Is honest fracking debate possible? #2012 #peakoil #kochsuckers Halliburton Loophole,

Clipped from news.yahoo.com

Fracking: Natural Gas Energy Boon or Public Poison?

COMMENTARY | Fracturing shale rock to release the natural gas inside, called "fracking," is either a great method for extracting new energy from existing resources or an ecological disaster that endangers our drinking water. Or both.

The problem is that there are no clear studies indicating actual harm caused by the process. BusinessWeek points to a New York Times discovery that EPA documents reveal radioactive wastewater being discharged into river basins. Yet the government specifically exempted fracking from the Safe Water Drinking Act as part of the 2005 Energy bill. The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission assured residents that the methane present in their tap water came from naturally occurring processes rather than as a byproduct of fracking, though it's unclear how that was expected to reassure them about flaming tap water.

The only things we know for sure are that fracking uses toxic chemicals, the government is not studying—or at least not releasing information about—the potential dangers, and people are drinking flammable water. Read more at news.yahoo.com

 

Climate Capitalism: Google Wind Farms in Mojave Desert

Clipped from peakoil.com

Google invests $55 million in Mojave Desert wind farm

Google Inc. is investing $55 million in a large Mojave Desert wind farm, pumping fresh air into California’s struggling wind power industry.

Google said Tuesday that it was partnering with Citibank, which is also shelling out $55 million to help finance part of the Alta Wind Energy Center, one of the world’s largest wind installations.

When complete, the project in the Tehachapi Mountains will generate 1.5 gigawatts, enough to power 450,000 homes. The installation will help boost wind jobs in the state 20% while feeding more than $1.2 billion into the Kern County economy, according to developers. Read more at peakoil.com

 

Where are the worlds nuclear waste dumps? #peakoil

...While making electricity, nuclear power plants produce two types of radioactive waste: low- and high-level waste.

Low-level waste can include contaminated rags, papers, filters, tools, equipment, discarded protective clothing and construction rubble. It is generally buried in shallow trenches at one of three U.S. facilities...

Clipped from www.pplweb.com

Benefits and Byproducts Nuclear energy is safely used in many beneficial ways, including administering medical treatments, controlling crop-destroying insects and exploring space. The electricity produced by nuclear power plants like Susquehanna allows us to enjoy many everyday lifestyle conveniences. More than 100 nuclear power plants provide about 20 percent of America's electricity, second only to coal. Worldwide, 30 countries operate more than 430 nuclear plants for electricity generation, currently providing about 16 percent of the world's energy production. Of all energy sources, nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment, including water, land, habitat, species and air resources. Because it does not emit harmful air pollutants, the use of nuclear energy helps to keep the air clean, preserve the Earth's climate, avoid ground-level ozone formation and prevent acid rain. A nuclear fuel pellet contains a lot of energy. One uranium nuclear fuel pellet the size of the tip of your little finger is equivalent to the energy provided by 1,000 pounds of coal, or 100 gallons of gasoline. Nuclear energy also is efficient and cost-effective. Unlike some other energy sources, nuclear energy is not subject to weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations or dependence on foreign suppliers. While making electricity, nuclear power plants produce two types of radioactive waste: low- and high-level waste. Low-level waste can include contaminated rags, papers, filters, tools, equipment, discarded protective clothing and construction rubble. It is generally buried in shallow trenches at one of three U.S. facilities. High-level waste, also called used nuclear fuel, is uranium that is too weak to power a nuclear reactor economically, but it is more radioactive than new fuel. Used nuclear fuel looks the same as when it was new, and as with new fuel, it cannot explode and does not burn. All the used fuel produced to date by the U.S. nuclear energy industry would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about five yards. Used fuel is being stored at nuclear power plants in water-filled pools or in above-ground concrete-and-steel containers until the federal government opens a permanent repository. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers both methods of onsite storage to be safe. The United States does not reprocess and recycle used nuclear fuel, although other countries do. The nuclear energy industry is the only industry established since the industrial revolution that has managed and accounted for all of its waste, preventing adverse impacts to the environment. Read more at www.pplweb.com

 

Energy Driven Crisis in USA #peakoil

Of the six US recessions since 1970, all but the "9-11 year 2001 recession" have been linked to—of not triggered by—energy prices that crossed the 6 percent of personal consumption expenditures, he said. (During the shallow 2001 recession, energy prices had risen to about 5 percent of spending, which is higher than the long-term 4 percent share.)

Clipped from m.cnbc.com

Killer Combo of High Gas, Food Prices at Key Tipping Point

The combination of rising gasoline prices and the steepest increase in the cost of food in a generation is threatening to push the US economy into a recession, according to Craig Johnson, president of Customer Growth Partners. Read more at m.cnbc.com

 

What Goes Up... #peakoil @barackobama

Ready for the ride down? "Demand destruction" includes population decrease by any means necessary in some people's minds - the US Neocons for example.

Clipped from dieoff.org

Abstract:  Petroleum geologists have known for 50 years that global oil production would "peak" and begin its inevitable decline within a decade of the year 2000.  Moreover, no renewable energy systems have the potential to generate more than a tiny fraction of the power now being generated by fossil fuels. In short, the end of oil signals the end of civilization, as we know it.

See more at dieoff.org

 

#PeakOil Discussion @barackobama #2012

Lovins makes an economic case for moving aggressively to solve such challenges as global warming, peak oil and the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure. She argues that climate protection, energy efficiency, renewable energy and other sustainable approaches will give us a stronger economy and a higher quality of life

Clipped from pyr.commonwealthclub.org:81

Lovins makes an economic case for moving aggressively to solve such challenges as global warming, peak oil and the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure. She argues that climate protection, energy efficiency, renewable energy and other sustainable approaches will give us a stronger economy and a higher quality of life

L Hunter Lovins: Climate Capitalism (SV)

President and Founder, Natural Capitalism Solutions; Author, Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate Change Read more at pyr.commonwealthclub.org:81

 

Another incomplete project -Energy

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

Project Independence

Project Independence was an initiative announced by U.S. President Richard Nixon on November 7, 1973[1], in reaction to the OPEC oil embargo and the resulting 1973 oil crisis. Recalling the Manhattan Project, the stated goal of Project Independence was to achieve energy self-sufficiency for the United States by 1980[2] through a national commitment to energy conservation and development of alternative sources of energy.[3] Nixon declared that American science, technology and industry could free America from dependence on imported oil [4](energy independence).

Some of the important initiatives to emerge from Project Independence included lowering highway speeds to 55 mph (89 km/h), converting oil power plants to coal, completion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and diverting federal funds from highway construction to mass transit[3]. Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

Sugarcane vs Corn Ethanol

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

The U.S., potentially the largest market for Brazilian ethanol imports, currently imposes a tariff on Brazilian ethanol of $USD 0.54 per gallon in order to encourage domestic ethanol production and protect the budding ethanol industry in the United States.[89] Historically, this tariff was intended to offset the 45-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[5][90][91][92] Exports of Brazilian ethanol to the U.S. reached a total of US$ 1 billion in 2006, an increase of 1,020% over 2005 (US$ 98 millions),[93] but fell significantly in 2007 due to sharp increases in American ethanol production from maize.[94][95] A recent study by Iowa State University's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development found that removing the U.S. import tariff would result in less than 5% of the United States’ ethanol being imported from Brazil.[96][97] Set to expire at the end of 2010, the $USD 0.54 per gallon tariff and $USD 0.45 per gallon blender’s credit have been the subject of contentious debate in Washington,DC with ethanol interest groups and politicians staking positions on both sides of the issue.[98][99][100][101][102]

Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than ethanol produced from corn.[3] Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[118] U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol.[78] Despite this cost differential in production, the U.S. does not import more Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon, first imposed in 1980, but kept to offset the 45-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[5][90][91][92]

Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. The first three plants to produce sugarcane-based ethanol are expected to go online in Louisiana by mid 2009. Sugar mill plants in Lacassine, St. James and Bunkie were converted to sugar cane-based ethanol production using Colombian technology in order to make possible a profitable ethanol production. These three plants will produce 100 million gallons of ethanol within five years.[119] By 2009 two other sugarcane ethanol production projects are being developed in Kauai, Hawaii and Imperial Valley, California.[120] Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

Biofuels Provide Energy Independence

At least Brazil isnt dependent on OPEC for oil...

Clipped from www.time.com

Brazil's Counterattack on Biofuels

But Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva complains that the criticism is driven by an ulterior motive. He suggests it forms part of a concerted effort by the industrialized world to prevent Brazil, one of the world's most important agricultural powers, from taking its place at the top table. The problem, he argues, lies with the "same old policies of the rich countries," such as subsidies and tariffs.

"Biofuels are not the villains threatening the food security of poorer nations," Lula told delegates at the Food and Agricultural Organization's regional conference in Brasilia last week. "Quite the contrary, as long as they are developed with the right criteria, and in keeping with each nation's own reality, they can be essential instruments for generating wealth and lifting nations out of food and energy insecurity... The real crime against humanity is discounting biofuels a priori."

"I think that the sudden rise in price of food has got people looking for causes, and biofuels are a convenient scapegoat," says Reid Detchon, Executive Director of the Energy Future Coalition, a think tank funded by the U.N. Foundation. "There's a connection to some degree... but increased demand from Asia for grain-fed meat, combined with some other factors like oil prices, droughts in wheat-producing countries, and the demand for corn in the U.S. for ethanol, have all contributed to this sudden price spike. Ethanol is not the major factor."

Brazil is most angered by critics' failure to distinguish between the sugar-cane-based ethanol produced in the tropics and the more expensive and less efficient ethanol that comes from wheat, corn, beets and other crops grown in more temperate climes.

Sugar-cane-based ethanol is up to eight times more efficient than its corn counterpart. (The amount of energy produced by one unit invested in producing sugar-cane ethanol is up to eight times greater than the amount of energy produced by investing that same unit in the process of making corn ethanol.) The crop itself uses less fertilizers and pesticides, and Brazilian farmers who grow it do not receive government subsidies. Crucially, Brazil last year exported two-thirds of its sugar crop, meaning no cane was diverted from human consumption to produce ethanol. Read more at www.time.com

 

Can Clean Energy Help Economic Recovery?

Bill Ritter, former Colorado Governor argues well but surprisingly enough the Clean Energy Investor does not. This debate is the epitome of why support for clean energy has been weak for the last 20 years.

Only now under Obama is there momentum gaining.

Both sides of this debate discuss the clean energy variable in the US economic recovery as it relates to GDP, some monolithic figure without considering the distribution of wealth within GDP in a clean energy economy versus one powered almost exclusively by OIL.

Clean energy will support the rise of individual and small business wealth as opposed to the giant monopolistic mega energy companies BP, Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobile, etc. Clean energy will support local community driven spending rather than concentrated wealth of a few individuals and companies far away from our neighborhoods.

Clipped from www.npr.org

Can Clean Energy Drive The Economic Recovery?

President Obama and other leaders have called for investment in cleaner energy sources as a way to create jobs and spur U.S. economic recovery.

But critics argue that alternative energy generally costs more than traditional fossil fuels and that demand for energy overall has fallen during the recession, making the energy sector an odd choice for stimulating a recovery.

The Intelligence Squared U.S. debate series recently pitted two teams of experts against each other over the motion "Clean Energy Can Drive America's Economic Recovery." They argued two against two in an Oxford-style debate. Read more at www.npr.org

 

Stop subsidies that dont create us jobs

This is just wrong. Green energy sector or not, theres no way we should be providing subsidies to US companies that move jobs to china

Clipped from www.renewableenergyworld.com

Can States Keep Clean Energy Jobs at Home?

In contrast, Ontario’s clean energy program is well on its way to 5,000 megawatts of new renewable energy production and supporting over 40,000 new jobs.  Over 20 new manufacturing plants have been announced.  The keystone of this program is a ‘buy local’ rule that requires wind and solar power projects who want the province’s attractive power payments to be constructed with at least 60 percent of their materials ‘made in Ontario.’  Ontarians are getting cleaner electricity and significant economic development for their clean energy commitment. Read more at www.renewableenergyworld.com

 

Obama Missing Great Opportunity ..again?

Wasnt this a missed opportunity to clarify oil and banking efforts to dissuade the necessary transition to renewable energy? Oil speculators (gamblers) are bidding up the price, oil companies make better profits amd the public is afraid to deal with the real long term issue - time to get off fossil fuels.

Instead my favorite President of all times is defending our plans to step up domestic production...

I really hope that Obama has the audacity to fight big banks, big oil, corporate welfare, guns, military spending, and ending drug prohibition in his 2nd term.

Clipped from thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com

1:37 p.m. | Updated President Obama on Friday rejected criticism from Republicans that his administration was blocking domestic oil production and said his government was prepared to encourage new drilling in the face of rising gas prices.

Obama Rejects Republican Criticism on Energy

See more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com

 

Profit from Landfill Waste

URL:  http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/...

 

 

Down and Dirty: Generating Profit from Landfill Waste
Humans generate tons – billions of tons – of waste each year. At over 2.1 billion tons of municipal waste annually, the world has a significant waste problem. Most of this waste is transported to landfills, where it sits, decays, and releases a suite of environmental pollutants. But there is a better way to control and reuse this waste –converting it into energy.

Locked inside the 2.1 billion tons of municipal waste that we generate each year is approximately 24.5 quadrillion Btu of energy – enough heat to meet about 10% of global annual electricity consumption. Not surprisingly, many nations including Europe, Canada, and parts of Asia, have been adding to or gearing up waste to energy operations for over a decade.

Biofuels: Autos compete with fuel for the body

http://www.economist.com/node/18200668?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/plagu...

 

 

Plagued by politics
Biofuels are an example of what not to do
A special report on feeding the world Feb 24th 2011 | from the print edition

The wrong shade of green
“THIS is the craziest thing we’re doing,” says Peter Brabeck, the chairman of Nestlé. He is talking about government biofuels targets which require a certain proportion of national energy needs to be met from renewable fuels, most of them biofuels (ie, ethyl alcohol made from crops, usually maize or sugar).