Comment from James Mongold
November 20th, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Southwest Ohio (particularly Wilmington) would be an excellent target for this. Someone should contact Ohio and Wilmington Government and start discussions today.

Comment from R. Hiebert
November 20th, 2008 at 4:53 pm

I listened to Jackie Robert's every word and noted how the public has remained uninformed and stubborn about options to reduce environmental impacts from our need for energy.
My perspective is from the application of synthetic lubricants and related products that enable vehicle owners of all sizes to reduce fuel and general maintenance and operation. For example, as Jackie noted, the need for truckers to apply an auxillary power plant while sitting idle can keep the cabin warm but what about the engine? That's where synthetic lubricants and a pre-lubrication after market component will protect the engine in its first two to three minutes of warm-up time. Emissions and reduced fuel consumption combine to make the application of synthetics a win-win for the environment and user alike.
Amsoil Inc. is an American based company in Superior Wisconsin and has provided synthetic lubricants and related technology for thirty-five years.
I have included my Independent Amsoil Dealer web site for your access to more information.

Comment from ambika shukla
November 20th, 2008 at 5:50 pm

Jackie Roberts mentions the methane from hog farms. In actual fact , the meat industry produces more greenhouses gases than the entire transport sector. So instead of trapping methane etc , why not simply get to the root of the problem — meat. It is the most environmentally destructive food choice.
Environmentalists are constantly looking for expensive technologies when a simple solution is literally right beneath our nose. Just like tobacco and fuel-guzzling cars, meat too must be seen and treated as an environmental and health taboo. Vegetarianism is no longer just a moral choice , it is an environmental imperative.

Comment from Bahri Aliriza
November 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Why does nobody want to start reducing 38 to 60% of emissions immediately by using our technology at: http://www.Polytrade.Net !!!!?

Comment from LAMIRI Mustapha
November 20th, 2008 at 7:33 pm

I wish solutions of the international echelle for the environmental protection. Developing countries are victims of climate change and in particular greenhouse effect produced by industrial nations and which has no borders. On the other hand, it is necessary to think to the formation(training) of the eco-councillors(eco-advisers) without borders, as the doctors without borders, which are going to make sensitive people to become eco-citizens.

Comment from DAVID SEEBERT
November 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

WE HAVE USED A PHOTO VOLTAIC SYSTEM HERE IN OUR HOME IN WESTERN NEW YORK FOR TEN YEARS. IT SUPPLIES ABOUT 60 PERCENT OF OUR NEEDS. IT HAS HELPED IN LOWERING OUR USAGE OF ELECTRIC FROM THE GRID. WE HAVE GONE FROM 550 KW PER MONTH TO ABOUT 220 KW USAGE PER MONTH.
IN THE ARTICLE THE CREE,INC. WAS MENTIONED AS A COMPANY THAT HAS HAD A STRONG GROWTH RECORD SINCE 2002. THIS HOME USES MANY OF THEIR PRODUCTS.
IF MORE PEOPLE WERE MADE AWARE OF THE LED TECHNOLOGY WE NOT ONLY WOULD REDUCE ELECTRICAL CONSUMPTION, MANY MORE JOBS WOULD BE CREATED. THIS IS A TIME TO LOOK FOR NEW WAYS TO LIGHT OUR HOMES AND THE COMMUNITY.

Comment from Kerri Joseph
November 20th, 2008 at 11:01 pm

This news awesome for everyone. I would like to see my community made aware of the LED products and more about the company that manufactures the product. I also believe we need to start teaching our children now about going green in every aspect from lighting to recycling. It should be as important as their video games. It needs to be part of the school curriculum.

Comment from The Quadfather
November 21st, 2008 at 7:43 am

This is all pretty nuthead stuff. Oil does not hold us back. Is it because it is often cheaper? How does that hold us back? Conservation is fine, but it won't supply our energy needs. Electric cars only shift the emissions to the power plant, and much energy is expended moving the heavy batteries. And LEDs are not very bright. When they are equally bright, then I will listen. Currently I use flourescents. We need to drill for oil. We need all sources of energy that can be economically produced. Wind farms are OK, but the wind doesn't blow all the time. Same with solar, sometimes no sunshine and always none at night. These things will always be supplementary. And if you expect us to give up meat, well, you're out of your mind. And as far as jobs are concerned, new "green" jobs just replace older and proven jobs in oil and coal. That's not a gain. And how are developing countries victims of climate change when the climate has not changed? So much bull, so little time.

Comment from Steve Ward
November 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am

We have discovered a different process for producing “ENERGY”. THIS PROCESS IS VERIFIABLE WITH PHYSICAL PROOF (devices)! Think of all the jobs that will be created because everything that uses “ENERGY” will be redesigned with this science applied. Everything that uses torque and/or electricity will be replaced:
Light
Auto
Machine
Electric tools
AC/heaters
Pump
Stove/oven
Flying devices (airplane, space ship)
Engines (motors)
Etc.

Other benefits from using this technology:
No gas intake or exhaust.
No explosion of any kind.
No extreme heat is generated
No foreign control of energy supplies
Produce devices that make energy affordable to everyone on the planet.
Power can be produced and used anywhere.

Comment from NeedAPlan
November 21st, 2008 at 9:40 am

Quadfather, I think you're missing the point and so misinformed on so many levels.

1.) Oil is a finite resource and we need to begin to develop the technologies to adapt to that reality. It's also a resource that the US does not have much of – so we're transfering our wealth to other countries.

2.) Yes, electric cars transfer the emissions to the power plant – hence the reason why we need to increase our clean, emissions-free energy solutions (solar, wind, geo-thermal, wave, and – if we can – "clean coal")

3.) LEDs ARE very bright. Drive in Phoenix during the day and look at a stoplight. They're so bright they'll burn your retinas – and those are LEDs.

4.) No one is asking you to give up meat. The great thing about EDF is that they work WITH humans and nature to arrive at sustainable solutions. I'm not giving up eating meat – so I'm glad EDF is working on a solution to capture the methane cows, pigs, etc produce.

5.)New "green jobs" ARE incremental. The news is full of reports on lost manufacturing jobs. Employing these currently unemployed workers in building green energy solutions will ADD jobs, not simply replace existing. If we can figure out carbon capture and sequestration of coal plants, we'll keep all those jobs. And oil jobs will end when the oil does.

6.) If you truly believe that the climate has not changed in parts of the world you either don't travel or don't read or don't watch the news.

Ignorance, fear of change, and the financial interests of a select few industries have held us all back. The solutions that Jackie talks about in her video – as well as many others – will help to diversify our economy, create jobs that can't be outsourced, reduce pollution, and protect the planet. So it doesn't matter if you question the science of global warming. Who doesn't want cleaner air and more jobs?

Comment from Janet Foster
November 21st, 2008 at 10:37 am

Intertwined with the climate issue is the whole complicated mess we have in the USA of agriculture (as the discussion on methane from hog farms above shows). President-elect Obama's choice for Secretary of Agriculture is a critical choice in how our country will be using and affecting our land and our energy. We really shouldn't accept a person like Tom Vilsack who supports conventional agriculture and Genetically Modified plants and animals in our food. Vilsack is a notorious cheerleader for genetically engineered crops and chemical and energy-intensive industrial agriculture–certainly no friend of organic food and farming. Evidence showing real damage to those who eat genetically modified foods has been shown by a study done in Austria. Please, folks, contact the Obama transition team, and register your concerns about what we will be having hidden in our food that harms us. <>

Comment from hawkeye
November 21st, 2008 at 10:56 am

I think the new manufacturing ideas are great and could provide us with some badly needed jobs as well as work to help protect the environment. What is to keep corporate America from shipping these jobs overseas like they have so many other traditional jobs?

Someone was concerned about keeping the truck engines warm. The auxilliary engine could provide heat for the main engine block in the form of electric heaters or hot water. Once again, we are seeking a technological solution to a problem when the better one goes wanting for use. If you want to reduce emissions from truck engines, be they at idle or at work, just reduce the long hauls and even eliminate the need for long hauls by producing locally and consuming locally. This technic can be used for food, fuel, and livestock feed, just to name a few applications.

As to cutting out meat production, too many Americans are badly overweight so we need to cut down, perhaps to half
what we are consuming now. We can then devote the grain, oil seed, and fuel used for meat raising to making alternate energy and other tasks that can make more jobs for Americans. Meat is an excellent source of protein and is good for growing active children and for adults who have strenuous jobs, as in construction. Granted, there are other sources of protein but I am not ready to give up my burgers and fries completely.

There are a lot of side issues when it comes to controlling emissions and there is a danger that if a group tries to address too many at one time then nothing gets taken care of. However, with organization, I think a large group could work with a lot of ideas as long as the end result is to control emissions and to improve our lot long term.

Comment from hawkeye
November 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am

There are some basic things that can be done without waiting for techology to rescue us. How about task forces of ordinary people who go around replacing the traditional incadescent lamp bulbs with the little curly fluorescents? I use the 60 watt (output rating) CFR and they are a little dim for reading but do just fine for general ligthing. For those that need more light for reading there are curlies that produce more light and yet still consume much less power than the icadescent equivalent in lumens.

What is also needed to propel this project is some sort of financial incentive to buy the new bulbs. A lot can be raised by having fund raisers that offer food and entertainment for the donations as well as increase the exposure of the EDF to the general public.

Comment from hawkeye
November 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am

I am interested in EDF for technical reasons and do not consider myself to be a tree hugger or a rabid activist, which brings me to the point of this post.

Environmental groups have received a bad rap because of bad press from those who wish to resist or stop the movement, and the so called purist self annointed consdrvative right wing crowd has flung its share of dirt in this respect. Perhaps this is because of
Al Gore being a pioneer in the environmental movement. I don't care for his personality either but I do support in principle the things he envisions as being good for the planet.

I realize that lobby work is needed to influence legislation that is favorable to the EDF cause but aren't we overlooking a louder voice? Action speaks louder than words, and if the private sector can be sold on the movement's objectives by good works rather than loud words then that is a plus. If the environmental activist can put their backs and bucks to work doing things that will demonstrate the virtue of emissions control, just to name a few virtues of protecting the environment, I think our efforts can be magnified many fold.

Senor citizens are a very conscientious group when it comes to environmental issues and also happen to be very gullible. Too many I coffee with have been sold on the idea that enviro activists are a bunch of tree hugging idealistic socialists that seek to undo the American way of life. We need to dispel that notion by proving otherwise.

I drive used cars for some local dealerships and am disappointed at what we bring back from the auctions to be sold on the local lots. Suburbans and older luxury cars are still in demand by the note lot customers and that to me is the last thing a poor person with poor credit needs to be buying. Somehow we need to educate these people and to help them them get into a vehicle that is more economical and easier on the environment. I favor a guzzler tax for passenger cars and trucks and the objective is to drive these monsters off the roads. Once again, a financial incentive, other than the disincentive of a heavy guzzler tax, is needed to speed the project.

I live in a little town in mid America where good jobs are scarce and good employees are even scarcer. There are so many young and unskilled folks trying to get by wit hdriving these old clunkers, and that is the last thing they need, a darned guzzler. It simply decimates what little money they bring home, money that is badly needed for other critical survival. I see too many young men driving old pickup trucks that can't be getting more than 10 to 12 miles per gallon, and as nice as a truck is when you need to haul something, these people would be better off in a car that gives good mileage.

There are a number of small cars available to the note lots that give very good mileage. The Chevy Cobalt and the Ford Focus come to mind. These models have been out long enough that one with good credit should able to find a decent used one on a lot. Amazingly, the little buggers are holding up well and give well over 100,000 miles of dependable service. I see helping low income folks to
get into these little fuel savers as a project worth pursuing as a public service.

Car pooling and ride sharing is something that needs to be encouraged, particularly for the senior crowd. Many drive so little that they can barely justify owning their own cars anymore but that is another issue. What they need is a ride sharing service thru the senior centers that use younger drivers to assist them, and by younger I mean an adult that is mature, probably retired, and still young enough to be alert and safe with driving. Too many oldster need to let someone else do the driving, and I see this as a way to promote fuel savings because these oldsters are hanging on to cars that don't give good mileage and probably don't burn very clean either.

I get weary of talking at folks and prefer to talk with folks on the issues. If anyone would like to converse with me on a private and one to one basis my email address is ivanm@eaglecom.net. Have a good day and I hope to hear from some of you.

Comment from hawkeye
November 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Ambika Shukla speaks of the methane generated by hog farms. Years ago I read in an issue of Mother Earth News how some brothers in India gathered the hog waste and produced methane gas by anaerobic digestion, which is the decomposition of matter in am oxygen starved environment. This is a basic procedure that has been used for decades and the resulting gas is about 50 percent methane, which can be used to drive and engine or for heating, cooking, etc. These farmers converted a small 20HP diesel engine to use the methand and the darned thing ran for 20 years to generate electricity for their farm, which was far from the power grid.

Here in Abilene we can take our grass clippings and the leaves to a recycling center where the stuff is composted in long windrows. Something tell me this process is releasing a lot of gases to the environment because on cool days I can see the heat coming off the huge piles of waste. Why couldn't this material be fed to a proces that produced some usable energy? I think the municipalities neeed to get on board in this respect to help us clean up the environment.

Once again, for the umpteenth time, new technology is fine but let's not overlook the obvious opportunities to contribute to the effort by using tried and proven techniques and by simply getting better utilization of what we now simply discard as waste.

Maybe it is time we stopped waiting for George to do it and rolled up our sleeves and done a little grunting ourselves.

Comment from Ed Pleskovitch
November 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Well written Mercury.A lot of well written ideas and a sense of direction at the same time.I have heard of the "sea snakes" and they can be put anywhere in the ocean,with the limitations of the power lines to a storage station.The Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia is another water source that generates alot of electrical energy.All of these new and still to be developed energy sources are great ways to enter into a new age of safe,clean energy prodution.We just have to start.We also have to learn to conserve.This country has decimated plant and animal species because we have never really learned to conserve or to use just what we need and not go to excess.This will be the trully difficult task that we ask of future and current generations.Another task is reducing the worlds population.I know that this is a touchy subject,but we would not have anywhere near the problems with energy or food production and lack of water and pollution if we did not have so many people on this finite planet.I don't expect any move on this topic because it hits us at a viscural level in the gut so to speak.Not have any or many children.What a horror.Well,maybe this will come to pass when we have wrenched the last bit of oil,coal,water,etc. out of this planet.Renewable energy YES!Nuclear energy NO!We have no way to get rid of the waste,safely.The Yucca Mountain containment system is flawed.It had been found that there is a fault line running under it and that is a recipe for disaster.But we will not back off from it because we have sunk hundreds of million of dollar into this site.If only a truely honest and in depth study had been performed that money would not be wasted.It still is not the solution anyway.

Comment from hawkeye
November 21st, 2008 at 2:20 pm

I think the Quadfather makes some practical points but his seemingly unyielding attitude isn't going to help us get to where we need to be in the way of controlling emissions. Yes, domestic oil is better than foreign oil, from a national security standpoint, so I will grant him that much. Thanks Quad for your honest input.

Consider this as a use for methane, which can be made from the animal waste of feedlots and hoglots. Feed the methane to a fuel cell that has been designed to extract the hydrogen from the input gas and make electrical power. This process avoids the combustion process, which is the culprit that makes CO2. These fuel cell apparently already exist.

Someone mentioned careful development of hydroelectric power in addition to more wind farms. I agree heartily, and the two sources can complement each other in order to have a more dependable year round source of electrical power. The wind never stops in Elk City, OK, by the way.

In past years there has been much resistance to building large scale dams, but how about smaller installations? I live in Kansas, which some think is flat, and yet the change in elevation from KC Kansas, which is in the NE corner of the state, to the highest point in the state, which is near the western border with Colorado, is substantial. The change in elevation is on the order of 3200 feet, which is quite a drop in elevation, which would be called head in hydroelectric terms. A relatively low dam, say 30 feet, could be easily built and the resulting pool would not disturb the ecology an appreciable amount, so here is a low cost and relatively quick way to install additonal water power.

I am 70, and when I was a kid I used to walk across the Saline River in central Kansas where an old dam site used to be. It and many others, at intervals of 5 to 10 miles, was used to power mills for grinding grain. Nowadays we could re-harness this power to make hydrogen gas, which can be stored for use in the drier months. Using that technique helps to lengthen the usable life of the system during the year.

There are a number of companies on the net that appear to be making quality turbine generator sets for low to medium power applications. A small one might be less than 10 thousand dollars and a sizable one quite a bit more, but the things will last for years with a just little maintenance if cared for. Why not get started laying the permissive legislation needed to build these small hydro reservoirs, and the pools can also be used for recreational purposes?

The beauty of this technique is that the same water can be re-used time and time again from the time it leaves the high elevation to the time it reaches the bottom at the mighty Missouri River in KCMO.

Comment from Heather Shelby
November 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm

NeedAPlan and the Quadfather,

NeedAPlan – Thanks for your response to the Quadfather! You're absolutely right. I also wanted to add a counterpoint to another of the Quadfather's misinformed suggestions.

"Wind farms are OK, but the wind doesn't blow all the time. Same with solar, sometimes no sunshine and always none at night. These things will always be supplementary."

While wind doesn't constantly blow and the sun isn't constantly shining, there are many efforts in place to store and transport the energy that is trapped while they are. Energy storage has traditionally been done with batteries, but this becomes extremely expensive with large volumes of energy. As a result, researchers are working on improving batteries and developing storage alternatives, like using excess electricity to pump water up into reservoirs for use later in hydroelectric generators.

Heather Shelby
Online Membership Associate
Environmental Defense Fund

Comment from hawkeye
November 21st, 2008 at 7:18 pm

By using electric cars we might shift the pollution from the roadways to the power plants, but as some have pointed out, the power can be generated by using various methods that do not pollute. It is this kind of thinking we need to employ, avoiding the combustion cycle to create power, be it electrical power or engine power.

Perhaps some of you live in or near a large metropolitan area where it isn't even practical to go about in a private vehicle. When I worked in DC I drove from Manassas to the edge of town and took the city bus on in to work and 19th and Pennsylvania, if I remember correctly. The commuter bus was the cheapest and most comfortable way to go.

Comment from The Quadfather
November 21st, 2008 at 9:58 pm

So, how am I misinformed about solar and wind power? These things are true, are they not? However, It is true that power can be stored by pumping water upstream into hydroelectric reservoirs, I'll give you that. That is commonly done today to store the energy from coal and nuke plants. You have me all wrong, I'm not against solar and wind power, I'm just saying that it ain't the whole solution. I'm not against alternate energy, what i'm against is someone (the government) trying to cram it down my throat. I did once build a solar collector for my hot water. I heated my house on wood for about five years. I have a ground source heat pump I am depending on right now. I use those curlycue flourescents, my house is full of them. And I'm thinking about rebuilding the wood furnace to help with the recession. But we do need to drill, that $4.00 a gallon gas hurts everybody. The oil is out there, yet we're not allowed to get it. We do need to get off foriegn oil. And we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we need to take advantage of that. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural part of the life cycle. And there are plenty of trees. We haven't taken paradise and put in a parking lot just yet. Most folks don't want to ride mass transit (buses) because of criminals, derelicts and bums. The other problem with them is if you put a terminal in a nice area, it brings the criminals into the area. I am not going to leave my truck and get on a bus. Also, I have nothing against alternate mobile power, however, it needs to be as powerful as a V8 engine. People who do work often need to haul heavy loads and to pull heavy trailers. I once tried to pull a 16 ft trailer with a baby trackhoe with an Isuzu PUP, and it would barely pull it. Stopping it was a delicate operation. When I unloaded the trackhoe, it picked the truck up 3 feet off the ground as I was going down the ramp! I need a large truck with my tools with me all the time. Gasoline stores a lot of energy in a small space and there is just no good subsitute. I reckon I agree with y'all about nuclear power, Obviously the waste disposal is a serious problem. Better to use coal. Nuke plants could be converted to coal. I've always liked the idea of having "personal" or small dams on creeks. But with the current regulatory structure, you couldn't get it done. Of course, the left finds fault with all these energy sources. I guess they want to go back to the 17th century. Well, I have news, horses pollute too, and do so very offensively. No thanks.

Comment from Richard
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:20 am

I am glad Americans are starting to think about the planet and not being swayed by BIG BUSINESS views on sustainable energy too costly and viable. I would like to see these non-profit organizations work together to put pressure on the government to support these initiatives. Please see the article released by the PERI group just this year on "Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a low-carbon economy.
Consumers are the only ones that can really sway BIG Business like the 3 major car manufactures to start supporting clean efficient cars by not buying their product. Evidence of the hearing of the Big 3 Car Manufactures coming to Washington in their expensive corporate jets with no plan or strategy in changing their industry. Sounds more like the sunset industries of the smoke stack era.
We should be supporting those who are innovative and making a difference. New companies with new vision that is where America must lead themselves.

Comment from shahrokh mehrpisheh
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:53 am

I like our planet and the nature and animals, we must to increase this think and forget the money , money will not remain but the nature will be remain for us,the nature is more beautiful than machines and money and areoplanes and ships , this is our sentence: LOVE THE NATURE

Comment from hawkeye
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 am

Answering Quadfather's post of Nov. 21.

I understand your need for a large powerful truck rather than a light weight economy job. I grew up on a farm and we used our pickups for more than just personal transportation. At present I am still hanging on to a 26' RV trailer, and a little truck certainly wouldn't be strong enough to pull it or heavy enough to stop it, so you are correct in your thinking. However, to simply use a 1/2 ton pickup as a car, which is what many do here in the sticks, is fuelish. Young boys love to buy the older Chevies and Fords and put loud pipes on them. The kid in me likes that too but it doesn't make it a conservative thing to do. IMO a youngster smoking tobacco is about as irresponsible cost wise as driving a fuelish vehicle in that both habits really eat up the cash and both habits emit pollutants. Most kids cannot afford either habit and those that work part time spend most of their income on these things.

As to your comment on CO2 not being a pollutant, you raise a good point because plants use CO2 and in return give us oxygen. However, above certain concentrations the CO2 can be a pollutant, and that is what carbon sequestering and reduction is all about, keeping the level of CO2 down to a point that plant life can absorb enough of it to keep the concentration at a healthy level.

I like the idea of having an algae pond close to a power plant and feeding it with CO2 from the boiler exhausts. Recently there has been news of algae being used to make ethanol and other products, but as usual, it was from another country, maybe the Netherlands, and not from the USA. Americans tend to be fuelish because we don't know what it is to pay thru the nose for fuel like the Euros do.

And I think the recent dramatic reduction in the price of gasoline will work to derail or delay a number of good alternative energy projects. We need to keep the interest in carbon sequestering going if we are to continue to promote efficiency and conservation because once fuel comes down in price folks feel better and are reluctant to make the switch to alternate fuels.

It is surprising how many older people will not used E10,
and I think that is pure ignorance talking. I have used it since the late 80s when it became available in the Dallas area, which is doing something in an oil patch state like Texas. When those proud Dallasites started seeing smog hanging over their precious city they woke up to what pollution was and quit gloating about their clean air.

There is another fuel that is about as potent as gasoline, and that is butanol. In fact, it has many qualities that make it more eco friendly than gasoline. Apparently there is not a process at present to make it price competitive with gasoline.

I think people need to consider one reason why gasoline is so cost competitive compared to alternate fuels. Mother Nature has basically handed us the stuff, except for refining of the crude, where with alternate fuels we usally have to coax them from bio feedstocks. So give the biofuels a break as we have to transform them into a state that can be utilized in an engine and that does cost money. What we can do is to increase the efficiency of the vehicle that uses the biofuel in order to compensate for its lack of potency vs. gasoline, and a nice by product is a cleaner burning fuel that is more eco friendly.

I am not an enviro wacko although this morning I may be coming off like one. I simply want a fuel that minimizes the impact on the environment, that is affordable, and that is domestic in origin so we don't have to spill blood over a barrel of oil.

Comment from hawkeye
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am

Yes, wind turbines contain a bunch of parts that could be made in the USA, and I hope that is in fact being done because we do need the jobs. However, I have been an alternate energy fan since the oil embargo back in the early 70s and have watched with chagrin as company after company in the states has either shut down, sold out, or moved to a foreign land. This is particularly true of wind generators and water turbines, and the answer is pretty simple.

Americans enjoy cheap energy compared to the Euros and the demand for alternate energy machines in the USA simple will not support a sizeable operation here in the states. So the people move offshore to where the demand is. When fuel costs as much per liter in Europe as it does per gallon in the USA that should tell you something about the demand situation.

I used to dance a lot in Dallas when I was single and I met a few foreigners in the dance halls. One lady was from
England and she was shocked that Americans were so laid b back about their waste disposal. She said the Brits save their newspapers and any small item what will burn and use these things for fuel to cook, heat water with or to heat a room. That might be pretty polluting but at least they were right on the conservation end of the equation. Waste not want not, as the old saying goes.

I am wondering, has anyone seen one of tose wind turbines with a vertical axis working lately? Some sort of avoirdupois rotor, pardon the spelling. This thing is based on an ancient principle and responds well to very low wind speeds compared to the style of turbine that sits high on a tower. There used to be one at a metal plating plant just north of Norman, Ok. along I-35, but they took it down and moved it away. The center axis became bent for some accidental reason. I enquired about the thing and the company had finally moved its operations to
Europe, possibly Spain. It did have a drawback, and that was that it needed a small electric motor to start its rotation so the blades could pick up the wind and make it go, but once it was running, which was at a speed of 30 rpm or so, the thing was very powerful. This particular one generated three phase AC power, which is commonly needed and used for heavy industrial applications.

The rotor is shaped like and egg beater attachment for a mixer or like a slicing onion that has a long root and stem section. If I remember correctly the blades would flex and change shape slightly as the wind velocity changed. High winds, a short fat onion shape, and low wind velocity a tall slender onion shape. This may have had something to do with maintaining a constant speed as the thing generated AC current as far as I can remember, something on the order of 220 Volts or more.

My Google is sleep this morning so I could not obtain a web reference for what I am describing, but I'll bet one of my wife's Anise cookies that something is on the web about this rotor turbine.

Comment from Hannah Blakeman
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm

You should look at "Real Goods". They are like a R&D company that has been developing and putting into practice green and/or alternative energy stuff, building practices, water conservation, sewage treatment systems for decades.

Comment from The Quadfather
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:01 am

In my area, they just put the ethanol in the gasoline, about 10%. Most folks don't even know they're burning it. The pumps have a small sticker to let you know. There is also a gas station (Shell) that's selling E85 ethanol. I think it's the local Shell distributor manufacturing this, not the Shell oil company. My truck isn't made to burn it so I leave it alone. Another Shell station sells biodiesel. I burn it in my '77 mercedes 300D. It burns just like petroleum based diesel fuel. There is no increase or decrease in power. (believe me you can really tell in a 300D if there's a change in the power output). I don't know what it's made from, but it's a little cheaper than regular diesel, or at least it was for awhile.

Comment from Dr. J. Singmaster
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:34 am

Several points to add to my previous ones on other Green Rooms. Again though; curbing emissions does not remove on balance one molecule of carbon dioxide from the 35% and growing overload of that gas on the globe. And it will be growing even if we stopped all powerplant,vehicle and home heating emissions because organic detritus called yedoma trapped in permafrost in Siberia is getting exposed due to warming and decomposing to release carbon dioxide and methane(Sci., Vol. 312, pg. 1612-3, 2006). Latest NOAA report indicated jumps in emissions of carbon dioxide and especially methane with some blame pointed to what is happening in Siberia. Anerobic decompositon still release carbon dioxide as well, basically 2 CH-OH of a starch or cellulose go to CH4 of methane and CO2 as nature has to get energy by forming CO2 from starch or cellulose.
The one place, where action to actually remove some CO2 from the overload, is with the massive messes of organic wastes and sewage that present handling allows to undergo naturally biodegrading to reemit CO2and CH4. I have pointed out that a pyrolysis process applied to those messes would convert more than 50% of the carbon into inert charcoal. Pyrolysis would also destroy all germs, drugs and most toxics. I have sent many ED staffers an outline of the pyrolysis program that can also get back some of the energy used into electicity and greatly cut water pollution as well as costs for new dumps with those hazards destroyed.
While a lot of the little steps get attention, we need action on a much larger scale. The EPA announce on a conference to evaluate risks of drugs in drinking water suggests to me at least that we better take big steps to get control of the messes of organic wastes and sewage.
Dr. James Singmaster, Fremont, CA

Comment from Momoh K. Sei
November 24th, 2008 at 4:23 am

I am happly for the climate solutions for the grow of the economy and create jobs.

I belived as that happen Africa will also benefity from it because Climate Change effective our Nations if that happen will we be greatful.

Comment from Mike
November 26th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Interesting!

Comment from fritz
December 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am

Has anyone considered the fundamental conflict between economic growth and the environment? Growth was a great goal when the world was 'large' with respect to environment. But economy has grown larger than environment, and we have reached or exceeded carrying capacity.

We need to start this conversation and develop reasonable policies to address. For more info, see 'Beyond Growth' by Daly, or any books by Gus Speth.