's shores with a succession of small, fuel-efficient vehicles that over time captured a significant portion of the market from domestic manufacturers.

Apparently, it was a lesson quickly forgotten. Kelpie Wilson, reporting on the North American International Auto Show in Truthout, saw more focus on bigger, more powerful truck; beer coolers built into vehicles; and luxury machinery than on fuel savings. The notion of peak oil and fuel efficiency was relegated to a small footnote, a barely acknowledged afterthought that plug-in hybrids and hyper-efficient vehicles may be the better choice to slow the advance of global warming.

On the CNBC broadcast about the show, Kelpie commented:

Between the NASCAR heroes and half-naked women you would have thought there might be a few minutes to look at some of the green cars on display. According to Auto Alliance, the show features 34 flex-fuel vehicles from eight manufacturers, one hydrogen vehicle from BMW, 24 hybrids from nine manufacturers, and ten new diesels from four manufacturers. Chevy and Toyota also have plug-in hybrid cars at the concept stage. But the CNBC television special had nothing to say about green cars until 44 minutes into the show when there was a comment that green cars were there and "there is ethanol, plug-ins, a lot of stuff they don't have yet, but great eco-fuel stuff to talk about." And that was it. They didn't bother to show the viewing audience a single green car.

Retro styling, along with retro attitudes, is all we are seeing from Detroit at a time when the world needs to radically reinvent everything to do with energy and the economy. It's not just about climate change either, but also the fact that global oil production is near its peak while population and consumption are both rising. Meanwhile, the only cure for the US recession is massive public investment in a new, post-oil energy and transportation infrastructure. The future will revolve around plug-in hybrids coupled with a smart electric grid and a huge expansion in mass transit buses and railroads. There is no real reason why Detroit should not be a part of that, but the auto industry and its supporters will have to work to make it happen.

The world changes while the automakers sleep.

High-Flying Algae

Previously outspoken global warming skeptic Richard Branson has seen the light. Branson, like many of the converted, has made fighting global warming a personal crusade and the billionaire founder of Virgin Airways is making a bid to power his jet fleet with biofuel.

As reported in Mother Jones, Virgin Airlines: Powered by Pond Scum, speculation abounds on what form of biofuel Branson will be using on the test run of a Boeing 747-400 from London to Amsterdam on a blend of 20 percent biofuel and 80 percent jet fuel. The test is scheduled for late February 2008.

Neither Virgin nor its partners, Boeing and GE, will say what biofuel the airline plans to use. Scott attributed the silence to "customer preference," indicating that more information could be released in the coming weeks. For now, he would say only that Boeing is investigating more than 20 different "feedstocks" for the production of biofuels, including a flowering plant called jatropha, canola, and the Brazilian babassu nut—all of which yield oils when crushed.

Another potential fuel source, one that Scott alluded to several times, is algae. "The biggest thing you get out of going to biofuels is the ability to reduce CO2 as the plants are growing," he explained. And along those lines, perhaps more than any other feedstock, algae represents a kind of holy grail to biofuel researchers. It's a fast-growing, hardy, single-celled organism that takes in carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide and releases oxygen, producing oil, sugar, and protein in the process. It's biodegradable, can grow in harsh weather, and holds an estimated thirty times more energy per acre than land-based feedstocks. The Energy Department estimated it would require 15,000 acres (an area about the size of Maryland) to grow enough algae to replace all of America's petroleum needs; it would require half the continental United States to accomplish the same with soy.

Algae is gaining increasing attention as a fuel source, so it will be illuminating to see if this is the fuel Branson is banking on. As a master of self promotion, Branson will undoubtedly have a moment in the spotlight to unveil his test results and focus the aviation industry on the possibilities of alternative fuels.

Biofuels are a Dead End (or Are They?)

As reported in the English version of SPIEGEL ONLINE, backlash at the negative effects of biofuel production is reaching a crescendo in Europe. Despite the fact the many governments across Europe have mandated a steady push toward gas and diesel made from plants, environmental group are marshalling forces to oppose this direction.

"The biofuels route is a dead end," Dr. Andrew Boswell, a Green Party councillor in England and author of a recent study on the harmful effects of biofuels, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "They are going to create great damage to the environment and will also produce dramatic social problems in (tropical countries where many crops for biofuels are grown). There basically isn't any way to make them viable."

The evidence against biofuels marshalled by Boswell and other environmentalists appears quite damning. Advertised as a fuel that only emits the amount of carbon dioxide that the plants absorb while growing -- making it carbon neutral -- it actually has resulted in a profitable industrial sector attractive to countries around the world. Vast swaths of forest have been felled and burned in Argentina and elsewhere for soya plantations. Carbon-rich peat bogs are being drained and rain forests destroyed in Indonesia to make way for extensive palm oil farming.


Because the forests are often torched and the peat rapidly oxidizes, the result is huge amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. Furthermore, healthy peat bogs and forests absorb CO2 -- scientists refer to them as "carbon sinks" -- making their disappearance doubly harmful.

Note that much of the opposition is directed at the impact of deforestation associated with biofuels. Fuel sources such as switchgrass, algae, and hemp can be grown and harvested without infringing on conventional agricultural lands, competing with food crops, or requiring deforestation.

Hemp is particularly promising, but the misguided prohibition of industrial hemp farming in America presents a significant hurdle to overcome. As detailed in this article posted by Yokayo Biofuels, automakers from back in the days of Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel envisioned biomass fuels as central to automobile travel.

Despite the fact that men such as Henry Ford, Rudolph Diesel, and subsequent manufacturers of diesel engines saw the future of renewable resource fuels, a political and economic struggle doomed the industry. Manufacturing industrialists made modifications to the diesel engines so they could take advantage of the extremely low prices of the residual, low-grade fuel now offered by the petroleum industry. The petroleum companies wanted control of the fuel supplies in the United States and, despite the benefits of biomass fuel verses the fossil fuels, they moved ahead to eliminate all competition.


One player in the biofuel, paper, textile, as well as many other industries, was hemp. Hemp had been grown as a major product in America since colonial times by such men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and has had both governmental and popular support. Hemp's long history in civilization and the multitude of products that can be derived from this single plant has made it one of the most valuable and sustainable plants in the history of mankind. More importantly to the biofuel industry, hemp provided the biomass that Ford needed for his production of ethanol. He found that 30% hemp seed oil is usable as a high-grade diesel fuel and that it could also be used as a machine lubricant and an engine oil.

We have many solutions to the energy crisis at hand, but not enough wise leaders guiding our direction.

Popular Mechanics Looks at the Aptera

It looks a bit like a wingless aircraft and draws stares from nearly everyone it passes. It's loaded with high-tech ideas, from the solar panels on the roof that help vent hot air on sunny days to the recycled materials used on every inch of the cockpit. The prototype shown in this video, the Aptera, is reputed to get 300 miles per gallon. For another view of what the car of the future might look like, check out this video produced by Popular Mechanics:

Extreme Hybrids and Future Driving

From a small company in Bellevue, Washington, AFS Trinity Power Corporation, comes an idea big enough to change the driving habits of millions of Americans and jumpstart the renewable energy industry. A prototype SUV displayed at the North American International Auto Show uses AFS Trinity drive train technologies to achieve 150mpg. As the company points out, this figure is not a projection. The SUV prototype is an actual running example of a vehicle design that promises to revolutionize driving.

The company describes the Extreme Hybrid drive train technology in these terms:

The Extreme Hybrid™ is the first practical drive train for a Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle. Its two-part energy storage system combines Lithium-ion batteries with ultracapacitors. This “hybrid within a hybrid” energy storage system exploits the strengths of lithium-ion batteries (light weight and high energy density) and ultracapacitors (small size and high power density). Batteries alone, have high energy density but they must be greatly oversized in today’s hybrid vehicles to avoid deep discharges. Battery-only hybrids also require a powerful internal combustion engine for hill climbing and acceleration.
Adding ultracapacitors with their high power density and high cycle life allows the Extreme Hybrid™ Plug-in to achieve top speeds and rapid acceleration in electric-only mode equal to a conventional hybrid. The Extreme Hybrid™ design allows for a smaller internal combustion engine while preserving high vehicle performance. For a typical daily commute of 40 miles round trip, an Extreme Hybrid™ vehicle does not use its internal combustion engine at all.

In an article for Salon, Joseph Romm points out that by themselves, hybrid electric vehicles won't contribute enormous greenhouse gas savings until cleaner electricity sources come on line:

The big greenhouse gas savings would come about as plug-ins enable a major transition toward clean electricity and away from petroleum-based fuel, which is getting dirtier every year, as unconventional oil, such as Canadian tar sands, becomes more popular.

Unlike petroleum, electricity is poised to get greener in the future, especially as we fight climate change. Indeed, once we have a national cap on carbon emissions, plug-ins will drive even faster growth of the diverse and growing numbers of carbon-free electricity sources.

As promising as Extreme Hybrid technology looks, the challenge is still daunting. Romm also explains that to prevent catastrophic climate change, the average U.S. car will have to have 80 to 90 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 than today's vehicles.

Algae to Biofuel: New Interest

An idea for a fuel source that sparked interest over 20 years ago is now getting a fresh look. Algae offers the potential to produce inexpensive transportation fuel and back in the late 70's and 80's twelve U.S. universities, funds by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, studied 3,000 strains of algae until research money dried up in the 90's. As reported by the Environment News Service, one of the chief researchers at the time, Keith Cooksey, is a central figure in a new quest to tap both the CO2 absorption capabilities and fuel potential of brown algae.

"It's a very strange feeling," said Cooksey, now 72. "You don't usually have people bending your ear on what you did 20 years ago. Science doesn't work that way, but in this case, it did."

The revived interest in microalgae stems from conflict in the Middle East and the resulting focus on alternative fuels, Cooksey said.

"Our lab was one of three or four in the world doing research that nobody was really interested in," Cooksey said. "Now, suddenly lots of people are interested in it."

The oil companies, who may have been instrumental in quashing the earlier research, are now expressing significant interest in algae as we enter the post peak oil era.

The algal properties for sequestering CO2 make it especially attractive as a solution for transportation fuel.

Algal biodiesel is one of the only avenues available for high-volume re-use of CO2 generated in power plants. It is a technology that marries the potential need for carbon disposal in the electric utility industry with the need for clean-burning alternatives to petroleum in the transportation sector.

Already, a San Diego firm, Green Star Products, is working on agreements to construct commercial algae facilities that can offset carbon emissions, such as those produced by boilers in biodiesel plants. The trend definitely looks promising.

Faux Nuclear Renaissance

In sharp contrast to the numerous mainstream media reports (which have been widely circulated and strongly encouraged by numerous pro-nuclear factions), the nuclear power industry is in decline around the world. The "World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2007", presented to the European Parliament in late November 2007 by the Greens European Free Alliance group, documents that the proportion of nuclear energy in power production has decreased in 21 out of 31 countries. Compared to five years ago, there are five fewer functioning nuclear reactors. At the moment, 32 nuclear power plants are under construction or in the late planning stage, which is 20 fewer than at the turn of the millennium.

In a summary of the report posted on the Greens/EFA site, German Green MEP and energy spokesperson said,

"The shrinking of nuclear in Europe is particularly notable, with ten power plants being permanently withdrawn from the network since the last report in 2004.With fewer plants being built and existing plants becoming more decrepit, it seems clear that the grandiose ambitions of the nuclear industry will remain in the realm of fantasy."

False promises for a nuclear revival could lead to misplaced public expenditure, delaying a more intelligent and sustainable approach to energy supply. In addition, plans for building new reactors would be in direct competition for the limited manufacturing capacity that is already stretched by the maintenance costs for existing (aging) reactors.

"The gap between the expectations being promoted by the nuclear industry and reality are perfectly highlighted by the bungled attempt to build a new reactor at the Olkiluoto plant in Finland. This first new nuclear project in 15 years has been blighted by problems.After only two years of construction the project is already two years delayed and the budget is set to be overrun by at least 50%, with 1.5 billion euro in losses and shocking errors in key technical specifications. Clearly, talk of a nuclear revival is divorced from reality and political leaders must call the nuclear industry's bluff," continued Rebecca Harms.

Recognition of the fallacies perpetuated by nuclear power boosters could help steer more resources toward wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power development.

Energy News from the Upper Midwest

We might think of the Upper Midwest as a place where interests in energy take a backseat to the gritty demands of farming, but as the weekly energy roundup demonstrates, activism and progressive energy policies are alive and well.

Simple Measures to Reduce Energy Use

Conventional wisdom (that is, the specious analysis that is generally circulated in the mainstream media) typically looks at our national energy needs as a matter of building more power plants, producing different kinds of fuels, or progressing slowly toward more use of renewables. The notion of doing more with less doesn't usually get a lot of coverage, although there are a number of efficiency studies demonstrating how we can successfully meet many of our future energy needs simply by eliminating waste.

As reported in the New York Times (and posted on truthout), The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory of the Energy Department conducted a research study recently where 112 households in the Olympic Peninsula were equipped with digital thermostats and computer controllers linked to other appliances, such as water heaters and clothes dryers. Controls for all of these energy-consuming items were also connected to the Internet.

The study results indicated surprsingly impressive energy savings over the span of a year, with the potential for tremendous long-term savings:

Over a 20-year period, this could save $70 billion on spending for power plants and infrastructure, and avoid the need to build the equivalent of 30 large coal-fired plants, say scientists at the federal laboratory.

The demonstration project was as much a test of consumer behavior as it was of new technology. Scientists wanted to find out if the ability to monitor consumption constantly would cause people to save energy - just as studies have shown that people walk more if they wear pedometers to count their steps.

More efficient cars, smarter heating and cooling of buildings, appliances used more wisely and deliberately--all of these measures clearly can substantially reduce our need for a drastic increase in the number of power plants and the frantic, often misguided quest for new fuel sources.

Of Birds and Turbines

As a reminder that few activities of humankind are without consequences, trib.com reports on the problem of bird deaths from the blades of wind turbines in an article titled "Wind power can be deadly." The strong winds that rip through the Altamont Pass in California have been tapped by approximately 5,000 windmills, but local avian wildlife has suffered, generating controversy over continuing operations.

No one knows for sure how many birds are killed by the Altamont turbines -- a 2004 California Energy Commission report estimated the golden eagle toll to be between 75 and 116 a year, while total bird kills were put in the 1,766 to 4,721 range. The Audubon Society lawsuit targets four raptor species -- golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel and burrowing owl -- which suffered 456 to 1,129 fatalities per year, the study estimated.

Subsequent data indicate that bird deaths have not decreased since the settlement was reached last January and that efforts to achieve a 50 percent reduction in three years are far behind, said Shawn Smallwood, an independent consultant in avian ecology who co-authored the 2004 California Energy Commission study and is one of the five county-appointed scientists.

There are tradeoffs to almost everything we do, but in this case the solution clearly favors upgrading older turbines to more modern models, which operate at a higher level with more slowly spinning blades.

Biofuels Have Consequences

New analyses by researchers point to unintended consequences of increasing biofuel production, leading to environmental impacts potentially more damaging than fossil fuels. As reported in the Guardian Unlimited, if factors such as destruction of farmland and biodiversity conservation are included in the equation, biofuels based on certain crops (including corn and sugar cane) produce more risks than benefits.

As the article points out, differences exist between different crops:

Efforts to work out which crops are most environmentally friendly have, until now, focused only on the amount of greenhouse gases a fuel emits when it is burned. Scharlemann and Laurance highlighted a more comprehensive method, developed by Rainer Zah of the Empa Research Institute in Switzerland, that can take total environmental impacts - such as loss of forests and farmland and effects on biodiversity - into account.

In a study of 26 biofuels the Swiss method showed that 21 fuels reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 30% compared with gasoline when burned. But almost half of the biofuels, a total of 12, had greater total environmental impacts than fossil fuels. These included economically-significant fuels such as US corn ethanol, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel. Biofuels that fared best were those produced from waste products such as recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood.

Given that many government initiatives are mandating a shift to biofuels, these impacts and risks should be cause to re-examine the rationale behind selecting one crop over another.

Market Potential for Clean Energy

In an article for the business technology publication Red Herring, analysts provided enthusiastic forecasts for the clean energy tech sector and trumpeted some of the strong growth rates experienced in 2007.

Solar companies were the clean tech engines on the U.S. public markets. Shares of Phoenix, Arizona-based First Solar soared, ending the year up nearly tenfold to close at $267.14. San Jose, California-based SunPower rose 368 percent on the year, closing at $130.39 per share. And Wuxi, China-based Suntech climbed 240 percent, trading at $82.32 per share at the end of trading.

Projections for 2008 are looking bullish as well:

Mr. Pernick predicted 2008 would be a good year for energy storage, energy intelligence—such as smart grid technology—and advanced materials within the clean tech sector.

Wave Energy Conversion

The following video, produced by Finavera Renewables, shows the test deployment of a wave energy converter, AquaBuOY. Analysts project that this form of power could supply 6.5% of U.S. energy needs in years to come.

Global Warming and World Instability

While dwindling numbers of deniers continue to minimize the threats of global warming, a group of United States military leaders, including retired four-star General Anthony Zinni, have released a report on the potential impact of climate change on our nation's security. This piece was produced by the Real News.

Vehicle to Grid Power Could Supplement Energy Needs

That 200-horsepower engine propelling your personal road machine could also do its share to help power your home or office. The concept of vehicle-to-grid power hasn't yet advanced from the research labs, but the idea bears serious consideration as a means to deliver power to the grid during peak demand periods. The Univeristy of Delaware describes the technology in these terms:

Electric-drive vehicles, whether powered by batteries, fuel cells, or gasoline hybrids, have within them the energy source and power electronics capable of producing the 60 Hz AC electricity that powers our homes and offices. When connections are added to allow this electricity to flow from cars to power lines, we call it "vehicle to grid" power, or V2G. Cars pack a lot of power. One typical electric-drive vehicle can put out over 10kW, the average draw of 10 houses. The key to realizing economic value from V2G is precise timing of its grid power production to fit within driving requirments while meeting the time-critical power "dispatch" of the electric distribution system.

The Rocky Mountain Institute has been studying this issue (and has launched The Smart Garage initiative). One of their fellows, Bryan Palmintier, recently wrote an article posted on Yahoo Green News, How Your Future Car Could Help Add Power Back to the Grid. He describes the most basic approach to the technology:

The simplest V2G strategy is to charge vehicles at night, when electricity use (and price) is lowest, and then use the batteries to provide power during the peak demand (typically in the afternoon). This way, V2G could replace the so called "peaker" power plants, which run for only a few hours to meet the highest loads, and are typically the least efficient and most polluting.

To be effective however, this peak shifting would require millions of V2G-capable vehicles on the road (or, more precisely, parked in the afternoon), which will take some time to happen. In the short run, the most promising use for V2G is to provide "ancillary services" to help stabilize the grid.

But, another smart way to implement the technology would be as a supplement to renewable sources of power where the levels of energy fluctuate frequently:

Another exciting possibility for V2G is to help compensate for (or "firm") the variable output of intermittent renewables such as wind and solar.

When the wind blows or the sun is out, vehicles could charge their batteries, while still leaving plenty of power to run other loads on the grid. Then when the wind slows, or a cloud covers the sun, power from the vehicles would be used to continue to provide the same level of power to the grid.

Many innovative solutions to our energy problems are within our grasp with a little imagination and the willingness to make some changes to the entrenched infrastructure.

Blending Science, Art, and Climate Change Evangelism

From an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, Scientist Shearer Brings Odd Bedfellows Together to Save the Earth, emerges a fascinating portrait of a new media practitioner grounded in science and committed to reducing climate change. The subject of this piece, David Shearer, defies categorization as he combines expertise in a variety of areas to persuade the doubtful, activate markets, and initiate dialogues among unlikely participants.

But, regardless of the backgrounds and sensibilities of his audiences, he sometimes tosses out ideas that challenge conventional thought.

His doctoral degree gave him the intellectual chops to explain the science of climate change, yet friends say his open mind is what allows him to hear new ideas. It is his spiritual side, colleagues say, that really sets him apart from your garden-variety academic.

Like when he talks about exploring a multidimensional world that we cannot see or hear.

"I joke with my friends that I'd like to demonstrate as a scientist that love is a real energy. That love can run a light bulb," the now-divorced Shearer said while sitting in his Financial District office. "And they say to me, 'David, how are you going to do that?' And I say, 'I don't really know, you guys, but as a scientist I need to be open to new ideas, and maybe it resides in one of these other dimensions.'

"Lately, as I talk about climate change, I lay out the picture - this is where we are, this is what the solution packages are - but really what it gets down to is cooperation, conversation and, dare I say, love. It gets down to having dialogues across countries, across societies."

Journalist Joe Garofoli concluded the piece with an appropriately upbeat quote from Shearer.

"While we need to be very sanguine about what the problems are on the planet, we need to create exciting, realistic, solution packages that capture the imagination," he said. "It's just too dire without creating some excitement.

Natalie Portman and This Bulb

It's the millions upon millions of small steps that we all take to reduce energy use that collectively can make a monumental difference worldwide. In this segment produced by National Geographic (heavily laden with the startling imagery and striking visuals for which National Geographic is known), a pantheon of celebrities as well as some average folks make the case for switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs. Catchy and persuasive...



Some people balk at the idea of switching to compact fluorescent bulbs having heard of the mercury dangers. The Union of Concerned Scientists addresses that issue right here.

Wake-up Call on Global Warming

Something remarkable happened at Bali. The delegate from New Guinea stood up to the U.S. and essentially said, "You can lead on this issue or you can get out of the way so the rest of us can make some progress."

The result, documented in this Greenpeace video, which also includes the final version of a video collaboration, Climate Message in a Bottle, may surprise you.

Tom Hanks Electric Car

A quote comes to mind, one that Jim Hightower captured from John Dromgoole, a natural gardener, in his book The Upchuck Rebellion. The quote applies as well to energy and automotive issues as it does to organic gardening:

Those who say it can't be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Tom Hanks is doing it, with an electric car that gets 80 or more miles per charge and keeps up with the freeway traffic effortlessly. He talks about it and a conversion company that he is involved with on this Letterman segment:



Tom also has a video on his MySapce page that gives you the opportunity to drive along with him and hear about a more recent electric car's features.

Changing Habits to Fight Global Warming

As discussed in this Boston Globe article, people don't change habits easily when it comes to global warming and energy conservation. A city task force in Keene, NH, is trying to use social pressure to change those daily wasteful habits that impede efforts to cut energy consumption.

The idea is to seed the city with visible green role models and have them reach out to friends, neighbors, and co-workers - essentially using the same type of peer pressure that makes teens want to wear Ugg boots and North Face jackets.

"We want to get people to do the right thing because it's cool to do it," said Mikaela Engert, Keene's city planner. "We're trying to make [environmentalism] part of the fabric of the city."

So far the project has yielded mixed results, but it is revealing for spotlighting the challenges that any community faces when trying to directly confront global warming.

In 2000, Keene became one of the first communities in New England to pledge to combat climate change, eventually agreeing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent below 1995 levels by 2015. Without the effort, emissions were projected to rise 26 percent over that time because of economic and population growth.

As other communities begin to do their part to slow the world's warming, Keene's unfolding story - high on hope and short on money - offers a glimpse into the extraordinary challenge of changing a culture.

The journey of a 1000 miles needs to start quickly and with more than one step.

Obstructionist Tactics at Climate Change Conference in Bali

At the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali (3 DEC - 14 DEC 07) Canada's new Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, managed to accomplish a near-impossible feat: presenting a more regressive approach to climate change policy than George Bush, who won the Fossil of the Century Award in 2005. The Real News reports:

Bali and Biofuels

Despite urgings from a number of environmental organizations, issues related to biofuels did not get a thorough airing at the recent United Nations climate change conference in Bali, which ran from December 3rd to the 14th. Demand for biofuels has skyrocketed with many nations rethinking fuel sources to help limit greenhouse gas emissions, but the dark side of biofuels, the impact on food sources, deforestation, and land use, was largely missing from conference sessions and discussions.

As reported in an Inter Press Service article, Climate Change: Biofuels Scarce on Bali Menu, agricultural issues associated with biofuels have a significant impact on food availability:

‘’We are concerned about the pressure biofuel production is placing on the world’s food reserves. If you produce biofuel with food crops like corn, you won’t have it to meet food demand,’’ Jeff McNeely, chief scientist of IUCN said in an interview. ‘’The grain reserves of the world today are the lowest they have been in the last 10 to 15 years.’’

Similar views were expressed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in pamphlets made available at the U.N. agency’s display booth in the main conference venue. ‘’Food security (availability and accessibility) of the poor may be compromised by increased demand for energy crops,’’ it cautioned.

Currently, the biofuel industry is fed by corn, wheat, sugarcane and palm oil, among other crops. Close to 5,000 lt of biofuel can be extracted from one hectare of corn, 6,000 lt from a hectare of sugarcane and 4,500 lt from a hectare of palm oil, said Barbara Bramble of the National Wildlife Federation during the IUCN-hosted discussion.

A quote from the Netherlands environment minister provides a succinct summary of the issue:

And the main drivers of this demand, the European Union (EU), has admitted that a more sustainable policy is needed to meet a 2010 target of having 5.7 percent of its transport fuel from green sources. ‘’The negative impacts should be avoided,’’ said the Netherlands' environment minister Jacqueline Cramer. ‘’When we use biofuel for our cars, we might be destroying biodiversity and have negative impacts on food production and social and economic development.’’

Total Decarbonization

Total decarbonization... That's a catchy phrase. George Monbiot used in in a 4 DEC 07 article in the Guardian Unlimited, This crisis demands a reappraisal of who we are and what progress means.

The crux of the issue of quite simple, though the solution is anything but.

In the new summary published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), you will find a table that links different cuts to likely temperatures. It suggests that to prevent global warming from eventually exceeding 2C, by 2050 the world will need to cut its emissions to roughly 15% of the volume in 2000.

There are more facts and figures, but it boils down to the need for generating a global cut in CO2 emissions of more than 90% by 2050 to avoid dire repercussions of global warming. And to stabilize temperatures globally at a level consistent with the pre-industrial period will require a global cut of nearly 100%.

To most humans, this would be cause for complete despair and inaction, but Monboit is optimistic that there remains a path to circumvent disaster.

But I am not advocating despair. We must confront a challenge that is as great and as pressing as the rise of the Axis powers. Had we thrown up our hands then, as many people are tempted to do today, you would be reading this paper in German. Though the war often seemed impossible to win, when the political will was mobilised strange and implausible things began to happen. The US economy was spun round on a dime in 1942 as civilian manufacturing was switched to military production. The state took on greater powers than it had exercised before. Impossible policies suddenly became achievable.

The real issues in Bali are not technical or economic. The crisis we face demands a profound philosophical discussion, a reappraisal of who we are and what progress means. Debating these matters makes us neither saints nor communists; it shows only that we have understood the science.

Deep ecology is one place to start. Deep Economy (as described in Bill McKibben's recent book) is a way to continue (as are the steps outlined in his more recent book, Fight Global Warming Now). It's time for us collectively as a species to wake up and take action if we want to be around to celebrate the next millennium.

Nuclear Power Information Tracker

The Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the best watchdog and energy advisory group around, offers a comprehensive online guide to the existing reactors in the U.S. The interactive map also provides some startling surprises, such as when you click on the button labeled "Show Inherently Safe Reactors" and get this popup:

An inherently safe reactor, in theory, would be designed, operated, and monitored in such a way that the reactor would never be damaged and, as a result, no radioactivity would ever be released to the environment. No such reactor currently exists. The risk from existing reactors is so real and so large that liability insurance from private companies is financially impossible, thereby requiring federal liability protection

The catalog of reactor problems, near misses, forced shutdowns, and spotty safety records is eye opening and a clear indication of the nature of the beast.

The Wonders of Liquid Coal

Mark Fiore is one of the sharpest political and environmental commentators on the scene, using Flash animation to poke a stick in the eye of the establishment and expose the ongoing foolishness of government and industry. This piece, created for NRDC and just posted on YouTube, extols the virtues of liquid coal. Didn't realize there were virtues? Just click to find out more...

Renewable Energy Bonanza: More Green Jobs

As reported by environmental correspondent Julia Whitty and posted at Grist's The Blue Marble Blog, strong growth in renewable energy projects is accelerating. A study conducted by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute included forecasts and statistics that should encourage individuals and businesses that are renouncing a fossil-fuel future. Among the promising stats:

Energy efficiency now employs 8 million, and renewable energy 450,000, in the U.S. • Renewable energy creates more jobs per megawatt of power installed, unit of energy produced, and dollar invested than fossil energy. • Generating 20 percent of U.S. electricity from new renewable energy by 2020 will add 185,000 new jobs, while cumulatively reducing utility bills $10.5 billion and increasing rural landowner income by $26.5 billion. • A national light vehicle efficiency standard of 35 mpg by 2018 will create 241,000 jobs, including 23,900 in the automotive sector, while saving consumers $37 billion in 2020 alone. • The Massachusetts clean energy sector employs 14,000 and will soon be the state's 10th largest economic sector.

Whitty also points out that renewable energy projects, such as wind farms on pastureland and small-scale methane-generating plants on diary farms, reinvigorate local communities and bring sorely needed revenue into rural areas.

Addressing the Climate Skeptics

The British refer to them as "sceptics" rather than "skeptics", but regardless of their geographic location their sceptical arguments tend to fall into predictible groups, as noted in this BBC News special report, which is prefaced as follows:

What are some of the reasons why "climate sceptics" dispute the evidence that human activities such as industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation are bringing potentially dangerous changes to the Earth's climate?
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finalises its landmark report for 2007, we look at 10 of the arguments most often made against the IPCC consensus, and some of the counter-arguments made by scientists who agree with the IPCC.

In an accompanying piece, BBC environmental correspondent Richard Black queried the 61 "accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines" (as they described themselves) who wrote an open letter to Canada's newly elected prime minister, Stephen Harper. The letter essentially implored that the government revisit the current climate change plans and rethink the approach.

Of the respondents, Black summarized their positions in these terms:

So to the results. Ten out of the 14 agreed that the Earth's surface temperature had risen over the last 50 years; three said it had not, with one equivocal response.

Nine agreed that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide had risen over the last century, with two saying decidedly that levels had not risen. Eight said that human factors were principally driving the rise.

Twelve of the fourteen agreed that in principle, rising greenhouse gas concentrations should increase temperatures.

But eight cited the Sun as the principal factor behind the observed temperature increase.

And nine said the "urban heat island" effect - where progressive urbanisation around weather stations has increased the amount of heat generated locally - had affected the record of historical temperatures.

Eleven believed rising greenhouse gas concentrations would not result in "dangerous" climate change, and 12 said it would be unwise for the global community to restrain production of carbon dioxide and the other relevant gases, with several suggesting that such restraint would bring economic disruption.

Black goes further into the nature of the responses and if you're interested in the varying rationales that climate skeptics employ, this piece is engaging and revealing.

One of the contributors to the Real Climate site (a group of scientists who blog about climate change issues--their tagline: Climate science from climate scientists), NASA climate modeler Gavin A. Schmidt, worked with Black to consolidate the contrarian arguments presented in the article, which he found weak and disappointing on the whole:

Alongside each of these talking points, is a counter-point from the mainstream (full disclosure, I helped Richard edit some of those). In truth though, I was a little disappointed at how lame their 'top 10′ arguments were. In order, they are: false, a cherry pick, a red herring, false, false, false, a red herring, a red herring, false and a strawman. They even used the 'grapes grew in medieval England' meme that you'd think they'd have abandoned already given that more grapes are grown in England now than ever before (see here). Another commonplace untruth is the claim that water vapour is '98% of the greenhouse effect' - it's just not.

So why do the contrarians still use arguments that are blatantly false? I think the most obvious reason is that they are simply not interested (as a whole) in providing a coherent counter story. If science has one overriding principle, it is that you should adjust your thinking in the light of new information and discoveries - the contrarians continued use of old, tired and discredited arguments demonstrates their divorce from the scientific process more clearly than any densely argued rebuttal.

If the few climate skeptics that remain hope to have any influence in governmental or societal changes in the decades ahead, they're going to have to marshall some better arguments--arguments that can't be so easily refuted.

The Schizophrenia of Auto Manufacturers

As well documented in Who Killed the Electric Car, auto industry executives and manufacturers' spokespersons often speak out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to greener technologies. An illuminating example is Toyota advertising the benefits of their high-mileage vehicles while joining the Detroit Three in a lawsuit against California's attempt to legislate higher mileage standards for vehicles operated in the state.

In this article from the Minneapolis StarTribune, David Morris tells the story of Ford lobbying against legislative efforts to form a task force with a nefarious goal: investigating the possibility of using the soon-to-close St. Paul Ranger plant to produce plug-in hybrid Rangers.

Morris reports that under new management (Alan Mulally, formerly of Boeing) and under pressure from competitors, Ford is rethinking their attitude toward plug-in hybrids.

GM has announced a major effort to get its new plug-in vehicle, the Volt, on the road in 2010-2012. Several dozen plug-in Priuses are on the roads in Japan, a remarkable turnaround for Toyota, a company that for years used as its tag line in Prius ads: "You never have to plug it in." The company is also developing flexible-fuel technology that could use E85 ethanol for the back-up engine.

These changes can, and should, lead Ford, the UAW and Minnesota to revisit a plan to make the St. Paul plant the basis for a new, green transportation initiative. An electricity-biofueled vehicle makes very good sense. Traveling on electricity costs about a penny a mile, compared with more than 13 cents on gas. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that if every light-duty car and truck in America used plug-in hybrid technology, 75 percent could be plugged in and fueled at night by the electricity grid without the need to construct a single new power plant. Since we use very little oil to generate electricity, electric miles are essentially oil-free miles. If the backup engine were fueled by ethanol or biodiesel, the vehicle could reduce overall petroleum consumption by more than 90 percent.

Morris closes the piece with a tongue-in-cheek mixed metaphor: "The table is set. Will Ford step up to the plate?"

Nanotechnology Meets Solar

The energy world is abuzz with news of an advance that combines nanotechnology (an applied science that controls matter at the levels of molecules and atoms) with the vast potential of solar power. Nanosolar, which is building the world's largest solar cell factory in San Jose, California, also has a 507,000 square foot manufacturing plant close to Berlin, Germany.

One of the factors that has dampened enthusiasm for solar power has been the cost differential between solar and traditional technologies for generating electricity. Nanosolar has devised a technique for roll-printing thin-film solar cells, making it possible to inexpensively produce roof tiles, window coverings, and other surface covering materials that harvest energy from the sun.

Quoting from an article recently posted on CNBC:

"Solar panels have not been very popular to the American people because they've been too expensive. That's what we're changing now," says Martin Roscheisen, another of the company's co-founders.

Nanosolar's secret sauce is just that: a patented glop of metals and nanoparticles that work together once they're exposed to sunlight, absorbing light and then producing energy. The substance is then sprayed on a durable foil by machines that look like giant newspaper printing presses. The process dramatically speeds up the manufacturing process.

"We're trying to achieve fantastic scale," says an early Nanosolar investor, Eric Straser from Mohr Davidow Ventures. "But we're really doing it in a way that achieves a cost breakthrough at the same time."

The transformational possibilities of technologies such as this demonstrate where this country's research and investment dollars should be going, obviating the need to turn to moribund technologies such as nuclear power and liquid coal.

Quelling Consumerism

As Kelle Lasn, founder of Adbusters says, "Driving hybrid cars and limiting industrial emissions is great, but they are band-aid solution if we don't address the core problem: we have to consume less. This is the message of Buy Nothing Day.

Rampant consumerism is as big a threat to the planet as the dirty smokestack industries, exhaust-belching cars, and the globe-circling jetliners. Excess consumption is the Stegasaurus in the living room that most people don't even want to talk about because it cuts too close to habits that are near and dear.

So, celebrate this day in earnest. It's easy. All you have to do is buy nothing...

If slaughterhouses had glass walls...

As millions of roasted turkey carcasses go on tables around the country, it's worth considering the relationship between the consumption of animal flesh and global warming. Those environmentalists who don't fall among the ranks of vegans or vegetarians (vegans number somewhere around 1 to 2.8 percent of the population by some estimates) have some explaining to do. As Bill Maher said in a recent column posted on Common Dreams:

Former Vice President Al Gore should be the first to take the meat-free Thanksgiving pledge. Since raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined, is it too much ask Mr. Gore to stop gazing at his Oscar and his Nobel Prize long enough to read the United Nations report that calls the meat industry “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global”?

GoVeg.com has more to say on the topic:

Scientists also warn that global warming threatens the lives of millions of humans and countless other animals. Many conscientious people are trying to help reduce global warming by driving more fuel-efficient cars and using energy-saving light bulbs. Although this helps, science shows that going vegetarian is perhaps the most effective way to fight global warming.

In a groundbreaking 2006 report, the United Nations (U.N.) said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. Senior U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization official Henning Steinfeld reported that the meat industry is “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems.

As Paul McCartney once commented, "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian." Most people would rather fight off a hungry shark with their bare fists than consider dropping meat products from their diet, but someday maybe the notion will enter the popular consciousness: eating meat dramatically escalates global warming risks.

Our Noocular Future

The AustralianGreens have their say in this nifty sequence that spells out the benefits of Noocular Power in no uncertain terms.

ZAP! Electric Car Showroom Tour

While this video dates back awhile (April 2007), it's still a good opportunity to get a peek at some of the innovative production models being sold by the automotive wizards of ZAP! in Santa Rosa, California.

Untapped Energy Solutions: Co-Generation

With a little ingenuity and some rethinking of the centralized infrastructures that dominate power distribution in the U.S., we could go a long way toward both easing climate change threats and stretching our energy resources. Waste and inefficiency are unforgivable at this stage of our accelerating descent into energy hell. This is the persepctive underlying Bill McKibben's latest article in Orion Magazine, The Unsung Solution, which explores the benefits of tapping waste heat from manufacturing processes to generate power.

McKibben profiles a firm, Recycled Energy Development, quoting one of the principals, Sean Casten, who said:

“Let’s look at Florida. Here’s a Maxwell House coffee roaster in Duval County. They’re roasting beans, so all that heat has to go somewhere. About twelve megawatts’ worth of potential electricity is going up the stack. Basically, there’s a network of tubes with water in them. The heat would hit one side of it, produce steam, and we’d use that to turn a turbine and generate electricity. It’s like any other boiler, just without a flame, because the heat is already there.”

This is not a poorly understood emerging technology that requires vast development resources and risky investment strategies. Co-generation techniques have been in use for decades and are a proven, successful means of making maximum benefit of available power resources. The article continues:

Does that sound suspiciously pie-in-the-sky? Casten can drive a few miles from his Chicago office to an East Chicago plant run by Mittal Steel. A few years ago, a predecessor energy-recycling company installed this kind of equipment on the smokestacks of the plant’s coke ovens. In 2004, this single steel plant generated roughly the same amount of clean energy as was produced by all of the grid-connected solar collectors throughout the world. Casten’s company estimates that recycling waste heat from factories alone could produce 14 percent of the electric power the U.S. now uses. If you took much the same approach to electric generating stations you could, says Casten, conceivably produce the same amount of energy we use now with half the fossil fuel.

Let’s cut the numbers in half to account for corporate enthusiasm. Hell, let’s cut them in half again. You’re still talking about one of the most effective ways to cut carbon emissions that we’ve got, a mature technology ready to go. You’re talking about a recycling project infinitely more important than all that paper we’ve been bundling and glass we’ve been rinsing for the last two decades. Why isn’t it happening everywhere? The first answer, says Casten, is that very few companies spend much time thinking about their waste heat. “How much time do you think about the useful things you could be doing with your urine?” asks Casten. “The guy at the coffee roaster is spending all day focused on roasting coffee beans so they taste good.”

Laws governing the operation of electrical utilities, which in most communities are essentially monopolies, tend to protect the profits of the utilities above all else, McKibben asserts. In such an environment, change is difficult or impossible. Therein lies the rub. Our energy salvation may require restructuring the counter-productive regulations that have gotten us into the predicament we're in today. The solutions are available if we're smart enough to utilize them.

Bonnie Raitt and Others Expose Nuke Provisions

A little-known clause stuck in the pending Energy Bill tries to circumvent the market failures of nuclear power by foisting construction costs on the public. As described in a petition drive started by Working Assets, Act for Change, it's another attempt to derail open government in America, slipping drastic, costly meastures into legislation without public notice or disucssion. Working Assets stated:

The "new generation" nuclear plant now being built in Finland is already 18 months behind schedule and $900 million over budget. This is a design planned for our country. If construction begins here, tax and ratepayers will be stuck with the bill.

The Senate version of the Energy Bill could authorize the Department of Energy to provide virtually unlimited guarantees for backers of new reactors. The industry indicates it wants $25 billion in guarantees for 2008, and another $25 billion for 2009, with untold billions more to come after that.

The industry wants these subsidies because after fifty years, atomic power has been rejected by the marketplace. The first commercial nuclear reactor opened in 1957. But after fifty years of proven failure, Wall Street will not independently invest in more of them, and still no private insurance company will underwrite the possibility of a major reactor disaster.

Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Brown, Graham Nash, and Ben Harper speak out on this issue in the following clip:

Rocky Mountain Institute Turns 25

This 14-minute video provides a capsule history of the Rocky Mountain Institute and some clear ideas about our energy future and how we should approach it. RMI founder Amory Lovins has much to say throughout...

No Such Thing

In this continuation of the LiberalOasis interview with David Roberts, we hear more about how there is no such thing as a free energy market in oil. Good stuff, well worthing viewing...

Not-So-Free Energy Market

From the LiberalOasis Radio Show, an interview with Grist blooger David Roberts highlights the prevailing myths about our "free energy market" in a lively and solidly grounded discussion.

Solar Tower Supplies Low-Cost Energy

A solar tower in Spain, erected as a pilot project, demonstrates that something as simple as the heating of air can effectively generate electricity at a very low cost.

Smart Car arrives in Bahs-ton

It's 104 inches long and 20,000 people have put deposits on one. An interesting wrinkle in the evolution of the automobile and the changing tastes of the buying public...

Ticking Time Bomb Beneath Arctic Ice

This L.A. Times article, The Crisis Under the Ice, illuminates the risks from "a ticking time bomb", the release of methane from below arctic permafrost. Russians seeking undiscovered oil in Arctic regions have planted a flag made of titanium on the seabed, but a number of scientists are concerned about a more pressing danger than diminishing oil supplies:

But there is an even more dangerous aspect to the unfolding drama in the Arctic. While governments and oil giants are hoping the melting ice will allow them access to the world's last treasure trove of oil and gas, climatologists are deeply worried about something else buried under the ice that, if unearthed, could wreak havoc on the biosphere, with dire consequences for human life.

Much of the Siberian sub-Arctic region, an area the size of France and Germany combined, is a vast, frozen peat bog. Before the most recent Ice Age, the area was mostly grassland, teeming with wildlife. The coming of the glaciers entombed the organic matter below the permafrost, where it has remained ever since. Although the surface of Siberia is largely barren, there is as much organic matter buried underneath the permafrost as there is in all of the world's tropical rain forests.

Now the permafrost is thawing on land and along the seabeds. If it occurs in the presence of oxygen on land, the decomposing of organic matter leads to the production of CO2. If the permafrost thaws along lake shelves, in the absence of oxygen, the decomposing matter releases methane. Methane is the most potent of the greenhouse gases, with a greenhouse effect 23 times that of CO2.

Oil and global warming are inextricably linked in what can only be considered a dance of death as our industrial society inches closer and closer to the tipping point where warming processes can't possibly be reversed.

Eat Less Oil

The amount of oil involved in our globalized agriculture is staggering, as dramatized in this animation.



The solution: eat more local food.

From Oil Kings to Uranium Kings

Whether you have an energy economy geared to oil or hooked on uranium, as in France, as the commodity becomes scarce, the prices rise and fights often break out among those who want the remaining stores. This Le Monde editorial talks about the dynamics involved as France negotiates with Niger to ensure an ongoing supply of "yellow cake" to fuel its reactors.

Mr. Tandja has observed the price takeoff. A pound has gone from ten dollars three years ago to close to one hundred and fifty dollars on the international market (not counting long-term revisable contracts). And the increase should continue as needs grow and tensions over supplies appear. A windfall for Niger, which sees Chinese, Canadians, and Australians flooding in. World reserves are abundant, but exploration only resumed recently after twenty years of under-investment linked to attractive oil prices up to 2003 and to the rejection of nuclear power after the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe. Demand from big American, German, French, Japanese, Chinese, and Russian electricity companies will grow as they build new reactors. With the exhaustion of military (especially Russian) stocks, recycled as fuel since the end of the Cold War to compensate for mining under-production, rationing looms.

Wind, solar, and geothermal are looking better all the time.

Wind Power Alternative from NStar

For a price (about $7.50 to $15.00 a month) customers of the Boston utility NStar can buy electricity from a wind farm in upstate New York. The program still needs approval from state utility officials in Massachusetts, but the prospects look encouraging.

As this article in the Boston Globe indicates, the program has some unique advantages over earlier programs of a similar nature.

The two major differences with NStar's plan is that it will have the direct marketing power of the $3 billion utility behind it, and customers will be paying for electricity from the 195-turbine Maple Ridge wind project near Camp Drum in upstate New York and from a 44-tower wind project now under development at Kibby Mountain in Maine expected to open by 2009.

"We have something real and tangible, and we can take you up there and show you the source of where your power is coming from,'' NStar chief executive Thomas J. May said. NStar is signing 10-year contracts to buy a total of 30 megawatts of power from each installation, in total equal to the electric demand of about 45,000 average homes or small businesses. That's about 2 percent of the utility's average total demand, and May said, "We hope the program is oversubscribed and we have to go back and buy more.''

Alan Nogee of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, one of several environmental groups that advised NStar on developing the plan, said, "We are very excited by NStar's long-term commitment to wind energy and their green power program. They're helping customers say yes to choosing a responsible energy future and a more stable climate.''

The viability of shaping our energy future around wind and solar becomes more clear with each program like this that is launched.

David Suzuki Talks About Climate Change

This Real News piece dates back a few weeks, but it's worthwhile in that David Suzuki speaks with conviction and passion about climate change and the difficulties in getting the message across to the public.

Benefitting Energy Consumers with RPS

Amidst the schemes and proposals and attempts to resurrect dead technologies (witness the nuclear power boosters practicing their arcane arts), some progress may be near at hand in the form of the renewable energy portfolio (RPS). A standard requiring that utilities produce 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources is in the works, as reported by blogger David Roberts.
A brief excerpt from a reference extract he highlights:

So for those of you who don't want to read the long post that follows, here are some key takeaway points:

Right now there is a patchwork of over 20 state RPSs. Each has slightly different and sometimes incompatible standards and rules, which prevent interstate trading of energy credits. This inhibits the development of renewable energy and presents a "free rider" problem, with power producers in non-RPS states benefiting unjustly. A national RPS is far preferable to today's patchwork of state RPSs.

Electricity consumers in every region of the country would save money under a national RPS -- up to $49 billion nationwide.

A national RPS would create 80% more jobs than comparable investment in fossil fuels -- the greatest number of jobs in the states that have been hardest hit by the loss of manufacturing.

All states have renewable resources that can be developed.

A national RPS would save billions of gallons of water, reduce air pollution, reduce total land occupied by power generation, and lower CO2 emissions.

Solutions are out there if we recognize them and take action.

When Electric Cars Ruled the Road

Imagine driving down a boulevard in New York City in a clean, quiet electric car. You park in front of your favorite department store and plug in your vehicle to the charging station right at the curb. The air smells sweet, without the oily smell of exhaust, and the thrumming of internal combustion engines is replaced by the gentle whir of electric motors and the swoosh of vehicles gliding by like a soft breeze.

The scene isn't from New York City in 2025, but sometime around 1914, when electric cars shared the roadways with their noisy, stinky, gasoline-powered cousins. In this article from the New York Times (registration required), Back to the Future in a 98-Year Old Elecrric Car, it's clear that the proof of concept for electric vehicles was resolved almost a century ago.

At the turn of the 20th century, quiet, smooth, pollution-free electric cars were a common sight on the streets of major American cities. Women especially favored them over steam- and gasoline-powered cars.

In an era in which gasoline-powered automobiles were noisy, smelly, greasy and problematic to start, electric cars, like Jay Leno’s restored 1909 Baker Electric Coupe, represented a form of women’s liberation. Well-dressed society women could simply drive to lunch, to shop, or to visit friends without fear of soiling their gloves, mussing their hair or setting their highly combustible crinoline dresses on fire.

“These were women’s shopping cars,” said Mr. Leno, who is a serious hands-on collector of autos and motorcycles dating from the 1800s to the present. “There was no gas or oil, no fire, no explosions — you just sort of got in and you went. There were thousands of these in New York, from about 1905 to 1915. There were charging stations all over town, so ladies could recharge their cars while they were in the stores.”

Baker Electrics, Detroit Electrics, Rausch & Langs and other similar electric cars were comparatively reliable and easy to drive. Even the wives of legendary car company owners drove electrics.

Clara Ford, Henry’s wife, drove a 1914 Detroit Electric Brougham until the 1930s, using it to visit friends and make her rounds on the family’s Michigan estate. Helen Joy, wife of Henry Joy, president of the Packard Motor Car Company, drove a 1915 Detroit Electric.

Mr. Leno’s Baker stands — and stands is the correct word — more than 7 feet tall. “It looks like a giant phone booth,” he said. Twelve 6-volt batteries are under the front and rear covers, six under each, to power the car’s 72-volt motor.

Even much of the battery technology was worked out in those early days.

The Edison batteries were the result of a research program the inventor conducted at the turn of the century to create lighter, more powerful batteries that would extend the range and speed of electric cars, just as inventors are trying to do today.

Instead of the lead plates and sulfuric acid used in batteries from the mid-19th century on, the Edison batteries used iron and nickelic oxide electrodes, and an alkaline electrolyte of potassium hydroxide. Early tests were promising, but the first production batteries were prone to leaking and electrode failure. Edison closed the factory in 1905 and reworked the batteries, finally resuming production four years later. The effort was obviously effective.

“I have modern lead-acid batteries in the car now, but I can still run the original Edison batteries,” Mr. Leno said. “You can just rinse them out, replace the electrolyte, and they’re ready to go. They still work fine, after almost a hundred years.”

The car’s electric motor, about the size of a watermelon, is visible under the car, driving the rear wheels via an enclosed-chain reduction system and a now-conventional driveshaft and differential.

Are we going backwards or forwards? Something to consider as electric cars struggle to gain a foothold in an industry dominated by petroleum-powered thinking.

When the Oil is Gone, There is Still Vivoleum

I've read this article about three times now and I still wind up shaking my head in wonderment. It highlights in a nutshell everything that is wrong about our energy policy, as well as our culture, and as the author, Eric Francis Coppolino, points out, while our societal values are being turned inside out, "Hardly anyone is paying attention."

On June 14 of this year in Calgary, Canada, a roomful of oil industry listened with rapt attention to a conference presentation about a promising, sustainable replacement for petroleum: Vivoleum.

The concept was very straightforward:

They proposed that the bodies of climate change victims, who they said now number about 150,000 a year, could be rendered into a burnable product, particularly as combustion of fossil fuels sped up ecological disasters. To demonstrate the efficacy of this, they distributed candles throughout the audience, which were allegedly made of the stuff. The candles were lit, and the oil execs passed the flame from one to another.

The presenters claimed to be top executives from ExxonMobil and the National Petroleum Council. In reality, they were a couple of high-octane hoaxsters, the Yes Men, engaged in a culture-jamming practice they call "identity correction."

The business leaders watched attentively as animations showed how the human flesh would be rendered into fuel. The logic was compelling:

“Vivoleum works in perfect synergy with the continued expansion of fossil fuel production,” said “Florian Osenberg,” claiming to be an ExxonMobil representative. “With more fossil fuels comes a greater chance of disaster, but that means more feedstock for Vivoleum. Fuel will continue to flow for those of us left.”

The presentation continued to unfold smoothly until the level of absurdity finally reached a breaking point:

The two then showed a video tribute to an ExxonMobil janitor, “Reginald Spanglehart Watts,” who had purportedly died of toxic exposure after a chemical incident at a company facility. Before passing away, the kindhearted worker had donated his body to be made into one of the candles, so that he could do some good and be useful to others after he died. “Osenberg” lit the candle made of Watts’s flesh and held it up.
The tear-jerking tribute to “Reggie Watts” (with “You Light Up My Life” sung out of tune by Reggie as its theme song, as he mopped and swept) finally pushed the presenters’ credulity a shade too far. At that point, realizing the presentation was a hoax, Simon Mellor, commercial and business development director for the company putting on the event, walked up and physically forced the two imposters from the podium. The police were called, but the pair could only be charged with trespassing.

Many of the other identity readjustments staged by this group are equal parts funny and disturbing. The worldwide BBC broadcast where one the Yes Men, appearing as a Dow employee, explained how the victims of the Bhopal disaster were finally going to compensated is a genuine eye-opener (as was the response from Dow).

This is journalism at its best, as published by Chronogram. More power to them...

So, we had best not stake our energy futures in Vivoleum. The “o” in the Vivoleum logo was a drop of blood.

Nuke Plants Unable to Compete in the Free Market

Unable to gain financing on their own, power companies pushing nuclear power plants want the government (AKA you and me, unwitting taxpayers) to provide full loan guarantees, as discussed in this N.Y. Times article.

Power companies have tentative plans to put the 28 new reactors at 19 sites around the country. Industry executives insist that banks and Wall Street will not provide the money needed to build new reactors unless the loans are guaranteed in their entirety by the federal government.

Grossly overexpensive, short-lived, unreliable nuclear power plants have no place in the mix of energy options we need to combat global warming. And the safety issue is pretty well summed up by insurance companies, world's greatest assessors of risk, that refuse to insure plants beyond a limited liability cap--the rest of the tab, as might be expected, is dropped in the lap of none other than John Q. Public, thanks to the Price-Anderson Act.

A Look at Some Clean Cars

Roland Hwang, Vehicle Policy Director for NRDC, talks about emerging clean car technologies that are being designed, all of which share one trait in common: no tailpipes.