Doomstead Diner Menu => Energy => Topic started by: RE on June 12, 2012, 11:07:41 PM

Title: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on June 12, 2012, 11:07:41 PM
Discuss here the Waste Based Society series on the Diner Blog.

Waste Based Society (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/06/07/waste-based-society/)
Waste Based Society II-Vendor Financing and Planned Obsolescence (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/06/08/waste-based-society-ii-vendor-financing-planned-obsolescence/)
Waste Based Society III-Solutions and Alternatives (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/06/12/waste-based-society-iii-solutions-and-alternatives/)

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on June 13, 2012, 02:45:40 PM
RE,
Thanks for those excellent pictures. :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on June 13, 2012, 04:03:45 PM
RE,
Thanks for those excellent pictures. :icon_sunny:

YW AB  :emthup:

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on June 13, 2012, 04:47:02 PM
In regard to the Waste based society part II article, I wholeheartedly agree.
One of the most pernicious aspects of present technology and what we have access to is patent law. Government and big corporations, in addition to saddling us with planned obsolescence, when a bright inventor comes along that figures out a way to increase the longevity of consumer products or, better yet, invents something that, not only lasts longer and can't be de-engineered to a predatory capitalist MTBF sufficiently short to keep the profits coming, but actually replaces the "cheap printer and expensive ink" business model all together, he is prevented from marketing the product.

The lie about finding a niche in the market, inventing a new widget and getting rich is a fairy tail akin to the "free market" propaganda pushed on us.

Corporations that got rich off of patents developed by the U.S. government like IBM, Bell labs and Hewlet Packard then proceed to use the U.S. government to block the path of someone inventing something better. Under patent law, the government can stifle a patent based on "national security". We have seen how that excuse was used by presidents for anything but national security.

Those gate keepers kept solar power from replacing fossil fuel by refusing to fund solar panel development until they needed it in space. After that they constantly stifled funding for further development, increased MTBF and mass production. The herding never stops.

The media whores pushing the idea that we live in "The best of all possible worlds" in regard to technology and innovation like some non-satirical version of Voltaire are just living up to their Orwellian Bernays tutors.

Truth to be told, the chief technology corporations are the fiercest saboteurs of new technology and innovation while claiming to be working hard to give us the latest and greatest.

A current example of this is the massive cork that has been put on computer peripheral devices that actually do physical labor. It's all about I/O. Anything geared to entertainment is pushed. But outside the factory in the consumer area, how many robots do you see building houses, digging ditches, washing cars, doing gardening or guard duty? Yet you can play games where the software does just that in a virtual world. The I/O ports in 'modern' consumer computers are USB 1, 2 or 3. Find out how many industrial (or any other kind that isn't a toy) robots out there run on USB linked software (my guess is few to none). It's deliberate.

Everything they do always involves making us more dependent. Helping us to be more independent is anathema to the parasites.

So, as you said, the first order of business is a social order that, not only Orkins the current group of humanity destroying pathogens, but  targets and isolates anyone in the future that wishes to push the 'get RtG through waste and hooked consumers' business model.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Solid State Max on June 30, 2012, 01:42:16 PM
AG, first, big thanks for the article. There's lots to think about with all said and done. Given the long term planning that went into financing the mess, it looks like those at the time who could buy out and then use the power of the fed to create phony "loans" out of thin air got the best of us. The funny but tragic thing in all of this is that when it comes to real personal responsibility such as reusing, calling out manufacturers who lower the quality of products, and advocating making things out of biodegradable eco-friendly material, the goons who preach "personal responsibility" sneer and hiss at those of us who practice it with an integrated, not agitated, mindset. And that's another thing. The powers at the top are dead set on keeping the populace as agitated as can be. Imagine having something made out of hemp or bamboo and lasting much longer than the same product made out of fossil fuels but doesn't last long. It all looks like it's difficult to know where to start on how to solve it all but I think that in the end, it'll take a multi-approach for any significant changes to happen. I have plenty more to think about this and I've been thinking this through for about a week. Thanks and will return.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: alan2102 on July 03, 2012, 09:06:53 AM
"The planet earth DOES NOT have an energy crisis.... What the planet earth has, is a HUMAN GREED AND STUPIDITY crisis" .....

"Can it be done? Yes. Will it be done? Probably not." .....

"As for fertilizers and food production machinery requiring a massive amount of fossil fuels to feed 7 billlion humans, the fact is that using decentralized permaculture with humanure (after appropriate and low tech local processing to avoid disease pathogens) along with greenhouse technology for nordic climates can replace the fossil fuel required to run tractors, make fertilizer and insecticides and herbicides." .....

"Growing food and the fossil fuel ‘requirement’ is a dependency created by the fossil fuel industry but we CAN shake that dependency without mass starvation and depopulation" .....

Yes, yes, yes, yes.  I've been making and documenting these exact points for years, back on the old Latoc forum, on the energyresources list, and elsewhere.  Not that it did much good!  Dyed-in-the-wool Malthusians -- members of the Church of HansoNihilism, as I used to call them -- just Don't Get It, and perhaps cannot get it.  They think that catastrophic collapse and dieoff is a true inevitability, as sure as the laws of physics. Whereas, it is nothing of the kind. It is a collective DECISION, and one that we'll probably make. But still a decision.  There's no "shortage of resources"; only a shortage of intelligence, discernment, creativity, humor, perspective, charity, modesty, and other spiritual qualities ("shortages", I might add, that CAN be remedied, with sufficient social will).

Such a view is denounced by the Malthusians as "cornucopianism" -- a foolish epithet, trotted-out when they've been caught with their pants down, and it is evident that there really isn't an "energy crisis". The problem here is not "cornucopianism", but DOOM-ucopianism: the denial of glaring realities inconsistent with the  Malthusian view.

A point of fact:
you write: "It was the enormous reduction in infant mortality brought about by antiseptic procedures that caused the population explosion, not fossil fuels."

More broadly, it was public health initiatives that caused the population explosion; "antiseptic procedures" (medical) had a modest role.  And, paradoxically, it is public health initiatives, combined with general socioeconomic development, that brings about the demographic transition, which is causing fertility to drop dramatically, worldwide.  (And with that, eventually, population; 50-100 year time frame.)

you write: "Remember the green revolution of the 60s, 70s and 80s that supposedly caused the population explosion? The numbers are in. The yields are not statistically different with all the fossil fuel fertilizer, herbicides and insecticides than without them. The green revolution is a lie fostered by, you guessed it, the fossil fuel lobby."

Could you cite your sources for the middle sentence, about yields? I've got my own sources, but I'd like to see what  you've got, as well. Compare notes. Thanks.

Regarding the "green revolution", you might get a kick (and some useful links/reading) out of this reply of mine, just penned, to a Big Ag apologist:
http://www.a2politico.com/2012/04/the-sustainable-mantra-%e2%80%94-organic-local-and-slow-%e2%80%94-wont-save-the-worlds-hungry-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-159358 (http://www.a2politico.com/2012/04/the-sustainable-mantra-%e2%80%94-organic-local-and-slow-%e2%80%94-wont-save-the-worlds-hungry-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-159358)

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 04, 2012, 07:22:22 PM
Solid State Max,
Yes there is a lot to think about and frankly, I'm a bit pessimistic about our future because I believe the people controlling our system are losing it mentally. I hope I'm wrong.

alan,
I'll have to do some digging on the fossil fuel produced crop yields but I will get back to you. The Union of Concerned Scientists is one place I remember reading that but I'm not sure right now.
As to your experience of banging your head against a wall trying to wake people up, I hear you and agree. The Automatic Earth has a nice article on the slightly quixotic nature of people like us.  We are either real stubborn or we just know we are right and feel we must keep at it. It does get old sometimes.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 05, 2012, 12:10:55 AM
alan,
In order to discuss the fallacy of the alleged high yields of the "Green Revolution", we must first look at what an organic crop "yield" REALLY is and compare it to a fossil fuel chemical, pesticide, land plowing and soil degrading crop "yield". The reason the claim of a "green Revolution" was initially supported had a lot to do with the fact that Farmers get paid by the weight of a crop, not by the amount of nutrients. As you will see the "high yields" had more to do with $$$ profit "yield" than food crop "yield".  This whole thing with chemical fertilizers is a more sophisticated equivalent scam of butchers injecting meat cuts with saline solution water to increase "yield" but even worse because the heavier metaphorical "meat cut" in big ag has LESS nutritive value than the non-injected lighter (organic) equivalent while costing much more to grow as well as wreaking havoc on the environment within a few decades.
First, some info from the Land Institute in Kansas:
Some progress on perennial crops (no till and not annual is a huge cost saving from mechanized farming).
[Abstract:
Annual cereal, legume and oilseed crops remain staples of the global food supply. Because most annual crops have less extensive, shorter-lived root systems than do perennial species, with a correspondingly lower capacity to manage nutrients and water, annual cropping systems tend to suffer higher levels of soil erosion and generate greater water contamination than do perennial systems. In an effort to reduce soil degradation and water contamination simultaneously -- something that neither no-till nor organic cropping alone can accomplish -- researchers in the United States, Australia and other countries have begun breeding perennial counterparts of annual grain and legume crops. Initial cycles of hybridization, propagation and selection in wheat, wheatgrasses, sorghum, sunflower and Illinois bundleflower have produced perennial progenies with phenotypes intermediate between wild and cultivated species, along with improved grain production. Further breeding cycles will be required to develop agronomically adapted perennial crops with high grain yields.]

http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2011/04/22/4db199966cf1a (http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2011/04/22/4db199966cf1a)
Then we have the reason organic farming doesn't use fossil fuel chemicals:
Snippet:
[Why are synthetic fertilizers not permitted in organic agriculture?  The use of synthetic fertilizers is not allowed in organic agriculture because the substitution of natural, renewable resources for plant nutrition with non-renewable petrochemicals is not sustainable, disrupts natural cycles, pollutes the environment through runoff and leaves toxic residues in the soil, just to name a few of the negative implications.

Organic farmers use legumes – peas, beans and other plants – that naturally fix and enrich nitrogen in the soil. The application of synthetically produced phosphorous, another important plant nutrient, is also not allowed in organic agriculture. Because organic farm management creates a healthy soil structure, fungi called mycorrhiza enable plants to utilize phosphorus in the soil.

Organic farmers use on-farm recycling (composting) of biomass to supply nutrients to plants. Farms that use chemically intensive farming methods have largely abandoned traditional and natural methods of nutrient recycling, resulting in the degradation of the soil and increasing the susceptibility of plants to pests and diseases.

The use of synthetic fertilizers has caused a great deal of environmental pollution. One major problem all over the planet that has resulted from the use of synthetic fertilizers is the increased growth of algae in lakes and water reservoirs. A harmful algal bloom (HAB) occurs when certain types of microscopic algae grow quickly in water, forming visible patches that harm the health of the environment, plants, or animals. HABs deplete oxygen in the water and block the sunlight that other organisms need to live, and some HAB-causing algae release toxins that are dangerous to animals and humans.

The production of synthetic fertilizers uses large amounts of energy, which mostly comes from the burning of fossil fuels, thereby increasing dependency on external energy inputs.]

Source: http://www.ifoam.org/sub/faq.html (http://www.ifoam.org/sub/faq.html)

The following snippets from a long article on U.S. farming and yields and my comments along the way form much of my view that there was never any "Green Revolution":
Snippet 1:
[“The distrust on the part of nonagricultural groups is well justified. With the publication of Rachel Carlson’s book entitled ‘Silent Spring’ we, in agriculture, loudly and in unison stated that pesticides did not contaminate the environment—we now admit that they do. When confronted with the presence of nitrates in groundwater we responded that it was not possible for nitrates from commercial fertilizer to reach groundwater in excess of 10 parts per million under normal productive agricultural systems—we now admit they do. When questioned about the presence of pesticides in food and food quality, we assured the public that if a pesticide was applied in compliance with the label, agricultural products would be
free of pesticides—we now admit they are not.

Certainly, the availability of new instrumentation and ability to detect trace amounts of pesticides in water and food have changed the meaning of absolute zero. Although this may be used as an excuse for our belief that agriculture was not a contributor to environmental degradation, the truth is, we are not conducting the research and/or making the appropriate measurements to insure that this was the case.”

This is a very strong indictment by one of us in professional agriculture!

Today, we might well add more concerns to that list. For one, we are learning that many surface water bodies have levels of phosphorus high enough to promote excessive growth of blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) leading to eutrophication. Often these raised levels of phosphorus are associated with the presence of concentrated livestock operations. What is more, we do not know whether optimal levels of soil phosphorus and nitrogen applications for crop production pose serious hazards to water bodies, and if they do, when, under what conditions, and to which ones.

Another situation concerns the growing hypoxic volume in the Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Mississippi River.

Finally, recent evidence suggests that transgenic corn producing some Bacillus thuringensis proteins is harmful to certain non-target insects. We must ask ourselves whether and how far we can trust present methods of testing to assure the public that we will not have to change previous conclusions.]

Snippet2:

[.. some problems are slow in manifesting themselves, and most rewards to public servants went to new ideas, not for warnings. Besides, agriculture became obsessed with the need to be as efficient as possible in crop and animal production to maintain a competitive edge and succeeded admirably in total food and fiber production. Much of the competitive edge depended upon increasing yields with externally supplied inputs. But we have ignored the real cost of our applied technology at the farm level because we have not had to pay for the consequences, and society at large has not fully determined nor assessed this cost, nor has been willing to pay more for alternatives. After all, the upland farmer does not directly pay for the cost of dredging the Mississippi River or reimburse the loss of Gulf of Mexico fisheries, nor does the farmer in north central Iowa have to worry about nitrate removal from river water used for drinking in Des Moines. Neither do users of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics in animal production compensate for losses in the effectiveness of similar products in human or veterinary medicine. In bearing these added costs in other ways, parts of society are paying the “hidden” costs of inexpensive food.

Why, then, had we come to this kind of a situation?

The Report on Alternative Agriculture, commissioned in 1985 by the Board on Agriculture and published in 1989 by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Science, summarized the work of a committee on the role of alternative agricultural methods in modern production agriculture. The late William Brown, president of Pioneer Hi-bred International, Inc., was chair of the Board, and Paul Johnson, a farmer and member of the Iowa General Assembly, was also a Board member.

The dominant conclusion was that laws and policies governing agriculture, especially commodity policies, are among the major obstacles to “alternative” agriculture. These commodity policies came to dominate agricultural producer behavior at the farm level in ways that acted against achieving the goal of sustainability.]
-- -----------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, big ag was doing the old "externalize the costs" trick so dear to the hearts of our predatory capitalists everywhere. When the total cost of "high yield" mechanized, tilled soil, chemical fertilizer and pesticide on the farm land and the planet (don't forget human health care costs from lower crop nutritive value and harmful chemicals) are compared with organic, friendly insect introduction for pest control, no till, labor intensive, no chemical fertilizer or pesticide application and much lower irrigation requirements from perennial type crops (deep root systems absent in annual crops), both the yield and the efficiency numbers for the Green Revolution are shown to be a fossil fuel lie.
Of course the author of the above article is much more charitable since he is part of big ag but he contradicts himself when he talks of high U.S. yields and efficiency and then schizophrencally admits to all those "other" costs that somebody has to pay and cannot seem to subtract those "other" costs from his "high yield" and "efficiency" claims. WTF!? "Inexpensive" crops!? I don't think so! :icon_scratch:

Big ag has been involved in a 100 year bubble destroying the soil to force it to produce high numbers of crops decreasing in nutritive value. If "yield" means anything at all, it means how many people you can feed PROPERLY (not with depleted nutrition) for a given price and maintain a balance with nature. If you cheat and force the crop at the soil's expense, that's a bogus high yield. :evil4:

And the U.S. Government was/is actually pushing this insanity: :(
Snippet 3:
[The amount of subsidy a farmer received under previous recent farm bills was calculated, in part, on the base acreage and on the base yield of land in program crops. The farmer, therefore, has been encouraged to strive for maximum yields and to keep the highest acreage of land in program crops. There is evidence that this has led to over-application of fertilizers and other chemicals, and the cultivation of fragile land to grow more program crops.]
-------------------------------------------------------
After discussing how alternate farming methods are not mandatory but should be introduced because the are environmentally friendly, the author, near the end of the article, says this much that makes total sense while paradoxically not showing any sense of outrage that U.S. big ag is in no hurry to go full organic. :icon_scratch:

Snippet 4:
[Neil Hamilton, who was quoted earlier, wrote: “The relation of sustainable agriculture to the multitude of environmental, social, and economic issues associated with modern farming practices makes the debate over the issue one of the most significant in the history of U. S. farm policy.” Earlier I expressed the conviction that a sustainable agriculture is critical to the survival of humankind in its present lifestyles.]

Source: http://www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/PDF/2001pesek_lecture.pdf (http://www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/PDF/2001pesek_lecture.pdf)

Now look at this gem. It's more proof that the "Green Revolution" was bogus:

Snippet:
[The problem of hidden hunger grew out of the 1960s "green revolution." That boom in agriculture relied on new varieties of high-yield crops and chemical fertilizers to staunch world hunger by upping caloric intake in the developing world. Unfortunately, those high-yield crops are typically low in micronutrients, and eating them has resulted in an epidemic of hidden hunger. At least a third of the world is already lacking in some chemical element, according to the U.N., and the problem is due in part to a steady diet of micronutrient-deficient green-revolution plants. Iron deficiency alone, which can cause cognitive impairment in children and increase the rate of stillbirths, affects some 4.5 billion people. Lack of iodine, another micronutrient, can result in brain damage and is a serious problem in 130 countries. According to the World Bank, hidden hunger is one of the most important causes of slowed economic development in the Third World.]
Source: http://eartheasy.com/article_food_bad_ugly.htm (http://eartheasy.com/article_food_bad_ugly.htm)

In other words, theose "high yields" were NOTHING OF THE KIND!  :o
Sure they had numbers and size but at the expense of NUTRITION?  :exp-angry:
This sounds more like increasing the size of the cracker jack box, while decreasing the amount of cracker jacks in it. It's more Madison Avenue monocrop eye catching packaging than food production for the hungry masses.

More bad news:
Snippet 1:
[Of the 13 major nutrients found in fruits and vegetables, six have declined substantially, according to a study by Donald Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas at Austin.
Using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Davis claims the average vegetable found in today’s supermarket is anywhere from 5% to 40% lower in minerals than those harvested just 50 years ago. His research finds that recently grown crops have shown decreases of up to 38% in protein, magnesium, calcium, vitamin C, phosphorus, iron, zinc and riboflavin when compared with produce from past decades.]

Snippet 2:
[“Farmers get paid by the weight of a crop, not by amount of nutrients,” Davis said. He called this the “dilution effect”: As fruits and vegetables grown in the United States become larger and more plentiful, they provide fewer vitamins and minerals.]
http://eartheasy.com/blog/2009/05/fruits-and-vegetables-yielding-fewer-nutrients-than-in-the-past/ (http://eartheasy.com/blog/2009/05/fruits-and-vegetables-yielding-fewer-nutrients-than-in-the-past/)

The "Green Revolution" was quite "$$$ green" for big ag, chemical corporations and fossil fuel pigs but it actually INCREASED world hunger by decreasing nutrition of crops. Sure, they are bigger but, due to chemical fertilzers, lack the nutrition of organic crops. The "high yield" and "efficient" high U.S. mechanized farming to feed the world was a huge lie which we are all paying for with ongoing subsidies for environment destroying farming (big ag seems also to have left out subsidies from their "yield" calculations) and increased health care costs from poor nutrition.

The REAL numbers tell the story of less yield with chemicals and fossil fuels than organic.

Finally, there's this article on a GREENER REVOLUTION:
Snippet:
[Biologically intensive agriculture is a prolific and sustainable method for growing
food which has its roots in the history of humankind: it was practiced 5000
years ago in Ethiopia, 4000 years ago in China, Japan and Korea, 2000 years ago
in Greece, and 1000 years ago in the Mayan culture. In 2009 it was the method
featured in the primary case study in the UNEP-UNCTAD report Organic Agriculture
and Food Security in Africa, with positive results.
Using Biointensive agriculture in its modern, scientifically proven form, at intermediate-
level yields, with a reasonable buildup of soil quality and farmer
skill, on approximately 4000 square feet (317.6 square meters) per person it is
possible to raise:
• A complete vegan diet, plus
• All the carbonaceous and nitrogenous compost materials necessary to
maintain fertile soil, and
• A modest income.
Per pound of food produced, as compared with conventional mechanized agriculture,
the Biointensive method has the capacity to use:
• 66% less water,
• 50-100% less purchased nutrients*,
• 94-99% less energy in all forms, while producing
• Substantially increased yields, and
• A 100% increase in soil fertility!
The Biointensive method is organic, sustainable, low-input, high-yield agriculture,
and is already being implemented by small farmers in 141 countries
around the world. It truly has the potential to combat hunger and establish
food security, and to be the “greener revolution” this planet needs.16]

Source: http://www.growbiointensive.org/PDF/BiointensiveAgricultureAGreenerRevolution_English.pdf (http://www.growbiointensive.org/PDF/BiointensiveAgricultureAGreenerRevolution_English.pdf)

There's more. China used humanure effectively for well over a thousand years feeding a huge population without mechanized anything and organic farming WITHOUT ever depleting their soil. This is mentioned in this  article I have posted some snippets to here only briefly.
http://www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/PDF/2001pesek_lecture.pdf (http://www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/PDF/2001pesek_lecture.pdf)

I can't find it now but I believe the permies have a free book on the web that goes into a lot of detail about how the Chinese did this. In addition, they add up all the fossil fuels required to make, transport and distribute fertilizers and pesticides and the fuel for the machines that spray them and the horrendous costs to the environment as opposed to humanure. It's absolutely mind boggling what chumps we have been taken for by the fossil fuel and chemical corporations.

I rest my case.

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 05, 2012, 12:28:03 AM

In order to discuss the fallacy of the alleged high yields of the "Green Revolution", we must first look at what an organic crop "yield" REALLY is and compare it to a fossil fuel chemical, pesticide, land plowing and soil degrading crop "yield". The reason the claim of a "green Revolution" was initially supported had a lot to do with the fact that Farmers get paid by the weight of a crop, not by the amount of nutrients. As you will see the "high yields" had more to do with $$$ profit "yield" than food crop "yield".  This whole thing with chemical fertilizers is a more sophisticated equivalent scam of butchers injecting meat cuts with saline solution water to increase "yield" but even worse because the heavier metaphorical "meat cut" in big ag has LESS nutritive value than the non-injected lighter (organic) equivalent while costing much more to grow as well as wreaking havoc on the environment within a few decades.

Are you gonna repost this on TAE AB?  I suggest you do.  SWAMP Mr. Censorship.  FORCE him to respond substantively or BAN you.

I will back you up here on the Diner every step of the way.  I got your back on this one.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: alan2102 on July 05, 2012, 05:06:06 AM
Agelbert: thanks for the detailed reply! I will read it more carefully over the weekend.

For now, a comment regarding nutrient levels: 

An almost universally-overlooked aspect of higher atmospheric CO2 levels is the effect on plant growth. The effect is good, at least superficially. Plants LOVE CO2, of course; it is like oxygen for them -- the most critical nutrient of all. They respond by growing faster, more luxuriantly.  There's overwhelming evidence for this.

However, that growth is at the expense of dilution of everything else. The resultant plants are lower in nitrogen (protein), minerals, etc.  This means, in turn, that the organisms consuming said plants will be more poorly-nourished; those organisms being not only plants and animals, but more importantly insects, arthropods, and soil micro- and macro-fauna and flora of all kinds. Healthy plant populations, and healthy ecosystems, depend on the full array of nutrients, not just CO2.  CO2 could be seen as "empty calories" for plants; it is good as far as it goes (lots of calories are needed to support growth), but it needs to be balanced with the other elements.

Now, here's an  idea for you, which I admit is wildly idealistic, but I cannot resist:  It would be possible, with concerted effort over a few decades, to convert the bad into the good, by enriching soil with all the other nutrients required for fully-healthy plants and their consumers (animals, people).  That is, to view things not so much in terms of "excess CO2", but "insufficient-everything-else".    The idea, then, would be to take advantage of the growth-stimulating effects of CO2, and to fully REALIZE that advantage by completing the nutrient picture with supplemental N,P,K PLUS Ca,Mg,S,Si,Fe,Zn,Cu,Mo,Mb,B,Co,Ni,etc,etc.   See? 

This stuff is cheap, and available in near-unlimited amounts for this purpose, except for phosphorus. We could treat the circa 1.4 billion hectares of arable land, on planet earth, for perhaps $1-2000 per hectare (possibly much less, but I'll take a high SWAG); that would be a total cost of $2-3 trillion, or less than 5% of global GDP. It would probably require repeat applications at 5-year intervals for a while, as the soil and micro-flora/fauna populations are being rebuilt. There is also the exciting possibility of increasing, perhaps greatly, the arable land on the planet.  The 1.4 billion hectare figure is not etched in stone. Improved nutrition for plants and soil micro-flora/fauna could reclaim currently barren or nominally "not arable" land. One of the great things about some of the trace elements, like silicon, is the way in which they increase the drought-resistance of plants. This has HUGE implications for reclamation of desertified areas, and  what is thought to be non-arable land. Silicon also partially compensates for P deficit, while protecting against a variety of heavy metal and other toxins.

It could be seen, metaphorically, like an alchemical transmutation: to  "alchemically"  (ALL-CHEM-ically, if you will) transmute the "lead" of high atmospheric CO2 into the "gold" of a dramatic biospheric expansion with improved health for all organisms -- a TRUE GREEN **REVOLUTION**, as opposed to the fake corporate/Big-Agribiz one that was foisted on us.  This would also, incidentally, solve the CO2/climate-change problem, eventually, as the CO2 would be sucked-up by all the new growth.

Yes, yes, I know, it is a crazy scheme, VERY unlikely to come to pass. At least in our lifetimes. But hey, it is fun to think about. And, you never know who might be listening. It is a meme that needs to built and transmitted. I think that it is important to think things that need to be thought, and write things that need to be written, whether or not one can directly, measurably act on them at this moment.  As long as these ideas are floating around in the cloud (the web), there is the possibility of viral/memetic effects.

And, BTW, I admit that it is not really my idea. Hamaker was talking about it, 30 years ago, in his books about rock dust soil amendment to remedy climate change. Except, he never quite got or expressed the idea that higher atmospheric CO2 levels could be seen  as an OPPORTUNITY for something quite fantastic. He was all about reducing CO2, as though it were a poison.

Also, his focus was too narrow on rock dust as the total solution. Rock dust is cool, but rock dust combined with a bunch of other stuff would be even better.  Soluble silicates are fantastic; indeed, much of the benefit of rock dust is probably because of the silicon therein. There is an entire large scholarly book on silicon in agriculture, and just reading the table of contents of it is breathtaking -- the scope of silicon's benefits is so vast. And the fact that agronomists and others have ignored this mass of data is outrageous, even scandalous.   Boron is an important, overlooked nutrient for plants. Molybdenum is extremely important, for N fixation and overall yield.  There's very intriguing Russian lit on Co and Ni soil amendment for improved yields and quality. And so on. There is a WORLD of literature on this stuff, which I am just starting to plumb.  And most of it is totally unexploited!  There's solutions to our problems, sitting in the books; we just don't apply this stuff. We're lazy.

The idea that we've tapped-out our resources, and that we're now (by virtue of absolute resource limits) at the peak of agricultural yields for all time, is  incredibly ignorant and wrong.  We might be at that peak, but if we are, it will not be for lack of any material thing. It will be for lack of the spiritual qualities already mentioned up thread.

I laugh when I think about the "green revolution", and what a pathetic fraction of a true green revolution it represented.  That was the "green revolution" for Big Agribiz, and it was much more about revolutionary profits -- green $$$ -- than it was about greening the earth or feeding the organisms on it.

It is time for a REAL Green Revolution.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 05, 2012, 02:16:11 PM
RE,
I just got taken to the wood shed by ilargi for questioning Nicole's EROI math on gas. I replied as politely as possible to him because I believe the field of economics and investing related to energy product pricing clouds the mind of intelligent and knowledgeable people like ilargi and Nicole (She has the stoneleigh handle, right?).

The problem lies, not simply with predatory capitalist economics deliberately eschewing "externalities" for the cost calculation, but in the difference between chemistry (organic - hydrocarbon chemical reactions and their energy output as well as inorganic - ionic chemical reactions) and biochemistry.  The enzymes in living systems "cheat" by lowering the energy of activation for a reaction to take place and also lowering the energy released when some molecule is split. Most people who are experts in hydrocarbon chemistry are aware that the fossil fuel industry uses catalysts to facilitate chemical reactions but they are not aware that these catalysts DO NOT change the energy output numbers; they merely lower the activation energy. Once the reaction begins the energy output (energy density per mole of reactants) is quite predictable. Hence, the more complex and seemingly "impossible" manipulation of molecules by biochemical enzymes (our natural catalysts) to keep temperature and pH controlled so you don't die is magic to a hydrocarbon expert. 
So they think you are incorrect and scandalously out of bounds when you start questioning the whole EROI thing. I merely stated that EROI on fossil fuels must include the cost of poisoned aquifers and ilargi and Nicole became very unhappy campers. For me to challenge the actual reaction chemistry numbers by talking enzymes is a very tall order in this situation. This would entail a radical change in thinking for people used to the quantification of energy by how big a boom the thing makes when it is oxidized. This is wrong but maybe you can come up with some way to bridge the gap between these worlds. I perceive that, anybody that makes a little money out of investing in energy products would feel threatened by what I am pointing out and would go in to instant denial, angry accusations and total rejection not because what I am saying isn't scientifically sound, but because I am stepping on somebody's money making paradigm.

I believe the stubborn adhesion to that paradigm is destroying the biosphere so I try to break the mindlock that paradigm has on otherwise intelligent people. I guess I'm not being too successful with ilargi and Nicole. :-[

So how do I know all this stuff?
six months pre-engineering
another year pre-engineering
two years business administration courses including managerial accounting
three years pre-med (including 35 college credits in varies biology courses)

Despite all this education, I never did get a degree. I was employed as an Air Traffic controller and later as an automation analyst by the FAA so I did most of this stuff out of personal interest. Before the FAA and after the year and a half of pre-engineering, I switched to aviation (college program) and obtained commercial and flight instructor pilot licenses.

My wife does have a bachelor in science degree (cum laude) in chemistry so we do bounce a lot of this enzyme talk back and forth as well as discuss rather obscure topics like mast cell mediation of histones in the inflammatory response in regard to immune system function (and sometimes dysfunction).

I keep up on much of the scientific advances in medicine through the internet. Although medical journals always want to charge you for reading them, much can be discerned from the abstracts which are free. There is a lot of excellent free hard science information out there but you have to be willing to wade through the rather boring jargon. I also, for personal reasons, read extensively about cardiology and pacemakers.

I've got lots of time so I do it.

Finally, I don't know any of those people at TAE except you and Ashvin who both have been decent enough to share views with me. I only started reading TAE a few years ago when they were talking about the "nuclear village" mentality in Japan. I had mostly commented on Common Dreams (where I was banned three times for shooting my mouth off on the treason of the MIC and its enablers in the USA with all the predatory capitalist wars - it doesn't go over too well to say the USMC works for corporate greed  :icon_mrgreen:). I used to go mano-a-mano with the nuclear apologists at CD right down to showing (with equations) how the photon energy of radionuclides is augmented 50,000 plus times by residing inside human tissue due to the tiny nanometer distances involved. There is just so much bullshit out there that I felt compelled to try to throw some truth into this greedfest we are infested with that lies day in and day out to preserve the suicidal path they have us on.

If you (or anyone else reading this) have any suggestions on how to overcome the reductionist economics view of EROI on fossil fuels at TAE, I would appreciate them.

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 05, 2012, 02:33:45 PM
RE,
I just got taken to the wood shed by ilargi for questioning Nicole's EROI math on gas. I replied as politely as possible to him because I believe the field of economic and investing related to energy product pricing clouds the mind of intelligent and knowledgeable people like ilargi and Nicole (She has the stoneleigh handle, right?).

Have you checked in the Puke off the Keyboard of Ilargi (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=534.msg4275#msg4275) thread here?  We are taking Ilargi to the Woodshed there for his reply to you.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 05, 2012, 03:49:36 PM
alan,
 You said, "Now, here's an  idea for you, which I admit is wildly idealistic, but I cannot resist:  It would be possible, with concerted effort over a few decades, to convert the bad into the good, by enriching soil with all the other nutrients required for fully-healthy plants and their consumers (animals, people).  That is, to view things not so much in terms of "excess CO2", but "insufficient-everything-else".    The idea, then, would be to take advantage of the growth-stimulating effects of CO2, and to fully REALIZE that advantage by completing the nutrient picture with supplemental N,P,K PLUS Ca,Mg,S,Si,Fe,Zn,Cu,Mo,Mb,B,Co,Ni,etc,etc.   See?"

Yes, I see and agree that the only approach to a viable future is to dispense with any food production computations unless they include absolutely every downstream effect on the entire biosphere. As Vanadana  Shiva has said, due to the mechanized reductionism inherent in the scientific method, modern science and the corporation mindset that makes short term hay out of scientific innovation is failing us because it discards the whole picture. One of the things that got me to sit up and take notice about the possibly flawed nature of scientific inquiry was when a professor in a college chemistry class stated that conclusions about the macro world as to proportions of chemicals in it are based on micro sampling. IOW, they sample the air in a "statistically significant" (that's another bone of contention too) portion of the atmosphere in microscopic amounts then assume that the total atmosphere has exactly the same proportions. I see a huge potential for "scientific" assumptions about this or that to exclude very significant (but sufficiently trace or so tiny that they are missed in sampling) chemicals. I believe this is exactly what happened in the development of chemical fertilizers.

In the human body, extremely tiny amounts of chemicals can trigger tremendous changes. The thyroid can cause you to grow uncontrollably or accelerate or decelerate your metabolism to make you so skinny you die or make you so fat you die, regardless of what you eat. This counterintuitive concept to the "bigger is more influential" default setting in our amygdala (reptilian brain) is what blinds us to obvious flaws in our system.

Alan, I don't think we know the full picture of human nutrition and biosphere interactions yet. I believe this requires us to return to something that was proven to work while we launch an all out scientific inquiry to try to get the whole picture by dispensing with the mechanistic reductionism that limits sample size (with computers we can now do this), increase the study period to at least a generation and then carefully weigh the results. We are a function of the biosphere and we need to stop behaving like the biosphere is a function of us. Any technology that involves some new industry which produces trace elements for balanced and nutritious food production world wide must be weighed against the possibility of corporations hijacking it to make sure some human populations are favored and some are targeted for elimination (through deliberate malnutrition), not to mention what negative effects on the biosphere these industrial processes might have. Adequate safeguards would be needed. We have no such safeguards now. :(

For now, I favor Vandana Shiva's approach to decentralization of farming and decommoditization  of farm products with a switch to full organic in order to suffocate the profit motive and replace it with the biosphere harmony motive.

I agree with you that CO2 increase will bring have many unforeseen problems. For example, nobody talks about that other greenhouse gas known as water vapor that is much more powerful than CO2. When you burn a hydrocarbon this is the way the equation goes (I use the simplest hydrocarbon which is methane but it works in all of them):
CH4 + 2 O2 ---> CO2 + 2 H2O (balanced equation required by stoichiometry)

This means that  TWO molecules of water are produced for every single molecule of CO2 produced. This also means that, slowly but surely, Oxygen is being taken out of the atmosphere faster than it is being put in. Since we are talking about PPM (parts per million) the oxygen depletion is probably no big deal now. BUT, water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and we are adding water to our atmosphere at twice the rate we are adding CO2. I get really angry at Hansen and the rest with their computer model of projected warming excluding the thermal effect of increased water vapor from increased CO2. That may explain why these scientists keep getting surprised at the acceleration in warming that "wasn't supposed to happen" according to their computer models. HEY, add H2O, I say.

There is a lot going on and not enough people trying to really fix it. I celebrate your efforts as a brother in arms and authorize you to pass anything I have posted along with or without attribution. I, like all humans, seek peer group acceptance but the priority for all of us now is to get out the truth that what we are doing is going to kill us and many other species as well. We need to come up with a way of thinking that puts nature, rather than humans at the head of the biosphere table. Otherwise, whatever we come up with will be flawed. It's really big picture thinking or extermination that must be our new thought process paradigm. Nothing else matters at this point.

 Time for a cup of coffee. :coffee:
 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 05, 2012, 04:03:30 PM
RE;
I'll head over to the ilargi thread you pointed to as soon as I get some coffee.

Maybe I should get some popcorn too.  :icon_mrgreen:

Thank you, friend, for being such a straight arrow. :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: alan2102 on July 05, 2012, 09:03:02 PM
Agelbert: "Any technology that involves some new industry which produces trace elements for balanced and nutritious food production world wide must be weighed against the possibility of corporations hijacking it to make sure some human populations are favored and some are targeted for elimination (through deliberate malnutrition), not to mention what negative effects on the biosphere these industrial processes might have."

Well, we're too late! The corporations (or rather, The Borg, which includes but is not limited to the corporations) have already hijacked it to make sure that some humans are favored over others. You and me are the favored ones; the people in the third world are not. So, to the extent that that is true, we have nowhere to go but up. From a social justice standpoint, little that we do could make matters much worse than they are. So I don't think that that thought ought to inhibit us.

You might be interested to know that this whole idea (my last post) stemmed out of long and deep research into the nutritional status of people in the third world, and the reasons for the shockingly-high prevalence there of trace element and other deficiencies (in addition to other health and developmental problems). I became interested in the whole food chain, and indeed the whole chain of life, starting with the soil. I came to realize that enduring solutions to the human problems that concerned me had to begin with the soil, and the feeding of the soil. Later it became evident that this idea had more profound implications for the whole biosphere than I had initially imagined. It is clear to me now that real solutions to the human problems are (in accord with the holistic emphasis that you express) simultaneously solutions -- or at least important parts of solutions -- to the plant problems, soil problems, climate/environmental problems, and so forth. It is all connected.

As for negative effects on the biosphere of industrial production of trace elements for purposes of soil amendment: I'm not too worried about this, because the environmental harm caused by those processes is greatly less than the benefit to be realized. Refraining from doing what I suggest would be much more harmful than doing it. (Indeed, we ARE so refraining, right now, and we're paying for it, bigtime!) Keep in mind that most of this stuff is VERY abundant and cheap; worrying about overusing it would be a little bit like -- on a personal level -- fretting about overuse of toothpicks, and the environmental implications thereof. It would be a strange ethic indeed that would have us continue to use computers and the internet, and generally live an urban-industrial-dependent life, while refusing to add small amounts of vital trace elements (available in vast quantities) to the soil in order to avoid unforeseen environmental stress!
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 06, 2012, 05:30:19 PM
alan,
What you say is true. We in the first world are calmly discussing this and that while we continue to use technology that hurts the biosphere in general and the third world in particular. I recognize we are guilty of hypocrisy in this area. I have tried to do my part with a house less than 1,000 sq. ft., a push mower and hand shoveling snow as well as driving less than 2,000 miles a year and not eating out. It's probably not enough but if everyone did that, all the world would benefit.

My question to you is, how do propose to keep the corporate pigs from hijacking this trace element distribution network? If it can be done bypassing the greedster pigs, I 'm all for it. :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 06, 2012, 05:44:13 PM
Dear Doomstead Diner readers,
The following post will appear shortly in The Automatic Earth web site in the Waste Based society III article comments. I am posting it here first as a nod to the readers here and the web site manager RE for your support and respect of free expression and genuine search for truth. If it looks like the 4th of July over at TAE after I post this or I get banned, you will know why.  :icon_mrgreen:

 I wish to take this opportunity to thank the people at the Doomstead Diner for their excellent comments on a wide variety of issues including my Waste Based Society III article which appears there as well as Ashvin here at The Automatic Earth for allowing me to post the Waste Based Society III article.

Recently I was chastised by ilargi for publishing material and comments that are beneath the high standards of truth in The Automatic Earth web site. I believe he mistakenly thought I was attacking stoneleigh (nicole) in regard to a natural gas EROI published by her. I wish to state categorically that my critique was of the EROI methodology, not nicole. I consider her a studious and analytical person that wishes to present the data as objectively as possible within the current EROI methodology. Also, perhaps ilargi believes my severely critical attitude towards fossil fuels and nuclear, being that fossil fuels in particular is the dominant energy paradigm at this time, is "fringe wacko thinking" not "worthy" of TAE. I hope, with this post and others to follow, that he reconsiders his opinion and/or debates my posts on the merits and not on a blanket assumption laced with innuendo and veiled threats to censor me by banning me. Our current energy situation should not descend to tit-for-tat sniping. We have real energy problems and bruised egos reacting in knee jerk fashion does nothing to solve it and certainly reflects badly on the caliber the The Automatic Earth as well. Let us work together to solve our energy problems with reasoned debate.

So, without further ado, let's talk EROI: 

The purpose of this post is to discuss a term near and dear to the heart of any investor in energy products. That is the term EROI. It is important because we all need to know how cost effective any energy product technology is. In a sane society, if an energy product is found to have a higher EROI than what is presently popular, subsidised by government or simply enjoys monopoly price control, then it would be a no-brainer that the new energy product should, of course, replace the one with a lower EROI. The natural tendency for energy corporations to try to extract maximum profit by externalizing costs aside for a moment, let's compare EROI on a few energy products and also explain the concept of EROI:

 [Sustainability 2011, 3, 1796-1809; doi:10.3390/su3101796
sustainability
ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability) ]

Snippet 1:
[In the 1970’s ecologist Charles Hall coined the term “Energy Return on Investment” (EROI), with originally a focus on migrating fish (e.g., Hall [1]). In the 1980s, Hall, working with Cutler Cleveland, Robert Kaufmann and others, extended the concept to seeking oil and other fuels. ]

Snippet 2:
 [The most recent summary of work and data on the EROI of fuels was conducted in the summer of 2007 at SUNY ESF and appeared on The Oil Drum website and in a readable summary by Richard Heinberg. This paper summarizes the findings of that study, and also those preceding and subsequent to it where available. It also summarizes issues raised by some concerning the findings of these studies and with the calculations within.]

Snippet 3:
[Oil and conventional natural gas are usually studied together because they often occur in the same fields, have overlapping production operations and data archiving.]

Snippet 4:
[.. authors also estimated through linear extrapolation that the EROI for global oil and conventional natural gas could reach 1:1 as soon as about 2022 given alternative input measurement methods (Figure 2).]

Snippet 5:
[We are not aware of any peer-reviewed published studies available on EROI on non-conventional natural gas to date. ]

Snippet 6:
[The authors of this EROI study note that they exclude the interest paid on debts to purchase foreign oil. Including that cost presumably would decrease EROI. As can be expected, the EROI of imported oil to the U.S. is mostly a reflection of the price of oil relative to the price of general goods and services at that time (Figure 3).]

Snippet 7:
[Nuclear power is the use of controlled fission reactions for the purpose of producing electricity. There are currently 439 commercial nuclear power plants worldwide generally using variations of the same technology [8]. The SUNY ESF study summarized the EROI of nuclear power from previous studies [26]. The review concludes that the most reliable information is still from Hall et al.’s [7] summary of an EROI of about 5–8:1 (with a large part of the variability depending upon whether the electricity is corrected for quality), and that the newer studies appear either too optimistic or pessimistic with reported EROIs of up to almost 60:1, to as low as even less than 1:1. Clearly with reactors operating for longer periods of time, with the possibility of serious uranium shortages with larger use, and with the new considerations of the Japanese reactor accidents due to the earthquake and subsequent tsunami new calculations are needed.
The authors note that the differences in EROI can sometimes be attributed to differences in system boundaries and technologies. However, overall there is a lack of empirical information on the subject. ]

Snippet 8
[Wind energy is one of the fastest growing renewable energies in the world today, although it still represents far less than one percent of global or U.S. energy use. Since it is renewable energy, EROI is not calculated the same as for finite resources. The energy cost for such renewable systems is mostly the very large capital cost per unit output and the backup systems needed, for two thirds of the time the wind is not blowing. As a result, the input for the EROI equation is mostly upfront, and the return over the lifetime of the system—which largely is not known well. For renewable resources a slightly different type of EROI is often used, the “energy pay back time” (EPBT). EPBT is the time it takes for the system to generate the same amount of energy that went into creating, maintaining, and disposing of it, and so the boundaries used to define the EPBT are those incorporated into the EROI.
Although the SUNY ESF study did not calculate EROI for wind they were able to use a recent “meta-analysis” study by Cleveland and Kubiszewski [27]. In this study the authors examined 112 turbines from 41 analyses of both conceptual and operational nature. The system boundaries included the manufacture of components, transportation of components to the construction site, the construction of the facility itself, operation and maintenance over the lifetime of the facility, overhead, possible grid connection costs, and decommissioning where possible, however not all studies include the same scope of analysis. The authors concluded that the average EROI for all systems studied is 24.6:1 and that for all operational studies is 18.1:1. The operational studies provide lower EROIs because the simulations run in conceptual models appear to assume conditions to be more favorable than actually experienced on the ground.
The authors found that the EROI tends to increase with the size of the turbine. They conclude that there are three reasons for this. First, that smaller turbines are of older design and can be less efficient, so despite a larger initial capital investment larger systems compensate with larger energy outputs; second that larger models have larger rotor diameters so they can operate at lower wind speeds and capture more wind energy at higher efficiencies year round; and finally because of their size, larger models are taller and can take advantage of the higher wind speeds farther above ground. ]

Snippet 9:
[The use of Solar photovoltaics (PV) are increasing almost as rapidly as wind systems, although they too represent far less than 1 percent of the energy used by the U.S. or the world. Similarly, they are a renewable source of energy and thus the EROIs are also calculated using the same idea. Although there are very few studies which perform “bottom up” analysis of the PV systems we are familiar with today, we can calculate the EROI by dividing the lifetime of a module by its energy payback time (EPBT). Like wind turbines, PV EPBT can vary depending on the location of production and installation. It can also be affected by the materials used to make the modules, and the efficiency with which it operates - especially under extreme temperatures.
The SUNY ESF study looked at a number of life cycle analyses from 2000 to 2008 on a range of PV systems to determine system lifetimes and EPBT, and subsequently calculated EROI [28]. The system lifetimes and EPBT are typically modeled as opposed to empirically measured. As a result, EROI is usually presented as a range. Typically the author found most operational systems to have an EROI of approximately 3–10:1. ]

Snippet 10:
[The SUNY ESF study also examined passive solar heating and cooling for buildings [31]. A passive solar building is one which captures and optimizes the heat and light available from the sun without the use of any collectors, pumps or mechanical parts, but by design. Unfortunately, passive solar is incredibly site specific and thus calculating an EROI can be very difficult. However, the author does explain how a calculation could be achieved by performing the same operations as those for other renewable forms of energy—lifetime of structure divided by the EPBT. The EROI for a well designed building certainly has the potential to be quite favorable.]

Snippet 11:
[The SUNY ESF study calculated the EROI for HDR geothermal systems and reviewed previous studies on hydrothermal resources from 1975–1991 [33]. The EROI for electricity generation from hydrothermal resources was reported with a range of 2–13:1. Corrected for quality as an electricity source, this is recalculated as approximately 6–39:1.]

Snippet 12:
[The SUNY ESF study estimated that one wave energy project could have an EROI of approximately 15:1 [34].  ]

Snippet 13:
[ 13. Discussion
There has been a surprisingly small amount of work done in the field of EROI calculation despite its obvious uses and age. From this review it can be inferred that there are only a handful of people seriously working on the issues related to energy return on investment. As such it does not come as a surprise that the information is scarce and unrefined at best–although perhaps not in the case of ethanol. Additionally there is a great deal of rather misleading material presented in the media and very few with the training to cut through the fog or deliberate lies. We have presented what we believe to be virtually all of the data available until this special issue.
Since the 1980’s the energy information required to make such calculations have become even scarcer, with the possible exception of some European life cycle analyses. This is a terrible state of affairs given the massive changes in our energy situation unfolding daily. We need to make enormously important decisions but do not have the studies, the data or the trained personnel to do so. Thus we are left principally with poorly informed politicians, industry advocacy and a blind but misguided faith in market solutions to make critical decisions about how to invest our quite limited remaining high quality energy resources. Our major scientific funding agencies such as the National Science Foundation and even the Department of Energy have been criminally negligent by avoiding any serious programs to undertake proper EROI, environmental effects, or other studies, while our federal energy data collections degrade year by year under misguided cost cutting and free market policies.
As stated by Murphy and Hall [15], there needs to be a concerted effort to make energy information more transparent to the people so we can better understand what we are doing and where we are going. Given what we do know, it seems that the EROI of the fuels we depend on most are in decline; whereas the EROI for those fuels we hope to replace them with are lower than we have enjoyed in the past. This leads one to believe that the current rates of energy consumption per capita we are experiencing are in no way sustainable in the long run. At best, the renewable energies we look toward may only cushion this decline.]

Sustainability 2011, 3, 1796-1809; doi:10.3390/su3101796
 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability (http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability) 
-------------
What does all the above mean to you and me? It means EROI math has great difficulty measuring renewables and, due to the boundary framework established for upstream and downstream costs including the EXCLUSION of environmental costs, has the potential to produce some fairly happy numbers for fossil fuels and nuclear. Yet even by the present computaton convention, EROI is headed downwards for fossil fuels and nuclear. [/i]
Let's explore EROI some more:
-------------
Snippet 1:
[Measuring the EROEI of a single physical process is unambiguous, but there is no agreed standard on which activities should be included in measuring the EROEI of an economic process. In addition, the form of energy of the input can be completely different from the output.]

Snippet 2:
[How deep should the probing in the supply chain of the tools being used to generate energy go? For example, if steel is being used to drill for oil or construct a nuclear power plant, should the energy input of the steel be taken into account, should the energy input into building the factory being used to construct the steel be taken into account and amortized? Should the energy input of the roads which are used to ferry the goods be taken into account? What about the energy used to cook the steelworker's breakfasts? These are complex questions evading simple answers. A full accounting would require considerations of opportunity costs and comparing total energy expenditures in the presence and absence of this economic activity.]

Snippet 3:
[Conventional economic analysis has no formal accounting rules for the consideration of waste products that are created in the production of the ultimate output. For example, differing economic and energy values placed on the waste products generated in the production of ethanol makes the calculation of this fuel's true EROEI extremely difficult.]

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested)
-------------
And what about environmental degradation costs? Don't they matter in the "real world"? Can we so narrowly define a process like EROI that we deliberately exclude costs that aren't immediately quantifiable? Why are fossil fuel or nuclear energy corporations the first to bray and warn that all new technologies need to have the precautionary principle of science applied to them but get quite huffy when you question EROI numbers for their products? If that's the "real world', then we have a rather serious objectivity deficit in play with EROI math.

Here is an interesting article about a study of algal biocrude EROI. I bring this to your attention because it shows a very serious and responsible approach to determining EROI which I believe is sorely lacking in fossil and nuclear fuels:
-------------

ENERGY RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR ALGAL BIOCRUDE

Snippet 1:
[Over the last year a student (Colin Beal) at the University of Texas, Austin, has been characterizing the experimental set-up at the Center for Electromechanics for testing an algae to bio-oil process. The process stops short of converting the bio-oil into biodiesel, and he presented the results at a recent conference: Beal, Colin M., Hebner, Robert E., Webber, Michael E., Ruoff, Rodney S., and Seibert, A. Frank. THE ENERGY RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR ALGAL BIOCRUDE: RESULTS FOR A RESEARCH PRODUCTION FACILITY, Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition IMECE2010 November 12–18, 2010, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, IMECE2010-38244.]

Snippet 2:
[the stage of development of the entire technology and process of inventing new energy sources and pathways. It is important that we understand how to interpret findings “from the lab” into real-world or industrial-scale processes. To anticipate the future EROI of an algae to biofuel process, Colin performed two extra analyses to anticipate what might be possible if anticipated advances in technology and processing occur: a Reduced Case and Literature Model calculation.]
Snippet 3:
[What Colin discovered was that the EROI of the Reduced Case and Literature Model were 0.13 and 0.57, respectively. This shows that we have much to learn for the potential of making viable liquid fuels. Additionally, Colin’s calculations for the experimental set-up (and Reduced Case analysis) show that 97% of the energy output resides in the biomass, not the bio-oil. For his idealized Literature Model, 82% of the energy output was in the biomass.
While these results seem discouraging, we do not have much ability to put these results into context of the rate of development of other alternative technologies and biofuels. How long did it take to get photovoltaic panels with EROI > 1 from the first working prototype in a lab? We have somewhat of an idea that it took one or two decades for the Brazilians to get reasonable EROI > 1 from using sugar cane for biomass and biofuel production (Brazilian sugar cane grown and processed in Sao Paulo is estimated near EROI = 8 ).  ]

Snippet 4:
[Let’s hope others join in in trying to assess the EROI of their experimental and anticipated commercial processes for alternative energy technologies.]
Source:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2011/01/the-eroi-of-algae-biofuels.html (http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2011/01/the-eroi-of-algae-biofuels.html)

ALL ABOUT DUCKWEED:

Snippet 1:
[Researchers at North Carolina State University have found that a tiny aquatic plant can be used to clean up animal waste at industrial hog farms and potentially be part of the answer for the global energy crisis. Their research shows that growing duckweed on hog wastewater can produce five to six times more starch per acre than corn, according to researcher Dr. Jay Cheng. This means that ethanol production using duckweed could be "faster and cheaper than from corn," [/i]says fellow researcher Dr. Anne-Marie Stomp.
"We can kill two birds – biofuel production and wastewater treatment – with one stone – duckweed," Cheng says. Starch from duckweed can be readily converted into ethanol using the same facilities currently used for corn, Cheng adds.]

Snippet 2:
[The duckweed system consists of shallow ponds that can be built on land unsuitable for conventional crops, and is so efficient it generates water clean enough for re-use. The technology can utilize any nutrient-rich wastewater, from livestock production to municipal wastewater.]

Snippet 3:
[Cheng says, "Duckweed could be an environmentally friendly, economically viable feedstock for ethanol."
"There's a bias in agriculture that all the crops that could be discovered have been discovered," Stomp says, "but duckweed could be the first of the new, 21st century crops. In the spirit of George Washington Carver, who turned peanuts into a major crop, Jay and I are on a mission to turn duckweed into a new industrial crop, providing an innovative approach to alternative fuel production."]
Source:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/38605 (http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/38605)

Duckweed for electricity at 3 CENTS per kwh:

Snippet 1:
[It's a little, water-born plant that doubles in mass every 24 hours. The ducks really like it," Behrens said. Two pounds of duckweed seed in a 32-foot tank in Philadelphia grew to a depth of 2 inches in 10 days, he said.
"It's very easy to harvest," Behrens said. "That was the undoing of a lot of algae concepts. You can't spend too much energy removing fuel from water, otherwise on your balance sheet you haven't made any energy."
Duckweed is smaller than a grain of rice, but a million times bigger than an algae cell, he said. The duckweed is harvested with a nylon mesh, similar to screen doors, then dried.
In many ways, it's similar to wood-products waste, another type of biomass, which is used to generate electricity in White City and other places around the country.
"Trees don't grow fast enough, so we found something that grows faster," Behrens said. "The key is growing fuel on site, because shipping it in is too costly. We just had to find a fast-growing plant -- and there are plenty of those -- and then create an artificial environment that optimizes plant growth."
The artificial environment -- BioEnergy Domes -- is where Pacific Domes comes in. There are four sizes of BioEnergy Domes, ranging from a backyard-sized, 5,000-kilowatt version that can supply energy for one home to a commercial-size, 60-foot-diameter unit, such as the initial unit in a Philadelphia industrial park. The generating unit sits outside the dome and runs silently.
Behrens said it costs about $750,000 to $800,000 to install the largest BioEnergy Domes, and the payback time is only two years.
"You are able to generate electricity at the cost of 3 cents per kilowatt hour, the same as coal or nuclear plants," Behrens said. "It's completely controllable, unlike wind or solar power, and generates on demand like a fossil-fuel plant."]
http://www.kgw.com/news/Ore-company-uses-duckweed-to-generate-electricity-117942849.html (http://www.kgw.com/news/Ore-company-uses-duckweed-to-generate-electricity-117942849.html)
-------------
While I laugh at the idea that the actual cost of coal or nuclear power is just 3 cents per kwh because the EROI numbers on those two poisonous energy products exclude massive subsidies and environmental costs, I see no reason to doubt that the 3 cents per kwh is bonafide with duckweed. Since nuclear has an official EROI of 10.0 and coal has an offical EROI of 80.0 then duckweed is somewhere in between. Even if it is only in the wind EROI range of 18 it is still a far better alternative than, for example, natural gas as of 2005 which was 10.0 because there are zero pollution costs associated with it and less transportation costs as well because duckweed infrastructure would be decentralized and local.
EROI figures for nuclear, coal, and natural gas 2005 and wind source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested)

Now I bring this low corn ethanol EROI to your attention. I am certain the EROI would be much higher for ethanol if duckweed was the biomass source rather than corn. Of course that would cut chemical fertilizer and pesticide corporations out of the loop. It would also reduce fossil fuel costs in harvesting because duckweed is not a crop requiring tilling and grows several times faster than corn simply with animal feces in stagnant water. A mechanized netting operation for monthly havests (shorter intervals are possible depending on climate) would vastly exceed corn biomass in addition to ultimately cutting out fossil fuels from the farm machinery because they would run on ethanol.

CORN ETHANOL EROI

Snippet:
[They found that the EROI range for corn ethanol remained low, from 1.29–1.70 ]
source:
http://www.countercurrents.org/murphy100810.htm (http://www.countercurrents.org/murphy100810.htm)

Furthermore duckweed can be pelletized and used as food for tilapia fish farming or fuel in furnaces.
sources:
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22406406/1260766168/name/duckweed++final.pdf (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22406406/1260766168/name/duckweed++final.pdf)
http://www.permies.com/t/13500/stoves/you-burn-duckweed-rocket-heater (http://www.permies.com/t/13500/stoves/you-burn-duckweed-rocket-heater)

What about those that claim that renewables like duckweed, wind, photovoltaic, etc. are just niche energy markets and will never actually replace fossil fuels as number one?

Snippet 1:
[4. Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels
Last year was the first time global investments in renewable energy surpassed investments in fossil fuels.
The global market for clean energy was worth a whopping $250 billion.
The United States is currently leading in corporate R&D and venture capital investments in clean energy globally, and last year retook the top spot in overall investment with a 33 percent increase to $55.9 billion.]

As to the current EROI figures on fossil fuels, please consider that YOU paid for a lot of the R&D for them as well as current and past subsidies BEFORE the EROI figures are calculated.[/i]

Snippet 2:
[6. Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy
To date, the oil-and-gas industry received $446.96 billion (adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies from 1994 to 2009, whereas renewable energy sources received just $5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation).
Renewable energy investments should be put in proper historical perspective. According to the Energy Information Agency, “focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years across all energy fuels and technologies.”
The U.S. government is showing a smaller commitment to renewables than it showed in the early years of the oil-and-gas industries. A study showed that “during the early years of what would become the U.S. oil and gas industries, federal subsidies for producers averaged half a percent of the federal budget. By contrast, the current support for renewables is barely a fifth that size, just one-tenth of 1 percent of federal spending.”]

Snippet 3:
[Here are the top six things you really need to know:

Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy
Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil fuels
Clean energy improves grid reliability
Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels
Investments in clean energy are cost effective
Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy]

Source:
http://idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53750 (http://idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53750)

Given all these real world facts about the main energy investment trends and the promise of EROI increases from renewables such as wind, photovoltaic and duckweed free of the environmental hazards of fossil and nuclear fuels and the prospect of much reduced government energy subsidies that we-the-people will benefit from,  isn't it folly to cling to the concept that centralized power systems will remain dominant in the energy markets?

Ilargi,
I hope that you find this study sufficiently fact based to consider it a worthy contribution to the Automatic Earth web site. If you disagree with any portion of this post, please do so with point by point objections rather than a blanket dismissal. Also I request that you back up your objections with links. Failing to do so will only undermine your position. If I am wrong about anything here , I'll be the first to admit it. I expect the same from you as well.

Stoneleigh (nicole),
I have read some of your work and comments and respect your credentials. Because of this experience you have from The Oil Drum web site, you are in a position to reach millions of people there and here at TAE. As you may have noted from the article above, EROI methodology that evolved from "net energy" methodology has never been scientifically peer reviewed. Furthemore, the current methodology has issues with coming up with comparable numbers in regard to renewables. Have you considered the possiblity that a new formulation that compares all the energy product apples and oranges out there would enable all energy users from private citizens to governments to better select which product to use or subsidize for the benefit of all? You could, for example write a book with a title like The CEROI, an energy measurement stick for all energy products. The "C" would stand for "comprehensive". Within that formulation would be a "10+ and 10- year upstream and downstream energy and environmental cost calculation that would include expanded boundaries such as the energy used to manufacture the equipment used in mining, drilling, storing and transporting (e.g. oil tanker manufacturing costs and other energy product specific machinery) the product. Of course government subsidies and tax breaks would need to be figured in too. I don't ask that you go to ridiculous extremes like plugging in campaign contributions by the oil lobby to influential senators and congressmen up to ten years prior to a law that turns the energy "level playing field" into an alpine slope or simply disallow through corruption the termination of fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies, but it is a thought (GRIN). You could make a spread sheet for renewables that have site dependent EROI so local officials could modify ordinances to enable rapid implementation when a high EROI can be achieved as in pelletized duckweed for animal feed or furnace (after a drying process) fuel. You could also discuss how an EROI of exactly the same energy product changes (goes up) when a catalyst is introduced (such as producing hydrogen from ethanol). Catalysts are, by definition, not changed or degraded in a chemical process but lower the activation energy for the reaction so, once the cost of obtaining the catalyst and positioning it in an industrial process is plugged in, you have an easily computable amortization cost in a ten year downstream framework. Also, in order to better compare energy products, the EPBT (energy pay back time) now used for renewables could be incorporated in the CEROI. By writing this book you could introduce some sorely needed standardized methodology for computing the reducton in marginal utility of an energy product. The fact that the current EROI methodolgy has not been peer reviewed translates to way too much latitude for happy talk in regard to the rate of reduction in marginal utility. If, for example, the target date for an energy product EROI to drop below 1.0 is 10 years, rather than 40 years, would that not change investment and allocation of capital? Does it not stand to reason that those with a vested interest in these energy products with decreasing marginal utility would attempt to push the projected point where the EROI drops below 1.0 as far into the future as possible?[/i] If all energy producers are forced to abide by a peer reviewed C-EROI manual that you published, everyone would benefit. And, of course, you might make a little money out of it too, notwithstanding the conniption fits from fossil fuel and nuclear energy producers. They might even try to defame you with innuendo and blanket dismissals that you are a fringe wacko but I am sure the scientific concensus would prevail and so would you.

So why don't I write the book on the great and glorious Comprehensive EROI?
Because I really don't like to getting into calculus derivatives with several inputs modifying the variables in a very complex fashion in order to figure out the rate of reduction in marginal utility just for starters. I believe you are much more at home with high level math than I am. I also don't have the connections to get the hard, inside data from the fossil fuel and nuclear energy producers and what they REALLY spend. I believe you do. Please think about it. Our future depends on dispassionate decisions free of conflicts of interest by corrupt energy lobbies and politicians as well as being able to discern whether an alleged "renewable" is a blind energy ally or a boon to mankind and the biosphere. Only a scientifically peer reviewed COMPREHENSIVE EROI manual can remove the deliberate clouding of these issues that continues to take place. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe you can come up with a CEROI, nicole.

If am allowed to post here in the future, I plan to educate readers about EXACTLY what an oil tanker does from the point of taking on oil to offloading and return to get another load. I also will discuss why the law requiring double hulls in tankers came about.  People need to know how all this "works". The more they know, the less they will like it and the more chance we will have for a sustainable planet.

Quote
" One can judge from experiment or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind experimental proof is all important and theory is merely a convenience in description to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind authority is everything and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority."  Robert Heinlein



Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 06, 2012, 06:22:21 PM
Now that is SERIOUS SWAMPING!  :emthup:

Also has a nice confrontational tone to it.  :icon_mrgreen:  :emthup:  :emthup: :thefinger:

I'm actually more interested to see if Stoneleigh comes back atchya then McAmu.  He isn't expert enough to counter what you wrote point by point.

I'll head over to TAE to see if any fireworks got started yet.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 07, 2012, 05:12:24 AM
Because this topic is of compelling interest to me, I read this here and at TAE. I found Ilargi's response to be, franlkly, incoherent, and making sense only in light of trying to jealously guard his space and mark his corners. Good way to kill a blog BTW; we have seen this act before-- the pogrom to insure ideological purity. In light of your original article, and your second submission, it will be interesting to see what comments it engenders from the Brain Trust over there.

You make compelling points, am am glad you post them in this space.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 07, 2012, 05:55:37 AM
In light of your original article, and your second submission, it will be interesting to see what comments it engenders from the Brain Trust over there.

So far, NADA from Stoneleigh OR Ilargi on this SWAMPING. I will give Credit where Credit is Due, AB SWAMPED them as well or better than any Swamp post I ever made on TBP, Ticker Forum or Peak Oil..  KILLER STUFF!  Full on Reference Battle!

They gotta make a comeback. This could get VERY good.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on July 07, 2012, 06:11:26 AM
In light of your original article, and your second submission, it will be interesting to see what comments it engenders from the Brain Trust over there.

So far, NADA from Stoneleigh OR Ilargi on this SWAMPING. I will give Credit where Credit is Due, AB SWAMPED them as well or better than any Swamp post I ever made on TBP, Ticker Forum or Peak Oil..  KILLER STUFF!  Full on Reference Battle!

They gotta make a comeback. This could get VERY good.

RE
It would seem a most difficult posting to ignore. I predict a polite response from Nicole and silence form The Big Stick.??
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 07, 2012, 06:33:58 AM
It would seem a most difficult posting to ignore. I predict a polite response from Nicole and silence form The Big Stick.??

If it is IGNORED, that in itself is damning. Stoneleigh (Nicole) must make a comeback to refute at least a few of ABs  points. Elsewise she looks PATHETIC.  I would not stand down if somebody ATTACKED my ideas that way.  Gotta  DEFEND them.

I think Stoneleigh will weigh in. If she does NOT,she loses credibilty.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Karpatok on July 07, 2012, 04:48:51 PM
Agelbert: You are so totally awesome in every respect! I for one certainly need educating in this area and I greatly appreciate your very readable posts. I especially respect your grace under fire and ability to bounce back from such retarded rudeness. I look forward to your future posts and wish you great luck in your powers of persuasion because we so urgently need the help of undaunted people such as yourself. You offer hope if only enough people would unstuff their ears, eyes and minds and think and listen. Thank you so much. K.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 07, 2012, 05:04:26 PM
It would seem a most difficult posting to ignore. I predict a polite response from Nicole and silence form The Big Stick.??

So far getting the IGNORE button from both S&I, along with the whole commentariat there, who I suspect are afraid to write anything either way on the topic now.  AB went into so much detail you have to be an expert to counter it, but of course to agree with it puts you at odds with Stoneleigh's ideas.

Still, things move slowly over on TAE these days, it may take into next week before a response comes. If none does come, AB Wins the Day. He made the more convincing arguments and he got the Last Word.  McAmu was CRUSHED.  Stoneleigh appears to be Lightweight in this case. She Shadow Boxes well writing her theories in absence of criticism, but once criticized she doesn't stand up for her ideas.

Give it to Wed of next Week.  If there is no response by then from the TAE Brain Trust, Moody's will downgrade their credibility to ABB- Rating.  Only LOSERS will buy TAE Bonds anymore.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: JoeP on July 08, 2012, 06:32:54 AM
I have a feeling there might be a response soon - I&S are both signed in.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 08, 2012, 01:53:02 PM
Thank you Doomstead Diner readers for your kind comments. :icon_sunny:

RE,
Here's my next salvo on the issue of our poisonous waste based society greed infested paradigm that is destroying our biosphere. If you wish to turn this study on Oil Tankers into a series article (number IV?) with all those cool pictures you like to put in to snazz it up, I would be honored but I'm mainly interested in making it a full fledged article in the series because it might improve readership by being better advertised. We need to do every thing we can to get the word out that the fossil fuel (and nuclear) con is killing us so people stop looking at this energy use thing from a convenience yes-or-no framework to a "Holy SHIT, this stuff is killing us!" framework. Only then will the possibility of the majority of the population starving the dirty and poisonous corporate energy beasts that destroy democracy along with the environment become a force that will wipe out the evil bastards and usher in the new "renewable energy or nothing" paradigm.

And naturally, after posting here, I'll be headed over to TAE to FIRE AWAY (Man the battlestations!) this new salvo intended to delegitimize fossil fuel worship! :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen:

So here it is. How the oil corporations pollute the oceans for greed and how the massive illicit profits they make at the expense of the environment are then used to water down government regulation and oversight (ship inspections) to pro forma kabuki theater.

Note: The above preamble will only appear here because I feel the readers here are more aware of the energy corruption clusterfuck we are saddled with.



This is the story of Oil Tankers and pollution in the world's oceans. This occurs out out sight of virtually everyone not crewing the tankers and port facilities and out of mind of everyone that isn't working for or associated with the fossil fuel corporations. With the willing complicity of governments, the environment has consistently been sacrificed to ensure high profit margins for fossil fuel corporations.

It's not like the information is secret. I easily obtained the data on the internet. The problem is that the public is deliberately keep uninformed of this unending oil spill trashing the oceans day in and day out by the media that wishes us to believe that accidental oil spills are the biggest problem and operational oil spills (accidental oil spills are a separate category from operational - day to day - oil spills) are to be ignored. 

The media are, of course, defending a status quo that is, in my opinion, unsustainable. These corporate lackeys probably know that if a continuing drumbeat of how much oil is spilled on a daily basis with accumulated monthly and yearly totals from operational procedures was in the public view, renewables would begin to be pursued more assiduously. So that's why you don't see any oil pollution tonnage display like the national debt accrual display or the population increase clock. Besides, the media dwells in sensationalism and infantilized (short attention span) news stories, not actual news. In this study I do not address accidental oil spills from tankers, undersea wells or non-tanker ocean going vessels. I mention the Exxon Valdez briefly only in regard to the double bottom tanker construction safety issue.

If you believe fossil fuels have actually helped mankind, I hope to convince you  that the damage they are doing now, regardless of the early advances and conveniences brought to us by them in the 20th century, is killing us and needs to be phased out for our survival and  much of the biosphere as well.
------------------------------
Tankers are ships that are designed to carry bulk liquid cargoes such as crude oil or gasoline without the use of barrels or other small containers.

Tankers vary in size from 200 ft used in coastal waters to 1/4 mile long supertankers. The cost of transporting oil obviously decreases as the tanker size increases. Huge supertankers have maneuverability problems and can present a hazard to other shipping.

The first bulk carrier was the brig Elizabeth Watts which in 1861 took the first large consignment of oil, in large wooden barrels, from Pennsylvania to London, England. Owing to the stresses and strains of the long sea voyage, many of the barrels split and leaked oil into the timbers of the ship. By 1869, a new vessel, the Charles, had been fitted with iron tanks. These were rectangular in section to fit the shape of the ship's hold. Each hold contained a number of containers, but in the following years, the containers grew to fill the entire hold.

The first custom built ships were the Atlantic and the Valderland.  These were both iron-hulled and built in Britain, on the river Tyne, in the early 1880s. The Atlantic was a sailing ship, but the Valderland pointed to the future by adopting steam power. The most successful tankship of the era was the Glucklauf, which could carry 3,500 tons of oil.

As the amount of oil carried increased, the "free surface effect" from oil sloshing around in the hold tanks began to cause stability problems. A trunk design was developed to limit sloshing.

Then in the early years of the 20th century, tankers began to change from coal-fired to oil-fired boilers.

In the 1920s, the trunk deck vessels were superseded by summer tank designs, so called because extra tanks that could be used in the Summer Load Lines zones were fitted alongside the trunk.

The modern tanker was introduced in the 1930s. The essence of the design were twin longitudinal bulkheads fitted in the tank space. This stopped cargo movement and saved on materials over the summer tank design.

Except for the new double hulled tankers of today, the main difference between the tankers of the 1930s and today is their size. So, from the 10,000 tons DWT (deadweight) of the 1930s modern ships have grown to 300,000 tonners - VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carriers) - and can be as large as 500,000 tons - ULCCs (Ultra Large Crude Carriers).

Most ship designers aim to use pumps (four main cargo pumps) which can empty a ship in 12 hours for a 24 hour turnaround time. Various systems come into play in cargo transfer like pumping engine exhaust gases into the holds to limit oxygen so the chances of a ship turning into a large bomb are reduced.

IMCO (International Maritime Consultative Organization) was created in 1948 in order to produce regulations to increase safety.

In 1978 the TSPP (Maritime Pollution Protocol on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention) made six recommendations on tanker design and modifications to existing tankers.

New tankers were to have segregated ballast tanks to reduce pollution of the world's oceans. It was common practice to FILL CARGO TANKS WITH SEA WATER TO ACT AS BALLAST when a tanker was traveling empty; almost without exception, tankers are only laden in one direction of their journey, owing to the geographical distribution of the world's oilfields and the impossibility of carrying other kinds of cargo. The USE OF SEA WATER FOR BALLAST CAUSED MORE POLLUTION THAN THE HIGHLY PUBLICIZED TANKER DISASTERS.

To control pollution, regulations have been brought in to design separate ballast tanks, so that sea water brought on board does not become polluted with oil products.

Pages 2733-2735 of source:
The New Illustrated Science and Invention Encyclopedia
H.S. Stuttman Inc. (Publishers) Westport, Connecticut 06880
------------------------------
It is estimated that 85 percent of all oil outflows from tank vessels results from operational procedures. Segregated ballast tanks, dedicated clean ballast tanks, and crude oil washing systems are aimed at reducing operational oil pollution. The following is a brief discussion on the three causes of operational oil pollution:

1. Ballasting operations. On a normal tank vessel, water is introduced into cargo tanks that previously carried oil to ballast the vessel so that it can efficiently and safely proceed to a loading port. During this ballast voyage the oil water mixture is generally processed by a
technique called "load on top." This technique is simply to let the oil separate from the water naturally. The oil rises to the top to the water which significantly reduces the amount of oil mixed in with the water (oil/water emulsions). The "clean" water is then discharged overboard and the oil is retained on board with the next load of cargo "loaded on top." As can be expected, some of the oil/water emulsions are discharged overboard, resulting in operational oil pollution.

2. Tank cleaning. Cargo tanks are cleaned for two primary reasons. The first is to optimize the cargo carrying capacity of the cargo tank. During a normal voyage, sludge settles out of the oil and clings to the tank sides. Over a period of time this builds up to such a thickness that the tank is not carrying its maximum capacity of cargo. The second reason for cleaning cargo tanks is to ensure cargo purity. This is usually more prevalent on product carriers.

Tank washing with high pressure water jets knocks this residue off the tank sidesand the resulting oily water mixture is processed by "load on top" as described above.

Normally 25 percent of the vessel's cargo tanks are cleaned in this manner on each voyage.

When tank cleaning is conducted to maintain cargo purity, the number of tanks cleaned and the frequency of cleaning will be increased.

3. Sludge removal prior to shipyard entry. Removing sludge prior to shipyard entry is a somewhat different exercise than the tank cleaning conducted to increase vessel cargo carrying efficiency. Sludge which is not removed during the tank washing settles to the bottom of the tank and becomes a thick dense mass of extremely heavy hydrocarbon and
sand.

Normally, prior to shipyard entry, this sludge must be removed by hand. The sludge is "hand Bucked" and lifted to the deck in barrels or buckets.

Much of the sludge is ultimately disposed of at sea.

Page 5 of source:

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)

During the winter of 1976/1977 several tanker casualties occurred in or near U.S. waters which demonstrated the need for a global effort to improve both the level of safety and degree of pollution prevention from oil tankers. This series of casualties resulted in great public concern within the United States over the risks associated with the marine transportation of oil. Demands for the federal government to take additional steps to improve tanker safety and pollution  revention were evident.
Both the Executive Branch of the federal government and the Congress responded to these demands. An Interagency Oil Pollution Task Force was established to review the problem and make recommendations. As a result, on which 17, 1977, President Carter announced a series of desired federal government actions to deal with the problem of marine oil pollution caused by oil tankers.

These Presidential Initiatives included a diverse but interrelated group of measures designed to reduce the risks associated with the marine transportation of oil. These measures, both international and
domestic in nature and scope, were aimed toward achieving a number of objectives. including reform of ship construction and equipment standards for all U. S. oil tankers of 20,000 DWT and above and foreign oil tankers of 20,000 DWT and above that enter U. S. ports.

Specifically, the Secretary of Transportation was directed to develop new rules within 60 days
which would include:
- Double bottoms on all new tankers.
- Segregated ballast on all tankers.
- Inert gas systems on all tankers.
- Backup radar and collision avoidance equipment on all tankers.
- Improved emergency steering gear standards for all tankers.
- Where technological improvements and alternative: could be shown to achieve the same
degree of safety or protection against pollution, the rules could allow their use.

In response to these Presidential Initiatives the Coast Guard published proposed rules in the May 16, 1977 Issue of the Federal Register (42 CFR 24868) to incorporate the recommended changes to tanker
construction and equipment standards. Over 200 written comments were received in response to the proposals, most of which indicated support for the more stringent tanker standards.

Page 3 of source:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)

On October 17, 1978 the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978 (PTSA) became law, amending the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1973, and mandated, as a minimum, the tanker construction and
equipment standards developed at the TSPP Conference. The PTSA became the new authority for issuing the regulations which implement the TSPP standards.

Page 4 of source:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
------------------------------
All the above sounds wonderful, doesn't it? You don't know how the fossil fuel lobby works if you believe that. Even as the wording of the new regulations and law were being written, they were busy modifying the language.
------------------------------
The Coast Guard issued these new proposed regulations in the Federal Register on February 12, 1979 and, at the same time, withdrew the proposals for double bottom:, SET, IGS, and improved steering gear standards which were published in the May 16, 1977 Federal Register.

Page 4 of source:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
------------------------------
Now then, WHY were the proposals for double bottoms withdrawn and what is the purpose of a double bottom in a tanker?

Well, right off the bat, if these regulations are implemented, you've got to build a fleet of new tankers! That costs a lot of money. Retrofitting a tanker to add a double bottom is probably out of the question so your present fleet of polluting pigs would have to be scrapped with a sunset clause in the law.  The fossil fuel lobby was NOT going to allow an attack on their bottom line for the benefit of their "garbage disposal lakes" (the oceans of the world), the creatures there or the rest of the biosphere.

Double bottoms are a safety measure to reduce the possibility of sinking and oil spills due to grounding or striking an underwater obstacle. However, they are a half measure. A double hull, unlike the double bottom, provides a total double structure including the sides as well as the bottom. Furthermore, the double hull, because it provides more unibody strength to the ship, allows for the elimination of longitudinal bulkheads. Then the tanker has wider tanks and another problem called the "free surface effect" occurs in the oil cargo that can destabilize the tanker. This requires baffles or some other design to keep the oil from sloshing around. Another downside for an ocean going vessel is that the double hull ship is slightly less stable than a single hull because it has a higher center of gravity.

At any rate, even the double bottom requirement was crushed.
As usual, the environment was sacrificed (along with the health and lives of several Alaskans) for oil corporation profits on March 24, 1989.

------------------------------
After the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster, when that ship grounded on Bligh Reef outside the port of Valdez, Alaska, the US Government required all new oil tankers built for use between US ports to be equipped with a full double hull.
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_hull)
------------------------------
The following caveat placed in the above wikipeda article is pathetic but it shows how far the long arm of the fossil fuel industry reaches to make themselves look blameless:
------------------------------
However, the damage to the Exxon Valdez penetrated sections of the hull (the slops oil tanks) that were protected by a partial double hull.[2][3]
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_hull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_hull)
------------------------------
The fossil fuel lobby was TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE for the dropping of the double bottom requirement way back in February 12, 1979.
Regulation reaction to disaster is not my idea of responsible government.
Now let's get back the regs that did get written.
Here are some acronyms you need to reference in this study:
------------------------------
COW - Crude oil washing system that meets Subpart D of 33 CFR Part 157.
SBT - Segregated ballast tanks that meet 33 CFR Part 157.
CDT - Dedicated clean ballast tanks that meet Subpart E of 33 CFR Part 157.
DWT - Deadweight tonnage in metric tons.
IGS - Inert gas system that meets ~6 CFR 32.53.

PL/SBTa - Protectively located segregated ballast tanks that meet Appendix C of 33 CFR Part
157.
PL/SBTb - Protectively located segregated ballast tanks that meet 33 CFR 157.09(d).
Page 11 of source:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
------------------------------
What is OST?
The purpose of an oil spill tanker (OST) is to provide a place
to store large volumes of recovered crude oil, emulsion and
free water and to store captured liquid waste streams (treated
sanitary waste, domestic waste, bilge water, ballast water).

Source:
http://www-static.shell.com/static/usa/downloads/alaska/alaska_vessels_brochure_2012.pdf (http://www-static.shell.com/static/usa/downloads/alaska/alaska_vessels_brochure_2012.pdf)
------------------------------
And now to see how the new oil tanker regs were watered down (Mind you, this is well before Reagan stepped in and began to defund regulatory agencies so tanker inspections would become a joke):
------------------------------
3.  Exemption from the SBT, OST, and COW requirements for U. S. tank vessels in specific trades between U. S. ports that discharge ballast and oily water mixtures to a reception facility. Proposed regulations were issued on May 22, 1980 (45 FR 3L;306). Final regulations were issued on January 15, 1981 (46 FR 3510).

Page 4 of source:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
------------------------------
I label the following regs below the "Be Nice and Do This But If You Don't We'll Make You Say You don't and nothing more"  code of nonpunitive oil tanker regulations.
------------------------------

h. When a U.S. tank vessel is subject to and complies with the SBT, CBT and COW requirements in 33 CFR 157.l0c, the vessel's Certificate of Inspection will be endorsed with the following appropriate select wording:

This tank vessel is equipped with segregated ballast tanks/ dedicated clean ballast tanks/a crude oil washing system and complies with the requirements of 33 CFR Part 157.l0c to operate as a "Crude Oil Carrier" I "Product Carrier" I "Crude Oil/Product Carrier."

i. A U.S. tank vessel that is not in compliance with the applicable requirements will be treated within the framework of existing inspection procedures consistent with those of
enclosure (1).
------------------------------
According to enclosure (1), the inspector will write "No Evidence Of Apparent Action Towards Compliance on his inspection report, PERIOD. For those who like to watch this silliness in action, just look at enclosure (1); it's a cheap scanned table placed sideways (and angled a bit crooked) in an otherwise professional document. Do you think, MAYBE, somebody didn't want us looking at enclosure (1) too closely?

enclosure (1) is right after page 5 of source:

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
------------------------------
Of course there are some alleged "teeth" in these regs. This is the extent of the "punitive" action in the event of non-compliance:
------------------------------
a. Enclosure (1) is a matrix which provides guidelines regarding Coast -Guard enforcement procedures to ensure that foreign flag tank vessels entering U.S. waters for commercial service comply with the applicable regulations.

A tank vessel that has completed the required installations and modifications and has on board acceptance documents issued by the government of the vessel 's flag state or the Coast Guard will routinely be boarded and examined for verification only.

Those vessels in partial compliance will be examined as
recommended in enclosure (1) to ensure they continue to move towards full compliance within a reasonable time.

Appropriate enforcement action may be taken against tank vessels not in full compliance. Tank vessels making no apparent effort to comply or having deficiencies which would seriously affect safety will normally be refused permission to conduct cargo transfer operations, denied further entry into U. S. waters, and/or subjected to civil penalties of up to $25,000 a day.
------------------------------
Please consider the significance of a $25,000 a day fine to a tanker with a 300,000 to 500,000 ton DWT and a full load of crude. Uh, let's see. A VLCC tanker is capable of carrying 2 million barrels of crude (VLCC tanker - you know - that's the smaller of the supertankers). Crude oil prices are in barrels and at, for example, $80 a barrel, a VLCC tanker has a load worth about 160 million dollars. But let's be real conservative and say the load is worth 100 million dollars. I'm an oil corporation executive faced with multi million dollar retrofits on my tanker fleet oil polluting machinery versus daily fines (when I can't bribe the port ship inpectors) of 1/40th of 1% per day of my load's worth (remember I only need a 24 hour turnaround). I can easily pass that "cost of doing busness" on to the consumers.

In predatory capitalism, a business model that is ethics free, a cost benefit analysis always comes up with the cheapest alternative. The regulatory framework is also attacked with a team of Wall Street lawyer/lobbyists that head to D.C. to stroke, befuddle and, if need be, threaten the politicians so that kid gloves are issued to the enforcement agencies. Some Madison Avenue PR is also put in place to counter public knowledge of environmental degradation.

Until the public outrage is too great and retrofit is forced from accidental oil spills making the news (e.g. Exxon Valdez), the oil corporations drag their feet while the environment continues to be trashed and the corporate profits and political influence they wield destroys representative government through corruption. This is the Wall Street business model. This has not changed in the fossil fuel (or nuclear) industry one iota (if anything, it's more brazen) since President Carter tried to rein these monsters in over 30 years ago.

------------------------------
 
b. Owners/operators of U. S. flag tank vessels subject to the requirements of 33 CFR 157 and 164 and/or 46 CFR 32.53 should follow the procedures contained in those regulations to ensure compliance. Modifications and alterations made to a tank vessel to bring it into compliance should be treated similar to any other modification in terms of plan submission and approval, inspection scheduling, and the conduct of the inspection. Owners/operators
are encouraged to contact the cognizant OCMI at their earliest opportunity to arrange for the inspection.

Page 3 of source:

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)

j. For a foreign flag tank vessel, 46 USC 3711 requires a Certificate of Compliance to be issued to a vessel found to be in compliance with the applicable requirements. A Tank Vessel Examination Letter (Form GG 8405-1), or in the case of a chemical/product tanker
a Letter of Compliance, is used as the Certificate of Compliance. When a foreign flag tank vessel is subject to and complies with 33 CFR 157.l0c, the -Certificate of Compliance will be endorsed with the following appropriate select wording:

This tank vessel is equipped with segregated ballast tanks/ dedicated clean ballast tanks/a crude oil washing system and complies with the requirements of 33 CFR Part 157.l0c to operate as a "Crude Oil Carrier" / "Product Carrier" / "Crude Oil/Product Carrier."
NAVIGATION AND VESSEL INSPECTION CIRCULAR NO. 1-81

k. A foreign flag tank vessel that is not in compliance with the applicable requirements will have the deficiencies listed on the Tank Vessel Examination Letter along with an agreed upon schedule which should provide the vessel with a reasonable time to comply.

1. The Coast Guard's computerized Marine safety Information System (MSIS) will be used to record, keep track of, and follow-up on tank vessel examinations. Following an examination, appropriate entries will be made in the MSIS.

Page 4-5 of source:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
------------------------------
This next paragraph is particularly interesting:
------------------------------
To prevent tankers from suffering an excessive loss of cargo carrying capacity, reduced draft and propeller immersion standards have been provided for in 33 CFR 157.l0c(d).

Under this paragraph, a tanker that exceeds either the draft or the propeller immersion requirements of 157.09(b) by more than 10% when "using the tankage necessary" to meet the draft requirement may reduce the amount of SBT or CBT provided it meets 80% of
both the draft and propeller immersion standards.

Page 21 of source:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
----------------------------
What you just read means "Go ahead and pollute if your profit margin is threatened". Draft and propeller immersion requirements are vital to the safety of ocean going vessels. It's quite dangerous to violate them and can make the vessel unstable. With retrofitted vessels that meet the new regs, you have a heavier tanker. So now the environment, the very reason for the new regs, is made to pay the price so the oil lobby doesn't.  After all, we wouldn't want to lower oil EROI, now would we?  Responsible stewardship of the environment must not be allowed to interfere with profit, RIGHT?
------------------------------
10. 33 CFR 157.15(b) - Less oily water mixtures will be generated from the use of 53T, CBT, and COW (approved Crude Oil Washing system) and the smooth tank surfaces of combination carriers, therefore, the total capacity of the slop tank ( Slop tank: tank into which residues are pumped and left to settle onboard oil tankers. source: http://www.black-tides.com/uk/tools/glossary.php (http://www.black-tides.com/uk/tools/glossary.php) ) should be 3 percent of the total oil carrying capacity of the vessel, except as follows:

Page 24 of source:
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
------------------------------
The "as follows" from the above outlines lesser max slop tank percentages if the new rules are followed as a sort of profit motive. The smaller the percentage in the slop tank, the less tank cleaning you have done. Remember those slop tanks have oil waste that must be disposed of without dumping it in the ocean. The language lacks any punitive wording for failure to implement regulations that reduce oil pollution. The repeated use of the word "should" in all these rules translates to "recommendations" rather than "rules".  This reflects the power of the fossil fuel lobby where maximum profit is always more important than the environment. These "rules" merely reduced the profit margin a a tiny amount and certainly did not make oil tankers unprofitable but even so, real improvements are optional to the detriment of the biosphere.

These kinds of regulations should be more appropriately called "Swiss Cheese Law Requirements":
------------------------------
TANK VESSEL REQUIREMENTS: The regulation: in the November 19, 1979 and June 30, 1980 Federal Registers added standards for SBT, CET, COW, and IGS for domestic tank vessels of 209000 DWT and above, and foreign tank vessels of 20,000 DWT and above that enter U. S. waters In addition, the regulations of November 19 added improved steering gear standards for domestic tank vessels of
10,000 gross tons and above and foreign tank vessels of 10,000 gross tons and above that enter U. S. waters. The applicability of these equipment and construction standards for each tank vessel is dependent upon three parameters:

1. The type of trade in which the tank vessel is engaged (crude oil or product).

2. The size of the tank vessel (deadweight or gross tonnage).

3. The date the tank vessel was contracted for, the date the keel was laid, or the date the tank vessel was delivered.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/pdf/1981/n1-81.pdf)
------------------------------
Why should we care about the munitiae of boring regulations and fossil fuel lobby word games and corruption to preserve their profits?

First of all, because of THIS:
------------------------------
The leakage of petroleum onto the surface of a large body of water is known as an oil spill. Oil spills are chiefly the result of intensified petroleum exploration on the continental shelf and the use of supertankers. The total annual release of oil spills exceeds 1,000,000 tons. The negligent release of used gasoline solvents and crankcase lubricants by industries and individuals aggravates the problem. The costs of oil spills are considerable in both economic and ecological terms. Oil spills are harmful to birds and many forms of aquatic life, and no thoroughly satisfactory clean-up method has yet been developed. The long-term impact on the ecological systems of an affected area are difficult to assess.

Source:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426241/oil-spill/426241yblinks/Year-in-Review-Links (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/426241/oil-spill/426241yblinks/Year-in-Review-Links)
------------------------------
Secondly, those illicit profits fossil fuel corporations get enable them to buy political influence and disinformation propaganda. This creates a situation where any attempt to give people out there the big picture of this planet killing energy product called fossil fuels is mercilessly attacked, delegitimized and distorted. True EROI numbers for renewables are kept out of the public view along with continuous attempts to prolong the subsidies for the dinosaurs while starving renewable R&D money from governmment out. Yes, private and non-fossil fuel (and non-nuclear) corporation R&D and investment money is increasing rapidly but it is happening in spite of, not because of, government efforts (at least in the U.S.).

Finally, the figure given above of 1,000,000 plus tons of ocean oil pollution is probably conservative because the continous operational oil pollution that the 1981 regs attempted to address (probably) has not been added to the accidental oil spills; Out of sight and out of the public mind and all that.

These fossil fuel pigs are not going to stop until we stop using their products, PERIOD. They are now happily planning to increase the strength of the oil tanker hulls. No, it's not because they are concerned with pollution. It's because they are planning to navigate them through the partially ice free arctic. Isn't that just dandy?

sources:
http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/record-low-arctic-sea-ice-first-tankers-sail-28-06 (http://barentsobserver.com/en/arctic/record-low-arctic-sea-ice-first-tankers-sail-28-06)

http://www.gac.ca/PopularGeoscience/factsheets/ArcticOilandGas_e.pdf (http://www.gac.ca/PopularGeoscience/factsheets/ArcticOilandGas_e.pdf)
------------------------------
If you are not sufficiently alarmed, I hope the following info on accidental oil spills and how the continously eroding regulatory enforcement goverment attitude is breeding another Exxon Valdez.

Unfortunately, no mention of the daily operational oil spill pollution is mentioned. This is not getting better; it's getting worse.
------------------------------
 A spill in mid-ocean from the tanker Polar Discovery went unreported for months until an engineroom employee from the company called the Coast Guard. The ship's log entries required by law were either not made or made in misleading fashion. (See accompanying story.)

The whistle-blower who reported the spill so feared retaliation that he refused to return to the fleet and, after hiring an attorney, was reassigned to a shipyard. The captain was fired, but insists the company ducked its own responsibility and made him a scapegoat.

Safety lapses plague oil tankers

A galley employee on the Polar California claimed in court papers that the captain and crew were drinking, and alcohol had been brought aboard the ship. She said she was then taken off the ship, arrested and involuntarily placed in a mental institution for five days. The P-I found in an independent investigation that, while security in Valdez,
Alaska, and refinery ports greatly discourages drinking by crew members, some still imbibe heavily at stopover locations such as Port Angeles.

Another ConocoPhillips tanker, the Endeavour, pulled into Prince William Sound last year with oil stains on its side. Alaska regulators were notified by the ship's escort vessel after a ConocoPhillips supervisor failed to relay a spill report made by the ship's captain.
The same ship later collided with a bulk carrier in the South China Sea. An internal report blamed the accident on failure to slow down in fog.

 In February 2003, the Polar Resolution left San Francisco with a troublesome fuel leak in the engine room. An explosion in a huge electrical breaker shortly afterward sent the ship scurrying back to port. No report of the incident was made, according to the Coast Guard -- a likely violation of the law.

 An engine-room officer on the Polar Alaska is under federal investigation after a fellow officer reported him for bypassing equipment that removes oil from engine-room wastes before
they are pumped overboard.

source:
http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0005201.pdf (http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0005201.pdf)
------------------------------

Please, reduce your carbon footprint as much as possible.  Don't support anything from the fossil fuel or nuclear corporations. If you have stock, sell it regardless of whether you win or lose money. Your grandchildren are depending on you to stop this senseless pollution. If you aren't alarmed, it's because you are uninformed.

Spread the word so less people are uninformed. I hate reading dry and boring regulations but I have started to do so because I have come to realize that our lives and our future depend on facing this juggernaut of greed and corruption we are saddled with and calling them on it in a grass roots fashion. WE are the consumers. If WE stop consuming, the monsters are starved out, the political fascist power evaporates and we have better than the snowball's chance in hell we now have of passing a viable biosphere on to our grandchildren.

I authorize the reposting of any and/or all portions of this post with or without attribution.

A. G. Gelbert
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 08, 2012, 04:53:07 PM
alan2102,
This is a great video on the subject of remineralization for proper nutrition that you brought up. It is interesting that the movement started in the early 20th century and was crushed by the chemical industry that developed then. The fellow in the video has been at it for about 30 years and mentioned a web site where free online books can be downloaded.

http://www.soilandhealth.org/ (http://www.soilandhealth.org/)

http://remineralize.org/ (http://remineralize.org/)

http://www.youtube.com/v/Za8chf4nkC4&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 08, 2012, 05:06:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/6BV3LKjW3f0&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 05:10:45 PM
Agelbert,

I believe it is you who said something along the lines of 'the best way to hide the truth is by swamping people with so much information that they can't find it'. I don't know, maybe it wasn't you... but the point remains the same. Let me first say that I don't agree with Ilargi's responses to you on the forum, his deletion of your latest comment right off the bat or his approach to running the forum in general. But it is his site, and we all have to live with that.

My point here, though, is this - you are posting a behemoth comment about oil tanker spills on an article about unconventional oil supplies, and I'm sure it's all very fascinating information, but the truth is being swamped by the sheer length in which the information is presented, as well as the fact that is only very tangentially related to what Nicole wrote about. How about starting your own topic or splitting the comment up?

With regards to your earlier comments directed at Ilargi and Nicole, I recommend you take the advice that you gave Ilargi at the end of your comment:

Quote
If you disagree with any portion of this post, please do so with point by point objections rather than a blanket dismissal.

You should find specific arguments made by Nicole about renewable energy and then do a point by point refutation of the parts you believe are incorrect (or you could focus on her unconventional oil arguments if you disagree with those, but I imagine you don't). I would suggest discussing a point or two per post, and certainly not 10 points per post. The way you are going about it now comes off as an attempt to swamp them with information/links and debunk things that Nicole has not even discussed in her recent articles.

If you do it my way, then you give Ilargi very little reason to censor your contributions and you give Nicole every reason to respond... see what I mean? Pick up some specific points made by Nicole (for ex., stuff she has written about the EROEI of renewable energy sources), quote them in your comment and then make your arguments. That way, Nicole may actually have the time and patience to read your counter-arguments and respond to them.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 08, 2012, 05:14:20 PM
Building a better world one day at a time:

Where it's legal to farm goats in the city (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpdUD6SVGGQ#)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 08, 2012, 05:31:35 PM
Let me first say that I don't agree with Ilargi's responses to you on the forum, his deletion of your latest comment right off the bat or his approach to running the forum in general. But it is his site, and we all have to live with that.

No we don't.  We can BOYCOTT TAE. You should quit the site immediately.  You don't agree with the way its being run but you stay there anyway. Talk about Ethical Duplicity.  How do Christians justify that?

Quote
You should find specific arguments made by Nicole about renewable energy and then do a point by point refutation of the parts you believe are incorrect

Why should AB do that?  Stoneleigh doesn't do him that courtesy, hell she doesn't even make a reply at all to him. And why is she allowed to make 10 points in an article but AB can only respond to 2 of them in a comment?  How is that fair?

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: JoeP on July 08, 2012, 05:35:39 PM
Quote from: Ashvin
You should find specific arguments made by Nicole about renewable energy and then do a point by point refutation of the parts you believe are incorrect (or you could focus on her unconventional oil arguments if you disagree with those, but I imagine you don't). I would suggest discussing a point or two per post, and certainly not 10 points per post. The way you are going about it now comes off as an attempt to swamp them with information/links and debunk things that Nicole has not even discussed in her recent articles.

IMHO this is great advice.  Guess I disagree with RE on this but if you want to eventually be the "winner" in this thread, Ashvin's prescription is what you'll need to do - especially considering the current climate.

Title: BOYCOTT TAE!!!
Post by: RE on July 08, 2012, 05:53:52 PM

IMHO this is great advice.  Guess I disagree with RE on this but if you want to eventually be the "winner" in this thread, Ashvin's prescription is what you'll need to do - especially considering the current climate.

Joe, AB CAN'T be the winner, that is Pre-Ordained by McAmu.  If AB carves up Stoneleigh, he'll be Banned from the Site.  Stoneleigh is the TAE EXPERT.  Nobody can challenge that. TAE is a thoroughly Spun and Censored website which is McAmu's PERSONAL Bully Pulpit. He has ZERO respect for principles of Free Speech and TAE is just a manifestation of his Inflated Ego.  He has demonstrated this on numerous occassions. He is an ASSHOLE.

BOYCOTT TAE!  Support Agelbert's Freedom of Speech! Remember Karpatok!  Remember the Alamo! Remember the Maine!  Liberte, Fraternite, Egalite!!!

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 06:08:08 PM
No we don't.  We can BOYCOTT TAE. You should quit the site immediately.  You don't agree with the way its being run but you stay there anyway. Talk about Ethical Duplicity.  How do Christians justify that?

RE,

Do you really think I would ever let a quarrel or disagreement between me and someone else get in the way of my ability to spread my thoughts and my message to as many people as I can in these extremely trying times. I don't give a damn if it's a quarrel over censorship or anything else. Nothing short of Ilargi manipulating my posts and spreading dangerous propaganda on the site will cause me to quit. Ethically duplicitious? WTF are you even talking about? My Christian principles tell me that pride goes before the fall, and that I shouldn't let my ego hurt my ability to reach people with my writing/ideas.

You can boycott whatever you want and make it much harder for you and DD to work with others and spread your message, or you could act like you are a grown man who actually gives a damn about what he is writing and less about looking like the online version of some silly pop culture icon, defending your anti-censorship principles to the death.

Quote
Why should AB do that?  Stoneleigh doesn't do him that courtesy, hell she doesn't even make a reply at all to him. And why is she allowed to make 10 points in an article but AB can only respond to 2 of them in a comment?  How is that fair?

What courtesy?? How many blog writers, who actually spend most of their time traveling around doing presentations, do you know that respond to every single comment posted on their forums. I think it was quite clear from the get go that agelbert's comment was not going to get a "point by point rebuttal" - everyone here knew it. Seriously, Nicole struggles just to get her own articles written and published, both in terms of doing the research/writing and using the software to publish it. If you really want to get into that kind of dialogue with her, then you have to go out of your way to make it easy for her to respond. That's just the way it works when your posting critiques on a relatively popular blog against a popular blogger. Nothing about the lives of billions of people is "fair" right now, so don't try appealing to that here.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on July 08, 2012, 06:11:39 PM
Quote from: Ashvin
You should find specific arguments made by Nicole about renewable energy and then do a point by point refutation of the parts you believe are incorrect (or you could focus on her unconventional oil arguments if you disagree with those, but I imagine you don't). I would suggest discussing a point or two per post, and certainly not 10 points per post. The way you are going about it now comes off as an attempt to swamp them with information/links and debunk things that Nicole has not even discussed in her recent articles.

IMHO this is great advice.  Guess I disagree with RE on this but if you want to eventually be the "winner" in this thread, Ashvin's prescription is what you'll need to do - especially considering the current climate.
You are a hell of a nice person Angelbert, and my sympathies and cheers are with you. My feelings are you are now overplaying your hand and JoeP and Ashvin are giving you some great and very sound advice.
 TAE is Ilargi's home. Accept it, play by the house rules, or come over to the diner and say whatever you wish to us. RE will always let you speak your mind and he or we will pounce on you like  bobcats if we don't agree. Let it rest my friend, you won.
Lets get back to this corn crop crisis. They say the hot spell is going to moderate this week but have heard very little about the outlook for rain?    :icon_study:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 08, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
Ashvin,
When I made some brief comments about not DOING externalized costs on the EROI computations, I was given short shrift for not dealing with the "real world" and later on attacked with innuendo and defamatory remarks by ilargi. Specifically, his innuendo was targeted at the fact that I issued quite a few opinions about the way the world's 1%  work to the detriment of humanity and the environment. If you didn't pick up on that, you do not understand ilargi's reaction. His attempt at delegitimiizing my comments REQUIRED a detailed response. You can't have it both ways, Ashvin. Look at the comments I've made here that are also quite long and have not been posted at TAE. Really Ashvin, it's rather Orwellian of you to claim I'm the one who is in to tit-for-tat when ilargi is the guilty party. The ball is in ilargi's court, not mine. Do you think I wrote those long comments for fun? That was a lot of hard work and I recognized I am dealing with a person or persons hostile to my world view. That person is operating in a Mens Rea framework looking to pounce on any error or undocumented justification or allegation I make to further brand me as fringe wacko. I had no choice but to become detailed and to challenge ilargi. RE admired my "swamping" but if he had seen my original study that I abbreviated as much as possible, then he would have seen some real "eyes glazed over swamping".

If you wish to reconstitute my posts into an article and publish them, I'd be honored. But somehow, I believe ilargi's intransigence will compromise any future I have with articles at TAE. As I told RE here, if ilargi responds by reassessing his opinion of my comments, then I will reassess my opinion of his childish outburst (he was on the rag that day or something  :icon_mrgreen:). Until you posted here, I was unaware that he had deleted my post there. I feel sorry for ilargi.  Sure, I talk about "battlestations" and "salvos", etc., but please understand that, as I told ilargi, this subject is more important than nurturing bruised egos. I guess he does not agree. Too bad. If ilargi's thought processes about the proper allocation of capital and investment continue to support the fossil fuel (and perhaps nuclear by allowing an article by George Monbiot), then his future is poverty from poor investment decisions. Don't say I didn't issue this warning.

Since I respect you, I'll try to keep my posts short on TAE henceforth.

However, I emphasize that in dealing with the fossil fuel worship syndrome, a lot of detail is often required to cut through the  massive prejudice against renewables and tons of disinformation about the falsely positive aspects of fossil (and nuclear) energy products.

George Monbiot is one of those people who basks in la-la land in regard to nuclear poisons but that is another subject. Frankly, the fact that TAE published an article by him doesn't reflect well on your site for me because, even if he does support the totally valid assertion I also have made that fossil fuel EROI makes using them a bad deal, I suspect Monbiot is going to start pushing his nuclear insanity as a "green" CO2 free alternative (which is monstrous lie).

Right now I'm a little worn out from all this research and writing so I'm off to watch some videos on gardening and recycling.

Have a good day.
 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: JoeP on July 08, 2012, 06:20:01 PM
RE,

I need to be honest, I think Ashvin made a very good suggestion. Why advise someone to self destruct?
 
 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Karpatok on July 08, 2012, 06:25:13 PM
First Off: What's this McAmu stuff? Call the bastard by his real name,Illargi. Second: That heavyset female who goes by the name of Stoneleigh is no delicate flower so just who is everybody protecting? Ashvin is his usual cowardly cowering self, unable to really take a stand for anything or anybody except his fantasies and delusions. Pompous Pompey is pompously guarding the henhouse, if that's truly what he is, a gigolo rooster, and flowery not so dainty Stoneleigh is busy fainting from the heat in her made up  boudoir so above the fray in her Victorian display of airs of exhaustion that she thinks exempts her from the responsibility of taking hold here. SHIT ON ALL OF THEM. They have a measley 750 readers or members after how many years of their spin? And now their true modus operandi is shown in its true colors. So how are they morally superior to all those they have tried to expose over the years? They are just as flagrantly venial, money chasing, and willing to bend truth to fit their own purposes. FIE and SHAME on them all three. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!






Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 08, 2012, 06:44:57 PM
First Off: What's this McAmu stuff? Call the bastard by his real name,Illargi.

Mr. Censorship Asshole Moderator Ubermeister.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 06:47:00 PM
Agelbert,

Is this the "short shrift" from Nicole that you are referencing?

Quote
Renewables represent a drop in the bucket of global supply. They are having no effect whatsoever on fossil fuel prices. They are more expensive than fossil fuels because of their very low EROEI and very large fossil fuel dependency. In fact renewables is a minomer. The sun will continue to shine and the wind to blow, but steel is not renewable and neither are many other essential components.

The demand and price collapse will kill much of renewable development, especially at a large scale. You cannot run an industrial society on intermittent energy sources with low EROEI. Feed in tariffs are already being cut worldwide, and without them renewable power is not competitive. Since we cannot run this society on renewables, our society will have to change. We will have to learn to live within our means.

This article was not about poisoned aquifers. I have written about that before though. I cannot cover everything in every article or there would be no focus. Of course fracking is obscene, the environmental risks are huge and a few well connected individuals are making a killing from the ponzi scheme. The price collapse will eventually prevent it, just not right now when there is still money to be made. The numbers are bad even with externalities excluded, and are of course much worse with them. Some of these things are very difficult to quantify, and over-quantification doesn't really help anyway.

This is real politik - the way the world really works. It's about money and power. The expansion phase of the bubble concealed that for a while by floating many boats temporarily. I wish that wasn't the way it worked, but it does, whether we like it or not. All we can do is to understand our situation and make the best of it.

Sounds like a reasonable response to me in defense of her position... in which "real politik" plays a significant role. Why not pick out specific points from this reply and post your counter-arguments? I'm just telling you the best way to go about it, not what I think is right or fair or whatever... frankly I could care less about all that stuff in the context of these online forum spats. Your "swamp posts" are not the way to do it, plain and simple. This is not Orwellian advice, it's common sense.

Also, I think you are missing the fact that Nicole's article today was a critique of Monbiot (in fact, a specific reply that she sent to him), not in support of him. And it's pretty odd to suggest that Ilargi or Nicole are supporting the fossil fuel industry or the nuclear industry, or they are somehow invested in them, just because they are critical of renewable sources. They both believe fossil fuels will be going the way of the Dinosaurs over the next few decades, and Nicole took a shit all over nuclear after Fukushima in several different articles.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 08, 2012, 07:06:49 PM

You can boycott whatever you want and make it much harder for you and DD to work with others and spread your message, or you could act like you are a grown man who actually gives a damn about what he is writing and less about looking like the online version of some silly pop culture icon, defending your anti-censorship principles to the death.

(http://gifsoup.com/view1/3873993/josey-wales-1-o.gif)
I'm working just fine with WHD. I have pretty decent realtionships with Steve on EU and Gail on OFW also.  In fact I just told Gail censoring and banning was a bad practice in that commentary.

Your Boss however is a complete ASSHOLE and if you want to be a lackey for a jerk like that, be my guest.

You got your Principles of Christianity and have your Pop Culture Icon of a Skinny Guy Nailed to a Cross to revere.  I'll stick with my Free Speech principles and the Outlaw Josey Wales.

Quote
What courtesy?? How many blog writers, who actually spend most of their time traveling around doing presentations, do you know that respond to every single comment posted on their forums.

Nobody's asking her to respond to every single post, just this one which is the cause of so much controversy.  She also was online and logged in. There is no excuse for not responding to AB at least with one or two rebuttals.  She's such an Expert, she should be able to do it right off the top ofher head. She is being very RUDE to a dedicated Commenter on her Platform, who clearly has read and researched these areas quite a bit.  You are just a lackey and waterboy for these two, keeping the site running while they Globetrot.  Hope they pay you well for being such an Ethical Hypocrite. Don't expect a big Reunion with JC when you make it to the Pearly Gates. St. Peter will send you packing.  Satan waits for you.  :evil4:

JC
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 08, 2012, 07:26:34 PM
RE,

I need to be honest, I think Ashvin made a very good suggestion. Why advise someone to self destruct?

Watson is snivelling syncophant and HYPOCRITE collecting a paycheck so he has a Stake to go GAMBLING with at the Poker Table, along with the rest of the Good Christians at the table.

Far as self-destructing there, AB will get nothing but evasive replies from Stoneleigh if he even gets that.   Big Bossman will just continue to insult and bloviate.  He's got nothing to lose.  Posting up his threads on the Forum over there gets less readership than the Diner Forum gets.  You don't notice that the only threads with big Page Hits come from the Articles on the Blog?

Anyhow, AB can play it however he wants. I sure won't post on that filthy, disgusting pit of CENSORSHIP.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 07:45:26 PM
Let's face it, RE, you don't give two shits about agelbert or how much effort he put into his comment, or his message, or anyone else here. The only thing you care about is your own image and your own craving for self-gratification, i.e. pop culture masturbation. Truly a proud product of The Century of the Self... I'd rather be a hypocrite than a person devoid of ethics, and a loyal lackey than a selfish, egoistic fool.

Keep these words in your heart, RE:

18Pride goes before destruction,
         And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

19It is better to be humble in spirit with the lowly
         Than to divide the spoil with the proud.

20He who gives attention to the word will find good,
         And blessed is he who trusts in the LORD.

21The wise in heart will be called understanding,
         And sweetness of speech increases persuasiveness.

22Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
         But the discipline of fools is folly.

23The heart of the wise instructs his mouth
         And adds persuasiveness to his lips.

24Pleasant words are a honeycomb,
         Sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.

25There is a way which seems right to a man,
         But its end is the way of death.

26A worker’s appetite works for him,
         For his hunger urges him on.

27A worthless man digs up evil,
         While his words are like scorching fire.

28A perverse man spreads strife,
         And a slanderer separates intimate friends.

29A man of violence entices his neighbor
         And leads him in a way that is not good.

30He who winks his eyes does so to devise perverse things;
         He who compresses his lips brings evil to pass.

31A gray head is a crown of glory;
         It is found in the way of righteousness.

32He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty,
         And he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city.

33The lot is cast into the lap,
         But its every decision is from the LORD.

Proverbs 16
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 08, 2012, 08:04:19 PM
Let's face it, RE, you don't give two shits about agelbert or how much effort he put into his comment, or his message, or anyone else here.

If I didn't care about Agelbert getting his message out, WHY did I publish WBIII and edit it for him so it had decent paragraph breaks AND dig up all the graphics for it also?  I don't even AGREE with half of what he writes! If its all about me, how come Surly and Peter and Ross are in on this? How come I am happy to welcome WHD to the Team?  Sure I write more than anybody else but at least up there on the Blog I am always publishing other viewpoints.  You guys are the ones with the blinders on running the Ego Trip.

You guys got one spin and one spin only over there.  Drink the TAE Kool-Aid or take a Hike. Far as the metaphorical Orkin Man goes, that is YOU Guys on TAE. You'll send non-believers to the Guillotine over there and Ban and Censor them at the drop of a hat.  Here on DD, we Forgive and Forget.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 09, 2012, 01:21:48 PM
Ashvin,
You are dead wrong about RE. His style is different from mine but he, and I, both can spot bullshit, mendacity and verbal dancing a mile away. You are also out of line in attempting an explanation of Nicole's position on this or that. You have danced around the FACT that neither Nicole or Ilargi have gone into a detailed response to my subsequent posts. You're a good debater, Ashvin. when someone goes for generalities, you claim they should be more specific. When someone goes for the specifics, you claim they are "swamping". You have quite a bit of skill in dancing around core issues. When you no longer can dance around a core issue like fossil fuel worship, you reach for some justification to counter that assertion as well. And really, Ashvin, this scripture verse quoting you are using on RE is known as "bible wars". I feel it is improper to attempt to use scripture to score debating points or put down another person. I think Karpatok's assessment of Nicole's ivory tower arrogance and your uncalled for intersession is spot on as well.

I admit I see red every time I see the name George Monbiot. He is a shill of the nuclear homo sapiens poison pill of the worst sort because he has a voice and some pro-environment credentials so yeah, I didn't read the comments before posting. I had read his piece on another web site. GET THIS, Ashvin, this tool always follows a pattern. He gets press for some "pro-environment" position and subsequent  articles will then come up with the BULLSHIT of the "new" and "wonderous" and "safe" Thorium reactors or some other nuclear high tech poisoned boondoggle.  TAE made a grievous error in giving this tool a soap box. As to ANYTHING Nicole feels about his or that, she can come over here and post it. She does not require your mediation.

Getting back to bible verses, here's one of my favorites from good old Paul in Galatians:
GOD IS NOT MOCKED, WHATSOEVER YOU SOW, THAT YOU SHALL REAP. That's not the exact quote, but I think you get the picture. 8)  This, of course, applies to ALL OF US! :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen:

If you REALLY believe your pals at TAE are rational individuals not married to a bankrupt world view and I am the one being irrational here, try this experiment:

Give them this info and ask them, for the sake of truth and accuracy at TAE, to become members of the Union of Concerned Scientists. If they agree to spend a paltry $35 a month (minimum contribution) to get the real story on climate and energy reality and corporate skullduggery, then your pals are being rational and I have overreacted. If not, you and your pals are the ones being irrational, judgemental and closed minded.

Here's the info:


The Union of Concerned Scientists has a new report:
Some highlights of the report:
"The 28 companies we investigated spent more than $300 million lobbying Congress in the run up to possible climate legislation;

Koch Industries alone has spent more than $55 million since 1997 to misrepresent climate science or oppose safeguards to rein in global warming emissions; and

The oil company ConocoPhillips has backed the campaigns of anti-climate candidates for Congress by a ratio of more than 15 to 1 over candidates who have supported science-based climate policies."

"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth"
Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO)

http://www.ucsusa.org/ (http://www.ucsusa.org/)

"The Monsanto Company, the leading agricultural biotechnology company, spends millions each year on advertising aimed at convincing policy-makers and the public that their so-called “better seeds” are feeding a growing population, protecting natural resources, and promoting biodiversity. But the reality of Monsanto’s products is somewhat less idyllic. In a post on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) blog, The Equation, Senior Analyst Karen Perry Stillerman unveils a new series of UCS ads showing that Monsanto is not improving agriculture, but rather undermining progress toward greater sustainability.
UCS just completed a trilogy of reports assessing the biotechnology industry’s claims about the potential of genetic engineering to increase crop yields, reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution, and make crops drought-tolerant and water-efficient. The reports found that genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. corn and soybean yields, that it has yet to produce any commercial crop engineered for nitrogen efficiency, and that Monsanto’s recently-introduced DroughtGard corn won’t help farmers withstand extreme droughts or reduce water use.
If you’d like to interview Stillerman or hear more about the ad campaign, call Sarah Goldberg at 215-370-2110."


http://www.ucsusa.org/ (http://www.ucsusa.org/)

Please consider becoming a member of The Union of Concerned Scientists. They are thorough, not given to hyperbole or exaggeration and back up everything they say with hard science.




Golden Oxen and JoeP,
I agree that discretion is the better part of valor when dealing with "city hall" at TAE.  But given their inabillity to respond rationally to my "conspiracy theory" that the fossil fuel and nuclear industry is not only poisoning the planet for profit and destroying democracy as well, they have co-opted the EROI methodology to give happpy numbers for fossil and nuclear fuels and sad numbers for renewables, my only recourse is to continue educating people here with my research so more people are aware of how thoroughly gamed the energy "playing field" is. As Karpatok said, they are a small site. TAE is out of line, not just because of ideological purity, territoriality or "circle the wagons" type defense of indefensible issues like justifying EROI computations free of enviornmental degradation "externalities", but simply because, with the George Monbiot article they are showing extremely poor judgement. I was  attracted to that sight because of the "nuclear village" article detailing the abuse of poor japanese by the nuclear industry there. The lengthy articles and thorough attention to detail were a joy to me in this short attention span hell we live in these days. As I told Ashvin some time ago, I HATE twitter. I told Ashvin I enjoyed the lengthy and thorough thought  provoking comments  as another reason to like TAE. And now I'm a "swamper"!!? You've seen my posts. I enjoy detail and have been consistent in trying to explain my positions.

So, the only good thing I can say about TAE right now is: "________________" (This space intentionally left blank).

When you can't say something good, it's better to not say anything at all.  As of this moment, I am beginning a LONG vacation from TAE.

My guide in these posts will continue to be the truth, not the defense of my ego.

Finally, I wish to repeat my gratitude to RE principally but several others here (Surly's thoughtful response to my comment on Freud was one of the reasons I kept coming back here initially)  like you that ponder these posts as they relate to our world and our future; not from some turf protecting infantile position.

Thank you, Doomstead Diners for being GREAT human beings. :icon_sunny: :icon_sunny: :icon_sunny: :icon_sunny: :icon_sunny: :icon_sunny:

   
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 09, 2012, 02:00:56 PM
OK agelbert,

I'll make one last reply here, and then I'm not going waste any more time dealing with this NONSENSE.

I simply wanted to give you advice on how to present your criticisms of EROEI... I didn't say anything about your "swamp posts" (a term that originated on DD) being good or bad, I just told you the reality of how it would go over and why it would go over that way. Everyone could see Ilargi's reaction to such a post coming from a mile away. And it was quite ridiculous for you to expect that Nicole would give you a point by point rebuttal. I'm not defending Nicole, I'm just trying to tell you the obvious here, because people like RE sure as hell won't.

Just like I and everyone from TAE, including ben, could see Ilargi's reaction to RE's incessant comments and attacks coming from a mile away. I told RE that he had compromised the ability of TAE and DD to cross-post, but I decided to put yours up anyway without Ilargi's permission because I had promised to do so. So no one here should be surprised that it ended up going the way it did - especially not RE, who acts like he is SHOCKED by what has happened. What a crock of shit...

As for your criticisms of I&S views, Ilargi is right - you simply have not spent enough time reading their articles on the old site. Otherwise, you would never accuse them of being shills for fossil fuel or nuclear energy industries. That's just your emotional frustration with Ilargi speaking, and it is completely inaccurate. It is have even gotten to the point where you are criticizing Nicole for CRITICIZING Monbiot, even though neither of you agree with him... need I say more?

Seriously, don't let the poisonous attitudes of people like Karpatok overtake you here... you are wiser than that. Yes, Ilargi may be stubborn and hard-headed and offensive in his ways (all good descriptors of RE, as well), and Nicole may be wrong about some of her renewable energy views (I really don't know), but that's it... they are not hatching some conspiracy for fossil fuels or anything like that. They are good people who are trying to help others through our collective predicaments, just like the people over here and elsewhere.

The bruised egos over here may decide to carry that chip on their shoulders for the rest of their lives, but I say stop basking in the reality TV culture and move the fuck on.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 09, 2012, 03:47:23 PM
I told RE that he had compromised the ability of TAE and DD to cross-post

Did you go to the Goebbels School of Propaganda or what?   You figure if you write a lie enough times people will believe it?  I did not compromise the cross posting, Ilargi did.  The Event Timeline one more time for the History Books:

1) Ashvin is Outted as a Fundy on DD
2) Karpatok goes on TAE to inquire who else might be a Fundy
3) Ilargi Bans Karpatok from TAE
4) RE Goes on TAE to Lawyer for Karpatok
5) Ilargi declares he will Censor all further discussion of the Banning of Karpatok
6) RE Boycotts TAE

As is obvious, Ilargi killed the cross posting first by Banning Karpatok then declaring he would Censor all further discussion of her.

Quote
Ilargi may be stubborn and hard-headed and offensive in his ways (all good descriptors of RE, as well)

Compare                Ilargi          and            RE

                            Censors              Does Not Censor
                               Not Funny                    Funny
                                Jackass                       Cool
                                      :evil4:                       :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 09, 2012, 03:48:37 PM
The Union of Concerned Scientists has a new report out detailing current democracy undermining and disinformation campaign efforts by the fossil fuel pigs:

Some highlights of the report:

"The 28 companies we investigated spent more than $300 million lobbying Congress in the run up to possible climate legislation;

Koch Industries alone has spent more than $55 million since 1997 to misrepresent climate science or oppose safeguards to rein in global warming emissions; and

The oil company ConocoPhillips has backed the campaigns of anti-climate candidates for Congress by a ratio of more than 15 to 1 over candidates who have supported science-based climate policies."

Here's one example of a front man for the church of fossil fuel worship in full moron mode:
"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth"
Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO)

http://www.ucsusa.org/ (http://www.ucsusa.org/)

And Monsanto continues to lie through its teeth:

"The Monsanto Company, the leading agricultural biotechnology company, spends millions each year on advertising aimed at convincing policy-makers and the public that their so-called “better seeds” are feeding a growing population, protecting natural resources, and promoting biodiversity. But the reality of Monsanto’s products is somewhat less idyllic. In a post on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) blog, The Equation, Senior Analyst Karen Perry Stillerman unveils a new series of UCS ads showing that Monsanto is not improving agriculture, but rather undermining progress toward greater sustainability.

UCS just completed a trilogy of reports assessing the biotechnology industry’s claims about the potential of genetic engineering to increase crop yields, reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution, and make crops drought-tolerant and water-efficient. The reports found that genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. corn and soybean yields, that it has yet to produce any commercial crop engineered for nitrogen efficiency, and that Monsanto’s recently-introduced DroughtGard corn won’t help farmers withstand extreme droughts or reduce water use.
If you’d like to interview Stillerman or hear more about the ad campaign, call Sarah Goldberg at 215-370-2110."

http://www.ucsusa.org/ (http://www.ucsusa.org/)

Di you get that? DroughtGard corn by Monsanto is a MONSANTO CORPORATE LIE!

If you can swing it financially, please consider becoming a member of The Union of Concerned Scientists. The lowest monthly contribution is $35 dollars.  If you can't afford it, you can always visit their web site and pass along the info that they have available for non-members. They are thorough, not given to hyperbole or exageration and back up everything they say with hard science.

Also, be on the lookout for disinformation from George Monbiot. He is a shill for the nuclear industry with pro-environment credentials so he is the most dangerous type.

This article from the Union of concerned Scientists explains the truth about nuclear power that George Monbiot never does:

The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-cost.html (http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-cost.html)

Nuclear power never was and never will be carbon neutral or cost effective. As the horrendous effects of 400+ ppm of CO2 accumulate and it becomes more and more difficult to hide the harm that fossil fuels are doing to the biosphere, expect a big PR push to saddle us with "new and improved" nuclear high tech boondoggles like Thorium reactors in order to deny sorely needed government subsidies for renewable R&D by giving them to "green" reactors instead. They might even come up with one of those Orwellian bills with a title like "Renewable Funding for a Better America" which would give .0001 % to renewables and 99.9999 % to new nuclear reactor R&D, land purchases, insurance coverage and power plant construction.

Why do they do this destructive shit? Because the 1% want to preserve centralized power systems at all costs, period.

Don't be deceived.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 09, 2012, 08:07:37 PM
Decentralized power solution for many poor. They build and maintain their own solar power units.
Barefoot College (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zh4FjMJ9XU#ws)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 09, 2012, 09:08:48 PM
Quote
Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water - Albert Einstein

Our culture is so desperate to maintain access to power sources, which we lived without for much longer than we've lived with, that we're willing to exchange the living planet in return.

We had everything we needed for a fulfilled life and traded it in for comfort, trinkets and toys.

Quote
Save as many as you can - RE

I'm not convinced the world is worth living in now, let alone after the collapse.  Perhaps the only way to be saved from this madness is to exit stage left.  I have up and down days, take a guess which this is.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 09, 2012, 10:54:47 PM
I'm not convinced the world is worth living in now, let alone after the collapse.  Perhaps the only way to be saved from this madness is to exit stage left.  I have up and down days, take a guess which this is.

This will Cheer You Up.  :)

http://www.youtube.com/v/Yop62wQH498

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 10, 2012, 12:52:07 AM
Renewables are gaining ground:

"Cuba gets just 3.8 percent of its electricity from renewables. In the nearby Dominican Republic, where a 2007 law establishes tax breaks for investment in alternative energy, renewables account for 14 percent of electrical generation. Germany, the gold standard for high-tech green energy, gets 20 percent of its considerably larger electrical consumption from renewables, mostly from wind."

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/20120709/BUSINESS/307090014/Cuba-could-expand-its-solar-wind-energy (http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/20120709/BUSINESS/307090014/Cuba-could-expand-its-solar-wind-energy)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 10, 2012, 03:09:08 AM
I told RE that he had compromised the ability of TAE and DD to cross-post

Did you go to the Goebbels School of Propaganda or what?   You figure if you write a lie enough times people will believe it?  I did not compromise the cross posting, Ilargi did.  The Event Timeline one more time for the History Books:

1) Ashvin is Outted as a Fundy on DD
2) Karpatok goes on TAE to inquire who else might be a Fundy
3) Ilargi Bans Karpatok from TAE
4) RE Goes on TAE to Lawyer for Karpatok
5) Ilargi declares he will Censor all further discussion of the Banning of Karpatok
6) RE Boycotts TAE

As is obvious, Ilargi killed the cross posting first by Banning Karpatok then declaring he would Censor all further discussion of her.

Quote
Ilargi may be stubborn and hard-headed and offensive in his ways (all good descriptors of RE, as well)

Compare                Ilargi          and            RE

                            Censors              Does Not Censor
                               Not Funny                    Funny
                                Jackass                       Cool
                                      :evil4:                       :icon_mrgreen:

RE

Indeed.
If you don't like the argument, change it. Or restate it. And "catapult the propaganda." Wash, rinse, repeat.

One of the most reliable things about the Big Lie is that is almost always works-- except among those who can read for comprehension, and can otherwise keep score. I guess he thinks most of us have forgotten what actually happened.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 10, 2012, 03:19:31 AM
OK agelbert,

I'll make one last reply here, and then I'm not going waste any more time dealing with this NONSENSE.

//
The bruised egos over here may decide to carry that chip on their shoulders for the rest of their lives, but I say stop basking in the reality TV culture and move the fuck on.

Ah, the fundamentalist mindset in full priapic display. My way, or the highway, indeed. Move on, because I have lost the argument.

"By their fruits shall ye know them."
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 10, 2012, 11:07:32 AM
OK agelbert,

I'll make one last reply here, and then I'm not going waste any more time dealing with this NONSENSE.

//
The bruised egos over here may decide to carry that chip on their shoulders for the rest of their lives, but I say stop basking in the reality TV culture and move the fuck on.

Ah, the fundamentalist mindset in full priapic display. My way, or the highway, indeed. Move on, because I have lost the argument.

"By their fruits shall ye know them."

The capitalist entitlement culture in full display - I'll just blame everyone and everything else for the predictable results of my actions, and act surprised when those results come to pass.

RE broke his promise to me here by supporting Karpatok and endorsing her trollish behavior on TAE, and even insisting that Nicole answer her questions, AFTER Nicole already had answered the question. That's straight up childish and juvenile behavior, on top of lacking any loyalty or integrity whatsoever, and it led to Ilargi lashing back as EVERYONE knew that he would. You act like an idiot, he acts like an idiot, and nothing good comes of it.

You guys didn't forget what happened, you chose to selectively remember it as everyone elses' fault but RE's. His freely chosen actions have consequences - learn to live with them and learn from them, and stop bitching and moaning and blaming other people all of the time.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 10, 2012, 11:37:22 AM
You are defending an asshole. Poorly. Ilargi's comments are those of a boor. Including the one he made to me, which was wholly uncalled for, and to which I have not, and will not, respond, lest I accidentally dignify his churlishness.

I ask the jury of my peers for summary judgment, and a dismissal of this case.
Res ipsa loquitor.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 10, 2012, 12:04:27 PM
You are defending an asshole. Poorly. Ilargi's comments are those of a boor. Including the one he made to me, which was wholly uncalled for, and to which I have not, and will not, respond, lest I accidentally dignify his churlishness.

I ask the jury of my peers for summary judgment, and a dismissal of this case.
Res ipsa loquitor.

Who said I'm defending Ilargi? While you are trying to make this into some Trial of the Ages, I am pointing out that all of you guys are guilty of being petty little children, bickering over irrelevant online spats just to satisfy your sense of Pride and Ego. It's almost as if you would rather sentence Ilargi to a life in prison at this point instead of Bob Diamond. That speaks for itself, indeed.

And I'm not failing to recognize the consequences of my own actions in all of this, either, but I am perfectly willing to accept them and live with them.

I chose to keep RE around on the TAE forum despite his initial personal attacks against me, I chose to work with DD and cross-post your articles even when it was somewhat controversial, I chose to participate in controversial spiritual discussions on DD that lit a fire under Karpatok's ass, I chose to warn K about her comments when she showed up on TAE with an obvious agenda, I chose to delete her comments after repeated warnings and then temporarily ban her (for one whole day) so I didn't have to keep hitting the delete button (or I could have quarantined her comments to some unknown thread - same effect), and I chose to publish agelbert's article knowing full well how Ilargi would erroneously react to it if he actually read it.

All of those decisions had consequences, and not all of them were great consequences, but on whole I believe my decisions were the best ones to make. And seeing how Nicole's threads are developing now with different people weighing in on the issues she has raised with a lot of solid information and perspective, I know for a fact that I would do the exact same thing to Karpatok if she tried to intentionally sabotage the thread again, or RE or anyone else for that matter. Wouldn't hesitate for a second... but I'm hoping no one would be childish and selfish enough to want to do that.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 10, 2012, 04:12:56 PM

RE broke his promise to me here by supporting Karpatok and endorsing her trollish behavior on TAE

HOLY COW!  MORE LIES!

I never made any promises about supporting Karpatok.  I promised not to bring any of our discussions about Christianity over to TAE, and I never did.  DESPITE the fact you continued afterward on TAE to write some Fundy comments there.  It also is complete ridiculous to hold my promise to Karpatok, who you KNOW hates your guts.  My DEFENSE of Karpatok on TAE is a separate issue of Free Speech, not related to Christianity at all really.

Can you leave the Propaganda on TAE please?  It doesn't fly on DD.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 10, 2012, 06:07:04 PM

RE broke his promise to me here by supporting Karpatok and endorsing her trollish behavior on TAE

HOLY COW!  MORE LIES!

I never made any promises about supporting Karpatok.  I promised not to bring any of our discussions about Christianity over to TAE, and I never did.  DESPITE the fact you continued afterward on TAE to write some Fundy comments there.  It also is complete ridiculous to hold my promise to Karpatok, who you KNOW hates your guts.  My DEFENSE of Karpatok on TAE is a separate issue of Free Speech, not related to Christianity at all really.

Can you leave the Propaganda on TAE please?  It doesn't fly on DD.

RE

"I promise that I will refrain from bringing the Christianity debate to TAE... (UNLESS someone else here goes over there and starts asking I&S whether they are Christian Fundamentalists with some kind of malicious agenda. Then I will drop in and INSIST that I&S answer those questions, because that person's right to an answer on the forum is more important than any promises I have made or will make in the future"

Right, I wish you would have just made that unwritten caveat clear the first time. If that's the reasoning you live by, fine, but I want nothing to do with it.

And my "fundy comments" were a quotation of scripture in response to agelbert's original comment that brought it up. We were not debating Christianity, and if someone were to start debating it, I wouldn't have defended my position there. Religious debates derail a thread and scare readers away ten times quicker than global warming debates, and I already explained that was the SOLE reason why I was not comfortable having them spill over to TAE article threads.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Karpatok on July 10, 2012, 06:44:31 PM
Ashvin: You keep saying that you are making your last reply. Yet you keep dragging your moanin and groanin back with more. Now yesterday, you told Agelbert to get over it and move on. Something you obviously are unable to do yourself. In other words, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. My suggestion to you is that you bend over, spread your legs, get your ass in gear and take your own medicine. You made some bad choices and nasty mistakes. So Shut the FUCK UP and live with it if you are any kind of man at all, which you have shown yourself to be NOT! Take your one track obsession and go crawl under a rock somewhere and lick your wounds and don't come out until you can quit whining!
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 10, 2012, 07:39:34 PM

RE broke his promise to me here by supporting Karpatok and endorsing her trollish behavior on TAE

HOLY COW!  MORE LIES!

I never made any promises about supporting Karpatok.  I promised not to bring any of our discussions about Christianity over to TAE, and I never did.  DESPITE the fact you continued afterward on TAE to write some Fundy comments there.  It also is complete ridiculous to hold my promise to Karpatok, who you KNOW hates your guts.  My DEFENSE of Karpatok on TAE is a separate issue of Free Speech, not related to Christianity at all really.

Can you leave the Propaganda on TAE please?  It doesn't fly on DD.

RE

"I promise that I will refrain from bringing the Christianity debate to TAE... (UNLESS someone else here goes over there and starts asking I&S whether they are Christian Fundamentalists with some kind of malicious agenda. Then I will drop in and INSIST that I&S answer those questions, because that person's right to an answer on the forum is more important than any promises I have made or will make in the future"

Right, I wish you would have just made that unwritten caveat clear the first time.

Now you are putting into the mind of the reader things I never SAID.  You really DID go to the Goebbels School of Propaganda!

WTF do you think I am?  A MIND READER?  HTF do I know what anybody will do on the net?  All I promised was not to bring Christian debate to TAE. THAT IS IT.  You are making shit up I never said or even implied.  You are a LIAR.  Satan waits for you.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 10, 2012, 08:28:17 PM
I have stone cold proof that you broke your promise, RE... at least for anyone that can add 2+2 together. What do you have except silly insults and the moral integrity of a pop culture icon?

Quote from: Karpatok
So are the originators of TAE, Stoneleigh and Illargi, Christian evangelicals like Ashvin? And is the final objective of this website the kind of proselytizing that Ashvin is engaged in? Or rather is it to play on people's confusion and fear, perhaps to make a living?


...enter RE

Quote
What I DO fault people for is CENSORSHIP. If you are going to write your spin, you MUST let opposing viewpoints have a fair opportunity to do the same and challenge you (I must let Karpatok derail the thread with Anti-Christian rhetoric and crazy allegations?).

Quote
I am not terrifically concerned here whether there is a Christian subtext to TAE or not, but I will say you did not answer the question posed (Nicole should have indulged K in her Anti-Christian rhetoric?).

Quote
At least over on the Diner we don't CENSOR posts and BAN members like Karpatok was here simply for speaking their minds and asking questions (K should be able to derail the thread and spout Anti-Christian rhetoric and crazy allegations without being censored?)

Quote
You can go ahead now on TAE and vilify her, but you do not allow her the same priviledge to vilify you here (I should allow K to villify me because I'm Christian and derail the thread and spout crazy allegations?)

Anyone with two functioning neurons can deduce that you were endorsing K's right to derail the thread with attacks against Christianity. Have you ever endorsed something before, RE? A check, anything? Then I know you understand what the word means. YOU broke the promise, and you would have continued to break the promise if Ilargi didn't force you to stop. People like Karpatok and you deserve to be CENSORED until you start caring more about other people than yourself. Nothing immoral about censorship, only disloyalty and dishonesty and unmitigated selfish pride.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Sunny on July 10, 2012, 08:44:10 PM
A.G. was right when he said this debate has increased the readership here. I had visited here a couple of times because I had respected some of RE's comments over at TAE. But this whole debate made me want to understand what happened, so I came over to the Diner and read a lot of Karpatok's postings to get some background.
Ashvin -  it looks to me that you want to hide your Fundy leanings from the readership (and perhaps I&S) over at TAE and perhaps Karpatok wanted to know if this was also the case for I&S - hence her question (sorry if it appears I'm speaking speaking for you Karpatok - just the way it looks to me).

I personally think it was a fair enough question. The revelation that Ashvin has such strong Fundy ideals, unfortunately means that I can't read anything he writes. IMHO RE was simply defending Karpatok because she was being censored and because it has happened to him so many times, he felt it was unfair.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Karpatok on July 10, 2012, 09:07:33 PM
ASHVIN PANGURI: Are you a moron, an imbecile or an idiot? When did I ever spout anti christian rhetoric on TAE? NEVER! That is a BOLD FACED LIE! WHEN did I ever INTEND to spout anti christian  rhetoric? NEVER! You are a GOD DAMNED LIAR.My intentions, whether you like it or not, were to understand what the HELL I was reading and what the HELL was the underlying world view of the originators of TAE. This was certainly my right to try and ascertain. IF YOU,YOU,YOU, had kept your fucking, arrogant mouth shut none of this would have happened. But an unstable nut case such as yourself has NO self discipline when it comes to his own SELFISHNESS and diarrhea of hogwash.FACE IT! you have only yourself to blame for this whole spectacle. You have pushed yourself on everybody. Everybody is supposed to tolerate your CRAP, but you being the arrogant little sniveling prick you are, make no allowances for anybody else. I really hope you do end up in hell.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 10, 2012, 09:31:27 PM
Ashvin -  it looks to me that you want to hide your Fundy leanings from the readership (and perhaps I&S) over at TAE and perhaps Karpatok wanted to know if this was also the case for I&S - hence her question (sorry if it appears I'm speaking speaking for you Karpatok - just the way it looks to me).

Nope, not at all. I know at least half the readership over here originated at TAE, or overlaps with TAE, and they know who I am. That doesn't stop me from being 100% honest about what I believe on DD threads and defending those beliefs. I don't care what people do or don't know about me. And if someone asks me whether I'm a Christian on TAE, I'll tell them that I'm the only kind of Christian worth being - a Fundamentalist. The only thing I'll refuse to do is debate religion on TAE, because it is I&S site and they don't want that and they have their reasons and I understand those reasons and I must respect that.

You see, Sunny, you are living proof of why I am right about this. Personally, I couldn't care less if you cannot stand to read anything from anyone who is a Christian, no matter what they are writing. That's your problem, and I pray you eventually change your mind and go with God. But I can't jeopardize I&S readership for my own sense of pride. I will never deny my beliefs for any reason, but I will not debate them on TAE either. I also won't debate 9/11, global warming or many other such things over there under most circumstances. Jeopardizing their site for my own intellectual gratification simply isn't in accordance with my moral principles as a Christian.

The problem for Karpatok is that I'm smarter than she is, and I could smell her trollish agenda from a mile away (it didn't hurt that she announced she was going to attack TAE on DD before she showed up on TAE). If people want to harbor a visceral hatred towards Christians or Jews, then I can only pray that God can manage to change their minds, but there is NO WAY that I will let them poison TAE with that hatred. I could have easily gone round for round with her on that TAE thread and pummeled her into the ground for trying to bring her nonsense over there, and, at the time, every bone in my body wanted to, but it wouldn't have been the right thing to do.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 10, 2012, 09:42:22 PM
HOT DOG!!!

Get a load of these biomimicry increases in knowledge thanks to scientists FINALLY starting to see that, compared with nature we know next to nothing about complex systems and efficient energy use. Pay special attention to the new adaptation of whale flipper hydrodynamics to produce INCREASED WIND TURBINE EFFICIENCY of 20%.

This means Higher EROI numbers for wind generators retrofitted with the new whale flipper bump leading edge designs! Renewables from wind are on a ROLL! :icon_mrgreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cYHR90JjwY8 # (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cYHR90JjwY8 #)

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 10, 2012, 10:19:04 PM
Quote
I could have easily gone round for round with her on that TAE thread and pummeled her into the ground for trying to bring her nonsense over there, and, at the time, every bone in my body wanted to, but it wouldn't have been the right thing to do.

So you banned her instead.  Makes sense because that's true to the fundamentalist form.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 10, 2012, 10:30:50 PM
I have stone cold proof that you broke your promise, RE... at least for anyone that can add 2+2 together.]...

One more time I will try to hammer this concept through your Neutron Star Dense Thick Skull and see if I can't get it to fit between your ears.

I AM NOT KARPATOK'S KEEPER!

If she wants to go overto TAE to ask any question at all she is free to do so because she made no agreements with you.  If she asks me if she is free to do that I say sure she is, because she hasn't made such an agreement.  *I* only made such an agreement as a personal courtesy to you because you requested it of me.

Again Watson, your self-justifications for your actions and those of Ilargi are so outrageously convoluted it simply boggles the mind.  I suppose that is what attracts you to Fundyism, there are 2000 years worth of outrageously convoluted justifications to read up on there.

Anyhow, for the 2+2 crowd, the bottom line is the plausibility of cross posting my articles ended the moment Ilargi Banned Karpatok.  It violates my Principles and I would never submit an article to a Jackass like Ilargi either.  Far as cross posting articles by any other Diner Author, they are free to work out their own Policy on that.

You are free to continue making ridiculous self-justifications here on the Diner, but pretty soon all the posts will go into the Ashvin Pandurangi Self-Justification thread in the Smokehouse.  This subject has been beaten to death here already.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 10, 2012, 11:04:50 PM
You are free to continue making ridiculous self-justifications here on the Diner, but pretty soon all the posts will go into the Ashvin Pandurangi Self-Justification thread in the Smokehouse.  This subject has been beaten to death here already.

RE

Well, you may not have managed to understand the meaning of "endorse", but at least you now recognize that sometimes censorship is practically (and morally) necessary. Yes, quarantining a person's comments in some random thread is a form of censorship, but that's fine with me.

Seriously, if you ever believe I am ever jeopardizing DD or derailing threads in any way with my comments and arguments, I encourage you to warn me about that, and if I keep at it, you should censor me.

DD is obviously meant to be a site that attracts readers who are comfortable debating conspiracy theories or spiritual issues or anything like that without throwing a FIT or leaving altogether (except a for a few people...), and that's a good thing. I obviously respect that and take advantage of it, because it's not generally true of the TAE readership (except for a few people...), and I doubt that I am jeopardizing your readership with those ongoing debates.

But if it ever gets to the point where I am for whatever reason, I will gladly stop. And this thread of agelbert's has been derailed enough now, so I will.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 10, 2012, 11:15:31 PM

Nope, not at all. I know at least half the readership over here originated at TAE

No idea on the Readership, but far as Active Commentariat is concerned, again a canard.

Peter is from Ticker Forum.  Surly is from The Burning Platform. Jb & Ross from Economic Undertow.  Several Lurkers whose handles I recognize from PeakOil and more from TBP  and EU. Also a few more from Our Finite World.  Also Surly recruited some OWSers who lurk here.  Peter recruited a couple from other boards he ran in the past.

TAE though did bring in new readers, but 1/2 is unlikely at this point.

Quote
The problem for Karpatok is that I'm smarter than she is

Not sure precisely how "smart"either you or Xena are, but I sure do KNOW how smart I am, and if there is one thing that ticks me off even MORE than CENSORSHIP it is when some other Brainiac in the Commentariat starts wielding his Intellect around as a Weapon to squash somebody who isn't quite so adept at Keyboard Warfare.

I make it my JOB when I see that occur to step in with MY KEYBOARD and go Mano-a-Mano with any other Fast Gun in the Brain-to-Words Showdown.  If you attack Karpatok or anybody else, you don't have that person to deal with anymore, you got me to deal with.  I don't play by the Rules either, and when I get PISSED OFF enough I'll set the Brains to writing the most Scalding HOT Napalm you can find on the Internet.

(http://gifsoup.com/view/245806/palladin-o.gif)
On TAE now because of CENSORSHIP you are free to Rule the Roost as you see fit and squash those who disagree with you with your Intellect.  Not here, not on the Diner.  There is another Fast Gun who lives here, and I don't Stand Down to ANYBODY.   Ego BIGGER THAN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, and the Test Scores to back it up.

HAVE GUN, WILL TRAVEL

Palladin RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Karpatok on July 10, 2012, 11:21:58 PM
@Ashvin Panguri:So before you slink off to sulk and scheme Ashvin, lets get a few things straight. Number one, it was you who banned me from posting on The Automatic Earth, not Illargi. Illargi spoke to RE but not to me. That's your shit speak number one. Number two. As to your being smarter than I and wanting so much to pummel me. What makes you think I would ever debate a subject in which I have no interest, a subject which I find boring, and with a person for whom I feel no respect. As far as I am concerned you are a liar and a hypocrite, as well as not being a whole or integrated person. In short, not only are you not a grown up, you have neither a real life nor the integrity that comes from having lived a real life versus a mental fantasy as an escape from dealing with the problems and commitments of real life. As was said way back on the automatic earth when you failed to exhibit any emotion regarding the Greek pensioner who committed  suicide, you are not able to truly feel empathy or sympathy for other people . I doubt whether you are even capable of forging a relationship with another person. All of your christian speak is just blowing a smokescreen to hide your great fear of feelings. You barely keep yourself going by telling yourself what a smart fellow you are and what a good competitor you are, all the while being on very shaky ground and very much alone. Well good luck to you Ashvin because that's not going to carry you very far in this life, especially not with what's coming. You think that you don't need anybody yet in reality you have demonstrated that you are very clingy. As you fight to prove yourself every step of the way , your true emptiness will manifest itself more and more as you go on in your lack of regard for everybody else.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 10, 2012, 11:26:46 PM

Well, you may not have managed to understand the meaning of "endorse", but at least you now recognize that sometimes censorship is practically (and morally) necessary. Yes, quarantining a person's comments in some random thread is a form of censorship, but that's fine with me.

Moving posts around a Forum can Marginalize Commenters, but it does NOT censor them like Deleting Posts or Banning does.  The commenter is still free to try again and adjust how he/she writes in other threads on the board to get his/her perspective across. Then said person can ALSO link to the thread where his/her posts are being sent so other readers can check out the rest of the ideas.

The point I have tried to make to you is that TAE now runs the same type of Forum Software we do and because of that there is NO NEED to Delete or Ban there, yet you choose to do so anyhow.  If you guys would just learn how to Manage a Forum, none of this would have been necessary.  Karpatok didn't need to be Banned, you could have just made a Karpatok Rants thread and sent all her stuff there.  Same with Agelbert.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 10, 2012, 11:46:26 PM
Ashvin, perhaps you should just admit the banning was the wrong thing to do, EVEN IF Karpatok was wrong.  It's the Christian thing to do.

Let it go.

Can you pass this test of your faith?  We're all watching.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 11, 2012, 04:48:39 AM
Ashvin -  it looks to me that you want to hide your Fundy leanings from the readership (and perhaps I&S) over at TAE and perhaps Karpatok wanted to know if this was also the case for I&S - hence her question (sorry if it appears I'm speaking speaking for you Karpatok - just the way it looks to me).

Nope, not at all. I know at least half the readership over here originated at TAE, or overlaps with TAE, and they know who I am. That doesn't stop me from being 100% honest about what I believe on DD threads and defending those beliefs. I don't care what people do or don't know about me. And if someone asks me whether I'm a Christian on TAE, I'll tell them that I'm the only kind of Christian worth being - a Fundamentalist.


Ashvin, this attitude reveals much. "The only kind of Christian worth being?" An attitude rich with intolerance for others, exuding the zeal of the convert, laden with self-justification. What is missing is empathy and tolerance. As I often say, "Ironies abound."

"The only kind of Christian worth being?" I think not. I think not.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on July 11, 2012, 06:43:43 AM
Quote Surly "Ashvin, this attitude reveals much. "The only kind of Christian worth being?" An attitude rich with intolerance for others, exuding the zeal of the convert, laden with self-justification. What is missing is empathy and tolerance. As I often say, "Ironies abound."

"The only kind of Christian worth being?" I think not. I think not.

This phrase annoyed me as well. I decide not to respond because I thought it had to be a typo or unintentional remark misspoken. Just wanted to say there are surely more paths to God or Jesus than one. It is understandable to me how a person can be so passionate about something or a belief that he thinks others views are wrong, but the words "Only Kind Worth Being" caused a bad vibe and rang loud with the sound of intolerance within me.   :-\
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 11, 2012, 06:56:35 AM
Just wanted to say there are surely more paths to God

Many Paths to God.  Many MORE ways to get lost on the Trail.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 11, 2012, 06:59:24 AM
Quote
Quote Surly "Ashvin, this attitude reveals much. "The only kind of Christian worth being?" An attitude rich with intolerance for others, exuding the zeal of the convert, laden with self-justification. What is missing is empathy and tolerance. As I often say, "Ironies abound."

"The only kind of Christian worth being?" I think not. I think not.

This phrase annoyed me as well. I decide not to respond because I thought it had to be a typo or unintentional remark misspoken. Just wanted to say there are surely more paths to God or Jesus than one. It is understandable to me how a person can be so passionate about something or a belief that he thinks others views are wrong, but the words "Only Kind Worth Being" caused a bad vibe and rang loud with the sound of intolerance within me

I stopped discussing this thread when it became very clear Ashvin was unwilling to accept there can be more than one path.  That was some time before he drove it home with the "only kind worth being" line.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 11, 2012, 09:00:29 AM
Quote Surly "Ashvin, this attitude reveals much. "The only kind of Christian worth being?" An attitude rich with intolerance for others, exuding the zeal of the convert, laden with self-justification. What is missing is empathy and tolerance. As I often say, "Ironies abound."

"The only kind of Christian worth being?" I think not. I think not.

This phrase annoyed me as well. I decide not to respond because I thought it had to be a typo or unintentional remark misspoken. Just wanted to say there are surely more paths to God or Jesus than one. It is understandable to me how a person can be so passionate about something or a belief that he thinks others views are wrong, but the words "Only Kind Worth Being" caused a bad vibe and rang loud with the sound of intolerance within me.   :-\

And me as well. Without being a mouth-befrothed conspiracy theorist, it is fair to say that intolerance is a slippery slope that leads to objectification of the Other (That Martin Buber "I-Thou" phenomenon again). It's a path that leads through Occitania (the Albegensian crusade) and by extension through Treblinka, Srbrenica, and Kampuchea. Those who aver a monopoly on truth are able to objectify others, and down that slope lies madness.

Or maybe that I just despise bullies.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 11, 2012, 09:13:44 AM
 ::)

It's called having confidence in your beliefs, people. Have you ever said "I'm a ______ and proud of it!"? Same thing. I'm a Christian Fundamentalist and proud of it!

I'll admit, though, that I wish people took their Bibles, i.e. the word of God, at least half as literally as they take short phrases from some arrogant prick like me in an online forum...

OK, I'm stopping on this thread for real now, I promise.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 11, 2012, 11:01:22 AM
::)

I'll admit, though, that I wish people took their Bibles, i.e. the word of God, at least half as literally as they take short phrases from some arrogant prick like me in an online forum...

On this matter, we can fully agree! :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Sunny on July 11, 2012, 03:45:05 PM
Ashvin, I did not say that I won't read what you write because you are a Christian. I won't read your material because you are a Fundamentalist.

My very best friend is a Christian and she embodies all that is Christian to me. She's loving, patient, tolerant and empathetic. All qualities that I think, sadly, you lack. That's why I can't read your material.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: alan2102 on July 11, 2012, 10:53:22 PM
Sheesh. I step away for a few days, and the thread is engulfed in
Flames from the Hubs of Hell for page after page.

Karpatok (sp?) is new on me.  Amusing rants!  Too bad I missed the
fun over at TAE; I visit there so seldom.

No surprise about Ilargi, who always struck me as a pompous
windbag, and intolerant of even mild criticism. I remember him over
on the old Latoc: he started a thread and laid out the basic TAE rap
about deflationary meltdown, etc.  I tossed in some pointed rejoinders,
to which he responded half-hysterically, before stomping out in a huff.

Interesting about Ashvin, Man of the Cloth. I had no idea.  I always
thought he had Marxist leanings. Though perhaps the two are not as
incompatible as some facts suggest (e.g. the militant atheism of most
Marxists).

Holy Rollers do tend to be insufferable, though I suppose there could
be exceptions.

But, don't mind me. Carry on, all.  Should I make a second batch of
popcorn?

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 12, 2012, 06:40:01 PM
alan2012,
Watch out, you may be attracting more convoluted, Orwellian defenses of the indefensible back at The Amazing Enema site. Or is it Ilargi's The Atrocious Ego site? I seem to have forgotten. :icon_mrgreen: At any rate TAE is definitely on "Automatic" denial of proper EROI numbers for fossil fuels.

Their "realpolitik" fossil fuel numbers exclude subsidies, dedicated fossil fuel transportation machine building costs (oil tankers and a lot of gas fracking associated machinery like trucks that move injection chemicals from site to site and manufacturing costs for tank trucks that transport the gas) and environmental degradation costs while attempting to claim that renewables, which have NONE of those costs because they are mostly local, have "low" EROI numbers. Nicole (Stoneleigh) goes on about how renewable high "feed-in tariffs",  "subsidies" (that, regardless of what she claims, don't amount to a hill of beans compared with the fossil fuel fleecing of the populace through government corruption but she just does NOT want to go there) and "low" EROIs all "prove" that renewables aren't "competitive". :icon_scratch: :emthdown: BULLSHIT!

None so blind as those who refuse to see and all that. I'm done with them. I wiped the dust off my metaphorical sandals at the The Amazing Enema site. :emthdown:

Glad to see you back. I went back over my Oil Tanker comment/article as well as the one on EROI to highlight areas for easy reading if you want to copy and paste any part to post somewhere else. The church of fossil fuel and nuclear bullshit artists has a lot of folks pretending to be critical thinkers but who, in reality, are just status quo defenders of the present bankrupt and environment destroying paradigm. Anything we can do to calmly explain to them that they are full of shit is worth doing. :icon_mrgreen:  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 12, 2012, 07:49:52 PM
(http://educononline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/singapore-educational-consultants-procrustes071.gif)

The above is known as a Procrustean bed in critical thinking and logic. The use of this "bed" is rooted in Greek mythology.

The contemporary use of this "my way or the high way" type of "logic" was recently practiced by TWO people at the TAE in response to some "feather ruffling" that I engaged in (see this thread from beginning to end for details). A THIRD person from TAE comes here to use the same type of flawed logic and sophistic debating skills to flip arguments on their head in order to "WIN" the argument and defend his fellow Procrustean Bed Believers at TAE.

I have observed many responses from fellow Doomsteaders to this technique and I am happy to report nobody here is taken in by the Procrustean Bed Con of attempting to frame the argument boundaries for a guaranteed win. IOW, bullshit goes over like a lead ballon around here. :emthup:

Quote
A Procrustean bed is an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced.

But most entertaining is when someone of a scientific and technical mindset engages in these Procrustean Bed fun and games to get "acceptable" EROI numbers for fossil fuels.


Quote
A Procrustean solution is the undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived structure.

In a Procrustean solution in statistics, instead of finding the best fit line to a scatter plot of data, one first chooses the line one wants, then selects only the data that fits it, disregarding data that does not, so to "prove" some idea. It is a form of rhetorical deception made to forward one set of interests at the expense of others. The unique goal of the Procrustean solution is not win-win, but rather that Procrustes wins and the other loses. In this case, the defeat of the opponent justifies the deceptive means.

The above procedure is how fossil fuels are made to look better than renewables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes)

Quote
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 12, 2012, 11:01:15 PM

Watch out, you may be attracting more convoluted, Orwellian defenses of the indefensible back at The Amazing Enema site. Or is it Ilargi's The Atrocious Ego site?

Oh, GOOD ONES there AB!  :icon_mrgreen: You get 2 Diner Green Fingers for those! :thefinger: :thefinger:

I trust you have been working on the article we spoke about?

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 12, 2012, 11:16:14 PM
President Carter was right.

Energy Efficiency Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J-ijPcv1VM#ws)

 
In the following video you will see PROOF that the data and energy efficiency numbers for wind generators are way out of date because of the great efficiency increases from size increases and blade design. Anyone claiming that wind turbines are "uncompetitive" needs to have their head examined.


Wind Energy at the Crossroad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty-0M59EcK0#ws)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 13, 2012, 12:11:56 AM
RE,
I'm having a hell of a time getting anything but 3 and 4 year old numbers for  renewable cost benefit analysis (if I can get them at all!) Oh but there is an absolute avalanche of pro fossil fuel and nuclear EROI number bullshit out there that The Automatic Enema site can use to falsely claim that an incrementalist attitude must be taken and a gradual "mother may I?" approach is warranted to phasing out fossil fuels because that's the way the "world works" and renewables are "uncompetitive", don'tcha know? That's real fucking convenient while the "poison the planet for fun and profit" lobbies from these fucks are doing everything they can to sabotage any hope of decent government backing for the renewables AND simultaneously pushing legislation to guarantee continued fossil fuel subsidies and enormous sums for new nuclear reactors. The PR is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The Amazing Entropy site is either drinking the koolaid or too insular in their "good German" brainfuck to buck the bullshit. Either way, they are part of the problem and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of me having some kind of objective debate with them.

So nope, I've got nothing yet as to a feature article but I'm still looking. Perhaps I can get something written in German that google will translate that actually does renewable EROI math with some objectivity as compared to fossil fuels and nuclear. As to going through Nicole's outlook and old articles, since the new data makes us have to run like hell to stand still, I'm not going to waste my time with her etchings. I have taken another look at my EROI and Oil Tanker comments/articles and highlighted some areas so they are easier to read ( I admit that a lot of it can be boring as all get out)  but while I did that I saw that every single issue that the Amazing Ashvin said I should take up with her in an abbreviated format is covered there and a lot more. If her interest in finding the truth or her reading comprehension skills are so paltry that she can't wade through my comments and consider extracting her math methodology from her rectum, that's HER problem.

Any article I write is not going deal with Alice or her friends down the rabbit hole. I will put something out addressed to Doomstead Diner readers for their own benefit (yes, I have kind of figured out that there are a lot of TAE folks around here but, with the possible exception of the Amazing Apologist, they seem to have retained their critical thinking skills).  I am unconcerned with irrational dissenting opinions based on status quo worship or misplaced fossil fuel loyalty. To give an example of how fast the energy use on renewables is growing, the article I referenced on EROI was using renewable world use numbers of 1% that were over 2 YEARS OLD. Right now I keep seeing numbers like, for example,  14% in the Dominican Republic and over 20% in Iowa as well as Germany (overall) of 20% but 40-50% (FULL TIME) in several German districts. So the real deal now all over the world is probably past the 10% mark. I'm not going to waste my time with people in denial about the fact that renewables are eating fossil and nuclear energy pigs' lunch.

I'll let you know when (or if) I come up with a proper EROI energy product comparison that is up to date, properly referenced and irrefutable. 

I think you'll enjoy the two videos I just posted. Catch ya later.

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 13, 2012, 04:05:35 PM
RE,
I am reading an article that is, as opposed to the older stuff I previously referenced on the renewable piece of the world energy pie that Stoneleigh (Nicole) called a "Drop in the Bucket" and therefore not "worthy" of serious attention as a bonafide competitor and future replacement for fossil fuels. You will remember that the numbers were renewable 1% about 4 years ago. I just told you I estimated renewable energy use was 10% but still couldn't prove it. Well, I was being conservative. It's now 19%. How TF Nicole can push this patently false crap that renewables are uncompetitive begs the question of what her (and the fossil and nuclear fuel pigs') motives are in HIDING THE FACTS. I have gone to great lengths to show the whole energy picture is being gamed. The jpg below PROVES renewables are eating fossil and nuclear energy's lunch:

(http://the-scientist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/07_12_Biofuels-By-The-Numbers.jpg)

More to come on this. As to those like JoeP and Golden Oxen that were concerned I would self destruct at The Anal Entropy site, I think, if TAE persists in their outdated views on energy, it is people like them and their site that will self destruct. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that. :icon_mrgreen:

The renewable "Drop in the Bucket" is becoming a tsunami.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 13, 2012, 04:58:34 PM

More to come on this. As to those like JoeP and Golden Oxen that were concerned I would self destruct at The Anal Entropy site, I think, if TAE persists in their outdated views on energy, it is people like them and their site that will self destruct. What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that. :icon_mrgreen:

The renewable "Drop in the Bucket" is becoming a tsunami.

Don't give away all your best stuff before you Publish a complete article.  Keep up the good work though!  :emthup: :emthup:

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: alan2102 on July 13, 2012, 06:47:35 PM
RE,
I'm having a hell of a time getting anything but 3 and 4 year old numbers for  renewable cost benefit analysis (if I can get them at all!) Oh but there is an absolute avalanche of pro fossil fuel and nuclear EROI number bullshit out there that The Automatic Enema site can use to falsely claim that an incrementalist attitude must be taken and a gradual "mother may I?" approach is warranted to phasing out fossil fuels because that's the way the "world works" and renewables are "uncompetitive", don'tcha know? That's real fucking convenient while the "poison the planet for fun and profit" lobbies from these fucks are doing everything they can to sabotage any hope of decent government backing for the renewables AND simultaneously pushing legislation to guarantee continued fossil fuel subsidies and enormous sums for new nuclear reactors.

These are great points, seldom or never mentioned by the Peak Oil and doom crowd. The situation as it is unfolding and the (extremely screwed-up) world as we find it is assumed to be the only situation/world that could exist.  Hence, gigantic subsidies (often hidden or at least not readily apparent) for existing corporate interests are ignored and effectively considered inevitable, as though they were the outworking of immutable physical laws. Meanwhile, viable alternatives coming from non-mainstream or non-established sources -- completely starved for said subsidies -- are dismissed (as you say) as "uncompetitive" or "impractical". Amazing that a supposedly intelligent and astute crowd can eat up the corporate bullshit/propaganda as readily as they do. And I speak as one who was, for a period of years, among them. Peak oil (and "inevitable" collapse resulting therefrom) was, for me, a compelling matter for several years, starting in about 1999 -- shortly after discovering Hanson's dieoff.com. It took me about 5 years to begin seeing the cracks in it, and another 3-4 years before they became really serious.  It has only been the last couple or three years that I began seeing that the whole thing is a big fraud, based almost entirely on corporate/capitalist propaganda, and that our problems have little (though admittedly not nothing) to do with resource limits.  In retrospect I am ashamed that it took me so long. I should have made the round trip in under 3 years. Oh well. Just dumb I guess.    ;)

Regarding EROI:  I recall for many years that Jay Hanson derided solar PV technology, scoffing at the possibility of it ever amounting to anything. He turned it into a joke, like (paraphrased): "Only an IDIOT could imagine that modern industrial civilization could be run on solar panels".  He also claimed for years that solar panels were net energy losers, basing that on data from the late 80s or early 90s, I believe. Well, surely it WAS true for some time that PVs were net energy losers; how could it be otherwise, in the early phases?  But those days are loooonnnng gone, and it was foreseeable for many years before the crossover point that things were heading in that direction and would certainly get there. I wonder what Jay is saying these days about China's prodigious PV production, at fantastically low prices, and offering power at near grid parity.  No doubt the codger has quietly dropped that point and moved on to other things.  Oh yes, you can't store PV generated power. Right. SO WHAT?  We have plenty of other ways to generate power at night, and we have many decades of work yet to do to transition to PV (to the extent that PV is useful) and other renewables. The whole "argument" against solar PV has simply disintegrated and been rendered totally irrelevant, by reality. And so it is on other fronts.

Speaking of China: they are doing the big, forward-looking infrastructural things that we used to do, and should now be doing. They subsidize key industries and undertake projects of breathtaking ambition and scope. For example, the Great Green Wall (biggest environmental restoration project of all time, spanning a CENTURY),  and their high-speed-rail land bridge across Eurasia, probably to be completed over several decades, perhaps a half-century:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34366.html (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34366.html)
China's Land Bridge to Turkey Creates New Eurasian
Geopolitical Potentials   Apr 28, 2012  -  F William Engdahl

Meanwhile, the West has been reduced to obsession with ever-smaller time slices (and worldly efforts/initiatives to match), the ultimate expression of which seems to be high-speed program trading, wherein trades are executed by computer in tiny fractions of a second, and the physical distance of the executing computer from the exchange actually makes for a significant difference in trading results (because of the extra milli-seconds it takes for the impulses to travel over the wires)!  And all of this merely for the purpose of further enriching some already-filthy-rich bastards who have never in their lives actually created anything of value.  What a stark contrast with the grand visions being developed in the East! How sadly emblematic of our spiritual sickness!

Well, I can say that the doomers are at least half-right. Something IS collapsing, and further collapse is (now) inevitable. But it is not industrial civilization. It is the West in general, and America in particular.  And, because Americans are strongly inclined to think that America is everything, the collapse of America is perceived as a collapse of everything, or as the collapse of industrial civilization, or as the End of the World -- TEOTWAWKI.  (And yes, I was guilty of this very thing myself -- until I woke up.)

Invaluable commentary and analysis on America’s failure and collapse, by Morris Berman:
http://morrisberman.blogspot.com (http://morrisberman.blogspot.com)
http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-American-Culture-Morris-Berman/dp/039332169X (http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-American-Culture-Morris-Berman/dp/039332169X)
http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Ages-America-Final-Empire/dp/0393329771 (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Ages-America-Final-Empire/dp/0393329771)
http://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Failed-Imperial-Decline/dp/1118061810 (http://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Failed-Imperial-Decline/dp/1118061810)
http://www.amazon.com/A-Question-Values-Morris-Berman/dp/1453722882 (http://www.amazon.com/A-Question-Values-Morris-Berman/dp/1453722882)

By the way, did you know that the true cost of gasoline, when all externalities are figured in, has been estimated to be as high as $15/gallon?  And that was 10 years ago!  It is probably much higher, now.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 13, 2012, 07:48:39 PM
RE,
Danke schon mein herr. :icon_sunny:

I am off to ze Vaterland to extract ze energie information from ze very, very distant relatives. :icon_mrgreen:

All I vant is ze information. 8) ;D
Title: Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables
Post by: RE on July 17, 2012, 11:49:22 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg/800px-Seawifs_global_biosphere.jpg)

My connection issues to the Net improved tonight, so I was able to go in and format up AB's latest Renewable Energy article on the Blog.  In my usual fashion, it goes up basically unedited for anything except Formatting.

In this article, AB makes his case for the efficacy of Renewables as analternative to the Oil and Nuke based Energy Economy of today. In his usual fashion, it is LONG and exhaustive in citations.  It counters the idea held by many (Stoneleigh of TAE in particular) that Renewables cannot effectively substitute for the fossil fuel  based energy economy.

For the rest, read A.G. Gelbert's Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/) on the Doomstead Diner.

RE
Title: RE THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET AT STONELEIGH!
Post by: RE on July 18, 2012, 12:27:07 AM
Started a Parallel Thread on the TAE forum.

http://theautomaticearth.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=8&id=4358&Itemid=96#4358 (http://theautomaticearth.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=8&id=4358&Itemid=96#4358)

This should perk things up here considerably.   :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 18, 2012, 01:57:05 AM
Corrected Table 1 from the article (it got scrambled and is difficult to read):
This is a table of the proposed Energy infrastructure:

I'll try to paste it over to fixit.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 18, 2012, 02:06:05 AM
Corrected Table 1 from the article (it got scrambled and is difficult to read):
This is a table of the proposed Energy infrastructure:

I'll try to paste it over to fixit.

Somewhat better, but probably could be better if you used Excel to create a Table and sent me the file. I can make an HTML Table file out  of that.

RE
Title: Re: RE THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET AT STONELEIGH!
Post by: g on July 18, 2012, 04:13:38 AM
Started a Parallel Thread on the TAE forum.

http://theautomaticearth.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=8&id=4358&Itemid=96#4358 (http://theautomaticearth.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=8&id=4358&Itemid=96#4358)

This should perk things up here considerably.   :icon_mrgreen:

RE
I am ready for the show to begin. However it might get the silent no comment treatment??
       :partytime2:         
                                                         
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 18, 2012, 06:36:06 AM
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/481972_478306628864237_1368047908_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 18, 2012, 06:33:18 PM
Surly1,
Good one!  :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_mrgreen: :emthup:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 18, 2012, 06:44:49 PM
RE,
I went over to Alternet earlier to plug the article. Here's my comment replying to this article  "5 Customers Who Flipped Their Lids at Infuriating Corporations". Hopefully it will bring some people over to read it.


This tyranny has been going on for over a century and has its roots in the gilded age and fossil fuel fake cost effectiveness which enabled the oil corporations to concentrate wealth and steal our democracy from under us while offloading all the environmental costs on the people and the biosphere. Renewable energy sources are not new. They were crushed in the late 19th century through fossil fuel energy oligarch co-opting government subsidies for oil and coal and also through profits from slave wages for miners and many others while, all the while, the claim was made that fossil fuels were "cheaper". This article covers all this and more:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/... (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/...)

In the article you will learn the REAL reason for Prohibition. Hint: it had NOTHING to do with people drinking booze and EVERYTHING to do with eliminating ethanol (ethyl alcohol) as a competitor for Rockefeller's gasoline fuel. It is no coincidence that, right after ethanol, a higher octane fuel than gasoline (115 vs 93-95), became illegal in the early 1920s, Rockefeller came out with the poisonous tetra-ethyl lead additive to raise the octane of gasoline to ethanol's level so gasoline could now be burned in high compression, more powerful engines. He destroyed the competition with Prohibition and added more poisons to our atmosphere to boot.

Also you will read about how, before automobiles came out in the late 19th century, Rockefeller's refineries would flush gasoline (19 gallons are produced for every 42 gallons of crude oil refined) in the rivers at night because it was a waste product.

Also I posted this comment in reply to the following article:

"Fracking in Texas Enabling Drug, Weapons Trafficking"

Gas  Fracking is an obsenity. See why in this article that explains why fossil fuels were NEVER cheap or cost effective.

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/... (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/...)




Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Tao Jonesing on July 18, 2012, 07:01:28 PM
RE,
I went over to Alternet earlier to plug the article. Here's my comment replying to this article  "5 Customers Who Flipped Their Lids at Infuriating Corporations". Hopefully it will bring some people over to read it.


This tyranny has been going on for over a century and has its roots in the gilded age and fossil fuel fake cost effectiveness which enabled the oil corporations to concentrate wealth and steal our democracy from under us while offloading all the environmental costs on the people and the biosphere. Renewable energy sources are not new. They were crushed in the late 19th century through fossil fuel energy oligarch co-opting government subsidies for oil and coal and also through profits from slave wages for miners and many others while, all the while, the claim was made that fossil fuels were "cheaper". This article covers all this and more:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/... (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/...)

In the article you will learn the REAL reason for Prohibition. Hint: it had NOTHING to do with people drinking booze and EVERYTHING to do with eliminating ethanol (ethyl alcohol) as a competitor for Rockefeller's gasoline fuel. It is no coincidence that, right after ethanol, a higher octane fuel than gasoline (115 vs 93-95), became illegal in the early 1920s, Rockefeller came out with the poisonous tetra-ethyl lead additive to raise the octane of gasoline to ethanol's level so gasoline could now be burned in high compression, more powerful engines. He destroyed the competition with Prohibition and added more poisons to our atmosphere to boot.

Also you will read about how, before automobiles came out in the late 19th century, Rockefeller's refineries would flush gasoline (19 gallons are produced for every 42 gallons of crude oil refined) in the rivers at night because it was a waste product.

Karl Polyani in his The Great Transformation identifies three "fictitious commodities": land, labor and money.  Skimming your essay (the formatting made it hard for me to read it in full), it struck me that energy is another fictitious commodity.

Quote
The crucial point is this: labor, land, and money are essential elements of industry; they also must be organized in markets; in fact, these markets form an absolutely vital part of the economic system. But labor, land, and money are obviously not commodities; the postulate that anything that is bought and sold must have been produced for sale is emphatically untrue in regard to them. In other words, according to the empirical definition of a commodity they are not commodities. Labor is only another name for a human activity which goes with life itself, which in its turn is not produced for sale but for entirely different reasons, nor can that activity be detached from the rest of life, be stored or mobilized; land is only another name for nature, which is not produced by man; actual money, finally, is merely a token of purchasing power which, as a rule, is not produced at all, but comes into being through the mechanism of banking or state finance. None of them is produced for sale. The commodity description of labor, land, and money is entirely fictitious.
-- The Great Transformation at pp. 75-76
Title: Re: RE THROWS DOWN THE GAUNTLET AT STONELEIGH!
Post by: RE on July 18, 2012, 07:32:47 PM
I am ready for the show to begin. However it might get the silent no comment treatment??
       :partytime2:                                                             

Indeed, that is precisely what is occurring here.  50 Page Views, not a SINGLE response in the thread on TAE, not from Stoneleigh; not from Ilargi and not from Watson either, here on the Diner OR on TAE.

This shows three things directly.  First is DISRESPECT.  To not even comment on an article which is in direct conflict with your own stuff is dismissive of the work.  Second is the inability to discuss the subjects on an Open and UNCENSORED forum.  Third, it shows the POWER of GROUP THINK as a Censoring method.  Besides 3 of the Admins of TAE Not Responding, not a SINGLE member of the Commentariat has DARED to venture an Opinion either over there.  I KNOW that Agelbert had some Fans on TAE, and I had a few also.  Not a single Commenter will respond though, because they also KNOW what kind of reaction that will get from Ilargi.  They will be placed on the Permanent Shit List as a result.

Beyond this, Surly was cruising TAE over lunch and went to check out the Orkin Man thread on TAE.  Apparently said thread has been EXPUNGED from the TAE archives.  This thread received more comments than any other on TAE, 100 of them last time I checked the thread.

This is the very WORST kind of CENSORSHIP, it is taking History and expunging what you don't like to present a whitewashed version matching your own spin.  It's what Pravda and Ysvestia did in the Soviet Years, it's what Textbook writers do here in the FSofA.  Nowadays, you get more Truth from Russia Today than you do from The New York Times.

TAE is the Blog version of this.  Not even Jimbo Quinn of TBP went back to delete all my Frostbite Falls Daily Rants on TBP.

There is only one Avatar for Ilargi.

Joseph Goebbels
(http://www.slantmagazine.com/images/film/goebbelsexperiment.jpg)
Filthy, Disgusting Propagandist & CENSOR

RE

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Karpatok on July 18, 2012, 07:57:01 PM
I said yesterday and it was diplomatically ignored, that Ashvin comes to the diner only to piss his own piss, not to comment with that great intelligence RE says that he has, not to comment, argue with or commend any of the great and meaningful, informative articles that have been posted. I suggest that it is because he is not only arrogant and supercillious,but too insecure and basically afraid to step down from his high horse. Or MAYBE, he just doesn't eat where he CRAPS.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: WHD on July 18, 2012, 08:00:46 PM
While I don't hold the level of disdain for Ilargi and Stoneleigh you guys have, I do find it astounding that they are so dismissive of egelbert's work. I think they don't have the courage to question the status quo bullshit about "that's the way the world is, so...", fearing they will be ostracized not by their readers, but by their peers in the chattering class, as being unrealistic. The fucked up thing about it is, they know the fucking thing is collapsing. Why not condemn the whole fossil fuel paradigm? Chicken shits. All that tough talk from Ilargi. How many times is he going to say the same damn thing about the economy, that it's fucked up? Duh.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Karpatok on July 18, 2012, 08:17:29 PM
Today Stoneleigh was really defensive and trying to defend her self from the other guy, but I have to say that I don't think Illargi or Ashvin really have anything to add but reitteration of what we've already read in a dozen other places. The're just reporting "stuff" as fillers, not expressing any original analysis  of their own. Out of Gas? Probably. Fuck 'em, they're nobody. Ben said fuck TAE months ago. I was shocked. Not any more. Learned a little bit little by little I guess.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: WHD on July 18, 2012, 08:36:06 PM
K,

I find in almost any piece, by any of the three lately, I get bored and quit reading. About the only one that I finished was the one where Ilargi sort o kind of hinted at takin' to the streets with guns. But he retreated, big time, in his latest.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 18, 2012, 09:03:21 PM
Tao Jonesing,
The links I used to reference quotes got stuck into the next paragraph beginning throughout the article so it can be a bit confusing. On subsequent articles I will use the numerical referencing convention used in books and post all the links at the article bottom as an end of the article reference area to make things clearer.

As to energy, as it relates to economics being a fictitious commodity, although I don't have your in depth knowledge of economics, I firmly believe that a corrupt hierarchy that gained enormous power during the gilded age by using the force multiplier of the industrial revolution to garner their wealth became so arrogant that they began to view absolutely all human activity as a commodity along with natural resources as well. This morally repugnant rationalization enabled them to justify their despotic practices because, with this "commiditization of everything" meme, they had divorced themselves from the responsibility for good stewardship of the earth and humane behavior to employees. Noblesse oblige, whatever small amount remained when the industrial revolution began, died with the gilded age in a sea of greed. The power of the 1% has enabled them to defend the claim that energy, land and labor are not fictitious commodities even though I agree with you that they are. The 1% are controlling the narrative and they continue to shove it down our throat. Bernanke and his banking friends couldn't run a lemonade stand successfully with their brand of economics policies but there they are, claiming to be experts. It's Orwellian.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 18, 2012, 10:23:14 PM
RE,
We are definitely into phase 1 (ignore) from TAE. It looks like they are finding the heat in the "kitchen" a bit on the high side. Karpatok's observation that stoneleigh was argumentative on some issue unrelated to this tells me a lot of stoneleigh's buttons are stuck in the "pushed" position. She HAS read the article and she HAS contacted some pals at The Oil Drum; count on it.

Eventually somebody from The Oil Scum is going to drop by to start phase 2 (ridicule) with some show of pedantry through enthalpy (Heat Value) jargon IF this article goes viral. If not, they'll leave it at phase 1 and keep trying to block you at TAE with history deletion worthy of Winston's job in Orwell's 1984. Either way, I'm ready for them. 8)

One good thing about all this is that the rubber has met the road in exposing rank hypocrisy from scripture quoting, self styled paragons of virtue because they just can't shake their abject submission to the status quo. Their new silence spares us having to read the dissonant comments of one that doesn't WALK the TALK.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Tao Jonesing on July 18, 2012, 10:46:09 PM
As to energy, as it relates to economics being a fictitious commodity, although I don't have your in depth knowledge of economics, I firmly believe that a corrupt hierarchy that gained enormous power during the gilded age by using the force multiplier of the industrial revolution to garner their wealth became so arrogant that they began to view absolutely all human activity as a commodity along with natural resources as well. This morally repugnant rationalization enabled them to justify their despotic practices because, with this "commiditization of everything" meme, they had divorced themselves from the responsibility for good stewardship of the earth and humane behavior to employees. Noblesse oblige, whatever small amount remained when the industrial revolution began, died with the gilded age in a sea of greed. The power of the 1% has enabled them to defend the claim that energy, land and labor are not fictitious commodities even though I agree with you that they are. The 1% are controlling the narrative and they continue to shove it down our throat. Bernanke and his banking friends couldn't run a lemonade stand successfully with their brand of economics policies but there they are, claiming to be experts. It's Orwellian.

First, a depth of knowledge of economics is the last thing you want.  It's all a lie, the dogma of the rationalist cult, i.e., the means for RE to get his Ashvin on (although RE is too rational to take the bait).  ;D  Worst of all, economic theory is utterly and thoroughly irrelevant: finance is all that truly matters.  Usury is the one ring that rules them all.

Second, the corrupt hierarchy held sway long before the Gilded Age, they just were just held in check by a truce called the U.S. Constitution.  See this abolitionist screed for a very early analysis along these lines:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tN99jYDpUi0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=constitution+pro-slavery&source=bl&ots=bFTcfaobRD&sig=CJ0o_p3luw_Mr8kG8uNbGM_ZYjA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qZoHUNHGOqqg2gX22InHBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=constitution%20pro-slavery&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=tN99jYDpUi0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=constitution+pro-slavery&source=bl&ots=bFTcfaobRD&sig=CJ0o_p3luw_Mr8kG8uNbGM_ZYjA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qZoHUNHGOqqg2gX22InHBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=constitution%20pro-slavery&f=false)

Also, see Michael Perelman's The Invention of Capitalism: Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation.

Third, I just said that knowledge of economics is toxic, but knowledge of the history of economics is quite valuable.   To my mind, the Gilded Ages was a truly American phenomenon driven by the destruction of the dualistic economy of the United States as a result of the Civil War.  The American South was essentially a physiocratic economy (a French doctrine that all wealth is derived from the ownership of property; Jefferson was clearly a Physiocrat), while the American North had a mercantile economy (much more English and finance-focused; Hamilton was a strong proponent).  These two approaches to political economy are naturally incompatible, and when the North smashed the South, it crreated a vacuum into which finance stepped.

Finally, the size of the elite that truly guide the narrative is a tiny fraction of the 1%.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about the 99% of the 1% have been duped just as much as the 99%. 

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 18, 2012, 11:33:24 PM
It's all a lie, the dogma of the rationalist cult, i.e., the means for RE to get his Ashvin on (although RE is too rational to take the bait).

Good one TJ. It might make a Quote of the Month.  :icon_mrgreen:

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 18, 2012, 11:44:13 PM
Tao Jonesing,
I'll check that abolitionist out. Certainly, human nature is what it is, BUT, the industrial revolution allowed an oligarch to garner wealth for 10,000 while he had been previously limited to lording it over a handful of serfs and slaves while sparring with the other small time tyrants throughout history. As to the North and the South, I have read that the different areas in the UK that they came from predicated their behavior patterns before they stepped off the boat (four distinct areas I believe). One of the things about the US constitution is that it was a rhetorical masterpiece because it applied to a VERY tiny group of men excluding, in practice, everyone but landed white men while claiming "all men were created equal". It was breathtaking in its hypocrisy. A free black who built his own clock out of hardwood parts, became an astronomer and computed the ephemeris used by mariners in the day wrote to Jefferson demanding that Jefferson stop insisting that blacks were mentally inferior to whites and offerred to debate him and have a mathematical contest. Jefferson flat refused to even acknowledge him. Jefferson was a great writer but a ruthless opportunist, as were all the founding fathers. The constitution has never, even to this day, been applied across the land and I am fully aware of the Calvinist doctrine in the US after the civil war that maintained that "The people must be kept poor so they will remain obedient". IF the industrial revolution had improved the lives of everyone across the board as was promised, we would have a different world. But, no the people with access to capital deliberately made life worse for the poor and used divide and conquer tactics to create Jim Crow strife to sucker the poor whites into not looking at who was REALLY impoverishing them. All this is as old as human nature. For that reason I tend to look with a jaundiced eye at any claim to greatness or foresight by the founding fathers.
I continue to believe the force multiplier of the industrial revolution increased the power of these oligarchs and decreased, in an equal proportion, the small amount of democracy we had. I know how England and Europe operated in those days. They wanted everything not made in England (machinery and crafted goods) to have zero competition and everything coming from the colonies to be agrarian goods (commodities). The North and South had a different spin on how to make a buck but they were both equally complicit (at the elite level) in fostering tyranny for profit.
I was generalizing when I said the "1%". I realize the main decision makers involve a smaller percentage and the 99% suffer from a serious infusion of fecal coliforms in their glial cells resulting in their amygdalas colonizing their prefrontal cortex. IOW they are being continuously brainwashed with bullshit so their base urges are amplified and their critical thinking skills destroyed. But nevertheless, I see more virtue and hope in the 99% than the souless reptiles in the catbird seat.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 18, 2012, 11:59:08 PM
Quote
July 18, 2012

Energy Department Breaks Ground on Turbine Test Facility

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=18492 (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=18492)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on July 19, 2012, 02:06:30 AM
Quote RE  "This shows three things directly.  First is DISRESPECT.  To not even comment on an article which is in direct conflict with your own stuff is dismissive of the work.  Second is the inability to discuss the subjects on an Open and UNCENSORED forum.  Third, it shows the POWER of GROUP THINK as a Censoring method."

That seems to be ending in a most interesting exchange between Stoneleigh  and a detractor. It appears to this reader that Stoneleigh is on the defensive and many regular commentators are rushing to help and defend her. Polite civilized napalm so far.   :argue:

http://theautomaticearth.org/Finance/jeff-rubin-and-oil-prices-revisited.html (http://theautomaticearth.org/Finance/jeff-rubin-and-oil-prices-revisited.html)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on July 19, 2012, 04:02:36 AM
Quote Agelbert "But nevertheless, I see more virtue and hope in the 99% than the souless reptiles in the catbird seat."

More virtue for sure Agelbert, the hope part is doubtful. Future looking much less rosy for the 99% than the 1%, sad but true IMHO.     :(
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 19, 2012, 05:55:22 AM

That seems to be ending in a most interesting exchange between Stoneleigh  and a detractor. It appears to this reader that Stoneleigh is on the defensive and many regular commentators are rushing to help and defend her. Polite civilized napalm so far.   :argue:

I read through this debate. Obviously, I'm not really FOLLOWING threads on TAE these days since I no longer feel I can write there and not get my posting expunged.

Stoneleigh is getting lightly Hammerred for her Deflationary perspective. I mostly AGREE with Stoneleigh on these issues, so if I was commenting in the thread I would Hammer the other side and likely take Stoneleigh's Back on this one.

In NO RESPECT though is this addressing any of the issues AB is concerned with WRT Renewable Energy.  This remains AVOIDANT to date insofar as I can see.

I am quite sure Stoneleigh would NEVER Take Me On.  She doesn't have the Tools for that in her Kit Bag.  She is a Theoretician who has carved out her own space, but by NO MEANS is she an Internet Debater, and she does not argue her positions too well when confronted, EVEN positions I AGREE with.

Ilargi is basically a Promoter of Stoneleigh and a Newz Commenter.  Not much else going on there.  Ashvin as I perceive his writing on Economic Topics does both Commentary on the Newz AND he has his own Theoretical Underpinning, which is not much different from my own.   Just he is a deluded SOB when it comes to Moral Questions and and Jesus Questions. LOL.

Of all of the ADMINS on TAE, I would say Ilargi is the least Salvageable.  He won't countenance an opposing idea and look at the other side of his current opinion on anything.  Stoneleigh might be a little bit more open minded,  but she is a bit trapped by her own predictions these days.  Watson (aka Ashvin) is the most flexible of the 3, but he is too beholden to Ilargi to be truly independent in his Voice. Despite his Fundyism, Ashvin is one very bright fellow overall. I know Karpatok won't like my saying that, but it IS the TRUTH.  I doubt I can ever make DENT in his Fundyism, but I think it's possible to SAVE him from being Ilargi's Water Boy.  Ashvin needs to set up his OWN BLOG.

Meanwhile, far as ABs Renewables are concerned, the VACUUM of Response from the TAE Admins speaks VOLUMES.  I most CERTAINLY would never let such a direct criticism of anything I wrote stand without a defense.  That is LOSING.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Tao Jonesing on July 19, 2012, 07:20:42 AM
Certainly, human nature is what it is, BUT, the industrial revolution allowed an oligarch to garner wealth for 10,000 while he had been previously limited to lording it over a handful of serfs and slaves while sparring with the other small time tyrants throughout history.

But what did the oligarchs do to create the conditions for the industrial revolution?  The conditions did not arise naturally but were created by state intervention.  Here's a link to an article that discusses Perelman's book, cited above:

http://exiledonline.com/recovered-economic-history-everyone-but-an-idiot-knows-that-the-lower-classes-must-be-kept-poor-or-they-will-never-be-industrious/ (http://exiledonline.com/recovered-economic-history-everyone-but-an-idiot-knows-that-the-lower-classes-must-be-kept-poor-or-they-will-never-be-industrious/)

Quote
I continue to believe the force multiplier of the industrial revolution increased the power of these oligarchs and decreased, in an equal proportion, the small amount of democracy we had. I know how England and Europe operated in those days.

I don't disagree.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 09:46:20 AM
One good thing about all this is that the rubber has met the road in exposing rank hypocrisy from scripture quoting, self styled paragons of virtue because they just can't shake their abject submission to the status quo. Their new silence spares us having to read the dissonant comments of one that doesn't WALK the TALK.

First of all, I'm the only one who will quote scripture from time to time... because it's hard to find many people who will get angry when confronted with such wisdom, even if they are the most spiritually devoid materialists.

Second, care to explain how I am being "rank" hypocritical? Because I am not spending all of my time writing a thorough rebuttal to your latest article...? I've already admitted that I know very little about these issues compared to you and Stoneleigh, and I've also said that I see a lot of overlap between those views.

Questions:

Do you think it is likely the predatory capitalist system will disappear over the next decade, and make room for sensible investments?

Do you think it is likely that many more industrialized nations will follow Germany and work towards becoming completely oil/nuclear independent?

How do you think the mass psychology of financial collapse will affect development of renewables at larger scales?

Do you believe that TAE should be placing more emphasis on the ability of renewables to run global industrial society than on the need for people and decentralized communities to work towards self-sufficiency and prepare for a world with much less usable net energy?

RE,

I appreciate the compliments, but frankly I think your attitude towards blogging is one of the main reasons why DD will never really take off. El G was right in his first article (or perhaps a comment) when he said your commenting methods will scare more potential readers/commenters away than win them over, and it's your online personality which really dominates the scene here. I'm not very intimidated at the prospects of going back and forth with the likes of you, but most people are, and even I've grown tired of it.

I don't want to get into defending I or S here, or explain why no one is responding to agelbert's behemoth of an article, because it's really like arguing with a bunch of bitter old crabby women who don't want to hear what you're saying. For all the hate and disdain of TAE here, it's really surprising that every popular thread ends up being about Stoneleigh, Ilargi, me and TAE (not really surprising). You guys accuse it of being irrelevant, yet feel the need to attack it every chance you get. What's the deal with that? Jealousy perhaps? Or perhaps just bitter anger at the site that really helped get you going here, but then predictably decided to disassociate... either way, I don't care anymore.

I feel like I get dumber, more frustrated and more bitter every time I try to delve into a discussion about anything here... so I'm going to stop for the most part, unless it's something I find to be very important, like misrepresentations of theological/spiritual issues, or someone responding reasonably and rationally to a comment I've made. This bitter environment just isn't conducive towards many meaningful discussions, even though I'll gladly admit that the Admins here pose very interesting thoughts and ideas in their articles. The only really productive discussion I've had here, though, was with Ka, and I actually learned a few things about my own Faith from him. Yes, that's right - I'm still learning, but I'm not sure that's true about a lot of other people here.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 19, 2012, 11:05:00 AM
One good thing about all this is that the rubber has met the road in exposing rank hypocrisy from scripture quoting, self styled paragons of virtue because they just can't shake their abject submission to the status quo. Their new silence spares us having to read the dissonant comments of one that doesn't WALK the TALK.

First of all, I'm the only one who will quote scripture from time to time... because it's hard to find many people who will get angry when confronted with such wisdom, even if they are the most spiritually devoid materialists.

You sir, are mistaken. You are NOT the only person who will quote scripture here. Set down your sanctimony long enough to acquaint yourself with the evidence.


RE,

I don't want to get into defending I or S here, or explain why no one is responding to agelbert's behemoth of an article, because it's really like arguing with a bunch of bitter old crabby women who don't want to hear what you're saying. For all the hate and disdain of TAE here, it's really surprising that every popular thread ends up being about Stoneleigh, Ilargi, me and TAE (not really surprising). You guys accuse it of being irrelevant, yet feel the need to attack it every chance you get. What's the deal with that? Jealousy perhaps? Or perhaps just bitter anger at the site that really helped get you going here, but then predictably decided to disassociate... either way, I don't care anymore.

I feel like I get dumber, more frustrated and more bitter every time I try to delve into a discussion about anything here... so I'm going to stop for the most part, unless it's something I find to be very important, like misrepresentations of theological/spiritual issues, or someone responding reasonably and rationally to a comment I've made. This bitter environment just isn't conducive towards many meaningful discussions, even though I'll gladly admit that the Admins here pose very interesting thoughts and ideas in their articles. The only really productive discussion I've had here, though, was with Ka, and I actually learned a few things about my own Faith from him. Yes, that's right - I'm still learning, but I'm not sure that's true about a lot of other people here.

As someone who has helped make the environment more bitter with your withering criticism of others who do not share your fundamentalist cant, I am gobsmacked by your temerity. Just stunning.

"How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:42

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" ~Matthew 7:16

Oh-- perhaps you will explain to the rest of us Diners why TAE chose to take down the Orkin Man article and comment stream.

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 11:46:56 AM
Quote
First of all, I'm the only one who will quote scripture from time to time... because it's hard to find many people who will get angry when confronted with such wisdom, even if they are the most spiritually devoid materialists.

You sir, are mistaken. You are NOT the only person who will quote scripture here. Set down your sanctimony long enough to acquaint yourself with the evidence.

Uh, out of Stoneleigh, Ilargi and me, I am the only one that quotes scripture on TAE... which is obviously what agelbert's comment was referring to. Try reading for comprehension before you resort to your default mental position "attack anything that Ashvin says!"

As someone who has helped make the environment more bitter with your withering criticism of others who do not share your fundamentalist cant, I am gobsmacked by your temerity. Just stunning.

My withering criticism? You act like like me responding to critiques of my Faith in a reasonable manner is a bad thing. Why don't you show me examples of how I have gotten out of line in those debates? Then I can show you 10 bitter, insulting and irrelevant comments by you, RE, Karpatok, Tao, WHD and others for every one of mine. Seriously, Surly, you have no leg to stand on here, so stop trying so hard.

Quote
Oh-- perhaps you will explain to the rest of us Diners why TAE chose to take down the Orkin Man article and comment stream.

I don't have to explain that... because it never happened.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 19, 2012, 12:41:48 PM
Quote
First of all, I'm the only one who will quote scripture from time to time... because it's hard to find many people who will get angry when confronted with such wisdom, even if they are the most spiritually devoid materialists.

You sir, are mistaken. You are NOT the only person who will quote scripture here. Set down your sanctimony long enough to acquaint yourself with the evidence.

Uh, out of Stoneleigh, Ilargi and me, I am the only one that quotes scripture on TAE... which is obviously what agelbert's comment was referring to. Try reading for comprehension before you resort to your default mental position "attack anything that Ashvin says!"

Uh, not obvious to me. Talk about reading for comprehension. The only times I have attacked you is when you have resorted to that holier-than-thou sanctimony that so often comes with the fundamentalist or evangelical mindset: all judgment, and no empathy for others. I have been abundantly complimentary to your overall body of work; I disagree with your views on faith. If you feel a need to strike the victim pose, so be it.


As someone who has helped make the environment more bitter with your withering criticism of others who do not share your fundamentalist cant, I am gobsmacked by your temerity. Just stunning.

My withering criticism? You act like like me responding to critiques of my Faith in a reasonable manner is a bad thing. Why don't you show me examples of how I have gotten out of line in those debates? Then I can show you 10 bitter, insulting and irrelevant comments by you, RE, Karpatok, Tao, WHD and others for every one of mine. Seriously, Surly, you have no leg to stand on here, so stop trying so hard.[/quote]

Gee, Ashvin, I already work two jobs, and don't need a hobby. But I am sure I could find them were I to look.

Oh-- perhaps you will explain to the rest of us Diners why TAE chose to take down the Orkin Man article and comment stream.

I don't have to explain that... because it never happened.
[/quote]

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to reply by pasting the link to it. I must say, I have been to the TAE site and to the archives, and am unable to find it.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 19, 2012, 01:35:47 PM
Tao Jonesing,
I think you and I are generally on the same wave length. :icon_mrgreen:

I checked out the book you linked to. Of course the Constitution is a pro-slavery document! Much has been written about the Revolution being, at it's core, an attempt to immunize the colonies from the "disturbing" (to Jefferson and friends) move in England at the time to outlaw slavery. But the industrial revolution and how the elite parasitic modus operandi called "capitalism" benefited massively from mass production is the main historical influence that led to our polluted world and pissant wage structure of today. The mass production factories created a new type of slavery without the pejorative connotation of being race linked but it was still slavery. When enslaving African Americans was no longer cost effective due to farm machinery, new ways to enslave them and the poor whites as well as any other ethnic poor had to be invented. After all, the elite did not like one bit the idea that the increased efficiency of a laborer could provide that laborer with more free time and a better life. The 1% had conniption fits thinking about all those people out there having the time to sit, think and figure out how TBTB were gaming them. No, the elite developed a plan to "keep em' busy". The guilt trip sermons from pulpits all over America went out after the Civil War to demonize leisure and glorify "nose to the grindstone" work as being "God's Will". BULLSHIT! The elite's "work ethic" includes years of "sabbaticals", "learning experiences", "naval gazing" and "introspection" that translate to long stretches of time doing absolutely nothing productive. I think that's wonderful and should be available to all of us as a means to a healthier and happier mindset. That's why the elite do it. For them to then turn around and unleash their propaganda water carrying lackeys solemnly mouthing the "don't be lazy, work your fingers to the bone for us" bullshit on the populace is the epitome of duplicity.

It is said the word "saboteur" derives from the Netherlands in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.
Notice how the word "saboteur" has a negative connotation. This shows who controls the historical narrative. I believe the Dutch laborers weren't just concerned about obsolescence; they were concerned about controlling how much they got paid for their labor. Mass production was the beginning of a massive concentration of wealth by greedy machinery owners that refused to pay equitable wages.  This is what "Capitalism" is really all about. It is sold as free market this and that but, in practice, it is nothing but elite parasitism. When the English gentry wanted to corral the peasants into working in the factories, as well as use more of their land to grow sheep for fleece free from peasant interference, they came up with a pack of thinly justified herding mechanisms (Enclosure Laws)  that stripped the peasants of their ability to live off the land. The peasants were not buying the con that working in a factory was a better deal than living off the land. They had to be forced.  They knew damned good and well that the factory owners were not going to pay decent wages or provide adequate working conditions. Today, all this disguised tyranny called capitalism is festooned with gobbledygook tems like competitive advantage and arbitrage along with a plethora of terms from the masturbatory imaginations of bored economists but it continues to be about elite parasitism. In the financial area the vampire proboscis is usury but that is not the whole story by a long shot. Patent law is another huge part of RHIP that was NOT put there to protect inventors UNLESS those inventors were from the upper class. The bottom line is the control of the populace for the power, profit and pleasure of the TPBT. 
Enclosure

In English social and economic history, enclosure or inclosure[1] is the process which ends traditional rights such as mowing meadows for hay, or grazing livestock on common land formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these uses of the land become restricted to the owner, and it ceases to be common land. In England and Wales the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. The process of enclosure began to be a widespread feature of the English agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to rough pasture in mountainous areas and to relatively small parts of the lowlands.

The process of enclosure has sometimes been accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit. This created a landless working class that provided the labour required in the new industries developing in the north of England. For example: "In agriculture the years between 1760 and 1820 are the years of wholesale enclosure in which, in village after village, common rights are lost".[2] "Enclosure (when all the sophistications are allowed for) was a plain enough case of class robbery".[3][4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure)

The following video tells the real story of capitalism's birth and growth through the power the elite obtained in the industrial revolution, how the poor were demonzed as being "lazy" for attempting to avoid the horrors of factory work by staying on, and living off, the land. They had to be forced, along with their children, to do so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0nM5DU4ADI# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0nM5DU4ADI#)

The only proper economic system that humans should engage in is the egalitarian socialism that the early Christians engaged in as shown in the Book of Acts in the New Testament (Somehow, I don't think Ashvin would go for this  ;D ). The Apostles were the top dogs but they received no special privileges and had to work as hard as anybody else. The elite despise egalitarianism so they invented all sorts of euphemisms for tyranny like capitalism, as well as 20th century Soviet Communism. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. They all end up with a few reptiles in the catbird seat making life miserable for the rest of us.
That is one of the reasons why, in my article on Renewables, I am adamantly opposed to scaling up renewable energy sources into centralized power generating facilities UNLESS they are nationalized. Privatization of centralized power leads to pollution and illicit profits which are then used to buy the government. The government then provides cover for pollution costs and guarantees more profits for the elite and so on and so forth. This self reinforcing corruption destroys democracy as well as doing grievous harm to the environment. Decentralized renewable power generating facilities provide stable, secure and long term jobs free from the feast or famine fun and games so favored by predatory capitalism. Capitalism requires an insecure labor force so they can be fleeced and set to fight against each other for jobs. Sustainability eliminates all this tyranny and returns the proper view of human existence that everyone should be entitled to a decent lifestyle. The "cog in the wheels of industry" view of humans and their labor as commodities is wrong and has to be shit-canned. 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 19, 2012, 01:42:13 PM
Ashvin,
If the fresh skin of an animal, cleaned and divested of all hair, fat and other extraneous matter is immersed in a dilute solution of tannic acid, a chemical combination ensues. The gelatinous skin is converted into a non putrescible substance impervious to, and insoluble in, water.
This, sir is leather.
 :icon_mrgreen: ;D ;)

Elementary, my dear Watson. See RE for a translation of the above quote from Bugle Notes, otherwise known as the plebe bible at West Point.

I see the trees have lots of cherries to pick from today. Make sure your selection fits in your Procrustean Bed.  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 19, 2012, 01:58:27 PM
// But the industrial revolution and how the elite parasitic modus operandi called "capitalism" benefited massively from mass production is the main historical influence that led to our polluted world and pissant wage structure of today. The mass production factories created a new type of slavery without the pejorative connotation of being race linked but it was still slavery. //

It is said the word "saboteur" derives from the Netherlands in the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human workers obsolete.
Notice how the word "saboteur" has a negative connotation. This shows who controls the historical narrative. //When the English gentry wanted to corral the peasants into working in the factories, as well as use more of their land to grow sheep for fleece free from peasant interference, they came up with a pack of thinly justified herding mechanisms (Enclosure Laws)  that stripped the peasants of their ability to live off the land. //

The process of enclosure has sometimes been accompanied by force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate public land for their private benefit. //

The only proper economic system that humans should engage in is the egalitarian socialism that the early Christians engaged in as shown in the Book of Acts in the New Testament.//

Sustainability eliminates all this tyranny and returns the proper view of human existence that everyone should be entitled to a decent lifestyle. The "cog in the wheels of industry" view of humans and their labor as commodities is wrong and has to be shit-canned.

This is a marvelous analysis worthy of Howard Zinn. My compliments.
And now, in the spirit of Jay Gould ("you can always hire half of the working class to kill the other half"), we have generations ready to fight one another for the last soul-crushing job, and to bid against one another for the privilege of working for the lowest wage. I hope Ayn Rand is roasting on a fresh spit in Hell.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 19, 2012, 03:02:53 PM
Surly1,
Thanks for the  :emthup:. Yes, the divide and conquer MO is still in full swing. Since learning about Hill & Knowlton propaganda efforts on behalf of fossil fuels and purposed to get the general populace to act against their better interests, I began to nose around and, low and behold, there's a game plan complete with a whisleblower publishing the complete procedure to undermine public support for renewables by publishing "scientific" (from purchased credentialed scientists willing to lie for a buck) studies claiming "evidence" that wind generators "cause global warming"! :o :exp-angry: This malice and aforethought by these reptiles in the service of fossil fuels is targeting all renewables but has the biggest bullseye on wind generators because the Texans are happier than pigs in poop from 3 cents per kWh the generators are pumping out. Get a load of this:
Quote
Anti-Wind Propaganda Plot Exposed by DeSmogBlog
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/09/anti-wind-propaganda-plot-exposed-by-desmogblog/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/09/anti-wind-propaganda-plot-exposed-by-desmogblog/)

Here's a pseudoscientific windbag trashing wind generators on the WSJ.
Don't miss the video of the fossil fuel tool working at the Wall Street Journal looking so serious and interested in preserving our environment and using the word "science", "scientists", "NASA space temperature studies", etc. to spin a most convincing, though totally false, argument. These bastards really know how to catapult the propaganda! The way they cherry pick random facts and weave tall tales would be amusing if it wasn't so deadly. If Ashvin would wake up, he would realize that blogs like TAE would benefit from the knock down drag out sessions challenging the fossil fuel fucks on their lies and fabrications. His claim that readership goes up here exclusively because of the I, S, A controversy neglects the comments versus the count on the WBS comments forum. I've been watching the count as I'm sure RE has and I will wager the article links are spreading around and more people are coming here for them than for food fights. This is not about Ashvin, Ilargi, Stoneleigh or me; this is about corrupt energy corporation fascism and our struggle to replace their tyranny with renewables. Personalizing the issue is a time tested sophistic debating technique to draw attention from the core issues. You are clever but you still are a bad, bad boy, Ashvin. :evil4:

I'm glad you are calling out Ashvin on his hypocritical claim that he is "Mr. Scripture Quoter" here. I guess he missed my quote from Galatians as well as those of others like yourself or he is just continuing with his sophistic cherry picking debating crap.

But, since I have been a bit remiss in quoting scripture when I think it is appropriate  :icon_mrgreen:, let me close with my view of how Jesus Christ will handle Ashvin's  claim to being a Christian:
Quote
Matthew 7:21-23

New King James Version (NKJV)
 
I Never Knew You

21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 03:40:29 PM
If Ashvin would wake up, he would realize that blogs like TAE would benefit from the knock down drag out sessions challenging the fossil fuel fucks on their lies and fabrications. His claim that readership goes up here exclusively because of the I, S, A controversy neglects the comments versus the count on the WBS comments forum. I've been watching the count as I'm sure RE has and I will wager the article links are spreading around and more people are coming here for them than for food fights. This is not about Ashvin, Ilargi, Stoneleigh or me; this is about corrupt energy corporation fascism and our struggle to replace their tyranny with renewables. Personalizing the issue is a time tested sophistic debating technique to draw attention from the core issues. You are clever but you still are a bad, bad boy, Ashvin. :evil4:

Sorry to break this to you, agelbert, but you're never going to get much exposure of your articles or your views. And I'm not really that sorry, because I suspect you already know this and don't care. You apparently have little interest in making the material easy to digest, available to wider audiences or convenient for discussion, which is why you casually dismissed my suggestions to you earlier on this thread. Who is coming here and commenting except the same people who have always been here? Now that you have become a bitter and hateful person like so many others here, you have are quickly ruining your chances of ever exposing the truth about renewables. Good job!

Quote
I'm glad you are calling out Ashvin on his hypocritical claim that he is "Mr. Scripture Quoter" here. I guess he missed my quote from Galatians as well as those of others like yourself or he is just continuing with his sophistic cherry picking debating crap.

Do you even think before you write anymore, or are you now fully a mindless drone of RE? YOU are the one who lambasted I, S and me for quoting scripture. I responded to set the facts straights. You weren't talking about people who quote scripture on DD and you know it, so please stop lying. Now, can you even answer the questions that I asked you about your views...?

Quote
But, since I have been a bit remiss in quoting scripture when I think it is appropriate  :icon_mrgreen:, let me close with my view of how Jesus Christ will handle Ashvin's  claim to being a Christian:

Sorry, buddy, but I'm not the one who is egoistic, bitter, hateful and judgmental towards others. I'm not the one here holding a continuous grudge to the point where I can't stop attacking another website every chance I get. The fact that you would even say the above means you are ignorant of a basic principle of being Faithful to Christ:

Quote from: Luke6
37“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. 38“Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure—pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 19, 2012, 03:43:58 PM
Ashvin,

Quote
Now that you have become a bitter and hateful person like so many others here

Quote
37“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. 38“Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure—pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return.”
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 19, 2012, 03:45:27 PM
Coming soon to the Doomstead Diner: What components and infrastructure of a Nuclear Power Plant are identical in purpose and use to those in a Geothermal Power Plant? Can we make Nuclear power plants REALLY renewable energy sources free of CO2 pollution in the entire energy production chain by converting them to Geothermal power plants?

I'm researching it and, so far, the results are promising. Visit the Doomstead Diner often to check to see when these questions are answered here. :icon_sunny:

Don't be intimidated by the long articles. Just cut and past them to a wordpad document and then read and digest small portions at your leisure. Also the links  referenced have a wealth of information and lead you to other videos showing cool Renewable Energy systems like the one that appears as soon as you press this link:
http://www.floatingpowerplant.com/ (http://www.floatingpowerplant.com/)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 03:50:54 PM
EIN,

Nice try, but that passage is clearly talking about judging the Faith of others in Christ and condemning them for what you perceive to be their lack of Faith, which is exactly what agelbert did.

It is not saying that a person should never state his/her opinion about the characteristics of other people...
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 19, 2012, 03:51:08 PM
EndisNigh,
 :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Well put!

We RE robots have to stick together. :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 19, 2012, 04:04:01 PM
Ashvin,

The only person you're fooling is yourself.  You twist the meaning and interpretation from one post to the next to fit your POV.  Stop wasting my time with your BULLSHIT!
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 19, 2012, 04:21:14 PM
According to the following, Luke 6:37 refers to criticizing other people.  You've thrown around so much bullshit that you just stepped in some of your own. 
 
http://www.makingchristknown.com/daily-verse/luke/criticizing-others.htm (http://www.makingchristknown.com/daily-verse/luke/criticizing-others.htm)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: alan2102 on July 19, 2012, 04:36:19 PM
Questions:
Do you think it is likely the predatory capitalist system will disappear over the next decade,
and make room for sensible investments?

Surprisingly,  some sensible investments ARE BEING MADE.  But elsewhere; not here
in the U.S.  See (a few) notes on China, here:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg4977#msg4977 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg4977#msg4977)
.... of course, you can learn a whole lot more, researching the matter on your own.
But the point is that it is not necessary for the "predatory capitalist system" of the West
to "disappear over the next decade" in order to "make room for sensible investments"
throughout the world.  It may be necessary for that system to disappear in order for
the U.S. to make said investments. But it is clearly not necessary for others, elsewhere,
to take that path. Also, keep in mind that transition to renewables is a process, not an
event. It will take a good century, perhaps longer.  China's great dependence on coal,
for example, will persist for many decades.  It will take them a century or more to wean
themselves off of it.

Do not mistake the collapse of the West, particularly the U.S., for the collapse of
industrial civilization.  This is something to which Americans are distinctly prone, for
obvious reasons. But it is false.

Quote
Do you believe that TAE should be placing more emphasis on the ability of renewables
to run global industrial society than on the need for people and decentralized communities
to work towards self-sufficiency and prepare for a world with much less usable net energy?

I cannot speak for agelbert, of course, but my reply is: yes, TAE should place more
emphasis on that, at least to the point of acknowledging that global industrial society
is not inevitably doomed to  collapse into chaos and ruin, any year now.  (I mean, barring
the black-swan type event that changes everything; e.g. nuclear war, EMP bombs,
etc.)   What IS on the verge of collapse into chaos and ruin -- and it appears inevitable --
is the U.S./Western financial system and financialized "economies".  In the wake of that
collapse there will, yes, be the need for "decentralized communities working toward self-
sufficiency", etc., to at least some extent, and TAE's focus on same is generally a good
thing. Just keep the big  picture in mind, and drop the extreme doomsday orientation.
You know: the kind of orientation that has people prepping for FAMINE, say, rather than
prepping for (much more likely) career and common economic stress.

(BTW: no, I did not just say that the collapse of the West will have no effect on the
rest of the world. OF COURSE it will have a profound effect on everyone. The question
is not whether or not there will be knock-on effects, but rather HOW FAST, RELATIVELY,
the various parties will recover.  My guess?  The West: 2-3 generations.  The East:
10 years, perhaps less. Younger, hungrier people. Much more resilient.)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 19, 2012, 04:38:14 PM
Do you really have to wonder why the bitter folks on DD didn't embrace your fundy crap with open arms?  You find a religion only a year ago and then come here parading it around, claiming all other beliefs to be false, yet you're unable to follow the tenets of said religion yourself.  Do you think we haven't been through this before with others like you, and have based our opinions on those experiences?  It has nothing to do with our not understanding the faith, or our failure to recognise the difference between the institutionalised version and the original word.

It's simply the sheer hypocrisy of it all. 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 19, 2012, 04:39:29 PM
I appreciate the compliments, but frankly I think your attitude towards blogging is one of the main reasons why DD will never really take off.

Ashvin, the Plane already left the Runway.  DD already gets far more Commentary every day than TAE does, so clearly the commentariat isn't all that bothered by my attitude.

Quote
I don't want to get into defending I or S here, or explain why no one is responding to agelbert's behemoth of an article, because it's really like arguing with a bunch of bitter old crabby women who don't want to hear what you're saying. For all the hate and disdain of TAE here, it's really surprising that every popular thread ends up being about Stoneleigh, Ilargi, me and TAE (not really surprising). You guys accuse it of being irrelevant, yet feel the need to attack it every chance you get. What's the deal with that? Jealousy perhaps? Or perhaps just bitter anger at the site that really helped get you going here, but then predictably decided to disassociate... either way, I don't care anymore.

The reason TAE topics get so much discussion over here is because people can't discuss them on TAE without being CENSORED or BANNED.  Hell, even YOU come over here to discuss RELIGION because you SELF CENSOR discussing it on TAE!

Quote
I feel like I get dumber, more frustrated and more bitter every time I try to delve into a discussion about anything here... so I'm going to stop for the most part, unless it's something I find to be very important, like misrepresentations of theological/spiritual issues, or someone responding reasonably and rationally to a comment I've made. This bitter environment just isn't conducive towards many meaningful discussions, even though I'll gladly admit that the Admins here pose very interesting thoughts and ideas in their articles. The only really productive discussion I've had here, though, was with Ka, and I actually learned a few things about my own Faith from him. Yes, that's right - I'm still learning, but I'm not sure that's true about a lot of other people here.

Your problem dude you already identified yourself which is your arrogance combined with judgementalism and a COMPLETE lack of a sense of humour.  You irritate people, and as a result you get a ton of negative feedback here.  You remember that FUBAR article of yours I cross posted?  If you posted more stuff like that and participated in the economics threads I drop on here instead of Holy Rolling Bible Thumping all the time you would have done a lot better.  You reap what you sow dude.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: alan2102 on July 19, 2012, 04:56:05 PM
Ashvin is likely an enneagram personality/character Type One, with all that that implies,
both good and bad.   (Me, I'm a type five. Different challenges.)

The levels below describe a descending scale, from healthy (self-actualizing), to
average, to unhealthy (disintegrating).  ALL of these qualities are within the
potential of a One.


http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeOne.asp (http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeOne.asp)

Type One—More Depth by Level

Healthy Levels

Level 1 (At Their Best): Become extraordinarily wise and discerning. By accepting what is, they become transcendentally realistic, knowing the best action to take in each moment. Humane, inspiring, and hopeful: the truth will be heard.

Level 2: Conscientious with strong personal convictions: they have an intense sense of right and wrong, personal religious and moral values. Wish to be rational, reasonable, self-disciplined, mature, moderate in all things.

Level 3: Extremely principled, always want to be fair, objective, and ethical: truth and justice primary values. Sense of responsibility, personal integrity, and of having a higher purpose often make them teachers and witnesses to the truth.

Average Levels

Level 4: Dissatisfied with reality, they become high-minded idealists, feeling that it is up to them to improve everything: crusaders, advocates, critics. Into "causes" and explaining to others how things "ought" to be.

Level 5: Afraid of making a mistake: everything must be consistent with their ideals. Become orderly and well-organized, but impersonal, puritanical, emotionally constricted, rigidly keeping their feelings and impulses in check. Often workaholics—"anal-compulsive," punctual, pedantic, and fastidious.

Level 6: Highly critical both of self and others: picky, judgmental, perfectionistic. Very opinionated about everything: correcting people and badgering them to "do the right thing"—as they see it. Impatient, never satisfied with anything unless it is done according to their prescriptions. Moralizing, scolding, abrasive, and indignantly angry.

Unhealthy Levels

Level 7: Can be highly dogmatic, self-righteous, intolerant, and inflexible. Begin dealing in absolutes: they alone know "The Truth." Everyone else is wrong: very severe in judgments, while rationalizing own actions.

Level 8: Become obsessive about imperfection and the wrong-doing of others, although they may fall into contradictory actions, hypocritically doing the opposite of what they preach.

Level 9: Become condemnatory toward others, punitive and cruel to rid themselves of "wrong-doers." Severe depressions, nervous breakdowns, and suicide attempts are likely. Generally corresponds to the Obsessive-Compulsive and Depressive personality disorders.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 05:55:04 PM
Do you think we haven't been through this before with others like you, and have based our opinions on those experiences?  It has nothing to do with our not understanding the faith, or our failure to recognise the difference between the institutionalised version and the original word.

Actually, it has everything to do with you not understanding the Faith or the original teachings. You simply have no idea what you're talking about with regards to this issue, and I have no qualms pointing that out. Your hastily googled website does not contradict what I said, and I am staring at 3 different commentaries on that passage which all support my understanding. Here is one:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (http://gill.biblecommenter.com/matthew/7.htm)

Quote
Judge not, that ye be not judged. This is not to be understood of any sort of judgment; not of judgment in the civil courts of judicature, by proper magistrates, which ought to be made and pass, according to the nature of the case; nor of judgment in the churches of Christ, where offenders are to be called to an account, examined, tried, and dealt with according to the rules of the Gospel; nor of every private judgment, which one man may make upon another, without any detriment to him; but of rash judgment, interpreting men's words and deeds to the worst sense, and censuring them in a very severe manner; even passing sentence on them, with respect to their eternal state and condition (me: what agelbert did). Good is the advice given by the famous Hillell (u), who lived a little before Christ's time;

"Do not judge thy neighbour, (says he,) until thou comest into his place.''

It would be well, if persons subject to a censorious spirit, would put themselves in the case and circumstances the persons are in they judge; and then consider, what judgment they would choose others should pass on them. The argument Christ uses to dissuade from this evil, which the Jews were very prone to, is, "that ye be not judged"; meaning, either by men, for such censorious persons rarely have the good will of their fellow creatures, but are commonly repaid in the same way; or else by God, which will be the most awful and tremendous: for such persons take upon them the place of God, usurp his prerogative, as if they knew the hearts and states of men; and therefore will have judgment without mercy at the hands of God.
 

Perhaps I shouldn't have said agelbert is a "hateful and bitter person", but rather was expressing a hateful and bitter attitude in this thread. Either way, his condemnation was much more against the spirit of the passage than my opinion. It was primarily directed at the Jewish Pharisees who would hastily condemn others to eternal damnation for not following the Law. Here's another similar commentary:

Quote
Judge not ... - This command refers to rash, censorious, and unjust judgment. See Romans 2:1. Luke Luk 6:37 explains it in the sense of "condemning." Christ does not condemn judging as a magistrate, for that, when according to justice, is lawful and necessary. Nor does he condemn our "forming an opinion" of the conduct of others, for it is impossible "not" to form an opinion of conduct that we know to be evil. But what he refers to is a habit of forming a judgment hastily, harshly, and without an allowance for every palliating circumstance, and a habit of "expressing" such an opinion harshly and unnecessarily when formed. It rather refers to private judgment than "judicial," and perhaps primarily to the customs of the scribes and Pharisees.


On a different note...

Ka clearly knew what he was talking about, since he had researched Judeo-Christian theology, and taught me a few things about the ability of other Faiths to reach salvation. I still don't agree with a lot of what he said, but I have been able to reconcile my own views with those of other traditions much better, thanks to him. So the problem here is not with my ability to listen to others, learn from them and adjust my beliefs - the problem is with you, your lack of understanding and your visceral antagonistic attitude towards my beliefs and me. You, sir, are no Ka.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 06:05:15 PM
Alan,

I remember having this same conversation with you on the old TAE site, and my position remains the same...

In fact, since that time, it has become even more clear that Eastern countries such as China and India will not only suffer from financial, energy and environmental collapse, but it will probably hit their populations just as hard as it hits Western populations, if not harder. And I dare say that the DD Admins, and especially RE, are even more extreme in their Doom on these issues than we are at TAE. Agelbert may be right about EROEI methodology and current developments in renewable energy, but I doubt even he believes that it will ultimately scale up and be a feasible alternative for global society. We don't have anywhere close to 50 years for this stuff to get going in earnest, let alone an entire century.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 06:26:12 PM
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to reply by pasting the link to it. I must say, I have been to the TAE site and to the archives, and am unable to find it.

http://theautomaticearth.com/Earth/the-orkin-man-which-side-are-you-on.html (http://theautomaticearth.com/Earth/the-orkin-man-which-side-are-you-on.html)

Quote from: agelbert
The only proper economic system that humans should engage in is the egalitarian socialism that the early Christians engaged in as shown in the Book of Acts in the New Testament (Somehow, I don't think Ashvin would go for this  ;D ). The Apostles were the top dogs but they received no special privileges and had to work as hard as anybody else. The elite despise egalitarianism so they invented all sorts of euphemisms for tyranny like capitalism, as well as 20th century Soviet Communism. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. They all end up with a few reptiles in the catbird seat making life miserable for the rest of us.

I have probably written more on the dangers of capitalism and privatization of the commons, as well as the accuracies of Marxist and Neo-Marxist history/philosophy than you would ever care to read. Which is just a little bit ironic, since you come down so hard on people who don't read your massive articles and formulate a response promptly...  And half my time here has been spent explaining to others why original Christianity had nothing to do with the destructive, centralized systems that have been put in place over the many centuries between then and now. Perhaps you missed all of those comments as well? Not surprised.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: EndIsNigh on July 19, 2012, 06:39:12 PM
Ashvin,

Quote
the problem is with you, your lack of understanding and your visceral antagonistic attitude towards my beliefs and me.

That's alright.  I don't need to counter your false representation of events as they actually occurred when I can just let the evidence of your hypocrisy speak for itself.

Quote
You, sir, are no Ka.
 

You're right.  I'm no Ka.  I'm EndisNigh, and not EndisNigh, and neither.  Not one, not two.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: WHD on July 19, 2012, 07:25:25 PM
Quote
Now that you have become a bitter and hateful person like so many others here, you have are quickly ruining your chances of ever exposing the truth about renewables. Good job!

Ashvin,

You appear here to believe that fossil fuels and the manner of their dissemination is a lie. Isn't the point of guys like agelbert to do the heavy lifting on such isssues, so the rest of us who are better at making it "digestible" will? Why is it all on him?

Quote
it has become even more clear that Eastern countries such as China and India will not only suffer from financial, energy and environmental collapse, but it will probably hit their populations just as hard as it hits Western populations, if not harder. And I dare say that the DD Admins, and especially RE, are even more extreme in their Doom on these issues than we are at TAE. Agelbert may be right about EROEI methodology and current developments in renewable energy, but I doubt even he believes that it will ultimately scale up and be a feasible alternative for global society. We don't have anywhere close to 50 years for this stuff to get going in earnest, let alone an entire century.

What does this have to do with telling the truth, that renewables would be better for the health of the earth and people, and fossil fuels and the monsters who control them are dragging us toward dystopia at least, even mass extinction? Why don't we have 50-100 years? Because good men and women won't stand up and say "enough".  Do you deny his numbers? Do you have any critique of them, or are you simply throwing them out, with a message precisely as the fossil fuel conglomerates would have it.

Fuck the "global society," if it can only come at the expense to destroying the biosphere. You know what the "global society" means to me? The Japanese beetles devouring my grape and bean leaves. The zebra mussels that have inundated the lake of my birth. The Asian carp that are soon to infest that lake, having been introduced into the lower Mississippi only a decade ago. To HELL with global society. Global domination, more like it. You want to travel around the world? Learn how to sail.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Tao Jonesing on July 19, 2012, 07:53:17 PM
Quote
The supreme good is like water,
which nourishes all things without trying to.
It is content with the low places that people disdain.
Thus it is like the Tao.

In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present.

When you are content to be simply yourself
and don't compare or compete,
everybody will respect you.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 8 of the Mitchell translation

Quote
Empty your mind of all thoughts.
Let your heart be at peace.
Watch the turmoil of beings,
but contemplate their return.

Each separate being in the universe
returns to the common source.
Returning to the source is serenity.

If you don't realize the source,
you stumble in confusion and sorrow.
When you realize where you come from,
you naturally become tolerant,
disinterested, amused,
kindhearted as a grandmother,
dignified as a king.

Immersed in the wonder of the Tao,
you can deal with whatever life brings you,
and when death comes, you are ready.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 16 of the Mitchell translation
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 07:59:11 PM
You appear here to believe that fossil fuels and the manner of their dissemination is a lie. Isn't the point of guys like agelbert to do the heavy lifting on such isssues, so the rest of us who are better at making it "digestible" will? Why is it all on him?

It's not all on him. I am fine chipping in with some of my own support of his position if I am convinced of it, but frankly I don't know nearly enough yet to know what the position actually is, let alone whether I am convinced of it. As you know, there is a lot of data and sources to digest in that article, and it's not easy for a lay person who hasn't gotten deep into the math. I have spent most of my time writing about economics/finance on TAE, and left the energy issues to Nicole.

That's also why I asked him those questions... because that's how my "big picture" perspective works. I need to know his position on the interplay between politics, geopolitics, finance, mass psychology, etc. and the bottom-up efforts of renewable energy developers.

Quote
What does this have to do with telling the truth, that renewables would be better for the health of the earth and people, and fossil fuels and the monsters who control them are dragging us toward dystopia at least, even mass extinction?

Any blog that focuses on energy and environmental predicaments have been spreading that truth for awhile now. It would definitely be better, but the question is also how likely is it and how much our time/efforts should be allocated towards making it more likely, if that's even possible.

Quote
Why don't we have 50-100 years? Because good men and women won't stand up and say "enough".  Do you deny his numbers? Do you have any critique of them, or are you simply throwing them out, with a message precisely as the fossil fuel conglomerates would have it.

Like I said above, I barely understand them fully, so no I don't have a critique of them. As agelbert himself makes clear, a lot of people can throw out numbers to support their position in this area, so it is incumbent upon the readers to check the sources and see if it all makes sense.

The reason I say less than 50 years is not strictly because of the numbers, but a host of other factors that I believe could easily overwhelm even the best efforts of people to overthrow the twisted math/logic of "free market capitalism" and "debtonomics" and get this show on the road. Agelbert says that these plans must be formulated as decentralized power generation, and that's not only going against an economic system, but a political, social and cultural system that has benefited the most nefarious people you could ever imagine right now. We have to be realistic about what we can achieve, and that realism has nothing to do with supporting the fossil fuel or nuclear industries.

Quote
Fuck the "global society," if it can only come at the expense to destroying the biosphere. You know what the "global society" means to me? The Japanese beetles devouring my grape and bean leaves. The zebra mussels that have inundated the lake of my birth. The Asian carp that are soon to infest that lake, having been introduced into the lower Mississippi only a decade ago. To HELL with global society. Global domination, more like it. You want to travel around the world? Learn how to sail.

That's what I say... transitioning to a world with much less net energy and, correspondingly, global inter-dependencies and centralized institutions of business/governance is not really a bad thing, as long as we can find some practically (and ethically!) good ways of mitigating the inevitable fallout for the masses.

PS - Sorry to hear about your personal housing issues... I sincerely hope you are able to resolve them, perhaps with the help of donors and attorneys.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: WHD on July 19, 2012, 08:38:44 PM
Quote
That's what I say... transitioning to a world with much less net energy and, correspondingly, global inter-dependencies and centralized institutions of business/governance is not really a bad thing, as long as we can find some practically (and ethically!) good ways of mitigating the inevitable fallout for the masses.

PS - Sorry to hear about your personal housing issues... I sincerely hope you are able to resolve them, perhaps with the help of donors and attorneys.

Decentralization. Local autonomy. Solar energy. Appropriate technologies.

Thank you. I'm hoping the attorneys won't be necessary. The mere threat should keep the city regulators at bay; they answer to the city attorneys, who are generally allergic to bad publicity. 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 19, 2012, 09:17:49 PM
William Hunter Duncan,
I agree with your summation of our situation. Ashvin assumes that, lacking scalability, no Renewable energy system will replace the current system.

Ahem,
From the article Renewables, why they work and why fossil fuels never did:
Quote
I believe that scalability of an energy source, unless it is a government utility (i.e. fully socialized and nonprofit), will lead to unscrupulous short cuts and new externalized costs for the populace for the benefit of private power corporations. The promise of renewables must go hand in hand with decentralized power sources. The authors discarded alleged low EROI renewables for consideration because of their scalability bias. As I stated early in this article, biomass ethanol, if properly used, has an EROI of at least that of gasoline without the environmental baggage of gasoline. And other biomass products like Lemna minor (Duckweed), that grow eight times faster than corn without heavy industrial chemical fertilization or pesticides will certainly produce EROI numbers far above 10.0. Passive geothermal (also discarded by the authors because it isn't scalable) and other renewable heat sources such as e.g. placing mirrors a short distance from the north side of house in winter to reflect sun onto the north facing wall to  drastically lower heating costs will play a very important role in the picture of total sustainability. In addition, decentralized renewable energy infrastructure provides jobs, not in the feast or famine pattern of ethics free, dog eat dog, vicious predatory capitalist “business” model, but in a sustainable, predictable and humane way.

Scalability is NOT a desired outcome but Ashvin feels it is. I've gone to great lengths to explain why it's a bad deal. Tao Jonesing, in his posting on economics also pointed out that scalable manufacturing and "economies of scale" are not necessarily a valid model for improving the overall welfare of the populace. Alan agrees also that decentralization will be important in renewables. Ashvin is the guy that wrote the FUBAR article that I agreed with and now he doesn't want to admit just how FUBAR things are.  :icon_scratch:
I am writing this, even now, because I don't want anybody out there getting the idea that, if we could just scale up renewables, we would solve our energy problems. This is backwards thinking and I have explained why.

What Ashvin doesn't seem to get and you, myself and many others clearly see, is that when you are in a hole, you are supposed to stop digging! You don't need a degree in environmental engineering to see that what we are doing is killing us.
This is a matter of the heart. Thank you william, for expressing your passion and care for humanity. I get pretty damned depressed with the immense difficulty involved in convincing people out there that the paradigm must be changed, not tinkered with or fine tuned. Comments like yours and EndisNigh's straight talking honesty keep me motivated.

Here's a nice video for everyone here to watch. It explains much about how deep the level of dysfunction we are saddled with is in our economy and mindset. Even Ashvin might like it.  :icon_mrgreen:

Did You Ever Wonder? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR2HrHXSuYM#)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 19, 2012, 09:50:21 PM
Scalability is NOT a desired outcome but Ashvin feels it is. I've gone to great lengths to explain why it's a bad deal. Tao Jonesing, in his posting on economics also pointed out that scalable manufacturing and "economies of scale" are not necessarily a valid model for improving the overall welfare of the populace. Alan agrees also that decentralization will be important in renewables. Ashvin is the guy that wrote the FUBAR article that I agreed with and now he doesn't want to admit just how FUBAR things are.  :icon_scratch:

No, I definitely do not think it is a "desired" outcome. I've always said that large scale, centralized societies are inherently bad, and I believe that is true for both practical and spiritual reasons. The difference here is that I believe TPTB will oppose any measures that try to transform global society into a more decentralized, anarchic-socialist model, and ultimately I can't deny the fact that they have the means to make sure it doesn't happen right now. First, I believe it is likely we go in the opposite direction for some years to come, i.e. crises forcing unorganized decentralization coupled with simultaneous attempts to use those crises for further centralization of wealth/power, and then honestly I don't know WTF will happen. We may have to endure a dystopian NWO paradigm for some more years, but ultimately I don't think TPTB will be able to retain global control, once again for both practical and spiritual reasons.

So, really, I'm trying to figure out where your vision could possibly fit into all of this, given the fact that our world systems are truly FUBAR right now.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 19, 2012, 10:35:30 PM
The biosphere, otherwise known as the REAL WORLD, is talking. I think we should listen.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice_animation.html (http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice_animation.html)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 19, 2012, 11:01:12 PM
Latest update on Arctic sea ice. We are in new territory.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 20, 2012, 08:22:06 AM
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to reply by pasting the link to it. I must say, I have been to the TAE site and to the archives, and am unable to find it.

The link does indeed work; yet the article itself is not visible in the archives. Or does not everything appear in the archives?

Just curious.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 20, 2012, 09:01:08 AM
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to reply by pasting the link to it. I must say, I have been to the TAE site and to the archives, and am unable to find it.

The link does indeed work; yet the article itself is not visible in the archives. Or does not everything appear in the archives?

Just curious.

Yeah only feature articles are listed in the front page archives. But commentaries still show up in the main sections linked at the top, i.e. finance, energy, and earth
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: JoeP on July 20, 2012, 09:14:49 AM
Ilargi getting on his censorship horse again in the "Jeff Rubin and Oil Prices Revisited" comments.  This was my comment (indented bold):


Ilargi wrote:

It's time to shorten your comments. And we've seen enough references to the ultimate history for now.


Triv,

I don't think your comments are too long - you should see how long some of Ashvin's fundy comments are at The Diner

...and there is absolutely no censorship there. You should make a visit:

www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Ashvin on July 20, 2012, 10:40:52 AM
JoeP,

Hope you got that out of your system, because it will be the last one you make to that effect. As you know, I will not hesitate to censor the crap out of you for that kind of stuff.

Really, trying to undermine a site that not only covers much of the same subject matter as DD, but has also consistently provided a forum for DD's exposure through comments and cross-posted articles, and has sent many readers to DD (including you), is despicable.

So you don't like Ilargi and his hard-headed mentality with commenters? So what? Get over it. I don't like most of what RE does in his commenting methods, either on TAE before or here, but I don't hold a grudge.

I could launch a campaign on TAE to constantly undermine DD in posts and comments, and, what's more, it would work. But I won't ever do that, because it's wrong.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on July 20, 2012, 11:39:25 AM
The link does indeed work; yet the article itself is not visible in the archives. Or does not everything appear in the archives?
Just curious.

Yeah only feature articles are listed in the front page archives. But commentaries still show up in the main sections linked at the top, i.e. finance, energy, and earth

Thank you; I did not know that.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: JoeP on July 20, 2012, 02:15:33 PM
Quote from: Ash-Hole
blah blah blah...is despicable

I think "despicable" is a pretty strong adjective for this.  For the most part, my intent was humor...but I can see how you might not find my comment very funny.  But people have told me I have a "strange" sense of humor - so maybe you're right.

Here's what I think is funny. 

Ilargi is obviously having a nervous meltdown of some kind.  Anyone that has taken one college level psych course can see this.  I think this started sometime after he gave out that "alarmist" advice (about 8 or 9 months ago) to TAE readers to take money out of the banks because there were going to be a crisis...and it never happened...and a lot of readers were really pissed off.  Ilargi made a stupid prediction and gave the wrong advice to readers and they started asking questions......meltdown begins.  So now he's riding high on his censorship horse...that part is funny to me.  I won't even go into some of Stoneleigh's bad predictions - that was covered earlier in the "Jeff Rubin and Oil Prices Revisited" comments.

It's also funny that at the same time Ilargi is cautioning readers against making "long comments", his boy (Ash-Hole) is writing fundy comments (at another blogspot) that are chapter-size.  Am I the only one that sees a little irony here?
 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 20, 2012, 02:36:13 PM

It's also funny that at the same time Ilargi is cautioning readers against making "long comments", his boy (Ash-Hole) is writing fundy comments (at another blogspot) that are chapter-size.  Am I the only one that sees a little irony here?
 

The ironies and hypocrisy abound here.  The reason Watson comes over here to Bible Thump is because he self-censors it on TAE because Ilargi wouldn't like it.  Watson criticizes Diners here for yakking about TAE stuff, when the very REASON they are yakking about it here is because they CAN'T on TAE.

Then Ilargi goes and tells Commenters not to make long posts, when his Article is well over 2000 words.  Only Admins get to write Long stuff? If you are going to do a detailed deconstruction of an article, it's bound to be just as long as the original was, often longer.

(http://gifsoup.com/view1/3873993/josey-wales-1-o.gif)
Far as a nervous break down goes, I wouldn't be surprised.  Everybody is wound up a little tight these days.  Some folks respond being Born Again as Fundies, others move to Area 51 and still others Snatch the Pebble from Kwai Chang Caine's Hand.

As for me, I was Born Again to Josey Walesism.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 22, 2012, 12:05:25 PM
ALL ABOUT DUCKWEED
(http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/undergrad/curricula/img/full-size/bae.jpg)

Snippet 1:
Quote
Researchers at North Carolina State University have found that a tiny aquatic plant can be used to clean up animal waste at industrial hog farms and potentially be part of the answer for the global energy crisis. Their research shows that growing duckweed on hog wastewater can produce five to six times more starch per acre than corn, according to researcher Dr. Jay Cheng. This means that ethanol production using duckweed could be "faster and cheaper than from corn," ]says fellow researcher Dr. Anne-Marie Stomp.

"We can kill two birds – biofuel production and wastewater treatment – with one stone – duckweed," Cheng says. Starch from duckweed can be readily converted into ethanol using the same facilities currently used for corn, Cheng adds.
(http://www.biofuelswiki.org/pub/Home/Duckweed/duckweed.jpg)

A LOT of hogs are raised in the USA and many other countries as well. Do the math on the win-win situation of vastly increased ethanol production from duckweed while simultaneously stopping nitrogenous and fecal coliform waste which contaminates water and contributes to ocean dead zones. And remember that duckweed isn't particular; it can use ANY animal feces as fertilizer.

(http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960852412003343-gr2.jpg)
Quote
High nutrient removal rate from swine wastes and protein biomass production by full-scale duckweed ponds
NOTE: Don't be confused by the above term "nutrient" in the Sciencedirect article; they are talking about algae "nutrients" from animal waste that cause algal bloom and ocean dead zones from de-oxygenation. Shit causes algae to grow a LOT. In this case it is a bad thing and duckweed prevents it.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852412003343 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852412003343)

(http://domesticfuel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/duckweed.jpg)
Duckweed is the smallest flowering plant known to man. Being aquatic, it uses most of the solar energy gained from photosynthesis to grow its buoyant fleshy leaves, avoiding the energy intensive requirements of slow growing woody root systems. This ultra-efficient use of energy is the main reason it grows so fast.
Note: Unlike GM plants tinkered with to grow fast or forced to do so with chemical fertilzers, Lemna minor (duckweed) sacrifices nothing in it's nutrient value for animals (it is edible and nutritious for humans too - In a world environmental collapse this humble angiosperm may be the key to preserving life, health and energy for millions of humans).

Quote
Global pork production in 2012 is revised upward 924000 tons from the last forecast to. 104.4 million tons.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf (http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf)

Snippet 2:
Quote
The duckweed system consists of shallow ponds that can be built on land unsuitable for conventional crops, and is so efficient it generates water clean enough for re-use. The technology can utilize any nutrient-rich wastewater, from livestock production to municipal wastewater.

Snippet 3:
Quote
Cheng says, "Duckweed could be an environmentally friendly, economically viable feedstock for ethanol."
"There's a bias in agriculture that all the crops that could be discovered have been discovered," Stomp says, "but duckweed could be the first of the new, 21st century crops. In the spirit of George Washington Carver, who turned peanuts into a major crop, Jay and I are on a mission to turn duckweed into a new industrial crop, providing an innovative approach to alternative fuel production."
Source:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/38605 (http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/38605)

Duckweed for electricity at 3 CENTS per kwh:

Snippet 1:
Quote
It's a little, water-born plant that doubles in mass every 24 hours. The ducks really like it," Behrens said. Two pounds of duckweed seed in a 32-foot tank in Philadelphia grew to a depth of 2 inches in 10 days, he said.
"It's very easy to harvest," Behrens said. "That was the undoing of a lot of algae concepts. You can't spend too much energy removing fuel from water, otherwise on your balance sheet you haven't made any energy."
Duckweed is smaller than a grain of rice, but a million times bigger than an algae cell, he said. The duckweed is harvested with a nylon mesh, similar to screen doors, then dried.
In many ways, it's similar to wood-products waste, another type of biomass, which is used to generate electricity in White City and other places around the country.
"Trees don't grow fast enough, so we found something that grows faster," Behrens said. "The key is growing fuel on site, because shipping it in is too costly. We just had to find a fast-growing plant -- and there are plenty of those -- and then create an artificial environment that optimizes plant growth."

The artificial environment -- BioEnergy Domes -- is where Pacific Domes comes in. There are four sizes of BioEnergy Domes, ranging from a backyard-sized, 5,000-kilowatt version that can supply energy for one home to a commercial-size, 60-foot-diameter unit, such as the initial unit in a Philadelphia industrial park. The generating unit sits outside the dome and runs silently.

Behrens said it costs about $750,000 to $800,000 to install the largest BioEnergy Domes, and the payback time is only two years.

"You are able to generate electricity at the cost of 3 cents per kilowatt hour, the same as coal or nuclear plants," Behrens said. "It's completely controllable, unlike wind or solar power, and generates on demand like a fossil-fuel plant."

http://www.kgw.com/news/Ore-company-uses-duckweed-to-generate-electricity-117942849.html (http://www.kgw.com/news/Ore-company-uses-duckweed-to-generate-electricity-117942849.html)

While I laugh at the idea that the actual cost of coal or nuclear power is just 3 cents per kwh because the EROI numbers on those two poisonous energy products exclude massive subsidies and environmental costs, I see no reason to doubt that the 3 cents per kwh is bonafide with duckweed. Nuclear fuel EROI of 10.0 and coal  EROI of 80.0 are corporate pseudo-scientific Procrustean Bed lies (See this article: http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/) ) Even if it is only in the wind EROI range of 18 it is still a far better alternative than any fossil fuel planetary poison. Furthermore, transportation costs would be next to nothing as well because duckweed infrastructure would be decentralized and local. Renewable energy produced this way also provides jobs for the community.

In addition, duckweed can be pelletized and used as food for tilapia fish farming or fuel in furnaces (after a low tech drying process).

(http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/articles/58591531_4151b1b2ed.jpg)

sources:
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22406406/1260766168/name/duckweed++final.pdf (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22406406/1260766168/name/duckweed++final.pdf)
http://www.permies.com/t/13500/stoves/you-burn-duckweed-rocket-heater (http://www.permies.com/t/13500/stoves/you-burn-duckweed-rocket-heater)

Duckweed has great potential!
(http://duckweedgardening.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/screen-of-drying-duckweed.jpg)
Drying duckweed on a screen
(http://duckweedgardening.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/dirty-bucket-of-duckweed_cr.jpg)
Duckweed is easy to grow. Just add water and poop.

What about those that claim that renewables like duckweed, wind, photovoltaic, etc. are just niche energy markets and will never actually replace fossil fuels as number one?

Snippet 1:
Quote
4. Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels
Last year was the first time global investments in renewable energy surpassed investments in fossil fuels.

The global market for clean energy was worth a whopping $250 billion.
The United States is currently leading in corporate R&D and venture capital investments in clean energy globally, and last year retook the top spot in overall investment with a 33 percent increase to $55.9 billion.

Snippet 2:
Quote
6. Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy
To date, the oil-and-gas industry received $446.96 billion (adjusted for inflation) in cumulative energy subsidies from 1994 to 2009, whereas renewable energy sources received just $5.93 billion (adjusted for inflation).

Renewable energy investments should be put in proper historical perspective. According to the Energy Information Agency, “focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years across all energy fuels and technologies.”

The U.S. government is showing a smaller commitment to renewables than it showed in the early years of the oil-and-gas industries. A study showed that “during the early years of what would become the U.S. oil and gas industries, federal subsidies for producers averaged half a percent of the federal budget. By contrast, the current support for renewables is barely a fifth that size, just one-tenth of 1 percent of federal spending.”

Snippet 3:
Quote
Here are the top six things you really need to know:

1)  Clean energy is competitive with other types of energy

2) Clean energy creates three times more jobs than fossil fuels

3) Clean energy improves grid reliability

4) Clean energy investment has surpassed investments in fossil fuels

5) Investments in clean energy are cost effective

6) Fossil fuels have gotten 75 times more subsidies than clean energy

Source:
http://idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53750 (http://idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53750)

Given all these real world facts about the main energy investment trends and the promise of EROI increases from renewables such as wind, photovoltaic and duckweed free of the environmental hazards of fossil and nuclear fuels and the prospect of much reduced government energy subsidies that we-the-people will benefit from,  isn't it folly to cling to the concept that centralized power systems will remain dominant in the energy markets?

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 22, 2012, 03:29:08 PM
How can renewables replace poisonous energy sources practically in the light of the massive resistance from the fossil and nuclear fuel corproations. Well, my purpose in the two recent articles and many of my comments is to define the problem and outline proposed solutions to it. It is a complex problem and the proposed solutions necessarily require a lot of boring detail, especially in the light of my firm belief that the energy grid will be mainly decentralized in order to harmonize with the biosphere and provide stable jobs for many. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether I or anybody else thinks switching to renewables is a great idea and we just need to convince the reptiles pushing fossil and nuclear poisons onto the planet to do it or else we off them. As I have pointed out in this article: http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)
, the switch is inevitable; the more the delay, the more the pain for all life forms, including the 1% that believe they can wait out the environmental collapse in their bunkers. I certainly am trying to convince those in the catbird seat that they need to wake up and realize that cooperation must replace competition in their world view but I have no plans to recruit a mutant ninja turtles hit team to put horse heads on their pillows if they remain in denial. These people are truly blinded by their greed. Their reasoning faculties have atrophied. Granted, a group of them are incorrigible due to the fact that they are psychopaths but that is a subset of TPTB that is running the show and if enough of the others can take their greed blinders off they will proceed to isolate the psychopaths in a display of truly enlightened self interest (not the cockamamie Wall Street predatory capitalist distortion of Adam Smith's' writings**) which encompasses a concern for the community to a greater degree than petty greed does. I have no control of when or how this may or may not take place. I'm just laying it out there because I haven't seen anybody try to put this thing together in a big picture format covering the last 150 years or so. I am a human being concerned with God's garden and the creatures that live in it.
But suppose I received a visit from Representatives of all the top zip codes in the USA (for starters - the other heavily industrialized country elite would need to be on board) and they said to me they just figured out that the NBC (nuclear biological chemical) filters on their 40 year food supply bunkers are only good for 20 years and their scientists have estimated no environmental rebound from collapse for at least 30 years. IOW, the bunkers will turn into coffins. Due to this newfound knowledge, the elite have suddenly decided it is in their best interests to embrace (teeth fully gritted) egalitarian socialism and put game theory in the circular file. So now, inflated with pride from all this reptilian elite attention and entranced in illusions of grandeur (time joke - laugh when you want), I proceed to outline the steps for the big switch:
1) Immediately implement the Energy infrastructure detailed in Table 1* of the "Renewables, why they work and fossil and nuclear fuels never did" article.

2) Convert all nuclear power plants into geothermal power plants. Use the steam turbines from fossil fuel power plants in new geothermal installations through a crash program similar to the U.S. WWII industry switch from making cars to tanks, ships and planes.

3) Divert all fossil and nuclear industry subsidy money to micro-renewable energy systems at the town, factory, and residential home level making absolutely any ordinance requiring permits or imposing restrictions on the freedom to install renewable energy systems to be null and void as well as lawn requirement ordinance elimination. When both "1)" and "3)" are globally implemented, a proper mix of renewable energy extraction sources will be in place.

4) Eliminate all ordinances limiting cottage industries in residential homes.

5) Modify property taxes so what people pay is directly proportional to their carbon footprint.

6) Funnel 90% of all military and gestapo wannabe security as well as intelligence (a truly Orwellian term) agency budgets worldwide to renewable technology R&D.

7) Teach steady state economics in all universities and stop the "growth is good" lies.

8)  Clean up the mess starting with everything that is radioactive. Find a high, dry location where the aquifer is a mile or more below the surface, dig a 2,000 to 3,000 ft cylindrical hole with a football field size diameter, line it with laminated (to avoid cracking from expansion and contraction) reinforced concrete about 30 feet thick (when all the layers are in place) and store ALL the nuclear poison, reactors and all the nuke bombs there and seal it with tons and tons of concrete.
When they begin to stutter and sputter at all this, I'll add that all the above are positive motivations. I haven't gotten into the punitive measures yet.
When they insist on some compromise or a more  "practical", "real world" incrementalist implementation of the whole renewable energy enchilada, I will calmly explain that the future of this planet is, at present, fixed. There are no alternate doors they can walk though where the massive environmental collapse followed by multispecies extinction "TIGER"  isn't waiting to eat them alive. I will further add that THEY are the ones who built this car we are all in hurtling towards the environmental collapse cliff. THEY built the car so that people, like myself, who aren't part of the movers and shakers, have no access to the steering wheel or the brakes. THEY are the only ones that can put the brakes on while they turn the car away from the cliff and towards a renewable, sustainable future. The ball is in THEIR court. The rest of us are screaming our heads off trying to get THEIR attention; so far to no avail. The planet earth is talking to THEM in many ways. The EARTH, in Dirty Harry fashion, is telling them, "GO AHEAD MAKE MY DAY!".
The planet will survive human greed but humans won't. This is the core message. Humans, get over your egocentric ways or die. That's the way the cookie crumbles in the REAL WORLD.

So what can people of conscience but without decision making authority do? Well, along with practicing all the skills learned in blogs like the Doomstead Diner to reduce our carbon footprint and live sustainably, we must educate, communicate and warn. We must expose Hill & Knowlton type propaganda lies and distortions that claim wind generators "cause increased ground temperatures" or "contribute to global warming" and other spurious half truths like geothermal installations "increase radon caused cancer risk" (radon is easily vented). Every time the Wall Street Journal or Fox News comes out with some slick "scientific study", find out who the spokesperson is and who they really work for and WRITE ABOUT IT in your blog. For those who say, "Hey, there are a lot of environmental blogs out there and our beat is economics and monetary systems and we swim in this peer group", I say, stop with the Pontius Pilate imitation. Go review Maslow's hierarchy and you will find that peer group acceptance is quite a bit lower in priority than eating and breathing. We peons need to keep planting well fertilized (with reasoning and logic) seeds in the rocky soil of elite greed with the view of getting those among them who are not totally blinded by greed to understand that that homo sapiens is a sap to willfully commit suicide through environmental degradation as well as wake the brainwashed among the 99%. Anyone who understands the gravity of this situation should stop the procrastination and get to WORK! To give up in the face of overwhelming odds is cowardice as well as hypocrisy from those who claim to let truth be their guide, wherever the chips may fall. Those that don't WALK the TALK are empty suits. For the rest of us, we must recognize the high probability of failure due to entrenched elite stupidity and evil. SO WHAT!!? We have to give it the old college try because it's the right thing to do!
For more information renewables are cost effective and fossil and nucler fuels NEVER were go here:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)
*This is a table of the proposed Energy infrastructure:
Quote
Table 1
Energy production mix proposed
TypePower fraction (%)  Capacity factor    Rated power (MW)       Units
  Wind turbines         47.5–51        0.31        4.66–5        3,837,000 
  Stirling plants/air cooled CSP         28        0.25        300        50,460
  Parabolic stations, 12 h storage         12         0.4–0.75        300        9800 
  Hydroelectricity        9        0.88        1300         900
  Attenuators        0–3.5         0.4         0.75         0–1,123,000 


*
Quote
"Adam Smith didn’t say that pursuit of maximum profits and growth by large, corporate organizations would result in the greatest benefit to society as a whole. The economy of Smith’s day was quite different from today. In the late 1700s, most economic enterprises were small, family operations. For such operations, land, labor, capital, and management often resided in essentially the same entity, and farming was still the dominant occupation.
http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.html (http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Rethinking.html)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 22, 2012, 05:33:25 PM
How can renewables replace poisonous energy sources practically in the light of the massive resistance from the fossil and nuclear fuel corproations. Well, my purpose in the two recent articles and many of my comments is to define the problem and outline proposed solutions to it. It is a complex problem and the proposed solutions necessarily require a lot of boring detail, especially in the light of my firm belief that the energy grid will be mainly decentralized in order to harmonize with the biosphere and provide stable jobs for many. Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether I or anybody else thinks switching to renewables is a great idea and we just need to convince the reptiles pushing fossil and nuclear poisons onto the planet to do it or else we off them. As I have pointed out in this article: http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)...
Quote

You want to make this into a Blog Article AB?

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 22, 2012, 07:30:05 PM
RE,
Not right now. Maybe later. The reason is that I have been posting at Environmental issue articles at Grist, common Dreams & alternet with snippets of the posts on this thread and linking to the recent article. It is my hope they will read the article, then the others and then peruse the forum posts. When I first got here I couldn't find my ass with both hands so I don't want to confuse newbies.  :icon_mrgreen: There is one guy out there called Robert Riversong that is a walking encyclopedia. He can really turn a phrase too. I think you would get a kick out of watching him post. He is colorful and knowledgeable. He also cuts to the chase and doesn't suffer fools easily. He would liven up the any thread he posted on. I asked him to come and comment on my article. We'll see.

Thanks for the suggestion ,though.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 23, 2012, 10:47:51 PM
Centralization of power sources was a wrong turn for human society and decentralization is the key to a livable society in the looming environmental collapse. I am reading Kevin Carson's free online book "Homebrew Industrial Revolution" recommended by alan2012. I find it to be very informative and educational in recounting details of the different inventions and their contribution to industrial development and the energy sources that powered them. As I go through it, I plan to share some quotes that stand out as a guide for future sustainable human behavior.

Today I would like to share this one with you. It is a core issue the worshippers of finance capital do not want to deal with because doing so would expose the reality that  and capital concentration is detrimental to society and civilization rather than an asset. Any emphasis in the text has been added by me.

Quote
The diffusion of power was an aid to the diffusion of population: as long as industrial power was represented directly by the utilization of energy, rather than by financial investment, the balance between the various regions of Europe and between town and country within a region was pretty evenly maintained. It was only with the swift concentration of financial and political power in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, that the excessive growth of Antwerp, London, Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, Lyons, Naples, took place.3

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4116166/2.%20Chapter%20One-A%20Wrong%20Turn%20%281%29.pdf (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4116166/2.%20Chapter%20One-A%20Wrong%20Turn%20%281%29.pdf)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 27, 2012, 11:34:38 AM
THIS looks positive:
23.7 Gigawats solar energy potential from the PEIS areas is nothing to sneer at even though a lot is still on paper. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy development in six southwestern states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.

Quote
July 25, 2012

Administration Maps Solar Energy Development on Public Lands

Quote
These areas are characterized by excellent solar resources, good energy transmission potential, and relatively low conflict with biological, cultural, and historic resources. The final PEIS identifies 17 Solar Energy Zones (SEZs), totaling about 285,000 acres of public lands, as priority areas for utility-scale solar development, with the potential for creating additional zones through ongoing and future regional planning processes. The blueprint also allows for utility-scale solar development on approximately 19 million acres in "variance" areas lying outside of identified SEZs. It also excludes 78 million acres from solar energy development to protect cultural or natural resources. In total, the final PEIS estimates that 23,700 megawatts could be developed from the 17 zones and the variance areas, enough renewable energy to power 7 million U.S. homes.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=18512 (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=18512)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 27, 2012, 12:02:27 PM
The most common element in the universe is HYDROGEN.

Quote
July 25, 2012

Energy Department Investments to Advance Hydrogen Infrastructure

The Energy Department on July 18 announced a $2.4 million investment to collect and analyze performance data for hydrogen fueling stations and advanced refueling components. The five projects—located in California, Connecticut, and Illinois—will track the performance and technical progress of innovative refueling systems at planned or existing hydrogen fueling stations in order to find ways to lower costs and improve operation. These investments are part of the department's commitment to support U.S. leadership in advanced hydrogen and fuel cell research and to help related industries bring hydrogen technologies into the marketplace at lower cost.

For those not up on what has been going on with hydrogen, there's a drone built in California that uses the Ford Fusion engine with a slight modification. They want the drone to fly for very long periods so they have an on board fuel cell supplying the engine with hydrogen fuel. Yep they have an off the shelf, mass produced engine that has been tweaked with YOUR MONEY to run on hydrogen. So how come you can't put up a solar panel in your house running an electrolizer that creates hydrogen fuel for your converted ford fusion? GOOD QUESTION!

Notice the quote below is from TWO YEARS AGO!

Quote
Boeing's 'Phantom Eye' Ford Fusion powered stratocraft

Twin car engines let robocraft make 4-day flights
 
By Lewis Page 

Posted in Science, 13th July 2010 15:31 GMT
 
US aerospace mammoth Boeing yesterday rolled out its "Phantom Eye" unmanned strato-plane, able to cruise high above the airlanes for up to four days - powered by two ordinary Ford car engines running on hydrogen.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/13/phantom_eye_rollout/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/13/phantom_eye_rollout/)
(http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/4/124cd6ae-9993-4452-9456-1e5d6771b278.Full.jpg)

WHAT'S AN ELECTROLIZER? I'm glad you asked.

Quote
Although wave power is attracting a lot of attention as a renewable energy source, it is possible to generate power from still water. All you need is an electrolyzer, which separates water into its two components, hydrogen and oxygen, then feeds them into a fuel cell. Electrolyzers, however, require catalysts to get the process rolling. While hydrogen production catalysts aren’t much of a problem, the platinum catalysts used for oxygen production are expensive, don’t last very long, and the creation of them incorporates toxic chemicals. This Monday, however, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced the development of a new oxygen production catalyst that is 200 times more efficient than platinum. The nickel-borate-based catalyst has been licensed to Sun Catalytix, which is hoping to be producing safe, super-efficient electrolyzers within two years.

http://www.gizmag.com/new-catalyst-makes-electrolyzers-more-efficient/16112/ (http://www.gizmag.com/new-catalyst-makes-electrolyzers-more-efficient/16112/)

Again, notice how these great new innovations come out and they get BURIED. Oh, they just weren't "competitive" of they weren't "practical". The reality is that they step on fossil and nuclear fuel pig toes and anyone with a shred of honesty will admit that is the way it works in oil pig land.

Here's one innovation from a year ago that, no doubt, The oil pigs are busy burying. While our pigs bury innovations, other countries like Germany and China are probably making this stuff work for them.
Quote
Stanford overcomes major hurdle to solar-powered hydrogen production

Jun. 22, 2011 (12:15 pm) By: Matthew Humphries


Quote
The downside to water splitting when your energy source is heat (high-temperature electrolysis) is the amount of power required to extract a high amount of hydrogen from the water in the first place. Typically you need temperatures of between 800 and 1,200 degrees Celsius for water splitting to occur. As you can imagine, generating such temperatures uses a lot of energy which nullifies the process as an efficient way to produce more power. However, if the source of energy comes from focusing solar power you have a completely clean system using a base fuel (water) that is abundant.


A Better Solar-Powered Water Splitter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhj9YrX-CK8#ws)

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/stanford-overcomes-major-hurdle-to-solar-powered-hydrogen-production-20110622/ (http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/stanford-overcomes-major-hurdle-to-solar-powered-hydrogen-production-20110622/)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 27, 2012, 12:44:08 PM
A solar powered electrolyzer that has been on the market for over two years!

Quote
HIDRO SELF POWER is a compact, easy to transport and assemble Hydrogen refuelling system, which generates hydrogen from clean solar energy, without any environmental impact in absolute autonomy. The 1kW photovoltaic canopy transfers solar energy to Acta’s hydrogen generator HSP200 that transforms and accumulates solar energy in pure, compressed and dry hydrogen fuel, consuming only distilled water. The Hydrogen storage capacity is 1200Nl.

HIDRO SELF POWER canopy takes limited space (approximately 3m x 2m) and could be easily installed anywhere.

We are looking for Hydrogen consumers who want an independent source of hydrogen for their home energy, boats or vehicles.


http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/3,1,9763,18,28977.html (http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/3,1,9763,18,28977.html)

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 28, 2012, 09:48:44 PM
Geothermal heat pumps are an example of passive geothermal power.

Just look at the fuel oil and natural gas alone that we would NOT USE if we had geothermal heat pumps in all US homes. Then remember that many homes are cooled by electricity as well as some heated by it and you have a MASSIVE (at least 50%) energy reduction just from switching to geothermal heat pumps. Remember that just a short distance below the frost line all over the US the temperature is about 54o year round.


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/US_household_energy_usage.png)
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States[/url]


http://www.youtube.com/v/y_ZGBhy48YI?feature=player_detailpage
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 28, 2012, 10:06:06 PM
CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) runs 24/7 at about 570o C. That is the SAME temperature range nuclear power plant steam before it hits the steam turbine. The night time operation is obtained by storing heat in molten salts that provide the steam to the turbines until daylight. The steam turbine in the CSP plants is the same technology as those for nuclear or fossil fuel power plants WITHOUT radionuclide danger or CO2 pollution.

http://www.youtube.com/v/LMWIgwvbrcM&feature=player_detailpage#]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMWIgwvbrcM&feature=player_detailpage#[/url]&fs=1
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 30, 2012, 04:31:38 PM
Fun with mendacity for money through the fossil fuel corruption of scientists for the purpose of producing gamed (e.g. The Oil Drum published EROI studies) "scientific" studies that make fossil fuel extraction techniques look cost effective and environmentally benign.   :exp-angry:

 

Quote
Smelling a leak: Is the natural gas industry buying academics?
Quote
Last week, the University of Texas provost announced he would reexamine a report by a UT professor that said fracking was safe for groundwater after the revelation that the professor pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Texas natural gas developer. It’s the latest fusillade in the ongoing battle over the basic facts of fracking in America.

http://grist.org/natural-gas/smelling-a-leak-is-the-natural-gas-industry-buying-academics/ (http://grist.org/natural-gas/smelling-a-leak-is-the-natural-gas-industry-buying-academics/)

One comment from a wide awake Texan:
Quote
Kim Triolo Feil

Regardless of the academia studies.....I'm not a rocket scientist and speak from experience.
I live in Arlington TX - home to 55 urban drilling padsites in a 99 sq mile area...these are my concerns besides the water waste, disposal issues, and the related seismic events. 

The industry has a failure of emission control technologies and accident prevention layered protocols to prevent ....

1) drilling hazards like drilling mud that "dries and flys into the air", Bentonite's MSDS says it is toxic to the lungs

2) fracking silicia dust blowing off the sites (silicosis is a permanant disease)

3) flowback emissions they try to call "steam" but has hydrocarbons than can and HAS killed a worker last January-even Green Completion equipment is late to be deployed and exposes us to "top flowback" water vapors

4) diesel emissions in neighborhoods during all phases of the life cycle of the wells (diesel has benzene in it and is a carcinogen).

5) accidents that should be a zero tolerance in urban areas and the acknowledgement that the build out being so big that aggregate emission events and spills are not an "acceptable risk"

6) methane leaks that speed up climate change

7) piping that is not earthquake & leak proof over the test of time


Gas fracking is an obscenity:

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=44367635
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on July 30, 2012, 06:13:29 PM
Quote Agelbert" Fun with mendacity for money through the fossil fuel corruption of scientists for the purpose of producing gamed (e.g. The Oil Drum published EROI studies) "scientific" studies that make fossil fuel extraction techniques look cost effective and environmentally benign.   :exp-angry:"

Remember way back the Scientific Studies the tobacco industry made showing smoking and lung cancer were not linked. That one always galled me the most. Happily they have paid dearly, but is of no value to the lives they destroyed. Joe Camel just popped into my mind also,  boy
Joe Camel
Joe Camel
were they ever good at brainwashing!


Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 30, 2012, 10:32:44 PM
Golden Oxen,
Yes they were (ARE) great at brainwashing. The same outfit (Hill & Knowlton) is doing the same kind of brainwashing for fracking. They learned how to push all the amygdala reptile brain buttons real well from Freud's nephew, Bernays.

I used to watch the Ed Sullivan show when I was a kid. I was about 11 when I saw Elvis sing Hound Dog and Blue Suede Shoes. My old man got really bent out of shape when Elvis was doing his thing with his knees. :icon_mrgreen: Anyway, the commercials were mostly Tide (boring) and Newport cigarette commercials. I can still see the star trek type symbol they had (long before star trek) and the dancers. All that talk about menthol and fresh air stuck with me so well that when I began to smoke at age 19, that's the brand of cancer stick (yeah, we called them that) I chose. I hope that the public gets it about fracking sooner than we did about smokes. As the video from the gasland producer says, those wells have to stop biogenic (as opposed to the thermogenic gas they actually drill for) from migrating up a the concrete pipe casings FOREVER. Like the lying bastards from tobacco companies had the hard data and studies showing smokes cause cancer, the gas fracking pigs have the hard data and scientific studies that the concrete pipe casings outside the steel pipe ALWAYS crack and allow biogenic gas migration. That's why I got so pissed at Stoneleigh for blithely ignoring this horror. Anyone who has a voice in the fossil fuel community and is not using it to try to stop this evil is complicit in grievously harming the biosphere and many humans as well. Once the aquifer gets poisoned, some bottled water corporation gets an instant boost in profits. These predatory capitalist morons don't get the fact that the entire flora and fauna is at risk in these places the aquifers get poisoned. I really, really suspect these assholes are doing a backdoor "blue water" scarcity push. Yeah, I think they are DELIBERATELY trying to poison aquifers. That is the reason they are so adamant about trying to buy scientists and their studies. They deserve to be strung up from those God Damned fracking drill towers.

I finally quit smoking when I had the pacemaker implanted in 2007. Nothing like a little heart trouble to clear the mind...

Maybe when some friend of Nicole that lives near a fracking well gets breast cancer, her mind will clear as well.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on July 31, 2012, 04:52:56 AM
Quote Agelbet  "All that talk about menthol and fresh air stuck with me so well that when I began to smoke at age 19, that's the brand of cancer stick (yeah, we called them that) I chose."

I was one of the smart guys that was too smart to get cancer. I smoked Kents with the micronite filter. Micronite being a fancy name for asbestos. Those friggin pig men are really something aren't they.  I guess we are lucky to still be alive Agelbert after that foolish behavior.         
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on July 31, 2012, 02:22:36 PM
Golden Oxen,
Yes we are lucky to be alive. Maybe the guy upstairs wants us around for a while longer to make life difficult for the bastards that lie to us day and night. As long as my battery is working, I plan to be an energizer bunny pain in the ass to the oil and nuclear industry biosphere killers and their cowardly mouthpiece quislings willing to lie for a buck.

Here's a post I just made at Zero Hedge that may get some juices flowing here and there and bring some traffic to the doomstead diner. :icon_mrgreen:

My handle at Zero Hedge is GAAPpreNixon.

I took the opportunity to link divert some traffic our way with this comment at Zero Hedge. The ZH article is titled "The Coming Unholy Alliance In Natural Gas".

I responded to the following comment:

Quote
Just give somone like ObamaGas/JPM a 50 year monopoly to build infrastructure for re fueling stations with a 12% return on investment and I bet we would have a new booming economy with in 2 years.

You are right. But that rabbit hole is very deep. A refinery produces about 19 gallons of gasoline for every 42 gallons of crude processed. The boyz have rigged the market demand to hava a steady demand for all 42 gallons from heavy greases to VOCs. That's why, way back when, Rockefeller talked Henry Ford into using the refinery waste product (gasoline) in automobiles. Benzene (the favored fuel at the time) was out because it is carcinogenic and Edison Labs and the US navy heavily favored ethanol (119 octane vs 93-95 gasoline) because, as long as you ran it in a high compression engine, it was EQUAL to gasolene in mileage without the crud build up in the engine (nobody knew about CO2  problems then). To this day the LIE is pushed by the oil industry and web sites like The Oil Drum that gasoline, because it has higher enthalpy than ethanol, gives better mileage and has a higher EROI (ENERGY RETURN ON ENERGY INVESTED) while real fucking conveniently leaving out the FACT that ethanol gives identical or better mileage on high compression engines with ZERO pollution, NO catalytic converter required and LESS engine wear. The prevaricating fucks at The Oil Scum are fronting for the oil boyz. Someone should remind those overeducated assholes that both gasoline and ethanol are not used to boil water in a lab; they are used as fuel, the last time I checked, to run in internal combustion engines!

And as to gas fracking and that "MINOR" problem they have with 100% of the concrete casing around the steel pipe cracking within 5 years and allowing biogenic gas to migrate up the casing and poison water aquifers, Hill & Knowlton, the very same lying bastards that brought us the Tobacco bullshit in the 1950s, is now fronting for gas fracking claiming it's "safe for the environment". Gas fracking is an obscenity.

Full background info here:
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5905#msg5905 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5905#msg5905)
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5923#msg5923 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5923#msg5923)

We have been lied to by world class con artists for over a century.
Renewables, why they work and fossil fuels NEVER DID.

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: JoeP on July 31, 2012, 02:51:34 PM
Agelbert,

From the ZH comments thread, it looks like your response is to the article and not the quoted comment?

The comment you quoted is below your comment  :dontknow:
 
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on July 31, 2012, 04:14:31 PM
Agelbert,

From the ZH comments thread, it looks like your response is to the article and not the quoted comment?

The comment you quoted is below your comment  :dontknow:


That's because until you Sign In, you read the most recent comments first, opposite order to what you see here.  Once you sign in over on ZH, you can order it first to last like here.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on August 02, 2012, 06:11:24 PM
Plastics that never really get recycled and how they help harm and kill LIFE;
 One of the MANY "gifts" brought to us by the OIL PIGS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=73sGgmZoMBQ# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=73sGgmZoMBQ#)

Graphic: A Day in the Life of Big Oil

Quote
Every hour so far in 2012, the five largest oil corporations have recorded a $14,400,000 profit. And every hour, they received more than $270,000 in federal tax breaks. That adds up to $2.4 billion in subsidies every year for the five largest oil corporations — Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips — all ranked as the top 9 companies in the world.
http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/graphic-day-life-big-oil?akid=9157.113861.yk4wW2&rd=1&src=newsletter685908&t=8 (http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/graphic-day-life-big-oil?akid=9157.113861.yk4wW2&rd=1&src=newsletter685908&t=8)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on August 09, 2012, 12:32:53 AM
Recycling in China
China's growing recycling industry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdIeUev22qM#ws)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on August 09, 2012, 03:56:51 AM
 Link from agelbert posting
China's growing recycling industry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdIeUev22qM#ws)

Agelbert, still pondering if this is a video of hope or despair? Is it possible to be both? Something tells me it is either one or the other however.  :icon_study:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on August 09, 2012, 02:52:41 PM
Golden Oxen,
I thought the same thing while watching it. Doing that kind of work must really suck. The carcinogens and endocrine disrupters these recyclers are being exposed to is tragic. If more people saw this, maybe less useless shit would be bought and discarded. That said, what you see in China is the future here when no work is available and there is no social safety net. Many people will have to scrounge a living doing whatever work is available even though they know it is shortening their life span to engage in it. Of many industries in the late 19th and all of the 20th century (big oil refineries, coal and Uranium mining especially) operated on the principle of putting people to work in life span shortening environments. I knew of a Gulf oil refinery I lived near that paid extra to work in an area where benzene percolates into the work area during the process of cracking the crude oil. Employees were told benzene and bone cancer are like love and marriage (they go together like a horse and carriage   :evil4:). They WILL get bone cancer (and possibly have other health "issues" along the way and they are knocking off an undetermined number of years off their lives by working there. The offerred pay was nearly double that of working in refinery "safe" areas (relatively speaking  :evil4:). There was never a shortage of workers. :(

At any rate, I posted the video because it underlines the waste based nature of our society and at the same time shows what must be done to recycle this stuff. I don't applaud the misery these people are saddled with by doing this work but accept that it must be done to slow and eventually stop the creation of more products from fossil fuels. Right now there is no reason for certain containers we all use daily (gallon plastic milk containers) to be manufactured from new plastic as the containers can be pyrolyzed (no burning, just heat to deformation) and remade into containers. I would prefer for glass to come back for everything because it doesn't have endocrine disrupters like plastic but we do what we can.

If we are going to have a future, we are all going to have to severely downsize our carbon footprint. Here is, probably, the type of house for a viable future during  a violent climate;
Dome Home disaster and third world housing solution www.dingley-dell.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0amRMIhuxFg#ws)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on August 09, 2012, 03:51:34 PM
Quote agelbert "If we are going to have a future, we are all going to have to severely downsize our carbon footprint. Here is, probably, the type of house for a viable future during  a violent climate"

Hopeful video agelbert. The things that constructive, well intentioned, problem solving folks can come up with always fill me with hope for our future, dismal as the situation currently appears.

Sometimes I think we overlook the positives  that can be accomplished at the diner, but then again we are doomsters.                                                                                          :icon_study:
                                                                                                                                                     





Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on August 11, 2012, 12:36:16 PM
Golden Oxen,
It is said that pessimists are far more realistic than optimists because they weigh the potential of a set of negative outcomes from present events more accurately. That said, I think we pessimists at the DD welcome good news and are genuinely pleased by it. I just found some good news.  :icon_mrgreen:  :icon_sunny:

Some good news in the "getting real about renewable energy" department. The USDA press release has the usual crap about Vilsack, Monsanto's mole iin charge of the Department of Agriculture and the Obama administration: "The Obama administration, with Agriculture Secretary Vilsack's leadership, has worked tirelessly..." -blah, blah blah. Compared with daily oil pig subsidies, these grants are way too small (Every hour so far in 2012, the five largest oil corporations have recorded a $14,400,000 profit. And every hour, they received more than $270,000 in federal tax breaks. That adds up to $2.4 billion in subsidies every year for the five largest oil corporations — Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips — all ranked as the top 9 companies in the world.) but I expect those getting them will be a lot more successful than the oil and gas lobby bargained for. I hope some of them are using duckweed.

Quote
Increased biofuel production plays a relatively minor role in retail food price changes because the growing diversity of feedstock used to produce biodiesel allows for flexibility and helps relieve market pressures. Biodiesel is made from an increasingly diverse mix of non-food feedstocks, including recycled cooking oil, agricultural oils and animal fats, allowing most biodiesel producers to select from a choice of feedstocks if prices rise or supplies are limited. Therefore, the industry's impact in commodity markets is significantly reduced. As the market expands for home-grown renewable energy, American farmers and producers will create even more good-paying jobs that can't be exported. The biofuels industry in the U.S. currently employs about 400,000 people and is expected to employ around a million people in the U.S. by 2022.
USDA today is announcing $19.4 million in payments to 125 local producers and business-owners.
Below is a complete list of the 111 producers (by state) receiving payments of more than $500 for production of advanced biofuels. (Producers receiving payments in the amount of $500 or less are not included in the list.)

Arkansas

Delta American Fuel, LLC: $10,556 for biodiesel transesterification
Futurefuel Chemical Company: $256,440 for biodiesel transesterification

Arizona
Pinal Energy, LLC: $35,355 for ethanol production

California
American Biodiesel, Inc: $426,878 for biodiesel transesterification
Fiscalini Properties, LP: $541 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Gallo Cattle Company, LP: $1,283 for energy from an anaerobic digester
High Mountain Fuels, LLC: $17,155 for landfill gas
Imperial Western Products, Inc.: $710,618 for biodiesel transesterification
New Leaf Biofuel, LLC: $217,467 for biodiesel transesterification
Promethean Biofuels Cooperative Corp.: $2,377 for biodiesel transesterification

Connecticut
Biodiesel One, Ltd: $2,981 for biofuel from waste products
Biopur, Inc.: $2,409 for biofuel from waste products

Florida
Genuine Bio-Fuel, Inc.: $504,938 for biodiesel transesterification

Georgia
Down To Earth Energy, LLC: $602 for biodiesel transesterification
Nittany Biodiesel: $29,548 for biodiesel transesterification
U.S. Biofuels, Inc.: $13,740 for biodiesel transesterification

Hawaii
Pacific Biodiesel, Inc.: $28,646.80 for biofuel from waste products

Iowa
Clinton County Bio Energy, LLC: $64,382 for biofuel from waste products
Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC: $135,510 for biofuel from waste products
Renewable Energy Group, Inc.: $873,622 for biodiesel transesterification
Western Dubuque Biodiesel, LLC: $287,034 for biodiesel transesterification
Western Iowa Energy: $250,277 for biofuel from waste products

Idaho
DF-AP#1, LLC: $1,587 for energy from an anaerobic digester

Illinois
Archer Daniels Midland Company: $596,279 for biodiesel transesterification
Incobrasa Industries, Ltd.: $305,038 for biodiesel transesterification
Midwest Biodiesel Product, LLC: $640,572 for biodiesel transesterification

Indiana
Integrity Biofuels, LLC: $26,004 for biodiesel transesterification
Louis Dreyfus Agricultural Industries: $613,428 for biofuel from waste products
Union County Biodiesel Company: $149,465 for biofuel from waste products

Kansas
Arkalon Ethanol, LLC: $1,868,965 for ethanol production
Bonanza Bioenergy: LLC: $121,500 for ethanol production
Emergent Green Energy, Inc.: $11,039 for biodiesel mechanical
Kansas Ethanol, LLC: $168,168 for ethanol production
Nesika Energy, LLC: $46,822 for ethanol production
Prairie Horizon Agri-Energy, LLC: $98,791 for ethanol production
R-3 Energy, LLC: $4,292 for biofuel from waste products
Reeve Agri Energy, Inc.: $221,752 for ethanol production
Western Plains Energy, LLC: $3,130,184 for ethanol production

Kentucky
Griffin Industries, Inc: $13,060 for biofuel from waste products
Owensboro Grain Company, LLC: $394,025 for biodiesel transesterification
Somerset Hardwood Flooring: $7,040 for pellets
Southern Kentucky Pellet Mill, Inc.: $817 for pellets

Maine
Geneva Wood Fuels, LLC: $2,236 for pellets
Maine Woods Pellets Company, LLC: $6,277 for pellets
Northeast Pellets LLC: $624 for pellets

Massachusetts
Fuels of The Future, LLC: $1,249 for biofuel from waste products

Michigan
Scenic View Dairy, LLC: $27,856 for energy from an anaerobic digester

Minnesota
Cargill, Inc.: $350,769 for energy from an anaerobic digester / biodiesel transesterification
District 45 Dairy, LLP: $2,065 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Ever Cat Fuels, LLC: $146,077 for biodiesel transesterification
MN Soybean Processors: $309,311 for biodiesel transesterification
Riverview, LLP: $2,232 for energy from an anaerobic digester
West River Dairy, LLP: $1,584 for energy from an anaerobic digester

Missouri
Abengoa Bioenergy Corporation: $367,490 for ethanol production
Deerfield Energy, LLC: $159,221 for biodiesel transesterification
ME Bio Energy, LLC: $27,875 for biodiesel transesterification
Mid-America Biofuels, LLC: $294,369 for biodiesel transesterification
Natural Biodiesel Plant, LLC: $45,293 for biodiesel transesterification
Paseo Cargill Energy, LLC: $323,064 for biodiesel transesterification

Mississippi
Enviva, LP: $15,931.32 for Pellets
Ethos Alternative Energy Mississippi, LLC: $11,446 for biofuel from waste products
Scott Petroleum Corporation: $57,294 for biofuel from waste products

Nebraska
Ag Processing, Inc.: $313,119 for biodiesel transesterification

Nevada
Bently Biofuels Company: $3,479 for biofuel from waste products

New Hampshire
American Energy Independence Company, LLC: $1,805 for biofuel from waste products
New England Wood Pellet, LLC: $22,781 for pellets
Smartfuel America, LLC: $5,468 for biofuel from waste products

New Mexico
Mt. Taylor Machine, LLC: $532 for pellets
Rio Valley Biofuels, LLC: $4,154 for biofuel from waste products

New York
Aurora Ridge Dairy, LLC: $863 for energy from an anaerobic digester

North Carolina
Blue Ridge Biofuels, LLC: $27,837 for biofuel from waste products
North American Bio-Energies: $4,931 for biodiesel mechanical
Piedmont Biofuels Industrial, LLC: $1,072 for biodiesel mechanical

Ohio
Center Alternative Energy Company II: $31,791 for biodiesel transesterification

Oklahoma
High Plains Bioenergy: LLC: $1,628,461for biodiesel transesterification

Oregon
Sequential-Pacific Biodiesel: $125,799 for biodiesel transesterification
Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc.: $18,852 for energy from an anaerobic digester

Pennsylvania
Lake Erie Biofuels, LLC: $993,122 for biodiesel transesterification

Rhode Island
Newport Biodiesel, LLC: $5,354 for biofuel from waste products

South Carolina
Evergreen Biodiesel Production Facility: $37,419 for biofuel from waste products

Tennessee
Bioenergy Development Group, LLC: $645 for biodiesel transesterification
Hassell & Hughes: $1,223 for pellets

Texas
Agribiofuels, LLC: $17,139 for biodiesel transesterification
Element Markets, LLC: $1,199 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Green Earth Fuels of Houston, LLC: $369,467 for biodiesel transesterification
White Energy, Inc.: $743,124 for ethanol production

Virginia
Potomac Supply Corporation: $8,228 for pellets
Reco Biodiesel, LLC: $42,799 for biodiesel transesterification
Virginia Biodiesel Refinery, LLC: $7,900 for biodiesel transesterification

Vermont
VT Wood Pellet Co., LLC: $1,713 for pellets

Washington
Farm Power Lynden, LLC: $793 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Farm Power Rexville, LLC: $965 for energy from an anaerobic digester
FPE Renewables, LLC, Lynden, Washington: $9,611 for energy from an anaerobic digester
GDR Power, LLC: $1,054 for energy from an anaerobic digester
General Biodiesel, Inc.: $4,976 for biodiesel transesterification
Imperium Grays Harbor, LLC: $418,115 for biodiesel transesterification
Qualco Energy: $715 for energy from an anaerobic digester

Wisconsin
Bio Blend Fuels: $958 for biodiesel transesterification
Buckeye Ridge Renewable Power, LLC: $3,995 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Green Valley Dairy, LLC: $880 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Grotegut Dairy Farm, Inc.: $6,836 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Holsum Dairies, LLC: $1,913 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Marth Peshtigo Pellet Company, LLC: $786 for pellets
Marth Wood Shaving Supply, Inc.: $2,432 for pellets
Norswiss Digester, LLC: $3,918 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Quantum Dairy, LLC: $1,045 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Stargest Power, LLC: $3,598 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Statz Brothers, Inc.: $2,481 for energy from an anaerobic digester
Sun Power Biodiesel, LLC: $8,502 for biodiesel transesterification
Walsh Bio Fuels, LLC: $65,036 for biodiesel transesterification

West Virginia
Hamer Pellet Fuel: $8,086 for pellets


http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=18543 (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=18543)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on September 19, 2012, 01:02:23 PM

(http://www.armedforces-int.com/upload/image_files/news/568_phantom-eye-uav-progresses-to-first-flight_content_Phantom_Eye.jpg/)

Phantom Eye hydrogen powered surveillance UAV

In the video at the link, Boeing OPENLY ADMITS that they took an off the shelf Ford Ranger Truck engine which Ford had converted to run on Hydrogen 10 YEARS AGO and made use of it for the Phantom Eye drone which can NOW stay aloft for 4 days and eventually will be able to fly continuously for 10 days. Boeing's contribution has been to perfect the fuel cell technology needed to provide the engine with hydrogen and oxygen at 65,000 feet.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? TEN YEARS AGO Ford had a RELIABLE engine that ran on hydrogen!


(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IEJ3-_kC6JI/TDz1jUOY8RI/AAAAAAAApeM/QwiOp8HgiRY/s1600/hydrogen_strato_engine.jpg)
Hydrogen Strato Engine   :stop:
   :jawdrop:
With a solar powered hydrolyzer at your home you would NEVER run out of fuel. Hydrogen tanks are EASY to build safely by engineering a water jacket around the tank. We've come a long way since the Hindenburg. You wouldn't need a fancy fuel cell because there is no oxygen deficiency at the elevations cars operate in.

YOU DO NOT NEED PETROLEUM TO RUN A CAR ICE (internal combustion engine) OR ANY OTHER ICE OUT THERE! It's ALL Big Oil Bullshit!

Lubricants and plastics also can be obtained from plant matter WITHOUT polluting the atmosphere.

For anyone from The Anal Oil Drum that wants to claim hydrogen does this, that and the other damage to an engine, I have to ask how stupidly stubborn, mendacious, evasive and cravenly loyal to Big Oil do you have to be to believe an engine that RUNS CONTINUOUSLY for FOUR FUCKING DAYS in a surveillance drone is going to be allowed to run a fuel that ruins the engine!!? :cwmddd:  :Benny_monkeysmilies:  :iamwithstupid:

If you try to get that Ford ICE converted to running on hydrogen for your vehicle, you will not be able to do so. Free country, MY ASS! Energy crisis, MY ASS! This is an Oil Oligarchy DICTATORSHIP!

Quote
Boeing unveiled its hydrogen-powered Phantom Eye unmanned airborne system during a ceremony in St. Louis on July 12. The demonstrator, which will stay aloft at 65,000 feet for up to four days, is powered by two 2-liter, four-cylinder engines that provide 150 horsepower each. It has a 150-foot wingspan, will cruise at approximately 150 knots and can carry up to a 450-pound payload.
Video at the link:
http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/07/bds_feat_phantom_eye_07_12_10.html (http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/07/bds_feat_phantom_eye_07_12_10.html)
We do not have an ENERGY crisis;   We have a GREED crisis.

Hope for a viable biosphere
Renewables, why they work and fossil and nuclear fuels never did
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)

The "Green Revolution' fossil fuel LIE
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg4313#msg4313 (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg4313#msg4313)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on September 20, 2012, 08:17:23 PM

Quote
Thursday, September 20, 2012

Nuclear experimentation killed free power part II

Jimmy Midnight
Activist Post

Ethan Indigo Smith is my son, and I did help him with some scientific issues in the previously released, Nuclear Experimentation Killed Free Power Part I. I’m writing to defend on scientific, technical, statistical, rhetorical, and political grounds, his basic thesis. Allow me here to paraphrase: “To understand that nuclear experimentation is The Rabbit Hole of Death requires only minimal scientific knowledge.”

Thanks to Tom Bedlam for his attentive reply, and for pointing out that, as far as anyone knows, there are no magnetic field disruption issues peculiar to nukes. The name Bedlam serendipitously highlights the fact that nuclear experimentation has always been, is now, and will forever remain, a bedlamite way to boil water.

Bedlam attempts to quantify the accidents at Simi Valley, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Let’s step back just long enough to notice that the first three were meltdowns at large facilities while Fukushima is a meltdown of at least three such facilities, with the impending compromise of a spent fuel pool. So if Chernobyl, a nuke built with marvelous hubris but without secondary containment, really is worse than Fuku, it has to be with the modifier, “So far.”


The relative size of TMI in this regard is also problematic. In view of the secrecy inherent in nukes, and inconsistencies in measurement, a difference of at least five orders of magnitude in admitted total radio-releases would clearly be significant; of three or less, maybe not. The data from Simi Valley, about a 1959 mishap, is actually the most telling because it’s down the great American memory hole; for instance nowhere to be found in a list of “nuclear plant accidents” that contains incidents going back to 1957 in my 2002 World Almanac, a generally reliable source of factual information.

Which highlights the secrecy aspect of nuclear experimentation, spawned in secrecy, born in secrecy, (because it was nuclear weapons related) raised in secrecy, nurtured in secrecy, alive in secrecy, and really dependent on secrecy for its continued existence. An example is the continuing secret, (well, it’s public information, but de-emphasized until it functions as a secret) that, thanks to the good ol’ Price-Anderson Act, nuke operators don’t have to carry liability insurance, like ordinary Americans of modest means would have to in their businesses. Well, operators do have to have a not-adjusted-for-inflation-since-1957 $560 million dollars worth. Extrapolate what they’re paying for that coverage to what rendering a 10? 15? 30? 60?-mile radius of uninhabitable area would cost, and get an idea of the size of one form of nuclear subsidy.

(http://nonukesa.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/stopnukereactors.png)

Bedlam’s also partial to serving up figures for the release of Iodine-131 and Cesium-137, which symbolize the problem Ethan points up in The Matrix of Four. As two of the three known isotopes whose devastating health effects are well-documented (the other is Strontium-90) these are the known knowns of nuclear experimentation (well, some of them.) There are also known unknowns; for example, how much radioactive oxide dust is being plumed and blown around? How much steam? Cadmium 115? Tellurium 127, 129, 131, 132? Neobium, Molybdenum, Zirconium, Niobium 95? Barium 140? Etc. etc.?


Reactors operate on fissions that break Uranium down into myriad radioisotopes, most of which finally stop emitting their alphas, betas, gammas, neutrons, and occasional antineutrinos after at last becoming the stable Pb-208, Lead. What about the water/chemicals used to fight the meltdown fires? And of course there are unknown unknowns, a concept that speaks for itself in an industry run by people who think it’s all just dandy to use extremely dangerous metallic Sodium as a circulating coolant around superultrahyper dangerous nuclear fuel, and to place spent fuel pools on the roofs of reactors. (Talk about being analogous to a two- or three-story outhouse! ‘cept what’s likely to dump on you is more than just rather disgusting.) In response to Bedlam’s critique, I researched other industrial uses of metallic Sodium. All of those I could find take advantage of its chemical reactivity; only in nuclear experimentation is it used as a circulating coolant.

Which brings us, at last, to the unknown knowns. These are the secrets kept through conscious silence or obfuscation on the one hand, and the lies that people tell themselves about the secrets they possess, and the unexamined assumptions they carry around, on the other. Reactor operators are sure it’s safe, which is why I’m sure they’re insane. F’rinstance, Bedlam has somehow convinced himself that a nuclear experiment station is no worse than a fossil-fuel burner. But it is. Even in the case of a coal-burner, fueled by mountaintop removal, vile as that is, at least the greenhouse gasses and toxic ashes and immediate environmental damage are about the limit of its destructiveness. Choose a legacy of ashes, which can be stored safely on an indefinite basis given a watertight roof; or of spent fuel that will remain dangerously radioactive for a longer time, going forward, than from here back to the dawn of recorded history. Add that to the cumulative effects of ever-increasing levels of nuclear radiation.

Unknown knowns are also an important dynamic in the whole American political system. Any little group of people who get a certain level of public privilege will eventually become its own special interest group, with interest in preserving what’s already been gained. Part of what got the nuclear experimentation industry really going was the possibility of reprocessing spent fuel to make Plutonium, a better material for nuclear warheads than the “old fashioned” Uranium-235. Now, there are way too many warheads, but the spent-fuel headache just keeps growing—a disposal problem as insoluble as polyethylene in water. When the best available solution might be to put it aboard nearly useless ocean vessels and scuttle it in the Arctic, as the Russians are doing, the situation speaks for itself.

Another industry byproduct is “depleted Uranium,” some of which is used in munitions. These are pretty terrible weapons that burst into flame when penetrating armor, spewing oxide dust all around. And only about two-thirds of the original highly radioactive U-235 has been removed. Yet even this use leaves a huge surplus of U-238 and/or depleted yellowcake and/or Uranium hexafluoride that no one really knows what to do with. Some of the Fluoride, stripped of Uranium, ends up in municipal water supplies, so that two super privileged industries get to work together momentarily.

There are about 400 nukes in the world, and six of them (counting three at Fukushima) have already had disastrous accidents. Or maybe we should multiply by years of operation. Say they’ve been running for an average of 25 years. So that would be ten thousand reactor-years, and six major accidents. Not a terrible record for, say, an experimental aircraft, but imagine a passenger jet that crashed six one hundredths of one percent of the time. There’d be disasters every cussed day! And of course with these nukes, everyone within a radius of some double-digit number of miles is necessarily on board for rides with this six one hundredths of one percent chance of crashing.

Ethan’s piece had a secondary thesis, the idea that: “Nuclear experimentation also prevents the development of better, safer, cheaper, more sustainable alternatives.” Though I remain without an advanced academic degree, I am pretty fluent in the language of mathematics and the natural sciences. Areas in which I have more extensive knowledge are Chemistry, Molecular Biology, and maybe Statistics, rather than Nuclear Physics. In Chemistry, orbital electrons (which we now understand is a quaintly inaccurate term) are the only subatomic particles with which we generally are dealing. Also in Chemistry, we know that mass action really makes the wheels turn and the (chemical) world go around. The mass action concept is also a very useful notion in economic analysis. Applied in the field of energy production, it means that all subsidies to these dinosaur sources, these Eisenhower-era methodologies, because they are thus artificially cheapened, necessarily also suppress the renewables upon which all humanity must someday depend. Fossil fuels and nuclear plants also get a free ride on the environmental and health problems which their operations entail.

What’s clearly needed are the reggae song energy sources, “I and I and I and I,” in which imagination, invention, ingenuity, and innovation are unleashed to work with wind, solar, tidal, ocean current, cultivated diatoms, geothermal (and here I’m talking about drilling holes deep enough to get down to magma, to produce high-pressure steam for electric turbines) and also exotic, eccentric schemes, typified by various notions for Hydrogen generators. I came up with one of these myself, of course just at the imagination level, noting that if the Higgs boson had a wave nature, it might be possible to render large objects weightless, or drastically reduce their weight in some temporary way, by generating a counter-wave.


Yeah, I know there are possible conservation of energy problems with such a scheme, but there’s no thermodynamic difference between particle nature and wave nature as far as anyone knows, so if an anti-wave could be generated, there might be a way to get a net energy gain from this sort of method, just sayin’. In Chemistry, we imagine “energy hills,” which have to be climbed, to start certain reactions.Typically this is achieved by applying a lot of heat. But sometimes, instead of climbing the hill or tunneling through it, a way around it can be found. For example, some chemical processes can be catalyzed by light, using   less energy  than the heat that would otherwise be required, and in certain instances, just the addition of a catalyst can bring about spontaneous chemical changes, some even exothermic.

The poor Bedlamite also manages to repeat canards about how windmills will mess up migratory birds, or that ocean currents could be adversely affected by current power; and also casts doubt on the discovery of the Higgs boson. There is a chance that the recently-trumpeted data point isn’t Higgs. It is a chance in something like ten billion. Contrast this probability with the chance that all radio-release data from nuclear meltdowns are accurate and reliable.

Meanwhile, let’s get the rumor going that all these chain reactions are making fissures and fractures in the time/space continuum that are making the free power we could get from anti-Higgs wheels impossible to obtain. It’s no more dishonest than the idea that atomic energy can have peaceful uses. And you can’t prove it isn’t so, because you can’t prove a negative. Furthermore, we know that the law of energy conservation can be violated at sub-photon levels for very short periods of time, and this speculation is all about some sort of light beam or time beam. So if electromagnetic pulses from detonations also cause cracks in time/space, and controlled chain reactions little fissures, that could easily mess up such a beam. Just sayin’.

Jimmy Midnight is a blues musician and an organic farmer in Maine. Find out more about The Maine Blues Society HERE:
http://www.mainebluessociety.com/?attachment_id=95 (http://www.mainebluessociety.com/?attachment_id=95)

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/nuclear-experimentation-killed-free_20.html (http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/nuclear-experimentation-killed-free_20.html)

Title: Two-Thirds of the World's New Solar Panels Were Installed in Europe in 2011
Post by: agelbert on September 25, 2012, 05:32:51 PM
hot dry dead future
hot dry dead future
coastal flooding
coastal flooding
please waste
please waste

There are still some countries, unlike the USA, that inderstand what a future practicing the same fossil and nuclear fuel insanity will look like  and, more importantly, WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!

Quote
Two-Thirds of the World's New Solar Panels Were Installed in Europe in 2011

ScienceDaily (Sep. 24, 2012) — Europe accounted for two thirds of the world-wide newly installed photovoltaic (PV) capacity in 2011, with 18.5 GW. Its overall PV capacity totalled 52 GW. The yearly electricity produced by PV could power a country with the electricity demand of Austria, which corresponds to 2% of the EU's electricity needs. These are some of the highlights of the 2012 Photovoltaics Status Report published September 24 by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre.

The study summarises and evaluates the current activities regarding manufacturing, policies and market implementation world-wide.
 
Over the past ten years, the PV industry grew in Europe by an average of over 40% per year and the production costs have decreased by around 60%. Underlying this progress is the EU commitment towards PV systems as a means to achieve the goal of using 20% of renewable energy by 2020.
 
Germany, Italy, Spain, the Czech Republic, France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom are the leaders in installed PV capacity in Europe.
 
Since 2000, world-wide, total PV production had growth rates of between 40 and 90%. The most rapid growth in annual production over the last five years was observed in Asia, where China alone accounts for more than 50% of the world's PV production. In addition, for the second year in a row, solar power was the renewable energy that attracted most investment, with a total of 98.5 billion euros world-wide, of which two thirds were concentrated in Europe.
 
A challenge for the European industry in this field is China's massive investment in PV manufacturing, which has led to an economy of scale in manufacturing in that country. However, the delivery of manufacturing equipment from Europe to Asia is still beneficial as Europe still has the lead in PV research and development, thereby innovating the European PV manufacturing equipment industry.
 
The report highlights that PV technology and its deployment is a global business and considers that future generations of PV technologies could spring from international cooperation on eco-innovation, in partnership with Asia and the United States.
 
In addition, it highlights that there is a large scope for PV innovation in the achievement of both energy efficiency and improved design in buildings. PV modules can be incorporated and specifically designed as building materials, functioning as an insulation material and fostering a new "European PV-architecture," whilst at the same time providing one of the key technologies required to achieve zero emissions buildings.
 
Further information: http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/refsys/ (http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/refsys/)
Title: Waste Based Society V: The Fallacy of Cutting Waste
Post by: RE on November 18, 2012, 05:07:15 PM
Waste Based Society V: The Fallacy of Cutting Waste (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/11/18/waste-based-society-v-the-fallacy-of-cutting-waste/) by Diner Monsta666 now UP on the Diner Blog.

An excellent addition to the first 3 installments I wrote and the one by Agelbert.

RE
Title: The Cost of Doing Business…
Post by: RE on December 04, 2012, 07:56:20 PM
The Cost of Doing Business… (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/12/04/the-cost-of-doing-business/)by Steve from Virginia now UP on the Diner blog!

Because this article fits in with the WBS series, I linked the discussion here rather than to the Economic Undertow thread.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on December 04, 2012, 11:53:02 PM
Interesting article. My only disappointment was Ralph Nader just being mentioned. I can't think of anyone more influential in increasing auto safety and corporate safety in general than Mr Nader. Always thought he would have been an outstanding President. Hard to make the oval office when you beat up on the corporate pigs like Ralph Nader.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Petty Tyrant on December 05, 2012, 03:00:36 AM
They are now offering 0% factory finance on new cars, so that shows how hard it is for them to keep their sales up. Govts will keep bailing out the factories, but jobs will still go because less sales has to mean less workers.

I was a bit disapointed that SFV did not go into the amount of vehicle production moved to mexico, thailand and china where they are doing well. Its an important development in the whole story of car building and kind of negligent to leave out the trend.
Title: From Waste Based to ZERO waste
Post by: agelbert on February 22, 2013, 08:59:25 AM
How do you transition from a waste based society to a ZERO WASTE sustainable society?

I'm glad you asked.  ;D


TEDxLoodusele - Joan Marc Simon - Zero Waste world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-EPrfZLIns#ws)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on February 22, 2013, 09:31:02 AM
Am glad you posted!
Title: How Much Renewable Energy is Enough?
Post by: agelbert on February 24, 2013, 09:20:33 AM
100%, 99%, 80%, 70% — How Much Can & Should The World Be Powered By Renewable Energy?
 
February 24, 2013 Zachary Shahan

How much can/should the world be powered by renewable energy? Or how about your country or region? A number of studies have tackled this question, and I recently realized that we hadn’t stuck them all together in one easy-to-find place. So, I created this page specifically for that purpose: 70%, 80%, 99.9%, 100% Renewables — Study Central. Keep that page bookmarked — it will be updated with new major studies on this topic as they are

Full article here:

http://cleantechnica.com/ (http://cleantechnica.com/)
Title: How to KILL the Internal Combustion Engine
Post by: agelbert on February 24, 2013, 09:40:07 AM
Megafactories Tesla Model S (English) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUgDcA1pZAM#ws)
Title: Estonia nationwide electric "gas" stations NOW
Post by: agelbert on February 24, 2013, 11:27:08 AM

Estonia Is 1st Country In The World To Install Nationwide System Of Fast Chargers For EVs
 

February 23, 2013 Nathan
 
The first nationwide system of fast charging stations for electric vehicles has now been completed in Estonia. The nationwide system was installed in order to speed the adoption of EVs in the country, and to help reduce the country’s carbon emissions.

The system consists of 165 fast chargers that were built and installed by the engineering firm ABB. The installation and construction was financed “from the government’s sale of 10 million surplus CO2 emission permits to Japan’s Mitsubishi Corporation,” Reuters reports.
 
As part of that deal with Mitsubishi, the Estonian government also received more that “500 electric cars and the financing of a subsidiary system for people to purchase electric cars,” Reuters adds.
 
“Now is the time to really press the pedal and move forward in electrical mobility. We have proved that there is a real possibility to set up a network in a country, and there are no technical barriers,” said Jarmo Tuisk, the head of the program that set up the plan for the network.
 
“The network of fast chargers strategically placed along roads and in towns means that users need not worry about running out of power during their journeys. It also features a nationwide unified payment system.”
 
Now that the country has such a comprehensive fast charging network, the already significant benefits of EVs should seem even more appealing. The government in Estonia is hoping for the number of privately owned EVs in the country to double by the end of the year.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/23/estonia-is-1st-country-in-the-world-to-install-nationwide-system-of-fast-chargers-for-evs/#lsCqJ33rPpaqvt5o.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/23/estonia-is-1st-country-in-the-world-to-install-nationwide-system-of-fast-chargers-for-evs/#lsCqJ33rPpaqvt5o.99)
Title: Solar power cheaper than coal: One company says it’s cracked the code
Post by: agelbert on February 26, 2013, 10:03:49 AM

 :icon_sunny: Solar power cheaper than coal: One company says it’s cracked the code

By David Roberts

Over time I’ve grown more and more suspicious of stories about breakthrough technologies. I always think back to those heady days of EEStor, the guys who were going to make a battery that would revolutionize grid storage and electric cars alike. “EEStor CEO says game-changing energy storage device coming by 2010”! As you may have noticed, 2010 came and went and the game remains unchanged.
 
All of which is to say, regarding the post to follow: caveat lector.
 
Still, this looks very, very cool.
 
CleanTechnica has an exclusive on a new solar technology that claims to be able to produce power with a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of 8¢/kWh. That is mind-boggling, “two-thirds the price of retail electricity and over 3 times cheaper than current solar technology.” If the claim proves to be true (and a lot can happen between prototype and mass manufacturing), it could revolutionize the solar industry.
 
The company is called V3Solar (formerly Solarphasec) and its product, the Spin Cell, ingeniously solves two big problems facing solar PV.
 
First, most solar panels are flat, which means they miss most of the sunlight most of the time. They only briefly face direct sunlight, unless expensive tracking systems are added. The Spin Cell is a cone:
 
The conical shape catches the sun over the course of its entire arc through the sky, along every axis. It’s built-in tracking.
 
The second problem: Solar panels produce much more energy if sunlight is concentrated by a lens before it hits the solar cell; however, concentrating the light also creates immense amounts of heat, which means that concentrating solar panels (CPV) require expensive, specialized, heat-resistant solar cell materials.
 
The Spin Cell concentrates sunlight on plain old (cheap) silicon PV, but keeps it cool by spinning it.
 
It’s just so damn clever.  :emthup: :icon_sunny:
 
Here’s a video that explains:

 V3 Solar Animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgcrjjTf6bI#ws)

Full story here:http://grist.org/business-technology/solar-power-cheaper-than-coal-one-company-says-its-cracked-the-code/
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: WHD on February 26, 2013, 10:56:38 AM
That's intuitive. I wonder what RE thinks? We should have Roamer reverse engineer it, see if it's reproducible .  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Government Subsidies of New Industries: A History Lesson
Post by: agelbert on February 27, 2013, 02:46:01 PM
Alexander Hamilton called government subsidies "bounties to support new industries". Thom Hartmann makes the case for government subsidies of renewables with quotes from Alexander Hamilton and informs us that George Washington, not only supported this view, but actually put the first government subsidies for new industries in place! :icon_sunny: :emthup:
Better yet, Thom repeats my argument (and Robert F. Kennedy Jr also called it a theft of the commons) that fossil fuel was never actually cheaper than renewables.  It's nice to have smart people agree with my analysis of fossil fuel versus renewable energy costs.  :icon_sunny: :emthup:
Just Say No to Subsidies! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYBZ96J3d9Y#)
Title: Fun with Earthquakes
Post by: agelbert on February 27, 2013, 06:18:19 PM
Fracking linked to hundreds of earthquakes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPn0gOQg7IA#)
Title: Waste BENEFITING Society (turning poop into gold).
Post by: agelbert on March 01, 2013, 09:40:34 AM
Poor people, young and old, are taught in Bangladesh to modify their sanitation habits to make use of humanure for food crops instead of polluting water supplies and spreading disease. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

BRAC WASH Programme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-zc9q6wrYk#ws)
Title: The era of energy dinosaurs is coming to an end
Post by: agelbert on March 01, 2013, 10:33:15 AM

The era of energy dinosaurs is coming to an end

By David Roberts

Working in clean energy can be frustrating. Tons of exciting things are happening, but elite conventional wisdom isn’t keeping pace and nobody listens to bloggers like me shouting about it.
 
One of the few outlets in the mainstream energy world to consistently stay ahead of the curve is Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (I have interviewed its chief executive, Michael Liebreich, before.) As Exhibit A, I offer this new “VIP brief” written by Liebreich and his able colleague Nathaniel Bullard. It’s a big old chunk of brain food, slightly dense and buzzwordy in a few places but chock-full of insight about dynamics of the energy world in the coming decade. Let’s take a look, shall we?
 
Like too few writers and analysts in this area, Liebreich explicitly takes a systems approach:
 

What happens when you saturate the system with wind or solar depends on what you think is going to happen next with power storage, demand response, electric vehicles, mandated back-up and dozens of other factors. These are all highly dynamic because, of course, they are part of a complex system, and systems exhibit emergent behavior. You can spend a lifetime studying the construction of a single neuron, yet know little of what drives a nematode, let alone a human. Real-life systems exhibit unexpected population surges and crashes, periods of equilibrium punctuated by periods of shattering change, tipping points, phase changes, extinctions.
 
… The value of a solar rooftop in a world of electric vehicles is very different from the value of the same solar rooftop in a world without. The value of demand response is negligible in a world optimised around “baseload-plus-peak” generating capacity. The value of energy efficiency is negligible in a world of fuel subsidies. And so on.
 
You will note that this echoes, somewhat eerily, my widgets vs. systems language. Naturally I agree!
 
Here, in capsule form, is the shift in perspective Liebreich urges for those making decisions in today’s energy markets:
 

This is the reality of the world’s energy transition: it is dynamic, complex, unpredictable and fraught with risk. And it is among these shifting sands that energy decision-makers must plant their feet. Not surprisingly, perhaps, some choose to cling to old certainties, heuristics that worked fine during a long period of strategy stability: demand stimulation, baseload-plus-peak, centralisation, scale, vertical integration, dispatch management, control, confidentiality. But a shifting environment means increasingly replacing dinosaur heuristics with mammal heuristics: efficiency, flexibility, responsiveness, open data, transparency, coalitions.
 
I am stealing “mammal heuristics.”
 
Liebreich is describing the same trend I wrote about the other day: decentralization, the shift from a few big players and technologies (dinosaurs) to a profusion of small, networked ones (mammals).
 
Liebreich breaks this mammalian approach down into three “strategic elements.”
 
1. Resilience
 
The energy world is now subject to more shocks, from more directions, than ever before: “Technological change. Commodity price spikes. Climate-related extreme weather. Financial instability. Policy change.” And so on.
 
These kinds of changes can creep along for years and then suddenly become disruptive. So decisionmakers need to ask themselves not just about the desired or expected outcome of their choices, but about what can go wrong. (I wrote a post about risk management that is consonant with this theme.) From that point of view, certain kinds of solutions suggest themselves:
 

Distributed beats centralised. Diversity beats a mono-culture. Consensus beats confrontation. Local beats distant. Resilience means power storage, to build in tolerance. It means smart grids, to match supply and demand. It also means future-proofing the design and location of assets.
 
Where the old mentality was about optimization, the new one will be redundancy and fault-tolerance.
 
2. Optionality
 
This is about utilities hedging their bets, leaving themselves options rather than locking into a few huge, capital-intensive, one-way bets (like, say, a $6.85 billion nuclear plant). By diversifying investments and breaking them into smaller increments, they can hedge their bets against unexpected changes in “technology, policy, regulation, economics, or environment.”
 

… an electric utility or a fuels distribution company is fundamentally a provider of energy and related services, and not just a coal generator or a gas burner. Optionality allows a company to embrace new opportunities first at the margin, but eventually at the heart of operations. Most century-old firms know this already, as do all technology companies. Today, IBM is a services company; Apple a consumer devices and services company. Asking the counterfactual “what would they be if they still made only mainframes or iMacs?” gives a simple answer: they would be out of business. Energy is a service to meet a need. As technical and societal needs change, so must the service, and that means portfolio options.
 
As I’ve said before, this shift is going to unleash powerful market forces. One electron or gallon of fuel is like another; insofar as energy providers compete, it is purely on price. But when it comes to energy services (heat and cooling, emergency backup, transportation, etc.), there’s much more differentiation possible, and thus much more competition. Where there is more competition, there is more innovation.
 
3. Intelligence
 
This is not only about getting the best information — which is harder than you’d think for energy investors — but about the many ways now possible to get more information and pull meaning out of it.
 

Intelligence is also about collecting, analysing and harnessing data that is several orders of magnitude beyond what was available to energy companies in previous decades. GE chief executive Jeff Immelt recently referred to the emerging world of connected, sensor-imbedded machines and the processing power to analyse it as the “Industrial Internet”. Energy efficiency software applications are allowing building owners to optimise consumption and control costs with greater granularity than ever before. Smart meters make possible the use of detailed information on which consumers use electricity when, and offer the opportunity to shape their consumption habits over time. Smart grid sensors and analytics software allow utilities to pinpoint and correct faults, and optimise energy networks in response to real-time conditions. Opportunities for new intelligence range from managing grid losses to predicting renewable and distributed generation performance, from pricing strategies and maintenance schedules to arbitrage opportunities. Ultimately, new connected and intelligent capacities allow us to, in Immelt’s words, to “find meaning where it did not exist before”. And not only meaning: value.
 
That the key: To pull meaning from data, and value from meaning. I am reminded of something Bill Gross — inventor, entrepreneur, and head of eSolar among other companies — is fond of pointing out: The cost of almost every industrial commodity is rising. Copper, steel, aluminum, concrete, you name it. The one thing that’s steadily getting cheaper is computing power. So they key to getting ahead in the market is substituting computing power for other commodities by making systems smarter and leaner. The more you can do that, the more you can get off the downslope of the Hubbert curve and onto the upslope of Moore’s Law.
 
Anyway, to conclude: As we move from the era of dinosaurs to the era of mammals in the energy world, some players will cling to the old ways and perish; others will diversify, focus on resilience, keep their options open, gather intelligence, and thrive. One thing’s for sure: by the end of the century, there won’t be any dinosaurs left. These are exciting times.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-era-of-energy-dinosaurs-is-coming-to-an-end/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-era-of-energy-dinosaurs-is-coming-to-an-end/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)
Title: Remember THIS: Carbon Footprint is directly proportional to WEALTH
Post by: agelbert on March 05, 2013, 11:33:52 AM
After watching this you will see why Joe and Jane Sixpack ACTUALLY have a small carbon footprint and the USA's HUGE carbon footprint must be attributed to the wealthy and their biosphere destroying ejecutive jets, yachts, petrochemical corporations, factories, mines, utilities, weapons manufacturers and other properties.
Wealth Inequality in America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM#ws)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on March 05, 2013, 12:03:29 PM
This has gone from 80,000 hits yesterday or 800,000 today. Spreading quite nicely, and posted on the DD FB page-- of course.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on March 06, 2013, 10:26:12 AM
Surly,
Excellent!  :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Title: Cargo Shipping With Dual Renewable Energy Sources
Post by: agelbert on March 07, 2013, 05:41:16 PM
Ahoy! Cargo Ships Go Retro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C9NyqUWYAs#ws)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on March 08, 2013, 04:34:30 AM
AG, thanks for posting this. Wouldn't be surprised if this became the prevailing way of moving goods over the ocean in the future.

On the other hand, it may all be moot.

Will say this, since this is my biz: the producers did an extraordinary job of telling a compelling story in a short period of time, consistent with what we know about online video use. I will be going back to this site for a variety of reasons.

Tnx.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on March 08, 2013, 07:14:58 AM
AG, Wealth inequality video reportedly up to 3.8 million views as of this morning.
Title: Cheap EVs are COMING!
Post by: agelbert on March 08, 2013, 09:15:41 AM
Surly,
It's great to see that video spreading. Perhaps it will help dispell so much propaganda out there blaming Joe and and Jane sixpack for woes caused by the greedballs who own the media (and just about everything else). I think progressive taxation should be based on accumulated wealth as well as income above an adequate living standard. My motto is "Enough for ALL; Too Much for NOBODY". The moment somebody has enough money to buy politicians or false propaganda, they have too much.

Here's a positive look at a people's EV one seater coming down the line in 2015.


Colibri One-Seater EV Coming In 2015, For Less Than €10,000
 
March 8, 2013 Nathan
 
The Colibri, a one-seater EV for under €10,000, will be hitting the market in 2015. The tiny and economical electric vehicle was unveiled by Innovative Mobility Automobile GmbH (IMA) at the 2013 Geneva Motor Show that is occurring this week. Small EVs such as this have the significant advantage of having a long battery life-cycle and being very fast to charge.
 
“The Colibri, which means ‘hummingbird,’ seats one and has a top speed of 120 kilometers an hour (75 miles per hour),” Autoblog Green writes. “A range of 110 km (68 miles) from a 6.5-kWh lithium-ion phosphate battery. Zero-to-100 kmh (62 mph) time is apparently 9.9 seconds and you can get extras like air conditioning or bump the car up to the ‘sport version.’”
 
Preorders for the vehicles are expected to start in 2014 for under 10,000 euros, with delivery in 2015. IMA is expecting to be able to produce about 17,000 a year to start with. According to the company, there is a market potential of about 500,000 for compact one-seater EVs. The company thinks that its vehicles are very well suited for carsharing programs, government use, and delivery and mobile nursing services. Since its development began, the car has received over €2.8 million in funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/08/colibri-one-seater-ev-coming-in-2015-for-less-than-e10000/#DmEFOFqIR7DBoUjY.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/08/colibri-one-seater-ev-coming-in-2015-for-less-than-e10000/#DmEFOFqIR7DBoUjY.99)
Title: California town could require solar power on every new house
Post by: agelbert on March 08, 2013, 10:21:23 AM
Now here's a zoning change I would love because it would give Bernanke (he'd be forced to indirectly finance renewable energy infrastructure through 30 year mortgages)  and the oil corporations extreme discomfort

California town could require solar power on every new house

By Susie Cagle

With year-round high temperatures and less than two inches of rain on average a month, the desert town of Lancaster, Calif., just north of Los Angeles, seems like a great place for solar. But Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris isn’t taking any chances (which is exactly what you would expect from a mayor named R. Rex Parris).
 
Parris, a Republican, is “hell-bent on branding his sprawling Antelope Valley community not just as the solar capital of California but as the ‘solar energy capital of the world,’” according to Mother Nature Network.
 
The mayor is proposing a zoning change that would require houses built after Jan. 1, 2014, to include solar-power systems. Lancaster has long been a solar leader, but Parris is trying to take it to a whole ‘nother level, pending the city council’s vote.
 
From KCET:

The zoning changes would also streamline permitting for solar installations, and would implement a few other interesting requirements. For instance, as GreenTech Media reports, model homes in developments would have to display the kinds of solar available to different home designs, and developers building housing tracts in phases would need to build each phase’s solar capacity before moving on to the next phase.
 
Builders could also qualify by buying solar credits from other generating facilities, but they’d have to be within the city of Lancaster.
 
“I want to offer the builders some flexibility,” Parris told ReWire. “New developments require catchbasins for flood runoff, and the builders could put the solar panels there if they choose. Or they could use rooftops. Whatever works.”
 
“I believe global warming is going to be solved in neighborhoods, not by nations,” Parris continued. “I want Lancaster to be part of that.”
 
In an address at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi in January, the mayor acknowledged the flack he might get from the building industry: “We will just have to take the heat.” R. Rex Parris did not, in fact, drop the mic after that comment, but he really should have.

http://grist.org/news/california-town-could-require-solar-power-on-every-new-house/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/news/california-town-could-require-solar-power-on-every-new-house/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)
Title: Japanese Nuke plant in VERY hot water
Post by: agelbert on March 08, 2013, 03:13:37 PM
Flooding complicates clean-up at Japanese nuclear plant
 
Credit: Reuters/Issei Kato

By James Topham and Mari Saito

TOKYO | Fri Mar 8, 2013 5:51am EST

TOKYO (Reuters) - Tokyo Electric Power Co is struggling to stop groundwater flooding into damaged reactors at its wrecked Fukushima plant and it may take four years to fix the problem, possibly delaying the removal of melted uranium fuel.

A March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami knocked out cooling equipment at the company's Fukushima Daiichi plant north of Tokyo, triggering the worst atomic disaster since Chernobyl in 1986. More than 160,000 people were forced from their homes.

Nearly two years later, hundreds of metric tons of groundwater is seeping into the damaged reactor buildings every day and mixing with water still being poured on the leaking reactors through a jerry-rigged cooling system.

Dealing with the contaminated water has been especially tricky because of equipment failures and high levels of radiation.

Shunichi Suzuki, Tepco's general manager for research and development of Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning, said on Friday stopping the groundwater was crucial.

"Every day we have approximately 400 metric tons of groundwater," Suzuki told Reuters in an interview.

Tepco is building a bypass system to try to stop the groundwater flowing from high ground into the buildings.

On Thursday, the Japanese government told the utility to revise by June its roadmap for cleaning up the site, which is expected to take 30 to 40 years. Experts say it could cost at least $100 billion to close the reactors down.

Plugging leaks in the reactors and removing the water is a necessary before removing melted fuel from the three damaged reactors.

Two years after the disaster, Japan is facing a third year with most nuclear reactors shut because of safety fears the accident raised. The shutdowns have forced Japan to import more fossil fuels for electricity generation pushing it into a current account deficit.

PLUGGING HOLES

One of the most daunting tasks remains the disposal of water contaminated after it is poured onto the reactors. Radioactive material must be filtered out and stored.

Work to treat and store the contaminated water is behind schedule, partly because of the groundwater flooding in. On Thursday, the company announced another delay in an operation to remove most radioactive material from the water.

Tepco also needs to plug leaks in the reactors made by firms which included General Electric Co, Hitachi Ltd and Toshiba Corp so they can filled with water to reduce radiation exposure and prepare for the removal of fuel.

"We are developing remote technologies to do that, but in case there are too many holes and it is difficult to repair all of them, we have to take a different approach," Suzuki said.

The company may resort to pouring a cement-like material into the rectors' suppression chambers to plug leaks it has not been able to locate, Suzuki said.

"One approach we are considering is putting grout, like cement," he said. "In other words, filling it in. That would block all the holes."

Removing the ground water may take two to four more years, Suzuki said, adding that it wasn't possible to give a firm schedule.

Tepco is building tanks to hold the water and has capacity for 320,000 metric tons of water but wants to increase that to 400,000 metric tons by June.

The utility is considering several measures to dispose of the water, including treating and releasing it into the sea. But Tepco officials said they would not go ahead with that without the consent of authorities.

(Writing by Aaron Sheldrick; Editing by Robert Birsel)



Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: WHD on March 08, 2013, 03:47:53 PM
Quote
TOKYO (Reuters) - Tokyo Electric Power Co is struggling to stop groundwater flooding into damaged reactors at its wrecked Fukushima plant and it may take four years to fix the problem, possibly delaying the removal of melted uranium fuel.

Meanhile, Obama's new Energy Secretary is all about MORE nuke facilities. Because I guess, such a thing could only happen to those pathetic Ruskies and Nipponese.

I predict they never fix it. Just like they will never truly clean up Hanford. I predict, a great many of the 400+ worldwide facilities melt down eventually. Why? GROSS NEGLIGENCE, in the face of broad-scale social breakdown.

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on March 10, 2013, 04:45:15 PM
WHD,
I think you are right. Insanity and gross negligence is government policy these days. Perhaps someday soon some survival instinct will halt this irrational, illogical and suicidal approach to energy resources. Otherwise we are toast.
Title: The rare non-sucky infographic on climate change
Post by: agelbert on March 11, 2013, 11:21:49 AM
The rare non-sucky infographic on climate change

 :emthup: :icon_sunny:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-rare-non-sucky-infographic-on-climate-change/ (http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-rare-non-sucky-infographic-on-climate-change/)
Title: Nice video debunking Media Disinformation
Post by: agelbert on March 11, 2013, 01:56:31 PM
 :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Global warming over the last 16 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk#)
Title: The big boyz are starting to push the all electric transportation transformation
Post by: agelbert on March 12, 2013, 09:24:52 AM
Coca-Cola, GE join push for electric vehicle charging stations
Hyosub Shin, hshin@ajc.com

Electric charging stations — such as one at Lenox Square — are part of a push to ease pollution and reduce gasoline demand.

By Christopher Seward
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Co. and General Electric, which also has a major presence in metro Atlanta, are among a growing list of companies joining a federal effort to get more charging stations for electric vehicles at workplaces.

GE was among the first group of joining the Department of Energy’s Workplace Charging Challenge. The other original companies were Google, 3M, Siemens, Verizon, Duke Energy, Eli Lilly, Chrysler Group, Ford, GM, Nissan, San Diego Gas & Electric and Tesla.

In addition to Coca-Cola, the latest group to sign up includes Dell, Facebook, Hertz, AVL, Bentley Systems, Biogen Idec, Bloomberg, Hartford Financial Services Group, National Grid, NRG Energy, Osram Sylvania, Raytheon and Southern California Edison.

According to electricdrive.org, electric vehicle sales accounted for 3 percent of total vehicle sales last year, up from 2 percent in 2011.

The goal is to make workplace charging easily accessible so more people will consider buying electric vehicles, which cost less to power than gasoline vehicles. The Energy Department estimates driving on electricity is generally comparable to roughly $1 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.


The companies have committed to installing a charging infrastructure at a minimum of one major worksite location.
Title: Walgreens Building First Self-Powered Store
Post by: agelbert on March 14, 2013, 01:47:39 PM
Walgreens Building First Self-Powered Store :icon_sunny:

Mar 14, 2013 09:24 AM ET // by Nic Halverson

Walgreens — the largest pharmacy retail chain in the United States — has announced plans to reduce its carbon footprint by building a store that generates all of its required electricity on site.

As part of the company’s Net Zero campaign, Walgreens’ green initiative to reduce energy usage by 20 percent across all of its locations by 2020, the new self-sustaining store will be built in Evanston, Illinois, just north of Chicago. To generate power, the store will include geothermal generators, two wind turbines and more than 800 solar panels. Energy-efficient building materials, LED lighting and ultra high-efficiency refrigeration will also be used to to help conserve wattage.

According to estimations, engineers expect the the store to generate around 265,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. Store operation will only require 200,000 kWh, so perhaps that extra wattage could be pumped back into the grid or used to power nearby utilities.

“We are committed to reducing our carbon footprint and leading the retail industry in use of green technology,” Thomas Connolly, Walgreens vice president of facilities development, said in a company statement. “We are investing in developing a net-zero store so we can learn the best way to bring these features to our other stores. Because we operate 8,000 stores, we believe our pursuit of green technology can have a significant positive impact on the nation’s environment.”

Credit: Walgreens, Business Wire

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/walgreens-building-first-self-powered-store-130314.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1 (http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/walgreens-building-first-self-powered-store-130314.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1)
Title: Solar-Powered Plane To Make Cross-U.S. Flight
Post by: agelbert on March 14, 2013, 01:53:37 PM
Solar-Powered Plane To Make Cross-U.S. Flight

A plane that can fly on solar power, day or night, will make its way across the United States this summer — the first time the plane has attempted a cross-continental flight.

The Solar Impulse — built as a project of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, the brainchild of Bertrand Piccard and André Borschberg — has the wingspan of a 747 but only weighs as much a Honda Prius. It flies thanks to four turboprop engines powered entirely by batteries and solar panels.

Borschberg told Discovery News that the although the plane could make the whole trip from California to New York in one go, the pilot cannot. The plane travels at 40 to 50 miles per hour, so a cross-country flight would take days. And since there’s only room for a single person in the cockpit, in part to save weight, and no autopilot, the trip will have to be broke up into five legs.

Weight was a big part of the design constraint. The designers needed to find material that was light but also strong. They settled on carbon fiber, which is lighter than any metals.

During its flight, Solar Impulse will maintain a specific altitude about 29,000 feet, where the engines operate with maximum efficiency. All things normal, the Solar Impulse could, Borschberg said, could travel for 20 hours. The longest commercial flight is somewhat less than that – 18.5 hours for the trip from Newark to Singapore (that route is scheduled to be discontinued). And eventually longer flights will be tested. The second iteration of the Solar Impulse will have the ability to house two pilots and support them for days at a time.

It’s a very unusual aircraft to handle, Piccard said. “You have a tendency to overcompensate, because it reacts so slowly.” The plane banks – that is, tilts to the side — at a maximum of five degrees from the horizontal. That required a whole new instrument built just for the Solar Impulse, a bank indicator that was calibrated to show single degrees. Most aircraft instruments are much more crude, since ordinary planes typically bank more steeply in turns.

The solar panels are conventional silicon, with an efficiency of about 25 percent. While there are more efficient solar panels such as those used in the satellite industry, those designs are often too heavy, Borschberg said, as they tend to be encased in glass. And although the power is stored in batteries, the engines can run directly from the energy collected by the solar panels. In fact, the plane could be flown on an empty battery.

More than showcasing technology, Piccard and Borschberg said they hope to inspire people. “You fly a robot like this and nobody cares,” Piccard said. “When we fly it with a pilot people ask me to come to schools and speak. I give much better speeches than a robot.”

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/solar-powered-plane-cross-us-flight-130304.htm (http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/solar-powered-plane-cross-us-flight-130304.htm)

The 12,000 PV cells are not glued on the top of the wings; they ARE the wing upper surface.

CBS 60 Minutes Video here:

http://solarimpulse.com/#6866 (http://solarimpulse.com/#6866)

Title: Re: Walgreens Building First Self-Powered Store
Post by: Surly1 on March 14, 2013, 01:56:28 PM
To generate power, the store will include geothermal generators, two wind turbines and more than 800 solar panels.[/size] Energy-efficient building materials, LED lighting and ultra high-efficiency refrigeration will also be used to to help conserve wattage.

According to estimations, engineers expect the the store to generate around 265,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. Store operation will only require 200,000 kWh, so perhaps that extra wattage could be pumped back into the grid or used to power nearby utilities.

Seriously worth paying attention to. Thanks for posting, AG.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on March 14, 2013, 02:13:23 PM
Surly,
Sir, you are always welcome. I hope I am not publishing too much hopium for some of the more apocalyptically minded diners.  :icon_mrgreen:

It ain't over yet.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on March 14, 2013, 02:22:24 PM
Surly,
Sir, you are always welcome. I hope I am not publishing too much hopium for some of the more apocalyptically minded diners.  :icon_mrgreen:

It ain't over yet.

Evidence trumps belief in every instance.

Even if too little too late, study of the techniques employed will be of benefit to all of us down the road. I am pretty "apocalyptically minded" myself, but I think we may hit Gaia's kill point or The Great Culling before we round Hubbert's curve.

If this is hopium, let's fire up another bowl.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on March 14, 2013, 03:32:26 PM
Surly,
Roger, wilco! :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Title: Cheap EVs Within the Next 10 Years? I hope so.
Post by: agelbert on March 14, 2013, 03:51:42 PM
March 13, 2013

Energy Department Offers $50 Million to Advance PEV Technologies

The Energy Department on March 8 announced more than $50 million in funding for new projects that will accelerate the development of advanced plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) technologies to improve vehicle fuel economy and performance. This new funding supports the Energy Department's EV Everywhere Grand Challenge, which aims to make PEVs as affordable to own and operate as today's gasoline-powered vehicles within the next 10 years and will help to advance the technology goals outlined in the EV Everywhere Grand Challenge.
 
The Department will select new research projects that focus on lowering the cost and increasing the efficiency of PEV components and develop models and tools to predict these vehicles' performance and help improve fuel economy.

The Department will fund projects that cover 12 areas of interest across five major areas of research and development, including:

advanced light-weight and propulsion materials;

battery development;

power electronics;

heating,

ventilation,

air conditioning systems;

and fuels and lubricants.

 
Through the Advanced Vehicle Power Technology Alliance between the Department of Energy and the U.S. Army, the Army is contributing $3.5 million in co-funding in several areas where there are joint development opportunities. The Energy Department will accept applications from industry, national laboratories, and university-led teams to address these challenges and enable technologies that will drive innovation in vehicle design. See the Energy Department Progress Alert, the Vehicle Technologies Office website, and the funding announcement.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19085 (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19085)
Title: Solar power set to shine in 2013
Post by: agelbert on March 14, 2013, 06:21:34 PM
Solar power set to shine in 2013 :icon_sunny:

By John Upton
 
This year is shaping up to be a bright one for solar power.
 
New solar generating capacity expected to be installed around the world in 2013 will be capable of producing almost as much electricity as eight nuclear reactors, according to Bloomberg, which interviewed seven analysts and averaged their forecasts.

Full story here:

http://grist.org/news/solar-power-set-to-shine-in-2013/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/news/solar-power-set-to-shine-in-2013/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on March 14, 2013, 06:37:51 PM
Hi Angelbert,  Have always thought the Sun was the answer to our energy problem since being a teenager, and could not count the money I lost in solar power investments over the decades.

Wish I was a kid again because I still have that same idea, but think investments in that area might really pay off big in the coming decades this time around, and not just in a financial sense but in a bonanza for the environment as well. It sure could use a break.  :icon_sunny:
Title: 9 out of 10 Americans Think Solar Has Increased Role to Play in US Energy Mix
Post by: agelbert on March 15, 2013, 02:19:30 PM
Hi Golden Oxen,
Quote
Wish I was a kid again because I still have that same idea, but think investments in that area might really pay off big in the coming decades this time around, and not just in a financial sense but in a bonanza for the environment as well. It sure could use a break. 

I think you are right! I've got a few posts I will now share that indicate solar is finally catching that break. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

9 out of 10 Americans Think Solar Has Increased Role to Play in US Energy Mix
 
A new poll suggests nearly 9 out of 10 American adults think solar energy should play a bigger role in the energy supply mix.

The Ipsos-Reid Poll done for Sungevity recognized 89% of respondents favor more solar power in the US energy supply.

Meanwhile, 81% of those surveyed (see infograph) said that, despite whatever political stripe is in power, solar energy should be used in state and federal residences

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/27/9-out-of-10-americans-think-solar-has-increased-role-to-play-in-us-energy-mix/#7RVAV2CDPHCxRDd8.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/27/9-out-of-10-americans-think-solar-has-increased-role-to-play-in-us-energy-mix/#7RVAV2CDPHCxRDd8.99)

Title: U.S. Solar PV Market Grew 76% In 2012
Post by: agelbert on March 15, 2013, 02:27:13 PM
U.S. Solar PV Market Grew 76% In 2012
March 14, 2013 Adam Johnston
 
 
Last year was a record-breaking year for U.S. solar energy, as the PV industry grew by 76% in 2012 compared to 2011.

The U.S. Solar Market Insight Report: Year In Review, co-authored by GTM Research and the Solar Energy Industries Association, said that 2012 PV solar installations were 3.31 GW, more than 40% all previous U.S. solar online capacity.
Last year’s strong installation numbers provided a value of $11.5 billion in solar PV, $2.9 billion more than in 2011 ($8.6 billion), and almost double new installations’ value in 2010 ($5.6 billion).

Much of the firmness in the U.S. solar market is attributed to continuing falling costs. For example, the blended average price in the fourth quarter of 2012 for PV modules was $0.68/watt, a sharp decline of 41% compared to the fourth quarter of 2011 when it was $1.15/watt.

Factor retail electricity prices skyrocketing by 35% since the start of 2000, and the average price of solar systems dropping by 70% in the same period, and it’s quite obvious why solar is growing so rapidly in the 21st century.

While last year was very strong, the fourth quarter blew out all the others, with 1.3 GW of new solar PV systems coming online that quarter, far surpassing the 684 MW in the third quarter.

All of these factors help to boost the U.S. solar market, which is producing 11% of all solar installations globally.

Besides strong growth being a key highlight of the solar energy industry in 2012, other market events shaping the industry included: consolidation of manufacturers, trade dispute resolutions, third-party solar leasing becoming a popular choice, and large-scale solar projects starting to take shape.

At the domestic level, California again led all states in PV installations, followed by Arizona, New Jersey, Nevada, and North Carolina (see graphic below).

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/14/u-s-solar-pv-market-grew-76-in-2012-charts/#SdBobZWl1iAVx2JF.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/14/u-s-solar-pv-market-grew-76-in-2012-charts/#SdBobZWl1iAVx2JF.99)

Title: Debunking The Myth Of The Inadequacy Of ‘Current Renewables’
Post by: agelbert on March 15, 2013, 02:37:11 PM
Debunking The Myth Of The Inadequacy Of ‘Current Renewables’[/color]

March 13, 2013 Guest Contributor
 
This article was originally published on Climate Progress.

Snippet 1: Last month, I was on a panel with someone who kept kept saying “current renewables” were inadequate to address the climate problem and what we needed to do is invest in ”future renewables.” By that he meant increased research and development, of course, and not continued aggressive deployment.

I began my comments with this metaphor:

“There’s no useful intellectual distinction between ‘current’ and ‘future’ renewables. It’s like saying my daughter, who’s six, is not the same person once she becomes an adult. The only way she won’t grow is if I don’t feed her.”

The point is that continuing the amazing price drops and learning curves for renewables requires that we keep feeding them and help them keep learning – by expanding production, as the International Energy Agency has explained (see “The breakthrough technology illusion“). Many other studies back this up (see “Study Confirms Optimal Climate Strategy: Deploy, Deploy, Deploy, R&D, Deploy, Deploy, Deploy“).

[In fairness to renewables, solar power is at least a junior in college, and wind power has already graduated. My daughter just happens to be six.]

Snippet 2:If you’d like to see a study of how New York could go 100% renewable in two decades, see ”Examining the Feasibility of Converting New York State’s All-Purpose Energy Infrastructure to One Using Wind, Water and Sunlight” by Stanford’s Marc Jacobson et al.

As for the U.S. as a whole, here are the key points to needed the 450 ppm pathway:

1. We don’t need to be 100% carbon-free by 2030 — though that would be a good idea.

2. We can keep nuclear for baseload and yes we can even keep much of current gas power through 2030 — we just shouldn’t build a lot of new gas-fired plants.

3. We could easily keep demand flat using the most cost-effective source of energy there is — efficiency.

4. New renewables can back out coal over the next couple of decades (assuming the coal industry continues to commit suicide by failing to develop carbon capture and storage)

5. Our renewable penetration rate is considerably lower than that of many European countries, so we have a long way to go before increased renewables would cause us problems.

6. As we get to higher and higher levels of renewable penetration, we deal with intermittency through a combination of demand response, grid storage (which is steadily improving and dropping in price), and plugged in elective vehicles (whose already paid-for batteries are not being used >90% of the time).

7. Half or more of the “intermittency problem” is really a “predictability problem” — that is, if we could predict with high accuracy wind availability and solar availability 24 to 36 hours in advance, then we can use demand response (aggregated demand reductions by commercial, industrial, and even residential customers, see “Top 5 Coolest Ways Companies are Integrating Renewable Energy into the Grid“). Fortunately, such prediction capability is already beginning developed (see, for instance, here).


I have discussed these with leading energy analysts and electric grid experts, and they agree this is all doable with existing and near-term technology, assuming we keep feeding our renewable children — and would go even faster if we had a stiff carbon price.

As for why folks don’t get this, Jigar Shah says:

For some people, technology is not their sweet spot. They have other skills. And so when someone tells them, “technology is not ready,” they just eat up those words … hook, line and sinker and then decide that’s what their talking points are going to be. And with those people it’s just sad that they don’t read more.


A major 2000 report by the International Energy Agency, Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy, analyzed a variety of experience curves for various energy technologies. Their key conclusion has already been demonstrated, in part, by the massive investment in renewables we’ve seen in the past decade, but it bears repeating:

A general message to policy makers comes from the basic philosophy of the experience curve. Learning requires continuous action, and future opportunities are therefore strongly coupled to present activities.

If we want cost-efficient, CO2-mitigation technologies available during the first decades of the new century, these technologies must be given the opportunity to learn in the current marketplace. Deferring decisions on deployment will risk lock-out of these technologies, i.e., lack of opportunities to learn will foreclose these options making them unavailable to the energy system.

Don’t lock our growing kids out of the job market by depriving them of food and learning. Deployment must be ramped up again and again and again (and yes, R&D, too).

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/13/debunking-the-myth-of-the-inadequacy-of-current-renewables/#UeY8C68sksci5fRl.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/13/debunking-the-myth-of-the-inadequacy-of-current-renewables/#UeY8C68sksci5fRl.99)

I would add that the author is too kind with those that "don't get it". The fossil fuel lobby is expert at buying foot dragging prevaricators always claiming renewables aren't ready for prime time with the continual and duplicitous reference to the "real world". They will go down lying and dissembling all the way but big oil, coal and gas WILL GO DOWN.
Title: The Mitsubishi CA-MiEV
Post by: agelbert on March 15, 2013, 02:43:07 PM
The Mitsubishi CA-MiEV

(http://[url=http://images.thecarconnection.com/lrg/mitsubishi-ca-miev-electric-car-geneva-motor-show-live-photos_100421205_l.jpg]http://images.thecarconnection.com/lrg/mitsubishi-ca-miev-electric-car-geneva-motor-show-live-photos_100421205_l.jpg[/url])

More details have been released about the Mitsubishi CA-MiEV. According to Mitsubishi, the CA-MiEV electric vehicle can travel 186 miles (300 km) per charge (at least on the Japanese testing cycle, so this means that it would achieve a lower range on an EPA test).

Mitsubishi said that this vehicle’s efficiency is the result of a high-efficiency motor, inverter, improved regenerative braking performance that enables it to generate more electricity, and lightweight components.

The CA-MiEV also has a resonant induction charging system. This means it can be charged wirelessly. These systems operate by inducing an electromagnetic field in a primary coil of wire using an alternating current, and that magnetic field wirelessly induces a voltage and current in the secondary coil, which is in the car. That current charges the car battery.

Resonant induction charging is not as efficient as simply plugging the vehicle into a conventional electrical outlet, and electric vehicles need to be as efficient as possible. However, this type of charger enables this car to charge automatically, even in the rain or when parked over a charger at your office, which may be a reality one day. This convenience might help to attract prospective EV purchasers.

The CA-MiEV vehicle also has the following features:

A 28 kWh battery bank that powers its 107 HP (80 kW) electric motor.

A front-wheel drive (FWD, 2WD) system.

Zero tailpipe emissions, which is a major start, as conventional automobiles travel through and pollute all areas, even residential ones.

Height: 5 feet (1,550 mm / 1.5 metres).

Width: 5.8 feet (1775 mm / 1.77 metres).

Length: 13.2 feet (4050 mm / 4 metres).

Wheelbase: 8.36 feet (2,550 mm / 2.5 metres).
5 seats.

Weight: 2,862 pounds (1,300 kg).


This is one of many electric vehicles on the market, but it supersedes its predecessors, including the i-MiEV, and may have a better chance at commercialization and success than them.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/14/mitsubishi-ca-miev-details/#EdmCkdd9D8kfufzx.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/14/mitsubishi-ca-miev-details/#EdmCkdd9D8kfufzx.99)

Title: Interview With Robert F Kennedy Jr: Renewables, the Free Market & Democracy
Post by: agelbert on March 16, 2013, 12:23:19 PM
Quote
In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.


Interview With Robert F Kennedy Jr On Environmental Activism, Democratization Of Energy, & More
February 6, 2013 Giles Parkinson
 
This article was originally published on RenewEconomy:


In January, RenewEconomy (RE) had the opportunity to do an exclusive interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr – son of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy, veteran environmental activist, lawyer, and renewable energy advocate.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr is head of the Riverkeepers (which has 17 groups in Australia), is the senior counsel for the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and is an appointee as director of Australian renewable energy group CBD Energy, currently in the process of merging with Westinghouse Solar. As a partner in VantagePoint, he has been involved in green technology investments for more than a decade, including as an investor in electric car manufacturer Tesla and the 2.7GW solar PV power plant in the Mojave Desert.

You can read our report on the interview here. Bobby Kennedy is typically robust, and touches on his environmental summit with JFK (his uncle), the disparity in subsidies, the desperation of the fossil fuel industries to burn their “unburnable carbon”, how solar and other renewables can help “democratise” both politics and the energy industry, and his own renewable investments.

Here is an edited transcript.

RE: How did you first get involved in environmental activism?
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I was interested in it from when I was little. When I was eight years old, I wrote my uncle (John F Kennedy), who was in the White House. I wanted to talk to him about pollution and he invited me into the Oval Office. I spent part of the morning with him – I brought him a salamander as a present, which actually died, and we spent a lot of the meeting talking about the salamander’s health, with him saying it doesn’t look well, and me insisting he was just sleeping. I told him then I wanted to write a book about pollution, and he sent me to Stewart Udall (then Secretary of Interior), and (conservationist) Rachel Carson. I interviewed them both and took a tape recorder. But I didn’t get around to writing the book until I was 29 years old. I have also been kayaking since the same age, training and racing homing pigeons from when I was seven, and training hawks, which I continue to do.

So, I have been involved in the outdoors and always seen pollution as a theft of the commons. It’s always a subsidy, always somebody stealing part of the commons to enrich themselves by disposing of their waste into the public waterways and the public air. I believe in free market capitalism, and I believe in democracy, and pollution is an affront to both of those things. It’s inconsistent with free markets because pollution itself is a subsidy, an externality – it’s a way that corporations can eliminate the cost by putting it on to the public. In a true free market a company has to pay for the cost of bringing a product to market and that includes the cost of cleaning up after itself.

 RE: But so much of the push back against environmental legislation is that it interferes with the free market.

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I think the opposite is true. First of all, the incumbents are the most heavily subsidised industries in the world. Coal is by far the most heavily subsidised industry, and oil, and if you look at their externalities, if you force them to pay for mercury discharges, for acidification, for acid rain, for ozone particulates, which in the US alone kills 60,000 a year – 20 times the number of people killed in the World Trade Centre – to say nothing of carbon, which is threatening the globe. The (IEA) recently identified that the global subsidies, the direct subsidies from governments to the fossil fuel industry, stood at more than $585 billion a year, whereas the subsidies to renewables are a less than $80 billion.

Why should the oil industry, the most profitable industry in the history of the planet, be getting half a trillion in subsidies a year? A country may want to support an immature industry, some nascent industry they are trying to grow, or for some other national security regions, or cultural reasons, to support, to give subsidies to maybe small farmers, as we did in our country – to grow the auto industry, the steel industry. When they first started we used them to build railroads, canals, but at some point those subsidies stopped.
But the rules by which energy is regulated were written to favour the most poisonous, destructive and addictive fuels from hell, rather than cheap, clean, green, safe, abundant and patriotic fuels from heaven. We need to reverse that dynamic, it’s in our national interest to do so – of Australia and the US. It’s in the global interest of humanity to do so.
 
RE: But that is a very hard thing to do, because the incumbent industry that will protect itself and seems to have political support, particularly in the Conservative camp.
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: That is the problem. I always say wherever you see large-scale pollution, you will also see the subversion of democracy, you will see the compromise of public officials, the capture of the agencies they are supposed to protect, they become sock puppets of the industries they are supposed to regulate. You see that in the political system, the kowtowing of the politicians who become indentured servants in the US and in Canada. The industry is the biggest contributor to political parties, they are able to raise an argument that they are somehow necessary to national security, and economic security, but the opposite is true.

 RE: David Crane (CEO of NRG, the large US generation company) and you wrote a letter to the editor about the democratisation of energy, and the desire to put a solar panel on every rooftop. What is democratisation of energy and why is it important?
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: From a reliability standpoint – it’s much more resilient. It’s easier for a terrorist to blow up a single power plant, or a coal-burning power plant but it’s really hard to blow up a million houses with solar panels on their roof. It is a more resilient source of energy because it is diverse.
It also tends to democratise – the political system tends to reflect the organisation of the financial systems it governs. So if you have a financial system that is controlled by a few large players, you’re going to tend to see the political systems will devolve into plutocracy, away from democracy. But if you have an economic system in which there are millions of participants, the political system will reflect that.

In the case of coal and oil, we see in our country the Koch brothers, the largest privately controlled oil company in the world, contribute something like $200 million to the recent election campaigns – they didn’t do that because they love the US of A, they did that because they believed that capturing and making indentured servants of our political representatives would make them wealthier.

Thomas Jefferson, who was the iconic figure in American democracy, he warned against large aggregations of wealth. He said that was inconsistent with democracy. He opposed industrialisation, because he thought it would create concentrations of wealth and power that would be inconsistent with democracy. And he wanted to spread out the economic wealth, to give American a vested interest in the economic system, so we would all have a vested interest in democracy.

 RE: So you see parallels of that with the energy industry?
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Right now the energy industry is controlled by a handful of global players, global multinationals. They control the oil fields and the coal fields. If, instead, we said we are not going to have a system like that, but we are going to be powered by the sun, or the wind, it is hard for a single corporation to control that. It is in the hands of everyone.

 RE: It is interesting that David Crane shares those views, wouldn’t he benefit from the status quo?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: David Crane is energy agnostic. As a CEO in the service of shareholders, he’s agnostic as to where he gets his energy. NRG controls nuclear plants, coal plants, a lot of gas, as well as wind and solar. What he has said is that the price of solar has come down so far that it is cheaper than even gas – in the US we have $2 gas – so if he has $100 million to spend, in at least 20 states the best investment he would make is in solar, because it is the cheapest way of providing electrons to his clients.

 RE: You work with Vantagepoint, which has invested in BrightSource and Tesla – both disruptive energy technologies. When will the tide turn for clean energy investments, because it’s been a brave person to put their money there?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: Governments have got to get it right. A lot of people have hopes in Australia for Prime Minister Gillard – that she will give us the kind of dependability that we need. One of the problems with wind and solar is that we need market certainty, like any business in the nursery stage that has relatively small margins. If you’re going to have a business plan, you need reliability.
In the US we have some of the same problems that you have in Australia, but much worse. We have renewable energy credits, but we don’t get certainty with them. The incumbents know they can’t publicly come out against wind and solar, because that’s unpopular, but they can undermine wind and solar by undermining business reliability. What we really need is long-term faith in some of these government programs. And the incumbents have their subsidies, we are just trying to level the playing field.
If we could get rid of all subsidies, I would do it in a second. If the subsidies for the incumbents disappeared, we would drown them in a marketplace with a level playing field. They have the advantage of incumbency, the advantage of political control, and they are able to regulate the political system, to continue to externalise their cost and get huge subsidies from the government. Even in Australia, which has much a better program than the United States, it’s unclear whether your renewable energy standards will stay in place. Our industry, like any industry, needs certainty.

 RE: You have accepted the offer of a board seat with CBD Energy/Westinghouse Solar. What is the attraction?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I’ve been associated with Westinghouse for a while. I think the merger makes sense because of the synergies. Westinghouse has got an inventory of technology and patents that will make solar installation safer and quicker to install, and make it more efficient and more reliable. Westinghouse will profit from the diversity that CBD has. Having a much larger customer base, synergistic diversification across geographic lines is the place that renewable energy industry has to go if it is to survive. We are seeing global consolidation in both the solar and the wind industry – companies that can bridge national borders and can share technology and diversify themselves will come out of this current ferment.
 
RE: It is, though, a very tough industry.

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: If you look at the automobile industry in the US – in early 20th Century there were hundreds of hundreds of companies making automobiles. Within a few years they would consolidate, eventually into the big four. You will see a lot of the same consolidation with wind and solar – particularly with globalisation, as we face austerity budgets throughout Europe. It’s the companies that are able to diversify and consolidate that are the ones that will survive.

 RE: Won’t we then face the same problems we have now, of an industry dominated by a few companies, just a different group of companies?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: It’s a different kind of industry than coal or oil. You are going to see a lot of large-scale solar and large-scale wind, but it is not susceptible to the kind of unique control that oil and gas are. Rockefeller owned 80 per cent of the world’s (oil resources) at one point – you won’t be able to do that now because people will be able to source solar on their own roofs. Everybody has access to it. Not everyone has an oil well in their backyard and not everyone has a coal field in their backyard. It is, fundamentally, a more democratic industry.

 RE: But what about the costs?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: You are going to see the kind of technology growth curves that you saw in the computer industry. Not so much in wind, because wind relies more on big infrastructure, lots of steel and poured concrete – those will have stable costs but they are just not going to drop so much. But solar panels are much more akin to computer chips: the more we make, the cheaper they will get. The more technological innovation, the more they will integrate with the industry. And costs will drop further. Those are drops that we see now. But those drops will continue, we will be seeing drops of over 30 per cent. Even if the Chinese slow down production, you will see that continue.
 
RE: Are you optimistic about the world’s environmental outcomes?
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I think anyone who is a realist will say that the planet… we’re on a trajectory to creating a planet that is a science fiction nightmare. I would urge you to read Bill McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone on the arithmetic behind global warming. It’s one of the best articles ever done. It simplifies it. One of the principal points he makes is that two degrees is what all scientists agree is the maximum we can endure for a world that is roughly recognisable. And that in order to stay in 2°C, the maximum carbon we can add to atmosphere is 500 gigatonnes of CO2. However, the oil industry and coal industry have on their books proven reserves five times that amount – the value of those companies that has already been paid for by investors, that has been traded, borrowed on and mortgaged, etc, is based on the assumption that all of those reserves are going to get burned. If they do that the planet will heat by 11°(F) which will make most of it uninhabitable. If you look at it that way, it’s hard to imagine them as anything other than criminal enterprises willing to destroy the globe for their own greed. It is not radical stuff that I am talking about, it is proven science. It’s math. That’s what we are fighting, that’s what we are up against.

 RE: OK, so how do we get there?
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: I believe we have the technology, if we can rationalise our free market economy, so that we have truly free market capitalism, where everyone is forced to internalise their costs. The market place decides what the cheapest form of energy is. Then we can quickly eliminate coal and oil, because they are so much more expensive than any other fuel. We only have the illusion that they are cheap because they have garnered, through their political clout, so many subsidies.

 RE:
Is it best to use mechanisms like a carbon price, or other means?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: We need to price carbon. Australian does have a carbon tax which we do not have in the US. And we also have to give incentive for good behaviour by utilities. Utilities make money by burning oil and gas, and as much as possible to create electrons from that, so the CEO from that utility has to make a decision every morning about whether he is going to serve the interests of his shareholders or serve the interests of humanity and civilisation. We shouldn’t be be putting CEOs in that position. We should be able to say to them, we are going to design free market rules that allow you to make money by doing good things, rather than forcing you to make money by doing bad things. We did that in California, and there the utilities are make money by installing renewables, and being energy efficient. As a result of that, Californians use half the energy than other Americans use. They use 6,000kWh per year, the rest of America average about 13,000kWh. You can rationalise the system by helping people make money by doing good things, rather than making money doing bad things.

 RE: So how is this going to end up?

 Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.
 
RE: One last thing that I forgot to ask before, do you have solar at your home?
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: My home is a power plant – it produces more energy than it uses – virtually every day of the year. I have a geothermal system, and I have two state-of-the-art solar systems. We get a lot of sunlight in New York (state), not as much as in Australia, but two out of three days it is sunny. There is a book about it – The Kennedy Green House. It was designed by my late wife, who was a green architect.
 
RE: Mr Kennedy, thanks very much for your time today.
 
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: It’s been a pleasure.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/#g6gFdCgG4SdOsWit.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/#g6gFdCgG4SdOsWit.99)
Title: Centralized Energy — Beginning Of The End?
Post by: agelbert on March 16, 2013, 12:39:43 PM
b]Centralized Energy — Beginning Of The End?[/b]
March 15, 2013 Giles Parkinson
 
Reposted from RenewEconomy:

On May 17, 2010, E.ON, the biggest electricity utility in Germany, opened a brand new 860 MW combined cycle gas-fired power station in Bavaria, which it had built at a cost of $520 million. Less than three years later, having hardly been used and losing money, the owners of Irsching-5 are threatening to close it.  It’s just one illustration of the dramatic changes that are sweeping the European energy industry because of the growing impact of wind and solar, and falling demand. E.ON this week said it was thinking of closing 13 GW of coal and gas-fired generation in coming years – but it may be only a fraction of what is needed.

Officially, 21 coal, gas and oil-fired plants have been slated for closure out to 2017 in the central European energy market – which includes Germany, France, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands. This represents about 7GW of capacity, and is over and above the 6 GW of anticipated nuclear retirements in Germany and Belgium over the same period.

But according to the European energy team at UBS, this may just scratch the surface of what’s needed – and a further 41 GW (19 GW of coal and 22 GW of gas) may have to be closed to restore the industry to profitability and offset the “downside” to centralised generation created by the renewables boom.

That would bring total closures of coal and gas plants over the coming four years to 49 GW (around a third of total thermal capacity) – which just happens to match the amount of wind and solar capacity that UBS anticipates will be added over the same period.

UBS says the central European market is in rapid decline because of falling demand, the construction of too much conventional generation capacity, and a low Co2 price. But it says the most important driver has been the “remarkable” increase of renewable capacity, and in particular solar, mainly in Germany.

Solar, as is noted in a previous report about the solar “revolution”, is “cannibalising” the earnings of the centralised generators, which are unable to cut their output to changing demand conditions, and will be increasingly exposed to times when they have to generate power when the fuel cost is higher than the spot price.

It says this means brown coal and nuclear generating capacity could fall quicker than most people would expect from the average increase in solar and wind. Indeed, its conclusion that the required closure of thermal capacity would need to match the increase in wind and solar would go against most traditional views of the workings of the energy, but such is the impact of the changing dynamics brought about by renewables.

The UBS analysis goes through a range of scenarios in its “base case” – including the addition of 49 GW of wind and solar in the next five years, the closure of 6 GW of nuclear, and 25 GW of coal and gas – about three times what has already been announced. And it assumes relatively stable prices for carbon, coal, gas and oil.

This base case scenario shows relatively stable baseload prices, but peak prices plunge because of the increasing “cannibalisation” from solar power. (Peak pricing provides much of the positive cash flow for generators). By 2020, UBS predicts, the gross margin for coal-fired generation is around zero and the capacity factors of the plants – the percentage of time they are used – falls dramatically: brown coal to 66 per cent from 73 per cent, black coal to 37 per cent from 47 per cent, and gas to 18 per cent from 30 per cent.
UBS then runs a range of more aggressive scenarios to see what it takes to return the sector to profitability.

Even assuming a 5 per cent peak capacity rating for wind, and zero for solar (which kind of goes against its previous conclusions on peak pricing), UBS says that at least 30 per cent of the central European coal fleet and 30 per cent of the gas fleet need to close just to maintain cash flows at the depleted 2012 levels. A closure rate of 40 per cent is required to boost earnings, and to stabilize the cash flows of the remaining nuclear plants. A closure rate of up to 50 per cent is also modeled.

UBS, however, doesn’t see this as a practical or likely solution, as it predicts orderly closures are unlikely to happen – firstly because energy market regulators would be concerned about declining capacity (the 40 per cent closure scenario takes reserve margins down below 10 per cent), and could intervene to prevent them.

The second reason is because the generators themselves would keen to gain the “free rider” bonus that comes with being the last one closed: the “prisoner’s dilemma” of not wanting to take action first, just as in broader climate change action. “Thus the downside just continues,” UBS says.

Although the markets in central Europe are different to those in Australia, a lot of the same dynamics will play on Australian generators. Already, the impact of reduced demand, growing renewables, and rooftop solar, is causing a decline in output in coal generation, bringing capacity factors down sharply, particularly for black coal generators. Some 3,000 MW of capacity has already been mothballed. And gas fired generators face rising commodity costs in coming years as the LNG plants come on stream, and domestic gas prices rise to match export prices.

UBS is pessimistic about the future of centralised thermal generation in central Europe. “(It) is in structural decline,” it notes, and adds that it has taken place at “remarkable” speed. “We do not think that closures will save the European power generation downside.”
It has sell recommendations on all the major power utilities with large exposure to coal and gas fired generation. Many of these companies have high debt levels, the result of recent merger activity, but they have been caught out by falling demand and the rush to wind and solar.

A Reuters report last week noted that the centralised production model risked becoming “dinosaurs” of the energy market unless they reinvented themselves soon. These utilities are now starting to focus on decentralized energy, renewables, and energy efficiency. E.ON says it will focus its investments in that sector, and GDF Suez, whose CEO has talked of a “revolution” in the industry caused by solar, is doing the same.

The problem is that most of these companies are already behind other first movers. They own just 7 per cent of renewables capacity and less than three per cent of solar capacity.
“Utilities produce electricity, and here’s a new technology for producing electricity, and they are not in there. They have completely missed the opportunity,” Lueneburg University researcher Mario Richter told Reuters.

Laszlo Varro, an economist with the International Energy Agency, says utilities could benefit greatly if they did not treat rooftop solar as competition for their thermal plants but as a gateway into that new market. “In a future electricity system, the electricity network company could essentially be an insurance company, providing insurance against not having sunshine when you need power,” he told Reuters.

There’s a lesson there for Australian utilities.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/15/centralized-energy-beginning-of-the-end/#ehpWfTAxbCvv1btQ.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/15/centralized-energy-beginning-of-the-end/#ehpWfTAxbCvv1btQ.99)
Title: An Underutilized Renewable Energy Source To be Tapped Worldwide
Post by: agelbert on March 17, 2013, 01:46:52 PM
Two articles, both related to using a renewable energy source that we, for all practical purposes, are not making much use of now. High-lignin agricultural residue has great potential. Don't look for the energy resources from this renewable calculated or projected by the fossil fuel corporations; it's COMPLETELY off their radar. Just one more renewable source helping to kill the fossil fuel industry.  :icon_mrgreen: Read on.  :emthup: :icon_sunny:

(http://[url=http://www.pnas.org/content/109/10/4014/F2.large.jpg]http://www.pnas.org/content/109/10/4014/F2.large.jpg[/url])

Global bioenergy potential from high-lignin agricultural residue

Edited by Chris R. Somerville, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved January 17, 2012 (received for review August 4, 2011)


Abstract

Almost one-quarter of the world's population has basic energy needs that are not being met. Efforts to increase renewable energy resources in developing countries where per capita energy availability is low are needed. Herein, we examine integrated dual use farming for sustained food security and agro-bioenergy development.

Many nonedible crop residues are used for animal feed or reincorporated into the soil to maintain fertility. By contrast, drupe endocarp biomass represents a high-lignin feedstock that is a waste stream from food crops, such as coconut (Cocos nucifera) shell, which is nonedible, not of use for livestock feed, and not reintegrated into soil in an agricultural setting. Because of high-lignin content, endocarp biomass has optimal energy-to-weight returns, applicable to small-scale gasification for bioelectricity. Using spatial datasets for 12 principal drupe commodity groups that have notable endocarp byproduct, we examine both their potential energy contribution by decentralized gasification and relationship to regions of energy poverty.

Globally, between 24 million and 31 million tons of drupe endocarp biomass is available per year, primarily driven by coconut production. Endocarp biomass used in small-scale decentralized gasification systems (15–40% efficiency) could contribute to the total energy requirement of several countries, the highest being Sri Lanka (8–30%) followed by Philippines (7–25%), Indonesia (4–13%), and India (1–3%).

While representing a modest gain in global energy resources, mitigating energy poverty via decentralized renewable energy sources is proposed for rural communities in developing countries, where the greatest disparity between societal allowances exist.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/10/4014.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/10/4014.abstract)

Researchers Building Stronger, Greener Concrete With Biofuel Byproducts

Mar. 14, 2013 — Kansas State University civil engineers are developing the right mix to reduce concrete's carbon footprint and make it stronger. Their innovative ingredient: biofuel byproducts.

"The idea is to use bioethanol production byproducts to produce a material to use in concrete as a partial replacement of cement," said Feraidon Ataie, doctoral student in civil engineering, Kabul, Afghanistan. "By using these materials we can reduce the carbon footprint of concrete materials."

Concrete is made from three major components: portland cement, water and aggregate. The world uses nearly 7 billion cubic meters of concrete a year, making concrete the most-used industrial material after water, said Kyle Riding, assistant professor of civil engineering and Ataie's faculty mentor.

"Even though making concrete is less energy intensive than making steel or other building materials, we use so much of it that concrete production accounts for between 3 to 8 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions," Riding said.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions from concrete production, the researchers are studying environmentally friendly materials that can replace part of the portland cement used in concrete. They are finding success using the byproducts of biofuels made from corn stover, wheat straw and rice straw.

"It is predicted that bioethanol production will increase in the future because of sustainability," Ataie said. "As bioethanol production increases, the amount of the byproduct produced also increases. This byproduct can be used in concrete."

The researchers are specifically looking at byproducts from production of cellulosic ethanol, which is biofuel produced from inedible material such as wood chips, wheat straw or other agricultural residue. Cellulosic ethanol is different from traditional bioethanol, which uses corn and grain to make biofuel. Corn ethanol's byproduct -- called distiller's dried grains -- can be used as cattle feed, but cellulosic ethanol's byproduct -- called high-lignin residue -- is often perceived as less valuable.

"With the cellulosic ethanol process, you have leftover material that has lignin and some cellulose in it, but it's not really a feed material anymore," Riding said. "Your choices of how to use it are a lot lower. The most common choices would be to either burn it for electricity or dispose of the ash."

When the researchers added the high-lignin ash byproduct to cement, the ash reacted chemically with the cement to make it stronger. The researchers tested the finished concrete material and found that replacing 20 percent of the cement with cellulosic material after burning increased the strength of the concrete by 32 percent.

"We have been working on applying viable biofuel pretreatments to materials to see if we can improve the behavior and use of ash and concrete," Riding said. b]"This has the potential to make biofuel manufacture more cost effective by better using all of the resources that are being wasted[/b] and getting value from otherwise wasteful material and leftover materials. It has the potential to improve the strength and durability of concrete. It benefits both industries."

The research could greatly affect Kansas and other agricultural states that produce crops such as wheat and corn. After harvesting these crops, the leftover wheat straw and corn stover can be used for making cellulosic ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol byproducts then can be added to cement to strengthen concrete.

"The utilization of this byproduct is important in both concrete materials and biofuel production," Ataie said. "If you use this in concrete to increase strength and quality, then you add value to this byproduct rather than just landfilling it. If you add value to this byproduct, then it is a positive factor for the industry. It can help to reduce the cost of bioethanol production."

The researchers have published some of their work in the American Society of Civil Engineer's Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering and are preparing several other publications. Ataie also was one of two Kansas State University graduate students named a winner at the 2013 Capitol Graduate Research Summit in Topeka. His poster was titled "Utilization of high lignin residue ash (HLRA) in concrete materials."

The research at Kansas State University was funded by more than $210,000 from the National Science Foundation. The researchers collaborated with the University of Texas, North Carolina State University and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. The research also involved Antoine Borden, senior in civil engineering, Colorado Springs, Colo.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130314124141.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Falternative_fuels+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Alternative+Fuels%29 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130314124141.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Falternative_fuels+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Alternative+Fuels%29)
Title: Wind POWER is on a ROLL!
Post by: agelbert on March 17, 2013, 07:49:07 PM
Walney Offshore Wind Farm To Triple In Size
March 16, 2013 Nathan

(http://[url=http://static.offshorewind.biz/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stone-Protection-Almost-Complete-at-Walney-Offshore-Wind-Farm-UK.jpg]http://static.offshorewind.biz/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Stone-Protection-Almost-Complete-at-Walney-Offshore-Wind-Farm-UK.jpg[/url])
 
The 367 MW Walney offshore wind farm that opened last summer is now going to be significantly expanded upon. The wind farm will be approximately tripled in size, reaching a total capacity of just over 1.1 GW. Once the expansion is completed, the Walney wind farm is likely to once again be the world’s largest offshore wind farm, after having lost that title to the London Array recently.

The expansion plans were presented to Cumbria County Council’s local committee for Barrow last week by Dong Energy, wherein they outlined the specifics of the plans — the addition of 120 new wind turbines to the already 102-turbine-strong wind farm.
The formal application for consent is currently expected to be submitted sometime in May.

“The process typically takes around 18 months to two years, so if the planning decision is favorable we would be looking to make financial investment decisions and start work in 2015/16,” a spokesman from the company was quoted by BusinessGreen as saying. “Construction time depends on the turbine types and the weather, but the aim would be to have work completed around 2018.”

As of right now, the 367 MW Walney wind farm is providing enough electricity for about 320,000 homes. With the addition of a further 750 MW of capacity, that number would go up considerably.

The Walney wind farm was actually the largest offshore wind farm in the world when it was completed in February 2012, but has been overtaken by the London Array project, which is going to provide 630 MW of capacity once its first phase is completed. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/16/walney-offshore-wind-farm-to-double-in-size/#DGTBScuekJpSbgw4.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/16/walney-offshore-wind-farm-to-double-in-size/#DGTBScuekJpSbgw4.99)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on March 18, 2013, 08:39:26 AM
And on the other side of the ledger, there is this.

Saw over the weekend where the last effective republican president, Bill Clinton, endorsed the Keystone XL pipeline. If you've read about the number of jobs in play, it is difficult to imagine how any politician can summon the political will to oppose it. Yet from all reasonable aspects it appears to be a planet killer.

A Hotter Planet is in the Pipeline

If you want to construct a simple, suitable-for-casual-conversation argument in favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline, you probably already know everything you need. The ideas are easy to grasp, and the people who want you to construct such arguments have a lot money to get their message out. Here are the pieces:

    The oil sands are just sitting up there in Canada. BP says: “The province of Alberta contains recoverable oil sands reserves of approximately 170 billion barrels, the third largest reserves in the world.”
    Giving our oil money to Canada makes a lot more sense than giving it to Saudi Arabia or Iran or Venezuela. For a lot of reasons: Of all the people in the world, Canadians are the ones most likely to send that dollar right back to us by buying something we make or coming here on vacation. They’re also probably not going to use the money to fund terrorism or anti-American propaganda. And we don’t have to worry much about them shutting the oil off to manipulate us or punish us politically.
    Building the pipeline would employ a lot of people. Paul Ryan’s budget claims (page 48) “20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 indirect jobs.” But the construction-job figure appears to be inflated by a factor of about 10, and the “indirect jobs” are just wild guess.

Probably you know that the case against the pipeline has something to do with global warming, but unless you’ve gone out of your way to study the issue, the pieces of that argument don’t come quickly to mind and aren’t as easy to assemble. It’s not actually a difficult argument, it just doesn’t have as much money behind it, so you don’t have it constantly in front of you.

So let’s start at the beginning.

Global warming is real. It’s not “controversial” or “disputed” in any genuine scientific sense. People who profit from selling fossil fuels have spent a lot of money to buy political controversy and to dispute the scientific results in the media, but that’s different from there being any real scientific controversy about whether the planet is getting hotter, whether greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are causing it, or whether burning fossil fuels puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Our solar system already gives us a clear example of a runaway greenhouse effect: Venus, which otherwise is the planet that most resembles Earth. The atmosphere of Venus is 96% carbon dioxide, and its surface temperature is over 800 degrees Fahrenheit — even hotter than the hottest parts of Mercury, which is much closer to the Sun. Nobody’s saying that lead is going to start boiling here on Earth, but the greenhouse effect is not some speculation out of science fiction. It’s happening on the next planet over.

There’s a time lag between putting more carbon in the atmosphere and the Earth getting hotter. It’s not like the thermostat on your furnace. (It’s more like putting on a sweater that you can’t take off.) So we can’t wait until apocalyptic things start happening and then say, “Damn. I guess we better do something about this.” If tomorrow, we stopped burning fossil fuels completely – not that anybody expects that to happen — the planet would keep getting hotter for the next several decades.

Estimating how much carbon results in how many degrees warmer how fast is where the science gets iffier. (This is where there is honest debate and more research is needed. Of course, the fossil-fuel people and their minions want to cut off this research, so they can keep exploiting the uncertainty.) In general, though, this graphic sums the best guesses we have:

(http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/01/1276_gigatons_CO2.png)

So, for example, carbon already released (say, by that driving vacation you took ten years ago) is going to increase the global temperature by 1.5 degrees Centigrade, or about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. A carbon budget that would keep further warming down to 2 degrees C (3.6 F) beyond that is already starting to look impossible.

And this is the mainline scenario, not the worst case. Short of Venus, it’s hard to know what the worst case is, because we could at some point set off some feedback loop we currently know nothing about. At some point, for example, the methane frozen into the Siberian permafrost starts to evaporate into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas, so after that the hotter it gets the hotter it gets.

If we don’t want to have an ecological catastrophe, a lot of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground. Nobody wants to hear this, and people who hear it have a way of forgetting. But take another look at that graphic: Just burning the gas, oil, and coal that corporations already list on their books will take us to a point about 12 Fahrenheit degrees warmer than we are now. That’s about the difference between Chicago and Atlanta, or Atlanta and Baghdad. The entire state of Florida would need a serious seawall, and hurricanes would hit New York or Boston every few years. I’m not sure what happens to the cornfields of Iowa or the vineyards of California, but I bet it’s not pretty.

The drill-baby-drill scenario, where we find every last hydrocarbon on the planet and burn it, is much, much worse.

If you’re going to leave any oil in the ground, the Canadian oil sands are a good choice. While not as bad as coal for generating energy in general, oil sand is a carbon-intensive way to produce liquid fuels like gasoline. There’s some debate about how much worse than ordinary crude oil it is, with estimates running from 12% worse to 22% worse. Another way to look at that: If carbon is the limiting factor on how much gasoline the world can have, producing five gallons of gas from oil sands might prevent us from producing six gallons from crude oil somewhere else.

Also, the sands are in the early stages of development; leaving them in the ground is a much easier decision now that it will be after we’ve spent a bunch of money to build a pipeline and install other infrastructure. And they’re in a rich country. (Imagine telling a poor country that its people will have to starve rather than develop known energy resources.)

What’s Plan B? Pipeline advocates want to take that argument off the table by saying that the oil sands are going to be developed anyway. At its worst, this is a defeatist the-planet-is-already-hosed-so-we-might-as-well-live-it-up-now argument.

But even ignoring that, the argument is disingenuous. The point of building the pipeline is that it makes developing the oil sands more economical. No energy deposit gets completely exploited — there’s always some oil at the bottom of the well that is recoverable, but only at a higher price. So building the pipeline clearly changes how much of the oil sand will be exploited.

And finally, the economic projections are based on a world that has no carbon tax or cap-and-trade system, which is another way of saying that we’re acting as if changing the climate had no cost.

But if the Canadian oil sands are going to be burned in their entirety (or close to it), what is going to be left in the ground? And if the answer is nothing, then what’s the plan for mitigating the damage? What’s the plan for relocating all the Bangladeshis when that country is underwater? How high does the seawall around Florida have to be? What’s the food-supply plan when Iowa turns into a desert and the ocean is too acidic to support fish?

Pipeline advocates would have you believe that the opponents are being impractical, that even if you believe in climate change (i.e., if you believe in science), this is not the place to take a stand.

So: where is the place to take a stand? And will it still be above sea level when we get there?
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on March 18, 2013, 08:56:03 AM
Quote
Saw over the weekend where the last effective republican president, Bill Clinton, endorsed the Keystone XL pipeline. If you've read about the number of jobs in play, it is difficult to imagine how any politician can summon the political will to oppose it. Yet from all reasonable aspects it appears to be a planet killer.

Have to break ranks from my Libertarian Govt hands off group on this one Surly.

We may as well stick the other end of this pipe in our mouths if it comes here. There is NO environmental movement if this thing gets built. The jobs part of it is true but how long are those jobs going to last??
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on March 18, 2013, 10:27:23 AM
GO,
Yep. Thom Hartmann mentioned the other day that those XL pipeline jobs were short lived and even the estimates put out there are overly "optimistic" (i.e. padded numbers to scam the public). Just the PERMANENT jobs in the construction and maintnenace of renewable energy equipment provides several multiples of the alleged XL pipeline jobs.

Surly,
As Robert F. Kennedy  Jr. said in a recent interview when asked "So how is this going to end up?",  "In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other. And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves. If  they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other."

We are there. If one side wins we perish; if the other side wins we thrive and begin the mature and fruitful golden age stage of Homo sapiens in harmony with the biosphere.

Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Eddie on March 18, 2013, 10:59:20 AM
Everything I read about the tar sands and the pipeline leads me to believe it is one more huge misappropriation of resources designed to profit a few well placed individuals and corporations at the expense of everyone and everything else, including the planet. To strip mine such a pristine and environmentally sensitive area would never be a good idea...but environmental costs aside, the math doesn't really seem to work, and any actual usable fossil fuel extracted would be barely EROEI positive, if that.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on March 18, 2013, 11:19:54 AM
Gents, agreed on this in toto. RFK Jr. had it exactly correct. As I recall, he and a number of other protesters got arrested at the White House gates in protest the week before the big Forward on Climate demonstration in February.

Interestingly, the Sierra Club has eschewed its longstanding commitment to only-within-legal-means protesting over Keystone XL.  I suppose the reasons are as GO observed above: if this thing goes through, and we burn this oil, there IS no environmental movement.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Snowleopard on March 18, 2013, 03:44:48 PM
I'm against the pipeline, but for different reasons. 

With USA oil demand dropping monthly, why the sudden urge to up the capacity of Canadian and Bakken production?  Perhaps to make the possible blowback of certian proposed military ventures in MENA more palatable for the MIC??  I am not in favor of measures to enable a major new war.

As for the global warming stuff, I'm not seeing it here.

Some things I am seeing:
 

*12F low last night, 15F low previous night. 

*Weather is too cold for maple sap run to get going well, when last year at this time we had the other extreme;  it was all done for the year before it got going well and i was planning the garden. 

*We have had solid snowpack averaging 2 ft since early January, and another 1 ft+ snow forecast for tomorrow. 

*Redwing blackbirds are showing up a little later than last year and are abit confused since their usual nesting materials are buried under the snow. 

*My geese are just starting to lay eggs sporadically, about one month later than usual. 

*Just a little over double the firewood used this year so far compared to all of last year, and the backup propane was used some this year and not last. 

These things i see tell me it is getting colder not warmer, at least here.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on March 18, 2013, 04:20:57 PM
Snowleapard,
Watch this recent interview on Bill Moyers and tell us what you think.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/anthony-leiserowitz-on-making-people-care-about-climate-change/ (http://billmoyers.com/segment/anthony-leiserowitz-on-making-people-care-about-climate-change/)

I'm in Vermont and maple syrup pumping began early this year because we started to get above freezing daytime temperatures in February. That is very unusual. My experience after living nearly 20 years here is that the winters are getting milder and shorter but I have known abut global warming, the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gasses since I read about them in Scientific American in the 1980s. Some places are feeling the changes sooner than others and other places are actually getting colder. However, the overall global average temperature is going up. Leiserwitz is respectful of those, like yourself, that don't see a threat and goes into some detail as to why that is the case. He is a learned man.  :emthup:
Title: Big Oil Keeps "Doing What They Do" (distortion, mendacity, happy talk, etc.)
Post by: agelbert on March 18, 2013, 04:40:26 PM

Oil-Linked Firms Provided Research for State Dept.’s Keystone XL Review  :evil4:

A State Department review that could help clear the way for the Keystone XL oil pipeline was based, in part, on research conducted by two firms with ties to big oil companies and even a potential financial interest in the project’s approval. According to Inside Climate News, the section of the report concluding the Keystone XL’s completion would not impact the rate of development in Canada’s oil sands was based on analysis by the companies EnSys Energy and ICF International. EnSys’ client list includes ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, both of which have financial ties to the extraction of tar sands oil. The companies’ research challenges environmentalists’ argument that building the Keystone XL would lead to additional extraction of tar sands oil and the release of dangerous levels of carbon into the atmosphere.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/18/headlines#3184 (http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/18/headlines#3184)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: monsta666 on March 18, 2013, 04:43:37 PM
A little backdrop to the whole Keystone XL pipeline saga that I hope is helpful. The postponement of the pipeline maybe seen as an environmental victory but before people declare such victories one needs to consider the economics behind such pipelines. The non-opening of this pipeline does not actually stop tar sand production; all it does is slow down the growth of future tar sand production as the low costs make it more difficult to justify future investments, at least temporarily...

Here is the thing: since about 2008 the spot prices between brent and WTI crude oil are no longer the same and there has been about a $20 price difference between the two indexes; as of today the price difference is $17. The reason for this price difference has come because of increased production from the Bakken and Alberta tar sand production coupled by falling US domestic demand. This oversupply has resulted in lower crude oil prices as some of this production cannot enter the world market. It should be noted however that not all American's particularly the ones in the East and West coast have access to this cheap WTI crude oil and must purchase the more expensive brent oil which has now become the international benchmark for oil (brent oil is more heavily traded than crude oil).

The main beneficiaries in this arrangement have been the refineries in the gulf coast who can buy oil on the cheap from Canada but sell them at the high brent oil price and profit from the price difference. The main losers in this deal are refineries in the east coast who have less access to cheap WTI crude oil and most significantly cheap Canadian oil. As a result the gulf coast refineries are undercutting the refineries from the east coast who are suffering diminished profit margins and in some cases even going out of business because of this practice.

The biggest loser in this arrangement however are the Canadian tar sand producers because they are currently selling their oil at around a $30 discount to the US. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/the-bright-side-of-canadas-weak-oil-prices/article8123055/) That's right Canadian tar sand oil is sold to US refineries for $65 a barrel because of this glut. Considering the Canadians are producing around 1.87mb/d of oil from the tar sands (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9702) that means the Canadians are losing $56 million in lost revenue a day with this arrangement. So it is little wonder why they are pushing so hard for this pipeline! It should be noted however that other pipelines are being built to elevate this glut and about 1.4 mb/d of additional pipeline capacity will come online by early 2015 and more if the Keystone XL pipeline is given the green light. The larger the price differential between Canadian and WTI crude oil the greater the incentive to build more pipelines and even if the US plays hard ball (to seemingly save the environment but in reality to just take advantage of cheap oil and continue happy motoring) then it just gives Canada the incentive to deal with the Chinese. If you are losing $56 million in lost revenue each day then I am sure these options will be seriously considered. That option would be a logistical nightmare so it won't likely be pursued unless other options are exhausted.
Title: Energy Storage Breakthrough: Large And Powerful Redox Flow Battery Developed
Post by: agelbert on March 19, 2013, 01:44:27 PM
Energy Storage Breakthrough: Large And Powerful Redox Flow Battery Developed  :emthup: :icon_sunny:


March 19, 2013 Nathan

 
A breakthrough has been made in the field of renewable energy battery storage. Researchers have developed a redox flow battery that reaches a stack power of up to 25 kW. This breakthrough in battery technology is important because it will allow the energy from intermittent sources of power, such as most renewables, to be more efficiently stored for later use. The new redox batteries are eight times larger than the systems currently in use, which …

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/19/energy-storage-breakthrough-large-and-powerful-redox-flow-battery-developed/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/19/energy-storage-breakthrough-large-and-powerful-redox-flow-battery-developed/)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on March 19, 2013, 02:00:48 PM
AG, read this brief article. This looks pretty remarkable as a breakthrough. Might as well be a state secret here, though.

INteresting how the rest of the world, not already purchased by the Koch Bros., is working toward a future in renewables.

Don't always comment, but appreciate these posts, and make sure they have a second life on the DD FB page, which is to Doomstead Diner what medieval Greenland was to Denmark.
Title: Despite disinfo from Fossil Nukes, Germany still a big net Electricity Exporter
Post by: agelbert on March 19, 2013, 02:02:09 PM
Germany is on target for their plan to go 100% renewable by 2050 :emthup: :icon_sunny:

New Germany Renewable Energy Charts
 

March 18, 2013 Zachary Shahan
 
Professor Dr. Bruno Burger of the Fraunhofer Institute on March 11 released a report on renewable energy data for Germany up through the end of February. The whole report is an interesting read, but I’m pulling out some of the most interesting charts and graphs if you’d just like a snapshot.
 
1. As I think we reported previously, solar power capacity has passed up wind power capacity in Germany. Here are the totals as of February 1, 2013:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/18/7-new-germany-renewable-energy-charts/#tgHOb8Sgo5SiQ68c.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/18/7-new-germany-renewable-energy-charts/#tgHOb8Sgo5SiQ68c.99)

Surly,
Thanks again for all you do. I'm watching the "views" and can tell people are reading these nuggets about progress on renewables so I am content to keep on keepin' on. :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Title: Big Oil Mouthpiece (WSJ) does ANOTHER EV hit piece
Post by: agelbert on March 19, 2013, 03:01:12 PM

More Textbook Disinformation from the WSJ Propaganda Pushers. Max Baumhener takes them to task for 'too clever by a half' distortions, exaggerations and downright mendacious bullshit   :icon_mrgreen:

Bjorn Lomborg’s Dirty Little Math
March 17, 2013 NRDC
 
 By Max Baumhefner

A Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by Bjorn Lomborg, “Green Cars Have a Dirty Little Secret,” argues that even though driving on electricity emits half as much pollution as driving on gasoline, it never makes up for the additional energy it takes to build electric cars.

How does Lomborg do the math?

First, he picks an estimate for electric car manufacturing emissions that’s three times higher than conventional estimates.

Second, he imagines electric cars will be prematurely sent to the junkyard, well before they’re even out of warranty.

Everyone likes exposing a fake, but if there’s a hoax here, it’s not the electric car.
Lomborg’s argument rests on the reasoning included in this sentence: “If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles.”

The premise that the typical electric car will only be driven 50,000 miles is fanciful. Both the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf electric powertrains are backed by 100,000-mile warranties and there’s little reason to believe they won’t be driven much further. In fact, many drivers of the electric RAV4 Toyota produced in limited numbers between 1997 and 2003 have logged well over 100,000 miles. Below is a photo (follow thw link at the end for the photos) taken by one such proud owner when his odometer hit six figures in 2009. Today’s much more capable and advanced electric cars will go at least as far.

Turning to the question of “huge initial emissions” from manufacturing, most researchers agree that building electric cars today requires more energy than building gasoline vehicles, but estimates for production emissions from Argonne National Laboratory are roughly three times less than those used by Lomborg. It should also be noted that conventional automobile manufacturing has benefited from over a century of learning-by-doing and economies of scale. Ford plants today bear little resemblance to those that built the first Model-Ts. We should expect and demand similar improvements in the mass production of electric vehicles.

Lomborg also claims that cars charged with electricity made from coal are dirtier than gasoline vehicles. The environmental benefits of driving on electricity do depend on where you plug in and there are a few very coal-dependent states in which the most efficient gasoline hybrid is the better environmental choice. However, there is no region of the United States where driving an electric car is not cleaner than driving the average gasoline vehicle and almost half of Americans live in states where electric cars are by far the best option available today.

And that’s today. The benefits of driving on electricity will only increase in the future as more and more old coal plants are retired and replaced by cleaner and renewable resources. Twenty-nine states have renewable energy procurement targets and coal is increasingly becoming economically unattractive. In other words, electricity will become cleaner over time, while gasoline will only get dirtier as oil companies look to unconventional resources such as tar sands.

Lomborg’s statement that the “current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5,” is also misleading. He cherry picks the lowest of four values the government uses for such calculations ($5, $21, $35, and $65). By most accounts, the “best” estimate is at least four times higher than Lomborg’s figure.

The Wall Street Journal would do a better service to its audience by reality checking its opinion writers’ facts and asking its readers if they would prefer to remain addicted to oil in perpetuity. I’m guessing most of them would like the idea of driving on a cleaner, domestic fuel at a price that’s equivalent to driving on buck-a-gallon gasoline for life.

Max Baumhefner is an attorney, outdoor enthusiast, and a bread baker. My focus is the juncture of the electricity and transportation sectors. I work on policies designed to integrate electric vehicles into the grid and maximize their environmental benefits. I’m an environmentalist because my parents taught me to be responsible and clean up after myself, and I always do what my parents tell me.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/17/bjorn-lomborg-dirty-little-mistakes/#HVO5ZS2kE7BYE89p.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/17/bjorn-lomborg-dirty-little-mistakes/#HVO5ZS2kE7BYE89p.99)

The dinosaur is thrashing around using its full grab bag of media disinfo experts to tank the popularity and interest in the EV. Don't swallow the iies. Remember, these guys are good at lying. They are expert in conning the American public. Big Oil dropped the price of oil to peanuts in the 1980s for only one reason; to kill renewables using the "they are too expensive" argument. Don't let them do it again. Fact check everything you read. I recently watched a film from 1976 showing CSP technology and solar towers in development. Those technologies were throttled so thoroughly that they didn't resurface until this past decade. That wasn't an accident or a "free market" function; it was disinformation, monopoly power and bribed government officials that pulled the rug out from under the huge promise of renewables back then to the planet's detriment.
Title: Japan To Overtake US And Germany In Solar Installations
Post by: agelbert on March 19, 2013, 03:19:39 PM
Japan is getting some traction on the Solar Revolution  ;D

Japan To Overtake US And Germany In Solar Installations

March 19, 2013 Joshua S Hill

Germany and the United States have been powerhouse names in the solar industry for the last couple of years, but a new player is slowly emerging thanks to a healthy feed-in tariff (FIT): Japan. With its FIT paying up to ¥42 per kilowatt hour, Japan is expected to grow by 120% in 2013 and install more than 5 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity according to a new report from IMS Research, part of IHS. In fact Japanese installation of photovoltaic (PV) systems is expected to exceed 1 GW in the first quarter of 2013 alone, and by the end of 2013 is set to jump right past Germany and the US to become the world’s second largest PV market behind China. :icon_sunny:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/19/japan-to-overtake-us-and-germany-in-solar-installations/#PVYMLya5sIOPYK0O.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/19/japan-to-overtake-us-and-germany-in-solar-installations/#PVYMLya5sIOPYK0O.99)

Title: 80% Cuts In Transportation Sector Petroleum And Emissions: How?
Post by: agelbert on March 19, 2013, 04:01:13 PM
Snippet 1:
“Transportation accounts for 71 percent of total US petroleum consumption and 33 percent of our nation’s total carbon emissions. It presents significant opportunities to cut oil dependence while taking a bite out of greenhouse gas emissions. The finding that there are many options increases our confidence that a clean transportation solution is possible in the long term.”

Snippet 2:
"Pushing the limits of energy-efficient vehicles and switching to cleaner fuels, particularly in the non-LDV (Light Duty Vehicle) segment – truck, marine, pipeline, rail, and off-road equipment – are seen as key to averting projected increases in energy consumption and GHG emissions."

80% Cuts In Transportation Sector Petroleum And Emissions: How Do We Get There?
March 19, 2013 Andrew

The Dept. of Energy’s “Transportation Energy Futures” study provides a template for Pres. Obama’s vision of reducing US transportation sector petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050.

1. Realizing gains in vehicle energy efficiency and fostering shifts in demand for different modes of transport,

2. growing use of biomass biofuels,

3. and transitioning to hydrogen and electric vehicles are the three main facets of the TEF strategy.


http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/19/80-cuts-in-transportation-sector-petroleum-and-emissions-how-do-we-get-there/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/19/80-cuts-in-transportation-sector-petroleum-and-emissions-how-do-we-get-there/)
Title: World’s First Electric Ferry — With 10-Minute Recharge
Post by: agelbert on March 19, 2013, 04:23:51 PM
World’s First Electric Ferry — With 10-Minute Recharge

January 12, 2013 Chelsea

The days of stinky, oil-burning, black smoke–producing ferry boats will be the days of yore if Norway has anything to say about it. The world’s first electric ferry will hit the open seas (well, not exactly) in 2015.

The 360-passenger, 120-car electric ferry will be operated by shipping company Norled and traverse the Sognefjord fjord.

To allow for battery power, the ferry was made much lighter with aluminum hulls. The battery charges in 10 minutes, and can propel the ferry at 10 knots in normal weather conditions.

So, what’s the big deal about electric ferries? Well, there’s the possibility of easing parking and traffic via waterways and aqua-buses like those at the University of New England.

Electric ferries aren’t Norway’s only bread and butter: strong incentives have propelled EV sales to 5.2% in 2012.

Source: Inhabit

(photo at link)
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/12/worlds-first-electric-ferry-with-10-minute-recharge/#BdbYGUum9pHxqEpH.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/12/worlds-first-electric-ferry-with-10-minute-recharge/#BdbYGUum9pHxqEpH.99)

Title: Health Care And The True Cost Of Fossil Fuels
Post by: agelbert on March 19, 2013, 05:10:15 PM
Some REALITY about the cost of fossil fuels (always conveniently absent from EROEI fossil fuel energy "expert's" calculations  :evil4:).

"According to its authors, the study is the first to factor in the cost of air pollution mortality and morbidity impacts from burning fossil fuels, in tandem with a comprehensive plan for developing enough renewable energy to meet the demands of all sectors of an entire state."


New York State Could Run On Wind, Water, & Sunlight
March 13, 2013 Tina Casey

Lower fuel costs, predictable fuel prices and green jobs are the main factors that make the straight economic case for investing massive amounts of money in new clean power facilities. Now a new report suggests that health care costs are an equally if not more important factor than the other three.

Using New York green energy as a case study for eliminating fossil fuels in favor of building new clean energy facilities, a research team has calculated that the state could save enough money on health care alone to result in a payback period of only 17 years.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/13/new-york-renewable-energy-future-looks-bright/#4UPXGEGIfvvOyKAI.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/13/new-york-renewable-energy-future-looks-bright/#4UPXGEGIfvvOyKAI.99)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Snowleopard on March 19, 2013, 07:59:48 PM
Snowleapard,
Watch this recent interview on Bill Moyers and tell us what you think.

I read the transcript. I'll try to watch the video when i have some time. Lots more snow removal to do tomorrow!

As for what i think: 

No one has been able to demonstrate to me that CO2 is responsible for much atmospheric warming.  If you can point me to a concise proof it would be helpfull.  I'm not interested in opinion, or popularity or taking someone's word.  Such proof would explain why global temperature has essentially peaked (per warmist figures) since 2003 while CO2 has continued to increase at a steady rate. 

I think Global Warming has been a way to enable the elite and the corp-rats to rape the Earth while blaming and guilting out the victims (99%) and pretending concern.   Maybe we will get to pay a tax to the elite based on how much CO2 we exhale!

The elite own the governments, institutions and .edu that employ most scientists and most scientists need their paychecks.  I don't trust government figures on anything.  For example, NOAA routinely shows my location at 2-3 degrees warmer than it is actually.  I expect politicians to do what the elite direct and that includes the leadership of the Greens and Libertarians.

In addition I suspect, through Geo-engineering and semi secret things like HAARP, the goverments are screwing with the climate massively anyway.  I am not sure why they are doing it, but spraying megatons of nano aluminum and barium into the stratosphere is not good for life at any level.

I agree with RE, (Geotectonic ocean heat transfer theory) that something has turned up the internal temperature of Earth, that this is heating the oceans and responsible for much of the warming. 

SPECULATION & INTUITION:

I suspect the elite know the actual cause of this warming, that warming is a small part of the big picture;  and climate will soon change suddenly and massively, which is not good for life on Earth near term.   So globull warming keeps the proles in the dark feeling guilty or windmill tilting whilst the elite prepare for whatever is coming.


Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on March 20, 2013, 08:55:36 AM
Quote
I'm not interested in opinion, or popularity or taking someone's word. 
Snowleapard,
Neither am I. I am only swayed by science and hard data. The interview discusses the data. As to RE's theory, I have discussed that at length with him and WHD months ago. My beef with that theory is energy transfer from incompatible absorption frequencies of earthquake energy waves do not account for the heating as the scientific community has stated often when discussing volcanism and geotectonic heat transfer. It may very well be that RE's theory contributes somewhat to the heating but is not the main cause. As to pointing you to a scientific discussion with hard data on CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, I refer you to MIT and global warming causes (I found it with a Google search). They have PDF documents on a course taught there (Chapters 1, 2 and 3 are of particular interest). If you can't find them, I'll dig them up again and post them here for you.

Back to maple syrup. As you know, in order for the the sap to run, you need the "pump" of sap produced by daytime above freezing and nightime below freezing temperatures. Here in Vermont the sap running season keeps starting sooner and running for less time because the nightime temperatures remain above freezing for several days in April. This stops the sap dead in its tracks (it doesn't make the ski resorts too happy either!). A few more above and below days in April and May won't start it again. That's our experience here. Where are you at?

One more thing. We had a big snowstorm yesterday. Normally this time of the year I would have to get out there and do some roof raking to keep ice dams from forming. Not anymore. The temperature is 34 degrees. This means I can just let it slowly melt off the roof without any effort on my part. We are used to St. Parick's day storms around here with two feet deposited on us. This one was about 8 inches here in Colchester. March ain't what it used to be.
Title: Beans & Cotton Instead of Fossil Fuels to make PV? YES!
Post by: agelbert on March 20, 2013, 09:00:00 AM
Solar Panel Parts Made From Beans, Cotton
Mar 20, 2013 09:44 AM ET // by Jesse Emspak
(http://c0365781.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/datas/21234928/original/castor-beans.jpg)

The plastic backing on solar panels, which protects the silicon wafer — the photovoltaic layer — that generates electricity, is usually made from petroleum-based products. In a word: Unsustainable. California-based BioSolar wants to change that. They’re rolling out a cover made from castor beans and cotton.
The new plastic, called BioBacksheet, costs less to produce than traditional polymer sheets and is just as durable. On top of all that the sheeting doesn’t need the kinds of toxic solvents to make it that ordinary plastics do.
Castor beans, which are commonly used to produce castor oil, a food additive, provide the plastic-like resin, while the cotton fibers — recycled from old rags — give it toughness and help the resin hold its shape.
Because the product promises to lower the cost of making solar panels in the first place, this might speed up the return on investment for businesses and homeowners that do decide to invest in solar set-ups.
Last week BioSolar shipped its first orders, though the company won’t say who the customer is.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/solar-panel-parts-made-from-beans-cotton-130320.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1 (http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/solar-panel-parts-made-from-beans-cotton-130320.htm#mkcpgn=rssnws1)
Title: We CAN use ENERGY without harming the Biosphere
Post by: agelbert on March 20, 2013, 03:00:58 PM
ANY gas, such as water vapor, CO2 or methane (CH4) which absorbs energy in the IR band MUST be limited in our atmosphere to prevent global warming BECAUSE our planet RADIATES ENERGY EXCLUSIVELY in the IR band, regardless of all the frequencies of energy we are bombarded with from the sun. The radiative profile of planet earth has been known for well over a century. They call gasses that absorb IR band energy "greenhouse" gasses because they trap IR band heat energy, preventing it from escaping to outer space.

The ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) is a huge problem because, not only does it pump out greenhouse gasses from its tailpipe, but fully 80% of the kinetic energy it converts to mechanical energy is wasted into the atmosphere as heat in the, you guessed it, IR BAND! Now consider the double whammy of more IR band heat trapping gasses plus one billion or so ICEs running 24/7 adding IR heat to our atmosphere. The ICE must be killed or it will kill us. We need motors without combustion, period.

CLIMATE 101 with BILL NYE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v-w8Cyfoq8#ws)
Title: Doctors not buying Fracking LIES!
Post by: agelbert on March 21, 2013, 01:33:03 PM
At least as pertains to Fracking chemicals, it's great to see doctors recognizing the TRUE cost of fossil fuels on human health
Colorado doctors unite against energy companies
They're refusing to sign a confidentiality agreement to honor oil and gas company trade secrets regarding chemicals used in fracking.

By Bruce Kennedy

A controversy has placed Colorado doctors in opposition to oil and gas companies in the state. The issue concerns a confidentiality agreement physicians are supposed to sign that aims to protect those companies' trade secrets.

http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=f7aeb111-3776-4977-a1d0-29389d6480ec (http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=f7aeb111-3776-4977-a1d0-29389d6480ec)



Title: Wind power is poised to kick nuclear’s ass
Post by: agelbert on March 21, 2013, 03:31:29 PM

Wind power is poised to kick nuclear’s ass  :icon_mrgreen: :emthup: :icon_sunny:

By John Upton
Shutterstock / Tim MessickBlowing away the competition in California.
In 2012, wind energy became the fastest-growing source of new electricity generation in the U.S., providing 42 percent of new generation capacity, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
 
Wind power is becoming so cheap and so commonplace that it appears poised to help blow up the country’s nuclear power sector, according to a recent Bloomberg article (which you really should read in full). Other highlights from the piece:

Full story here:

http://grist.org/news/wind-power-is-poised-to-kick-nuclears-ass/?utm_campaign=climate-energy&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/news/wind-power-is-poised-to-kick-nuclears-ass/?utm_campaign=climate-energy&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)
Title: 63% Rutgers Campus powered by PV
Post by: agelbert on March 21, 2013, 03:44:12 PM

Sunshine School

What a brilliant place to put solar panels: a canopy system above the parking space.

Rutgers State University of NJ now powers 63% of the campus with this genius system.

Between the subsidies and the tax credits, school officials say the decision was a
no brainer and they were cash positive right from the get go!

Students can even monitor on a screen how much energy is produced from the parking canopy solar field.

Let the sun shine!

--Bibi Farber

This video was produced by Cameron Bowman

Solar Panels Power Rutgers Campus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGLzCG7lvWs#ws)
Title: Zenith Solar system 72% efficient
Post by: agelbert on March 23, 2013, 02:22:04 PM
Revolutionary Concentrated PV reaches world record of 72% solar efficiency in the field (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4izFzVCzx6A#)

Why Design Now?: Z-20 Concentrated Solar-Power System (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uOZkFyPrXU#)
Title: Apple Now Powered 75% By Renewable Energy, Goal Of 100%
Post by: agelbert on March 24, 2013, 05:46:36 PM
Apple Now Powered 75% By Renewable Energy,
Goal Of 100%

March 23, 2013 Nathan
 
The massive American multinational corporation Apple is continuing to make large strides in its pursuit of 100% renewable energy. In its recently released annual environmental report, it states that its corporate facilities are now receiving 75% of their energy from renewables, and that some of its data centers are now 100% powered by renewable energy.

“We’re committed to greening the grid wherever we have our facilities,” Scott Brodrick of Apple’s product marketing, stated in a interview with CNET.
Among the recent improvements in sourcing was the creation of what was called “America’s largest end-user-owned onsite solar array,” at its data center in Maiden, North Carolina. The solar array there has a total capacity of 20 MW and will be joined in late 2013 by another 20 MW installation.

Other improvements include: the use of biogas fuel cells at its headquarters, reducing the quantity of material used in many of its products, and beginning to use bio-based polymers in some of its products.
Improvements have been made with regards to the issue of transparency as well. Speaking on that subject, Brodick said: “Over the past four years we’ve reported more comprehensively than any company in our industry, and we’ve done this by focusing not only on our facilities, which is what many other companies do, but also on our products.”
Article with pictures at link:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/23/apple-now-powered-75-by-renewable-energy-moving-towards-goal-of-100/#ePGzyVSRstvR0dUb.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/23/apple-now-powered-75-by-renewable-energy-moving-towards-goal-of-100/#ePGzyVSRstvR0dUb.99)
Title: Green Crude Oil is NOT made from fossil fuels (i.e. it's RENEWABLE ENERGY)
Post by: agelbert on March 24, 2013, 07:05:24 PM
Fuel refined from Green Crude is a drop in replacement for refined fossil fuel crude! :icon_sunny:


Green Crude Farm Animated Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D6Eddbbi1M#ws)

The Life of Algae (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1dlaIm05mc#ws)

SAPPHIRE ENERGY ENTERS INTO A COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT WITH TESORO FOR PURCHASE OF GREEN CRUDE OIL

Sapphire Achieves Major Milestone with Continuous Green Crude Oil Production

SAN DIEGO, March 20, 2013 – Sapphire Energy, Inc., a leader in algae-based Green Crude oil production, today announced it has entered into a commercial agreement with Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, LLC, a subsidiary of Tesoro Corporation. Under the agreement, Tesoro will purchase crude oil from Sapphire Energy’s Green Crude Farm in Columbus, New Mexico, which recently reached a new milestone: continuous cultivation and crude oil production. This begins the first step of a commercial relationship to process Green Crude oil from Sapphire’s future commercial facilities.

“In less than one year, Sapphire Energy has started up its commercial demonstration to grow algae; has produced crude oil from our farm; and now with Tesoro as our first commercial customer, we’re providing barrels of our oil to be refined for market use,” said Cynthia ‘CJ’ Warner, CEO and chairman of Sapphire Energy. “This moment is enormously important for the industry as it validates the benefits and advantages of Green Crude, and confirms its place as a market-viable, refiner-ready, renewable crude oil solution.”

Sapphire Energy is now producing crude oil daily from algae biomass cultivated and harvested at the company’s Green Crude Farm in Columbus, NM. Oil extraction is conducted through a patented method for converting wet algae to crude oil, which enables algae to be processed without the need for a timely and costly drying step. Wet extraction technology for algae-based crude oil has been considered one of the biggest challenges to commercialization. With this process, which is the result of more than four years of research, development and field trials, the entire algae cell is now used in oil production, greatly improving yield. Furthermore, the process is scalable, and has proven to be effective with a wide range of algae strains.

In initial testing by Sapphire Energy, Green Crude oil was refined into on-spec ASTM 975 diesel fuel, proving its compatibility with the existing network of pipelines, refineries and transport systems. Moving forward, the company plans to grow production significantly to further expand its commercial demonstration and begin the transition towards commercial-scale production.

“Tesoro is continuously looking at new technologies for producing renewable fuels. We are pleased to become a purchaser of Sapphire Energy’s Green Crude, which shows promise as an alternative fuel solution,” said Joel Larkins, vice president of Renewable Development at Tesoro.

About Sapphire Energy

San Diego-based Sapphire Energy is pioneering an entirely new industry – Green Crude production – with the potential to profoundly change America’s energy and petrochemical landscape for the better. Sapphire’s products and processes in this category differ significantly from other forms of biofuel because they are made solely from photosynthetic microorganisms (algae and cyanobacteria), using sunlight and CO2 as their feedstock; are not dependent on food crops or valuable farmland; do not use potable water; do not result in biodiesel or ethanol; enhance and replace petroleum-based products; are compatible with existing infrastructure; and are low carbon, renewable and scalable. Sapphire has an R&D facility in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and is currently operating the first Integrated Algal BioRefinery (Green Crude Farm) in Columbus, New Mexico.

About Tesoro

Tesoro Corporation, a Fortune 150 company, is an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum products. Tesoro, through its subsidiaries, operates seven refineries in the western United States with a combined capacity of approximately 675,000 barrels per day. Tesoro's retail-marketing system includes over 1,400 branded retail stations, of which 595 are company operated under the Tesoro®, Shell® and USA Gasoline(TM) brands. For more information, visit www.tsocorp.com (http://www.tsocorp.com).


Sapphire Energy's Green Crude Oil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQM99P9Fnz8#ws)


Check this out. The CEO used to be an executive at  energy industry giants British Petroleum, Amoco Oil Company and UOP. This is serious business. If this pans out, it's the end of billions spent building and maintaining oil drilling rigs and platforms just for starters.

Cynthia (CJ) Warner Chairman and CEO
 
Cynthia (CJ) Warner joined Sapphire Energy in February 2009 as President. Ms. Warner was named Chairman in May of 2010 and CEO in April of 2012. She brings more than 30 years of experience in the energy, refining and transportation industries. At Sapphire Energy, Ms. Warner is leading the company’s ongoing technology development and transition into commercial-scale crude oil operations. During Ms. Warner’s tenure at Sapphire Energy, she has played an integral role in securing government financing, Sapphire Energy’s series C investment funding, and the successful design, construction, and startup of the Integrated Algal Biorefinery (IABR).
 
A chemical engineer by training and one of the very few senior women in the oil and gas industry, Ms. Warner served as an executive with energy industry giants British Petroleum, Amoco Oil Company and UOP. Ms. Warner is currently a member of the National Petroleum Council. Prior to joining Sapphire, she most recently served as Group Vice President, Global Refining for BP where she was instrumental in turning around BP’s US refining business and achieving record performance in International refining. During her 10-year career with BP she held numerous leadership roles including overseeing refining operations in five continents and developing long-term technology strategies for low carbon and sustainable fuels. Ms. Warner led the groundbreaking cooperative effort with the US EPA to shape a framework for Clean Air improvements which was eventually signed on by the entire US Refining industry.
 
Ms. Warner began her career at UOP where she had significant hands-on experience learning refining process operations. That was followed by several years at Amoco where she held key operational leadership roles. She is a featured leader in the 2008 book ‘Becoming a Resonant Leader: Develop Your Emotional Intelligence′ (Harvard Business School Press).
 
Ms. Warner has a BS degree in Chemical Engineering from Vanderbilt University and an MBA from Illinois Institute of Technology.


http://www.sapphireenergy.com/sapphire-renewable-energy/board-of-directors/ (http://www.sapphireenergy.com/sapphire-renewable-energy/board-of-directors/)
Title: Fracking Boom provides jobs, NOT!
Post by: agelbert on March 25, 2013, 04:31:47 PM
Ohio fracking boom has not brought jobs
By John Upton

Did you hear the joke about how fracking creates jobs?

We heard it, too. We heard it from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We heard it from the fracking industry. We heard it from the press.


Well here comes a punchline that’s darker than a fracker’s heart: In northeastern Ohio, where a fracking boom kicked off 2011, there was no more jobs growth last year than there was in the state’s unfracked western and southern regions.

That’s the conclusion of a new report [PDF] published by Cleveland State University’s Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs. The report was not peer-reviewed.

Article here:
http://grist.org/news/ohio-fracking-boom-has-not-brought-jobs/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/news/ohio-fracking-boom-has-not-brought-jobs/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)

Snippet:

The lack of jobs growth for Ohioans living on fracked (and now polluted) land appears to be yet another sad case of communities getting sucker punched after selling out to fossil fuel companies. :emthdown:

There’s your punchline.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ethical behavior among fossil fuel companies is inversely proportional to the economic power they have."
A. G. Gelbert

Title: Desperate Times for Big Oil
Post by: agelbert on March 26, 2013, 10:28:31 AM
Big Oil pulling out all the stops to strangle renewables by hook or by crook   :evil4:

(http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/american-flag-oil-rig-lower_463x297.jpg)

Desperate Times for Big Oil

Full Story here:

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11876329/1/desperate-times-for-big-oil.html?puc=msn&cm_ven=msn (http://www.thestreet.com/story/11876329/1/desperate-times-for-big-oil.html?puc=msn&cm_ven=msn)

Snippet 1:

But here is the nightmare. What would really put a permanent thumb down on oil prices, creating a new era of energy abundance? Renewable energy. The sun shines, the wind blows, the tides roll, the crops grow and we live on a molten rock. It's the pressure of that rock that turned dinosaur bones into gas and oil in the first place -- what if we could speed up the process?

We can. We are. Solar energy already costs less than what comes from the electrical grid in many places, and that reach will only grow because solar's costs are declining. But it's still hard to put the Sun in your gas tank, no matter what the old Sunoco ads said.

Snippet 2:

New catalysts, and catalyst research, are driving the ethanol business forward. The response by the oil industry is an increased focus on strangling biofuels in their crib, as reported in Scientific American. The difference between citizen activists and professionals, after all, is that the professionals are relentless.

But here's the thing. New supplies are coming. New supplies of oil, of gas and of ever-cheaper biofuels. New supplies of solar power and new ways to make that power useful. It's the big story of the decade and we're still missing it.

Scientific American blogger tells it like it is:  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

Priceless  Snippet:

Anyhow, the NC legislators also made sure that wind power was removed from the “renewable energy resource” list. Not terribly surprising from North Carolina, where our secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources believes that oil might be a renewable energy resource. Seriously — he said he believed that, and North Carolina is sponsoring legislation that removes wind from the list of renewable energy sources.

In other North Carolina news, down is now up, black is now white, and I’m drinking again. One of those is true. Also: ignorance is strength. Szdly that’s true too.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/03/18/the-reign-of-error-renewable-energy-edition/ (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2013/03/18/the-reign-of-error-renewable-energy-edition/)

Title: The Doom of Heating Oil - Switchgrass Pellet Biofuel
Post by: agelbert on March 26, 2013, 11:21:50 AM
(http://www.ernstseed.com/files/general_images/biomass/switchgrass_lg2.jpg)
Switchgrass

(http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/10-013wf3.jpg)
Switchgrass Pellet Biofuel
The Doom of Heating Oil - Switchgrass Pellet Biofuel  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

Switchgrass Biofuel Potentially Cheaper
Than Oil for Heating Homes

March 25, 2013 Tina Casey

To be filed in the category of everything old is new again: a new study from the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) suggests that millions of homes and businesses in the U.S. would save money by burning biomass in their basement furnaces instead of oil, in form of switchgrass biofuel pellets. That would bring things back — way back — full circle to the days when the prevailing form of energy was distributed energy, in the form of biomass (aka firewood) burned in a fireplace. The question is, how much sense does this make today?

Comparing Switchgrass Biofuel to Heating Oil
From a financial standpoint, the ARS switchgrass study shows that it makes plenty of sense, though it’s important to note that the comparison is region-specific. Namely, ARS compares switchgrass with oil heating costs in the Northeast, where heating oil prices are typically higher and vast quantities are consumed in the winter months.

Although not directly stated in the press materials, the study does not conclude that property owners should pull out perfectly good oil heating equipment to replace it with a pellet burner. It does indicate that property owners who are replacing old, outdated heating equipment would save a significant amount of money by installing new pellet burners rather than sticking with oil-burning equipment.

Based on the total cost of installing and fueling a new pellet heating system in a residence, the ARS team came up with a cost of $21.36  :emthup:per gigajoule of heat (gigajoule is a standard unit of energy measurement; for example a barrel of oil contains about six gigajoules).

To produce the same amount of heat with oil, the figure is $28.22.  :emthdown:


Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/25/switchgrass-potentially-cheaper-than-oil-for-heating-homes/#Ku8SlmxOR1d6zPvM.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/25/switchgrass-potentially-cheaper-than-oil-for-heating-homes/#Ku8SlmxOR1d6zPvM.99)
Title: Natural Gas Boom Turning to Bust?
Post by: agelbert on March 26, 2013, 02:42:29 PM
Investors are subsidizing natural gas consumers. But it won't last.

Investors have pushed so much capital into natural gas drilling that prices have collapsed, helping consumers. But the investor subsidy won't last as drillers pull back.

Full article here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0218/Investors-are-subsidizing-natural-gas-consumers.-But-it-won-t-last (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0218/Investors-are-subsidizing-natural-gas-consumers.-But-it-won-t-last)

Snippet 1:

Since the last week of August 2008 when the count of active U.S. natural gas drilling rigs peaked at 1606, the number of active rigs has plunged to just 425 for the week ending February 8.

Snippet 2:

Petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown of Export Land Model fame offered a startling response in a conversation at a recent conference I attended. The production decline rates of the shale gas wells that are providing the bulk of new U.S. supplies are so high—60 percent in the first year and up to 85 percent by the end of the second year—that we may never be able to return to today’s production level.

That would certainly put a nail in the coffin of the natural gas abundance narrative.



Title: Can we shift to renewable energy? Yes. As to how …
Post by: agelbert on March 26, 2013, 05:46:09 PM
Some news from the REAL "real world" of Energy and Renewables  :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:


"This is an exceptionally smart piece--and Rosenthal's piece was exactly the breakthrough Roberts describes. Every time we get another piece of data ("SomeEuropeanCountry generates 40% of its power with renewables")
 it helps make the 'sound, mature, realistic' projections of the Exxons of the world seem like the self-serving stuff it really is."

Bill McKibben


Can we shift to renewable energy? Yes. As to how …
By David Roberts

We will need fossil fuels like oil and gas for the foreseeable future. So there’s really little choice (sigh). We have to press ahead with fracking for natural gas. We must approve the Keystone XL pipeline to get Canadian oil.

This mantra, repeated on TV ads and in political debates, is punctuated with a tinge of inevitability and regret. But, increasingly, scientific research and the experience of other countries should prompt us to ask: To what extent will we really “need” fossil fuel in the years to come? To what extent is it a choice?

Full Article here:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/can-we-shift-to-renewable-energy-yes-as-to-how/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/climate-energy/can-we-shift-to-renewable-energy-yes-as-to-how/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)

Snippet:

What reports like Jacobson and Delucchi’s show is that it would be possible to achieve a fully renewable system without substantial technological change, as long as there is substantial social, economic, and political change. In other words, they show how you can hold one lever steady and still achieve your goals by pulling harder on the other ones.

That’s what Jacobson means when he tells Rosenthal, “You could power America with renewables from a technical and economic standpoint. The biggest obstacles are social and political — what you need is the will to do it.” (More on the “and economic” part of that in my nerdy addendum at the bottom.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who say, "It CAN be done!" and those who say, "It CAN'T be done!" are both right"
                                                                                                                         Henry Ford
Title: Part of the Energy Answer is definitely Blowing In the WIND!
Post by: agelbert on March 27, 2013, 11:31:16 AM
Cape Wind wins billions in backing, launches offshore wind in the U.S. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

By David Richardson

What do you do when local opposition to an offshore wind farm project dries up, when the NIMBY crowd runs out of steam, when the federal government gives the green light and extends every permit and courtesy the law will allow, when the technology is tested and proven, and there’s nothing left to do but build it? Well, then you go looking for money — lots of it. After more than a decade of preparation, the Massachusetts wind energy company Cape Wind has done just that — and the results are looking promising.

A $2 billion agreement with Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ penned last week catapults Cape Wind to a commanding lead in the race to be the first offshore wind project in the U.S.
When complete, 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound will generate 468 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 100,000 to 200,000 households in the Cape Cod region, depending on the season. If the company can get construction started this year, Cape Wind’s clean power could begin turning on lights from Buzzards Bay to Provincetown by 2015.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/cape-wind-wins-a-few-billion-in-backing-launches-offshore-wind-in-the-u-s/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/climate-energy/cape-wind-wins-a-few-billion-in-backing-launches-offshore-wind-in-the-u-s/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)

Snippet 1:
Lanard says he knows of offshore wind developers who have already committed to even larger, six-megawatt turbines. Arranged in clusters of 70 towers or more (typical utility-scale, land-based wind farms range from 25 to 50 towers), offshore wind farms could fuel the energy needs of the entire East Coast.
The U.S. Department of Energy has set a goal for the nation to produce 54 gigawatts from offshore wind by 2030 — enough electricity to power more than 10 cities the size of New York. Courtney says if the resource were fully harnessed, wind farms off the coasts could theoretically produce 900 gigawatts of electricity, more than enough to power the entire U.S.

Snippet 2:
Mother Nature seems to agree that wind turbines can provide beneficial habitat for marine life, as this video from a Netherlands offshore wind project hints.

A North Sea wind farm has had hardly any negative effects on fauna. In fact, it can provide benefits for marine life. According to researcher Prof. Han Lindeboom and his colleagues at IMARES, part of Wageningen UR, and fellow scientists at Bureau Waardenburg and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), the wind farm at Egmond aan Zee (OWEZ) provides an oasis of calm, for both fish and marine mammals, in a relatively busy coastal area. At most, a few bird species will avoid such a wind farm. It turns out that the wind farm also provides a new natural habitat for organisms living on the seabed, such as mussels, anemones and crabs; thereby contributing to increased biodiversity. Check out this video related to the research:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzvsJwsWjcs&feature=player_embedded (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzvsJwsWjcs&feature=player_embedded)

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2013/02/28/video-underwater-life-on-offshore-wind-turbines/ (http://www.offshorewind.biz/2013/02/28/video-underwater-life-on-offshore-wind-turbines/)
Title: The RIGHT Thermal Energy Wavelengths to Radiate Heat Away from Earth
Post by: agelbert on March 27, 2013, 03:42:45 PM
New Type of Solar Structure Cools Buildings in Full Sunlight


Mar. 27, 2013 — A Stanford team has designed an entirely new form of cooling panel that works even when the sun is shining. Such a panel could vastly improve the daylight cooling of buildings, cars and other structures by radiating sunlight back into the chilly vacuum of space.

Snippet 1:
The trick, from an engineering standpoint, is two-fold. First, the reflector has to reflect as much of the sunlight as possible. Poor reflectors absorb too much sunlight, heating up in the process and defeating the purpose of cooling.

The second challenge is that the structure must efficiently radiate heat back into space. Thus, the structure must emit thermal radiation very efficiently within a specific wavelength range in which the atmosphere is nearly transparent. Outside this range, Earth's atmosphere simply reflects the light back down. Most people are familiar with this phenomenon. It's better known as the greenhouse effect -- the cause of global climate change.

Snippet 2:
"No one had yet been able to surmount the challenges of daytime radiative cooling -- of cooling when the sun is shining," said Eden Rephaeli, a doctoral candidate in Fan's lab and a co-first-author of the paper. "It's a big hurdle."
The Stanford team has succeeded where others have come up short by turning to nanostructured photonic materials. These materials can be engineered to enhance or suppress light reflection in certain wavelengths.

Snippet 3:
The new device is capable of achieving a net cooling power in excess of 100 watts per square meter. By comparison, today's standard 10-percent-efficient solar panels generate the about the same amount of power.
That means Fan's radiative cooling panels could theoretically be substituted on rooftops where existing solar panels feed electricity to air conditioning systems needed to cool the building.

To put it a different way, a typical one-story, single-family house with just 10 percent of its roof covered by radiative cooling panels could offset 35 percent its entire air conditioning needs during the hottest hours of the summer.

Radiative cooling has another profound advantage over all other cooling strategy such as air-conditioner. It is a passive technology. It requires no energy. It has no moving parts. It is easy to maintain. You put it on the roof or the sides of buildings and it starts working immediately.

Article (with scientifc team pictured) here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327132544.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327132544.htm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: This is NOT a solution to global warming or an excuse for Big Oil to keep polluting the planet; this is another tool we can use to ameliorate the effects of too much greenhouse gasses while we switch to renewables. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Title: Germany's Electrical Baseload Soon to be Renewables instead of Fossil Fuels
Post by: agelbert on March 27, 2013, 04:49:06 PM
Propaganda Myth that Renewables are "unreliable due to being intermitent" proven false by Germany  :icon_mrgreen:

Germany’s Electricity Split March 24 — Actual Vs. Planned (Charts)

March 27, 2013 Giles Parkinson
Reposted from RenewEconomy:
Today’s Graph of the Day will tell a story that will be repeated more regularly in coming months and years – the growing impact of solar and wind energy in countries such as Germany.
This comes from Sunday (March 24) and shows that in the middle of the day, more than half of Germany’s electricity output came from wind and solar. Two things are striking – one is the amount of solar capacity produced on a day in early spring, with nearly 20GW at its peak. The second is the consistent contribution of wind energy, which accounted for more than 25 per cent of the overall output throughout the day.
Imagine, then, what will happen when Germany doubles the amount of wind and solar production, as it plans to do within the next decade. On days like this, there will simply be no room for fossil fuel production – the so-called “base load”. Any coal or gas fired generation that remains will need to be capable of being switched on and off on demand. The base load/peakload model will be turned on its head – to be replaced by dispatchable and non dispatchable generation. Fossil fuels will be required just to fill in the gaps. :emthup: ;D :icon_sunny:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/27/germanys-electricity-split-march-24-actual-vs-planned-charts/#2oELV6AVKxDUgo2H.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/27/germanys-electricity-split-march-24-actual-vs-planned-charts/#2oELV6AVKxDUgo2H.99)

Priceless Snippet: :icon_mrgreen:
Notice, too, the difference between what was delivered by wind and solar, and what was planned (graph below). There’s little difference. For all the talk about “intermittent” renewables, their output is actually quite predictable – more so than swings in demand ever were. :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Renewables in Sugar Land, TEXAS!!? You've GOT to be KIDDING! NOT!
Post by: agelbert on March 28, 2013, 10:08:29 AM

Fossil Fuel Petrochemical Facility owner ARSD getting on the Renewable Bandwagon  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

Arabian American to Build Second Renewable Hydrocarbon Processing Demonstration Plant

South Hampton Resources Subsidiary Collaborates with Gevo, Inc. to Develop Renewable Hydrocarbon Materials Utilizing Toll Processing Services

PR Newswire

SUGAR LAND, Texas, March 28, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Arabian American Development Co. ARSD announced today that it has signed a contract with Gevo, Inc. GEVO to extend toll processing services of the hydrocarbon processing demonstration plant at its South Hampton Resources (SHR) facility in Silsbee, Texas and construct a second demonstration unit to provide Gevo with toll-processing services necessary to process up to 16,000 pounds per month of mixed octane materials produced on the existing isobutanol to jet demonstration unit.

The new demonstration unit will produce paraxylene for polyethylene terephthalate (PET). This will allow Gevo to supply early adopters with product so they can test material, make samples and start their selling cycle.

Full story here:
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?symbol=US:GEVO&feed=PR&date=20130328&id=16290171 (http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?symbol=US:GEVO&feed=PR&date=20130328&id=16290171)

Why is making PET (polyethylene terephthalate) from biofuels important?

Because PET, a type of inexpensive plastic commonly used for making soft drink bottles, can now be used to make cheaper and more efficient  solar panel substrate . This is one more step in divorcing solar panel manufacturing from fossil fuel dependency.


Manufacturing: Plasma Treatments On a Roll
Mar. 27, 2013 — A revolutionary atmospheric-pressure plasma boosts adhesion of polymer films for roll-to-roll solar-cell production.

Mass manufacture of photovoltaic materials is often achieved inexpensively by screen printing organic solar cells onto plastic sheets. The polymer known as poly(ethylene terephthalate), or PET, is a key part of the technology. Well known as the inexpensive plastic used to make soda bottles, PET has garnered increasing use as an optoelectronic substrate because of its strength and flexibility. But printing conductive solar-cell coatings onto PET is a challenge: it has a non-reactive surface and is frequently contaminated with static electric charges, which makes adhesion to other materials difficult.

Linda Wu from the A*STAR Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology and co-workers have now devised an innovative plasma treatment to 'activate' PET surfaces for improved bonding during roll-to-roll processing1. The team's experiments with 'diffuse coplanar surface barrier discharge' (DCSBD) technology show that large-area PET sheets can be microscopically abraded and chemically modified to increase surface adhesion nearly instantaneously, thanks to plasma ions generated under open-air conditions.

Full article here with picture of A new ‘diffuse coplanar surface barrier discharge’ (DCSBD) plasma source  that rapidly cleans flat polymer sheets in open-air conditions thereby facilitating roll-to-roll manufacturing.  :emthup: :icon_sunny::

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327162408.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fsolar_energy+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Solar+Energy%29 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130327162408.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fsolar_energy+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Solar+Energy%29)
Title: General Electric Improving Wind Turbine Technology
Post by: agelbert on March 29, 2013, 10:25:27 AM
GE’s “Brilliant” Wind Turbine Revs Up In Netherlands
 :icon_sunny:


March 29, 2013 Tina Casey

The new GE wind turbine is billed as the “world’s most efficient high-output wind turbine,” so even though this item hasn’t gotten past the prototype stage we’ve been keeping up with the latest developments. If it lives up to its promise, the new 2.5-120, which GE prefers to call a “brilliant” wind turbine rather than just plain old smart, will result in a significant expansion of global wind power harvesting potential. It is specifically designed to draw cost-effective wind power out of low speed, less-than-ideal sites, and that could put more locally generated clean energy within reach of more communities.

The GE “Brilliant” Wind Turbine

GE has just announced that the 2.5-120 prototype is now up and running at a test facility in the Netherlands. Compared to GE’s current best effort in that class, the 2.5-120 is 25 percent more efficient and achieves a 15 percent increase in power output.

The trick is in a data collection and management platform that provides real time, second-by-second analysis of “tens of thousands” of data points, enabling the turbine to squeeze every available drop of energy out of variable winds.

Energy storage is also integrated into the new GE wind turbine system, as are forecasting algorithms and the ability to communicate and coordinate with other turbines.

The system also incorporates an element that is becoming more common in all kinds of hardware, and that is the capability to self-monitor and report service issues. That leads to maintenance and service efficiencies that can significantly reduce long term operating costs.

Full article with new data on fracking costs that we-the-people are saddled with while the EROEI fossil fuel "experts" (shills, liars and lakeys for Big Oil), accidentally on purpose  :evil4:, conveniently leave those costs out of their calculations:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/29/new-ge-wind-turbine-prototype-revs-up-in-netherlands/#XHPLYJwoglTE28iV.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/29/new-ge-wind-turbine-prototype-revs-up-in-netherlands/#XHPLYJwoglTE28iV.99)
Title: Another Nail in the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) COFFIN
Post by: agelbert on March 29, 2013, 10:38:04 AM
(http://[url=http://media.king5.com/images/470]http://media.king5.com/images/470[/url]*264/bacon_coffin.jpg)
For illustration purposes only. As far as I know the above colorful coffin does not contain an ICE.  :icon_mrgreen:



Lithium-Ion Battery that Charges 120 Times Faster than Normal Developed :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

September 11, 2012 Nathan

A super fast-charging lithium-ion battery capable of being recharged 30 to 120 times faster than conventional li-ion batteries has been developed by researchers.
The researchers think that they can use this technology to create a battery pack for electric vehicles that will fully charge in less than a minute.

The primary issue with rechargeable batteries is the increased charging time that results as their volume grows. Since batteries charge from the outside towards the inside, the thicker the battery becomes the longer it will takes to charge. This is solvable to a degree by breaking the larger battery into smaller individual cells, but there are limits to that.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/11/lithium-ion-battery-that-charges-120-times-faster-than-normal-developed/#yEDIcHgFozXKXRHT.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/11/lithium-ion-battery-that-charges-120-times-faster-than-normal-developed/#yEDIcHgFozXKXRHT.99)
Title: Solar Technology Revolution: Here Comes the SUN!
Post by: agelbert on March 30, 2013, 12:15:48 PM
In this documentary video now over two years old, every single myth used to claim solar energy technology is
not competitive with,
capable of replacing fossil nukes,
uses more energy to make PV than generates, etc., ad nauseum
 is calmly, analytically and, with energy mathematics, exposed as inaccurate propaganda from Big Oil and the nuclear power plant lobbies.
Robert Scheer, a solar pioneer in Germany mainly responsible for getting the laws passed to usher in the German Renewable Energy Revolution, tells how the energy "experts", because of their extreme bias or cowardice, have ALWAYS been the main obstacle to solar power renewable energy development, NOT ENERGY MATHEMATICS. Solar Energy takes fossil and nuclear fuel suppliers out of the profit loop as the middleman between you and the energy. They can't come out and say that so they invent all kinds of propaganda to slow the transition.


I was flabbergasted to learn that a TINY portion of one area in North Africa could provide enough solar energy for the ENTIRE PLANET!  :o You will see plans for a massive DC solar electrical power grid in North Africa to provide power for Europe.

Since this video, solar energy costs have gotten even cheaper and the CSP (concentrated solar power)  plants being built have been completed and many more are being built. The Solar Revolution is in FULL SWING! One unforeseen boost to the industry has been the cheapening of solar panel construction due to advances in flat panel (for TV and computer screens) technology being used in PV manufacturing. The electronics industry is going head to head with the fossil nukes dinosaur because they see this as a new boom like the one that came when ICs began replacing vacuum tubes. This is one of several Innovation synergies that accelerate the transition to renewables. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Solar Power Revolution - Here Comes The Sun -- Documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr-grdspEWQ#ws)
Title: Boy Genius designs 3D PVr Cell with over 8 times potential of 2D PV!
Post by: agelbert on March 30, 2013, 12:32:34 PM
This is one SMART KID!  :emthup: :icon_sunny:
For those who think this is just a shot in the dark, history is full of examples of people in different places inventing the same thing at around the same time when the time "IS RIPE" for something to happen. WE ARE THERE! Big Oil will not be able to keep a lid on this. :icon_mrgreen:

12 year old boy genius invents new type of solar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3XyvcIsrjo#)
Title: Solar Impulse with Captain Piccard
Post by: agelbert on March 30, 2013, 02:40:34 PM
A flying laboratory
 
Built in Switzerland and envisioned by founder Bertrand Piccard with co-founder André Borschberg, Solar Impulse is a groundbreaking machine using advanced materials and design from wingtip to wingtip. In fact, Solar Impulse is something of a flying laboratory:
 
•The top of the wings are constructed with 11,548 solar cells only 135 microns thick (the thickness of a human hair) and producing an efficiency of 22.7%. Made by Silicon Valley solar company SunPower, the cells are covered with a thin, UV-resistent, and waterproof copolymer film with potential application in electric cars. The lower part of the wings are built with ultra-light fabric and the wing spar is made of fiber honeycomb sandwich panels.
 
•The fuselage utilizes innovation and advances in lightweight carbon fiber sheets. Weighing only 0.8 oz/11 square feet, the sheets are three times lighter than paper. Another material with potential in wind turbine and electric car manufacturing.
 
•The four electric motors have only 6% energy loss versus a
typical 70% loss in normal thermal engines.

 
Conveying a sense of what is possible
 
Of all the innovative features of Solar Impulse, of which I only scratch the surface here, the most important is what Piccard sees as the encapsulation of a true “pioneering spirit” — the idea of what is possible. For Piccard, innovation is more about discarding old ideas — what can or can’t be done — than strictly about “new ideas.” :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/30/solar-impulse-across-america-solar-powered-flight-coming-soon-to-an-airport-near-you/#G4IUkUqT76cTFBFb.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/30/solar-impulse-across-america-solar-powered-flight-coming-soon-to-an-airport-near-you/#G4IUkUqT76cTFBFb.99) Solar Impulse (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGRZM4iVDhM#ws)
Title: Heliae Development, LLC (the name is a contraction of Helius + algae)
Post by: agelbert on March 31, 2013, 11:13:20 AM
"FiReStarters I: Companies Changing the World for the Better" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U2cisTXrRI#)
Heliae Ground Breaking (KSAZ 5-18 5PM) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaFPUygVEDU#)

Biodiesel Magazine: Algae Biomass Summit: producers say commercialization is close
Small American companies are directing the global algae industry’s commercialization approach. The take-away message from the opening session at the 2012 Algae Biomass Summit, which including panelist and Heliae CEO Dan Simon,

Read More.

http://www.heliae.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012_09_25_Biodiesel_Magazine.pdf (http://www.heliae.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2012_09_25_Biodiesel_Magazine.pdf)

From  the Heliae (the name is a contraction of Helius + algae) web site:

There are more than 100,000 algae species on the planet, each with a set of unique characteristics and output traits that offer potential value to industry and society. With a world class phycology and microbiology team, Heliae offers clients access to its library of wild and enhanced algae strains, each selected and honed for key attributes that offer a wide range of product and service functionality. Whether to target the production of a specific product or optimize for bioremediation applications, Heliae can work to select the algae strain that matches your needs.

http://www.heliae.com/ (http://www.heliae.com/)
Title: How exactly does this new Spin Solar work?
Post by: agelbert on March 31, 2013, 04:34:56 PM
A New Spin on Solar :icon_sunny:

 By adding dynamic spin to PV, two of the major challenges of the solar industry can be solved:

 1. High sun concentration with no heat issue

 2. Lower Levelized Cost of Energy to compete with fossil fuels on price

 On average, solar has grown by 35% per year over the last decade. Impressive. But it still accounts for less than 1% of energy production worldwide. By lowering the price, increasing the production, and creating "solar art", V3Solar aims to compete directly in the $6 trillion energy market, not just the $100 billion solar market.

V3 Solar Spin Cell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1AmukfMLCQ#ws)

V3Solar Video Explanation of the Market and Technical Advantages (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5e5_x8CGMs#ws)

http://v3solar.com/ (http://v3solar.com/)
Title: Another blow to oil energy "expert" calculations: New Wind Energy Device
Post by: agelbert on April 02, 2013, 10:59:54 AM
Invention of the day: A bladeless wind turbine

By Henry Grabar

It may look like a giant airplane window strung with Venetian blinds, but this structure, designed by Dutch architecture firm Mecanoo and installed at the Delft University of Technology in March, is a model of a machine that would convert wind to energy without any moving parts.
 
Any mechanical moving parts, at least: The technology, developed by the Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science faculty at Delft, uses the movement of electrically charged water droplets to generate power. How does this work? A handy video explains:

Windenergy convertor EWICON animation, TU Delft (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqksCHWROBU#ws)

The prototype of the EWICON (Electrostatic Wind Energy Converter), as envisioned by Mecanoo, has the potential to change the use of wind technology. The EWICON absorbs little wear and tear, requires hardly any maintenance, but most importantly, it makes no noise and casts no moving shadows, two of the principal complaints that hinder wind turbine installation in the United States.
 
This, Mecanoo believes, makes it the ideal feature for urban environments — it’s already incorporated them into its design for a project in Rotterdam. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/invention-of-the-day-a-bladeless-wind-turbine/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/climate-energy/invention-of-the-day-a-bladeless-wind-turbine/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)
Title: How to beat the Betz Limit on wind turbine efficiency
Post by: agelbert on April 02, 2013, 11:14:13 AM
Another innovative renewable energy multiplying invention for your viewing pleasure: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
WindTamer Turbines - The Most Efficient Technology | WindTamerTurbines.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpUPlHx_2gw#ws)
Title: Americans Want More Renewable Energy and More Climate-Change Prep
Post by: agelbert on April 03, 2013, 10:35:07 AM
Americans want more renewable energy
and more climate-change prep  :icon_sunny:


By John Upton

This is how the typical American thinks in 2013, according to a couple of new polls: “More solar power, please. No more nuclear, thanks though. And let’s get ready for this crazy climate-change thing.”

A Gallup poll of 1,022 people revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Americans think the U.S. should put more emphasis on developing solar power.

Full article here:
http://grist.org/news/americans-want-more-renewable-energy-and-more-climate-change-prep/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/news/americans-want-more-renewable-energy-and-more-climate-change-prep/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)

The times are a-changin' FINALLY!  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

Title: How Big Oil creates a FAKE "real world" of Energy "experts" (hint=$$$)
Post by: agelbert on April 03, 2013, 03:25:47 PM

News Corp. Outlets Fail to Disclose Big Oil Ties of Their Commentators
Fox News and WSJ full of pundits on Petro Payroll. 8)
April 3, 2013

News Corp. properties Fox News and The Wall Street Journal failed to disclose the fossil fuel industry ties of commentators who used the media outlets to advocate pro-fossil fuel industry positions.

On April 3, Fox & Friends hosted Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell, who accused New York Governor Andrew Cuomo of delaying a decision to allow for fossil fuel extraction via hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, to keep Republican areas of the state from becoming richer and wielding more political influence.

Ebell dismissed the real concerns regarding fracking as political posturing when in fact, injection wells that store used fracking fluids have been linked to earthquakes, and drinking water contamination has been correlated with the drilling activity employed in fracking.

The Wall Street Journal print edition published an op-ed piece by the Institute for Policy Innovation's Merrill Matthews on the same day, where he denied that the fossil fuel industry receives tax breaks specific to the industry:

Rest of article here:
http://www.alternet.org/news-corp-outlets-fail-disclose-big-oil-ties-their-commentators?akid=10282.113861.lhhwC7&rd=1&src=newsletter819331&t=22 (http://www.alternet.org/news-corp-outlets-fail-disclose-big-oil-ties-their-commentators?akid=10282.113861.lhhwC7&rd=1&src=newsletter819331&t=22)

Mendacity for Money brought to you by the fossil fuel loving FUCKS! :emthdown:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on April 04, 2013, 08:09:49 AM
Quote
GWEC and Greenpeace International project at least 425,000 megawatts of wind capacity worldwide by 2015—enough to generate electricity for all of Central and South America. The world is starting to realize that wind’s potential is almost without limit.

 After Record 2012, World Wind Power Set to Top 300,000 Megawatts in 2013

By: Earth Policy Institute

By J. Matthew Roney

Even amid policy uncertainty in major wind power markets, wind developers still managed to set a new record for installations in 2012, with 44,000 megawatts of new wind capacity worldwide. With total capacity exceeding 280,000 megawatts, wind farms generate carbon-free electricity in more than 80 countries, 24 of which have at least 1,000 megawatts. At the European level of consumption, the world’s operating wind turbines could satisfy the residential electricity needs of 450 million people.

Full Story with charts here: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/04/world-wind-power-likely-to-top-300000-megawatts-in-2013/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/04/world-wind-power-likely-to-top-300000-megawatts-in-2013/)
Title: Global Solar Photovoltaic Industry Is Likely Now A Net Energy Producer
Post by: agelbert on April 04, 2013, 11:03:07 AM
 Global Solar Photovoltaic Industry Is Likely Now A
Net Energy Producer     :icon_sunny::emthup: :icon_sunny:

 
April 3, 2013 Stanford University

For the first time since the boom started, the electricity generated by all the world’s installed solar photovoltaic (PV) panels last year probably surpassed the amount of energy going into fabricating more modules, according to Michael Dale, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford’s Global Climate & Energy Project (GCEP). With continued technological advances, the global PV industry is poised to pay off its debt of energy as early as 2015, and no later than 2020.

Breakeven Breakthrough For Solar Power (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1tuzvT1hck#ws)

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/03/global-solar-photovoltaic-idustry-is-likely-now-a-net-energy-producer/#dr9cUIrosKY7DwS5.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/03/global-solar-photovoltaic-idustry-is-likely-now-a-net-energy-producer/#dr9cUIrosKY7DwS5.99)

Snippet:
The achievement is largely due to steadily declining energy inputs required to manufacture and install PV systems, according to co-author Sally Benson, GCEP’s director. The new study, Benson said, indicates that the amount of energy going into the industry should continue to decline, while the issue remains an important focus of research.
“GCEP is focused on developing game-changing energy technologies that can be deployed broadly. If we can continue to drive down the energy inputs, we will derive greater benefits from PV,” she said. “Developing new technologies with lower energy requirements will allow us to grow the industry at a faster rate.”

The energy used to produce solar panels is intense. The first step in producing the silicon at the heart of most panels is to melt silica rock at 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit using electricity, commonly from coal-fired power plants.

As investment and technological development have risen sharply with the number of installed panels, the energetic costs of new PV modules have declined. Thinner silicon wafers are now used to make solar cells, less highly refined materials are now used as the silicon feed stock, and less of the costly material is lost in the manufacturing process. Increasingly, the efficiency of solar cells using thin-film technologies that rely on earth-abundant materials such as copper, zinc, tin, and carbon have the potential for even greater improvements.

To be considered a success – or simply a positive energy technology – PV panels must ultimately pay back all the energy that went into them, said Dale. The PV industry ran an energy deficit from 2000 to now, consuming 75 percent more energy than it produced just five years ago. The researchers the industry to pay off this energy debt as early as 2015, thanks to declining energy inputs, more durable panels and more efficient conversion of sunlight into electricity.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/03/global-solar-photovoltaic-idustry-is-likely-now-a-net-energy-producer/#dr9cUIrosKY7DwS5.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/03/global-solar-photovoltaic-idustry-is-likely-now-a-net-energy-producer/#dr9cUIrosKY7DwS5.99)

When you think about this, always remember that fossil and nuclear fuels have NEVER "paid us back" with anything but poison and pollution  :evil4:



Title: Renewable Energy on an ON-DEMAND BASIS with molten salt CSP
Post by: agelbert on April 04, 2013, 02:00:34 PM
 Salt-Based Solar Thermal Power Plant
Takes Shape In Nevada

 
April 4, 2013 Tina Casey
 
The notorious Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Plant near Tonopah, Nevada passed another milestone this month, as workers finished placing receiver panels on top of a 540-foot tower that forms the centerpiece of the facility. Crescent Dunes is based on molten salt thermal technology and we say notorious because when completed, Crescent Dunes will give the U.S. bragging rights to the largest renewable energy plant of its kind in the world. In certain quarters, however, the project is also notorious because it benefited from a federally backed construction loan to the tune of a whopping $737 million, creating another potentially juicy opportunity for critics of the Obama Administration’s renewable energy policies.
Unfortunately for anyone who is still rooting for failure, Crescent Dunes is on track for completion by the end of this year. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
 Crescent Dunes Molten Salt Solar Thermal Power Plant

What makes Crescent Dunes unique among commercial-scale solar power plants is its integrated energy storage system. According to developer SolarReserve,  the facility can provide up to 10 hours of full power storage, which enables it to supply power on an on-demand basis, just like any fossil fuel or nuclear power plant.

Crescent Dunes is similar to a conventional concentrating solar power (CSP) system, using thousands of special mirrors called heliostats to focus solar energy on a central tower.
The difference is the use of molten salt, which flows through receiver panels at the top of the tower, consisting of alloy tubes. The salt retains solar energy in the form of heat, ranging in temperature from 500 degrees Fahrenheit to more than 1,000 degrees. That enables salt to double as both an energy transfer and an energy storage mechanism.

Unlike water, molten salt remains in a liquid state at these high temperatures, enabling it to be transported to ground level and stored through a relatively inexpensive system of pipes and tanks. On an as-needed basis, the heated salt is used to boil water to operate a steam-driven turbine, a part of the process that is exactly like any conventional fossil fuel power plant.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/04/crescent-dunes-solar-thermal-plant-passes-another-milestone/#rSWwk8vH4xUf8q3M.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/04/crescent-dunes-solar-thermal-plant-passes-another-milestone/#rSWwk8vH4xUf8q3M.99)

So much for the "intermittency" of Renewables.  :icon_mrgreen:

Title: Texas cities roping in more wind energy
Post by: agelbert on April 04, 2013, 03:15:50 PM

Texas cities roping in more wind energy
By John Upton

The electricity that powers Dallas is about to get a whole lot windier.
Something refreshing is about to blow into Dallas, Houston, and other oil-soaked Texan cities: wind energy.
Lots of wind energy.


A wind-farm boom has been brewing in the blustery Texas panhandle, where wind turbines now provide 9.2 percent of the state’s electricity. That figure is growing quickly, with more than $3 billion expected to be spent on new wind generation during the next two years alone. Meanwhile, Sustainable Business reports that the world’s most powerful battery system is helping to store wind energy produced during off-peak times so that it can be sold when demand for electricity is highest.
  :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Full story here:

http://grist.org/news/texas-cities-roping-in-more-wind-energy/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/news/texas-cities-roping-in-more-wind-energy/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)
Title: How Renewables will replace fossil fuels
Post by: agelbert on April 06, 2013, 12:13:57 PM
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

R. Buckminster Fuller
Title: Using Less Energy by Wise Desert Water Management
Post by: agelbert on April 06, 2013, 12:44:27 PM
Use Common Sense: Water Can Be Local Too!   :emthup: :icon_sunny:


"If you do it right, in an integrated way, it costs FAR less than the way we've been doing it" says Brad Lancaster about turning barren Arizona sidewalk space into a food producing orchard. With NO external water inputs.

Across the globe, water is taken from hundreds of miles away like everything else. The bulk of Tuscon's water for ex. is imported from the Colorado River, more than 300 miles away. The Tuscon Water company is the largest consumer of electricity in Arizona, and the largest emitter of carbon.  :o


But more rain falls in Tuscon than the entire municipality consumes in a year! The whole picture makes no sense.

Brad Lancaster created an oasis of green, fed by the rainwater. He chose native, low maintenance food bearing plants and simply made some changes to the sidewalk so they can soak up what falls naturally. No external inputs are used.

What a brilliant experiment in how to make local water work for you! This abundant vegetation costs the city nothing and dramatically reduces flooding downstream. As a result, the city now promotes water harvesting They even require it in new developments!


--Bibi Farber

Brad Lancaster is the author of Harvesting For Drylands and Beyond
For more information see: www.harvestingrainwater.com (http://www.harvestingrainwater.com)
This video was produced by Andrew Brown

Free Water, a short video by Andrew Brown (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aQrZtG-LVg#ws)

Title: From 20,000 to over a 1,000,000 Solar PV Systems in just 5 years!
Post by: agelbert on April 06, 2013, 02:34:39 PM
1,000,000 Solar PV Systems Installed In Australia! :icon_sunny:

April 5, 2013 Guest Contributor

By Sophie Vorrath

Reposted from RenewEconomy.


The number of Australian homes with rooftop solar power systems has passed the magic one million mark, according to figures from the Clean Energy Regulator, confirming that the milestone was reached in March.

SunWiz analysis of the REC Registry contained within PV market insights
With Queensland leading the charge – it now has more than 300,000 rooftop PV systems installed, NSW comes in second with just under 230,000 – the one millionth PV system was registered in Australia on March 12; a number the industry says translates to around 2.5 million Australians now living in a home with a set of solar panels on the roof – more than the entire population of Western Australia.

“It is remarkable when you think that just five years ago in 2008 there were only about 20,000 systems installed across the entire country,”   :o  :icon_mrgreen: :emthup: :icon_sunny:Clean Energy Council chief executive David Green said.


Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/05/1000000-solar-pv-systems-installed-in-australia/#TkI9Xa2OBy5AMmFA.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/05/1000000-solar-pv-systems-installed-in-australia/#TkI9Xa2OBy5AMmFA.99)
Title: More and More Megawatts of Renewable Solar Energy for planet Earth
Post by: agelbert on April 06, 2013, 02:39:40 PM
400 MW Solar Power Park Approved For Construction On Remote Japanese Island

April 5, 2013 Nathan

A proposed 400 MW solar power plant has just been given the go ahead by the Japanese government to begin construction. The large solar installation will be located on a remote island in southern Japan, off of the city of Sasebo, and will supply the city with electricity via an undersea transmission line.

The new plant will be one of the largest completed in Japan. It is expected to create around 150 new jobs on the island. The government in the region is supporting the project with the intent of reducing its reliance on expensive gas imports and increasing its renewable energy capacity. The plant is expected to cost, in total, about 100 billion yen ($1,036 or £678 million).

Business Green writes: “The project was awarded planning consent [this week] and is expected to move forward in May when Photovolt officially launches a venture with its project partners. The news comes after the Japanese government last week approved 10 per cent cuts to the country’s solar feed-in tariff to 37.8 yen (27 pence) per kilowatt. The cut came into effect yesterday, reducing the returns developers are likely to generate from solar projects.”

Another big project announcement this week was that US company First Solar just acquired control of a 150 MW solar energy project in California, purchasing it from Energy Power Partners, an affiliate of The Goldman Sachs Group. That utility-scale solar project, Solar Gen 2, should be finished next year. It will be located in Imperial County. Construction is supposed to begin sometime this year.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/05/400-mw-solar-power-park-approved-for-construction-on-remote-japanese-island/#uJABeW4eD7DTs72S.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/05/400-mw-solar-power-park-approved-for-construction-on-remote-japanese-island/#uJABeW4eD7DTs72S.99)

Title: 180 More EV Charging Stations Each Month In US
Post by: agelbert on April 07, 2013, 04:10:48 PM
Remember when you read this that EVs, unlike ICE cars, have a "gas" station at home so the on-the-road "gas" charge stations are an added plus.

Making Gasoline Stations Obsolete One Charge Station at a Time...  :emthup::icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:



180 More EV Charging Stations Each Month In US
(& Other EV Charging Station News) :icon_sunny:

Posted on March 13, 2013 by Zach

There’s a lot of hype (overhype, in my opinion*) about the need for more public EV charging stations. But I don’t think anyone realizes just how fast these charging stations are rolling out. AutoblogGreen reports that “US public and private entities are adding publicly accessible electric-vehicle charging stations at a clip of about 180 units a month, which would put the country’s total at about 7,400 by year end, according to US Department of Energy figures.” That’s pretty impressive. Much faster than I realized.

The total number of publicly accessible charging stations is at 5,548 as I’m writing this, according to the DOE. The number of charging stations per state follows population pretty well — #1 is California, #2 Texas, #3 Florida. (California and Texas are also #1 & #2 in population, while Florida is barely #4, just below New York — but is much more auto-centric than New York.)

AutoBlogGreen also notes that, through February 28, “Walgreens hosted 365 stations, Kohl’s had 55 and Whole Foods boasted 39 stations open to the public.”

EV Charging Activity In New York

As the charging network grows and expands, there’s also a bit of consolidation going on. Up in New York, for example, CarCharging recently announced that it is about to acquire EVPass (of Central New York) and has just acquired Beam Charging (of New York City), as well as their EV chargers/networks, of course.

“Bottom line, EV sales are growing. EV sales in January 2013 were more than 300% greater than January 2012, and EV sales in February 2013 were nearly 330% greater than February 2012. To support the increasing EV market, it is our intent to expand our EV charging infrastructure through organic growth and acquisitions of other EV service providers,” said Michael D. Farkas, CEO of CarCharging, in a statement published yesterday. “With our recent acquisition of Beam Charging and the pending acquisition of the CNY Network, CarCharging will expand its footprint throughout New York State and gain additional strategic property partners.”

Regarding some of the locations of the EVPass charging stations, CarCharging writes: “These destination locations are comprised of: New York shopping malls, including Pyramid, one of the largest shopping mall operators in the Northeast; higher education institutions such as SUNY-ESF and Syracuse University; entertainment venues such as the JFK Arena in Rome, NY and the Oncenter Convention Center in Syracuse, NY; and 39 downtown commuter parking locations in Syracuse, NY. Additionally, CarCharging will administer the pending NYSERDA grant awarded to EVPass, which includes installing EV charging stations throughout Upstate New York.”

Beam, meanwhile, was the largest EV charging service provider in the New York City metro area. In a statement from late February, CarCharging wrote: “Together, CarCharging and Beam operate the majority of all EV charging points throughout New York City, and have existing agreements with Central Parking, and Icon Parking, as well as Simon Properties. Beam’s partnerships with additional garage companies, such as Garage Management Company, Sylvan Parking, and Imperial Parking, expands CarCharging’s current list of more than 45 strategic partnerships including retail, multifamily residential and commercial property owners, municipalities, and parking garage management companies. Beam provides CarCharging with over 400 additional parking garages under contract in New York City, and the combined entity is positioned to provide the largest EV charging infrastructure to EV drivers in New York and beyond. In addition to CarCharging’s nationwide network of EV charging stations, CarCharging and Beam overlap in areas, such as Boston, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., and are now jointly expanding into Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.”

With New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s strong push for electric vehicles, it looks like the region will be an exciting place for the industry. Congrats to CarCharging for its quick expansion.

CarCharging uses ChargePoint’s EV charging stations. Here’s a bit more on on what CarCharging offers, and how to sign up:

EV drivers can easily request CarCharging’s evCharge card online to initiate use and payment at any intelligent CarCharging station. The CarCharging card also allows drivers to use charging locations on the ChargePoint® Network, the largest national online network connecting EV drivers to EV charging stations.

Users can pinpoint EV charging station locations using the CarCharging map at www.CarCharging.com (http://www.CarCharging.com). The ChargePoint® mobile application for iPhone, Android, and Blackberry phones also provides real-time charging station location information with turn-by-turn directions.

ECOtality & ChargePoint Team Up

One more piece of big news this month related to EV charging stations is that ChargePoint and ECOtality have teamed up. They announced on March 7 that they have formed Collaboratev, LLC. What is Collaboratev? I think they can best describe it:
“Collaboratev will enable charging network interoperability, exchange session data and allow financial billing reconciliation services among electric vehicle charging networks. The new company will actively encourage other charging network providers to join as affiliates and enable EV drivers throughout the United States to seamlessly charge among all affiliated charging networks. ChargePoint and ECOtality will connect the ChargePoint and Blink networks to Collaboratev later this year.”

In other words, Collaboratev is increasing access to public charging stations, streamlining the payment process, and providing EV drivers with more data.

“This is a clear sign of market maturation by establishing a seamless process for EV drivers to charge across networks,” stated Ravi Brar, CEO of ECOtality. “As industry leaders, we want to ensure we are always putting the needs of our customers first. We are fostering an open ecosystem and invite others to join us in making it easy for EV drivers nationwide to get the charge they need whenever and wherever they are.”

*Don’t get me wrong, I know they are a big help, but I think that EVs would work well for most people today already, and that there’s a misconception that most people wouldn’t be able to comfortably own an EV until more charging stations rolled out. Basically, I think the whole thing has been overhyped by the media and some car companies and politicians, artificially limiting consumer demand for electric vehicles.

http://evobsession.com/180-more-ev-charging-stations-each-month-in-us-other-ev-charging-station-news/ (http://evobsession.com/180-more-ev-charging-stations-each-month-in-us-other-ev-charging-station-news/)
Title: For the price of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have gotten 50% renewable energy!
Post by: agelbert on April 09, 2013, 11:28:50 AM
Quote
Next time you hear that responding to climate change is too expensive, ask, compared to what?  :icon_mrgreen:

For the price of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have gotten halfway to a renewable power system  :o

By David Roberts

Discussions of how to respond to climate change often involve Very Large Numbers — the needed investments to transition to a fully renewable energy system are in the hundreds of billions. The brain sort of shuts down when it encounters numbers like that. They are too big to fathom. The one thing that does seem true about them is that nobody’s ever going to spend that kind of money on anything. Right? It seems hopeless.

So I always enjoy it when someone comes along to provide some perspective, a comparison that can give us context and help us see the numbers afresh. Today, wind analyst Paul Gipe asks, how much renewable energy could we have gotten from what we spent on the Iraq War?

The total cost of the Iraq War, including future costs to care for veterans, is $2.2 trillion. If we include the interest we have to pay on the debt we used to finance the war, that figure rises to $3.9 trillion by 2053. (See Gipe’s article for sources and details.)

So what could that get us? Gipe gets deep into the weeds on renewables cost and yields, but here’s the top-line conclusion:

If we had invested the $2.2 trillion in wind and solar, the US would be generating 21% of its electricity with renewable energy. If we had invested the $3.9 trillion that the war in Iraq will ultimately cost, we would generate nearly 40% of our electricity with new renewables. Combined with the 10% of supply from existing hydroelectricity, the US could have surpassed 50% of total renewables in supply.

He notes that his estimates are extremely conservative, and with some reasonable amendments, that 40 percent figure could easily become 60 percent.

So, let’s call it half. For the price of the Iraq War, the U.S. could have gotten halfway to a fully renewable power supply.

Full Story here: :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/for-the-price-of-the-iraq-war-the-u-s-could-have-gotten-halfway-to-a-renewable-power-system/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/climate-energy/for-the-price-of-the-iraq-war-the-u-s-could-have-gotten-halfway-to-a-renewable-power-system/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)

So much for the BULLSHIT and LIES from the fossil fuel energy "experts" about renewable energy implementation timelines! :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Moody’s Renewable Energy Report for Europe
Post by: agelbert on April 10, 2013, 10:02:13 AM
Moody’s Spots Trouble Ahead For Thermal Sector In Europe :icon_mrgreen:
April 10, 2013 Tina Casey

We’ve been casting an envious eye on the growth of renewable energy in Europe, especially Germany, and here comes Moody’s Investors Service with a warning that the trend has been so strong that it’s threatening the credit quality of thermal generation companies.

That’s all well and good in terms of renewables crowding out fossil fuels, but the down side of Moody’s renewable energy report is that at least some conventional power plants will still be needed in the foreseeable future to keep up with peak demand. Energy planners are going to have to come up with some new incentives to keep them running, and that could spell trouble for ratepayers.

Moody’s Renewable Energy Report for Europe

Specifically, Moody’s looks at the impact of solar and wind power generation on conventional steam turbine power plants, aka thermal generators (technically speaking, renewables such as solar thermal and biomass can also be used to power a steam turbine, but for Moody’s purposes the breakdown is wind and solar vs. thermal generators).

The title of Moody’s new report pretty much says it all: “European Utilities: Wind and Solar Power Will Continue to Erode Thermal Generators’ Credit Quality.” Here is the money quote, from Assistant VP-Analyst with Moody’s Infrastructure Finance Group:

“Large increases in renewables have had a profound negative impact on power prices and the competitiveness of thermal generation companies in Europe. What were once considered stable companies have seen their business models severely disrupted and we expect steadily rising levels of renewable energy output to further affect European utilities’ creditworthiness.”

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/10/moodys-renewable-energy-report-for-europe/#FhdoOFYscSz34duR.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/10/moodys-renewable-energy-report-for-europe/#FhdoOFYscSz34duR.99)

The Fossil Fuel power plants are being made unaffordable by Renewables. Oh, the IRONY!  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
Title: Portugal Hit 70% Renewable Electricity In Q1 2013
Post by: agelbert on April 10, 2013, 10:10:03 AM
Portugal Hit 70% Renewable Electricity In Q1 2013
 :icon_sunny:
April 9, 2013 Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Reposted from Lenz Blog:

Portugal is the newest country to make the list of over 60% renewable electricity. According to this report by the network operator REN, it got 70% in quarter one of this year. The largest part (37%) comes from hydro, which had excellent weather conditions, leading to a 312% increase over last year’s figures. But wind also contributed 27%, with a 60% increase, also primarily due to favorable weather conditions.  :icon_mrgreen:

As expected, generation from coal was down by 29%, and from gas was down by 44% (please cheer and applaud for Portugal now).  :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Thanks to this tweet by ekopolitan for the link to this piece of very welcome good news.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/09/portugal-hit-70-renewable-electricity-in-q1-2013/#a7KtbofTHWh5GF5P.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/09/portugal-hit-70-renewable-electricity-in-q1-2013/#a7KtbofTHWh5GF5P.99)
Title: Germany’s Electricity Surplus Nearly Quadruples In 2 Years
Post by: agelbert on April 10, 2013, 10:21:13 AM
Germany’s Electricity Surplus Nearly Quadruples In 2 Years


April 9, 2013 Zachary Shahan

For all those acting like Germany is going to be without electricity (or have to import a lot) from its energy revolution (well underway), the Telegraph has a note for you: :icon_mrgreen:

Figures just published appeared to vindicate Germany’s clean energy revolution, showing that the country’s electricity surplus had nearly quadrupled between 2011 and 2012.” :icon_sunny:


“Thanks to Climate Denial Crock of the Week for the share.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/09/germanys-electricity-surplus-nearly-quadruples-in-2-years/#jK8DfbQ8peMbdX4u.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/09/germanys-electricity-surplus-nearly-quadruples-in-2-years/#jK8DfbQ8peMbdX4u.99)
Title: Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities
Post by: agelbert on April 10, 2013, 01:58:35 PM
Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities  :icon_mrgreen:

By David Roberts

Solar power and other distributed renewable energy technologies could lay waste to U.S. power utilities and burn the utility business model, which has remained virtually unchanged for a century, to the ground.

That is not wild-eyed hippie talk. It is the assessment of the utilities themselves.

Back in January, the Edison Electric Institute — the (typically stodgy and backward-looking) trade group of U.S. investor-owned utilities — released a report [PDF] that, as far as I can tell, went almost entirely without notice in the press. That’s a shame. It is one of the most prescient and brutally frank things I’ve ever read about the power sector. It is a rare thing to hear an industry tell the tale of its own incipient obsolescence.

If you are interested in Energy and the Power Utility Business Model's viability in the future, don't miss this great article  :emthup: :icon_sunny:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)

SNIPPET 1:

The thing to remember is that it is in a utility’s financial interest to generate (or buy) and deliver as much power as possible. The higher the demand, the higher the investments, the higher the utility shareholder profits. In short, all things being equal, utilities want to sell more power. (All things are occasionally not equal, but we’ll leave those complications aside for now.)

Now, into this cozy business model enters cheap distributed solar PV, which eats away at it like acid.

SNIPPET 2:

Solar power peaks at midday, which means it is strongest close to the point of highest electricity use — “peak load.” Problem is, providing power to meet peak load is where utilities make a huge chunk of their money. Peak power is the most expensive power. So when solar panels provide peak power, they aren’t just reducing demand, they’re reducing demand for the utilities’ most valuable product.

But wait. Renewables are limited by the fact they are intermittent, right? “The sun doesn’t always shine,” etc. Customers will still have to rely on grid power for the most part. Right?

This is a widely held article of faith, but EEI (of all places!) puts it to rest.
(In this and all quotes that follow, “DER” means distributed energy resources, which for the most part means solar PV.)

Due to the variable nature of renewable DER, there is a perception that customers will always need to remain on the grid. While we would expect customers to remain on the grid until a fully viable and economic distributed non-variable resource is available, one can imagine a day when battery storage technology or micro turbines could allow customers to be electric grid independent. To put this into perspective, who would have believed 10 years ago that traditional wire line telephone customers could economically “cut the cord?” [Emphasis mine.]

SNIPPET 3:

Utility investors are sleepwalking into a maelstrom.

(“Despite all the talk about investors assessing the future in their investment evaluations,” the report notes dryly, “it is often not until revenue declines are reported that investors realize that the viability of the business is in question.” In other words, investors aren’t that smart and rational financial markets are a myth.)

Full story here:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)

Danger Will Robinson and Fossil Fuel Utility Company Investors! Destroyed Dividends Dead Ahead!   8)

Title: Tapping Waste Heat (i.e. FREE HEAT) for Renewable Energy through Innnovation
Post by: agelbert on April 11, 2013, 09:25:58 AM
There's a LOT of thermal energy out there that can be harvested cheaply WITHOUT fossil fuels!  :icon_mrgreen:

Innovative Self-Cooling, Thermoelectric System Consumes No Electricity
 :icon_sunny:


Apr. 11, 2013 — Researchers at the UPNA/NUP-Public University of Navarre have produced a prototype of a self-cooling thermoelectric device that achieves "free" cooling of over 30ºC in devices that give off heat. It is a piece of equipment that acts as a traditional cooler but which consumes no electricity because it obtains the energy it needs to function from the very heat that has to be dissipated.

The researchers want to apply this system to power converters and transformers present in power stations that produce renewable electrical power employing, for example, wind, solar photovoltaic, solar thermoelectric and hydraulic energy.

David Astrain-Ulibarrena, of the UPNA/NUP's Department of Engineering, Mechanics, Energy and Materials and head researcher in the project, explains what the system consists of: "When these devices are functioning, they heat up and need to be cooled down.In many cases, heat exchangers with fans are used which naturally need to be powered externally and consume a certain amount of electrical power. What we do is take advantage of the heat flow emitted by the power converter and transformer to produce the electrical power needed to make the fans work. That way we achieve the cooling of the device and control its temperature, but without any energy cost."

Taking advantage of residual energy

This self-cooling thermoelectric application is one of the lines of action of the GETER (Thermoelectric generation with residual heat energy) project, whose overall aim is to develop thermoelectric generators that allow the heat energy of a low thermal level to be converted into electrical energy; in other words, residual heat flows of temperatures of less than 250ºC. "The best future perspectives regarding thermoelectric generation have to do with making use of free heat sources, like residual heat flows, " says ProfAstrain. These are very frequent heat sources (in Spain, 40% of primary energy is wasted in the form of residual heat) which are difficult to make use of with the conventional systems for producing electrical power, like steam and gas turbines."

Thermoelectric generation has been widely used for mid and high temperatures (from 250ºC to 1,200º C) in military and aerospace uses. The thermoelectric generator that powers the rover Curiosity on Mars is a prime example because of its topicality. The GETER project of the Public University of Navarre aims to adapt this technology to low temperatures and to optimize its application for civilian purposes.

Within the framework of this project, the research team has developed and experimentally validated a computational model that has shown that it can obtain up to 1 kW of electrical power for every cubic metre of an industrial flue. :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_sunny:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130411075454.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fwind_energy+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Wind+Energy%29 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130411075454.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fwind_energy+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Wind+Energy%29)

Title: Making Fossil Fuel Power Plants Use LESS Fossil Fuel for the SAME Power Output
Post by: agelbert on April 12, 2013, 04:47:26 PM
Solar Booster Shot for Natural Gas Power Plants :icon_sunny:

Apr. 11, 2013 — Natural gas power plants can use about 20 percent less fuel when the sun is shining by injecting solar energy into natural gas with a new system being developed by the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The system converts natural gas and sunlight into a more energy-rich fuel called syngas, which power plants can burn to make electricity.

"Our system will enable power plants to use less natural gas to produce the same amount of electricity they already make," said PNNL engineer Bob Wegeng, who is leading the project. "At the same time, the system lowers a power plant's greenhouse gas emissions at a cost that's competitive with traditional fossil fuel power."

PNNL will conduct field tests of the system at its sunny campus in Richland, Wash., this summer.

With the U.S. increasingly relying on inexpensive natural gas for energy, this system can reduce the carbon footprint of power generation. DOE's Energy Information Administration estimates natural gas will make up 27 percent of the nation's electricity by 2020. Wegeng noted PNNL's system is best suited for power plants located in sunshine-drenched areas such as the American Southwest.

Installing PNNL's system in front of natural gas power plants turns them into hybrid solar-gas power plants. The system uses solar heat to convert natural gas into syngas, a fuel containing hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Because syngas has a higher energy content, a power plant equipped with the system can consume about 20 percent less natural gas while producing the same amount of electricity.

This decreased fuel usage is made possible with concentrating solar power, which uses a reflecting surface to concentrate the sun's rays like a magnifying glass. PNNL's system uses a mirrored parabolic dish to direct sunbeams to a central point, where a PNNL-developed device absorbs the solar heat to make syngas.

Macro savings, micro technology About four feet long and two feet wide, the device contains a chemical reactor and several heat exchangers. The reactor has narrow channels that are as wide as six dimes stacked on top of each other. Concentrated sunlight heats up the natural gas flowing through the reactor's channels, which hold a catalyst that helps turn natural gas into syngas.

The heat exchanger features narrower channels that are a couple times thicker than a strand of human hair. The exchanger's channels help recycle heat left over from the chemical reaction gas. By reusing the heat, solar energy is used more efficiently to convert natural gas into syngas. Tests on an earlier prototype of the device showed more than 60 percent of the solar energy that hit the system's mirrored dish was converted into chemical energy contained in the syngas.

Lower-carbon cousin to traditional power plants PNNL is refining the earlier prototype to increase its efficiency while creating a design that can be made at a reasonable price. The project includes developing cost-effective manufacturing techniques that could be used for the mass production. The manufacturing methods will be developed by PNNL staff at the Microproducts Breakthrough Institute, a research and development facility in Corvallis, Ore., that is jointly managed by PNNL and Oregon State University.

Wegeng's team aims to keep the system's overall cost low enough so that the electricity produced by a natural gas power plant equipped with the system would cost no more than 6 cents per kilowatt-hour by 2020. Such a price tag would make hybrid solar-gas power plants competitive with conventional, fossil fuel-burning power plants while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The system is adaptable to a large range of natural gas power plant sizes. The number of PNNL devices needed depends on a particular power plant's size. For example, a 500 MW plant would need roughly 3,000 dishes equipped with PNNL's device.

Unlike many other solar technologies, PNNL's system doesn't require power plants to cease operations when the sun sets or clouds cover the sky. Power plants can bypass the system and burn natural gas directly.

Though outside the scope of the current project, Wegeng also envisions a day when PNNL's solar-driven system could be used to create transportation fuels. Syngas can also be used to make synthetic crude oil, which can be refined into diesel and gasoline than runs our cars.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130411152332.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fsolar_energy+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Solar+Energy%29 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130411152332.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fsolar_energy+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Solar+Energy%29)

Lots of innovation going on in Energy Research!  :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Title: Rockin' and Rollin' with Increasing Renewables % of New Installed Power
Post by: agelbert on April 13, 2013, 09:43:26 AM
Solar = 100%  :icon_sunny: Of New Power Capacity In March,

Renewables = 82% In Q1 :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:


April 12, 2013 Tim Tyler

Editor’s note: I write about solar and wind power obsessively, almost every day. Still, FERC’s recent numbers came as a bit of a surprise to me. Over 28% of new US power capacity in Q1 was from large-scale solar installations (small- and medium-scale installations would actually boost solar’s percentage of the pie considerably, but they’re harder to track and count). Wind power accounted for nearly 51% of new power capacity (and this is just after the rush to get projects completed before the wind power production tax credit expired). More details in the post below from Solar Love:

Renewables are leading again. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Office of Energy Projects has just released a report for the first three months of 2013.

The report is called the “Energy Infrastructure Update” and it shows that renewable energy sources (biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind) have accounted for 82% of all new domestic electrical generating capacity installed for the first quarter of 2013. The total amount of the combined renewables came in at 1,546 MW.

So far this year, coal, nuclear, and oil have provided no new generating capacity, :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: which is good news to say the least. Natural gas came in with 340 MW of electrical generating capacity installed for the first quarter of 2013.

The breakdown of the report put wind energy in the lead for quarter one, with 6 new “units” totaling 958 MW. Second place went to solar, with 38 units totaling 537 MW accounting for over 28% of new power capacity in Q1. (Obviously, this doesn’t include small- or medium-scale solar installations, which account for about half of all US solar power capacity.) During the first quarter of 2012, solar only installed 264 MW, so this year solar has more than doubled its newly installed capacity (537 MW).

The big winner in renewables for the month of March was solar, which produced 100% of the new electrical generation capacity, with 7 new units with a combined capacity of 44 MW in California, Nevada, New Jersey, Hawaii, Arizona, and North Carolina.

In the past couple of years, the installed price of solar has dropped about 40%. This has certainly spurred on a good portion of the growth, but the price is projected to fall much more in the coming years. So what lies ahead?

One of the other key players in the renewable mix in quarter one was biomass, with 28 units that totaled 46 MW. And even water was in the picture for the first quarter, with 4 new units with an installed capacity of 5.4 MW. Geothermal is lagging behind so far this year with no

new capacity reported. Here’s a full table: (go to article at the link for the full table 8))
Nearly 16% of total installed US generating capacity now goes to renewable energy sources. Here’s a break down of the current installed generating capacity from the report:
Water — 8.53%
Wind — 5.18%
Biomass— 1.3%
Solar — 0.44%
Geothermal — 0.32%
For a comparison, that is more than these combined:
Nuclear — 9.15%
Oil — 3.54%


According to the US Energy Information Administration, the actual net electrical generation from renewable energy sources in the United States now totals a bit more than 13%. (Just a note since generating capacity is not the same as actual generation.)

It is clear, however, that renewable energy sources continue to dominate the new electrical generating capacity being brought on-line in the United States. It seems like with every one of these reports it becomes clearer that coal is slowly fading away and a cleaner future is on its way with renewables. :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/12/solar-100-of-new-power-capacity-in-march-renewables-82-in-q1/#6kAIZeEPMxBqXAg5.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/12/solar-100-of-new-power-capacity-in-march-renewables-82-in-q1/#6kAIZeEPMxBqXAg5.99)
Title: EVs use ONE QUARTER the energy an ICE car uses for tha SAME mileage!
Post by: agelbert on April 13, 2013, 02:14:56 PM
Tesla CEO discusses EVs and why they are, not just as good, but MUCH more efficient than ICE cars in trerms of energy used to move from point A to point B as well as the environmental benefits of not driving poison spewing machines.
 :icon_mrgreen:

Tesla Model X

More Functionality than a minivan + better Style than an suv + more Performance than a sports car = Tesla Model X :icon_sunny:

Seventy seven years of cars that didn't quite do it; the dual motor (front and rear), all wheel drive, 7 adult passenger + huge trunk space, split gull wing, less turn radius than a minicooper,  zero to sixty mph in 4.4 seconds Model X DOES IT ALL!  :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Tesla Model X official reveal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0I7dByeTt4#ws)
Title: Is Renewable Energy's Biggest Problem Solved?
Post by: agelbert on April 14, 2013, 12:46:17 PM
Is Renewable Energy's Biggest Problem Solved?

German researchers have found a way to overcome one of the problems with renewable energy -- the fact that it is not always available -- by linking different options in a unified system. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

April 5, 2013 

Critics of renewables have always claimed that sun and wind are only intermittent producers of electricity and need fossil fuel plants as back-up to make them viable. But German engineers have proved this is not so.  :icon_mrgreen::sunny:

full story here:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/renewable-energys-biggest-problem-solved (http://www.alternet.org/environment/renewable-energys-biggest-problem-solved)
Title: Tesla Targets Pick Up Truck Heaven
Post by: agelbert on April 14, 2013, 02:23:11 PM
Tesla Motors Could Build Electric Pickup At New Plant In Texas!?

April 14, 2013 Important Media Cross-Post

This post first appeared on Gas2.org by Chris DeMorro

Texas has had a solid reputation as a “red” state where pickups and cowboys are the norm since the Nixon era. Yet the Lone Star state has a lot of green credibility too, and Elon Musk is trying to entice Texas lawmakers with the possibility of opening a second manufacturing facility that could, potentially, build an all-electric pickup truck.

Musk is hoping to convince Texas lawmakers to vote yes on a new law that would allow electric vehicle makers to sell cars directly to customers. Right now, Tesla has two “galleries” that are legally prohibited from giving potential customers any sales information, including cost, financing, warranty, or even test drives. Texas Tesla service centers can’t even evaluate cars for warranty infomation, making it quite difficult to actually sell a Tesla Model S in Texas.

Despite this, Tesla has still managed to sell 400 Model S sedans to customers in Texas, though Musk believes that if this new law were in place, annual sales could amount to 2,000 vehicles or more. This would make the Lone Star state second in Tesla sales, behind California, which led Musk to dangle the potential for a new manufacturing facility in front of legislators.

And what would this plant build? At first, probably just more Model S sedans, though Musk has an idea for an electric pickup that might float better with Texas. An all-electric pickup? Musk says it would have “sports car performance” but would be geared towards towing and capacity, more than a comparable gas or diesel truck.

As wild as it sounds, an electric pickup could be as reliable, if not even more so, than a diesel truck, as there are far fewer moving parts. But would Texans really embrace an electric pickup? We have awhile to wait, as Tesla still has to make the Model X SUV, a BMW 3-series competitor, and a new Tesla Roadster before a pickup can even be considered. Meanwhile, VIA Motors is already offering plug-in hybrid pickups for fleet purchase, which gives them a head start on Tesla, if nothing else.

But maybe one day, Texans will have their choice between gas, diesel, hybrid, and electric pickups. Wouldn’t that be something?

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/14/tesla-motors-could-build-electric-pickup-at-new-plant-in-texas/#KR6y9iWP8Vr8ihVK.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/14/tesla-motors-could-build-electric-pickup-at-new-plant-in-texas/#KR6y9iWP8Vr8ihVK.99)

Agelbert notes and observations:

The above article is fascinating to me in as paradigm shift evidence (away from fossil fuels to EVs powered from renewable energy). Why?

1) Texas is a leading producer of renewable energy in the USA with no sign of letting up on jacking up wind energy harvesting.

2) The US electrical grid is divided into a bunch of huge blocks. Interestingly and unlike any of the other blocks, the state of Texas matches its electrical island almost perfectly. When these "islands" have extra power, they sell it to other grid islands.

3) Texans LOVE energy AND MAKING BIG BUCKS FROM IT!

Now you may say that Texas is big oil turf and they ain't gonna let Tesla get his foot in their energy door. News Flash! They need storable reservoirs for wind energy! EVs fit the bill at night so base load can be lowered (along with fossil fuel plant daily operating costs). Sure, big oil will fight (what else is new?) but it's a losing battle because the BIG MONEY and the future belongs to renewables and EVs and Texans are not stupid.

Can you imagine what kind of super winching power these EV pick ups will have!? The winch motors on tow trucks are TINY compared with an EV motor with some kind of cable attachment for winching. If you could secure the vehicle properly, you could pull another car out of a ditch/lake/hole/embankment, etc. easy. In fact, it could pull ITSELF up a steep incline if equiped with a sufficiently strong cable. Don't tell me Musk won't come up with something like that to popularize an EV pick up. That guy knows how to sell machines! :icon_mrgreen: :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Title: Rural electric co-ops go green
Post by: agelbert on April 15, 2013, 06:15:29 PM
Rural electric co-ops go green


Electric cooperatives have served rural Americans for generations. Some are taking advantage of their member-owned status to begin weaning their regions off of fossil fuels. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Full article here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2013/0415/Rural-electric-co-ops-go-green (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2013/0415/Rural-electric-co-ops-go-green)

SNIPPET:

Co-op electricity, like that of the nation as a whole, comes from a mix of sources that varies by region—and because of cooperatives’ strong presence in coal-producing regions, their reliance on coal-fired power is higher than the national average. Still, 90 percent of electric cooperatives have at least some renewable power in their portfolios, and 96 percent offer some sort of energy efficiency program.As of 2007, co-ops got 3 percent more of their energy from renewable sources than did the nation’s utility sector as a whole.  :emthup:

Cooperatives around the country are pushing to do better. In 2008, a number of them banded together to form the National Renewables Cooperative Organization, an umbrella group that supports local co-ops in making the switch to renewable energy. The organization found that renewables make sense for cooperatives for more than environmental reasons. Diverse power sources can insulate members from volatile prices, and renewable energy projects can create jobs in the communities where members live.


More Jobs and less price volatility is the Renewable Energy Winning Combination!  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
Title: Anyone interested in building a biogas digester?
Post by: agelbert on April 16, 2013, 11:06:37 AM
A Worthwhile Challenge

Anyone interested in building a biogas digester?

It is a unit designed to produce methane gas using feedstocks of various sources, which can then be used to supply cooking stoves and ovens. The waste, such as animal manure, municipal and food waste, releases methane gas, a clean-burning fuel source that does not produce soot.

Biogas production is a tricky business dependent on keeping temperamental micro-organisms alive and in perfect balance to keep the gas flowing.

In the US, codes for gas storage and sanitation are strict. For many people, the process just isn’t cost-effective enough to make it worthwhile. But for those who are tinkerers at heart, we offer a great video to show you what is involved!

Just remember: Methane is a combustible, and dangerous, gas. Do not use open flames, power equipment or even cell phones, around a personal biogas digester.

--Bibi Farber

Simple Instructions here:

Animation of a simple telescoping biogas digester (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiHDQClpZfI#)










Title: Re: Biogas digester
Post by: Eddie on April 16, 2013, 12:37:48 PM
I've looked at methane generators of various designs, including a nice one that a communal group was successfully using to create gas using kitchen refuse. The main issue I see is that you need substantial amounts of something to digest...so you need manure or large quantities of food scraps. And your stove has to be jetted properly to use biogas.

In a collapse scenario, some of the materials, like plastic bladders and pond liner materials might be hard to come by.

It would be cool if you could get a system going that would run a gas fridge or freezer. A propane freezer uses about as much gas as a  pilot light. It would seem to be a good match, but I haven't seen it done.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on April 16, 2013, 03:35:02 PM
Eddie,
Thanks for the input.  :emthup: I know a few dairy farmers in Vermont have been fooling around with methane harvesting equipment but it seems like an awful lot of plumbing to me. I saw a video some time ago where a hog farmer out in Nebraska had this huge pond sized tarp over a pit he dumped all the hog feces in and used the methane to warm the hog buildings in winter. He claimed it saved him big bucks. I have no personal experience with methane generators.
Title: Largest Wind Farm In Southern Hemisphere Opens Down Under
Post by: agelbert on April 16, 2013, 04:10:53 PM
Largest Wind Farm In Southern Hemisphere Opens Down Under :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

April 15, 2013 Ronald Brakels
The 420 megawatt Macarthur wind farm was opened in the state of Victoria on Friday. It is the largest wind farm in the southern hemisphere and its 3 megawatt Vestas turbines are the largest in Australia. The Mcarthur Wind Farm is actually the first project to use Vestas’ V112-3.0 MW wind turbines. The project’s expected operating capacity is 35% and its cost was almost exactly one billion dollars.

One billion dollars may sound like a lot of money, probably because it is, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a good deal. The wind farm has an operating life of 25 years and if a 5% discount rate is used for the cost of money, it will generate electricity at about 6 cents a kilowatt-hour. While this is slightly higher than the average price of electricity generated from coal in Australia, it does have the very large advantage of being non-fatal on both the personal and planetary scales. It’s also cheaper than electricity from new coal plants and is a major reason why Australia is extremely unlikely to ever build any new coal capacity. :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/15/largest-wind-farm-in-southern-hemisphere-opens-down-under/#5ZQ0GoDQSv8oLuwO.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/15/largest-wind-farm-in-southern-hemisphere-opens-down-under/#5ZQ0GoDQSv8oLuwO.99)
Title: Sweden’s Quest To Be The First Oil-Free Nation
Post by: agelbert on April 16, 2013, 04:14:51 PM
:icon_sunny: Sweden’s Quest To Be The First Oil-Free Nation :sunny:

April 15, 2013 Guest Contributor

This post first appeared on Fuel Freedom

By Zana Nesheiwat


Famous for Volvo, Ikea and Absolut Vodka, Sweden is now on a new pursuit to become the first completely oil-free economy in the world by 2020.

The oil crisis in the early 1970s forced Sweden to embark on a quest for alternative energy sources. Its phasing out of oil has proceeded smoothly; in 1970, oil accounted for 77% of Sweden’s energy, but by 2003 that figure fell to 32%. :icon_mrgreen:

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/15/swedens-quest-to-be-the-first-oil-free-nation/#GYdi7O3zPVZIIuPj.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/15/swedens-quest-to-be-the-first-oil-free-nation/#GYdi7O3zPVZIIuPj.99)


SNIPPET
International oil dependency is one of the world’s biggest problems and as Sahlin notes, a Sweden free of fossil fuels would give the country enormous advantages, “not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices. The price of oil has tripled since 1996.” Sweden’s investments, actions and laws are no accident, and although Sweden’s goal of eliminating oil consumption is seen as ambitious by the rest of the world, their attention to the detrimental effects of this dependence is worth noting.As Nelson Mandela reminds us “it seems impossible until it is done.” :emthup:





Title: Solazyme Algae producing Renewable oil products from fuel to food
Post by: agelbert on April 17, 2013, 11:04:52 AM
I turn algae into oil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVX9OcL2k-I#ws)
Title: The Ocean, Our Waste Based Society and Someone Doing Something About It
Post by: agelbert on April 17, 2013, 11:15:03 AM
Who knew!? The Ocean is NOT our Garbage CAN!  :icon_mrgreen:

To be filed in the ,"IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME!" category.  :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Thousands Of Pounds Of Trash Per Day Diverted

What a simple invention to help curb trash in the ocean!

Each year millions of recreational boats set out to sea, tossing their waste directly into the water. Unbelievable but true.

Frenchman Barthelemy Dominici designed trash receptacles for this crowd, that are so popular they work without any advertising or support from the authorities.

Since 2002 he has installed 130 receptacles along the coastlines of France.

It's more than a drop in the ocean - these bins each collect about 330 lbs a day in the season!

--Bibi Farber

This video was produced by www.Shamengo.com (http://www.Shamengo.com)

I'm tackling ocean garbage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxIVttDZwqM#ws)


Title: Saudis have MEGA solar & wind power plans!
Post by: agelbert on April 18, 2013, 10:25:27 AM
Saudi Arabia Looks To NREL For Solar Monitoring Expertise

April 18, 2013 Guest Contributor

This post first appeared on the NREL Newsroom by Bill Scanlon Saudi Arabia is jumping headlong into renewable energy,with plans to install more solar and wind power in the next 20 years than the rest of the world has installed to date. :o :icon_sunny:  The oil-rich Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is working with the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for training and expertise in measuring its solar resource. The importance of setting …

Full story here:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/18/saudi-arabia-looks-to-nrel-for-solar-monitoring-expertise/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/18/saudi-arabia-looks-to-nrel-for-solar-monitoring-expertise/)
Title: WATCH: Tar Sands Timmy Needs a Pipeline Cartoon
Post by: agelbert on April 18, 2013, 01:49:42 PM
Mark Fiore gives it to oil lovers with both (shotgun NOT oil!) barrels! :icon_mrgreen:


WATCH: Tar Sands Timmy Needs a Pipeline Cartoon :evil4:

The Keystone XL is our ticket to energy independence!

—By Mark Fiore

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/04/mark-fiore-tar-sands-timmy-keystone-pipeline%20 (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/04/mark-fiore-tar-sands-timmy-keystone-pipeline%20)
Title: Energy "EXTERNALITIES", when properly accounted for, BELIE cost effectiveness!
Post by: agelbert on April 18, 2013, 02:46:07 PM
None of the world’s top industries would be profitable if they paid for the natural capital they use

By David Roberts

The notion of “externalities” has become familiar in environmental circles. It refers to costs imposed by businesses that are not paid for by those businesses.For instance, industrial processes can put pollutants in the air that increase public health costs, but the public, not the polluting businesses, picks up the tab. In this way, businesses privatize profits and publicize costs.
 
While the notion is incredibly useful, especially in folding ecological concerns into economics, I’ve always had my reservations about it. Environmentalists these days love speaking in the language of economics — it makes them sound Serious — but I worry that wrapping this notion in a bloodless technical term tends to have a narcotizing effect. It brings to mind incrementalism: boost a few taxes here, tighten a regulation there, and the industrial juggernaut can keep right on chugging. However, if we take the idea seriously, not just as an accounting phenomenon but as a deep description of current human practices, its implications are positively revolutionary.
 
To see what I mean, check out a recent report [PDF] done by environmental consultancy Trucost on behalf of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) program sponsored by United Nations Environmental Program. TEEB asked Trucost to tally up the total “unpriced natural capital” consumed by the world’s top industrial sectors. (“Natural capital” refers to ecological materials and services like, say, clean water or a stable atmosphere; “unpriced” means that businesses don’t pay to consume them.)
 
It’s a huge task; obviously, doing it required a specific methodology that built in a series of assumptions. (Plenty of details in the report.) But it serves as an important signpost pointing the way to the truth about externalities.
 
Here’s how those costs break down:
 
The majority of unpriced natural capital costs are from

greenhouse gas emissions (38%),
followed by water use (25%),
land use (24%),
air pollution (7%),
land and water pollution (5%),
and waste (1%).

 
So how much is that costing us? Trucost’s headline results are fairly stunning.
 
First, the total unpriced natural capital consumed by the more than 1,000 “global primary production and primary processing region-sectors” amounts to $7.3 trillion dollars a year — 13 percent of 2009 global GDP. :o
:jawdrop:


Full Story with charts here:

http://grist.org/business-technology/none-of-the-worlds-top-industries-would-be-profitable-if-they-paid-for-the-natural-capital-they-use/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter (http://grist.org/business-technology/none-of-the-worlds-top-industries-would-be-profitable-if-they-paid-for-the-natural-capital-they-use/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter)

I'm happy to see the theme of the article I wrote some time ago is gathering traction.  I love it when they start talking about REAL WORLD COSTS, not industry's convenient EROEI happy numbers. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:
For those who who haven't read it and want the down and dirty details of the fossil and nuclear fuel scam, go here: :icon_sunny:
Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables
Why They Work and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did


http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)
Title: Beating Big Oil with higher quality Renewable Oil!
Post by: agelbert on April 19, 2013, 11:37:35 AM
Solazyme (SZYM) - Sugars-To-Tailored-Oils Platform


The world is heavily reliant on all kinds of oils, and yet there are very few ways in which we derive them. We drill for existing reservoirs, squeeze it out of crops, and slaughter animals to gain it, and yet in each of these instances humanity has largely been dependent on what is given.

Solazyme's heterotrophic fermentation process utilizes engineered microorganisms that can be customized to produce a wide spectrum of oils with specific uses.The company can replicate existing oil profiles, but has increasingly been finding ever higher value in developing tailored oils that simply do not exist in nature.  :o :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:  Because it's able to control saturation, carbon chain length, and functional groups, the company can create superior oils that industry knows it can use but has never been able to source.


Though often mistaken as a mere biofuel play, Solazyme's comparative advantage actually lies entirely in its ability rapidly evolve the oils of today. It does so in ways that existing genetically engineered oilseed producers such as Monsanto (MON), DuPont (DD), or Syngenta (SYT) are simply unable to compare in regards to degree, scope or development time. Currently constructing its first large scale facilities for commercial production with partners, Solazyme has yet to gain the market's support despite significant top-line revenue growth lying in wait as the next year comes around.

This and other innovative disruptive technologies that will directly affect our energy needs, among other needs, are discussed here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1317651-4-innovative-companies-with-disruptive-technologies?source=msn (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1317651-4-innovative-companies-with-disruptive-technologies?source=msn)
Title: Hello Big Oil, Tesla Roadster owner has a message for you...
Post by: agelbert on April 19, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
Tesla Roadster owner sends a 24/7 message to Big Oil. :icon_mrgreen:
(http://c1gas2org.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/04/LOL-OIL-Tesla.jpg)
Title: More Energy Saving Technology for EVs Coming From Germany
Post by: agelbert on April 19, 2013, 05:22:54 PM
Ultracapacitor Startup Raises €2.2 Million

An executive from ultracapacitor startup Skeleton Technologies emailed me recently to let me know that the company had just raised €2.2 million in Round A financing. According to a press release shared with me, Skeleton Technologies’ ultracapacitors “have 4 times higher power densities and up to 2 times higher energy densities than the closest competitors.”

The €2.2 million in financing was led by Up Invest, an Estonian private equity investor.
“The financing will be used to meet increasing demand for high performance energy storage solutions. SkelCap ultracapacitors which have a power density of 80 kW/L and energy density of 14 Wh/L represent the single biggest increase in ultracapacitor performance of the last two decades,” the press release added.

CEO Taavi Madiberk says that customers already include “the European Space Agency and several US and European Tier 1 automotives.”

This is not my area of expertise, so rather than conjecture and rephrase, I’m going to repost most of the remainder of the press release here for now:

Skeleton Technologies’ ultracapacitors will solve crucial energy storage problems with a green, environmentally friendly and cost-effective solution by recapturing braking energy and providing peak and back-up power to increase energy efficiency in a variety of applications ranging from automotive start-stop systems for conserving fuel to windmill pitch control for more efficient renewable energy generation.

Ultracapacitors’ ability to release stored energy in a matter of milliseconds and a 99% ultimate efficiency rate with a lifespan of over 20 years and 1 million charge/discharge cycles in a wide temperature range, make them ideal substitutes or complementing devices for batteries.


Margus Linnamäe of UP Invest commented that they had been looking for an investment in energy storage and Skeleton Technologies immediately caught their eye. What set the company apart is the proprietary technology based on carbide-derived carbon which enables nanotuning the material for superior performance.

According to Linnamäe Skeleton Technologies’ competitive advantage is two-fold: higher power and energy density allows to use up to two to four times smaller and lighter cells for the same application; this also means less materials being used in manufacturing which will in perspective translate to cost savings for customers. He added: “Skeleton Technologies’ driven management team and unrivalled technological advantage represents a disruptive opportunity in the energy sector’s most viable market segment that will pass the $1 billion threshold next year.”

Skeleton Technologies plans to harness the growing momentum and use the financing to develop the company’s supply-line and global sales and deliveries. “With a new R&D location in Tartu, Estonia and manufacturing in Dresden, Germany, Skeleton is well positioned to further develop the technology and start meeting demand for high performance energy storage,” said Oliver Ahlberg, the COO of the company.

More details about the company can be found on its website and datasheets.

This is the second cleantech startup with potentially a ton of promise that is located in Dresden, which is just a short trip away from me on a high-speed rail line. Looks like I need to make a trip over there and learn more about these companies and their potentially groundbreaking technologies.

Anyone with more knowledge and experience with ultracapacitors want to chime in here and let me know if you see any yellow, red, or big green flags?

Read more at http://evobsession.com/ultracapacitor-startup-raises-e2-2-million/#QoDypVAtwbVp8CoY.99 (http://evobsession.com/ultracapacitor-startup-raises-e2-2-million/#QoDypVAtwbVp8CoY.99)

Title: Radical new motor location technology promises huge increase in space on EVs
Post by: agelbert on April 19, 2013, 05:26:46 PM
Protean’s In-Wheel Electric Motors Coming To Market In 2014
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Leisure/2009/660/371/proteus2.jpg?ve=1)
(http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblog.com/media/2012/07/protean-in-wheel-motor-628.jpg)
April 17, 2013 Zachary Shahan

At least, that’s what the company is saying. I covered Protean back in October 2012, so I’m happy to see that the company is moving forward. It looked like an exciting technology to me at the time, and Gas2′s Chris DeMorro (a normally pretty skeptical guy who reserves his enthusiasm for clear wins) also seems quite excited in this Gas2 repost below. I just hope the plans are legit and the technology is as awesome as it sounds. Here’s the Gas2 repost:

The holy grail of electric vehicle technology is in-wheel electric motors, which put power directly to the street and eliminate a host of other parts. In-wheel electric motor maker Protean claims that by next year, production of their revolutionary product will begin.
Weighing just 68 pounds, but capable of delivering 100 horsepower and 735 ft-lbs of torque per wheel, the Protean in-wheel electric motor would eliminate things like driveshafts, differentials, and transmissions. That reduces the cost and complexity of electric drivetrain setups, and drops a whole lot of weight as well. Mercedes tuner Brabus used two Protean motors in their beastly diesel-electric hybrid to great effect.

That’s only a few of the advantages of in-wheel motors though. Each motor can be controlled independently, allowing for more control in dicey situations. Protean also claims their electric motors can reclaim up to 85% of the kinetic energy via regenerative braking. The Protean system can also be retrofitted to existing vehicles fairly easily.

Sounds amazing, right? With production scheduled for next year though, I am left wondering… what automakers are signed up for this awesome tech? Or will Protean sell these as stand-alone units directly to customers? So many possibilities… what will come of it all?

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/17/proteans-in-wheel-electric-motors-coming-to-market-in-2014/#Wx0YyMutsZpzf8kc.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/17/proteans-in-wheel-electric-motors-coming-to-market-in-2014/#Wx0YyMutsZpzf8kc.99)
Title: Germany sets new record in Solar Power Energy - and it's only April!
Post by: agelbert on April 19, 2013, 05:32:56 PM
Solar Power Record In Germany — 22.68 GW — Infographic
April 16, 2013 Thomas
 

On Monday, the 15th of April, 2013, the approximate 1.3 million solar power systems in Germany set a new domestic/world record by reaching a peak power output of 22.68 GW at noon.

The New Normal

This new record is almost 0.5 GW above the “old” record of 22.2 GW, which was set on May 25th, 2012. Allthough I love celebrating all solar records, the biggest news might be that “just” 22.68 GW is apparently no longer newsworthy in Germany, because above 15-20 GW of solar have become a regularity.

During the first two weeks of April, solar surpassed the 20 GW mark on several occasions and made a meaningful contribution to the domestic power supply on every single day. For everybody remotely familiar with German or Central European weather conditions, it’s needless to say that it wasn’t all sunshine & cloudless skies in April.
(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/04/2013-04-2weeks.jpg)
Graphs: Bruno Burger, Fraunhofer ISE

Since solar panels last for 25+ years and have almost no marginal costs, I like to use the opportunity to mention the fact that whatever might happen in policy in the coming years, those yellow areas of the electricity market will remain liberated* from the external effects caused by conventional electricity production for at least one generation. (*To use a slightly more energy revolutionary sort of language).

So, lets celebrate the new solar world record of 22.68 GW of solar power on a national grid, despite its relative “mediocrity,” with a little infographic!
(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/04/2013-04-15-Solar-Germany.jpg)

In case you are wondering: The equivalents mentioned in the infographic were chosen for the Japanese “market” (for solar and ideas).

The 167 GWh of solar electricity provided a little more than 12% of the total German electricity consumption on a typical Monday in April (presuming that consumption hasn’t changed too much since last year).

The 34,000 tons of oil are calculated by considering a thermal power plant efficency of 42%, meaning that for each kWh of electricity you got to burn 2.4 kWh of oil. (42% is the average for Japanese oil-fired power stations that usually provided peakload electricity before, and now even more so after, the Fukushima nuclear accident.)

The number of nuclear reactors refers to each one running for 24 hours straight. The comparison is intended to show that distributed solar can make a big impact and doesn’t need years to build. I am aware that comparing clean peak-load solar operating in the renewable energy paradigm with old-school baseload nuclear is relatively pointless.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/16/solar-power-record-in-germany-22-68-gw-infographic/#D1SEKKrOQrwSMKXL.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/16/solar-power-record-in-germany-22-68-gw-infographic/#D1SEKKrOQrwSMKXL.99)

Title: New Photoelectric Energy Producing Breakthrough from NON-Metallic material!
Post by: agelbert on April 21, 2013, 09:47:28 AM
What a wonderful way to address too much carbon and too little energy by using a material made MAINLY of carbon to Lower our Energy carbon footprint! :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:


Metallic nanostructures in smart materials typically cause a haze that prevents them from being truly transparent. The photosensitive device developed at Exeter contains no metals and is therefore completely transparent but, as it can detect light from across the whole visible light spectrum, it is as efficient at sensing light as other recently developed opaque photoelectric devices.

Revolutionary New Device Joins World of Smart Electronics: New Flexible, Transparent, Photosensitive Device

Apr. 19, 2013 — Smart electronics are taking the world by storm. From techno-textiles to transparent electronic displays, the world of intelligent technology is growing fast and a revolutionary new device has just been added to its ranks. Researchers at the University of Exeter have developed a new photoelectric device that is both flexible and transparent. The device, described in a paper in the journal ACS Nano, converts light into electrical signals by exploiting the unique properties of the recently discovered materials graphene and graphExeter. GraphExeter is the best known room temperature transparent conductor and graphene is the thinnest conductive material.

At just a few atoms thick, the newly developed photoelectric device is ultra-lightweight. This, along with the flexibility of its constituent graphene materials, makes it perfect for incorporating into clothing. Such devices could be used to develop photovoltaic textiles enabling clothes to act as solar panels and charge mobile phones while they are being worn.
Photosensitive materials and devices such as the one developed at Exeter can,in the future, also be used for intelligent windows that are able to harvest electricity and display images while remaining transparent.  Smart materials have almost unlimited potential applications from integral iPods and keyboards in clothing to electronic displays on glasses and goggles.

Saverio Russo, Professor of Physics at the University of Exeter said: "This new flexible and transparent photosensitive device uses graphene and graphExeter to convert light into electrical signals with efficiency comparable to that found in opaque devices based on graphene and metals.

"We are only just starting to explore the interfaces between different materials at very small scales and, as this research shows, we are revealing unique properties that we never knew existed. Who knows what surprises are just around the corner."

Metallic nanostructures in smart materials typically cause a haze that prevents them from being truly transparent. The photosensitive device developed at Exeter contains no metals and is therefore completely transparent but, as it can detect light from across the whole visible light spectrum, it is as efficient at sensing light as other recently developed opaque photoelectric devices.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130419121116.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fsolar_energy+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Solar+Energy%29 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130419121116.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy%2Fsolar_energy+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Solar+Energy%29)

The Solar Revolution is on a ROLL!  :emthup: :icon_sunny: :sunny:
Title: How a 1980 Big Oil sponsored Law EXTERNALIZED oil pipline spill costs TODAY
Post by: agelbert on April 21, 2013, 11:54:45 AM
Great Discussion of how big oil makes WE-THE-PEOPLE pay for pollution from Big Oil! :evil4:  More proof this SHIT was NEVER cost effective! :o
Exxon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaSqlObwmTo#)

By the way, Thom comes up with a PRICELESS quote by John kenneth Galbraith at the start of the discussion.  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:
Title: Lockheed Martin to build Ocean Thermal Energy Plant in China
Post by: agelbert on April 21, 2013, 08:50:56 PM
It's nice to see a Weapons manufaturer getting into Renewable energy!  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:


World’s Largest Ocean Thermal Energy Plant to be Built in China

By Steph in Energy & Fuel

A power plant that can harvest energy from differences in ocean temperatures is planned just off the coast of a Chinese resort. Set to be the world’s largest, the 10-megawatt OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) facility could pave the way for similar plants all over the world, helping meet the increasing need for reliable renewable energy. The plant is planned by Lockheed Martin Corp. and China’s Reignwood Group.

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfrWE61EeQY#ws)

Read More:

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2013/04/19/worlds-largest-ocean-thermal-energy-plant-to-be-built-in-china/ (http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2013/04/19/worlds-largest-ocean-thermal-energy-plant-to-be-built-in-china/)
Title: Swiss Engineering Giant Bets on Solar Power
Post by: agelbert on April 22, 2013, 01:34:14 PM
ABB bets on solar power with $1 billion takeover. :icon_sunny:
 
Credit: Reuters/Michael Buholzer

By Silke Koltrowitz

ZURICH | Mon Apr 22, 2013 8:07am EDT

ZURICH (Reuters) - Swiss industrial group ABB (ABBN.VX) is to buy U.S. solar energy company Power-One Inc (PWER.O) for about $1 billion, betting that growth in emerging markets will revive a sector ravaged by overcapacity and weakening demand in recession-hit Europe.

The world's biggest supplier of industrial motors and power grids said on Monday it had agreed to pay $6.35 per share in cash for Power-One, the second-largest maker of solar inverters that allow solar power to be fed into grids.

The offer price is 57 percent above Power-One's closing price on Friday, boosted by $266 million in net cash held by debt-free Power-One. Stripping out its cash pile, Power-One's enterprise value stands at $762 million, valuing the bid at a more modest 6.4 times 2012 core earnings.

As solar power gets closer to competing with conventional forms of energy such as gas and coal, demand for solar panels that harness the sun's energy is rising.

The same goes for solar inverters, which are needed to feed that power into large electricity grids from commercial solar panel installations and smaller units on factories and homes.

"We consider the acquisition of Power-One as a smart strategic move for ABB to broaden its solar product portfolio at the right time," Vontobel analysts said.

The solar inverters business is one of the last profitable parts of the solar value chain - mainly due to its relatively complex technology - while makers of cells and panels have suffered massively from the fact that their products are easy to replicate.

Peers like Germany's Siemens (SIEGn.DE) and Bosch ROBG.UL recently ended ventures in the solar industry after oversupply, weak economies and a cut in government subsidies triggered a collapse in demand for solar panels and prices slumped, leading to a wave of insolvencies in the industry.

Even makers of the solar inverters have suffered.

Germany's SMA Solar (S92G.DE), the world's biggest maker of the components, reported a 58-percent drop in 2012 operating earnings last month and said sustained lower prices from competitors could severely impair its business.

However, ABB believes the solar market is set to grow its way out of overcapacity as electricity costs rise and falling prices of solar power systems make it a more competitive source of energy.

ABB is buying into solar energy now because it sees a shift in demand towards emerging markets such as China and the Middle East, said Ulrich Spiesshofer, head of ABB Discrete and Motion, the business that includes ABB's solar activities.


The company took a 35 percent stake in Germany's Novatec Solar in 2011.
"Solar is, long-term, the fastest-growing renewable generation market in the world. ABB believes in this market," Spiesshofer said in a company video.

At 7:52 a.m. EDT, ABB shares were up 0.9 percent at 20.11 Swiss francs, outperforming an almost flat European industrial sector index .SXNP. SMA Solar shares were up almost 9 percent.

PROJECTED GROWTH

The solar inverters market is forecast to grow by more than 10 percent per year until 2021, ABB said. Solar inverter industry revenues reached $7 billion last year, according to research firm IHS.

Camarillo, California-based Power-One's market share in the inverter industry has doubled to 10 percent since 2009, while SMA Solar's has dropped to 25 percent from 38 percent, ABB said in a presentation.

ABB Chief Executive Joe Hogan said the deal should boost net income within a year. He said the company had no interest in buying solar panel or machinery makers.

Sarasin analyst Martin Schwab said the bid price for Power-One seemed high, but that the deal might pay off. Vontobel analysts called the price reasonable, given the target's net cash position and positive operating cash flow.

ABB said it would pay for the transaction from its own funds and that it included Power-One's net cash of $266 million.

Subject to shareholder and regulatory approval, the deal is expected to close in the second half of 2013.

Power-One employs almost 3,300 people, mainly in China, Italy, the United States and Slovakia and had sales of around $1 billion in 2012. The firm posted a fourth-quarter loss per share in January.

Credit Suisse (CSGN.VX) acted as financial adviser to ABB, and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP acted as legal adviser. Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS.N) acted as financial adviser to Power-One, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as legal adviser.

(Additional reporting by Katharina Bart and Christoph Steitz; Editing by Mark Potter and Tom Pfeiffer)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/22/us-abb-power-one-idUSBRE93L04U20130422 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/22/us-abb-power-one-idUSBRE93L04U20130422)

NOTE: ABB operates in over 100 countries and is into just about everything to do with the electrical grid, it's power sources and smart grid energy management.

Product guide for ABB in the USA:
http://www.abb.us/ProductGuide/ (http://www.abb.us/ProductGuide/)

I do believe ABB KNOWS how to make a GOOD BET on the future of Energy Sources!  :emthup: :icon_sunny:


Latest from ABB U.S.

ABB named Top 10 Smart Grid Vendor by GTM Research
2013-03-25 - ABB recognized for its ongoing contributions to transmission and distribution grid management, to OT/IT convergence with Ventyx and to communications with Tropos Networks.

ABB reports record U.S. revenues, rising 26 percent to $6.7 billion
U.S. revenues and employment doubled since 2007

http://www.abb.us/ (http://www.abb.us/)


Title: If you compete with national governments, patent enforceability is Questionable
Post by: agelbert on April 22, 2013, 07:10:06 PM
When asked why he doesn't patent the innovations in his rocket technology for SpaceX, Elon Musk said, "When your competitors are national governments, the enforcibility of patents is highly questionable". :icon_mrgreen:

This video is about Energy and how mankind MUST go fully Solar Renewable Energy if we are to thrive and reach for the stars. The only place elctric motors don't work is in rockets. Musk says there is just no way around Newton's third Law. Don't miss the clip in the video of a rocket take off AND LAND on its tail! :o

One very important point he makes with EVs being charged from a home that gets electricity from a fossil fuel (natural gas) plant versus a car with an ICE (internal combustion engine) running natural gas is that large power plants are 60% efficient because they can use secondary heat capturing technology in large gas turbines that a car with an ICE cannot. The ICE car is only 20% efficient so even if the electric cars are being charged with fossil fuel made electricity, they result in a MUCH reduced use of fossil fuels in EVs for the SAME amount of distance a 20% efficent ICE car travels. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny: At any rate, he says the goal must be all electric power generated from Solar sourced Renewable power because of the unacceptable negative planetary atmospheric impact of burning fossil fuels. Damned straight!
 

Elon Musk: The mind behind Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity ... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgKWPdJWuBQ#ws)

Tesla CEO, SolarCity Chairman Elon Musk Makes Time 100 List
April 22, 2013 Tim Tyler

Editor’s note: Elon Musk has made the 2013 Time 100 list — and who’s surprised, really? From Zip2 to PayPal to Tesla to SpaceX to SolarCity, Elon Musk is one busy and influential man — I’m just shocked that I made it onto a Top 20 list with him. Stroll through the EV Obsession repost below for more on Elon’s noteworthy endeavors.

Recently, Time Magazine recognized Elon Musk as one of the 100 most influential people in the world — an honor that is deserving of Mr. Musk for all that he has done to help solve environmental, social, and economic challenges.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/22/tesla-ceo-solarcity-chairman-elon-musk-makes-time-100-list/#mrQhuEB1seCtPTs4.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/22/tesla-ceo-solarcity-chairman-elon-musk-makes-time-100-list/#mrQhuEB1seCtPTs4.99)

Good for him. Such a rare combination of strong biosphere protection ethics and good business sense is much needed in this world of the predatory capitalist, ethics free, Wall Street fraudulent "business model". :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :sunny:

Title: Desalinating water at a fraction of the energy now required
Post by: agelbert on April 23, 2013, 07:26:53 PM
Yes, this IS about ENERGY. Desalinating water at a fraction of the energy now used will help humanity use LESS  energy! :icon_sunny:

Lockheed Martin Achieves Patent for Perforene™ Filtration Solution, Moves Closer to Affordable Water Desalination

(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/ms2/photo/nanotechnology/perforene-legend.gif)
(http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/lockheed/us/mst/features/2013/130322-wanted-clean-drinking-water/_jcr_content/content_image/image_0.img.jpg/1363982304720.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eO5oWR5eIhQ/UUjnFteL8nI/AAAAAAAACUA/MsdZVClM8Wg/s1600/0,,69817375,00.jpg)

BALTIMORE, March 18, 2013 – Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] has been awarded a patent for Perforene™ material, a molecular filtration solution designed to meet the growing global demand for potable water.

The Perforene material works by removing sodium, chlorine and other ions from sea water and other sources.

“Access to clean drinking water is going to become more critical as the global population continues to grow, and we believe that this simple and affordable solution will be a game-changer for the industry,” said Dr. Ray O. Johnson, senior vice president and chief technology officer of Lockheed Martin. “The Perforene filtration solution is just one example of Lockheed Martin’s efforts to apply some of the advanced materials that we have developed for our core markets, including aircraft and spacecraft, to global environmental and economic challenges.”

The Perforene membrane was developed by placing holes that are one nanometer or less in a graphene membrane. These holes are small enough to trap the ions while dramatically improving the flow-through of water molecules, reducing clogging and pressure on the membrane.

At only one atom thick, graphene is both strong and durable, making it more effective at sea water desalination at a fraction of the cost of industry-standard reverse osmosis systems.


In addition to desalination, the Perforene membrane can be tailored to other applications, including capturing minerals, through the selection of the size of hole placed in the material to filter or capture a specific size particle of interest. Lockheed Martin has also been developing processes that will allow the material to be produced at scale.

The company is currently seeking commercialization partners.

The patent was awarded by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 120,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation’s net sales for 2012 were $47.2 billion.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/march/lockheed-martin-achieves-patent-for-perforene-filtration-solutio.html (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/march/lockheed-martin-achieves-patent-for-perforene-filtration-solutio.html)

Earth Day: Give Earth a Hand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep9MFiWXR8M#ws)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: DoomerSupport on April 23, 2013, 07:32:29 PM
I wonder how the bottled water industry will prevent this tanking their sales?

I know, this stuff will strip fluoride out of the water.  Dentists don't want that to happen, therefore this stuff should not be allowed.  (mocking the MSM, not dentists, Eddie  :-* )
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Surly1 on April 23, 2013, 07:34:38 PM
Just remarkable, AG. Potentially a game changer... if you live near a coast.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on April 23, 2013, 08:49:27 PM
Quote
Just remarkable, AG. Potentially a game changer... if you live near a coast.

Surly,
Yep. That's the second bit of good news I've read about Lockheed Martin. They have hitherto been dedicated mostly to making htings that kill and destroy so I consider this progress.

And like Haniel, said, there will be lots of other filtration innovations like flouride elimination. The big deal about this to me is the fact that it doesn't get clogged. That has always been the big problem with filtration system function and maintenance.

Just think, you could just pour some water from a contaminated stream (chemicals or fecal coliforms) and, within a few minutes, have potable water WITHOUT boiling it. Just the waterborne diseases that would be avoided (with the exception of some viruses which might fit through the pores) would save millions of lives and $$$ in lessened health care costs, especially in underdeveloped countries. In developed countries the entire water plumbing infrastructure could be modified to do away with all the chemicals used in water treatment plants.

It ain't over yet! :emthup: :icon_sunny:
Title: Just 2% of the Sahara Desert can supply ALL of the WORLD'S ELECTRICITY NEEDS!
Post by: agelbert on April 24, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
High-Concentration Photovoltaic Thermal System From IBM Promises 80% Efficiency, Potable Water, And Air Conditioning

April 24, 2013 Nathan

This article was originally published on Solar Love.

How does a cost-competitive photovoltaic system that is able to concentrate sunlight 2000 times and then capture 80% of the concentrated energy sound? Pretty good, right? Such a system is currently being developed by researchers at IBM Research, Airlight Energy, ETH Zurich, and Interstate University of Applied Sciences Buchs NTB, after winning a three-year $2.4 million grant from the Swiss Commission for Technology and Innovation.

(http://i0.wp.com/solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ibm-pv-thermal-technology.jpg)
Image Credit: © IBM

And in addition to generating electricity, the system can itself desalinate water and provide air-conditioning, useful features for the sunny and remote regions that the system is designed for.

An economical High Concentration Photovoltaic Thermal (HCPVT) system, that in addition to supplying electricity can desalinate water and provide air conditioning, is the complete package as far as many regions of the world are concerned.


The prototype system makes use of a large parabolic dish, composed of a number of mirror facets, which are coordinated to a sun tracking system. The system automatically repositions itself to the optimum angle for power generation. The sunlight that hits the mirrors is reflected off of them onto a number of microchannel-liquid cooled receivers with triple junction photovoltaic chips. Every one of these 1×1 centimeter chips “can convert 200-250 watts, on average, over a typical eight hour day in a sunny region.” And there are hundreds of these chips in the design, providing a total of about 25 kilowatts of electrical power.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/24/high-concentration-photovoltaic-thermal-system-from-ibm-promises-80-efficiency-potable-water-and-air-conditioning/#91GKRhQQjjGISl7K.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/24/high-concentration-photovoltaic-thermal-system-from-ibm-promises-80-efficiency-potable-water-and-air-conditioning/#91GKRhQQjjGISl7K.99)

As noted in the video below, we only need about 0.4% of the solar energy arriving on the Earth to supply ALL of our ENERGY NEEDS!
We DON'T NEED FOSSIL FUELS! We DO NEED to stop using them. The claim that we MUST rely on fossil fuels for now because they are "cheap" is inaccurate, erroneous and outdated information.  Watch this video for PROOF!


http://www.youtube.com/v/J_zzE8xMdZc#ws#&fs=1

Title: Supplying 100% of our energy needs from renewable sources is Doable
Post by: agelbert on April 24, 2013, 05:27:17 PM
It's more than clear that we could supply 100% of our energy needs from renewable sources. Jacobson and Delucchi did that bit of math in 2009.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030)

Solar, alone, provides far more harvest-able energy than we can conceive of using.
 :sunny:
(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png)

We know that we can run major grids using nothing but renewable energy. Budischak, et al. ran the numbers for the largest wholesale grid in the world. Diensendorf, et al. did the same for all of Australia.

While Jacobson and Delucchi showed that the energy was available and we have the technology needed to harvest it these other studies have shown that it would be practical to use renewables for our energy needs.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit)

Title: Baseload power is a myth: even intermittent renewables will work
Post by: agelbert on April 24, 2013, 05:45:50 PM
Baseload power is a myth: even intermittent renewables will work

 By Mark Diesendorf on 10 April 2013

The future of civilisation and much biodiversity hangs to a large degree on whether we can replace fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – with clean, safe and affordable energy within several decades. The good news is that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures have advanced with extraordinary speed over the past decade.
 
Energy efficient buildings and appliances, solar hot water, on-shore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, concentrated solar thermal (CST) power with thermal storage and gas turbines burning a wide range of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels are commercially available on a large scale. The costs of these technologies have declined substantially, especially those of solar PV. In 2012, despite the global financial crisis, global investment in these clean, safe and healthy technologies amounted to US $269 billion. Denmark, Scotland and Germany and several states/provinces around the world have official targets of around 100% renewable electricity and are implementing policies to achieve them.
 
The principal barrier is resistance from vested interests and their supporters in the big greenhouse gas polluting industries and from an unsafe, expensive, polluting, would-be competitor to a renewable energy future, nuclear power. These powerful interests are running a campaign of renewable energy denial that is almost as fierce as the long-running campaign of climate change denial. Both campaigns are particularly noisy in the Murdoch press. So far the anti-renewables campaign, with its misinformation and gross exaggerations, has received little critical examination in the mainstream media.
 
The renewable energy deniers rehash, among others, the old myth that renewable energy is unreliable in supplying base-load demand.
 
Renewable electricity is reliable

In a previous article for The Conversation I reported on the initial results of computer simulations by a research team at the University of New South Wales that busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base-load demand. However at the time of the article I was still under the misconception that some base-load renewable energy supply may be needed to be part of the renewable energy mix.
 
Since then Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I have performed thousands of computer simulations of 100% renewable electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM), using actual hourly data on electricity demand, wind and solar power for 2010. Our latest research, available here and reported here, finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on geographically dispersed sites, do not need base-load power stations to achieve the same reliability as fossil-fuelled systems.
 
The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base-load power stations, easily supplies base-load demand. Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base-load in winter; however, that doesn’t matter.)
 
The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That’s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation.
 
Renewable electricity is affordable

Our latest peer-reviewed paper, currently in press in Energy Policy journal, compares the economics of two new alternative hypothetical generation systems for 2030: 100% renewable electricity versus an “efficient” fossil-fuelled system. Both systems have commercially available technologies and both satisfy the NEM reliability criterion. However, the renewable energy system has zero greenhouse gas emissions while the efficient fossil scenario has high emissions and water use and so would be unacceptable in environmental terms.
 
We used the technology costs projected to 2030 in the conservative 2012 study by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE). (In my personal view, future solar PV and wind costs are likely to be lower than the BREE projections, and future fossil fuel and nuclear costs are likely to be higher.) Then, we did thousands of hourly simulations of supply and demand over 2010, until we found the mix of renewable energy sources that gave the minimum annual cost.
 
Under transparent assumptions, we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter’s additional costs.
 
Thus 100% renewable electricity would be affordable under sensible government policy, busting another myth. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: All we need are effective policies to drive the transition.
 
This article was first published in The Conversation. It was reproduced with permission. It is an update of an earlier article written by Diesendorf for RenewEconomy, published last week.

 :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
 
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-92421 (http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-92421)

Note: I am guilty as SIN of putting ALL the HTML FONT exaggerations in the above. :icon_mrgreen:

Title: Why Demand Destruction for Fossil Fuels will Accelerate (HINT: Wind, Sun & EVs)
Post by: agelbert on April 26, 2013, 11:13:30 AM
If you dismiss the following hard data as a major contributor to demand destruction for fossil fuels, you are, like so many herd following energy "experts" that rely exclusively on fossil fuel corporation stats (that for the last 20 years severely underestimated the impact of renewables on the total energy picture with their obsolete view that renewables are a boutique costly fad in the big oil universe when the reality is that renewables are rapidly relegating fossil fuels to second fiddle status in cost effectiveness above and beyond the pollution issue :icon_mrgreen:), lacking the proper perspective on energy use patterns, how they are changing, and why: 8)


Bloomberg New Energy Finance believe that 2013 will see a stabilising of the market, with the US market set to decline in the wake of the tax credit expiration.
The top 10 suppliers contributed 33.5 GW of 2012′s total global commissioned capacity, equalling 70%.  :emthup:  :icon_mrgreen: :sunny: Those 10 include:
1. GE (US) – 11.8%
2. Vestas (Denmark) – 11.8%
3. Siemens (Denmark) – 11.0%
4. Enercon (Germany) – 7.2%
5. Suzlon/REpower (India) – 6.6%
6. Gamesa (Spain) – 6.4%
7. Goldwind (China) – 6.0%
8. Guodian United Power (China) – 3.5%
9. Sinovel (China) – 2.7%
10. Sewind (China) – 2.3%


Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/25/vestas-and-ge-tie-for-first-place-among-2012-turbine-manufacturers/#BHVx00BREyEG9oGc.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/25/vestas-and-ge-tie-for-first-place-among-2012-turbine-manufacturers/#BHVx00BREyEG9oGc.99)

This also cannot be ignored or shunted aside as being insignificant:

Investment In Renewable Energy Set To Triple By 2030, Costs Plunging
April 23, 2013

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/23/investment-in-renewable-energy-set-to-triple-by-2030-costs-plunging/#S8TB7egSeaziV1Yc.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/23/investment-in-renewable-energy-set-to-triple-by-2030-costs-plunging/#S8TB7egSeaziV1Yc.99)

It's time to move past the 20th century PIGGERY. In the 21st century, corporations will have to accept that profit cannot be obtained at the biosphere's expense, PERIOD. Elon Musk and a few other future trillionaires know this. The ones who cling to the past will be left behind (or put in prison!).

For those who say EVs are a "drop in the bucket", "not practical" or "insignificant" in the future of land transportation, do you call THIS "insignificant"?

April 3-Kandi s 273 million rmb ($43.2 million USD) purchase and start of production in China's first recently completed "state of the art, built from the ground up" pure EV manufacturing facility with 1st stage annual capacity of 100,000 EVs, expandable to 300,000 per year.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1367561-kandi-vs-tesla-wall-street-match-up-revisited-exceptional-ev-business-execution-from-both?source=email_investing_ideas&ifp=0 (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1367561-kandi-vs-tesla-wall-street-match-up-revisited-exceptional-ev-business-execution-from-both?source=email_investing_ideas&ifp=0)

SNIPPET for those who think EVs aren't "practical due to battery charge limitations" in regard to Tesla and Kandi CEOs:
Unique to these two disruptive innovators in this new Industry, both realized the future need for EVs; but without a solution to re-energize the battery in minutes, not hours, the market would be extremely limited. So simultaneous to developing their vehicles, they both developed unique solutions to solve this problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch a less than two minute change of batteries in a Kandi EV quick change battery station.:


http://www.youtube.com/v/4SiHZZG1Tyw#&fs=1

Here's the on call mobile crew manual battery quick change:


http://www.youtube.com/v/zAhqkxrnlt4#&fs=1


Don't throw away your oil burning gas hog! Aftermarket EV conversions might give the chassis a new life! :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

Check out the 1991 Toyota MR2 EV:


http://www.youtube.com/v/BmDyK4Dyu-E#ws#&fs=1

Title: 2012 Home Energy Bills Lowest Percentage in 10 Years
Post by: agelbert on April 27, 2013, 09:03:18 AM
ANOTHER factor in Fossil Fuel Demand Destruction  :sunny:

April 24, 2013

EIA: 2012 Home Energy Bills Lowest Percentage in 10 Years :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:


U.S. consumers spent 2.7% of their household income on home energy bills last year, which was the lowest percentage in 10 years, according to a U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) analysis released on April 18. Also, aggregate home energy expenditures by U.S. households fell $12 billion in 2012 from the 2011 level. Warmer weather contributed to lower energy consumption in 2012, and because household energy expenditures reflect both prices and consumption, these changes resulted in lower household energy expenditures.
 
On average, households spent $1,945 on heating, cooling, appliances, electronics, and lighting in 2012. This total includes home use of electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, propane, kerosene, wood, and coal, but excludes fuels used for transportation. It also excludes other household utilities such as water and telephone services. Using EIA projections for 2012 based on household data from the U.S. Census Bureau through 2010, $1,945 is the lowest level since 2002.

The percentage of household income spent on home energy bills peaked at 4.3% in 1982 and steadily declined until it reached its lowest level since 1973—2.4% in 1999. See the EIA's Today in Energy.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19242 (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19242)

RE has already covered demand destruction of fossil fuels for transportation. The home energy use data is another nail in the Fosil fuel Coffin. :icon_mrgreen: If the above data had been adjusted for inflation, the precentage DROP in home energy use for the US household budget would be greater. The above is further proof that decentralized renewable energy power continues to contribute to fossil fuel demand destruction along with the economic Depression. Since more and more people at their homes are quietly buying solar panels and other renewable energy infrastructure OFF of Big Oil's energy "experts'"radar (all Big Oil is seeing is LESS fossil fuel use at the retail and wholesale power plant level - NOT WHY), Big Oil is blind to it and doesn't realize that solar is eating Big Oil's LUNCH! :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
Title: An illuminating press release
Post by: agelbert on April 27, 2013, 09:25:22 AM
The SWITCH100 will be among the first 100 watt-equivalent LED A-lamps available to commercial and consumer customers when it ships in May. It’s designed on a small A-21 form factor. With its 4000K color temperature and 1600 lumen output, the SWITCH100 provides the same level of performance as the now obsolete 100W incandescent A-Lamps, at a fraction of the energy consumption at 20 Watts.


(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/04/lqd_bulb_art2.gif)


SWITCH Unveils 3 New LED Products That Could Shake Up The Lighting World

 April 27, 2013 Cynthia Shahan
 
An illuminating  :icon_mrgreen: press release  from SWITCH® Lighting has announced that its first-of-a-kind SWITCH3-Way and SWITCH100 are ready to ship. Shipping is available starting next week, the beginning of May.
 
These lights are so cool –  they are like small glass sculptures. However, they are quite utilitarian and low-energy, modern sources of beauty and light without strain on our environment. As such, the 100-watt (SWITCH100) and 3-way equivalents (SWITCH3-Way) come from an award-winning product line.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/27/shipping-in-may-100we-and-first-3-way-led-a-lamp/#hjLvTtJyf1jcmaq3.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/27/shipping-in-may-100we-and-first-3-way-led-a-lamp/#hjLvTtJyf1jcmaq3.99)
Title: Government Subsidies is all that keeps fossil fuels "competitive" with Renewable
Post by: agelbert on April 28, 2013, 12:43:27 PM
In a marketplace dominated by headline stories of visible failures such as Solendra, few Americans realize that (according to the Government Accountability Office) the electricity generated by fossil fuels receives$5 in  federal subsidies  :stop: :o for every $1 received by the renewable energy industry.
 :jawdrop:

In a very real sense, the only reason the fossil fuel industry can now compete with renewable energy is because of government subsidies.   :evil4: :evil6:



Fact vs. Fiction: How Renewables  :sunny:
Outshine Fracking


Just how real is the fracking "boom" when compared with other developments within the energy industry—specifically the exponential growth of renewable energy?

April 15, 2013   
 
Originally posted on  EcoWatch.com
 
The practice of hydraulic horizontal fracturing or  fracking to extract natural gas from the shale beds of the U.S. began, for all practical purposes, in 2007. Since that time, the production of natural gas within the nation has increased, gas extracted from shale beds more than making up for a decline in production from conventional sources.

And the industry has not been quiet about this growth. Hardly a day passes without some national media outlet expounding the benefits the nation will derive from this recent production “boom.” But just how real is this boom when compared with other developments within the energy industry—specifically the exponential growth of  renewable energy?
 
Just the facts, ma’am
 
To be sure, there has been an increase in the production of domestic natural gas. As President Obama noted in his recent  State of the Union address, production of natural gas within the U.S. has never been higher. But since 1971, when annual domestic production hit about 22,000,000 million cubic feet, natural gas production has remained fairly stable, hovering at around the 20,000,000 million cubic feet level.

Full article with eye opening charts here: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

http://www.alternet.org/fracking/fact-vs-fiction-how-renewables-outshine-fracking?page=0%2C0&akid=10374.113861.3X9SzN&rd=1&src=newsletter831565&t=21 (http://www.alternet.org/fracking/fact-vs-fiction-how-renewables-outshine-fracking?page=0%2C0&akid=10374.113861.3X9SzN&rd=1&src=newsletter831565&t=21)
Title: The Divestment of Fossil Fuel Stocks BEGINS ($538 million of stock to be sold)
Post by: agelbert on April 29, 2013, 10:58:38 AM

San Francisco and 10 other cities move toward dumping stocks in fossil-fuel companies

By John Upton

Oil companies might be awfully profitable right now, but political leaders in San Francisco and 10 other U.S. cities want to dump their investments in them anyway.
 
San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors voted this week to urge the city’s investment fund managers to sell off more than $583 million worth of shares in Chevron, ExxonMobil, and some 200 other fossil-fuel companies. This makes San Francisco the biggest city to join the divestment campaign being pushed by 350.org, which began with a focus on colleges and universities. Seattle was the first city to join the campaign; its mayor got on board late last year. Divestment might still be months or years off, if it happens at all, but civic leaders calling for action is a critical first step.
 
Other cities where leaders have taken moves toward dumping their dirty stocks: Boulder, Colo.; Eugene, Ore.; Ithaca, N.Y.; Madison and Bayfield, Wis.; Sante Fe, N.M.; State College, Pa.; and Berkeley and Richmond, Calif., both in the San Francisco Bay area. Activists in 100 more cities have started circulating petitions calling on their leaders to divest, 350.org says.

Richmond is an interesting example: It’s home to a nearly 3,000-acre Chevron oil refinery, so its residents know firsthand about the evils of the oil industry. Not only does the refinery sicken its neighbors — with an extreme example coming last year when a huge explosion blackened the air and sent 15,000 people to the hospital — but Chevron is suing Contra Costa County, claiming it was overcharged tens of millions of dollars in property taxes. (And this is a company that made $26 billion in profits last year.)

Full story here:
http://grist.org/news/san-francisco-seattle-and-other-cities-dumping-fossil-fuel-company-holdings/? (http://grist.org/news/san-francisco-seattle-and-other-cities-dumping-fossil-fuel-company-holdings/?)

And then there is THIS: :icon_mrgreen:


With 300+ campaigns for divestment running simultaneously from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters, the student divestment movement is heating up, and fast.  Indeed as more voices join the anthem for divestment, and new faces arrive at late night general meetings, the ripples from campus efforts are quickly cresting into waves. It is with this momentum that we wrap up an exciting and record breaking semester and start thinking about how we can go out with a bang before leaving campus for the summer.
http://gofossilfree.org/ (http://gofossilfree.org/)

And THIS: :icon_mrgreen:

The Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign Has Colleges Weighing The Stakes

A new movement is seeking to shift colleges and universities away from fossil fuels and toward investments that safeguard the future of their students.
By Francesca Rheannon

“It’s wrong to profit from wrecking the planet.”

That’s what thousands of young people are saying across the U.S. who are demanding their colleges and universities strip fossil fuel investments from their endowment portfolios.

They are arguing with passion -- and a considerable amount of organizing savvy -- that the still untapped 2795 gigatons of fossil fuel reserves energy companies own must be left in the ground. Why? Because burning it will cook the planet -- raising temperatures 6 degrees Centigrade or more, three times what scientists have determined is the level needed to avert runaway climate chaos.

It’s a message that is profoundly counterintuitive to capitalist culture.

What? Leave resources unexploited, potential profits untapped? The corporate instinct screams in protest. It’s why even when energy companies try to be “green,” they undermine their own efforts. Consider Duke Energy, which holds membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, while at the same time being the third largest emitter of CO2 in the U.S. -- and in 11th place globally.

Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign Heats Up

But the kids aren’t having it, maybe because they know that they will be paying the terrible costs of burning those fossil fuels while those who burned them will be peacefully laid to rest. They are putting the issue of intergenerational equity squarely on the table.
So they’ve lit the spark on a fossil-fuel divestment campaign that is spreading like a California wildfire on campuses across the country -- and moving off campus, as well. They want their schools to divest from Duke and the other 200 publicly-traded companies that own most of the globe’s oil, coal and gas reserves. And they want them to invest in clean, renewable energy and efficiency, not only in the market, but also on campus.

The Go Fossil Free campaign was launched last Fall by the “Do The Math” tour by Bill McKibben of 350.org and others and currently counts some 300 campus groups. And it’s just started spreading to Canada.

Victories and Setbacks

The campaign reaped some early victories: three small colleges -- including top-rated Amherst College -- agreed to divest. And, in a sign of what is becoming an off-campus front in the campaign, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn pledged the city would purge its portfolio of fossil fuel stocks.

There has been pushback, as one can imagine at a time when fossil fuel stocks are performing well in the market. So far, no college with a $1 billion portfolio or greater has divested. Harvard at first huffily dismissed a student resolution (approved by a 72 percent margin) asking the university to divest its $30.7 billion endowment of fossil fuel holdings and to reinvest in socially responsible funds. Swarthmore College also demurred.
But the students were not deterred; lately their resolve has been showing results. Harvard has agreed to establish a social choice fund for donations from alums and to start talks with students about divestment. Swarthmore has also agreed to examine its portfolio from a social responsibility standpoint.

Jamie Henn, Communications Director of 350.org wrote to CSRwire in an email,
“We've actually been pleasantly surprised by how open many administrations have been to discussing fossil fuel divestment with their students. That said, it's not surprising to see some resistance to the idea: divestment is a serious step for a university to take, which is precisely why it's so powerful.”

Doing the Math on Divestment

Schools are concerned that their endowments will take a financial hit from investment, thereby shortchanging support for scholarships and other campus needs. But campaign supporters disagree. Henn thinks administrations that are actively opposing divestment probably haven't conducted a thorough and fair analysis of what it would mean for their endowments.

“When you do the math, it becomes increasingly clear that divestment doesn't necessitate financial losses, in fact, it opens the door for more creative thinking about how to maximize returns while promoting other social and educational priorities. For example, investing in a green-revolving loan fund that helps retrofit campus buildings to become more energy efficient is likely a far safer bet than investing in a coal company,” Henn wrote to CSRwire.
Research bears Henn out. Investment management firm The Aperio Group, did a study on the risk divestment posed to portfolios and found a “theoretical return penalty” of 0.0034 percent – i.e., “virtually irrelevant.”

Portfolios Risk Losses If They Don’t Divest

Evidence is mounting of the risk to portfolios of not divesting from fossil fuels. A recent market analysis from HSBC warned major oil and gas were companies were at risk of losing up to 60 percent of their value if emissions reduction targets were adhered to – when those emissions targets, the report acknowledged, were necessary to keep atmospheric CO2 below 450ppm, a level that “deliver(s) a 50 percent chance of limiting global temperature increase to 2C.”

According to Carbon Tracker:

The banking firm uses the IEA’s ‘unburnable carbon’ scenario to draw this conclusion…Applying this model finds that 17% of Statoil’s reserves would become unburnable, while 6% of BP’s reserves are at risk, 5% of Total’s and 2% of Shell’s reserves.
Where HSBC see an even bigger risk to the market capitalisation of the sector is based on the assumption that because the price of oil would fall, demand would follow suit, leading to the prediction that 40-60% of their market cap is at risk. The analysts argue that the oil market is still failing to think about a low carbon future – ‘because of its long-term nature, we doubt the market is pricing in the risk of a loss of value from this issue’.


Deutsche Bank and Standard and Poors have also published reports warning investors of risk exposure to portfolios due to climate change – and the opportunities inherent in tackling it. CSRwire recently reported that mainstream investors are increasingly convinced that sustainability offers significant returns.

Colleges Could See Substantial Benefits

And colleges may reap substantially better returns than they can get from dirty energy holding by investing in on-campus efficiency projects, as noted by Jamie Henn above. The Responsible Endowments Coalition did a study showing that “green revolving funds” that re-invest the savings from such projects can earn a median ROI of 28 percent. :o :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:
Indications are that divestment may reap a reputational return in increased college enrollments as a result of social investing – fossil fuel divesting – moves. :emthup: :icon_sunny:


The message is resonating.

Responsible Endowments Coalition’s Executive Director Dan Apfel told CSRwire that investment consultants and advisors who manage large institutions are seeing an uptick in inquiries about divesting from fossil fuels.

It doesn’t have to happen all at once, Apfel says.

Divestment could take weeks – or months. The important thing is to make investing in fossil fuels repugnant, much as investing in apartheid South Africa was in the 1970s and ‘80s.

http://www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/787-the-fossil-fuel-divestment-campaign-has-colleges-weighing-the-stakes (http://www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/787-the-fossil-fuel-divestment-campaign-has-colleges-weighing-the-stakes)

YES! When even the high class girls at Vassar start bothering Daddy Pigmen to sell fossil fuel stocks, we KNOW we are getting somewhere! :icon_mrgreen:

Vassar College Fossil Fuel Divestment Campaign

Community

Join us in asking Vassar to withdraw endowment funds from the fossil fuel industry. Like this page for updates, information, and important events! Meetings on Tuesdays from 9-10pm, Rocky 3rd floor!

https://www.facebook.com/DivestVC (https://www.facebook.com/DivestVC)

The children of the 1% are, like most of us, not stupid. However, unlike most of us, they have a LOT of influence on their predatory capitalist parents and can make life MISERABLE for the pigmen when they decide to go into world class tantrum mode.  :icon_mrgreen:

I'm glad that the college youth have seen the writing on the wall and are targeting the stocks of the planet trashers. This will work! Why? Because the pigmen can't bomb, strafe or send the CIA in to kill off or destabilize THEIR OWN CHILDREN! :emthup: :emthup: :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:


I AM BEARISH ON FOSSIL FUEL STOCKS!  :icon_mrgreen:
Title: 579 Megawatt Solar Power Plant Now Under Construction in California
Post by: agelbert on April 30, 2013, 01:35:26 PM
Largest Solar Power Plant In World Now Under Construction :sunny:
April 29, 2013 Tim Tyler

This article was originally published on Solar Love.

MidAmerican Solar and SunPower Corp. have just marked the start of the 579-Megawatt Antelope Valley Solar Projects with a community celebration.

(http://solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/development_tolusa-photo1-e1367254905768.jpg)
Image Courtesy of http://solarlove.org/midamerican-solar-and-sunpower-start-major-construction-on-worlds-largest-solar-power-development/development_tolusa-photo1/ (http://solarlove.org/midamerican-solar-and-sunpower-start-major-construction-on-worlds-largest-solar-power-development/development_tolusa-photo1/)

The huge three-year construction project is expected to employ around 650 workers and generate more than $500 million in regional economic impact.

Split into two projects located in Kern and Los Angeles counties (California), the Antelope Valley Solar Projects will be the world’s largest solar power development under construction.

Once completed, the solar projects are expected to produce enough energy to power approximately 400,000 average California homes with clean, renewable solar power.

According to Paul Caudill, president of MidAmerican Solar:

The Antelope Valley Solar Projects are already creating needed jobs and economic opportunity in local communities, while at the same time, providing direct, long-term environmental benefits. We look forward to continuing our involvement in the Rosamond, Lancaster and Palmdale communities and, as we move forward, in the surrounding areas.
MidAmerican Solar owns the Antelope Valley Solar Projects, while SunPower is designing and developing the projects and is the engineering, procurement, and construction contractor.

SunPower will also provide operations and maintenance services for the plants via a multiyear services agreement.

SunPower president Howard Wenger had this to say about the projects:

The start of construction on the Antelope Valley Solar Projects underscores that solar is a reliable, cost-competitive energy source. SunPower is proud to partner with MidAmerican Solar and Southern California Edison on this historic project, which is bringing critically needed jobs and economic opportunity to California today and will generate abundant clean, renewable power to the state over the long-term.

Southern California Edison has agreed to two long-term power purchase contracts for the Antelope Valley Solar Projects.

At the 3,230-acre site, SunPower is installing the SunPower®Oasis® Power Plant product — fully integrated, modular solar technology that is engineered to rapidly deploy utility-scale solar projects while minimizing land use. The Oasis product uses high-efficiency solar panels.

The SunPower solar panels will be mounted on SunPower® T0 Trackers to help position the panel throughout the day — by tracking the sun and increasing energy capture by up to 25%.

The electricity produced will displace approximately 775,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. That’s the equivalent of taking approximately 3 million cars off the road over the next 20 years. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

MidAmerican Solar and SunPower definitely had a lot to celebrate at the community picnic and celebration. The celebration was held at the project site west of Rosamond. Attending the community picnic were representatives from both companies.

Some of the topics discussed included the construction schedule, environmental values, technology, and community-centered plans for the future.

With more than 250 attendees, including local and state officials, the community picnic earmarked a milestone in the future development of clean, renewable energy in Antelope Valley and all across the world.:ernaehrung004:  :icon_mrgreen:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/29/largest-solar-power-plant-in-world-now-under-construction/#0GvoDfo9CW1YGQIc.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/04/29/largest-solar-power-plant-in-world-now-under-construction/#0GvoDfo9CW1YGQIc.99)
Title: New Stronger Concrete made with Less Energy by adding Seed Husks
Post by: agelbert on May 01, 2013, 04:48:30 PM
Improved Concrete Via Use Of Sunflower Seed Husks
May 1, 2013 Nathan

An improved form of concrete, made by utilizing a waste material of the agricultural industry — sunflower seed husks — has been created by researchers at the Namik Kemal University in Turkey.

(http://[url=http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/04/image17.jpg]http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/04/image17.jpg[/url])
Image Credit: Sunflower Seeds via Shutterstock

The husks are a waste product of the vegetable oil and food industry, and are produced in enormous quantities, so any potential use for them would be a big plus with regards to waste reduction.

The improvements are related to fact that through the use of the sunflower seed husks, the density of the concrete is reduced while at the same time improving “the material’s resistance to cracking after exposure to icy then thawing conditions.”

The press release continues:

The accumulation of unmanaged wastes from the food industry, particularly in developing countries is becoming increasingly problematic. As such, researchers are hoping to find new applications for such waste in the creation of environmentally friendly materials and composites in the road-building and construction industries for instance. This is particularly pertinent given the rising cost and chronic shortages of conventional materials. Engineers are thus being challenged to convert industrial wastes to replacements for certain materials.
Concrete is perhaps one of the most energy and resource intensive materials and researchers have investigated and applied waste rubber, glass powder and paper waste sludge as alternative fillers and bulking agents. The addition of such materials can affect significantly the properties of concrete altering its strength, density and water resistance detrimentally in some instances.

The team has turned to the sunflower seed and more specifically its inedible husk as a possible alternative material for concrete. Turkey is the ninth largest sunflower producer in the world, generating almost a million tonnes of product from 584000 hectares, the bulk of which is used in the manufacture of sunflower oil in the Thrace region. The by-product is approximately 300000 tonnes of fibrous seed husk. The team has therefore experimented with different formulations of seed husk in a concrete mix.

Among the formulations developed by the researchers are some that are very well suited for certain construction uses — specifically, in the construction of the large, typically one-story high agricultural buildings that are ubiquitous in the region. These buildings don’t require the level of load bearing support that conventional concrete provides, and would be very well suited to the use of cheaper forms made with materials that would otherwise end up in landfills.

The new technology was detailed in a paper just published in the International Journal of Environment and Waste Management.

 http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/01/improved-concrete-via-use-of-sunflower-seed-husks/#gWQrhIj5l7vpeoBw.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/01/improved-concrete-via-use-of-sunflower-seed-husks/#gWQrhIj5l7vpeoBw.99)

It was many years ago but I have personally seen HUGE Sunflower fields in Kansas. The Sunflower is the Kansas state flower and they grow a LOT of these amazing and beautiful sun tracking plants.
Kansas should jump on this with both feet. Whether they will or not is another matter. Can proud, ethnocentric Jayhawkers learn from Turks? If it's a scientist to scientist exchange, yes. Otherwise, NO.
Title: Why Climate Change is really a Waste Based Society Problem
Post by: agelbert on May 01, 2013, 04:54:38 PM
Why climate change is not an environmental problem

http://www.youtube.com/v/ELMXJts5qic#&fs=1
http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-climate-change-is-not-an-environmental-problem-the-video/? (http://grist.org/climate-energy/why-climate-change-is-not-an-environmental-problem-the-video/?)
Title: Solar–Wind Hybrid Power Plants Approximately Twice As Efficient
Post by: agelbert on May 02, 2013, 10:56:23 AM
Solar–Wind Hybrid Power Plants Approximately Twice As Efficient

May 1, 2013 Tim Tyler

This article originally appeared on Solar Love.

A new study by the Reiner Lemoine Institut and Solarpraxis AG has found that solar and wind power generation complement each other better than previously thought.

(http://solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/turbine-with-solar-array_l-e1366768328763.jpg)
turbine with solar array
Photo Credit: taryn_* / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

The study examined the surface area where solar photovoltaic systems and wind turbines were installed together. In that same surface area, twice the amount of electricity was being generated, and the shading produced by the wind turbines accounted for a mere 1 to 2% loss in the photovoltaic system — which is much less than previously thought would be the case.

One of the strong benefits is the construction of these types of power plants do not require grid expansion since the plants generate wind and solar power at different intervals and during complementary seasons. This helps ensure that the level of energy being fed into the grid is more steady than that of wind or photovoltaic power plants alone.

“Until now, it was thought that the shadows cast on solar plants by wind turbines led to high yield losses. The study shows, however, that these shading losses are much lower than expected, provided the hybrid power plant is well designed,” said Alexander Woitas, head of the engineering department at Solarpraxis AG, parent company of pv-magazine.com.
In the study, they also calculated what effects combining photovoltaic and wind power plants will have on power grids on both a global and regional level.

The bottom line is: solar power plants generate more solar power in the summer, while wind turbines generally produce a lot more electricity during the colder parts of the year — this balances out the overall supply to the grid and keeps it more stable throughout the year. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :sunny:

To continue the research, a photovoltaic system will be retrofitted with wind turbines in Templin (near Berlin). The pilot plant will be analyzed by Solarpraxis, the Reiner Lemoine Institut, and project partners. The data will be used for feasibility studies of future integration between wind and solar power. This is all part of the German government’s Zwanzig20 research initiative.

 http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/01/solar-wind-hybrid-power-plants-approximately-twice-as-efficient/#AsawFVcYBXWWVqhb.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/01/solar-wind-hybrid-power-plants-approximately-twice-as-efficient/#AsawFVcYBXWWVqhb.99)

Title: The Missing Link To Renewable Energy
Post by: agelbert on May 02, 2013, 05:55:01 PM
This MIT professor/inventor has proven the FOLLY of "conventional wisdom" in battery design, operating temperature and size limits.  :icon_mrgreen:

This battery is going to revolutionize grid level energy storage and cause renewable BASE LOAD energy to displace coal, nuclear AND all other utility level fossil fuels! These batteries can be made in HUGE megawatt capacity sizes economically (i.e. Dirt Cheap because they are made mostly out of DIRT! :icon_mrgreen:):emthup:


The Liquid Metal Battery :icon_sunny:
From Ted Talks:

"What's the key to using alternative energy, like solar and wind? Storage -- so we can have power on tap even when the sun's not out and the wind's not blowing. In this accessible, inspiring talk, Donald Sadoway takes to the blackboard to show us the future of large-scale batteries that store renewable energy. As he says: "We need to think about the problem differently. We need to think big. We need to think cheap."

Today there is no battery technology capable of meeting the demanding performance requirements of the grid: uncommonly high power, long service lifetime, and super low cost.

Don Sadoway and his team sought to make a battery out of earth elements. Preferably locally sourced dirt! Here is the inside story of the liquid metal battery.

--Bibi Farber

This video was produced by Ted Talks

http://www.youtube.com/v/Sddb0Khx0yA#&fs=1
Title: Wisconsin Wins Coal Battle, Loses Energy War
Post by: agelbert on May 03, 2013, 07:04:44 PM
Wisconsin Wins Coal Battle, Loses Energy War

May 3, 2013 Tina Casey

Despite its abundant wind resources, Wisconsin has been clinging with affection to coal for electrical power generation, but it looks like the bloom is off the rose. A new report identifies Wisconsin’s coal dependency as a significant drag on the state’s economy, and urges a greater effort to diversify into renewable energy sources.

File that one away under “o” for oopsies, since it was just a couple of years ago that Republican legislators in Wisconsin struck a blow against the state’s budding wind industry, which has been withering in Wisconsin while blossoming elsewhere in heartland states.
(http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/05/wisconsin-coal.jpg)
Wisconsin coal terminal by Beige Alert

The Wisconsin Coal Report

Titled “How to Keep Wisconsin and the U.S. Competitive in a Changing Energy World,” the new report was authored by University of Wisconsin researcher Gary Radloff with graduate research assistant Shashi Dhungel.

Let’s note for the record that Radloff is well known for his extensive experience in the bioenergy sector, and Dhungel’s current area of focus is sustainable supply chain models, so a coal-friendly conclusion is hardly to be expected.

However, there’s no arguing with the basics of the situation, which is that Wisconsin’s coal dependency is catching up with it. In the coming years, ratepayers will be forced to absorb hundreds of millions of dollars in pollution control upgrades for outdated coal power plants, and the state lacks a vibrant renewable energy sector to step in when obsolete coal-fired power plants are decommissioned.

The report describes the problem as “coal lock-in:”
“…long term investments in existing high carbon energy technologies and the infrastructure to support them, such as large base load plants and electrical grids, create so-called carbon lock-in or coal lock-in. Wisconsin now has coal energy price lock-in resulting from high capital costs and long assets life spans from these energy investments.”

The numbers tell the tale: according to the report, the cost of coal for base load plants could increase 6 percent annually over the next ten years, continuing a long term rising trend that dates back to 2000.

As for the availability of abundant supplies of relatively cheap shale oil and natural gas, the export market and the looming threat of stricter pollution and land use regulations make an eventual rise all but inevitable.

Other States Say “Carpe Diem” To Wind Power

While Wisconsin wallows in coal like a dinosaur stuck in a tar pit, :( other states are eagerly adopting wind power as their ticket to economic growth. :icon_mrgreen:

One notable example is Texas, which expects to double its intrastate wind power transmission with a $7 billion project to bring wind power from remote areas of the state to Dallas and other big cities. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Kansas is showing how states can leverage renewable resources to bring more dollars in. The planned Grain Belt Express interstate transmission line will bring Kansas wind power to points East, hopefully in time to beat the competition from offshore wind power from eastern seaboard states through the Atlantic Wind Consortium. :emthup:

As one final example, let’s take the case of a Missouri wind farm, which is enabling farmers to squeeze more value out of their property while plowing new revenues into the local tax base for schools, roads and other civic infrastructure. :emthup:

Whither Wisconsin

Perhaps Wisconsin is now looking back with regret on its actions right around this time two years ago, when the Republican-led legislature abruptly halted a long term project to streamline the state’s rules for siting wind farms.

The resulting uncertainty reduced Wisconsin’s once-thriving wind industry to a trickle (and you can’t throw the blame on last year’s uncertainty over the federal wind tax credit, since the wind sector in comparable states has been roaring along).

In any case, there are at least two well known Kansans who are probably having a nice chuckle over difference between Wisconsin’s travails and the emerging wind energy profile in Kansas, those being Charles and David Koch, owners of Koch Industries and its coal trading and transportation company, Koch Carbon, of which one subsidiary is the coal power plant supplier C. Reiss Coal Company. :evil4:

 http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/03/wisconsin-coal-dependency-could-cost-state-in-long-run/#V3IGvbSDqhbiA1gK.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/03/wisconsin-coal-dependency-could-cost-state-in-long-run/#V3IGvbSDqhbiA1gK.99)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: roamer on May 03, 2013, 07:35:01 PM
Wisconsin has had a ridiculous track record for wind indeed.  It turned down bankable wind projects (ones that had the wind and capacity factors to economically justify) on account of they are too ugly.....I believe they passed a no new wind turbine within a mile of a house or some such outrageous number.  Plenty of embedded coal projects indeed, they are the too big to fails of the energy world.

What wisconsin has though are cheeseheads that like to drink beer, cut wood, and burn wood, best of all the land likes to grow wood.  Therefore the solution for my home state energy problems are simple,  open source combined power and heat wood gasifier gensets http://www.gekgasifier.com/products/product-overview (http://www.gekgasifier.com/products/product-overview) for every neighborhood.  Stay under net meter limit of 20kW backfeed for modest profit, use waste heat for hot water and home heat and generate energy via biomass.
Seriously wisconsin could sustainably average 1000 lbs biomass per acre statewide at roughly ~5000BTU/lb and conversion efficiency of 12000 BTU/KWhr means the state could average 416 kWhr per acre/year in electrical production, with 42 x10^6 acres in wisconsin we cut max out at say 17.6X10^6 kWhrs of production which is short of our 62x10^6 current consumption but still a pretty a sizeable amount of capability. 
Title: Roamer said,
Post by: agelbert on May 04, 2013, 09:50:03 AM
Roamer,
Well said! I put the "All Power Labs" in my favorites energy category. That  Gasifier Experimenters Kit (GEK) looks like it would be a lot of fun to work with. :emthup:  :emthup: :emthup:

Here in Vermont there is an outfit making pellets and pellet stoves are displacing heating oil and kerosene fired furnaces mainly because people are sick and tired of price spikes. Wood pellets are fully renewable and NOT subject to "convenient" price hikes in the cold months.

And speaking of cheeseheads, Wisconsin, with all its cows, is letting all those cow methane farts go to waste! I've been reading your posts about cows and I thought I'd pass along to you what GMP (Green Mountain Power) is doing here in Vermont. They call it "Cow Power" and provide a methane harvester to dairy farmers. GMP customers can opt in to this renewable energy source that lowers costs on dairy farms, as well as lowering the amount of fossil and nuclear used on the grid, by paying a little extra for "cow power" renewable energy.

From the GMP web site:
Quote
About Cow Power

Cows may be heating your home.
 
Cow Poop to Cow Power – a new way to power Vermont.

One cow produces over 30 gallons of manure a day. Now, multiply that by 1,000, the number of cows on a typical Cow Power farm. That’s a lot of cow poop. Which, interestingly enough, means that’s also a lot of methane. And methane can be used to create electricity. And thus, we present to you, GMP Cow Power.

GMP customers who want to support renewable energy AND Vermont dairy farms can do both through GMP Cow Power. By opting into the program, you help Vermont dairy farmers purchase generators that run on methane from cow manure, increase renewable energy generated in the region, and provide incentives for farmers to get into the business of producing Cow Power.

http://www.greenmountainpower.com/renewable/ (http://www.greenmountainpower.com/renewable/)

Also, I've got a post on "low flow" hydro turbines coming up next with some off the wall thoughts of my own at the end. Since you are the engineer, I would welcome you picking out the weak points in my logic.  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

Title: Hydropower from lower water levels to boost renewable energy production
Post by: agelbert on May 04, 2013, 10:04:51 AM
This is an excerpt from EERE Network News, a weekly electronic newsletter.

Report Assesses Potential U.S. Hydropower Upgrades
May 01, 2013

The Energy Department on April 22 announced a new study outlining key improvements that can be made to hydropower production in the United States to provide more efficient and cost-effective electricity to homes and businesses. Developed with funding from the Energy Department, the Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) report, "Quantifying the Value of Hydropower in the Electric Grid," identifies and assesses the quantifiable benefits from potential improvements. The report cites potential upgrades such as installing turbines that can operate with lower water levels, utilizing new power plant designs that can increase revenue and efficiency, and monetizing the services hydropower provides to the nation's electric grid.

Hydropower supplies about 7% of U.S. electricity generation and is currently the nation's largest source of renewable electricity. Hydropower is widely valued for the ancillary services, or flexibility, it provides to the power grid—allowing storage capabilities, enabling fast stops and starts, and responding rapidly to imbalances of supply and demand to maintain power system stability. For example, pumped storage hydropower plants can pump water uphill when electricity supply exceeds demand, such as during nighttime hours or times when renewable energy sources are generating more power than consumers are using. This ability to store energy until it is needed—and to absorb excess renewable energy generation—lowers electricity prices and enables the generation of more renewable electricity.

The researchers looked at improvements that could boost the efficiency and output of hydropower plants and at pumped storage hydropower systems, particularly in their potential to be integrated with variable renewable sources such as wind and solar power. According to the report, hydropower plants could see their largest revenue and efficiency increases by deploying new hydropower technologies, making operational improvements, utilizing hydropower's flexibility more in grid resource planning, and monetizing the energy storage capability of pumped storage. Among the key findings from the report: relying more heavily on hydropower to address changes in electricity supply and demand could provide more flexible reserve power options and reduce wear and tear on conventional thermal-generating equipment; and expanding the effective operating range of hydropower units by reducing the minimum amount of water needed to use the turbines stably can increase the production value of plants by 60%. EPRI also published nine accompanying case studies and supplemental reports that discuss the elements covered in the final report in greater detail. See the Energy Department Progress Alert and the complete report  .

Link to PDF complete report here:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19259 (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19259)

I am enthusiastic about this hydropower development because when the turbines can effectively extend their operating range to "low flow" conditions, the possibility of generating renewable energy at MANY points on a river are possible WITHOUT the harm to aquatic life that dams inflict. In other words, a plethora of generation facilities WITHOUT dams would be great for renewable energy and increase reliability through decentralization. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

And there is another plus to hydro that wind doesn't have; the current and voltage produced is nearly constant per turbine. There is some obvious economy built in because the voltage regulation electronics does not have to have a large range.

It's not beyond the range of possibilities here for a tiny version of these massive "low flow" turbines being manufactured so farms or ranches with a large water tank can pump water up to the tank from wind power (no voltage regulation required on wind driven mechanical water pumps) in a variety of wind conditions. The turbine would provide reliable, voltage spike free, electricity by transferring water from a large high tank to a large underground tank (of course if you live by a river the tanks are unnecessary but most people don't have river access). Why not? If it's a closed system, you just need enough wind to keep some water in the top tank at all times. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

Finally, having a large amount of water stored is a prudent measure for our times irregardless of its potential as a "giant battery" to store renewable wind energy. What's not to like? :icon_mrgreen:


Title: This is our Energy Reality
Post by: agelbert on May 06, 2013, 11:33:00 AM
http://www.youtube.com/v/exXqrzhozRI#&fs=1
Title: We are running out of time
Post by: agelbert on May 07, 2013, 11:35:28 AM
(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/time.jpg)
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/our-hourglass/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/our-hourglass/)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: widgeon on May 07, 2013, 02:21:03 PM
Those must be methane hydrates in the top of the glass, eh?
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on May 07, 2013, 03:01:15 PM
Widgeon;
Could be...
Title: Solar, Wind, & Geothermal Help Hawaii Reach Renewable Goals Ahead Of Schedule
Post by: agelbert on May 07, 2013, 03:12:05 PM

Solar, Wind, & Geothermal Help Hawaii Reach Renewable Goals Ahead Of Schedule :multiplespotting:

May 7, 2013 Scott Cooney

America’s most fossil fuel dependent state has made great strides since laying out a statewide sustainability plan known as Hawaii 2050. The state acknowledged its challenges: 90% of food imported, greater than 90% of energy derived from burning imported oil in large scale generators, and a solid waste challenge highlighted by extremely limited landfill space and a tourism-based economy that thrives on throwaway goods. To address the energy challenge, the state and its citizens have implemented a number of initiatives encouraging more renewables, including feed-in tariffs and strong incentives for solar hot water, solar PV, and electric vehicles.

(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/shutterstock_121725460.jpg)
Wind farm on the windward hills of Maui
Image Credit: Wind turbines above the coastline in Maui, Hawaii 
via Shutterstock


All good initiatives, but arguably the strongest factor is the cost of electricity. Hawaii has already passed grid parity for rooftop solar installations, and even small energy efficiency gains can help businesses and homeowners save thousands on utility costs. The investment landscape is strong enough to attract energy accelerators , and Hawaii has ranked in the top 2 or 3 states in solar for each of the last few years.

Signs of progress are clear: Hawaii has increased its geothermal capacity to 38 MW , and new wind power developments on Maui have brought that island’s total wind capacity to 72 MW. Oahu has a new wind farm on the north shore at Kawailoa (69 MW), and despite a bit of a stumble, the nearby 30 MW Kahuku wind farm is on schedule to be back at full capacity by year’s end.

Oahu has also increased the size of its waste-to-energy plant from 46 to 72 MW (I know what you’re thinking…but what else are we going to do with all that plastic trash that tourists use? This one’s admittedly a mixed bag at best, but I’m choosing to focus on the positive).

With a few utility-scale solar installations in the works and a new biofuel power plant in operation on Oahu, it’s clear here on the ground that it is full speed ahead on renewables. :emthup: :icon_sunny:
We’ll achieve our 15% renewable energy goal by the end of 2013, two years ahead of schedule. :icon_mrgreen:


Want to learn more about island economies and sustainability? Learn by playing the sustainability game GBO Hawaii,  invented and developed by yours truly, who lives and breathes sustainability in Hawaii (see bio below). 

Scott Cooney (twitter: scottcooney)  is an adjunct professor Sustainability in the MBA program at the University of Hawai'i, green business startup coach , author of Build a Green Small Business: Profitable Ways to Become an Ecopreneur  (McGraw-Hill), and developer of the sustainability board game GBO Hawai'i.  As a serial eco-entrepreneur who has started, grown and sold multiple green businesses, Scott believes that capitalism, true capitalism, can be a powerful force for change, but that our current version of capitalism is severely hampered by perverse subsidies and negative externalities that make unsustainable products less expensive than healthier alternatives. Scott is a vegetarian, an avid cyclist, and an organic gardener. Find Scott on Google Plus

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/solar-wind-geothermalhawaii-reaching-renewable-portfolio-goals-2-years-ahead-schedule/#B8fiojxQsvbRkggp.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/solar-wind-geothermalhawaii-reaching-renewable-portfolio-goals-2-years-ahead-schedule/#B8fiojxQsvbRkggp.99)
Title: Fossil fuels, Nuclear power plant electricity, Brooklyin Bridges and Used Cars
Post by: agelbert on May 07, 2013, 04:18:51 PM
Fossil fuels are "CHEAP", have a "HIGH EROEI", nuclear fuels are "too cheap to meter" and I sell bridges in Brooklyn and used cars on the side! :evil6:

Title: 127 MW Solar Power Plant Opened in Arizona
Post by: agelbert on May 07, 2013, 04:22:42 PM

127 MW Solar Power Plant Opened in Arizona :eusa_clap:

May 7, 2013 Zachary Shahan
(http://i1.wp.com/solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/kyocera-solar-power-plant.jpg)
Kyocera Solar Power Plant
(http://i1.wp.com/solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/kyocera-solar.jpg)
Kyocera Solar Power Plant

A massive, 127-megawatt solar power installation was officially opened in Arizona last week. Block 1 (of 5) of the Arlington Valley Solar Energy II (AV Solar II) utility-scale installation is located in Maricopa County in southwest Arizona on about 1,160 acres of land. The rest of the power plant / solar farm will be completed by the fourth quarter of 2013 — one of the beauties of solar power plants is the speed at which they can go up.

Kyocera, one of the world’s biggest solar module manufacturers, has supplied 25 MW of solar panels for the project.
(http://i2.wp.com/solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/kyocera-groundbreaking.jpg)
“Today’s opening of the AV Solar II mega-installation marks a major milestone in Kyocera’s four decades of manufacturing high-quality, long-lasting solar modules,” said Steve Hill, president of Kyocera Solar Inc. “We’re proud to provide U.S.-made products to this utility-scale installation, which adds to the mega-installations around the world showcasing Kyocera’s unrivaled solar solutions including a 204MW project in Thailand and a 70MW installation in Kagoshima, Japan.”

Kyocera is a Kyoto-based company. However, it has US headquarters in Arizona.
This article was originally published on Solar Love as: 127-Megawatt Utility-Scale Solar Installation Opens In Arizona.

 http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/127-mw-solar-power-plant-opened-in-arizona/#c3h41lJiAzxpsj4S.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/127-mw-solar-power-plant-opened-in-arizona/#c3h41lJiAzxpsj4S.99)
Title: UK Renewable Energy Growth In 2012
Post by: agelbert on May 07, 2013, 04:26:21 PM
UK Renewable Energy Growth In 2012

May 7, 2013 Zachary Shahan

The UK certainly isn’t in the limelight for its solar leadership like Germany, Italy, Spain, and Australia are. But, despite some clear ups and downs (and mistakes), it is progressing pretty well. In 2012, 11.3% of the country’s electricity came from renewables, compared to 9.4% in 2011. In Q4, the share rose to 12.5%. Overall, renewable electricity generation increased 20% — from 34.4 TWh in 2011 to 41.1 TWh in 2012 — and capacity increased 26% — from 12.3 GW to 15.5 GW.

(http://i0.wp.com/solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/renewable-energy-capacity-uk.png)
Renewable Energy Capacity UK

Offshore wind energy contributed the largest absolute increase amongst renewable energy sources. It saw a 46% year-over-year rise — from 5.1 TWh to 7.5 TWh.

Bioenergy (landfill gas, sewage gas, municipal solid waste, plant biomass, animal biomass, and generation from co-firing) was close behind with its increase, a 17% increase from 13 TWh in 2011 to 15.2 TWh in 2012.

Onshore wind increased 15% — from 10.4 TWh to 11.9 TWh.

Meanwhile, hydroelectricity dropped 8.1% — from 5.7 TWh to 5.2 TWh.

Solar PV increased over 526% — from 0.252 TWh to 1.327 TWh — but it still only accounted for 3.2% of renewable energy generation.

Full story with additional graphics here:  http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/uk-renewable-energy-growth-in-2012/#h2Wb4utoLg2QHi5d.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/uk-renewable-energy-growth-in-2012/#h2Wb4utoLg2QHi5d.99)
Title: Re: Fossil fuels, Nuclear power plant electricity, Brooklyin Bridges and Used Cars
Post by: Surly1 on May 08, 2013, 02:56:29 AM
Fossil fuels are "CHEAP", have a "HIGH EROEI", nuclear fuels are "too cheap to meter" and I sell bridges in Brooklyn and used cars on the side! :evil6:


Got a source for thsi graphic AG?

If a picture is worth ten thousand words . . . that is worth many more. Have never seen the case made so clearly and simply.
Title: Re: Fossil fuels, Nuclear power plant electricity, Brooklyin Bridges and Used Cars
Post by: RE on May 08, 2013, 03:08:33 AM

Got a source for thsi graphic AG?

If a picture is worth ten thousand words . . . that is worth many more. Have never seen the case made so clearly and simply.

I sourced it.  Comes from Clean Technica (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/oil-subsidies-natural-gas-subsidies/).

RE
Title: Surly & RE said
Post by: agelbert on May 08, 2013, 10:49:05 AM
Quote
Surly said,
If a picture is worth ten thousand words . . . that is worth many more. Have never seen the case made so clearly and simply.

RE answered,
I sourced it. Comes from Clean Technica.

Thanks RE.  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:

Surly,
I have a small confession to make. (http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif)  I added the "too cheap to meter" and "High EROEI" print along with WTF!?  :icon_mrgreen: It is factual and accurate to equate the two claims as part of a deliberate con to make those poisonous technologies appealing to WE-THE-PEOPLE. The $$$ subsidiy numbers are bona fide.

I'll dig up the whole story with more graphs and "fun" details from the Union of concerned Scientists about how "versatile" hydrocarbons are in finding new and imaginative ways to make people sick and post it on my news channel.

If you find it convincing enough, you may want to send it the the Diner FB page. People need to have their noses rubbed in this every now and then in order to stop lamenting the coming demise of Big Oil and, instead, START LOOKING FORWARD TO IT!  :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

I just LOVE to expose Big Boyz Mendacity, Propaganda and Too-clever-by-a-half BULLSHIT! :laughing4:   :laughing8:    :laughing9:
Title: 54% Of Spain’s Electricity Generation In April From Renewables!
Post by: agelbert on May 08, 2013, 10:58:29 AM
And Big Oil  :angry1: :angry2: :angry3: yells AR-R-R-R-GH! :angry4:  :angry5: :BangHead: 

54% Of Spain’s Electricity Generation In April From Renewables :multiplespotting:

May 8, 2013 Adam Johnston
Spanish Electricity generation from renewables in April set a new record, beating March’s previous record.

PV Magazine notes renewables accounted for 54% of the country’s electricity generation in April, outpacing last month’s total of 51.8%.

(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/Spain-Wind-turbine.jpg)
Image Credit: Wind turbines in Andalusia, Spain via Shutterstock

Spanish hydropower made up 25% of April’s overall electricity generation. Meanwhile, wind power was second with 22%. Solar photovoltaic energy provided 3.6%, and solar thermal energy had 1.3%, based on Red Electrica De Espana (REE) data.

While it’s still only the month of May, if the current pattern continues to hold, electricity demand coming from renewable sources may very well surpass recent years in the country.
In 2006, renewable energy in Spain accounted for 19% of the electricity generated. In seven years, those numbers have grown, reaching a peak of 35% in 2010, while keeping steady around the 33%-32% mark in 2011 and 2012.

Gazing ahead, with Spain marching towards a sustainable energy mix, wind and solar will need to lead the way. Last year, wind power provided 18.2% of Spain’s energy, while solar photovoltaic 3.0% and solar thermal 1.3% of total demand, according to REE.

Last February, wind power set a record for being the number one energy in the country’s energy mix, with 6 terawatt-hours (TWh) in January. Spain is targeting wind energy to supply 40% of the electricity consumption by 2020. Meanwhile, solar energy in Spain has lots of further potential. For example, Extremadura in western Spain, which is blessed with 3,200 hours of sunshine annually, recently announced a new 250 MW unsubsidized solar plant. Once built, the project is expected to be the third largest solar PV plant in the world, at a cost of €270 million.

Analysts may very well look back at 2013 in Spain as the year where renewable energy consistently supplied the nation with over half of its energy. That’s something to get excited about within the cleantech and environmental community.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/08/fifty-four-of-spains-electricity-generation-in-april-from-renewables/#LKm9f0WgBDbkPzsq.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/08/fifty-four-of-spains-electricity-generation-in-april-from-renewables/#LKm9f0WgBDbkPzsq.99)

Title: Re: Surly & RE said
Post by: Surly1 on May 08, 2013, 11:01:16 AM

I'll dig up the whole story with more graphs and "fun" details from the Union of concerned Scientists about how "versatile" hydrocarbons are in finding new and imaginative ways to make people sick and post it on my news channel.

If you find it convincing enough, you may want to send it the the Diner FB page. People need to have their noses rubbed in this every now and then in order to stop lamenting the coming demise of Big Oil and, instead, START LOOKING FORWARD TO IT!  :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

 I posted the chart and the article based on the link RE pulled. Will happily post anything else along these lines you put here.

Thanx, gents.
Title: Hi-Tech Spit And Polish Improves Solar Cell Efficiency
Post by: agelbert on May 08, 2013, 11:02:51 AM
Hi-Tech Spit And Polish Improves Solar Cell Efficiency  :emthup:

May 7, 2013 Tina Casey

Along with the well-known enemies of solar cell efficiency such as dust and pollen, a known unknown recently popped up when researchers began to realize that traces of residue left over from the manufacturing process can reduce the efficiency of solar cells, long before they are exposed to the harsh realities of the outdoor environment. Well, it looks like we can take the “unknown” out of the equation, as researchers from Argonne National Laboratory have just announced that they have nailed the culprit.

(http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/05/solar-cell-efficiency.jpg)
Wash Me Now by badjonni.

Solar Power Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels  :icon_mrgreen: :sunny:

The residue issue involves organic photovoltaics (OPVs), a next generation class of solar cells that can be made from cheap, abundant materials. In contrast to silicon, which is a metalloid, OPVs are based on organic polymers, aka plastic.
Although OPVs are less efficient at converting sunlight than silicon, the low cost of the materials partly offsets that factor.

Another offsetting factor is the manufacturing process for OPVs, which is far cheaper than fabricating silicon solar cells. Generally, OPVs can be applied to any flexible, lightweight substrate using standard, high-volume manufacturing processes such as spray-painting or roll-to-roll fabrication.

A third factor is the range of applications that OPVs can have in terms of building integrated solar power, including transparent solar cells that can replace window glass.
Despite all these advantages, the relatively low conversion efficiency of OPVs is still a stumbling block, and in order to keep costs trending downward researchers need to pack greater efficiency into a smaller space, making a solution to the residue issue all the more imperative.

A Key To Solar Cell Efficiency

One step in the right direction occurred when researchers realized that there was actually an OPV residue issue; namely, that nanoscale bits of the catalyst used in the manufacturing process (typically the metal palladium) were probably left in the finished product.
That would reduce efficiency by trapping some of the electric charge generated by the solar cell, and to make matters worse, it also creates a note of uncertainty in commercial solar cell performance, since the amount of residue would be expected to vary from one batch to another.

That made identifying the residue all the more imperative, but for a while researchers were at a loss to find equipment delicate and detailed enough to do the job.
The breakthrough came when a research team guided by Seth Darling of Argonne National Laboratory hit upon the idea of setting the lab’s Advanced Photon Source (APS) loose on the problem.

APS, which has been undergoing an eight-year upgrade project, is billed as the provider of the “brightest storage ring-generated x-ray beams in the Western Hemisphere.”
As described by Argonne writer Jared Sagoff, Darling’s team used high-intensity X-rays from APS to create a fluorescent effect, similar to the way that crime scene investigators use fluorescent equipment to sweep a dark room for mystery liquids and other substances.
With the evidence gleaned from APS, the team identified and quantified traces of a catalyst used during the manufacturing process (that would be the aforementioned metal, palladium).

We Built This! :icon_sunny:

This discovery is no laboratory hothouse flower. According to Sagoff, the photovoltaic industry is already beginning to make chemical and process adjustments to help reduce residue, in advance of new developments that could prevent it altogether.

So, fellow taxpayers, let’s all pat ourselves on the back for funding yet another shared public research facility[size-12pt] that would be impossible to build with private sector dollars,[/size] but which directly benefits U.S. companies and improves their prospects for competing in global markets.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/residue-the-key-to-improved-solar-cell-efficiency-for-opvs/#l6OBtLERrywdUGu7.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/residue-the-key-to-improved-solar-cell-efficiency-for-opvs/#l6OBtLERrywdUGu7.99)
Title: Largest Solar PV Facility In California Opens
Post by: agelbert on May 08, 2013, 11:07:09 AM
Largest Solar PV Facility In California Opens :sunny:

May 7, 2013 Important Media Cross-Post

(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/NRG-Solar-NC-NY.jpg)

I don’t think a day goes by when there isn’t another record broken in the solar industry. Here’s one of the latest, courtesy sister site Green Building Elements and Business Wire: NRG Energy, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary NRG Solar, announced that it will commemorate the opening of the Alpine Solar Generating Facility in Lancaster, Calif., at a ribbon-cutting event [late last week]. The 66 megawatt (AC) Alpine solar photovoltaic facility, which started commercial operations earlier this …

Read More http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/largest-solar-pv-facility-in-california-opens/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/07/largest-solar-pv-facility-in-california-opens/)
Title: Solar — A Disruptive Technology
Post by: agelbert on May 08, 2013, 03:51:16 PM
(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/disruptive-solar.png)

Solar — A Disruptive Technology (Graph) :sunny:
May 6, 2013 Zachary Shahan
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/06/solar-a-disruptive-technology-graph/#4v1VXoYOrAOfC4pp.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/06/solar-a-disruptive-technology-graph/#4v1VXoYOrAOfC4pp.99)


Title: The US DoD is one of the largest single consumers of energy in the world
Post by: agelbert on May 09, 2013, 03:51:23 PM
Before reading the article on the U.S. Army and Renewable power, please read this:

Energy usage of the United States military

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Solar panels were installed in 2011 on the roof of Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Headquarters, San Diego. The rooftop photovoltaic installation supports the Department of Defense's goal of increasing renewable energy sources to 25 percent of all energy consumed by the year 2025.

The United States Department of Defense is one of the largest single consumers of energy in the world, responsible for 93% of all US government fuel consumption in 2007 (Air Force: 52%; Navy: 33%; Army: 7%. Other DoD: 1%).[1]

In FY 2006, the DoD used almost 30,000 gigawatt hours (GWH) of electricity, at a cost of almost $2.2 billion. The DoD's electricity use would supply enough electricity to power more than 2.6 million average American homes.

In electricity consumption, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 58th in the world, using slightly less than Denmark and slightly more than Syria (CIA World Factbook, 2006).[1]

The Department of Defense uses 4,600,000,000 US gallons (1.7×1010 L) of fuel annually, an average of 12,600,000 US gallons (48,000,000 L) of fuel per day.

A large Army division may use about 6,000 US gallons (23,000 L) per day. According to the 2005 CIA World Factbook, if it were a country, the DoD would rank 34th in the world in average daily oil use, coming in just behind Iraq and just ahead of Sweden.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military)

What do you suppose happens to the leverage Big Oil has on our military when said military doesn't need OIL? And what happens to the MOTIVE for resource wars when the MILITARY doesn't need OIL?
Exactly... POOF! goes the leverage and the resource wars motive. That is why the following story is great news for peace loving people and supporters of renewable energy and AWFUL news for Big Oil.
(http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif) :icon_mrgreen:

Army Steamrolls $7 Billion In Renewable Energy Projects, Sequester Or No Sequester  :sunny:

May 9, 2013 Tina Casey

The U.S. Army has just launched the first in a series of renewable energy contracts that will eventually total $7 billion by the end of this year, using power purchase agreements along with a standard procurement tool that is expected to crush any obstacles that are put in its path. That includes the notorious budget sequester as well as any objections from the anti-renewable energy crowd in Congress, which has already used the budget as an excuse to sink the Navy’s biofuel initiatives. So, let’s see what kind of firepower the Army has on its side.

The Army Renewable Energy Initiative

The Navy biofuel program really has attracted a lot of negativity from certain legislators over the past couple of years, but as far as renewable energy goes, the Navy has a fairly modest outlook compared to the Army’s Net Zero Vision.

Army Net Zero is just what it says – a net zero plan for energy, water and waste at Army facilities – but it goes far beyond that to embrace environmental stewardship and community health as essential elements of national defense.

That holistic perspective is reinforced by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Take a look at the USACE Earth Day statement from a couple of years ago:

“For those of us who are part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it’s one more day in our journey toward ensuring that our actions are sustainable and that we are the very best stewards we can be of this country, of this planet…We are the nation’s environmental engineer. No other federal agency is addressing environmental issues of the same scope and magnitude as we are…”

Keeping that in mind, in 2011 the Army established the Energy Initiatives Task Force to streamline the process for getting utility-scale renewable energy in the pipeline for construction on its bases, the idea being that hyper-local energy sourcing is more secure than relying on a far-flung grid. With a team of specialists on the job, individual base commanders don’t have to reinvent the wheel for each new project.

In support of the Task Force, last summer USACE issued a request for proposals for $7 billion in renewable energy projects that would be constructed by private companies under power purchase agreements, in which the Army (aka us taxpayers) pays no up-front costs. Under these agreements the renewable energy facility is built on Army property but is owned, operated and maintained by its developers, which sell the power it generates to the Army at an agreed-upon price.

$7 Billion In Renewable Energy Projects

The means for arranging all this is the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract instrument, which the General Services Administration commonly uses to “help streamline the contract process and speed service delivery” when it can’t quantify the goods or services it will need during a specified period of time, other than to establish a minimum.

Typically, this instrument is used for architecture and engineering services, and apparently its deployment for building utility-scale renewable energy projects under power purchase agreements on Army bases is a first.

Heavy Hitters Go To Bat For The Army

The contracts will be announced in a series through 2013 for solar, wind and biomass. The geothermal contracts were first up and were announced last week, going to five energy companies: Constellation NewEnergy, ECC Renewables, Enel Green Power North America, LTC Federal, and Siemens Government Technologies.

Siemens is a familiar name around CleanTechnica mainly for its wind turbine technology, but it also dove into the geothermal market in 2011 with the introduction of a new steam turbine.

Italy based Enel is another global company that is expanding its clean tech operations. Best known for its long history with geothermal, Enel is also a strong player in wind power and it jumped into the U.S. solar power market in 2011.

Constellation NewEnergy comes under the umbrella of Constellation, which is part of the gigantic Exelon family. Exelon got a thumbs down from us when it objected to the wind tax credit extension last year (and for counting natural gas as a “clean energy solution), but it was among the first major companies to quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce back in 2010 over the organization’s anti-renewable energy lobbying, and it is building a strong renewable energy portfolio.

We’re not familar with ECC and LTC, but when you look at Siemens, Enel and Exelon you can see the kind of private sector pushback that could launch into action if anybody starts trying to throw a monkeywrench into the Army’s renewable energy plans. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/09/army-renewable-energy-gets-7-billion-boost/#EVbH6f6uQowILfde.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/09/army-renewable-energy-gets-7-billion-boost/#EVbH6f6uQowILfde.99)
Title: Bob Dylan was partly right. Part of the answer is BLOWIN' in the WIND!
Post by: agelbert on May 09, 2013, 04:36:17 PM
Offshore Wind Industry Will Become €130 Billion Annual

Market By 2020


May 8, 2013 Silvio Marcacci

Offshore wind power may yet not match the overall strength of onshore wind, but the industry is on course grow rapidly to become an €130 billion global market by 2020.
(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/Screen-shot-2013-05-07-at-6.20.13-PM.png)
Global offshore wind market image via Roland Berger

A new report from industry consultants Roland Berger, “Offshore Wind Toward 2020,” concludes a combination of industry trends will soon make offshore wind cost competitive with other generation sources in many markets.

Europe is expected to continue dominating the global offshore wind industry, but the Asia Pacific and North American regions will soon represent significant market shares as technological innovation reduce many bottlenecks that have stymied project development to date.

Europe Continues To Dominate Global Markets

New turbines are expected to sprout from seas across the globe, but Europe will lead the charge, buoyed by ambitious national policy goals in multiple countries. The European Union has set 2020 targets of 35% electricity from renewables, with a 12% carve out for wind and 40 gigawatts (GW) installed offshore capacity.

So far, those targets have helped build 5GW offshore wind capacity, with new installations exceeding more than one offshore turbine per business day in 2012, equivalent to 10% of Europe’s annual wind energy installations. In many cases, actual generation from wind farms has exceeded expectations.

But current offshore output will be swamped by future additions – by 2020 reaching 4.5GW of new annual offshore wind capacity additions, worth more than €14 billion per year. Those estimates would more than triple annual capacity additions and double total investments for 2013, currently at 1.8GW and €7 billion respectively.

Growing Asia-Pacific, North American Markets

Just like a rising tide, the offshore wind market’s growth will raise boats outside of European waters. Asia Pacific is expected to reach 1.5GW of new annual capacity additions worth €4.8 billion by 2020, primarily focused in Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan. That exponential growth will dwarf current annual additions of 400 megawatts (MW) and €1.6 billion in investments.

Last but not least, North America is on course to finally join the global offshore market and capitalize upon the tremendous wind potential of its coastal waters. While annual capacity additions and annual investment are both near zero today, the report forecasts Canada, America, and Mexico will be home to 500MW annual capacity additions and €1.6 billion in total investment by 2020.

Industry Innovations Boost Cost Competitiveness

All these forecasts may seem optimistic considering significant bottlenecks in current technology, financing, and costs that have created a typical 7-10 year project development timeline, but Roland Berger predicts industry trends and market innovations will speed construction and boost cost competitiveness.

As more turbines are built, offshore wind farms will seek locations further from shore, solving the development challenges of limited space near coastlines and constrictive environmental laws. Projects further out to sea will then allow bigger farms to be built and encourage increased efficiencies in turbine manufacturing.

(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/Screen-shot-2013-05-07-at-6.20.44-PM.png)
Offshore wind farm size/depth image via Roland Berger

In this scenario turbines will get bigger and more powerful, boosting overall project output. The report predicts the average offshore wind farm size will jump from 200MW today to 340MW in 2020, with average turbine capacity rising from 2-3MW today to 4-7MW.

Big Is Beautiful

Larger turbines embody the “big is beautiful” mantra, and their efficiencies of scale will drive industry cost-competitiveness with other forms of generation. Offshore wind capital expenditures are forecast to drop 6%, while operation and maintenance costs fall 14% and capacity factors rise 12%.

(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/Screen-shot-2013-05-07-at-6.21.22-PM.png)
offshore wind farm size/LCoE image via Roland Berger

Add it all up, and the levelized cost of energy (LCoE) from European offshore wind generation could fall 17% from current figures. This equals Europe’s current offshore wind LCoE of €13 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) dropping to €11ct/kWh by 2016 and €9ct/kWh by 2020 – making offshore wind competitive with all other forms of non-hydro renewable electricity.

(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/Screen-shot-2013-05-07-at-6.22.01-PM.png)
European LCoE generation mix image via Roland Berger

Risks Remain, But Potential Is Clear

Siting new offshore wind projects in ever-deeper waters does, however, raise logistical problems for turbine installation and risks future growth. The report notes new vessels are now being specifically designed to install offshore turbines more efficiently, and the types of turbine foundations used will shift from gravity-based or monopile construction to jacket-style or floating foundations – all reducing installation times and project costs.

Overall, the challenges to offshore wind remain significant, but the potential is enormous and the imperative to build out this renewable energy resource is clear. “The offshore wind industry will become increasingly important in the years ahead,” said Marcus Weber of Roland Berger. “Transforming the energy system without this one central pillar would be difficult to imagine.“

 http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/08/offshore-wind-industry-will-become-e130-billion-annual-market-by-2020/#RkUwYobbYoymi3Ir.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/08/offshore-wind-industry-will-become-e130-billion-annual-market-by-2020/#RkUwYobbYoymi3Ir.99)

I would argue the those nuclear, lignite, hard coal and natural gas prices are artificially low because of subsidies, no externality consideration in pricing and the government backstop on (especially nuclear) power plant accidents that no insurance company in their right mind would provide.  :emthdown:

I think the article is too conservative. Even a year ago wind turbines were considered to have an EROEI of over 18:1. And that was just the 3MW turbines. They are getting much bigger and more efficent now.

When you get out there where the wind NEVER stops blowing, that is going to go up so I expect the price per kWh is going to be so low that the other stuff will no longer be competitive even with their subsidies. GOOD!  :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
.

Title: In reply to Monsta666 regarding the "Leverage points in energy storage" article
Post by: agelbert on May 11, 2013, 08:38:49 PM
Monsta666,

I just perused the article "Leverage points in energy storage" as you requested.  :icon_study:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/energy-storage-and-capitalism.html (http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/energy-storage-and-capitalism.html)

He goes into a discussion of various business models, thermodynamic effects and othe effects like the "seneca" effect that sort of mixes politics with energy systems. All good.

He gets into the leverage points with the valves and such and demonstrates how the levers that open the valves can work in the wrong direction. And here is where I have some problems with his logic.

First of all, he mixes the oil type energy with renewable type energy in regard to storage. Big problem there. I'll get to that.

Second, he mentions the "need" to dispense with excess solar or wind energy quickly because it can't be stored causing kwh rates to wildly fluctuating contingent on the sun or wind being there or not.

Thirdly he goes to the other extreme where the storage capcity is maxed out with still more power is coming in so they really have to go nuts lowering the price during said periods.

Finally he uses this logical construct and justify a happy medium of storage capacity.

He didn't talk about the power mix we have now where base load is the "always on stuff like coal and nuclear power and the "get it quick" power spikes come from natural gas, hydro and even battery banks. This is important because the storage regimen is radically different in a fossil fuel energy grid. You ALWAYS need to go fight wars someplace or get those resources stored in a tank. They just aren't there on site except for hydro.

So, at present we aren't "accumuluting" capital because the machines that put out energy always need more and more fuel. We have to project power to get those resources which in no way can be considered capital preservation or energy storage.

The reason that you have cheap and expensive khw rates with fossil coal and nuclear is that they are inflexible (hard to instantly power down or up). It's a function of the fuel they use and how they run, not the storage capacity. The leverage points certainly would apply to the fossil fuel natural gas with its instant on or off power availability but that is why natural gas power plants are not used for base load at the moment. The natural gas is not free nor is the coal or the uranium fuel rods so they do not want those things putting out energy when it can't be sold.

The econmics and thermodynamics of solar and wind are a different ball game. Wind and solar are, for all practical purposes, going to have a guaranteed availablility during, to be extremely conservative,  one day out of every four or five days for as long as the sun exists (another 5 billion years or so). If the sun stops cold we turn into a dead ball of ice. So, in the ACTUAL earth weather system, we already have a gigantic "storage capacity" of future solar and wind to draw on without worrying about running out. 

Take this paragraph:

Quote
If we want to reduce price volatility we should do exactly the opposite; we should reduce storage instead of increasing it. Of course, don't make me say that we don't need storage at all. We do need energy on demand for many practical purposes and for essential services, say for hospitals and the like. We need to be able to turn lights on even in a windless night. What we don't really need is a system that aims to provide energy at any moment, at constant prices. It would be atrociously expensive and we would have big troubles in keeping it stable.


Yes IF when you turn on your machine, it is using fuel that you mined for or drilled for and refined because you want a certain amount of money for every pound of coal uranium, gallon of oil or cubic centimeter of natural gas.

His premise logically leads him to this conclusion:

Quote
Instead, the best compromise in terms of cost would be a system with limited storage that uses prices as a way to manage demand. With such a system you can have as much energy as you want, at any moment, but you must be prepared to pay for it. That may be seen as a problem, but also as an opportunity. You may have to pay a lot for energy at some moments, but you may also have it very cheap in other periods - that's an opportunity if you can be flexible.

I don't see any problem with setting it up that way but I certainly don't agree that it MUST be that way simply because of the way renewables function as opposed to fuel run machines. I also hate the idea of using price to manage demand because the poor will get the short end of the stick. :emthdown: You would then have to introduce subsidies for poor people through some kind of means testing bureaucratic nightmare. I'm against that. I favor one price for all and make it reasonable without encouraging overuse (possible quota system or smart grid control of excesses).

The economy run on fuel creates the consumerist problem he mentions here:

Quote
We can see the economy as a machine that stores energy in the form of "capital" and gradually releases it in the form of waste (or "pollution" if you like). The interesting point is that here, too, Forrester's law applies; that is, we tend to pull the levers in the wrong direction. One of these wrong ways would be opening up too much the valve that connects the capital stock to the waste stock. It is what we call "consumerism." Of course, consuming something means to destroy it and I have this feeling that maybe we are doing that really too fast, don't you agree with me?

Sure we have to consume less energy but the point is not to base the decision on storage and leverage points but on biosphere biomimcry. Renewables have a built in rapid switch off capability for both wind and solar. Just because the wind IS blowing and the sun IS shining does not mean you HAVE to sell that energy. You turn it off or use it to pump water into a dam. The sun and wind aren't going away.

As long as you've got enough storage to tide you over for 4 days MAX, that is all you need as long as the sun exists. It's a whole different ball game than worrying about where you are going to get your oil from tomorrow.

To show you how radically different the energy storage picture is with fossil fuels, how long do you think that "strategic national oil reserve" we have would last if the oil stopped? A year? I doubt it. That's NOT a lot of Capital preservaton or accumulation in my book compared to solar and wind renewable.

Quote
The other possible way to operate the valve in the wrong way is that sometimes we accumulate so much capital - that is, so much potential - that we lose control of how it is dissipated. We may pass some threshold that makes dissipation very fast, actually disastrously fast. We call this kind of phenomenon "war," which is, by the way, another example of how politics normally manages so often to take the wrong decisions.

That's fear based and scarcity based pseudo capital accumulation. If you fight a war it's because you think you don't have enough, not because you've got too much. Some will say, NO, the big bully will beat up on the little guys but that has nothing to do with thermodynamics or energy storage; that's empire politics and is a separate issue.

Quote
So, you see that there is something as too much storage and I think that you are gaining some idea of how system dynamics coupled with thermodynamics gives to you a wide ranging view of many kinds of phenomena; most of them very relevant for our life.

I certainly agree that you can have too much storage but the criteria with renewables, as opposed to fueled machinery, is not based on avoiding  uneconomical price fluctuatuations.

The criteria is a hard look at baseload (what you want 24/7). THEN you say, we need X for the noon spike or the 5 P.M. spike when people are cooking at home or the summer months  10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. air conditioning spike, etc. You look at what you can count on from the sun and wind (studies in Spain have proven the energy is FAR more reliable than the naysayers had predicted) and you build your storage capacity from giant batteries, hydro, geothermal or some other renewable technoology. You use a smart grid in case a super spike goes above capacity to prioritize the shut down of nonessential power demands.

The bottom line is that WE CANNOT POLLUTE, PERIOD. Everything HAS to go full circle. THAT is the leverage point we passed in the WRONG direction when we went for fossil fuels.

Capital? Is this guy kidding? WE are in debt up to our Global climate change ears and the bill with raging storms and seas is heading our way.

I am quite willing to have the power turned off 12 hours a day RIGHT NOW so we can go 100% renewable and everybody get rationed the max kwh per person that any family can have. But that's just me. Most people can't handle that.

In summary, we have a lot of "valves" in our economic system already open in the wrong direction because we use polluting fuels.

When we finally "get it" that we cannot afford to consume more energy than we can generate in an absolutely clean way, the least of our worries will be too much storage.

I do agree that, in the future, the use of renewable energy infrastructure that could destroy some biome or habitat just to get more energy may certainly become an issue. But the urgency now is to stop using machinery that runs on fuel of any kind and get ALL our oils and lubricants from biofuels or algae.

But don't worry, the weather will do wonders to get the politicians to FINALLY begin to deal seriously with this problem within three or four years. The weather is going to get really bad and we should prepare as best we can. But when it comes, it will be a pleasure to see the fatheads in governments all over the globe get with the 100% renewables program.  :sunny:

Title: The DECENTRALIZED distributed solar energy business model: It works better!
Post by: agelbert on May 13, 2013, 02:28:05 PM
(http://www.macrocurrent.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/solarcity-logo-wide-3.jpg)

THIS is the business model that will replace fossil fuel powered centralized utility corporations with a more resilient and reliable energy grid.  :icon_sunny:


WHY? Because FULLY 5 to 10% of transmisson losses occur from the transfomer on your block to your house! When it comes off your roof you are 10% more efficient right off the bat (and that is NOT COUNTING the huge transmission losses over many miles of power lines)!

Then there's the fact that every home is a power plant which can be used to help a neighbor in an emergency or natural disaster if he gets hit and you don't.

Finally, you use most power when the sun is up so the utility can't jack up your kwh rate during "peak" daylight periods. IOW, goodbye demand pricing on kwh!  :icon_mrgreen:

With sufficiently robust storage systems added to this business model (HINT: EVs  :icon_mrgreen:), centralized power utilities will become obsolete. GOOD!  :emthup:


SolarCity Announces First Quarter 2013 Financial Results

SAN MATEO, Calif., May 13, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- SolarCity (Nasdaq:SCTY +24.24%  :o, news), a leading provider of clean energy, today announced financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2013.

"Extending its leadership as the nation's premier clean energy provider, SolarCity not only grew its customer base 106% year-over-year to over 57,400 and increased its long-term contracted cash flows to $1.22 billion but also exceeded guidance of MW deployed of 41 MW with 46 MW in the first quarter of 2013," said Lyndon Rive, CEO. "Through our unique, vertically-integrated platform of financing and installing solar systems, we offer customers a compelling value proposition of clean energy for lower than their local utility rate,"  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :sunny: continued Mr. Rive. "And our growing economies of scale and falling cost of capital are leading us to retain greater value for our shareholders."
 
Q1 2013 GAAP Income Statement

For the first quarter of 2013, core Operating Lease Revenue was $15.1 million, rising 85% from $8.1 million in the first quarter of 2012. Total revenue grew 21% year-over-year to $30.0 million.

Gross Profit was $12.7 million, growing 25% year-over-year from $10.1 million in the first quarter of 2012 and yielding Gross Profit Margin of 42%. Total Operating Expenses were $34.5 million, rising from $24.7 million in the first quarter of 2012, as the Company continued to invest in its development capabilities. Loss from Operations was $21.8 million as compared to $14.6 million in the year-ago period.

Q2 2013 Guidance and Update to 2013 Outlook        

For Q2 2013, the Company expects to deploy between 48 MW and 53 MW.

For its Q2 2013 GAAP income statement, the Company also expects:

GAAP Operating Lease Revenue
 : $16 million - $18 million

GAAP Solar Energy Systems Sale Revenue
 : $5 million - $10 million

GAAP Gross Margin
 : 40%-55%

GAAP Operating Expenses
 : $38 million - $42 million

For 2013, we continue to expect MWs deployed of 250 MW. In addition, we not only continue to expect to turn consistently net cash flow positive by Q4 2013 but we also now expect positive net cash flow in Q2 2013.

Earnings Conference Call

The Company will hold a conference call today to discuss its first quarter results and its outlook for the remainder of 2013 at 5:00 pm Eastern. A live webcast of the call may be accessed over the Internet from the Company's Investor Relations website at http://investors.solarcity.com (http://investors.solarcity.com).

Participants should follow the instructions provided on the website to download and install the necessary audio applications. In addition, an earnings related presentation will be available on the Company's Investor Relations site at 5:00 pm Eastern. The conference call can be accessed live over the phone by dialing 1-877-407-4018, or for international callers, 1-201-689-8471. A replay will be available one hour after the call and can be accessed by dialing 1-877-870-5176, or for international callers, 1-858-384-5517. The passcode for the live call and the replay is 412030. The replay will be available until May 20, 2013.

About SolarCity
 
SolarCity® (Nasdaq:SCTY +24.24%, news) provides clean energy. The company has disrupted the century-old energy industry by providing renewable electricity directly to homeowners, businesses and government organizations for less than they spend on utility bills. SolarCity gives customers control of their energy costs to protect them from rising rates. The company offers solar power, energy efficiency and electric vehicle services, and makes clean energy easy by taking care of everything from design and permitting to monitoring and maintenance. SolarCity currently serves 14 states :emthup: and signs a new customer every five minutes. :o Visit the company online at www.solarcity.com (http://www.solarcity.com) and follow the company on Facebook & Twitter.

(http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/solar-city-truck-solar-thermal-mag.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/SolarCity_Toyota_Prius_right_side.JPG)

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?symbol=US:SCTY&feed=PZ&date=20130513&id=16472290 (http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?symbol=US:SCTY&feed=PZ&date=20130513&id=16472290)
Title: A Smart Member of the 1% Begins to Back Wind Power Renewable Energy
Post by: agelbert on May 14, 2013, 10:53:09 AM
An important player among the 1% has woken up to our climate clusterfuck and has decided to back renewable energy! :emthup:  Koch Brothers and Big Oil, look out!  :icon_mrgreen: :sunny:


Legendary Investor Warren Buffet Pumps $1.9 Billion Into Iowa Wind Power

May 13, 2013 Tina Casey

(http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/05/Iowa-wind-power.jpg)
Iowa wind turbines by Theodore Scott.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/13/iowa-wind-power-grows-with-new-1-9-billion-investment/#gPe9D25TXatBDAL0.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/13/iowa-wind-power-grows-with-new-1-9-billion-investment/#gPe9D25TXatBDAL0.99)

SNIPPET 1

More Green Jobs For Iowa

MidAmerican anticipates that the new wind projects will generate 460 construction jobs, 48 permanent jobs, and more than $360 million in new property tax revenue over the next 30 years.

To get a look at what that could mean in terms of local economic development, take a look at the Atchison County, Missouri wind farm we profiled a couple of years ago. The project, from Ibderola Renewables, provides 44 different landowners with new revenue from leasing their property, with payments totaling about $365,000 annually. The ripple effect in new tax revenue for the project’s home county is up to $1 million annually.

Atchison County credits its wind tax base with promoting local fiscal stability, as a County official noted back in 2010:

“Every county in the state of Missouri almost has experienced a decline in their sales tax revenue and Atchison County has not. We attribute that directly to the construction of the wind farms.”

SNIPPET 2

“MidAmerican Energy’s proposed project will be the largest economic development investment in the history of the state, bringing needed jobs to Iowa, as well as significant economic benefits.”

For an in depth look at why I am convinced that the 1% MUST be the ones that lead us to a renewable energy tomorrow  (and Warren Buffet is just the vanguard of this group which includes Elon Musk) , go here: :icon_study:

Why the 1% are the most capable of saving  humanity!

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/08/13/sexual-dimorphism-powerstructures-and-environmental-consequences-of-human-behaviors/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/08/13/sexual-dimorphism-powerstructures-and-environmental-consequences-of-human-behaviors/)

SNIPPET

Sexual dimorphism and hormones dictate different levels of strength, aggressivity and dominance in human beings for real and valid evolutionary purposes.

Nature cares not about egalitarian relationships among opposite sexes or societies (see the moths, ants, spiders, bees, ducks, lions, chimps, etc.); it “cares” about what works to promote the reproduction of a species.

Asymmetric power relationships in societies and among the sexes in species aren’t democratic but they have more evolutionary staying power than horizontal relationships.

That’s just the way it is. If you want to “improve” on that model, you’d better but your “God” outfit on and pack a lot of sandwiches because you are bucking up against millions of years of evolution.

The ones who hold the power are ALWAYS in the driver’s seat. If they don’t adequately react to a threat to the species, it’s curtains.  The 1% enjoy their RHIP which provide them many privileges but they cannot evade their responsibility.

This is not “Murder on the Orient Express”; this is the train engineer driving the train off a cliff. The 1% don’t have to lose their “better to reign in hell than serve in heaven” attitude for mankind to survive; they just have stop believing their own PR. If they bite the reality bullet and lead the way into sustainable living, we might make it.
Title: DOE Launches Public-Private Partnership to Deploy Hydrogen Infrastructure
Post by: agelbert on May 15, 2013, 09:36:48 AM
May 15, 2013
DOE Launches Public-Private Partnership to Deploy Hydrogen Infrastructure


The U.S. Energy of Department (DOE) on May 13 launched H2USA, a new public-private partnership focused on advancing hydrogen infrastructure to support more transportation energy options for U.S. consumers, including fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). The new partnership brings together automakers, government agencies, gas suppliers, and the hydrogen and fuel cell industries to coordinate research and identify cost-effective solutions to deploy infrastructure that can deliver hydrogen fuel in the United States.

Through H2USA, industry and government partners will focus on identifying actions to encourage early adopters of fuel cell electric vehicles, conduct coordinated technical and market analysis, and evaluate alternative fueling infrastructure that can enable cost reductions and economies of scale. For example, infrastructure being developed for alternative fuels such as natural gas, as well as fuel cell applications including tri-generation that produce heat, power and hydrogen from natural gas or biogas, may also provide low cost hydrogen for vehicles. In addition, increased fuel cell deployment for combined heat and power, back-up power systems and fuel cell forklifts can help pave the way for mainstream hydrogen vehicle infrastructure.

Current members of the H2USA partnership include the American Gas Association, Association of Global Automakers, the California Fuel Cell Partnership, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association, Hyundai Motor America, ITM Power, Massachusetts Hydrogen Coalition, Mercedes-Benz USA, Nissan North America Research and Development, Proton OnSite, and Toyota Motor North America. See the DOE press release.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19301 (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=19301)
Title: Algae Industry Map
Post by: agelbert on May 15, 2013, 06:10:25 PM
67 percent of algae producers said they plan to expand capacity in 2013 :icon_sunny:


The algae opportunity exists from coast-to-coast and around the globe. This map documents Algae Biomass Organization members, algae production projects, research and other activities that are making algae a new source of renewable fuels and many other products. Click on each location marker for more information.

Algae Industry Map

http://www.algaebiomass.org/algae-industry-map/ (http://www.algaebiomass.org/algae-industry-map/)

NOTHING in the world of plant life grows faster (i.e. converts CO2 and water into sugars and Oxygen faster) than algae.

(http://www.lifeadrift.info/media/2316/photosynthesis_equation.jpg)

Absolutely anything made from fossil fuels such as fuel, plastics, textiles, fertilizer, medicine or even food can be made cleanly and  better (with less impurities) from algae. Also, lubricants which are impossible to make with fossil fuels which provide better temperature range and superior lubrication CAN be made from Algae.

http://www.sapphireenergy.com/news-article/1639612-big-thinking-at-fortune-s-brainstorm-green (http://www.sapphireenergy.com/news-article/1639612-big-thinking-at-fortune-s-brainstorm-green)
Title: Top Wacky Wind Turbines: Photos
Post by: agelbert on May 17, 2013, 10:07:57 AM
Top Wacky Wind Turbines: Photos

by Alyssa Danigelis

Redesigning the traditional wind turbine -- large three-bladed rotors with controllable pitch -- is sort of like reinventing the wheel. Decades of trial, error and testing go into it. Bob Thresher, a research fellow at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado, would know. He’s spent more than 40 years working in the wind energy field and helped start the National Wind Technology Center.

“I’ve spent my entire working life developing kinetic art that’s useful,” he said.
But conventional wind turbines remain expensive and require tons of material. The ongoing quest for cheaper, more efficient wind energy has produced wacky wind turbine ideas.

Thresher offers his grounded take on some of the most promising ones.

Full article with an explanation of each innovation pictured above and additional pictures: :emthup: :icon_sunny:

http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/top-wacky-wind-turbines-photos-130408.htm (http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/top-wacky-wind-turbines-photos-130408.htm)
Title: Jet Travel in the Waste Based Society; More proof that Haste makes Waste
Post by: agelbert on May 19, 2013, 03:00:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/G1L4GUA8arY#&fs=1

A Day in the Life of Air Traffic Over the World


http://www.youtube.com/v/US4mKjYeklM#&fs=1
Air Traffic Over the one half of the World


World jet fuel average DAILY consumption in 2010 = 5,219,510 barrels  :(
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption (http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel&graph=consumption)


http://www.youtube.com/v/d9r3H4iHFZk#&fs=1

24 hours of aircraft movement over the USA. Big Oil must love this display of fossil fuel piggery.

The interesting thing about the USA air traffic video is that, at the end, it mentions that WEATHER is the main cause of delays in US air travel.

Considering the type of horrendous weather coming our way, air travel may be another one of those high fossil fuel use industries that may see BIG reductions within a decade. It certainly is unsustainable to me but I expect that only fierce weather will convince the airlines of that... :P
Title: Thom Hartmann DECONSTRUCTS the Waste Based Society in 10 minutes!
Post by: agelbert on May 21, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/v/7SwGGELRjdo&feature=player_detailpage&list=UUbjBOso0vpWgDht9dPIVwhQ#&fs=1

As soon as  fossil fuel corporations are FORCED to pay for externalities that we-the-people have been conned into paying like tornado damages, cancer, respiratory diseases, fracking toxins in our tissues, etc., renewable energy is MUCH cheaper and all the "fossil fuels are cheaper" argument falls flat on its mendacious face!

In 9 minutes and 33 seconds, Thom elegantly improves the argument I made in an article here last year. He underlines the urgent need to switch to renewables due to the horrendous weather that is becoming the new "normal" that mankind hasn't experienced EVER as Homo sapiens.

Hope for a Viable Biosphere of Renewables
Why They Work and Fossil & Nuclear Fuels Never Did


Published July 17, 2012. 

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/ (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/)
Title: Solar Grid Parity Now Reached In 102 Countries
Post by: agelbert on May 26, 2013, 06:49:24 PM
(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/solar-grid-parity-map.png)
Solar Grid Parity In 102 Countries (Map)
 :sunny:

May 26, 2013
Giles Parkinson

This article was originally published on RenewEconomy.

Here’s an interesting graph used by Suntech’s Stuart Wenham (sourced from Applied Materials) during a presentation at the Solar 2013 conference in Melbourne on Thursday. It highlights the extent of “grid parity” for solar PV across the world – it is now in 102 countries.

This definition of “grid parity” is the cost of rooftop solar versus the cost of electricity sourced from the grid – this is sometimes known as “socket parity.” Most of the countries – though not all – are those with good solar resources and relatively high electricity prices. Australia reached “socket parity” several years ago.

Wenham says that solar PV will fall a further 50% in costs up to 2020 –  :icon_mrgreen: see our story today. He says that solar PV at a utility level will also challenge fossil fuels – as it already does in those with high gas and diesel costs, and will offer the cheapest avenue to countries which have little electricity infrastructure.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/26/solar-grid-parity-in-102-countries-map/#ECTRYGTcU2Z1yisu.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/26/solar-grid-parity-in-102-countries-map/#ECTRYGTcU2Z1yisu.99)


Solar PV Costs Will Fall By Half By 2020, But Prices Won’t

 
May 26, 2013 Guest Contributor
(http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-23-at-5.22.09-PM.png)

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/26/solar-pv-costs-will-fall-by-half-by-2020-but-prices-wont/#xsATTJmt3FOLtKQ0.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/26/solar-pv-costs-will-fall-by-half-by-2020-but-prices-wont/#xsATTJmt3FOLtKQ0.99)
Title: By 2014 Oil imports on pace to drop by 50% - to 1987 levels!
Post by: agelbert on May 28, 2013, 09:43:52 PM
How Much Does the US Spend on Oil Imports?
 
The United States spends about $700 billion US Dollars (USD) per year on oil imports. This represents about 4% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP), according to 2012 estimates, and is about as much as it spends on accommodation and restaurant services — but much less than the roughly 17% spent on healthcare. The amount spent on oil imports is projected to decline as the use of fuel-efficient vehicles and renewable energy sources increases. In 2012, the Energy Information Administration projected that oil imports were on pace to drop by 50% — to 1987 levels — within two years. :emthup: :icon_sunny:

More about US oil usage:

•In 2012, the US used about 19 million barrels of oil per day, 11 million of which were imported — mostly from the Western Hemisphere. Less than 3 million barrels were imported from the Persian Gulf.

•When Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005, it destroyed almost 20% of the United States' oil production.

•The US energy industry is the third-largest industry in the US and reduces the need to import oil.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-does-the-us-spend-on-oil-imports.htm (http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-does-the-us-spend-on-oil-imports.htm)

Title: Nearly 90% Of Americans Say Government Should Act On Global Warming
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 10:24:11 AM
As you can see below, Big Oil's Propaganda Machine has made some inroads in American thinking BUT THEY ARE STILL LOSING BADLY as the overwhelming majority of Americans want MORE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND  Fossil Fuel producers to GET OFF THE SUBSIDY FREE RIDE AND PAY FOR THEIR DAMAGE!
   

National Survey: Nearly 90% Of Americans Say Government Should Act On Global Warming, Push Ahead On Clean Energy

May 29, 2013 Andrew

Climate change continues to be a touchstone issue in US politics, one that casts a harsh, sharp light not only on a bitterly divided, “dysfunctional” US Congress, but on the state of the United States’ system of representative democracy, and even more broadly, on the interface between science and policy.

(http://i1.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/haboob-in-Pheonx.png)

Repeated attempts to enact national climate change legislation – whether a revenue-neutral tax on carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, a nationwide emissions cap-and-trade scheme, a national renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS), stricter air pollution and environmental regulations, or higher energy efficiency standards – have all run up against fierce opposition among Congressional representatives, as well as well-funded public relations campaigns from the fossil fuel, utility and other industry lobbies and media agents.

Yet broad public support for climate and clean energy policies continues strong among the US populace. Nearly 90% of Americans (87%) say that global warming and the development of clean energy sources should be priorities for the US president and Congress, according to results from a nationwide survey conducted by 4C – the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication and the Yale Center for Climate Change Communication.

CO2 In The Atmosphere: 400 PPM And Rising

The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere – the majority of which results from human burning of fossil fuels – has now topped 400 parts per million (ppm), a “grim” level not seen for millions of years.

Having quickly breached the 350º ppm threshold established by climate scientists as a tipping point heralding an era of “dangerous, irreversible climate change,” the global rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions continues unabated.

Even a 2ºC rise in global mean temperature could cause catastrophic rises in sea levels of 6-7 meters (23 feet) that could wipe out major cities, such as London, Miami, New York, Shanghai and Tokyo, former Royal Dutch Shell senior executive Ian Dunlop and policy planner and scholar Tapio Kannien recently told attendees at high-level meetings and panel discussions at UN headquarters in New York City earlier this month.

Yet more alarming is that based on current trends we are on track to experience global warming of 4ºC or more, according to the latest research, Dunlop and Kannien pointed out, and that could result in sea level rises of as much as 70 meters (230 feet), not to mention numerous and varied other fundamentally disruptive effects on ecosystems, economies and societies.

Business as Usual: Who’s Going To Bear The Costs?

Clearly, the climate science community believes that when it comes to burning fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, continuing on a “business as usual” course will have disastrous consequences.

We will see atmospheric CO2 concentrations surpass 450 ppm in a matter of decades, which will mean more frequent and intense extreme weather events – including more destructive tropical storms, floods and droughts – and a disruptive, though more gradual longer term shift in regional weather patterns, climate and environmental conditions, Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann stated in a recent Democracy Now! interview.

“Whether you’re talking about human health, food resources, water resources, national security – across the board, if we continue to burn fossil fuels and elevate greenhouse gas concentrations the cost to society is going to be far greater than any cost of action.”

Eliminating burning of fossil fuels as quickly as possible is seen as imperative if such scenarios are to be avoided. That would essentially entail shutting down the fossil fuel industry – the energy “engine” of the modern, industrial era – and that seems even less likely than successfully enacting US campaign finance, lobbying, banking industry or offshore finance and tax reform.

Nonetheless, “a large majority of Americans (87%, down 5 percentage points since Fall 2012) say the president and the Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a ‘very high’ (26%), ‘high’ (32%), or medium priority (28%). Few say it should be a low priority (12%),” according to 4C and the Yale Center for Climate Change Communications’ report, “Public Support for Climate and Energy Policies in April 2013.”

Also among the report’s highlights:

Most Americans (70%, down 7 points since Fall 2012) say global warming should be a “very high” (16%), “high” (26%), or “medium priority” (29%) for the president and Congress. Three in ten (28%) say it should be a low priority.

Six in ten Americans (59%) say the U.S. should reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do. Relatively few (10%) say the U.S. should reduce its emissions only if other industrialized and/or developing countries do – and only 6 percent of Americans say the U.S. should not reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

Americans say that corporations and industry (70%), citizens themselves (63%), the U.S. Congress (57%), and the President (52%) should be doing more to address global warming.
Moreover, a majority of Americans support:

Providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels (71%)
Funding more research into renewable energy sources (70%)

Regulating CO2 as a pollutant (68%)

Requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to pay down the national debt (61%)

Eliminating all subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry (59%)

Expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast (58%)

Requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it costs the average household an extra $100 a year (55%)


Support for some of these policies has fallen over the past few years, the report authors note, however:

Half of Americans (50%) have never heard of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from the Canada tar sands to Texas. Moreover, few Americans say they are following the issue closely (18%). However, among those Americans who have heard of the Keystone pipeline, about two in three support the project (63%)

Asked their level of support for a “revenue neutral tax swap that would reduce the annual taxes paid by all Americans while increasing the amount they pay annually for energy (such as gasoline and electricity) by the same total amount,” fewer than half of Americans say they would support the tax if the money raised from the tax were used to: reduce the federal income tax (45%); reduce the federal payroll tax (44%); give a tax refund to every American household (43%)

This latest report also highlights the divisiveness of climate change and clean energy in US politics:

Democrats and Republicans are divided on the extent to which the president and Congress should address global warming and developing clean energy. While six in ten Democrats (59%) say global warming should be a “high” or “very high” priority for President Obama and Congress, far fewer Republicans agree (22%). However, about half of Republicans (52%) say it should be at least a “medium” level priority

Similarly, when it comes to the president and Congress making the development of clean energy a priority, a majority of Democrats (69%) say it should be at least a “high” priority, whereas only 43 percent of Republicans agree. However, most Republicans say it should be at least a “medium” priority (81%). The majority of Independents say it should be a “high” or “very high” priority (61%).

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/national-survey-nearly-90-of-americans-say-government-should-act-on-global-warming-push-ahead-on-clean-energy/#H8VKUXzDiGfcGv3s.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/national-survey-nearly-90-of-americans-say-government-should-act-on-global-warming-push-ahead-on-clean-energy/#H8VKUXzDiGfcGv3s.99)

Americans are finally becoming painfully aware of the above. GOOD!
Title: Over a one year period, 845 MW new solar energy capacity vs 348 MW last year
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 11:25:43 AM
Do you know why Big Oil has a BULLSEYE painted on Germany and China for "SPECIAL TREATMENT"  :whip:  :evil4: by their propaganda mouthpieces like The Oil Drum  :evil5:  web site? Read on...  ;)


US Installs 33 MW Of New Solar Power Capacity In April

May 29, 2013 Nathan

This article was originally published on Solar Love.

33 MW of new solar energy capacity were installed in the United States during the month of April. This total includes 17 MW from the first phase of the Yuma Foothills Solar Power Plant, 5 MW from the Celina Solar project I in Ohio, and 4.2 MW from two projects in California, among others. The US now possesses an impressive 5.14 GW of total solar energy capacity.  :sunny:

(http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2013/05/Solar-PV.jpg)

The 17 MW of capacity supplied by the aforementioned Foothills Solar Power Plant accounts for more than half of the new solar capacity installed during April. The project is currently being developed by the Arizona Public Services Co. in Yuma, Arizona, and will see its capacity roughly doubled by this time next year, following the construction of the second phase. The second phase will add a further 18 MW of capacity, and is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

5 MW of the new capacity was provided the Celina Solar project I Mercer County, Ohio. The project was developed by SolarVision LLC, and will provide about 8% of the city of Celina’s electricity.

PV Magazine provides further details:

Light Beam Energy Inc. went online with two projects totalling 4.2 MW in Butte County, California. Light Beam’s 1.7 MW Gridley Main One Solar scheme will supply power to the city of Gridley and the 2.5 MW Main Two project will sell energy to San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit.

Warsaw Solar 2 LLC connected the 2 MW Warsaw Solar 2 project in Duplin County, North Carolina, which will sell energy to Progress Energy Carolinas and Hannon Strong Solar LLC added 1.4 MW with its project to power US Army Fort Bliss in El Paso County, Texas to round off the new build generation schemes totalling 29.6 MW.

The last 3.4 MW was from the expansion of three previously constructed projects.
As of the end of April, 2013, the US has seen the installation of 845 MW of new solar energy capacity, a significant jump over the same period last year — which saw 348 MW installed.  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:

And something to note — while 5.14 GW of total solar energy generating capacity is impressive when taken on its own, it only represents 0.44% of the US’s total energy generation…. A significant increase in the rate of installation will be needed to stem the worst of the effects predicted from future climate change, or even for that matter to keep up with the rest of the world. Germany and China,  :icon_mrgreen: among other countries, are both transitioning away from fossil fuels relatively quickly — it wouldn’t be intelligent for us to let ourselves fall too far behind.
Z

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/33-mw-of-new-solar-power-capacity-installed-in-us-during-april/#tHVADpTt5sXxreUI.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/33-mw-of-new-solar-power-capacity-installed-in-us-during-april/#tHVADpTt5sXxreUI.99)

A "significant increase in the rate of installation" is PRECISELY what Big Oil is working overtime to PREVENT  :o with pseudo concerns and hand wringing about the "damage" to the environment from renewables. :evil4:  The FOX is ALL OF A SUDDEN all worried about the HENS!  :LolLolLolLol:   :evil6:
 
Title: Solar energy south of the border
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
Largest Solar PV Power Plant In Latin America In The Works In Mexico

May 29, 2013 Nathan

This article was originally published on Solar Love.
A new 30 MW solar photovoltaic power plant is currently being constructed in Mexico — in La Paz, Baja California Sur. Once completed, the plant will be Latin America’s largest photovoltaic solar power plant, providing enough electricity to power an estimated 160,000 households.

(http://i0.wp.com/solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/still-mexican-pride.jpg)
Photo Credit: austinhk / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-ND

The plant is being built by Martifer Solar, a subsidiary of Martifer SGPS. The company is responsible for all of the engineering and construction, and will also provide operation and maintenance services after the plant is completed. The plant is being funded by the local development bank Nafin, with further assistance from International Finance Corporation and Corporación Aura Solar.

The solar power plant, situated on a large 100-hectare site, will feature about 132,000 modules installed on single-axis trackers once completed — generating about 82 GWh/year and offsetting around 60,000 tons of CO2 emissions. It is currently scheduled to be completed by August 2013.

The project will be the first utility-scale solar project under a Power Purchase Agreement contract (20 years long) between a private company and Comisión Federal de Electricidad, Mexico’s federal power company, and also represents a big increase in total solar capacity for the country.

“Martifer Solar’s experience and worldwide track-record were decisive during the analysis of the different proposals made by the main companies in the sector. Due to its dimension, this project in Mexico will open the way for the development of the photovoltaic sector in the country, where, to date, were installed 13 MW of PV projects”, says Hector Olea, CEO of Gauss Energía, a Mexican company specialized in project development in the energy sector, in the press release.

Mexico has enormous potential with regards to solar energy — 70% of the country has an insolation of greater than 4.5 kWh/m²/day. What that means is that by “using 15% efficient photovoltaics, a square 25 km (16 mi) on each side in the state of Chihuahua or the Sonoran Desert (0.01% of Mexico) could supply all of Mexico’s electricity.” It’s currently predicted that the country will experience a solar power boom in the coming years, likely allowing it to reach its goal of receiving 35% of its energy from renewable sources by 2026.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/latin-americas-largest-pv-solar-plant-in-the-works-in-mexico/#HrqKSYYttxs8ew4X.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/latin-americas-largest-pv-solar-plant-in-the-works-in-mexico/#HrqKSYYttxs8ew4X.99)



First Brazil 2014 World Cup Solar Powered Stadium Opens

May 27, 2013 Adam Johnston

As preparations for the 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil hit the final stretch, the first of many solar-powered stadiums being used for next year’s tournament was recently put in the spotlight with an inauguration event.
PV Tech noted the Estádio Governador Magalhães Pinto (otherwise known as the Mineirão) in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil recently held the opening of their new rooftop solar array.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Mineir%C3%A3o_2014_-_2.jpg)
Estádio Governador Magalhães Pinto  Stadium wikimedia photo

Attendees for the ribbon cutting ceremony included: Minas Gerais state Governor Antonio Anastasia, Hans-Jürgen Beerfeltz, the state secretary of Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and Djalmo Bastos de Morais, president of Brazilian utility firm CEMIG.

Total investment for the project was $16.1 million. German bank KfW and CEMIG funded the new solar power plant.

Estadio Mineirao in Belo Horizonte will host three games for the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup: June 17th with a Group B game between Tahiti and Nigeria; A June 22nd Group A game between Japan against Mexico, and the first semi-final on June 26th. The stadium is also home to two-time Brazilian champions Cruzeiro.

It’s not the only stadium getting a solar makeover ahead of next year’s big event. Last year, Yingli Solar, Light ESCO, and Rio de Janeiro state began working on a 1,500 solar panel rooftop project for the legendary Maracana stadium in Rio de Janeiro. Recife’s Pernambuco Stadium will have solar heating for kitchens, toilets and changing rooms. :emthup:

Meanwhile, Brasilla’s Mané Garrincha stadium, with a 2.5 MWp solar rooftop plant, is expected to power nearly half of the stadium with solar energy. :emthup: :icon_sunny:


Both the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup and next year’s World Cup will showcase not only Brazil, as an emerging power on the global stage, but also give solar power an opportunity to showcase its further potential as a global sustainable energy source.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/27/first-brazil-2014-world-cup-solar-powered-stadium-opens/#4CraVBmrjXmIQxCl.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/27/first-brazil-2014-world-cup-solar-powered-stadium-opens/#4CraVBmrjXmIQxCl.99)



Title: Net Zero Energy Homes and CAUSE organization fighting Utility Shady Tactics
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 02:40:06 PM
SheaXero Homes Celebrates the 1,000th Net Zero Energy Home wth Custom Solar Power System


(http://i0.wp.com/solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/sheaxero-net-zero-home.jpg)
SheaXero net zero energy home

Quote
A press release on the news notes: “in just over a year, SheaXero has reached 1,000 sales in Trilogy communities in Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada and Washington. SheaXero homes produce as much energy as they use through a custom solar power system and 14 energy-efficient features, based on annual consumption for an average family.  :o :emthup: SheaXero homes are standard in all Trilogy communities across the nation at no additional charge (in Washington, SheaXero is an available feature).

In addition to the environmental impact, Shea estimates that the 1,000 SheaXero homeowners are expected to collectively save more than $18,000,000 on their electricity bills over the next two decades.”

Read more at http://solarlove.org/shea-homes-solarcity-celebrate-1000th-sheaxero-no-electric-bill-home/#sqvtfmRLVOmw4xef.99 (http://solarlove.org/shea-homes-solarcity-celebrate-1000th-sheaxero-no-electric-bill-home/#sqvtfmRLVOmw4xef.99)

That's $18,000,000 LESS that fossil fuel pigs have to buy politicians to twist the laws in favor of Big Oil!   :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:



Physicians & Solar Companies Unite, Create “Californians Against Utilities Stopping Solar Energy”
by Zach

If you ask the common person on the street what’s so good about solar power, they’ll likely say that it’s good for the environment. And, of course, they’d be right. Connect the environment dot to the health dot, and what that means is that solar power is much better for our health (than coal, natural gas, etc.).

(http://i1.wp.com/solarlove.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/solar-cells-starting-to-go-up-2.jpg)
Rooftop solar panels in Sebastopol, California. Photo Credit: ATIS547 / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-SA

Naturally, this should stimulate more solar power growth and more solar-friendly policies. Alas, we don’t live in a perfect (and sometimes quite an absurd) world. With solar power finally growing up and starting to threaten conventional solar industries, attacks on policies supporting its growth are increasing. Some California physicians have teamed up with solar companies (e.g. Sunrun, SolarCity,…) in order to fight back these attacks.

“A coalition of public health leaders and solar energy companies has formed CAUSE (Californians Against Utilities Stopping solar Energy) to combat monopoly utility efforts to kill rooftop solar. CAUSE is dedicated to maintaining a thriving solar industry in California, and to promoting the health and economic benefits that solar delivers to all Californians,” a press release published yesterday stated.

“The state’s investor-owned utilities—PG&E, SDG&E and SCE—are trying to end net energy metering (NEM), a successful policy in 43 states that gives consumers fair credit for the solar they deliver to the grid. In simple terms, it’s like rollover minutes on your cell phone bill. The utilities have taken aim at net metering to keep customers from taking action that would save ratepayers and taxpayers money while protecting public health. A January study by Crossborder Energy found that net metering will provide more than $92 million in annual benefits to ratepayers of California’s three investor-owned utilities.”

Of course, aside from the health, climate, and other environmental impacts from slowing solar growth, doing so would also slow local job growth — not cool.  :emthdown:

Some final words from CAUSE: “California has installed more than 1,400 MW of rooftop solar capacity – the equivalent of nearly three dirty, coal-fired power plants.  :emthup:  :icon_sunny:

This solar electricity is pollution-free and generated from an inexhaustible source.  :icon_mrgreen:

The California solar industry employs more than 43,000 workers and has driven $10 billion in private investment in the state over the past five years. Industry analysts credit net metering as the cornerstone policy for continued solar growth.”  :emthup: :emthup: :emthup:  :icon_mrgreen:


http://solarlove.org/physicians-solar-companies-unite-create-californians-against-utilities-stopping-solar-energy/#1OgZgEpXetRcDXgC.99 (http://solarlove.org/physicians-solar-companies-unite-create-californians-against-utilities-stopping-solar-energy/#1OgZgEpXetRcDXgC.99)
Title: MKing said
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 03:59:16 PM
Quote
An authority on the subject of oil once said, "Oil is obsolete, it just doesn't know it yet." This statement should be expanded to include most fossil fuels except natural gas, right now, today.

Hear! Hear!  :emthup: :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on May 29, 2013, 04:08:26 PM
It is nothing short of amazing that with the information contained on this page alone, people continue to believe that the boogey man of fossil fuels can't be dispatched to the waste bin of history as just another growing contraction pain of the species.

Fixed that for you.  :icon_mrgreen:

You won't be seeing any "growth" in the human species for quite some time to come once the fossil fuels are dispatched into the waste bin of history.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on May 29, 2013, 04:31:07 PM
From the IEA a few years back.

Predictions from the IEA are about as good as predictions from the CBO or the IMF.  Breath-Holding is unnecessary, the predictions are already Epic Fail.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: monsta666 on May 29, 2013, 04:40:39 PM
Feel free to hold your breath waiting for the next 8 trillion to see the light of day. From the IEA a few years back. Enough to transition to nearly anything we want isn't the issue at all.

(http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/2009/images/0128/WEO2008.9.10sm.gif)

Go two words for ya: net energy. The resource base maybe large but it is the net energy that really counts. As total net energy declines then the amount of USABLE energy in society declines and so their ability to extract resources declines also. Moreover total consumption of resources is limited by two components: total available net energy AND the quality of resources available. As the quality of resource declines then more energy is required to extract a unit weight of the resource so even IF net energy could be increased total consumption would still be limited by the fact the resource quality would become too poor.

To overcome this fate of diminishing resource quality net energy requirements must increase at an exponential rate. Man has avoided the issues of declining resource quality for decades by increasing their consumption of net energy at a exponential rate. This exponential rise in resource consumption primarily came from the burning of fossil fuels and this growth in net energy has masked the problem but not eliminated it. In the end basic arithmetic and the laws of thermodynamics will always win out.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Eddie on May 29, 2013, 04:42:57 PM
Without fossil fuels to cheaply mine the raw materials, the price of solar PV's will eventually get really expensive again. I see the present time as one of those windows of time that won't be open forever. I'm buying as many panels as I can at the moment. I think they're a better investment than just about anything.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on May 29, 2013, 04:48:19 PM
Without fossil fuels to cheaply mine the raw materials, the price of solar PV's will eventually get really expensive again. I see the present time as one of those windows of time that won't be open forever. I'm buying as many panels as I can at the moment. I think they're a better investment than just about anything.

Your point is no doubt true Doc, however it would appear that it applies to Everything that requires cheap oil to produce.

Inflation, here we come!  :(
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on May 29, 2013, 04:51:23 PM
So you consider a basic inventory of resources in a cost/supply curve to be a prediction? Strikes me as common bean counting inventory type stuff, what does yours look like that, that you consider it a fail?

Socrates, I already told you a ZILLION times responding to posts with Questions is not acceptable methodology here on the Diner.  Take it to a Socratic Energy Forum.  LOL.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 04:55:23 PM
Quote
It is nothing short of amazing that with the information contained on this page alone, people continue to believe that the boogey man of fossil fuels can't be dispatched to the waste bin of history as just anothergrowing  contraction pain of the species.

RE,
:icon_scratch: Uh, methinks the synonym for "growing" (getting larger in size) was not the intended meaning here but the "growing", as in maturity and CFS.

Just sayin'. ;)

Fossil fuels or no fossil fuels, if Homo SAP DOESN'T grow in maturity and CFS, we are all dead.  :P
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on May 29, 2013, 04:56:33 PM
Feel free to hold your breath waiting for the next 8 trillion to see the light of day. From the IEA a few years back. Enough to transition to nearly anything we want isn't the issue at all.

(http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/2009/images/0128/WEO2008.9.10sm.gif)

Go two words for ya: net energy.

Got two words for ya: red herring.

Got two words for ya. ASS HOLE

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: monsta666 on May 29, 2013, 05:04:56 PM
Inflation, here we come!  :(

Important take home point is this is organic inflation caused by resource scarcity and is not due to money printing. Humans face the dilemma of inflation on two fronts, one is that of resource scarcity and the other is inflation caused by expanding the money supply. It is true the two means of inflation can work together and it can be hard to see when one form of inflation starts and  the other ends. They are both occurring however and it is crucial people recognise there are two forces at work here. There is not enough awareness of the inflation caused by money printing (I am sure you will understand this point) but there is even less awareness to the fact that inflation can also come from resources becoming more scarce. Like money printing the media tries its utmost to deny this reality by promoting the abundance of resource meme on a daily basis.

These two forces of inflations can explain the phenomenon where you get the seeming paradox of a deflation but increasing prices. While the money supply (or velocity of money) declines prices can still rise if resources become more scarce. Now just to be clear I do not fully subscribe to the notion that the money supply is deflating but the argument for the paradox can be explained if we recognise the forces at work in our economy.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: BC2K on May 29, 2013, 05:14:27 PM
Got two words for ya. ASS HOLE

RE

Tsk Tsk... such language !   :o

Illustrate instead !!  ;D

(http://i42.tinypic.com/5l7uxe.jpg)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 05:22:45 PM
Net energy is not our problem. Our problem is global climate change CAUSED by the use of "cheap" fossil fuels.

How we transition AWAY from fossil fuels to USE the ABUNDANT solar energy this planet receives without continuing to trash the biosphere is the do or die challenge for Homo SAP. 

(http://i0.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2013/05/time.jpg)

We are running out of TIME, NOT ENERGY.

It's more than clear that we could supply 100% of our energy needs from renewable sources. Jacobson and Delucchi did that bit of math in 2009.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030 (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030)

Solar, alone, provides far more harvest-able energy than we can conceive of using.
 :sunny:

(http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png)

We know that we can run major grids using nothing but renewable energy. Budischak, et al. ran the numbers for the largest wholesale grid in the world. Diensendorf, et al. did the same for all of Australia.

While Jacobson and Delucchi showed that the energy was available and we have the technology needed to harvest it these other studies have shown that it would be practical to use renewables for our energy needs.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit (https://docs.google.com/file/d/1NrBZJejkUTRYJv5YE__kBFuecdDL2pDTvKLyBjfCPr_8yR7eCTDhLGm8oEPo/edit)



Eddie,
I think you are right. Prices of PV will begin to rise. However, I think the bottom won't be reached for a couple of years. Germany is now meeting with China to settle their PV war differences...


Heads Of Germany & China Meet To End Solar Trade Dispute


May 29, 2013 Zachary Shahan
 
This article was originally published on Solar Love.


Update: Provisional duties on solar imports have been overwhelmingly voted down, but the 47% duties may still move forward.
 
Will we finally see the end of the Chinese solar trade soap opera? Maybe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese premier Li Keqiang this week called for an end to the EU-China portion of the Chinese solar trade disputes that have been ongoing for the past couple years. The joint press conference was held on Sunday in Berlin.
 
Merkel said: “Germany will do all it can to prevent permanent import duties being implemented.”
 

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.
Image Credit: Friends of Europe.
 
Li, naturally, proclaimed that such duties would be harmful to both countries, and he said he was looking for ”both a two-way dialogue and consultation.”
 
Following similar penalties in the US, the EU is just about set to implement 47% anti-dumping duties on Chinese solar imports. The European Commission is making the decision and has the right to override the objections of individual member countries. But it’s still unclear whether the commission would vote for or against these duties.
 
The claim made by some European solar technology companies, as made in the US, is that China is subsidizing its solar manufacturers such that they are able to sell their products for less than the cost of producing them, which would be against international trade agreements.
 
The concern, largely on the side of solar installers in the EU, is that the penalties would increase the price of going solar and hurt their business. So, in essence, it has been a struggle between solar technology manufacturers (+ those on their side) and solar installers (+ those on their side), as well as between Chinese solar manufacturers and EU solar manufacturers.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/heads-of-germany-china-meet-to-end-solar-trade-dispute/#zxv82KSB8hFiCisj.99 (http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/29/heads-of-germany-china-meet-to-end-solar-trade-dispute/#zxv82KSB8hFiCisj.99)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Eddie on May 29, 2013, 05:28:34 PM
GO said:

"Your point is no doubt true Doc, however it would appear that it applies to Everything that requires cheap oil to produce."

Yes, but few things you can buy actually have the ability to mitigate our coming energy descent. Solar panels, bought today, will pay for themselves many times over.

Monsta said:

" It is true the two means of inflation can work together and it can be hard to see when one form of inflation starts and  the other ends."

Very astute. Maybe that does explain some aspects of the current scenario whereby we are getting the worst parts of deflation and inflation at the same time, seemingly. I hadn't thought of it in that way exactly.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Eddie on May 29, 2013, 05:36:00 PM
AG said:

"Net energy is not our problem. Our problem is global climate change CAUSED by the use of "cheap" fossil fuels."

This is certainly a true statement. Or you could say that they are both problems. At 400ppm we are probably past mitigation anyway. Not that we shouldn't do everything we can, mind you. But the prospects are quite negative. I probably don't know nearly as much as you about exactly where we stand at the moment, but I have read Bill McKibben, and what I gathered is that there is a point of no return, which we have just blown past, and we're still picking up speed.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 05:37:38 PM
Quote
Your point is no doubt true Doc, however it would appear that it applies to Everything that  requires cheap oil to produce IS PURCHASED WITH A DEBASED CURRENCY.

Inflation, here we come!  :(
That's the way I see it, GO.  :icon_mrgreen:

GO,
I'm afraid INFLATION has been here for quite some time. Look at the farm, crop and pasture land cost research I performed. After a slight dip in 2009, prices continued to march merrily towards the sky. It's not just my push mower that has nearly doubled in price in the last 13 years or so... ;)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 05:43:56 PM
Quote
what I gathered is that there is a point of no return, which we have just blown past, and we're still picking up speed.

I  agree. Information from reliable, serious and truthful sources like Bill McKibben and the like is what I base my "We are running out of time" warning on.  It may be too late, but where there is life, there is hope.  :icon_mrgreen: :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on May 29, 2013, 05:48:21 PM
Solar PV Panels are not Free Energy in perpetuity.  Maybe get 20 years out of them, assuming they don't get ripped off the roof in a decent T-storm, much less Tornado or Hurricane sometime in that 20 year timespan.

Does one Solar PV panel provide enough energy to Replicate the energy it took to CREATE said Solar PV panel?  How many Sunny Days utilizing ALL the Energy that Solar PV panel collects would it take to replicate the panel?  You have to subtract that energy from the useful energy you could tap off the panel, because if it doesn't replicate itself, when it craps out the game is up.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on May 29, 2013, 05:52:08 PM
Quote
Your point is no doubt true Doc, however it would appear that it applies to Everything that  requires cheap oil to produce IS PURCHASED WITH A DEBASED CURRENCY.

Inflation, here we come!  :(
That's the way I see it, GO.  :icon_mrgreen:

GO,
I'm afraid INFLATION has been here for quite some time. Look at the farm, crop and pasture land cost research I performed. After a slight dip in 2009, prices continued to march merrily towards the sky. It's not just my push mower that has nearly doubled in price in the last 13 yeats or so... ;)

Agelbert, I hear you loudly and most clearly.

GO is from the age of brand new Buicks for 2700 bucks.

I dollar 16inch pizzas 10cts extra for a topping

15,000 dollar brand new 3 bedroom ranches with garage in Boston suburbia.

Bakers dozen of king size donuts(13) 69 cts

5 cent newspapers, 10 cents on Sunday

1 dozen farm fresh jumbo eggs 19 cts

The list goes on and on postage stamps were only 3 cents first class mail until the Gold Swindle

"You think there is going to be inflation" That is why you buy Gold? Where is the inflation the silly ask?  :laugh: ;D :D ::) ::)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: RE on May 29, 2013, 05:57:40 PM

GO is from the age of brand new Buicks for 2700 bucks.


Yah, and in those days the average yearly salary was what?  Maybe $5K?  A $2700 Buick was as outta reach for most people then as a $40K Prius is for most people now.  Prices are relative to Wages.

RE
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 06:02:05 PM
Quote
GO is from the age of brand new Buicks for 2700 bucks.

Me too. I bought a 1967 Chevy Impala for $2,300 in 1969. It had a 283 and was quite economical for such a large car.

Back in 1976 a fellow air traffic controller convinced me that, with gold being legal to purchase, I had to load up the truck because it was going to go sky high! Problem was I bought a lot (real estate was supposed to ALWAYS go up, right?) and had no scratch. I missed the opportunity of my life and when I sold that lot in 1988 during my divorce, took a capital LOSS of $7,000! Most people don't remember real estate diving in the 80s along with gold.  :(
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on May 29, 2013, 06:07:06 PM

GO is from the age of brand new Buicks for 2700 bucks.


Yah, and in those days the average yearly salary was what?  Maybe $5K?  A $2700 Buick was as outta reach for most people then as a $40K Prius is for most people now.  Prices are relative to Wages.

RE

Again Re, you introduce a different topic. I am discussing inflation. You are introducing a new somewhat related topic. It is has the inflation in wages kept up with the inflation in goods.

You use it in a manner to suggest my statements aren't true or misleading but all you really do is my prove my point.

Yes, there has been great inflation in wages also, trying to find a place where there has been no inflation is the trick.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 29, 2013, 06:09:39 PM
Solar PV Panels are not Free Energy in perpetuity.  Maybe get 20 years out of them, assuming they don't get ripped off the roof in a decent T-storm, much less Tornado or Hurricane sometime in that 20 year timespan.

Does one Solar PV panel provide enough energy to Replicate the energy it took to CREATE said Solar PV panel?  How many Sunny Days utilizing ALL the Energy that Solar PV panel collects would it take to replicate the panel?  You have to subtract that energy from the useful energy you could tap off the panel, because if it doesn't replicate itself, when it craps out the game is up.

RE
Dont bother with picks and shovels and wheelbarrows either then They will never produce enough food and caloric energy to dig an iron ore mine to resmelt more metal to mangle into more gardening goods. Notice you also advocate hydroponics as a survival strategy without limiting your lifespan to the short lifespan of your grow globes. Im sure you would want to harness the sun via PV for the SUN scheme.

These are ALL transition tech down the olduvai curve.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on May 29, 2013, 06:18:21 PM
Quote
GO is from the age of brand new Buicks for 2700 bucks.

Me too. I bought a 1967 Chevy Impala for $2,300 in 1969. It had a 283 and was quite economical for such a large car.

Back in 1976 a fellow air traffic controller convinced me that, with gold being legal to purchase, I had to load up the truck because it was going to go sky high! Problem was I bought a lot (real estate was supposed to ALWAYS go up, right?) and had no scratch. I missed the opportunity of my life and when I sold that lot in 1988 during my divorce, took a capital LOSS of $7,000! Most people don't remember real estate diving in the 80s along with gold.  :(

I remember the 80's well Agelbert, bad times indeed, for a while anyway.

What amazed me most about the earlier times of the 2500 buck cars we were discussing was the disgusting waste. I bought a brand new flame red Buick Wildcat convertible back then. It had a 350 horsepower engine, required high test gas, and got 10 miles to a gallon. Disgusting shameful waste, but very few of us knew any better, we were only kids and it appeared normal to us, much as the kids today think these insane prices are normal.

Inflation greatest friend is the youth who have no recollection of earlier prices, and when you try to explain it to them think you are a crazy old coot.

I took my three grand children to chuck e cheese and a movie and out for supper this weekend. cost me around 140 bucks, not too bad for three kids and an adult. Was thinking how I could have bought them each two oz of silver coins for that money, and we both know what they would have thought of that Idea.  :laugh: :laugh: ;D ::)
Title: RE said
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 06:26:30 PM
RE said,
Quote
Does one Solar PV panel provide enough energy to Replicate the energy it took to CREATE said Solar PV panel?

Good question. I will try to answer it with energy facts and not wishful thinking on my part.  :icon_mrgreen:

Quote
The energy payback time of a power generating system is the time required to generate as much energy as was consumed during production of the system. In 2000 the energy payback time of PV systems was estimated as 8 to 11 years[69] and in 2006 this was estimated to be 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems[70] and 1-1.5 years for thin film technologies (S. Europe).[70]
 
Another economic measure, closely related to the energy payback time, is the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) or energy return on investment (EROI),[71] which is the ratio of electricity generated divided by the energy required to build and maintain the equipment. (This is not the same as the economic return on investment (ROI), which varies according to local energy prices, subsidies available and metering techniques.)

With lifetimes of at least 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI of PV systems are in the range of 10 to 30, thus generating enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce themselves many times (6-31 reproductions) depending on what type of material, balance of system (BOS), and the geographic location of the system.[72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power)

Six to 31 reproductions means that, once we make enough of these doo-dads, WE DON'T NEED NEED FOSSIL FUELS NO MORE, BRO!  :icon_sunny:
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 29, 2013, 06:37:08 PM
GO and AGB,
I LOVE classic cars, 67 Impala with 283 makes my mouth water!!! You have also reminded me with all the good old days reminiscence I am long remiss to ring my grandfather, will give him a call this evening.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: monsta666 on May 29, 2013, 06:43:10 PM
Net energy is not our problem. Our problem is global climate change CAUSED by the use of "cheap" fossil fuels.

I would agree that climate energy is a problem however this does not negate the fact that net energy is still a very real issue. I would even say in the short to medium term that declining net energy will pose the larger problems for industrialised civilisations particularly the financial industry. Energy and more specifically oil plus credit is the blood of the current economic paradigm. Cut any of those two factors and the current regime dies. Indeed it is this lack of access to credit that is killing various economies across the globe; lack of credit also has the double whammy of forcing you out of the oil economy. That's not to say climate change poses no threat. The effects of climate change are profound even today; I just feel declining net energy - to this present moment - has generated bigger effects on society. Declining net energy was one of the main factors (but neglected) factors in creating the financial crisis of 2008 not to mention the anaemic economic "recovery" that has persisted since that event.

In the longer term however I would say that climate change will be the biggest problem and runaway cascading climate chaos is one of only a few scenarios where I can see the human race can become extinct. As bad as declining net energy, diminishing resources can be they cannot cause the total extinction of the human race. Climate change and by extension pollution have the potential to do so although fortunately (at least to me) I do believe this fate is not set in stone. I suppose we can say it is somewhat fortunate that amount of fossil fuels in this planet is not as vast as it could be or what the oil/fossil fuel industrialists would want us to believe.

One of the biggest eye openers for me was reading the scenario in the Limits In Growth were the resource base of fossil fuel was doubled. While total economic output peaked at a higher rate and growth carried on for longer (until around 2030-2050) the final collapse was that bit greater as primarily the source of collapse came from environmental destruction of the ecosystem as well as degraded resources that needed to support a population that was in even greater overshoot than in the base case scenario. This is proof if ever there was one that pollution is indeed the worst problem but ONLY in the long-term. In the short/medium term the effects of net energy are more readily felt. Take a trip to Greece, Cyprus or much of the Middle-East to see the problems of declining net energy.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on May 29, 2013, 06:43:50 PM
GO and AGB,
I LOVE classic cars, 67 Impala with 283 makes my mouth water!!! You have also reminded me with all the good old days reminiscence I am long remiss to ring my grandfather, will give him a call this evening.
:icon_sunny: :icon_sunny: :emthup: :emthup: Glad to hear it Unc.
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: g on May 29, 2013, 06:51:20 PM
How's this for a picture of gas guzzling waste Unc. What a car, was like driving a yacht.  :exp-grin: :exp-grin: :exp-laugh:
catRS34SS
catRS34SS
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: agelbert on May 29, 2013, 06:51:32 PM
Quote
It had a 350 horsepower engine, required high test gas, and got 10 miles to a gallon. Disgusting shameful waste, but very few of us knew any better, we were only kids and it appeared normal to us, much as the kids today think these insane prices are normal.
Back in 61 my daddy was retiring from the Army and bought himself an "impress the family" car in the "home town boy makes good" spirit of the 1950s extreme and ostentatious land yacht, (about 20 interior lights!  :o :laughing5: ), vulgar, chrome covered, huge tail finned, 19.5 foot long, 440 cubic inch (if my memory serves me right  ;D) gas guzzling (I don't think it got even 10 mpg) but VERY FAST (my brother outran a Kansas twister with it! LOL), 1959 Cadillac Fleetwood!

(http://www2.cadillac.cz/zajimavosti/brochure1959/08_soubory/fleet.jpeg)
Ours was black too!  :icon_mrgreen: We had to replace one of those garrish monstrocity hub caps because my brother lost one outrunning the tornado.  :icon_mrgreen:
That metal finned imitation of a flying saucer cost about $125! My daddy wasn't happy. :icon_mrgreen:



We live and learn. I HOPE. 8)
Title: Re: Waste Based Society
Post by: Petty Tyrant on May 29, 2013, 07:02:12 PM
That, GO, is bloody beautiful. :o The old gentleman is almost 90 btw, would not like to get a call he had departed this world if I had not called in too long.