tagged w/ We Need Alternate Energies Now
-
"A leading energy body is calling for a $45 trillion (£23 trillion) green revolution to tackle global warming.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) said nations must spend 1% of annual economic output on new technology to halve carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
It warned that without action, CO2 emissions would rise by 130% and oil demand would jump by 70% by the middle of the century.
But the IEA added that meeting the new target would be a formidable challenge.""A leading energy body is calling for a $45 trillion (£23 trillion) green... more
-
-
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in America. In another, white and black, young and old, male and female, and even someone in a doctor's green scrubs, stare into the camera and soulfully declare: "I believe" American know-how will make coal clean and stop it from contributing to climate change. Not sold? Maybe you missed the newspaper ads and billboards warning that turning away from coal could mean blackouts, unemployment and higher electric bills.
These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign -- known by its tag line "Clean Coal" -- has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a "de facto moratorium on coal power." The expected election of a more environmentally friendly president may lead to the first federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Even red states like Kansas are now battling the construction of coal-fired plants. Last year, 59 new plants were either canceled or halted across the nation.
When it comes to the threat of global warming, "the coal industry are the last people to get it," says Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a nonprofit, progressive think tank. "That's why they're fighting so hard. They're on a death spiral right now."
The coal industry's woes have risen as worries over climate change have increased. Today's coal-fired plants emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. One new plant planned for Iowa, for example, would dump 5.9 million tons of the stuff into the air in just one year. Two proposed Kansas plants would add 11 million tons annually.
snip
As the coal debate continues, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced April 23 that global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 19 billion tons in the last year. The worldwide concentration is now 385 parts per million. The level that is expected to tip the world into disaster is 450 parts per million.
But climate change isn't raining on the coal industry's campaign. In April, Barack Obama acknowledged a voter sporting one of the industry's hats at a campaign stop in Dunmore, Penn., and then used the industry's own terminology to talk about his support for investing in carbon storage research. In an appearance in Charleston, W.Va., Hillary Clinton also used the industry's own words to pledge her support for doing the same.
Obama, Clinton and John McCain all favor legislation to fight climate change. The nearly identical programs proposed by the two Democrats are more far-reaching than that put forth by McCain. However, none of them support a moratorium on building new coal-fired plants.
Meanwhile, the Clean Coal marketing machine keeps rolling. As one commercial declares, coal powers "our way of life." On the soundtrack, Kool and the Gang sing, "Celebrate good times, come on!"
~~~~~~
What an insidious campaign. And all the presidential candidates go along with it! It is time to tell them to stop this pandering to those industries who care about nothing but their own balance sheets. CO2 levels are now the highest they have been in 650,000 years and it is because of the very garbage being spewed by coal plants.
"Clean coal" is an assault on reason! Shame on Obama, Clinton, and McCain for giving it credence to get votes while people die from its effects.
In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because... more
-
-
Let's be real: "Clean coal" is a marketing slogan not a technological reality. Coal does currently provide us with a reliable source of electricity but at an astronomical price that is hidden from us consumers.
Maybe you pay for it with your child's asthma. Maybe you paid for it with your father's heart attack or your grandmother's stroke that took her speech away. Maybe you lost a baby to SIDS on a particularly bad air day.
Emissions from coal-fired power plants are a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, air toxins - and premature deaths. The EPA estimates that over 30,000 Americans are dying prematurely each year due to emissions from power plants, the majority of which are coal-powered.
This doesn't even address the high mortality rates associated with the mining process.
Thus, coal kills more people annually than homicides (16,000 in 2000) or AIDS (14,000) and nearly as many as traffic accidents (42,000). So when coal industry advocates like Joe Lucas, vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal, and Bountiful resident Bruce Taylor, co-owner of the proposed coal plant in Sevier County, say "cleaner coal," what exactly do they mean?
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical coal plant annually generates:
* 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2),
the primary human cause of global warming,
* 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2),
* 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death,
* 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), equal to what would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs,
* 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease,
* 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone,
* 170 pounds of mercury, an extremely potent neurotoxin; just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe for human consumption. The Great Salt Lake is already heavily contaminated with mercury.
* 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who regularly drink water containing 50 parts per billion,
* 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
None of these numbers sounds "clean" to me. So, does coal advocate Lucas consider a "clean" coal plant to produce only 7,000 pounds of annual sulfur dioxide emissions instead of 10,000 pounds? Does he consider 2 million tons of carbon dioxide instead of 3.7 million tons to be "clean" or how about 120 pounds of mercury instead of 170 pounds? Does "clean" coal only cause 20,000 premature deaths annually as compared to 30,000?
The reality is coal is dirty and will likely remain so.
Let's be real: "Clean coal" is a marketing slogan not a technological... more
-
-
If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face of a disaster movie-like future of runaway climate change--bringing drought, floods, famine and social breakdown--carbon-free nukes are cast as the deus ex machina to save us at the last minute.
Even a few greens support nuclear power--most famously James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory. In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR.
In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved.
The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grâce: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a US utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then.
All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks--they won't put up the cash.
"Wall street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no US nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget.
much more at the link.If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace... more
-
-
Joint venture partners SkyPower and SunEdison Canada have announced the official groundbreaking of First Light, North America's largest solar photovoltaic energy park to date, located on approximately 300 acres of land in Lennox and Addington County, Ontario. Construction of the 19-megawatt (MW) solar park is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2009. Local communities will benefit from clean renewable energy sufficient to power more than 2,000 homes annually.
The Government of Ontario in concert with the Ontario Power Authority, which launched the innovative Standard Offer Program in 2006, have created a unique program that provides a platform for stimulating investment and job creation in the renewable energy sector.
The historic groundbreaking of First Light demonstrates the strong support of the provincial government, municipal leaders, and communities and is a clear indication that Ontario's renewable energy targets are achievable. First Light is an important first step of many towards delivering secure, sustainable and clean energy to Ontarians for generations to come.
First Light will be built in two phases. The power generated from the project will be distributed through the Hydro One utility, providing clean energy to customers in the Township of Stone Mills for 20 years.
The environmental and health benefits of the two-phase facility are substantial. It is estimated that First Light will reduce yearly carbon emissions by an amount equal to displacing 4,200 cars and light trucks each driving 12,000 miles per year.
snip:
"Through innovation, creativity and hard work, SkyPower, SunEdison and the Province of Ontario are 'making dirt fly' and, most important, putting assets in the ground to help mitigate climate change," stated Theodore Roosevelt IV, Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, and Chairman of the Firm's Global Council on Climate Change.
Joint venture partners SkyPower and SunEdison Canada have announced the official... more
-
-
Crude oil may rise to $120 a barrel within six months due to the dollar weakness and global political tensions, the chief executive officer of Abu Dhabi National Energy Co. said.
``I think a trading range between $80 and $120 a barrel this year is about right,'' Peter Barker-Homek, the head of the United Arab Emirates state-controlled company, which is also known as Taqa, said in an interview in Dubai today. ``But with the softness of the dollar, and the occasional interruptions that you have because of politics, I think we could see $120 oil.''
In October, Barker-Homek said that crude would rise to $100 from $80 before the end of the first quarter because of unfettered Asian demand growth and possible supply shocks. Oil prices continued to rise today after the Taqa CEO made his latest forecast.
Crude oil may rise to $120 a barrel within six months due to the dollar weakness and... more
-
-
The water cycle is being affected by anthropogenic climate change, and that does not bode well for much of our world including the Southwestern United States. The water cycle is being affected by anthropogenic climate change, and that does not... more
-
-
And how much does it matter to you? Because that is really the deciding factor in making this the crucial issue it must be now. BTW, I wonder if Obama's and Clinton's campaigns are carbon neutral like John Edwards's was. I fear we have already lost the greenest candidate. And how much does it matter to you? Because that is really the deciding factor in... more
-
-
Disgusting but not surprising. It seems people in this country on the whole truly just don't care for this planet and the future. RECORD PROFITS. That means people are still pumping the oil and not forcefully pushing for anything that will mitigate the 70 million tons of Co2 we spew into the air every day. I suppose it will truly have to take a catastrophic event to really wake people up. And at this point I even wonder if that would do it. And do people really believe anyone running for president on any side will now or even could work to bring down Exxon Mobil? Oh, but who cares.... they look good in debates and that's all that matters.Disgusting but not surprising. It seems people in this country on the whole truly just... more
-
-
This may well be our last chance. The world is watching.
-
-
Hopefully that paradigm shift Al Gore spoke of on NBC this week is gaining momentum. I think it will if people react favorably to states taking these actions and when businesses find it is more advantageous to them economically to make the moral choices that will not only bring jobs and prosperity, but a sustainable planet.Hopefully that paradigm shift Al Gore spoke of on NBC this week is gaining momentum. I... more
-
-
Who would have thought? Interesting.
Green Fuel Solution Lurks in Pond Scum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version
US: October 26, 2007
NEW YORK - A plant scientist from West Texas believes one of the oldest, simplest life forms can help ease some of today's toughest energy and environment problems.
Algae converts carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, into a vegetable oil that Glen Kertz, a plant cell expert who used to work for oil companies, hopes can be economically turned into the renewable motor fuel biodiesel.
Algae doesn't need prime farmland, vast quantities of fertilizer, or large harvest vehicles to be grown and harvested, unlike corn which is the main US feedstock for ethanol, the top alternative motor fuel.
The single-celled organisms, which are among the world's fastest growing plants, can prosper in small bags of water under the light of greenhouses.
"The more light I have, the more energy that I can capture and put back into the transportation system," Kertz, CEO of private company Valcent Products, said in an interview. He says he can quickly grow algae, sometimes known as pond scum, anywhere but a rainy place like Seattle. /
FUNDS VENTURE IN
Venture capitalists are racing to invest in alternative energy sources as finding crude cheaply in places friendly to the United States becomes harder, oil prices hit record levels edging toward US$100 a barrel, and worries about global warming escalate. /
end of excerpt.
Who would have thought? Interesting.
Green Fuel Solution Lurks in Pond Scum... more
-
-
Want an easy way to help save this planet? Stop drinking bottled water.
-
-
Counting on how comfortable and selfish the majority of Americans are will only enable those who seek to keep us slaves to oil.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/23/top6.htm
And according to reports, oil output will drop to half by 2030. So unless we begin to demand alternate energies and more efficient fuel standards along with innovations that do not require fossil fuels to run our cars not in ten years but NOW, not only will society break down due to the continued wars over this resource as population continues to rise, but it is also predicted that around that time at current pace we will be seeing wars over an even more precious resource: water. No wonder Bush bought a huge tract of land in Paraguay right next to the Guarini Acquifer and with a military base not far from it. The "leaders" of this world already know what is coming and they are getting theirs first. So for those who say only government can solve this climate crisis, you are wrong. Unless people themselves work to make governments less corrupt and do what is necessary to bring us into the future, they won't on the whole do it as long as not doing it is more profitable for them and their benefactors. I truly do believe gas could go up to five dollars or more a gallon in this country and people would still continue to do exactly as they are doing now while bitching the whole way to the gas station to fill up their SUVs to go to the mall... never realizing that they have within them the power to force these companies to either do right or force them into bankruptcy. I don't know, sometimes I wonder if seeing it all fall apart is exactly what we need to wake us the hell up... even if that would then mean it is really too late to do anything about it.Counting on how comfortable and selfish the majority of Americans are will only enable... more
-
